Conroy - Public Enemy #1 - Re: Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: markp on 4 Apr 2010 17:22 "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote in message news:hpav0t$o2e$02$1(a)news.t-online.com... > > "markp" <map.nospam(a)f2s.com> wrote in message > news:81sa6mFnn7U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:pan.2010.04.03.17.41.20.820536(a)invalid.invalid... >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:05:18 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> Once a scope is in my posession, converting it to 100 MHz does Rigol no >>>> economic harm. Dave's posting detailed hacking directions to the world >>>> does them real harm, and they may have legal recourse. >>> >>> That's the crux of the issue. >>> >> >> But what they get if they modify it is *not* the same as the 100MHz >> 'scope that they could buy. At best it is something that may be OK, >> without any guarantees. > > At best ? You don't seem to have been following this thread... > It is bleedingly obvious that it was IDENTICAL from the > simplicity of the hack that has been explained in detail, and the > fact that Rigol THEMSELVES have conceded it is only firmware. > And if there are any warranty problems, you can always revert to the > original setup data anyway. Nobody at Rigol will ever know! Really? How do you know the firmware doesn't keep a count of the number of times this has been done, or log the fact that someone hasn't 'logged in' with an unknown passphrase and keep a record of serial commands sent when no such login passphrase has been sent? Either way Rigol could check whether it has been modified. These are unknowns. As for Rogol themselves conceeding this, the only evidence we have is hearsay without a formal announcement from Rigol. I'm not going to bet that this is actually bleedinly obvious. <snip - rest is snipped due to profanity> Mark.
From: David Segall on 6 Apr 2010 09:17 "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to >products you buy on the shelf. >The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect >anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can. I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the censors delays its release by days or even weeks. > >> Personally, I am against any censorship, I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV?
From: fritz on 6 Apr 2010 09:28 "David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com... > "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to >>products you buy on the shelf. >>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect >>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can. > > I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter > is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a > few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the > censors delays its release by days or even weeks. The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of faceless and unaccountable people. >> >>> Personally, I am against any censorship, > > I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or > bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? A totally stupid analogy, grow up.
From: Andrew on 6 Apr 2010 11:01 "David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com... > "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to >>products you buy on the shelf. >>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect >>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can. > > I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter > is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a > few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the > censors delays its release by days or even weeks. >> >>> Personally, I am against any censorship, > > I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or > bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? There is no such thing as "free TV". Someone has to paid to the TV station to operate. This someone would not get paid by advertisement if such things will be shown. -- Andrew
From: Hammy on 6 Apr 2010 11:20
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:17:40 GMT, David Segall <david(a)address.invalid> wrote: > >I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or >bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? Something that some people have a hard time grasping is this thing called an off button if you push it you don't have to watch things that conflict with your morals/beliefs. Another novel suggestion is how about you watch your own kids instead of expecting the TV to babysit them. As long as what they are doing on the TV isn't illegal what's the problem. In the case of bestiality it's illegal so they wouldn't be on air to long before the cops broke down the door. So it is an asinine analogy. |