Slashdot Mirror
California Senate Defies FCC, Approves Net Neutrality Law (arstechnica.com)
The California State Senate yesterday approved a bill to impose net neutrality restrictions on Internet service providers, challenging the Federal Communications Commission attempt to preempt such rules. From a report: The FCC's repeal of its own net neutrality rules included a provision to preempt state and municipal governments from enforcing similar rules at the local level. But the governors of Montana and New York have signed executive orders to enforce net neutrality and several states are considering net neutrality legislation.
The FCC is already being sued by t21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.
The FCC is already being sued by t21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.
If we let them get away with this, soon we'll be seeing Schedule 1 narcotics sold in corner shops!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
when my toddler acts up he gets a good spanking.
See subject: Your MASSIVE FAIL in this life is you're nothing more than a chattering little do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" online & you know it...
* Is that the best your "phantasyland FAKE NAME" (for your fake lie of a so-called 'life') can manage?
APK
P.S.=> When a FAKE NAME do nothing like YOU does better than I have? Then talk (you're all talk & no action)... apk
Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?
What argument is there, that would support allowing the States to impose addition restrictions on communication-providers, that would not also apply to allowing same to homeowner associations? And vice versa?
Personally, I don't think, FCC should have any power over the HA's either — but many people don't agree. These people should support FCC's primate over States too, or else their view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically and objectively wrong...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
When Republicans talk about "States rights", they really mean the right of states to pass laws that discriminate against people. They do not mean the right for states to establish their own drug laws nor for states to adopt laws like net neutrality.
See, Republicans only complain about the big bad federal government when they pass laws they don't like. In other words, Republicans want to be bigots, and want to pass laws to support their bigotry, and cry "states rights" only to support their hateful agenda.
Which states will take the challenge of all three?
The bill would prohibit home and mobile Internet providers from "Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices," except in cases of reasonable network management..
Shouldn't be too difficult to wiggle through that, but why should we ever let the authorities or anybody else decide what we can put up on the internet? As long as the signal doesn't exceed 1 to 5 volts, nobody has any right to interfere.
Just take away the ISPs' routers and replace them with switches. Let's demand our goddamn dumb pipes! Don't believe the lies that it can't be done.
A byzantine set of fifty different laws hurts competition and helps the big guys that have lawyers on staff.
It looks like California's law attempts to regulate the businesses directly.
The versions in New York and Montana are different, they deal with the state's business agreements. That is, if the company doesn't stand by the same net neutrality rules the state will stop the business.
Montana certainly isn't a big state for funding and they said they've got about $50M in contracts. Losing that much business wouldn't directly hurt AT&T or similar companies, but awarding a $50M contract plus rollout costs across the state to a smaller company -- probably an in-state company -- would create a strong competitor to the existing duopoly. As the small companies tend to be more friendly with leased line provisions the large telecos know they'd quickly lose business to a large percentage of the state.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Hmm, I wonder what state had no problem with AT&T's Room 641A...
Conversely Democrats hate states experimenting with policies and love gigantic command and control from Washington.
They are all soulless bastards applyng situational ethics, where you tout a principle as long as, and only as long as, it supports your position.
The FCC rule at least has a mild leg to stand on regarding regulation of interstate trade, where the feds are explicitely granted the power to stop states from interfering with such trade.
On the flip side, it is wrong for the government to stretch a 1970s law out of all proportion to extend regulatory control, for a massive arena not envisioned by the lawmakers back then. This is a power grab by the executive branch.
Of course, nobody cares about power grabs when it is a grab for power one likes, like net neutrality, but hate it when it is for what one doesn't like, like net neutrality.
Or vice-versa.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And here Cali goes off the deep end.
Enacting local measures in direct opposition of federal law for no other reason than "We hate Trump and everything he does."
If the Trump administration passed a law definining the color black, they'd pass local legislation to classify it as white, on account of "black" being a term that's ALMOST as racist as Trump is!
Full on fucking Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The federal government makes laws so states can't trample your rights. I might not like what califorina passed and will sue the state because they overstepped there authority. This will be easily smacked down in court.
So now we've got Net Neutrality, abundant cheap produce, legal weed, blondes in short-shorts, and surfing. It's 75 degrees and sunny on the 30th of January and I'm about to ride my bike down to the beach.
Suck it, red state losers. You can keep your meth, guns and fat girls. If this is socialism, I'm in for two.
https://youtu.be/R_q6aRwoV3M
You are welcome on my lawn.
Of course, nobody cares about power grabs when it is a grab for power one likes, like net neutrality, but hate it when it is for what one doesn't like, like net neutrality.
The Rest Of Us make up our minds based on the issue at hand not a party affiliation.
You ought to try it, comrade.
many companies do this: form a subsidiary or LLC which only bids on government contracts and obeys the paperwork rules.
Who's the most hated man in America right now?
1. Pai
2. Shkreli
3. Trump
I'd like to see approval ratings data for all of them.
Before long you'll be advocating for things like "States' Rights" and "Limited Federal Government". Are you prepared to come over to that side?
You can take that false equivalency and shove it up your candy ass.
Contrary to popular myth, the "states rights" tradition goes back to Thomas Jefferson, the ratifying conventions of the Constitution, and the Virginia / Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc
At the same time, I agree with you that many partisan hacks on the right will have a problem with this, just as many partisan hacks on the left have a problem with his sort of thing when they are in power. The system itself is the problem.
It is not a left-right issue to think that 535 people, most of whom are no more intelligent than the average American, should rule over 300 million people from a single city located along the banks of a literal swamp called the Potomac River. Sensible people on the left and right should support efforts to decentralize power and bring it back to the community as much as possible.
An interesting youtuber on the topic.
The financial statements showing the debt, assets, and cash flows of the State of California clearly point to only one possible conclusion: inevitable catastrophic default.
The wealthy are fleeing California in record numbers. Meanwhile, the debt continues to rise, and the public pension system is mathematically unsustainable.
Granted, the U.S. government's financial position is vastly worse, but that still doesn't exactly bode well for the Golden State.
So your solution for a gang of criminals attacking your rights is to defer to a bigger, more heavily armed gang of criminals? Who then protects you from the larger gang?
I'm given to understand there's a lot of good ol' boys in the South with surplus flags. Seems some don't take too kindly to what they may or may not mean. They could ship them there flags to the California state legislatures, and perhaps even swap flags. Of course some would still get all rustled over how states rights for one cause don't equal state's rights for another. Smoking dope and letting invaders overrun doesn't equal slavery; but the point stands. They always told us the South would rise again. They just didn't say how far south.
[><]
|
|
Yeah its called the constitution.
Other ways California rolls:
* Hypodermic needles and hobo feces lining the streets of San Francisco
* A massive Hepatitis outbreak in San Diego
* Inevitable bankruptcy due to the inability of the state legislature to use a calculator's basic functions
I know plenty of republicans and even actual conservatives, who are for net neutrality...Yes, Ajit isn't one of them, at least in public. But then he's not an elected politician either - he's a paid lobbyist ...um...temporarily serving as a regulator. Like in all agencies - totally corrupt, and who's in there now has little to do with any one election. We call it "regulatory capture" and "revolving door regulation".
Of the two parties - and you should check what practically limits it to two - special laws etc - do you really think either is above this crap? The approval ratings of officials are well below what any party gets in elections, should give you a clue.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
OH wait, the GOP only likes that when it means extracting natural resources.... ok, gotcha.
Back when Reefer Madness was put together, common metronomes were mechanical.
So it was difficult to provide a reasonable jazz time signature. Consequently, they had to jail all the non-white people.
Otherwise your daughters might not have marched up to the altar in 4/4 time, y'see?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I mean, here they are exercising their state's rights in a manner to foster an environment that helps consumers hopes to keep markets more competitive.
Oh wait, I forget. The GOP aren't actually conservative.
Eventually, the bogeyman of Hillary, Obama or that random social justice warrior on Twitter you think represents literally every liberal are going to fail as talking points. Maybe not for places like Oklahoma or other ever-red areas, but many people lie much closer to the center than Ayn Rand or Bernie Sanders.
I'll be voting D from this point out. The illusion that "both parties are the same" has been shown to be completely false as the GOP continues to push policies that basically no one favors, including their own constituents.
That's good. Leased wars are always returned in such bad shape; the next user in line always ends up with the short end of the stick. We really should buy all our wars cash on the barrelhead.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Isn't the purpose of belonging to a political party to let someone else do the thinking for you?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
It's almost as if people support over-reaching regulation when it benefits them, and not when it doesn't. Weird huh?
Well, you wouldn't want your armature wound improperly, would you?
I suppose armatures are regulated by FCC field offices.
I'll just motor off, now...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Excuse the "ne'er-do-well" impersonating me here giving you guff https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11679505&cid=56035073/ he's upset I blew him away here https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11675199&cid=56033917/ in that link that leads to TONS OF OTHER PLACES I easily dust his no-mind bullshit blatherings in!
* He can't help he's an immature little BUTTHURT no-mind, lol!
APK
P.S.=> The TRUE PRICE of their UNIDENTIFIABLE do-nothing selves that I can ALWAYS CASH IN ON (lol) is that I can use FACT/TRUTH on them to SHATTER their all TOO fragile delusional egos that they actually know A DAMN THING in computing, lol... apk
I'm not sure if i'm happy about it or not so happy about it. Always fun when the neighborhood bully falls on his ass.
If that were true then people wouldn't be screaming about how the Republicans are evil for repealing Net Neutrality. The proposal put forth by the Obama FCC was atrocious. It was quite possibly the worst solution to a problem that had little occurrence. Repealing the Obama FCC's Net Neutrality law is a Good Thing(tm) if you care at all about innovation and lack of government control/regulation over the internet, yet people here yell and scream how how the Republicans are.
Just because your opinion is with the majority on a sight doesn't mean you don't make you decisions based upon party affiliation. It's clear most people advocating for the FCC Net Neutrality rules have no idea what they say or what they will mean.
There are six states that passed or are looking to pass Net Neutrality legislation, this is actually a pretty good start considering how early they are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/technology/net-neutrality-states.html
I thought one of the things the ISPs really liked about Net Neutrality was that, classified as Title II, they were not responsible for the content that went across the wire. Now that Net Neutrality is dead, do they lose Title II Classification, and does that mean they are now liable when Uncle Fred downloads kiddie porn?
Did they forget that was the good part for them about Net Neutrality?
Sorry retard Alexander Peter Kowalski that isn't me impersonating you but please continue acting like the retard you are.
However thanks for pointing out to everyone that you are a retard that can't actually make an argument.
Didn't I tell you to stop linking to your own posts as they only make you look ever more the fool.
I have told you many times before I am the guy who calls you a retard and points out why you are a retard, no more, no less.
Too bad you are too dumb to realize that a program doesn't have to store 6x10^98 host names to use 6x10^98 ones but you do need to get them all in a hosts file.
This is why I point out your failings as you aren't smart enough to realize you lost long ago and find it fun to watch you make an absolute ass of yourself.
Believe what you want about my credentials but you do depend on my work and experience even if you don't know it and thankfully when people actually do ask me to prove the security of my things I can point to actual mathematical proof unlike you.
Thankfully I don't depend on yours.
If that were true then people wouldn't be screaming about how the Republicans are evil for repealing Net Neutrality
I think people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
The proposal put forth by the Obama FCC was atrocious.
First time I've heard that. Out here in the real world you have to qualify your comments. Disregarded.
It's clear most people advocating for the FCC Net Neutrality rules have no idea what they say or what they will mean.
I'm just glad we have smart people like you to lead us dumb people and tell us what to do.
As always, I'm sure California's legislative agenda will have exactly the desired effect. There's no WAY any of this could even HOPE to backfire! Let's go spark up the cigars California just solved the Internet. These guys are smart. They know what they're doing. I'm sure they thought through every aspect of this bill before they passed it.
Seeing as I actually own business interests in California in the agricultural sector, yes, I'd say I do know that, and probably quite a bit better than you. It doesn't change MATH.
You are a member of what Nassim Taleb has dubbed the Intellectual-Yet-Idiot class:
https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577
Really? A piece of paper is going to protect you from the largest empire in world history? Do you just wave it at them, or do you have to say a magical incantation first? How has the Constitution worked out in limiting the size and scope of government and protecting your rights in the old USSA?
To make me look good (& yourself an ass you project you are). REALITY vs. your 'fantasy' https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11532533&cid=55833641/ & dumbass?
For a program to use that many it has to store them in RAM (from up off disk & you yourself SAID it can't be done). LOL! You're SO FUCKING DUMB you don't realize you have to MAINTAIN STATE somewhere shitbrain (lol).
You also don't seem to realize that REALITY above, from me, WORKED vs. the issue @ hand (botnets) - not your 'phantasyland delusional' bs.!
Then your "YEARS OF SECURITYGURUHOOD" & "you write REAL securityware" (where is it then shitbrain? It's not, you delusional LIAR with no proof)? SHOT TO HELL by yours truly on several accounts here https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11606243&cid=55924893/ ESPECIALLY ON NoScript & App WHITELISTING (you dumbfuck, that one especially shows you know SHIT, lol).
If you're a security guru & we depend on YOUR bullshit? We're in DEEP SHIT!
APK
P.S.=> Still suffering your DELUSIONAL 'phantasies' YOU are a SECURITY GURU who write REAL SECURITYWARE?
OK - Prove it then - you sure didn't in those link & points above, lol... apk
Nazis: "We were just enforcing the law."
Usually they're defying reality. At least in this case there is an arguable public benefit.
Now let's talk about a $1000 fine and 6 months in jail for giving someone a straw...
It sounds like you two guys have found some common ground. Can you agree that you're going to start voting against Democrats and Republicans (as well as doing anything else you can, to undermine this party), instead of continuing to vote for (ans otherwise support) them?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The purpose is to try to exert some minor political influence (all most of us can hope for). I have my own political views, and the Democrats are almost always closer to those than the Republicans, particularly in the last couple of decades. I don't know of a better way to spend a little work and a little money trying to change how the country is run.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The fact that NN was regulated for quite a few years (many of those years illegally), and then dumped by the Trump administration, suggests that political parties have different views on NN. On this issue, at least, the Obama administration did the right thing and the Trump administration didn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't know how you can depict this as "defying the US Senate", this is clearly a state matter, just like requiring clean air (as CA OR WA NY etc do), clean water (same), legal MJ (same), and other state matters.
It only becomes federal if it reaches outside the boundaries. You just can't operate an ISP in the state if you don't have Net Neutrality for all of your business. That's all.
Turnabout is fair play.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Another level of state bureaucracy to protect existing monopoly telcos and their paper insulated wireline NN networks with more rules.
Want to start an innovative new network? State bureaucrats will have to go over the design and see if any new networks can pass their understanding of party political NN rules.
Existing NN monopoly networks get a free pass.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The clean green state with no water, importing its power from dirty coal stations out of state, magnet to the homeless and/or stoners. Where laws are merely suggestions, taxes are high, property is unaffordable. A veritable utopia...
The Constitution lists which things the federal government can do. It then says that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. It actually says that last part THREE TIMES, just to be certain nobody can miss it.
It then says that on these listed subjects that the federal government is allowed to legislate, federal law is the supreme law of the land, anything in state law notwithstanding:
--
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
--
Either regulating nationwide ISPs regarding NN is NOT an enumerated power, in which case the FCC has no authority at all and can't do anything, or the feds have the power and the states do not. The Constitution does not allow for dueling laws, with some states having valid laws that contradict federal law.
It is claimed that the federal government has the power under the Interstate Commerce Clause:
--
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
--
The federal rules apply companies *selling interstate* ISP services, so it sounds a lot like "commerce ... among the several states". The wording of thay clause *is* broad, but obviously it's intended to cover a limited number of things, so perhaps whenever something is questionable it should be interpreted fairly strictly.
Moving along, the very first sentence of Article 1 says that all law-making authority is vested in Congress, who cannot delegate it to any other branch of government. Later it says the job of the Executive branch is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". So executive branch entities such as the FCC must enforce the laws that Congress passes.
The question therefore is if Congress did in fact pass such a law and direct the FCC to enforce it. It is claimed that Congress did so with the Communications Act of 1934. Just by the title of the act alone, we can see it's going to be questionable whether, in 1934, Congress could have made any kind of law about the internet. In fact Congress made a law about the phone company (the ONE interstate phone company).
It seems likely that the feds CAN regulate ISPs in this way, subject to first amendment and other rights, and then states could not trample on federal law. It also seems rather likely that Congress has not yet passed a bill requiring ISPs to implement Network Neutrality ideas, and without such a law the FCC has nothing to enforce.
When we did that in 2016 you all threw a giant shitfit about it. You don't really think that people voted for Trump just because there was an R next to his name... do you?
that was the ideal size for government. To me that always sounded like "Small enough that our mega corps can bully it into submission".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When Republicans mention states rights, they're really using a dog whistle that says they support states' rights to implement racist policies.
that ignored millions of pro NN comments while promoting millions of obviously fake anti-NN comments. They can absolutely have it both ways. It's one of the advantages of being utterly, totally without principle. Question is, what are you gonna do about it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
got you all to do exactly what was wanted by telling you not to do it.
oh yeah sure you won. go you. you're so smart. :)
California, please secede. You don't want to be a part of the U.S.A. and we are sick of you. Good riddance.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
I think you have it completely wrong. As the Register said, the talking points game from the green party - eg the party of money. Wheeler got the same ones. He turned on his masters. If you're going to be partisan at least understand that the R's and D's are both the big money party. And the states are fighting back, and hopefully they win. This is really the citizens against the parasites, and making it R vs D makes it easier for the parasites to win. Please understand that even if you sum the R's half truths and the D's - you're still way short of the truth - light years short.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
When we did that in 2016 you all threw a giant shitfit about it. You don't really think that people voted for Trump just because there was an R next to his name... do you?
Thanks for making my point. You can't even imagine a world where a pro-NN person would not be a bleeding heart liberal ("you all", lol).
Either that or your just a troll. Anyway, you're irrelevant to us normal folk either way.
I read that as "defiles."
Wishful/hopeful thinking.
But can you even defile a shitstain like Ajit Pai?
--
BMO
BizX, owned and run by a bunch of foreigners, needs to be exposed for this Slashdot Propaganda Machine.
Always pro-government control of the Internet and pro-Deep State.
Every "story."
And Miss Mash is just a bot.
To make me look good (& yourself an ass you project you are). REALITY vs. your 'fantasy' https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11532533&cid=55833641/ & dumbass?
For a program to use that many it has to store them in RAM (from up off disk & you yourself SAID it can't be done). LOL! You're SO FUCKING DUMB you don't realize you have to MAINTAIN STATE somewhere shitbrain (lol).
You also don't seem to realize that REALITY above, from me, WORKED vs. the issue @ hand (botnets) - not your 'phantasyland delusional' bs.!
Then your "YEARS OF SECURITYGURUHOOD" & "you write REAL securityware" (where is it then shitbrain? It's not, you delusional LIAR with no proof)?
SHOT TO HELL by yours truly & REALITY on several accounts here https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11606243&cid=55924893/
ESPECIALLY ON NoScript & App WHITELISTING (you dumbfuck, that one especially shows you know SHIT, lol).
If you're a security guru & we depend on YOUR bullshit? We're in DEEP SHIT! Especially vs. your 'mEthamatical' (intended misspell) "phantasies" vs. REALITY I use.
Lastly: CLASSIC & HILARIOUS - truth got to you I see, seeing how you had to TRY 'downmod hide' it, lmao - ineffectual & EFFETE (like you) vs. me! I won't allow it buttboy!
(Being YOUR SUPERIOR? It's just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'", lol)
The FACT you have to HIDE under UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts (your kind 'the INFERIOR ones' do that, hahaha) AND also lie about yourself? Priceless - & shows I am VERY EFFECTIVE @ what I do too!
Keep blowin' those 'downmodpoints' - I'll run you dry of 'em & like Doritos (regarding my ability to post unlimitedly)? I'll just repost & make more FURTHER BLOWING YOUR DUMBASS AWAY, lol!
APK
P.S.=> Still suffering your DELUSIONAL 'phantasies' YOU are a SECURITY GURU who writes REAL SECURITYWARE?
OK - Prove it then - you sure didn't in those link & points above, lol... apk
When Republicans talk about "States rights", they really mean the right of states to pass laws that discriminate against people. They do not mean the right for states to establish their own drug laws nor for the rights of states to adopt laws like net neutrality
Yup, principles (by either party) are only excuses for what you want to do. Here in Texas the sacrosanct Republican principal of local autonomy saw the "big-business" state legislature passa law to prevent municipalities from regulating fracking within their city limits. It's situational ethics at it's finest: get the government out of the boardrooms and into the bedrooms and bathrooms...
As a famous economist once said,
Yeah, that economist made a lot of sense. Damn shame his groupies perverted it to make a religion out of what he taught.
(no satire tags intended)
I think you have it wrong. There are differences between the Ds and the Rs. Both listen better to the big donors than to constituents, in general, but they are different in many ways. Under Bush and Obama, the FCC required NN. That was an awful long time for a rogue committee to operate. Trump shows up and the FCC goes full hostile. The Democrats are identifying themselves with NN, and will stick with it for some time to come.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I see that retard Alexander Peter Kowalski whines some more like a little bitch. /. users so any that haven't been shown to be so should be viewed as suspect.
/. users, by extension any comments from /. users, using bold or capital letters, links on random websites, statements from a 90s era AOL radio program, circular reasoning, comments from a wanna be Kim Komando, name calling, or advice from the 1980s on computer security.
I keep asking you to provide actual proof of your statements and the best you can come up with are: An article from the register that doesn't mention you or your work that you just wildly speculate means someone copied an obvious feature from you.
That your software is included in the Misc. Software section of a website means it is endorsed when it reality it looks like an also ran.
Out of context, or retracted quotes from
People from the 90s saying hosts offers security but those people target their articles towards the mainstream not real technical people.
This ignores your inability to reason and follow logical arguments like why you have to block 6x10^98 hosts but a program doesn't or that having to recompile code because TLDs change is a shitty design.
I have explained both of those to you a number of times but you just can't seem to follow but anytime someone explains something that proves you wrong you seem to be either incapable of accepting that you are wrong, or are just to retarded to comprehend that you are wrong.
I'm not going to provide personal information that might help to identify myself as you are known to stalk and harass people in real life as well as online but you would probably shit your pants if you did find out who I am.
As stated many times, I don't have an account so I don't ever have mod points.
Even if I did have an account I wouldn't waste them downmodding you as I want people to see you make an ass of yourself.
If your crap ideas are so great then how come groups like PCI, NIST, DoD, NERC, SANS, CIS, or any other any other group for that mater, never recommend work like yours in their various hardening guides.
So what is more likely, that large quantities of experts writing guidelines, regulations, and benchmarks to be used by other experts on how to secure systems are all wrong, or that some retard on the internet who rants about hosts files is wrong?
Personally I'm betting that you, the retard on the internet, are wrong, especially since you can't actually provide any proof or evidence to back up your claims.
So now how about your provide some actual proof of your claims like:
Hosts stops inbound connections.
The Chinese copied your work.
That a program would have to store 6x10^98 host names to be able to use them, wait never mind arth1 already showed how a program doesn't need to do that but you were just too stupid to grasp that and he even made it simpler for you using only 4 billion or so hosts.
That your program isn't as effective as an AV scanner that matches only based off of file names.
That your work prevents an entire category of attacks.
That you are in fact not a retard.
Now remember things that are not proof or evidence include: wild speculation, out of context or retracted comments from
I and others keep asking for this but all you can seem to do is whine like a little bitch and try to deflect away from your near endless failings.
Finally you really should learn how to write better it as what you furiously pound out only provides further evidence of just how much of a retard you actually are.
See subject: You're a do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" bullshitting blowhard liar (prove otherwise - you can't) - FACT!
This made me laugh so much I have to QUOTE & BOOKMARK IT:
"you would probably shit your pants if you did find out who I am... " by Anonymous BLOWHARD BULLSHITTER STALKING LIAR Coward on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @11:36AM (#56040685)
LMAO - like I said - I know exactly WHAT You are - a blowhard bullshitting do-nothing liar (nothing more).
E.G. - Where is that 'REAL securityware' you write? It's not... & big deal you've secured systems for 21 yrs. - I've done it LONGER & wrote ware for it I really CAN demonstrate others use & like (you can't - you don't HAVE any, lol).
You also don't read well - Aryeh Goretsky is technical (NOD32/ESET) & said hosts = good security (as did others NOT from the 90's & not that THAT would even matter (poor tactic chump - especially considering NOBODY likes or uses YOUR "vaporware' that doesn't exist, lol)).
APK
P.S.=> People here like & use my work, praising it - not yours & you should learn to SPELL idiot (it's "matter" not 'mater', fool)... apk