Violynne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1974) comment rss

  • On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2009 @ 05:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?

    A VPN is the same as P2P?
    What a maroon.
    You need reading comprehension lessons.

    Of course they're not the same. The point, since you missed it, is that *you don't put P2P software opened to the world on a secured computer and expect it to remain such* just as one shouldn't use VPNs to establish a PRIVATE connection to a PUBLIC server.

    Get it now, or are pictures required?

  • On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2009 @ 03:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?

    R. Miles, your claims are false.
    I'm not making any claims, Mike.

    Techdirt featured a recent article about government employees being banned from using P2P software on government computers. You attributed the cause of leaked files to the lack of education of P2P software (settings), correct?

    Think about this a moment. Really.

    How is your VPN usage *any* different, Mike?

    Are you going to write a Techdirt article against Witopia should one day you hit a site and your VPN is compromised because of *your* actions?

    It boggles my mind people do this. I fully understand the purpose of Witopia. It's the users who think "security" is 100% guaranteed that get compromised.

    I certainly hope your laptop doesn't contain information you don't want others to have.

    You're just begging for someone to take it.

    That would then limit what else I could do while I was on Hulu.
    Bingo!!! Just what a VPN should do in the first place, Mike.

    Keep throwing up those IT articles about security failure.

    When you do, I'll simply link back to this one and point out the failure caused when people want to do unsecured actions using a secured system.

  • On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

    Violynne ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?

    So, what are you, some kind of Hulu shill or just an idiot? Or maybe a troll playing the part?
    Mr. Hypocrite, it's best if I dumb down my post, as I appear to have written it confusingly. I'll take the blame for this, so allow me to expand even further.

    You own a lock box which holds all your secret information. The goal of this lock box is to transfer contents from your home to the bank. There is only one key, so its security is confined to you.

    Now, would you take this lock box down a dark alley where thieves hold tools and will waste no time trying to break open your lock box? Or worse, steal your key?

    Of course you wouldn't. But this is what Mike (and many others) do. They're taking their lock box down the dark alley because they continually believe the key will keep them safe, and worse, should open other things besides the lock box.

    The purpose of security is to ensure the contents of the lock box gets to the bank. Not Hulu, YouTube, or any other non-secured website. By *purposely* going down the dark alley is inviting the failure of security.

    Of course, it's Mike's choice to do so, but it completely boggles my mind he's upset when his key isn't working where he expects it to, but not intended for.

    If anything, Mike has set a precedent on why security fails so often. Too many times, people want the lock box to do everything while trying to remain secured.

    Kind of similar to installing P2P software on government computers, open to the world, in which the content is to be secured *from* the outside world.

    I would have drawn pictures, but I wouldn't have been able to post them.

    Hope this helps.

  • On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

    Violynne ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 09:21am

    Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?

    You are honestly saying that if one part of the connection isn't secure you should not use any security at all? That makes no sense.
    Hulu doesn't require a secured connection, so why use a secured channel to access it.

    You do realize he pays them for this right? It is the service they offer in exchange for your money?
    Yes, I gathered this from the article. But the VPN connection isn't the issue as much as *why* the connection is refused.
    I agree with Mike's assessment the reason for blocking the VPN is stupid, but I can't understand his position when a simple change of connection, which also protects his VPN, would be the *better* choice.

    It seems to me from your post that you are more advocating turning off all security just because one site on the internet might not be secure. I think you need to clarify.
    I'll try. VPN connections are used on the premise that a remote computer can connect to another using secure protocols which do their best to prevent unauthorized access to either system.

    The *sole* purpose is for a secured connection, but it shouldn't be used outside of this purpose. In other words, a VPN shouldn't be used to access systems which the VPN wasn't intended.

    Yes, some will argue that it's to protect the connecting machine, but this is why I related it to the administrator account.

    To me, it makes *absolutely no sense* to use a VPN to establish connections for which the VPN wasn't intended to do.

    I'm going out on a limb here, but I would assume the VPN is used to establish the connection between Mike's laptop and the Floor64 servers, such that he can securely work from anywhere in the world. Maybe connections to other businesses as well.

    The entire *purpose* of security is to prevent unauthorized access, so (again, my perception) it makes no sense why a machine designated for security would be used in a non-secured role.

    What's ironic are the articles Techdirt posts about government employees losing their laptops containing sensitive data and then posing the question why these laptops were allowed out of the building to begin with.

    Same concept. Mike *shouldn't* be using a secured laptop to access an unsecured site. Ever.

    But, admittedly, this is just my viewpoint as I consistently see people making this same mistake daily (hence the "log out of the admin account").

    I guess I'm just a bit more cautious in this type of situation. I'd never use a VPN connection to hit a site it wasn't designated to secure itself over.

    There's *no reason* to use VPN to hit the Hulu site.

    Get a netbook to surf the web. Leave the secured laptop to its primary secured role.

  • On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

    Violynne ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 06:31am

    VPN + security = Hulu viewing?

    Mike,
    I'm going to have to side with those who question why you're using VPN to connect to Hulu.

    I'm going to be blunt here, but you remind me of these people who log onto their computers using an administrator account only to whine and bitch when something goes wrong because of the open vulnerability they placed themselves in.

    VPN is designed for security, and should be used for secured purposes. There's absolutely *no reason* why you should be using it to surf Hulu's website (or any other non-secured website, for that matter).

    Doing so opens possibility for vulnerabilities within the VPN world. You, of all people, should know there's no such thing as 100% security.

    I'm a bit surprised to see an article like this when it's quite clear who is truly to blame. Sure, you may not like the fact Hulu's blocking you, but those who are offering you the VPN service may not appreciate you taking chances on *their* secured connection.

    All it takes is one time to change security to vulnerability. The less you take those chances, the more likely your computer remains secured.

    Side note: while you're at it, log off the admin account as well. ;)

  • On the post: Results From Our CwF+RtB Business Model Experiment

    Violynne ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 03:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    This is ridiculous. How are we meant to judge whether the experiment was a success or not when Masnick won't tell us his costs? This is just so typical of the freetards.
    WTF? $37k in two months isn't enough to give you a determination of success?

    You probably don't even make this in a year (gross), especially after all the deductions (net) of 401k, etc.

    Yet you use the term "freetard". Einstein would be proud as you support his "infinite stupidity" theory.

  • On the post: Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI

    Violynne ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2009 @ 11:15am

    Re:

    because there are civil AND criminal penalties for violating parts of 1201 of the DMCA, which is alleged here.
    The DMCA Section 1201 is about circumvention over copyright works.

    A modem is not protecting copyright works, thus, can not be covered by Section 1201.

  • On the post: Once Again: DVRs Not Killing TV, But Helping It

    Violynne ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2009 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Re:

    But the fact that you know who Geico is, and what they sell, pretty much shows that advertising works.
    Define "works". To me, these GEICO commercials remind me of those brats who scream at the checkout line for a candy bar. Sure, it "works" because volume is impossible to ignore.

    Plop, plop. Fizz, fizz. See? I'm sure many will know what this refers to, but those who weren't bombarded with these "one showing per every 10 minutes" ads will have no clue.

    The DVR's greatest asset is the fast forward button, when watching an entertaining ad once or twice is now boring and we'll quickly skip it for the next shiny one, if at all.

    I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that last Kia ad was the best ever made. *yawn* And how many car commercials do we get per night? Couldn't tell you. I skip them. And *lots* of them.

    Maybe it's about time these businesses focus in spending their money on something the majority of us aren't going to skip.

  • On the post: Brooklyn Law School No Fan Of Due Process; Apparently Handing Names Over To MPAA [Updated]

    Violynne ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 09:03am

    Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service

    The school has probably been presented with DMCA notices. They have few options at that point, they need to take down the material. Now, if the material doesn't come down, they can be liable.
    Um... this makes no sense. The school itself isn't storing anything, merely having its networks used to obtain the content.

    DMCA can't cover this, so if it is being used, it's done so illegally. One would think a *law school* would note this, but obviously, some schools are about revenue, not education.

    Personally, I think this is a scare tactic knowing full well the school can't stop it unless it can trace the user to the account, and block the account.

    The school would be better off stating "We've received several notices of copyright infringement violations and if the actions of our students does not cease, we'll have no choice but to block student access outside our schools without supervision. We don't want this. You don't want this. File share on your own network. Thank you."

    It'll be interesting to see if Techdirt does a follow-up on this story.

  • On the post: Smart TVs Know When You Look Away

    Violynne ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 03:31am

    Wait a second...

    ...since when did TVs not come with a power button? Whew, I'm glad my 42" plasma has one. When I'm not watching it, there is no display at all because I actually turn the thing off.

    For the record, TVs have always been power hungry despite all attempts at making them "greener".

    I don't need a TV telling me I'm not watching it. That's just too interactive for my tastes.

  • On the post: Lawsuit Against Cable Companies For Not Offering A La Carte Channels Dismissed

    Violynne ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 05:38am

    Wha??

    with the court saying that the plaintiffs failed to show the harm to the market.
    Maybe the lawyers should have used Indiana's Brighthouse as an example at "harm" to the market, when CBS was taken off the air for over 2 weeks because of contract disputes over a free network.

    Or how about when Viacom nearly pulled all its stations for a larger cut of the cable subscriber's monthly fee which has now been applied to our cable bill?

    After all, I certainly don't watch *any* Viacom stations, but I sure am being harmed by their "market".

    So let's hear it for the consumers, who are constantly getting bent over so cable companies have easier access to our wallets. Ooh, now that feels just good.

  • On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals

    Violynne ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Re: RTB

    If windows work for Techdirt then they can work for other businesses too.
    Really? Let's see how you feel if Techdirt offers its content 6 months after it screens originally to those who viewed the first window.

    Be rather pointless, wouldn't it, to discuss a story 6 months after it passed?

    I do agree with your assessment that the CB is a window, but its purpose is to allow those who want a sneak peek to get a jump on the news.

    If this were an equivalent to the movie industry window, it would be a preview party, where many theaters show a movie at midnight the day before it's officially released.

    But in the context of the article, Mike's remarks are spot on. There should be *absolutely no reason* why I can't buy the DVD as I'm walking out of the theater on my way home to watch it on demand.

    When you can come up with a reason why this asinine approach is taken, fill us in.

  • On the post: Microsoft Pulls Out Of Family Guy Sponsorship… Gets Half The Benefit For None Of The Money?

    Violynne ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2009 @ 03:34am

    The Fox returns to the henhouse.

    Perhaps Microsoft just out-Foxed Fox.
    Anyone here think Seth will take this lying down?

    Heh. If Seth gets pissed, he's going to take it out through Family Guy.

    Instead of pushing a positive note for Windows 7, I can see an episode clearly showing Peter getting frustrated at "Windows Heaven" and ranting for 10 minutes why the operating system sucks.

    That is, before Stewie comes along and uses the PC to try to kill Lois.

    The episode will air a week before the holiday break.

  • On the post: Microsoft Wants To Block Out 3rd Party Storage

    Violynne ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2009 @ 03:37am

    Thanks for the laugh, Mike.

    "this only serves to piss off Microsoft customers and drive them away from Microsoft."
    You mean the same people who go out and buy this console despite its failures as indicated by the Red Rings of Death (RRoD)?

    Never going to happen. If anything, people will simply find a way to circumvent the DRM Microsoft will impose.

    Side note: *everyone* knows first party hardware is overpriced and Microsoft's claims that people don't know is asinine. People do know. That's why they buy 3rd party when there's no difference to the hardware save the price.

  • On the post: Trying To Explain The Economics Of Abundance In Two Minutes Or Less With A Whiteboard

    Violynne ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2009 @ 03:51am

    I'm so glad Techdirt isn't all about copyright.

    Because I'm going to borrow these videos and spread them as fast as possible.

    This first video is priceless and breaks down a complex situation to a first grade level.

    Kudos.

    Now the question I should ask is: Should I copy the file and host elsewhere or link back to Techdirt?

    I'd at least ask the creator first before I simply just grab it.
    :)

    Looking forward to the next videos, which I hope expand on the "scarcity" side of the equation.

  • On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too

    Violynne ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2009 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Is eBay really the villain here?

    Why aren't people more upset that Nanda is sending out improper trademark infringement letters?
    Simply because eBay should be the first defense for its customers and block such bullshit from ever hitting their inbox.

    Nanda may be tactless in its quest, but it's even *more* tactless for eBay to circumvent its own ToS in order to comply with Nanda's idiocy.

    Thus, it's why many are hell bent on blaming eBay, rather than the all-too-common idiocy of Nanda.

  • On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too

    Violynne ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2009 @ 10:27am

    Your brother does need a tutorial, Mike.

    Not for the laws of reselling, but a tutorial on selling practices which don't include eBay.

    I'm glad issues like this plague eBay, as more and more people are finally realizing how crap this "service" is to any consumer. Eventually, this site will fail. It's just a matter of time.

    Tell your brother to use Craigslist. It's 100% free and very successful. I've watched this service explode with users who have finally had enough of eBays "terms of services".

    But as a favor, don't push your brother's items on us. No, I don't want a clocky. I'm one who positioned the clock far away enough as to warrant a removal from my bed to walk over and shut it off. Cost: $0.

    Heh.

  • On the post: Want To Design Smarter Intersections? Use Less Control, Not More.

    Violynne ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2009 @ 04:15am

    Roundabouts aren't always the answer, but...

    ...they're a fantastic start.

    I hail from Carmel, IN, where the mayor insists a roundabout be placed at (nearly) every intersection. It first started out with a few here and there, but the growth has been explosive since.

    The major impact has been Keystone Avenue (still under construction) in which all points between 96th St. and 131st St. are to include "tear drop" roundabouts over the primary thruway.

    I absolutely love it. No stopping, save for the few cars already in the roundabout, but less than the old 2+ minute traffic system.

    The changes were so dynamic, the state of Indiana is now proposing they be added on a parallel street, which is one of (if not the) busiest roads. Unfortunately, I see no changes coming anytime soon despite every benefit to the contrary.

    However, there is a caveat to using a roundabout and several have touched base with them. Of course, we're right back to the driver being at fault for failing to navigate it properly.

    The "chain o' cars" often brought up is the downside to a roundabout, in which cross traffic must wait at times longer than what a traffic system had subjected them to previously.

    A simply "yield" sign does no good, because the crux is the yielding is to the cars in the roundabout. Removing those who are clueless, it's this issue which allows the stream to perpetuate once it gets going. People simply don't yield and "rush" the line so they are the ones who are to be yielded.

    But, as I said, it's a great start. I've noticed a huge increase on roads utilizing roundabouts vs. a neighboring parallel road. It seems people do desire a road without restrictions. Despite the changed signal timing of the parallel road, it's becoming more vacant (which is great for me!).

    With a bit more proper education, I do believe roundabouts are a great way to improve traffic. I hit two every day, and wish there were more.

    Now, if only we can address those complete idiots who either stop in them or change lanes while navigating them.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Violynne ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2009 @ 06:16am

    The 10 commandments as a debate? Fine.

    When Moses Came Down from Mt. Sinai, the two tablets included: no stealing.
    Stop and think about this a moment, Poling. These tablets and copyright are the same thing. They're rules to circumvent common sense.

    Stealing. If your family's starving, and you have no assets, think it's beyond you to steal to survive? You'd be a hypocrite if you answered "no".

    Thus, what is the true definition of stealing? To simply state it's taking the possessions of another isn't quite accurate.

    Here's another example: If someone's about to kill another with a kitchen knife, and you remove the knife, isn't that considered stealing? Of course it is, but no one sees it that way when there's a life involved.

    Copyright is an extension of this "law" you referenced, by clearly defining "stealing". Of course, throwing in player pianos helped change this, as we all can clearly see how this mechanized product stole so much music.

    Most people who argue for copyright have never read the document at hand and simply go with "moral" issues of who deserves what for their work. It's hypocrisy, people. Go read the damn thing.

    If anyone walks away from reading it with the morality still attached, that's the point of this article. There should be no morality once you're done reading it.

    Copyright is a failure when a 5th grader can't decide what's right or wrong without some propaganda flier being shoved down their throats with deceptive intent.

    Copyright is a failure when ordinary adults can't determine if copying a TV show is legal, but a song to CD is not.

    Copyright is a failure when people believe its purpose is to ensure artists get paid for their works.

    Copyright is a failure.

    I'm sorry some of you will carry my words with "Socialist!" attitude, but I'll be proud that you do. Because I've yet to meet an artist who *doesn't* want people to enjoy their works.

    All copyright does is make it difficult for them to do once those who don't create take over to distribute.

  • On the post: What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood

    Violynne ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2009 @ 05:54am

    No subject.

    I'm actually surprised the movie industry hasn't also outlawed video recording devices. After all, those folks who make low budget movies using them to show it isn't about expensive sets and actors are also taking away revenue, right?

    In keeping up with SOC, I find it laughable the industry's trying to go this way. First, it'll be movies. Then, TV shows, circumventing the Betamax ruling.

    It's disgusting this industry wants to go this route and little do they realize smart people, like myself, are refusing to buy any of their wares due to this stupidity.

    The Comcast/Time Warner deal to offer movies is just as lame, especially given both charge for a digital rental at a higher price for a single day.

    Who really are the pirates here? I dare anyone in the entertainment industry to convince me these tactics aren't comparable to real pirates, who board vessels and overtake control, usually at the sacrifice of innocent people.

    Idiots. The lot of them. People, quit buying movies. Quit downloading movies. Ignore the damn industry completely.

    Then, let's watch them squirm with dropping revenue.

Next >>