Non-sequitur. The Internet only enables the copying of bits and not their theft, as the original bits aren't removed from their source. A remote-copy-and-delete might be considered a theft, but Bittorrent has no delete provisions and that's not really inherent to the infrastructure of the Internet per se (e.g. your network card can't physically make bits on the other side in storage disappear).
Good. The internet is meant to uplift human society, not enable petty theft. If only they could have gone after each thief to take back the money they stole.
There's a difference between "I am the creator of this content [that I actually didn't create]" and "I am enjoying this content that I did not create." One could argue that it matters, in the latter case, whether you are enjoying the content in a manner with the creator's intention of how you enjoyed it, but, to state one among many possible responses, it is far from clear when I consume media through approved channels that that accurately represents how the creator would prefer I enjoy it.
An old 1970's arcade game, Quiz Show, used an 8-track tape to store the questions and answers. There's a YouTube video about it, and audio dumps of the 8-track on archive.org I think.
I thought there was an MSR buried deep somewhere that enables "Cache as RAM" mode and basically maps the cache into the memory address space or something like that.
Lol a quick Google search leads me to a Linked in post with all the gory technical details?
A lot of people do their grocery shopping at Walmart (even if you don't). This positions Walmart as being able to offer discounts for food and other daily necessities to people right on their TV. People are going to like this-especially the cohort that would buy a cheap TV at Walmart. They're going to really like saving a few dollars on groceries or gas. Not to mention Walmart can now offer perks through the TV to its millions of employees. They're going to like it too.
Walmart is one of the most litigated companies ever, and probably has 10+ active lawsuits against it at any given time. So if they're getting into this, they're fairly sure it will work legally now and in the future.
The battle against personal-data-collection by default on TVs is probably lost at this point. It's over. Non-smart TVs will probably become specialized, super-expensive corporate-class expenses out of reach of most people before too long.
Projectors are capable of creating a big image on a wall like a TV, and while it's not as bright, it comes with much less privacy invasion, and is also portable. That's where I'm likely spending my future TV dollars until those gets caught up in this as well.
Great point! My knee-jerk reaction was that this is an intrusion and the enduser would be held hostage unless he/she gives up personal information to Walmart...and maybe that is the case for some, but some will surely benefit from the personal advertising and discounts. I do believe there should be a large, bright, unavoidable notice on the outside of the TV packaging stating that a Walmart account is required to use the TV.
And that will also benefit Walmart. They have Walmart+ which is their grocery delivery and in-store checkout app - which, if you've ever shopped at a busy Walmart near a city, both of those either enable you to avoid actually entering a Walmart or make it much quicker if you go in the store.
So that sticker will be a big "This TV requires a Walmart+ account - Sign up for Walmart+ and get free grocery delivery on orders over $30 and discounts at the self-checkout AND deals on streaming!" Their electronics department people will probably be trained to answer any questions and help people sign up on the app (if they're not already).
Brighter picture perhaps, but good luck being able to have anything resembling "actual black", best you'll get is dark gray.
Alternative solution that doesn't require worse picture quality, never hook up the TV to the internet. State of the art quality, none of the data collection.
I would bet five figures that within 5 years it will be commonplace for TVs to require an Internet connection in order to be used at all. One is ATSC 3.0 and its DRM encryption capabilities. The other scenario is probably be that, because the TV has pre-installed applications, then the TV has to record your age and register it upstream to comply with an age-verification law or interpretation thereof.
Agreed, you'd still need to darken the room for the best picture in any projector scenario, as the darkest black you can get is whatever the ambient light level is.
The constitutionally defined purpose of copyright is:
"... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I don't understand how "person X created this so anyone who does something similar has to pay him and his kin for all eternity" promotes progress. In fact, it does the exact opposite - at some point you can't do or say anything through any persistent media without paying legions of lawyers, trusts, and corporate entities.
If multiple network interfaces defines a router, then every cell phone is one, because every cell phone has a cellular and Wifi interface, and is a router in hotspot mode. Three interfaces if you count USB which can also be a network interface (hotspot works over USB in both Windows and Linux) and four if Bluetooth PAN is still a thing.
Recently in the U.S. news a parent was convicted of murder because they facilitated making weapons to their child who then committed a school shooting. They didn't give their child weapons and tell them to go do it, they just didn't keep them away. This is a good trend that I hope continues and will actually help prevent school shootings. Parents are responsible for their children. If children are frying their brains due to Internet exposure, similarly it's the parents fault, and they should be held liable for child abuse in the same manner as if they committed other negligence.
Someone at school has parents who aren't watching their children and allowing them unrestricted Internet access? This is where the bounty-hunter private-right-of-action morality-police laws that seem to be gaining traction can be put to some actual good use instead of, for example, hunting down trans people in Kansas. If someone's child is showing other children inappropriate material because their parents are negligent, the other parents should be able to take those parents to court and recover damages if they can collect evidence. Once parents are fined for letting their children roam with an unrestricted Internet connection it'll stop pretty quick.
> they need help from the wider society they live in.
Help that is not material support (e.g. paying hospital bills, babysitting, etc.) is usually interference.
> I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults
Agreed, but I can handle myself on the internet (my parents did their job and I am also not a dog and know the difference between a screen and a real object), and shouldn't be tracked with verification nonsense because someone else can't.
Rent control doesn't have to be "you as a landlord can't change no more than $X in rent." It can also be "rent increases on existing tenants in good standing are limited to X%.
Broadcast TV (and cable TV too) has been whithering on the vine for a long time. What a network couldn't broadcast on TV could simply be put on YouTube or other social network. TV could become state-owned media at this point and I don't think anyone would really care as long as the Internet is the way it is.
I largely agree, but I think we have another 5-8 years before TV’s candle light is really extinguished. I hope they fight this nonsense to the bitter end.
reply