Slashdot Mirror

Packet sizes and frequency, along with metadata. I saw a similar analysis of encrypted video streams being used to detect drone video:

https://www.wired.com/story/a-...

Looks like the next big thing in cryptography will be data padding...

Damores article essentially attempts to justify centuries old gender bias with "science." Most people in the scientific community, including myself, were reaching for the popcorn and fascinated to see just how deep he would go trying to prove a pretty tenuous point.
https://www.wired.com/story/th...
Damore makes a pretty sophomoric error several times, conflating gender and sex, but if that controversy isnt enough he starts flogging nature vs nurture. I myself being an evolutionary biologist nearly joked from laughter on my jiffy pop.

Im sure google would win this in court, however its cheaper and easier to settle out of court with the usual no-fault, no-deny and a litany of contractual boilerplate that keeps anyone from speaking of this ever again. Expect this guy to tour Fox news a few times and write a book in a few years, but the idea that he will ever face summary execution in front of a jury of actual scientists is unfortunately not going to happen.

Courts can order you to unlock your phone, which means that the FBI is talking about investigations, not prosecutions. I suppose it depends on the investigation; if the phone contains the location someone in North America of a nuclear device set to explode in the next hour, then it might be great if the device got unlocked. Google et al. just cooperate with law enforcement; Apple has opted not to give itself a back door so it does not have to deal with the drama. Public opinion might change after the mushroom cloud however.

Risk is the price of freedom, fucker.

Courts can order you to unlock your phone, which means that the FBI is talking about investigations, not prosecutions. I suppose it depends on the investigation; if the phone contains the location someone in North America of a nuclear device set to explode in the next hour, then it might be great if the device got unlocked. Google et al. just cooperate with law enforcement; Apple has opted not to give itself a back door so it does not have to deal with the drama. Public opinion might change after the mushroom cloud however.

... literally the whole problem is the result of government created monopolies where in a few companies are allowed to run cable and no one else is...

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...

A little competition and the entire argument becomes moot.

You're an idiot

Says the guy whose first links says, "It wasn't a screed or a rant". Nice job, social "justice" idiot, you linked to a source that directly contradicts your original statement.

did not understand the papers he was citing

Actually, he does. From your link: "That said, Damore's assertion that men and women think different is actually pretty uncontroversial"

The article just tries to downplay it. And, oh look, James is right again!

"In general, he notes, women prefer to work with people and men prefer to work with things--the implication being that Google is a more thing-oriented workplace, so it just makes sense that fewer women would want to work there. Again, the central assertion here is fairly uncontroversial."

Their basic counter-argument is to say that these are just averages, and that individuals vary within the population. Which is perfectly true, BUT YOU ARE LOOKING AT AVERAGES when you look at employee demographics.

Even further, something like a 10% biological difference can yield extreme differences on the tail end of distributions, and we know that Google hires the best, that is, from the tail end of distributions.

Funny how Google mandates discriminatory hiring practices without any science to back it up, and fires the guy who points out science that explains differences in representation.

You're right. It didn't go on quite long enough to be a manifesto. It was more of an uninformed rant.

You're a liar, because his "uninformed rant" was sourced.

You're an idiot, just like James Damore, who did not understand the papers he was citing, and therefore got the science wrong. You don't get any points for misusing science. The authors of some of the papers he cited felt strongly enough about it that they came out and said that he got it wrong, so we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is mis-citing papers. You are ignoring this to make your hero seem intelligent and correct, when he is neither.

Why is "You didn't read the memo" the refrain here? The MRA whining all relies on an assumption he was speaking the truth. (Hence the twitter handle Fired4Truth).

He wasn't speaking "truth." Reading the memo will only make you dumber, it's not a "red pill" that will open anyone's eyes to reality. He was misinterpreting a few scientific papers (the author of one of the studies he cites specifically said Damore gets it wrong), and stating his opinion.

His opinion being that google shouldn't recruit women because they might have on average less aptitude than men for some tasks. This is unarguably stupid: google doesn't hire average people. Women working at google have more aptitude than your average dude probably in most areas.

Damore was arguing FOR discriminating against women, and wildly over-interpreting a few science papers to do it.

The company is still run by white dudes like Damore at all levels.

Firing people who shout stupid ideas from the rooftop is not racism or discrimination.

Your boss hates people of your skin color? You can't do anything about it, you get fired. That's discrimination. There are laws against it because there's no way for the victims to get around it, society must protect them.

Your boss hates your ignorant views on gender? Simple solution there: KEEP IT TO YOUR OWN DUMB FUCKING SELF YOU FUCKING MORON. Laws do not need to protect you from that, you just need to either not be stupid or you need to at least take steps to not make it obvious, like blasting it to the whole company in a memo.

This is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.wired.com/story/ba...

Beats me but if the governed consent then what's it got to do with you unless you live there?

That logic would apply to North Koreans too, wouldn't it?

Without getting too dark, my worry is as follows: governments are in a position of immense power over both private residents and would-be businessmen wishing to operate in a town. Especially, when the particular line of business requires infrastructural work — such as laying cables or pipes. Indeed, they are the main reason for the dearth of choices of ISPs already.

An ambitious mayor seeking to expand his power — whether for the Greater Good[tm] or unjust personal enrichment — can easily sabotage all efforts by private enterprises (including the mighty Google!) until the governed give up and permit him to do it instead.

Think about it — a group of people in that town will now be laying the cables, buying the routers, and negotiating with the uplinks. Why do these people have to be government employees? And, as I ask in the subject, what else will the town's government seek to similarly nationalize — after making it impossible for those not connected to town hall to provide competing service?

It is to prevent even appearance of this corruption that various laws exist banning governments from offering commercial services — they have an inherent conflict of interest.

You and most of the rest of Slashdotters are blinded by your desire to stick it to Comcast. But you are cheering the creation of a worse monster... Comcast will survive this — but small guys like these will not.

• It's nice when everyone formats their stuff similarly. You can open a file from Joe Stranger and expect it to look a lot like something you've personally written. This reduces the cognitive overhead of coming up to speed with new code.
• Although it's generally not possible for Python formatting bugs to invisibly change the code's meaning, it's easy enough to be consistent.

https://www.wired.com/2014/10/...

Another software bug, aka not a malfunction according to you, was found in video poker machines. Player exploited it and was forced to pay back the casinos the jackpots and even legally got in trouble. If software bugs were not malfunctions why would he have been forced to repay the casinos and was even banned from gaming in Pennsylvania?

https://www.wired.com/story/ag...

Interesting and scary read.

It's pretty funny when in an article which quotes Obama as stating "One of the dangers of the internet is that people can have entirely different realities. They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases." so many people like you are posting to demonstrate the truth of your own cocooned reality.

You only think the BBC isn't biased because their news coverage happens to have a bias similar to your own bias.

Hint: If you're of the belief that only the articles which support the "other side" are ever biased, then that's a strong indication you're unable to recognize bias which you agree with.

http://www.wired.com/story/dig... that I read yesterdah in the hardcopy magazine.

Re "That's an interesting assertion."
Some nations have tested that.
i.e. who has a weak personality, who only gets a low security clearance, who could be unrealiable.
https://www.wired.com/2006/12/...

with big privacy and social implications: https://www.wired.com/story/ag...
"Cash, Liu could see, had been largely replaced by two smartphone apps: Alipay and WeChat Pay. "

What did Net Neutrality have to do with broadband competition?

https://www.wired.com/story/he...

More on what is going on in China: https://www.wired.com/story/ag...

that under China's new draconian social ranking system, he's likely a no one once he emerges from prison.

Inside China's Vast New Experiment in Social Ranking

Bruce Schneier: China and Russia Almost Definitely Have the Snowden Docs

For the next link, here is the banner greeting. Read it then read the view below.

Help support Little Green Footballs!

The unthinkable is now reality. Donald Trump is the President of the United States. And Little Green Footballs is a determined part of the resistance to his bigoted and destructive policies. But more than ever, we're going to need your help to continue providing quality independent journalism and commentary, friends — so please consider making a donation to the Little Green Footballs fund today.

Edward Snowden’s a Hero, All Right - to China and Russia

Sympathy meter now at absolute zero
By Charles Johnson
6/16/13 4:42:24 pm

Well now. I’m at a loss to understand how Edward Snowden’s latest disclosures could possibly have been inspired by his much-vaunted concerns about civil liberties, since he’s now revealing details about US espionage against Russia.

American spies based in the UK intercepted the top-secret communications of the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, during his visit to Britain for the G20 summit in London, leaked documents reveal.

The details of the intercept were set out in a briefing prepared by the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s biggest surveillance and eavesdropping organisation, and shared with high-ranking officials from Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

The document, leaked by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian, shows the agency believed it might have discovered “a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted”.

The most salient point: this is not news in any sense. You would have to be one of the most naïve people on Earth to not realize that the US spies on Russia, Russia spies on the US, and in general, heads of state from any freaking country spy on each other, friendly or not, all the time, forever and ever, amen.

But that doesn’t mean it’s insignificant when a US citizen reveals this kind of information to Russia, either. I had already lost any shred of sympathy for Mr. Snowden when he dumped secret documents to a pro-Beijing newspaper, but this demonstrates beyond a doubt that his sole purpose in leaking these secrets is to embarrass the US government.

It is entirely reasonable to have grave concerns about what Edward Snowden did. He not only released US documents, but had ones from Canada, UK, Australia, and probably many others too, including France, Germany, and Sweden.

I think this plays a part in why Snowden is so regarded:

Gangster, Al Capone Started One of the First Soup Kitchens During the Great Depression

Crime boss, gangster, and lawbreaker are the most common words used to describe Al Capone, one of the most notorious men of the 20th century. . . .

However, most people haven’t heard of the charitable support that Capone offered during a hard period for many Americans. In the 1930s, the Great Depression left a lot of citizens hungry and unemployed. Although he was a criminal to many, Capone was also respected community leader for a lot of people due to his charity. Some say that he did more for the citizens of Chicago, Illinois than the state itself did.

Al Capone’s Soup Kitchen . . . served over 120,000 meals to hungry people. The free soup kitchen kept regular working hours, serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner and fed thousands every day despi

iTunes sucks: A GIF guide to why Apple’s desktop music app must be fixed

Why does iTunes suck so incredibly much?

iTunes sucks, we all know it. What are my options for music player (nonstreaming) on the iPhone 6s?

Why I Hate iTunes: Syncing Sucks And So Does Selecting Music

Can iTunes suck anymore than it already does?

iTunes Really Is That Bad

Apple’s iTunes Is Alienating Its Most Music-Obsessed Users

Eleven Reasons Why iTunes Sucks

Why does Itunes SUCK SO MUCH ???

Again: no, people are not happy using iTunes. People use iTunes because Apple requires it for their expensive iDevices. They hate it, but they want to sync music to their iPhones.

You're saying that my assertion about video players is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy? That's a laugh. You just didn't want to dig your hole deeper by responding to what I said. Video players are not designed to deal with large music libraries, nor should they be. A sports car can be used to take lots of cleaning supplies between cleaning jobs, but a utility van will be far better suited to the task. Your choice of VLC to support this notion is especially hilarious. The VLC media library is like only using the Winamp playlist for your entire music collection.

Or perhaps you meant that foobar2000 is not the true Scotsman. In that case, you missed my arguments about the interface being poorly designed.

Now here's a real laugh for you regarding your sneering at Winamp market share. While I don't have stats from anywhere today, Lifehacker did a survey in 2013 to find out what the readers thought was the best desktop music player and in the end Winamp was the winner. So at least in 2013, 16 years after Winamp was released, it was still the preferred player for everyone that read Lifehacker at the time. Unfortunately, most articles seem to omit or only "honorably mention" Winamp based on it no longer being developed which at this point is really only a problem for people who want double size mode to look better or want to sync a modern iPod with Winamp (yes, Winamp used to sync iPods.)

I'm sure iTunes can play music back on garbage hardware while multitasking. Maintaining a 44.1 kHz 16-bit stereo audio stream while multitasking was easily done by Winamp in 1997 on an original Pentium, so why wouldn't it be possible to do the same thing today on a bargan-basement Celeron that's slow for browsing but still two orders of magnitude faster than an original Pentium? It's not hard to have a realtime-priority and heavily optimized thread that does nothing but decompress music file data and pass it to the sound system. Good luck switching between iTunes and other stuff in 2GB of RAM while trying to do some actual work.

One more thing was never addressed. You never elaborated on why "underlying frameworks" is some sort of selling point. Last I checked, no one went out looking for media players and said "I want one that has underlying frameworks."

From the onset, I wanted to like the idea of a non-governmental currency that had a cash-like anonymity, even though a lot of informed folks likened it to a Ponzi scheme.

Beginning with the Mt. Gox debacle though, this now rather routine loss of millions by an exchange is where I lost faith in the Bitcoin as an investment option and an alternative to government issued fiat currency.

This is why we can't have nice things

I think you mean, "inconceivable!"

Ajit Pai keeps claiming that this just restores things to the way they were in 2015 before the Open Internet Order of 2015. While that is technically true, it was only prior to 2005 and between 2014-2015 that net neutrality wasn't in place. The statements by Ajit Pai, Ted Cruz, and others that the Internet did fine without regulation is not true.

The FCC first established some net neutrality concepts in 2005 as an "Internet Policy Statement": Net neutrality was not needed before then because ISPs did not start the bad behavior until 2004-2005, for example, Madison River Communications blocking competing VoIP services. The FCC didn't establish regulations until they were needed.

The 2005 "Internet Policy Statement" was pretty basic:
"(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

The FCC then expanded those concepts into the "Open Internet Order of 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Unfortunately, on January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court ruled in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission that the FCC had no authority to enforce the Open Internet Order on service providers unless they were identified as "common carriers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

To still be able to regulate ISPs after this court decision, the FCC established the new "Open Internet Order of 2015" that classified ISPs as common carriers:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

Broadband investment being down since 2015 is another Ajit Pai flat out lie. Investment was actually at its lowest between 2014 and 2015 when there was no net neutrality rules.

"In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would 'deploy more fiber' in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.
In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on 'the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.'
That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, 'Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.'"

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
https://www.wired.com/story/th...

Because it was the FCC's job, which the FCC just chose to stop doing.

Except for the fact that congress told the FCC not to do it, you're right. From this: "Back in the 1990s, key Democratic senators insisted Congress never intended Title II for broadband." So the people who wrote the laws said that Title II wasn't supposed to be applied to broadband.

That's why having the FCC decide to do it that way is the wrong way to do it. Congress needs to pass an explicit law. Not just a law telling the FCC to go back to the way they weren't supposed to be doing it, a law that does it the right way. Schumer is wasting everyone's time playing political football instead of trying to actually solve a problem.

Reading this reminded me of Stalin ordered that the Soviet Union never published accurate maps of the country for fear of spying/invasion/bombing. This went on until the USSR's break up.

Not surprisingly, Stalin ordered the creation of very detailed maps of the rest of the world to aid in spying/invasion/bombing: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/...

I got to play with a Plato terminal on a college campus around 1979 or so, it was really cool. Way beyond anything the standard campus terminals could do.

Years later I stumbled across this article:
https://www.wired.com/1997/03/platofest-to-celebrate-first-online-community/

I didn't recall the name Brian Dear, but he was interviewed:

“I was given a tour of the Chemistry Learning Center today, to a room where there had been PLATO terminals,” Dear continues. “The cable for the terminals was literally hanging from the wall, the terminals have been replaced by IBM PCs, and the students were using the Web. With PLATO, if you asked a question, you got an answer back in less than a second. If you ask a question on the Web, it can take as long as 15 or 20 seconds to get your answer, while the Net clunks away. The students were falling asleep. I asked myself, ‘Is this progress?’”

Yet, I cannot help thinking about the wired article about power outages in Ukraine.

could be even bigger than the email investigation the FBI covered up for Hillary (which we also know for certain now thanks to the FBI agents' leaked texts).

The text of the text you're talking about:

“So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced, you were just venting you feel bad that you’re gone so much but it can’t be helped right now.”

This is between two FBI agents who were having an affair with each other.

The white house staff meanwhile is using untraceable communications.

If you know anything "for certain" from the texts you're referring to, then you had already crawled so far up the right-wing's ass that you knew for certain Hillary was evil incarnate 30 years ago. For the rest of us, this would be funny were there no so many of you fucking lunatics running around, trying to destroy America.

And, as always, no matter how certain you are that Hillary was so conniving she was controlling the FBI (yet somehow was too incompetent to win an election she got more votes in)... she's not the president. She's not in any power. Hillary being literally hitler and the mother of satan wouldn't have any relevance to discussions of whether Trump is going to be indicted.

Which, in fairness, I don't believe he will.

So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).

You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

And...

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.

Also, links for everything you just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...

Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like

So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).

You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

And...

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.

Also, links for everything you just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...

Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like

We had court rulings that permitted ISPs to block BitTorrent (see the results of Comcast v. FCC)

Of course, Comcast had already stopped blocking BitTorrent about two years before that ruling, due at least in part to a class-action lawsuit filed in the same general timeframe as the FCC investigation. And who knows what the FTC would have done had Comcast not folded.

It would be awesome if people would open their eyes a bit to the overall system of checks and balances we have in this country and not just declare the only two options to be a state-controlled Internet or the wild wild west.

It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

Wow! That's amazing. The title at that link: Equifax hired a music major as chief security officer and she has just retired.

Equifax Faces Mounting Costs and Investigations From Breach.

The Equifax Breach Was Entirely Preventable

But still, the Intel and Microsoft spyware seems more destructive.

Where were you a year ago?

A year ago Vint and friends were pissing away whatever political capital they might have had signing hysterical anti-Trump open letters.

"They" never asked for government's protection of the monopoly.

Sure man, and this book was never written.

Your beloved FDR forced it upon "them".

With what, a time machine, to go back in time and force AT&T's monopoly into existence? Anti-trust action against AT&T began while FDR was still Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

Sorry man, some of us have access to more history than your preferred narrative. We don't all get textbooks from the DOC.

Unfortunately, that process is slow and remains reversible — thanks to government.

It's not my local government's fault that AT&T stopped them from building high speed internet. No wait, it's not. At least blame STATE and FEDERAL government, not local.

Sorry mi, as usual, your moronic argumentation is falsehood-ridden, and easily exposed as a fraud. I guess the only thing I can say is...thank you for being a troll.

"they" actively sue everyone who tries to start a new ISP

Right. And you want to give them more laws and regulations, with which to sue any such challenger into oblivion? Wake up, you can't fix a problem created by government with more government.

If they get to keep their government-protected monopoly

"They" never asked for government's protection of the monopoly. Your beloved FDR forced it upon "them". We've been paying for that evil Statist's misgovernment for decades.

Fortunately, the communication monopolies are shattering somewhat. Unfortunately, that process is slow and remains reversible — thanks to government.

the government gets to attach strings

Does it? Well, then it also gets to detach them. Suck it up, cupcake. Live by the government, die by the government, so to speak.

But, hey, thank you for admitting, that in your opinion the FCC is there to help protect the big business monopolies — you don't seem to mind it at all.

like enforcing basic fairness

Bullshit. There is no fairness in "Net Neutrality" — it is not about that in the least.

Another idiot that doesn't understand the difference between De Jura and De Facto...

Can a king order the tide to come in? Yes... will it? No.

De Jura... the tide has been ordered to come in.
De Facto... I won't.

Why is this hard for you to understand?
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...

If you want to win on the internet, try to instead challenge someone dumber than you. As you don't understand the relevance of De Jura / De Facto... Consider Facebook, it is full of drooling nitwits.

The research you are thinking of probably doesn't say what you think it says.

The ultimate proof is that in countries that addressed these issues, like Iceland and Norway, the gap went away. All the supposedly biological stuff about girls liking pink dolls and boys liking cars fell away too, especially in maths and engineering. Boys in those countries tend to be better communicators too.

As you say, it's not a conspiracy, it's just unintentional systemic bias.

I have wondered from the first time I read about these embassy attacks if someone was playing with a device that utilizes the "microwave auditory effect" that this wired article was discussing in 2008.

Perhaps they were attempting to project voices into their heads and had some sort of tuning issue that caused it to have a range of other effects.

They have. Facebook too.

Those games have a hell of a lot more complexity too, so it's no wonder it's a hard problem to solve. Resource management, army counter/order management, base creation, etc...

You're right. "the first skirmish in what is apparently an ongoing war." wasn't Google pulling YouTube of the Echo Show show as claimed in the article. The "first skirmish" goes to Amazon for pulling the Chromecast out of its store!

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/...

At $1100, I just don't care. Its about $500 more than I've ever paid for any phone that I've ever owned, including my Galaxy S8, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything more or better. Actually if anything it seems worse in several areas. https://www.wired.com/story/ha...
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/p...

The TSA allowed a reporter to photograph the master keys for those stupid TSA locks.

https://www.wired.com/2015/09/...

With the result that now anyone anywhere in the world can open your luggage, take stuff out and reseal it.

Bitcoin Releases Version 0.3
Posted by kdawson on Sunday July 11, 2010 @09:09PM from the nobody-to-prosecute dept.
Teppy writes
"How's this for a disruptive technology? Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer, network-based digital currency with no central bank, and no transaction fees. Using a proof-of-work concept, nodes burn CPU cycles searching for bundles of coins, broadcasting their findings to the network. Analysis of energy usage indicates that the market value of Bitcoins is already above the value of the energy needed to generate them, indicating healthy demand. The community is hopeful the currency will remain outside the reach of any government."
Here are the FAQ, a paper describing Bitcoin in more technical detail (PDF), and the Wikipedia article. Note: a commercial service called BitCoin Ltd., in pre-alpha at bitcoin.com, bears no relation to the open source digital currency.

WikiLeaks, Money, and Ron Paul
Posted by Soulskill on Sunday December 12, 2010 @01:16PM from the headlines-that-will-make-some-people-mad dept.
Another day, another dozen WikiLeaks stories, several of which revolve around money. PayPal has given in to pressure to release WikiLeaks funds, though they still won't do further transactions. Mobile payment firm Xipwire is attempting to take PayPal's place. "We do think people should be able to make their own decisions as to who they donate to." PCWorld wonders if the WikiLeaks' money woes could lead to great adoption of Bitcoin, the peer-to-peer currency system we've discussed in the past. Meanwhile, Representative Ron Paul spoke in defense of WikiLeaks on the House floor Thursday, asking a number of questions, including, "Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?" The current uproar over WikiLeaks has prompted Paul Vixie to call for an end to the DDoS attacks and Vladimir Putin to break out a metaphor involving cows and hockey pucks.

Online-Only Currency BitCoin Reaches Dollar Parity
Posted by timothy on Thursday February 10, 2011 @06:59PM from the computationally-intensive dept.
IamTheRealMike writes
"The BitCoin peer to peer currency briefly reached exchange parity with the US dollar today after a spike in demand for the coins pushed prices slightly above 1 USD:1 BTC. BitCoin was launched in early 2009, so in only two years this open source currency has gone from having no value at all to one with not only an open market of competing exchanges, but the ability to buy r

While it is certainly good to have figured out the technology involved in electric engines, it will require a revolutionary new battery technology that has vastly better energy density than what we have now to make this practical.

Planes are extremely weight-sensitive. If a stewardess accidentally loses a sugar packet in a crevice somewhere, it ends up making the plane burn something like an extra half pound of fuel each year. Batteries suffer a double-whammy because the weight of fuel decreases as you burn it off. But you have to carry the full weight of batteries the entire trip, whether or not they're holding any charge.

I suspect the intent here is to carry just enough batteries to power the plane through the (low power) descent phase of a flight. That's when the engines are currently operating at their lowest efficiency. Apparently there's enough engine inefficiency at this stage to warrant seriously considering carrying around the extra weight of batteries and electric motors. (Yes idling on the taxiway would burn more fuel per distance traveled since you aren't moving. But it doesn't really cost much fuel since no thrust is required.)

Here: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...

I'm just wondering why a story about internet has a photo of electrical linemen on a high tension tower.......

Ignorant. Google is literally being prevented pole access.

Google.

The notion that setting up an ISP is beyond the means of smaller companies is proved wrong all the time as well as smaller ISPs operate just fine until they're ordered to close by court order.

Here:
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...

I suspect you lack the integrity to admit you were wrong, I am not an idiot, and you were until I corrected you an unwitting ignorant dupe... but his post should make it clear what you are...