Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Data:
[Gyroscope]
What you describe is called triangulation. It's a method for the network provider to locate a phone with more precision than "closer to this tower than to any other tower". It requires no hardware in the phone (other than the hardware for making phone calls) and also no special software in the phone. In other words, the phone cannot prevent it except by disabling its phone service.
I am not suggesting it is a potential access point
No? Then what does this mean:
The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion.
I am saying it is a known circumvention point.
To circumvent what?
Most people don't care if they are in control of their computer or not. They may be offended if they believe somebody else is controlling or invading their system
How is that not a direct contradiction?
By the way, I know I'm not the average user, both in general or of free software. But I don't think I know anyone who cares enough about rebelling against Microsoft to use an inferior system. You suggest that the average user does that, and then follow it up by saying
as it does what they expect it to do, when they click, they don't care about anything else going on.
Doesn't that imply that they don't care at all about rebelling?
I think almost all users of free software use it because they see it as better software. Reasons for why it is better may vary, but laziness or fear that they are on their own in case of problems (two main reasons for people using Windows or MacOS) are certainly not among them.
What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks, which allow potentially thousands of opportunity to inject unwanted artifacts into the application?
From this statement I concluded that you were talking about things like The Pirate Bay or other sources where the integrity of the file cannot be guaranteed. So I ignored the fact that there are other P2P systems (technically, the entire internet is a P2P system). So please, if you want to support your statement that free software is more dangerous than things you can buy from Microsoft, for the reason that you get it over an untrusted channel, give examples which actually show an untrusted channel. Not random other things which you then agree are not a problem:
I won't say these are risky, but certainly they are P2P.
I played the Lord11 Door game at 14,400 Dial-up on several BBS. I'm sure I get get confused about some things, but I've been around awhile.
14k4? That's lightning speed. My modem didn't do more than 1200/75.
Anyway, I'm not impressed by just "being around" (nor do I expect to impress with it). If you show that you know what you're talking about, you have my respect. As you could probably see from my reply, so far I don't get the impression that you do. But please don't take that as an attack. I hope I'm just misunderstanding you, and welcome your explanation on how your statements weren't meant to cause confusion.
PGP seems to still be the leader in this front, even after 25+ years, and it was still freeware last time I checked and I believe it too is open source.
Not exactly. I don't know much about PGP, but it is certainly not open source. There is a free software clone, called GPG. It is compatible, so communication between them works. Everyone I know uses GPG, not PGP, but that's because all contacts with whom I use encrypted communication are from the free software community. Several new cryptography protocols have been added since they started; the only thing from the original PGP that is still used is the file format, as far as I know.
It's also not the leader for encryption in general, but only for encrypting e-mails. For other systems the same cryptographic methods are used, but without the PGP file format. For example, HTTPS is a very popular way to encrypt web traffic.
[Gyroscope]
What you describe is called triangulation. It's a method for the network provider to locate a phone with more precision than "closer to this tower than to any other tower". It requires no hardware in the phone (other than the hardware for making phone calls) and also no special software in the phone. In other words, the phone cannot prevent it except by disabling its phone service.
I am not suggesting it is a potential access point
No? Then what does this mean:
The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion.
I am saying it is a known circumvention point.
To circumvent what?
Most people don't care if they are in control of their computer or not. They may be offended if they believe somebody else is controlling or invading their system
How is that not a direct contradiction?
By the way, I know I'm not the average user, both in general or of free software. But I don't think I know anyone who cares enough about rebelling against Microsoft to use an inferior system. You suggest that the average user does that, and then follow it up by saying
as it does what they expect it to do, when they click, they don't care about anything else going on.
Doesn't that imply that they don't care at all about rebelling?
I think almost all users of free software use it because they see it as better software. Reasons for why it is better may vary, but laziness or fear that they are on their own in case of problems (two main reasons for people using Windows or MacOS) are certainly not among them.
What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks, which allow potentially thousands of opportunity to inject unwanted artifacts into the application?
From this statement I concluded that you were talking about things like The Pirate Bay or other sources where the integrity of the file cannot be guaranteed. So I ignored the fact that there are other P2P systems (technically, the entire internet is a P2P system). So please, if you want to support your statement that free software is more dangerous than things you can buy from Microsoft, for the reason that you get it over an untrusted channel, give examples which actually show an untrusted channel. Not random other things which you then agree are not a problem:
I won't say these are risky, but certainly they are P2P.
I played the Lord11 Door game at 14,400 Dial-up on several BBS. I'm sure I get get confused about some things, but I've been around awhile.
14k4? That's lightning speed. My modem didn't do more than 1200/75.
Anyway, I'm not impressed by just "being around" (nor do I expect to impress with it). If you show that you know what you're talking about, you have my respect. As you could probably see from my reply, so far I don't get the impression that you do. But please don't take that as an attack. I hope I'm just misunderstanding you, and welcome your explanation on how your statements weren't meant to cause confusion.
PGP seems to still be the leader in this front, even after 25+ years, and it was still freeware last time I checked and I believe it too is open source.
Not exactly. I don't know much about PGP, but it is certainly not open source. There is a free software clone, called GPG. It is compatible, so communication between them works. Everyone I know uses GPG, not PGP, but that's because all contacts with whom I use encrypted communication are from the free software community. Several new cryptography protocols have been added since they started; the only thing from the original PGP that is still used is the file format, as far as I know.
It's also not the leader for encryption in general, but only for encrypting e-mails. For other systems the same cryptographic methods are used, but without the PGP file format. For example, HTTPS is a very popular way to encrypt web traffic.
