331–340 of 377 posts
It's all fun and games until your fridge gets reclasiffied as a computer.
Trying to find a good non smart tv is impossible now, I want dumb tv and dumb fridge
It's a hospital TV Check for more on their website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trying to find a good non smart tv is impossible now, I want dumb tv and dumb fridge
I don’t want to pay a premium for dumb TV though. Just like a laptop without crapware is more expensive because the crapware actually subsidizes it, a dumb TV can be more expensive. But if you pick a good (quick, without annoying UI, allows USB upgrade and offline configuration and so on) smart TV and just don’t connect it, I think that’s probably a better idea than getting a commercial monitor for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TV shows ads ? In menus? Or while watching TV channels? Or at startup? Or, when? I’d pull the internet cable in a heartbeat if I saw an ad on it, and I’m on my second smart TV for the last 10 years (although my current one is 7 years old). I mean I don’t actually use any of the “smart” stuff. No Apps or anything. Not sure why anyone would want to? I watch my TV channels on the built in receiver (90% or more of wh…
When I switch apps (e.g. Youtube, Netflix, Plex, etc.), the switcher has several rows of media that I must scroll past. That media usually comprises of media that I am not subscribed to and would have to pay to access (e.g. mostly random shows or movies). There were no ads (from Vizio) once I was inside of an app. I don't subscribe to TV/cable/satellite. I only have Youtube Premium (ad free Youtube videos; not Youtub…
That way you don’t need to see any of the poor guis, ads etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is taking it to an absurd extreme though, which is not really how laws work. We would be better off with a right to repair on some sort of reasonable macro scale and letting a few court cases figure out where the line is, because its definitely not nano scale chip features.
My point is that no congresspeople would sign off on a law that would stifle innovation to such a degree. Customers should be given the tools to make better decisions regarding the repairability of products if they so choose to factor that into their purchasing decision, but if it means outright stopping purely positive improvements like faster CPUs then it's both harmful to consumers and not a law that would pass co…
There is obviously that "loophole" where a company can still deliberately make a product difficult or impossible to repair just by virtue of that product's design. However, if the law is implemented, any covered devices that can be repaired, regardless of how hard it is to repair, will be repairable by third parties without having to deal with legal gray areas just to be able to acquire tools, parts, and information that they will need to do those repairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so not to put words in varispeed mouth. But their claim is that Right-to-repair that doesn't give you the Right to repair what they want the right to repair is deliberately deceptive and, thus, fraudulent. The damages would be that the product that they wish to repair are irreparable.
I don't know what to tell you apart from that's not what 'fraud' is in practice. Things being not what you want and someone having spent money does not equal fraud. You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it. I don't know if you think the entire legislation is the words 'right to repair'? It obviously isn't - it's far more nuanced than…
People say stuff like "he's a fraud" all the time without meaning that in a precise legal sense.
Not even mentioning the hardware bits, I have been collaborating with postmarketOS for a while now, and believe that the main thing we need to make those devices longer-lasting would be an unlockable bootloader by law. This sounds so logical (why cannot I run, by voiding the warranty, any code I want on my machine, whatever it is?), yet apparently so hard to make openly illegal, since the problem is barely acknowledg…
User-replaceable batteries by law might be a better first step. Heck, maybe even some standard sizes for mobile device batteries (and while we're at it, also EV batteries... some sort of standard 'battery module' used by most/all vehicles would hugely help reuse/repair/recycling/upgrades).
Of course some vendors didn't like that and put chips on their batteries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen the "very little demonstrable harm" you mentioned with my own eyes in real time. It was little more than serendipity that saved lives that day. If someone did do what you described then IMHO they would be recklessly endangering the lives of others and should be treated accordingly.
This isn't a tenable argument for two reasons: 1. How far off the bell curve do we need to go? Do we trade all rights to do anything for diminishing returns in safety? 2. These modifications are happening right now. Bad instances are usually caught by EMS system tests or by people reporting gaps in cell coverage, etc, and are generally purpose build jammers. There are not many instances of frequency overlap. For most…
Not even mentioning the hardware bits, I have been collaborating with postmarketOS for a while now, and believe that the main thing we need to make those devices longer-lasting would be an unlockable bootloader by law. This sounds so logical (why cannot I run, by voiding the warranty, any code I want on my machine, whatever it is?), yet apparently so hard to make openly illegal, since the problem is barely acknowledg…
In the US, at least, unlocking devices is legal as of 2015(?) through DMCA exemptions, which has been huge for recyclers and refurbishers. Still couldn't get game console unlocking through, but at least phones / tablets / other devices that are locked can be unlocked and resold. https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/2018/11/01/digital-de...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TPM can be based on free software and controlled by the user: https://puri.sm/posts/purism-integrates-heads-security-firmw... .
Yes but that isn’t the main point. When combined with a non-free OS TPMs become a tool used against the user to lock them out of their own system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, the purpose here will be to use the fact that most users use a non-free OS to turn these TPMs against the user in order to make DRM harder to break. Stallman[1] and others[2] have talked about just this issue for over a decade now. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html [2] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Stallman has quite a particular view on security, e.g. [1]. I think it is important to understand where he’s coming from. I think the last 30 years have shown that, in some sense, even competent computer users can’t really be trusted to keep their systems secure. I’m not saying that the only solution is to have a totally locked down system, but I’m also not saying that having an HSM is a bad thing. I understand that…
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerabilit...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerabili...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Securi...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo...