@revk@toot.me.uk
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

revk

@revk@toot.me.uk

Species 5618, Geek, techie, grandfather, software (mostly C), and hardware (mostly KiCad, and ESP32 based), IoT, IPv6, 3D printing, occasional [even parliamentary] expert, a bit tactless, Canon over Nikon, TNG over Kirk, Stargate fan. My hallway has a working ASR-33 (as old as me) and a suit of armour (modern). Oh, and I run an ISP, but these are my personal views and worth what you paid me for them. May contain nuts. Ordained atheist. Yes, RevK is a UK registered trade mark. Making 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 my home.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

revk, to random
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

You gotta think...

If a star ship keeps its "number" when a new one of the same name replaces it...

Like 1701 -> 1701-A, etc.

That means they created 1700 star ships not call "Enterprise" first (after "NX-01").

Why would they do that?

What was the massive lul in ships called "Enterprise" caused by?

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@ahnlak OK that is clever. Not a bad in-canon idea.

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@highvoltage Which means 1700 previous shits were not "Enterprise", that is my point.

If the 1106 was "Enterprise" and was replaced, it would be the 1106-A.

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@highvoltage I would think 1700 ships not called "Enterprise" is a lul, no?

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@highvoltage No, I just mean 1700 is a lot of ships not called Enterprise. That is all.

Given the NX series had one called Enterprise at NX-01, you'd expect for the NCC series, "Enterprise" may be in the first few.

stephen, to random
@stephen@microbe.vital.org.nz avatar

I hadn't realised but "AI"-generated fake images by long-dead artists, out of copyright, are also a problem, out there polluting the commons and slowly destroying our ability to know what is genuine: https://maggieappleton.com/generative-forgery

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@stephen well “out of copyright” makes them totally fair game for any rework in any way, as long as not sold claiming to be old/original, surely?

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen Is a simple photo of an "out of copyright" artwork really a separate copyright? Surely simply making a digital record of an existing physical artwork lacks the creative element necessary to make a new copyright work?

Or is there case law on this?

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen OK, I understand.

My issues is that having paid the fee for the high res for non commercial use, what is to stop one using it in any other way?

It is not a legal restriction under copyright law, but, possibly, a contractual one.

But even contractually using non commercially, anyone getting any access to that copy by means you did not do commercially, means they then have a copy, and they have no legal impediment to using in any way they wish.

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen If they "bypass" that, i.e. gain access to hi-res with no contractual restriction in doing so, and no illegality in doing so as not in copyright, then they have succeeded in doing so, legally, and contractually, surely?

They would only have to include a "fee" if they had a contract with the museum, which presumably they do not.

I am not saying it is "good", but not sure it is either illegal or breach of some contract. Sorry.

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen One can quite legally steal* a copy of something that is out of copyright. That is the point.

  • Not "steal" as that would involve the original party possessing the item losing possession as part of the process. "Steal" and "theft" are not terms that apply to copyright even when copying something that is covered by copyright.
revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen OK but what if you did not "sell", but used non commercially in a way someone else was able to obtain a "copy".

That other party has no contract and won't have breach copyright if making the image of the old work was not items creative in some way, and every copy from there is outside any legal control, surely?

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen OK, the issue of "under the name of" may be a problem, obviously. Though a "name" is a problem, I can "call myself" Leonardo da Vinci and create artwork and sell it under that name legally as long as not claiming to be "the" Leonardo da Vinci. Fine line. Sounds like they cross it though.

By making a new image that is a copy or a derivative work of an out of copyright image is not a problem / illegal. It is what "out of copyright" means.

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen Only if they "obtained" it under a contract banning them for doing so.

If they agreed a contract to get an image and that contract banned them using commercial, yes, I agree.

If someone got the images by any other means, from someone else, and not party to such a contract, then no, that is legal, unless a breach of copyright, which would not apply if no creative work in making the copy.,

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@NatureMC @stephen Yes, but did those sellers enter in to any contract with a museum, etc, banning them selling such images?

If they did not, then they are not in breach of contract.

Copyright covers cases not covered by contract, but when not a copyright breach, a copy can be made, used, sold, anything.

If the sellers got the copy from someone that was themselves a party to a contract not allowing commercial use, and the party so agreeing was not paid, then they were not in breach.

revk, to random
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

Some StarTrek banter makes sense...

The constant "logging what you are doing" is something we do in the data centre, via irc, so we know what happened just before shit hit the fan, or we can but in and say "wait!".

But the captain having to say "deploy damage control teams", or "seal off that affected area", or "divert auxiliary power", makes zero sense...

Bugger, over thinking again.

🙂

revk, (edited ) to random
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

Wait, what? another bank holiday?!

And yes, I only just noticed!

revk, to random
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

Legitimate interests… I wonder if that will get tested.
But objection applying “going forward”. Surely one can object to how data “was” used as well?

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@danieldurrans tried that!

revk, to random
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

FFS TOTSCO.

So I have to find a matching service for a switch.

I construct the SQL query and pile on the conditions - installed and not ceased and not in the middle of a port, and the right account number and line number and so on.

I get either zero, one, or more results. If I get one, I respond with matching details.

But it not, I have to send a failure. Let's check the failure codes.

1/2

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

FFS, they have them all!

  • Multiple customers but no match on surname
  • Multiple customers with that surname!
  • Account found but historic
  • Account found but not the service ID
  • Multiple services at same address

FFS, I cannot just do a query!

I have to do a wide query to find all the partial matches to make the fucking error code.

Well, maybe, maybe I do, is it a law, a GC, or can I just say "no match" or "multiple match" somehow?

I have no clue.

revk, (edited )
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

What I may do is the one query, and on fail, do a few sloppy queries just to work out error codes.

E.g. just check the account number, etc.

Maybe do some of the error codes if I can.

jasonkoebler, to random
@jasonkoebler@mastodon.social avatar

Scoop: I obtained the contract Samsung requires independent shops to sign to buy phone repair parts from them.

It requires:

  • "Daily" dumps of customer data
  • The "immediate destruction" of any phones a shop comes across that has third-party parts

https://www.404media.co/samsung-requires-independent-repair-shops-to-share-customer-data-snitch-on-people-who-use-aftermarket-parts-leaked-contract-shows/

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@f4grx @jasonkoebler destruction would be a contract to cause criminal damage, so rather unenforceable and otherwise costly, surely?

revk, to random
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

There are people that get triggered when someone posts a screenshot of a phone with like 2% battery…

This is a similar sort of thing someone just sent me!

revk, (edited ) to random
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

Why did we even bother?
Why create ISO8601?

A new API, new this year, as an industry standard, has JSON fields like this

"nextAccessTime": "2023-May-18 04:43:00+0000 UTC"

I mean, pick a lane, why "+0000" and "UTC"?

Why "YYYY-MName-DD" FFS, that is not any standard in RFC or ISO?!

I just don't know how they could have come up with that in any sane way.

The xkcd "cat" format would be saner!

(FYI, it is TOTSCO)

https://www.revk.uk/2024/05/iso8601-is-wasted.html

Edent, to random
@Edent@mastodon.social avatar

How much does it cost to call an 056 number in the UK?

Here's a little telephony mystery for you - can you find out how much your phone provider charges for 056 calls?

(Skip the background and jump to the survey)

Background

Way back in the mists of time - 2004 - Ofcom decreed that "Voice over Broadband" was going to be the next big thing. VoB (which is like

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-call-an-056-number-in-the-uk-no-ones-knows/

#/etc/

revk,
@revk@toot.me.uk avatar

@Edent A&A make it easy.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • megavids
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •