Two questions

On 9/28/2015 1:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

How?

bittorrent is the usual way.

Bittorent can be used legally. I downloaded wikipedia the other week...

it can, but that's rare. the vast majority of bittorrenting is for
pirated content.


Another survey. Where is your proof?

--
PeterN

On 9/28/2015 2:05 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

Of course not.

it is.

The binary part of Usenet can be easily distinguished
from the text part...

nobody said it couldn't.

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.


Just where did you say EXACTLY THAT?

--
PeterN

On 9/28/2015 2:16 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important
for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

Of course not.

it is.

The binary part of Usenet can be easily distinguished
from the text part...

nobody said it couldn't.

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.

Liar. Most activity on the Usenet is obviously not file sharing, and now
you know better than to state that.


It will say anything to weasel out of admitting he/she was wrong.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

bittorrent is the usual way.

Bittorent can be used legally. I downloaded wikipedia the other week...

it can, but that's rare. the vast majority of bittorrenting is for
pirated content.


Another survey. Where is your proof?

already answered, not that it matters since it's well known in the
industry.

it's like asking for proof that an f/1.2 lens has shallower depth of
field than an f/4 lens. sure, someone could give you a mathematical
proof, but why bother when anyone who has been around cameras will tell
you the same thing.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

Of course not.

it is.

The binary part of Usenet can be easily distinguished
from the text part...

nobody said it couldn't.

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.


Just where did you say EXACTLY THAT?

scroll up.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important
for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

Of course not.

it is.

The binary part of Usenet can be easily distinguished
from the text part...

nobody said it couldn't.

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.

Liar. Most activity on the Usenet is obviously not file sharing, and now
you know better than to state that.


It will say anything to weasel out of admitting he/she was wrong.

not only was what i said correct but *his* quote confirms it.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:30:14 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it
won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.

wrong.


You deny reality. Those who purchase a **** quality repro are not likely
to purchase a good quality on, at full price.

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

How?

bittorrent is the usual way.

Bittorent can be used legally. I downloaded wikipedia the other week...

That doesn't mean that everything on Bittorrent is legal.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-09-28 10:52, PeterN wrote:
On 9/27/2015 6:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it
won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.

wrong.


You deny reality. Those who purchase a **** quality repro are not likely
to purchase a good quality on, at full price.

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

And, what's your point.

BTW In all cases, are the the sellers of pirated apps the same guys who
made the duplications, or do they buy them from the duplicators.


those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.


And you are stupid if you pay for an oil change, it's easy to do yourself.

Except dealing with the drained oil. That then has to be transported to
a garage willing to take it (Canadian Tire here is willing since it's
likely you bought the oil from them).

I change my wheels from summer/winter which can be done in 30 minutes.
Unless my buddy helps, that stretches it out to nearly an hour.

On 2015-09-24 23:32, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:23:20 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-24 19:04, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:23:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

again, why would that be affected by processor choice?

To run Vidity, they have to have a chipset which incorporates the
CryptoManager core. As I understand it, the CryptoManager core is an
integral part of the particular chipset.

all that means is there has to be a specific chipset on the logic board.

again, why would that be affected by the choice of processor?

The CryptoManager core has to be tailored to the particular chip set.

I'm not going to repeat that any more.

No. The CM itself may indeed be on a particular chipset. Looks (from
their website) like ARM. ARM processors are the core in iOS devices.
But that's beside the point.

If the host processor is intel with the entire intel glueset around it -
that can still integrate (communicate) with whatever the CM is. The CM
is there to take a data stream and output another one to the graphics
"card". This could be an "interception point" so you may want to
integrate the graphics within the SOC of the CM such that only video is
output. The remaining "blocker" is perhaps HDMI cabling. It may be
that Vividy wants processing that does not output video through HDMI (or
other data cables) by agreement within Vividy's group. In that case
Apple TV (as presently constituted) would not meet the rules.

People are playing the details very close to their chest but more is
likely to leak out eventually. But I do know that it's not just an
'add-on' device.

Assuming the association want their video available to the vast number
of Windows users there will have to be some sort of an "add on" that is
directed by the host CPU. Don't worry - won't weaken it any way nor
present a side channel opportunity.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:38:21 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/27/2015 5:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/26/2015 6:07 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 16:22, PeterN wrote:
On 9/26/2015 10:42 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 05:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.


Lax is an understatement.
What is really needed is for sellers in the importing countries to have
the moral courage to manufacture in compliant countries, preferably at
home.

If that were done, iPhone's wouldn't exist.

Not so sure. We need a level playing field.

There is no such thing, and never will be until the entropy death of
the universe.


Some companies like GE are moving manufacturing back to the US on some
large items. Mainly because they save costs in doing so. It works for
those items (washer/dryer/dishwasher) for a variety of reasons. That
model wouldn't work for small electronics, however.


sadly, you are right. My statement is a Utopian dream, in a perfect world..

How do you get on with the moral burden of depriving tens of thousands
of people of their only source of living? There are two sides to all
of these things.


Of course it's not realistic. But it is a goal to work towards. Part of
the answer is birth control. I will not gt further into that issue here.

So you really need another universe in which these tens of thousands
of people never existed. Either way, remove them as workers and you
remove them as consumers also. These things are never simple.

Re birth control: China has been implimenting that for years. You
should worry about India.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens