Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk
You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: SVG relative sizes (Christopher Horler)
2. Re: [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal groups
(Bob Ham)
3. Re: [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal groups
(Zak Wilcox)
4. Re: R/C Waveforms for Status Power Plugs (David Smith)
5. Re: [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal groups
(forus@bts-usa.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:52:40 +0100
From: Christopher Horler <cshorler@googlemail.com>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] SVG relative sizes
Message-ID:
<CAAeT8m9JnVOh5jn8EzL-WgX2s2wsH0Vb4z2pmmKLMb4aAKwkcw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
indeed just like the Earth being flat ... - it turns out the width of 1 em
is not guaranteed to be 1 'M' !
On 25 July 2014 12:10, David Fear <david@dfear.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/07/14 08:10, Chris wrote:
>
>> Can anyone assist with this?
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24880356/relative-
>> sizes-of-svg-text-and-rect
>>
>> My current understanding is this might be an effect of aspect ratio (but
>> then why no effect on the text) and/or the effect of a user coordinate
>> system.
>>
>> Though this hasn't led to a workable solution. I'm plugging this into a
>> (tidy) tree with a requirement for a constant node size (based on d3 tree
>> layout and quadtree)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bristol mailing list
>> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>>
>> Hi
>
> This may help.
> http://www.impressivewebs.com/understanding-em-units-css/
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -----------------------------------
> Dave Fear :: david@dfear.co.uk
>
> Order your free giffgaff SIM card through my page and get 5 pounds free
> credit http://t.co/z1KJF5y
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140725/09fc1f42/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:00 +0000
From: Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by
criminal groups
Message-ID: <1406317800.11045.9.camel@myrtle.6gnip.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 09:06 +0000, David Smith wrote:
> > The only way you could be in violation of the law is if you actually requested
> > something illegal from your node and downloaded it.
>
> I don't think that's the /only/ way. For example, if they could prove (or more
> accurately, convince a jury) that you knew that it was being used for illegal
> purposes, even if you weren't participating in those practices yourself, then
> you could probably be prosecuted for "conspiracy to..." or "aiding and abetting..."
Indeed, if they could prove that you knowingly assisted illegal
activities, then you could be prosecuted. The whole point, though, is
that you can't know that.
Your logic is the same as the following:
You know that computers can be compromised through malware and used by
criminal gangs for illegal purposes. You are running a computer right
now. Therefore, you can be prosecuted for "conspiracy to..." or "aiding
and abetting...".
Or, more abstract but closer to the situation with Freenet:
You know that criminals use Internet connections to commit crimes. You
provide Internet access through ADSL to the public. Therefore, you can
be prosecuted for "conspiracy to..." or "aiding and abetting...".
It doesn't work like that. Again, you can't be prosecuted for the
possibility that your computer or service offering is used for crime.
You can only be prosecuted for an actual crime that you have knowingly
participated in.
--
Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 2916 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140725/92ff6b0b/attachment-0001.pgp>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:03:08 +0100
From: Zak Wilcox <iwilcox@iwilcox.me.uk>
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: Re: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by
criminal groups
Message-ID: <53D2C60C.30202@iwilcox.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 25/07/14 20:50, Bob Ham wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 09:06 +0000, David Smith wrote:
>
>>> The only way you could be in violation of the law is if you
>>> actually requested something illegal from your node and
>>> downloaded it.
>>
>> I don't think that's the /only/ way. For example, if they could
>> prove (or more accurately, convince a jury) that you knew that it
>> was being used for illegal purposes, even if you weren't
>> participating in those practices yourself, then you could
>> probably be prosecuted for "conspiracy to..." or "aiding and
>> abetting..."
The William Weber case concluded only a few weeks back; not sure if
this is a decent write-up, but:
<http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/549645/tor_exit_node_operator_convicted_abetting_spread_child_porn/>
> It doesn't work like that. Again, you can't be prosecuted for the
> possibility that your computer or service offering is used for
> crime. You can only be prosecuted for an actual crime that you have
> knowingly participated in.
Now obviously Tor exit nodes don't have Freenet's complete blinding to
content, but that case would seem to suggest you can be prosecuted on
pretty insubstantial no-active-participation grounds, although it's
not clear to me upon superficial reading whether he still had higher
courts to turn to (he stopped owing to bankruptcy) nor whether the
Austrian law invoked there was compatible with EU law. It doesn't
make sense to me that "aware of the possibility" should matter at all
with any good-and-bad-uses technology. "did not appear to disapprove"
--- apparently the strongest evidence they could come up with even
with the freedom to selectively quote --- while troubling if true,
doesn't seem it should be of legal significance.
Someone on HN commented along the same lines as Alex:
> It should be underscored that unless you have access to unlimited
good, free legal help, you probably have no business running an exit
node...
which I'd broadly agree with; it'd be great if everyone did run exit
nodes so that legal questions were settled for good, but since we're
not there yet you need resources or a brazen inner Spartacus to do so.
Perhaps the ORG Bristol list would be a more appropriate venue for this.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 00:54:45 +0100
From: David Smith <David.Smith@ds-electronics.co.uk>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] R/C Waveforms for Status Power Plugs
Message-ID: <1406332485.10315.40.camel@ubuntu>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 17:45 +0100, Peter Hemmings wrote:
> On 25/07/14 16:14, David Smith wrote:
> >> -----Original Message----- From: bristol-bounces@mailman.lug.org.uk
> >> [mailto:bristol- bounces@mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Peter
> >> Hemmings Attached is a copy of the waveform (Audacity) which seems
> >> to me to have 25 pulses which I assume is wrong!
> >
> > No, the file you've attached seems to be a setup file which tells
> > audacity how to interpret the *actual* waveform files, which are
> > called "e0000ad3.au" and "e0000623.au".
>
> Oops!
>
> Attached is an MS (spit) wav file that most should be able to see - if
> they wish!
What you call a "reset pulse" I think is just "idle" - it's common in
data communication systems for '1' to be the idle value, and then the
signal is pulled low to start communicating. When you press the button,
the remote control will probably transmit the command continuously
whilst the button is depressed, not just once per press.
There is a pattern to the data, repeating every 4 bits. Each 4-bit
pattern is either 0001 or 0111; the first pattern probably indicates
'0', and the second pattern indicates '1' (or vice-versa)
This method of communication is called "Pulse Width Modulation" (PWM) -
the starts of the pulses (the falling edges at the start of each 4-bit
symbol) always occur at equal intervals, but the widths of the pulses
(the time until the rising edge) are different, and that's what encodes
the data.
There are 25 of these symbols per packet, which is the same as the
waveform on the website you quoted.
Measuring from the falling edge of the start bit of the first 4-bit
symbol to the falling edge at the start of the last 4-bit symbol, gives
1270 samples.
Your sample rate is 44100 samples/s, giving a sample period of 22.6 us
Therefore 1270 samples takes 28.80 ms
divide that by the number of bits (24 * 4 = 96) gives:
28.80 ms / 96 = 300 ms per bit
= 3.333 kbit/s
And your data pattern is:
IDLE---BABBAABABBBBBBAABBAAAAABB---IDLE
Where
A = 0001
B = 0111
IDLE = 1
HTH...
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:38:28 +0000
From: forus@bts-usa.com
To: "Bristol and Bath Linux User Group" <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by
criminal groups
Message-ID:
<1960833221-1406360373-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-751198068-@b27.c11.bise7.blackberry>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Hi,
Well, I am personally glad that you are having this conversation here, I find the topic interesting. Also, I've never heard of this "ORG Bristol" list, what's that?
Fernando
BlackBerry de movistar, all? donde est?s est? tu oficin@
-----Original Message-----
From: Zak Wilcox <iwilcox@iwilcox.me.uk>
Sender: bristol-bounces@mailman.lug.org.uk
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:03:08
To: <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Reply-To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal
groups
On 25/07/14 20:50, Bob Ham wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 09:06 +0000, David Smith wrote:
>
>>> The only way you could be in violation of the law is if you
>>> actually requested something illegal from your node and
>>> downloaded it.
>>
>> I don't think that's the /only/ way. For example, if they could
>> prove (or more accurately, convince a jury) that you knew that it
>> was being used for illegal purposes, even if you weren't
>> participating in those practices yourself, then you could
>> probably be prosecuted for "conspiracy to..." or "aiding and
>> abetting..."
The William Weber case concluded only a few weeks back; not sure if
this is a decent write-up, but:
<http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/549645/tor_exit_node_operator_convicted_abetting_spread_child_porn/>
> It doesn't work like that. Again, you can't be prosecuted for the
> possibility that your computer or service offering is used for
> crime. You can only be prosecuted for an actual crime that you have
> knowingly participated in.
Now obviously Tor exit nodes don't have Freenet's complete blinding to
content, but that case would seem to suggest you can be prosecuted on
pretty insubstantial no-active-participation grounds, although it's
not clear to me upon superficial reading whether he still had higher
courts to turn to (he stopped owing to bankruptcy) nor whether the
Austrian law invoked there was compatible with EU law. It doesn't
make sense to me that "aware of the possibility" should matter at all
with any good-and-bad-uses technology. "did not appear to disapprove"
--- apparently the strongest evidence they could come up with even
with the freedom to selectively quote --- while troubling if true,
doesn't seem it should be of legal significance.
Someone on HN commented along the same lines as Alex:
> It should be underscored that unless you have access to unlimited
good, free legal help, you probably have no business running an exit
node...
which I'd broadly agree with; it'd be great if everyone did run exit
nodes so that legal questions were settled for good, but since we're
not there yet you need resources or a brazen inner Spartacus to do so.
Perhaps the ORG Bristol list would be a more appropriate venue for this.
_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
End of Bristol Digest, Vol 560, Issue 6
***************************************
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar