|
I suppose at least they'd be honest about it.
|
|
|
|
|
No use for "smarts" in a TV; better to have a separate
box for that.
We also plan to discontinue cable TV and view only discs and streaming services.
|
|
|
|
|
We did that a couple of years ago (sans DVD's actually). No way we'll go back!
Only one pay service, HuluPlus, has been picked up.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: So - when those attempting to reach out to watch what I do in front of the TV - they'll have no connection.
No connection needed to spy on you through your tv.
|
|
|
|
|
Enlighten us as to how so!
Cell phone towers? A conspiracy!
Fortunately, I already sprayed the TV and the homunculus is dead (deep fried, actually).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Enlighten us as to how so!
A technique that has been around since the 1940's. In the military it is called compromising emanations. To the every day it's called Van Eck phreaking, so named after the guy who first demonstrated it publicly by remotely reconstructing an image from nothing but the EM radiation given off a TV set. No internet connection needed, just someone with a little knowledge of electronics. From there your actions in front of your TV can be deduced by the amount of the EM field you are blocking and the way it is being blocked. Unless you have surgical pins or screws or some such in you, because then you're pretty screwed as they act as an amplifier.
|
|
|
|
|
And this information will be picked up by whom? Where? Like the compromise of voting ballots - what happens to the old data when the next person votes? Where is the receiver for this signal . . . the induction cooker I just got?
I'd be more concerned with laser-Doppler being used to eavesdrop on conversations from window vibrations. Who's running all of these? But I'm not concerned.
If I were specifically targeted - then game is over for me. If not - this is no telephone conversation already streaming - it's a latent image of questionable persistence and even more questionable value.
The sun will die out some day - I'm not worried about that, either (yet).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: And this information will be picked up by whom? Where?
By anyone smart enough to create a receiver, for weak signals you have to be quite close, but TV is anything but a weak signal. Any electronic display can be recreated by this method. By whom? Anyone who wants to see what you do in front of your TV or what you watch.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Like the compromise of voting ballots - what happens to the old data when the next person votes?
The same can be applied to electronic voting booths, if you want to see what button people are pressing behind the curtain. The receiver is just a tv with the tuning controls replaced with manual oscillators. Only thing needed is a knowledge of electronics. and that data can be recorded for later use. Do some reading, it's quite interesting.
W∴ Balboos wrote: I'd be more concerned with laser-Doppler being used to eavesdrop on conversations from window vibrations.
The laser technique also doesn't require a closed window.
If you aren't worried about being spied on, why did you disable the ability for your tv to connect to the internet? So you're worried about some forms of surveillance but not others? Van Eck phreaking is a whole lot easier than breaking into your tv.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 4724084 wrote: By anyone smart enough to create a receiver, for weak signals you have to be quite close, but TV is anything but a weak signal. Any electronic display can be recreated by this method. By whom? Anyone who wants to see what you do in front of your TV or what you watch.
Vague and empty.
I repeat my question - spelling it out: This "anything but a weak signal" - so they'll pick it up from a km away? 100m? A car parked out front, day and night? Generalities as you've put forth are not particularly useful. And what signal is 'anything but weak'? The shows that have been watched? It's been possible to determine what channel a view is watching almost forever - drive-by vehicles for ratings. Nothing to see there - the TV, itself, is always on the same station.
You got into this with "by by remotely reconstructing an image from nothing but the EM radiation given off a TV set" - image of what? The TV set? Me walking buy?
Scores of years ago there was a thing called a telephone pickup coil - it, too, worked by (ultimately) induction. Extrapolated, years later, for drive-by TV-station ratings talleys.
You endlessly overlook the real point of it all: who's targeting me? What for? Mainly, disappointment it the Telly's on; the good stuff's when it's off.
Rephrasing that: my data requests/returns are not being spewed on a network for a bank of super-computers to sip off of at their leisure. It's transient EMF - in a house and world full of the same - even if I watch broadcast and use the tuner, all they'd know is what I'm watching and when. For that - why bother with all the remaining electronics: time and station tell them all they need to know.
Get a grip: if someone wants to observe you, you're doomed. Don't forget, of course, that there is always "simple bugging"! Cheaper, too.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Vague and empty.I repeat my question - spelling it out: This "anything but a weak signal" - so they'll pick it up from a km away? 100m? A car parked out front, day and night? Generalities as you've put forth are not particularly useful. And what signal is 'anything but weak'? The shows that have been watched? It's been possible to determine what channel a view is watching almost forever - drive-by vehicles for ratings. Nothing to see there - the TV, itself, is always on the same station.
Not vague nor empty. the EM field given of by your tv can be recontructed up to around 300m away with currently available equipment you can pick from any electronics store. If you want a greater distance then you need more specialised equipment. Keeping in mind that any metal within your EM bubble extends the signal. It's not a generalisation at all.
W∴ Balboos wrote: You got into this with "by by remotely reconstructing an image from nothing but the EM radiation given off a TV set" - image of what? The TV set? Me walking buy?
Of whatever you are currently watching and any interference of that signal such as you fapping away to whatever.
W∴ Balboos wrote: You endlessly overlook the real point of it all: who's targeting me? What for?
I didn't miss the point at all, and I already answered that point. Anyone who wants to monitor you for whatever reason you give them.
You specifically said you disable your tv's internet capability so that people cannot spy on you. There is at least one method of spying on you through your tv that does not require it to be connected, as I originally stated.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Rephrasing that: my data requests/returns are not being spewed on a network for a bank of super-computers to sip off of at their leisure.
See point about them not being needed. You do realise that humans have an EM signature as well right?
W∴ Balboos wrote: Get a grip: if someone wants to observe you, you're doomed. Don't forget, of course, that there is always "simple bugging"! Cheaper, too.
Bugging is more expensive than using off the shelf hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I kind of do the same. I've got home built DVRs (Beyond TV based) for our TVs. I don't watch TV at all, but the wifey is addicted. With our setup, she can be recording up to 6 channels at once. Keeps her happy while I'm up in my computer room either programming or playing games.
|
|
|
|
|
... does not interest me as well. Dang, don't you all have anything else to post about?
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
If 2020 is perfect vision, is 2017 a poke in the eye? 
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
still works just fine for me.  
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Im on 2013, no urge to update now 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Same here
I had some graphical glitches yesterday, but they are fixed now.
|
|
|
|
|
You kids and your new-fangled toys. We're still maintaining code using Visual Studio .NET 2003, and our primary development environment is still VS2008. I've tried to move us to VS2015, but "now isn't a good time" remains the answer to that one.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: still VS2008
I think our SSRS reports are till that version. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: our primary development environment is still VS2008
If it was all up to me, that's the version I'd still be using.
|
|
|
|
|
My only real complaint with VS2015 when I use it is the find/replace handling. Some items in the little palette only turn on/off with mouse clicks, even though there are hot keys displayed in the tooltips. Conversely, other items turn on/off only with the hot key, and don't respond to mouse clicks. Worst of all, they changed the regular expression syntax to follow .NET. The old syntax, while non-standard, made it easy to match white space, identifiers, numbers, and strings readily with only a couple keystrokes. Now you have to remember a long drawn-out pattern, and if you get a single character wrong, it spawns SkyNet.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you are a C# developer, but you want resources (images and icons), so you need a simple resource editor, just the one you had in Visual Studio since 2003 at least...
Now you have to install the C++ package too (they put it there)... Except of course if you know which individual component contains the editor you need...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't bother me: it was never a good editor anyway!
I use a combination of PaintShop Pro and Greenfish Icon Editor myself.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I use a combination of PaintShop Pro and Greenfish Icon Editor myself.
Very modern! I've been using Microangelo for around 20 years now...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using Paintshop Pro since V2 or 3 - early 90's anyway - and am used to "how it thinks", so trying to do anything significant with the VS offering was an exercise in frustration. Mind you, so was using PSP after Corel bought it... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
