Mr Sewards, who is a member of a parliamentary group focused on consumer protection, also voiced fears that such a precedent could eventually extend to physical goods, as digital technology becomes increasingly integrated into household items.
If anything, the recent AWS outages and all the IOT physical device failures prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this is happening, and not just accidentally.
That’s not the point I was making. She argued that opening the box was tantamount to agreeing to the terms, but the full terms aren’t on the box. You can’t access the full terms until after you’ve opened it, thus you haven’t agreed to them yet as you haven’t had the opportunity to read them. And, even then, the agreement is far from iron clad.
On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”
This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works, now or back in the 1980s. You can’t agree to terms without seeing them first, and even then such agreements aren’t necessarily legally binding. For someone who is supposed to write laws, she should be removed from office for showing such gross incompetence.
Okay, I’m starting to think this article doesn’t really know what it’s talking about…
For most of modern computing history, however, analog technology has been written off as an impractical alternative to digital processors. This is because analog systems rely on continuous physical signals to process information — for example, a voltage or electric current. These are much more difficult to control precisely than the two stable states (1 and 0) that digital computers have to work with.
1 and 0 are in fact representative of voltages in digital computers. Typically, on a standard IBM PC, you have 3.3V, 5V and 12V, also negative voltages of these levels, and a 0 will be a representation of zero volts while a 1 will be one of those specified voltages. When you look at the actual voltage waveforms, it isn’t really digital but analogue, with a transient wave as the voltage changes from 0 to 1 and vice versa. It’s not really a solid square step, but a slope that passes a pickup or dropoff before reaching the nominal voltage level. So a digital computer is basically the same as how they’re describing an analogue computer.
I’m sure there is something different and novel about this study, but the article doesn’t seem to have a clue what that is.
More like a wet three bean salad.
Some cars even have a separate zone for the rear. However I’ve only seen that on touch screen models, so they can suck a dick.
I had great fun with it in the back, though. They couldn’t see my temp on the touch screen at the front, just that the zones had been split, and I managed to get the two in the front to bicker because the driver thought the front passenger had split them XD
Hard disagree. Physical buttons with a digital temperature and split controls for left and right (and maybe rear as well). Automatic climate control that also does the fans. I had all of this on a car in 2010, and it was perfect - I could just leave the temperature set at what I wanted all the time, and the fans would blow hard if it needed to heat or cool significantly to get there.
Some manufacturer’s, eg Volvo, don’t automatically adjust the fans, which is wank. But nothing is as wank as touch screen controls - I fucking hate it when you’re trying to aim at a button, then as you go in to press the car bumps and you completely miss.
Not to mention the fact this is a UK media outlet sharing a story from the US - and it’s not even their reporting but just a regurgitation of an actual local news station.
The issue is that Google considers them getting your data as more important than allowing you to evade the data collection of third parties that pay them.
The issue is Google’s profiteering.
Yes absolutely. In fact, you’ve touched on the very issue that people don’t understand with Google - the likelihood of the risk.
Most people think that because the consequence of Google getting your data is low, it’s a lesser risk than a hacker getting into your device (very high consequence). But likelihood is just as important with risk. It’s very unlikely a competent hacker will attack your device (moreso with good practice on your part), so the risk is still low even though the severity is high. But it is an absolute certainty that Google will get your data - so even though the severity is low the risk is still significant, and arguably Google present a more significant risk than a hacker.
I’m not advocating using Google over F-Droid, or that Google’s change here is good, or even lawful. This is a textbook anti-trust type case that the EU prosecuted against in the past. However, unfortunately governments seem gung-ho for this to happen this time around.
All I’m saying is that if F-Droid want to tout the security of their service, they probably shouldn’t leave the door open for attackers to use their app as a vector for attacking devices. Their response to this wasn’t strong enough to justify their implied claim that they are at the forefront of security. They’re much better than Google, sure, but they should be trying harder if they want to lead.
Why do you think vulnerabilities and functionality are mutually exclusive??
Of course being able to connect to other repos is a useful function of F-Droid, I use it for several. However, functionality also opens up potential doors for attackers.
The most effective way to secure your device is to limit functionality. Then, it becomes a trade off between what functionality you want or can do without, and what potential risk you’re willing to accept.
It’s easy to ignore risk and enable all functionality, and sometimes that’s nice to do, but you’ve got to find a balance.
My point here is that F-Droid is arguing about their viability because of their security, while running a service that has a known vulnerability.
F-Droid is in a bit of a bad position to argue here, as it does have a genuine security vulnerability that many choose to avoid the service for. Basically, while they say “our store is safe and contains zero malware” this isn’t necessarily true of the 3rd party repositories you can subscribe to with their app. So, if an attacker compromises the F-Droid app on your device, they can subscribe to their own repository and load malicious apps onto your device through the F-Droid app.
Unfortunately this move by Google is a bit of a death knell anyway. I can’t see governments preventing Google from doing this, particularly not now they’ve established means of access (paying) for data Google holds, and especially since governments (eg UK) are now mandating you install government apps on your phone.
Lol, I’m sure it’s a good book and Cory Doctorow is well renowned, but I can’t help but think: “Defeat Chokepoint Capitalism by buying our book right now!”
Did you read the article - or even the title? This story is about people turning to piracy, not turning to another official source.
I’m just glad they didn’t go into a protracted and expensive legal battle with this one, which isn’t exactly a good use of donated funds.
I agree with /u/gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world, “dropping off the grid” is something you do to yourself, ie when you’re trying to hide, not something someone does to you. The language used in the article seems to be intentionally misleading and waters down the story of the government disappearing people.
It could be that some people released did indeed drop off the grid, and went into hiding themselves, in an attempt to avoid further persecution from the government. However out of 1,800 people it seems like most of them have rather been “lost” by the government and were never even released.
He’s also Jewish, and a prominent politician in a field where Israeli lobbying is extensive, so him speaking out against Israel is a big line for him to cross.
Taking a page out of China’s book.
(Software) Piracy is not theft, by definition. Theft requries an intent to deprive, and copyright infringement does not deprive. Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil offense (aside from the criminal version that now exists thanks to extensive lobbying by predatory rights holder organisations, but that has a slightly higher bar and is meant only for commercial pirates who profit).
This sounds like utter nonsense.