HTTPs only encrypts the contents of what you are retrieving, not the location (URL) that you are retrieving it from. Seems rather pointless to push it everywhere. It only has a purpose when the user and/or server want to exchange secret payloads (e.g. credit card numbers).
In fact Binge On ALSO expands user choice from the sense that now you are not consuming data through Netflix any longer so you have more to use with Binge On....
By that logic they could expand user choice by completely blocking Netflix.
By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.
I'm fine with giving things away for free, but deep packet inspection in order to throttle the streams of non-participating content providers is still a violation of net neutrality.
In my opinion this does not violate net neutrality because they give users some content for free. It violates net neutrality because it actively snoops and disrupts the packets of non-participating content providers.
When a person is convicted of a wrongdoing and is offered the choice to pay a fine or go to jail and then don't pay the fine, why should they not then go to jail?
If it was a non-violent crime then they should be some kind of mandatory rehabilitation / education program for them. Jails cost the tax payer money,destroy people's lives who then go on to cause more criminal activity just to survive. The only people to come out ahead are the stock holders (and the people who get justice boners from seeing people punished).
If we can make them better people instead of destroying them then everyone wins in the end.
My understanding is that the blockchain can be forged if more than half of the network agrees ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). What would happen if the groups that control the massive botnets got together and decided to forge the blockchain? I don't know exactly how all the numbers play out, but would that be enough processing power to take control of the blockchain?
Nobody is anonymous on the internet. Ok, maybe I should say most are not anonymous. The reason? Everyone has a MAC address. While it can be changed, and probably is when someone is acting nefariously, most people have no idea what it is. So, like outlawing firearms, making a law to ban "anonymous Internet access" would only hurt law abiding citizens. I will certainly add more complexity to ISPs and that will trickle down to users in some way that probably won't be pleasant.
Your MAC address never goes beyond the first router.
So if pretty much every manufacturer is doing this, how is this not equal to a kind of mass civic protest?
If in reality car emissions are higher than overly ambitious standards, but still low enough that air quality is OK - should the cars be "fixed" (as in the pet related term, neutered) or instead should the regulations be brought to realistic levels based on what cars are actually emitting today?
That has to be it right, the results would show how toxic the water is, forcing the state to step in and clean it up. That's the only logical reason for denying this request.
Or some hyperactive lawyer decided that O.P.R.A was generic enough that it could, in theory, be applied to animals, so he told them to play it safe.
The whole idea that Jury Nullification is valid is offset by the oath you take when serving on a jury. "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" As Jury Nullification is not law, serving on a jury with the intent to nullify is perjury.
If you have that intent BEFORE hearing any evidence then you HAVE perjured yourself, and you deserve everything that comes from it.
The total data rate for all customers combined is limited. This means that throttling the rate for some users will make it faster for everyone else.
It is better for everyone else if video download speed is limited to what is making sense. Let's just hope that they introduced transfer speed control to make sure that everyone gets enough data to watch the videos. People not getting more than they need is just added since it comes for free and helps others.
Throttling on a 100 mb/s link is fine if you have 200 users each trying to pull 1 mb/s. Throttling on a 100 mb/s link when you have 10 users trying to pull 1 mb/s isn't.
Easily and intentionally and misinterpreted are an incompatible combination. You aren't misinterpreting something you do intentionally. Logical contortions are not often easy so that barely makes sense.
Intentional misinterpretation is a VERY real thing,especially in public, politically charged settings. Just watch how a politician comments on something said by their opposition.
Seems odd you can’t voice a dissenting opinion without what amounts to threatening violence to express your political opinion. You wouldn’t be Republican would you?
I can be against all sorts of behaviors without resorting to harassment or abuse. This seems squarely aimed at intimidating replies to others or exhorting to violence. Seems this almost fall under regular law and Twitter is just enforcing it more directly.
It's all about how the audience interprets what you said. With today's hyper PC attitudes on many trendy websites, saying something as innocent as "I won't vote for Hillary Clinton because her views on fighting ISIS are dumb." Could easily be intentionally misinterpreted as "I hate Hillary because she is a woman." in order to shut down any opinions that deviate from the site's group-think.
While OpenJDK is almost identical to Oracle Java, I have had many problems with OpenJDK in the past. OpenJDK will core dump on code that Oracle Java won't; literally the entire process crashes. So I'm also curious as to what the new and exciting problems will be.
Considering that Android doesn't actually run the Java code, it just uses the same API, it shouldn't have any problems like that. The only thing that should break is binary compatibility if there is an API call mismatch.
Can I still fly my plain-old R/C plane? Because that's NOT A DRONE AND NEVER HAS BEEN (except for the ignorant).
What if it's unpowered (like an RC glider)?
If the language is sufficiently vague, how about model rockets? Bottle rockets? Fireworks?
Hey, maybe they could expand the definition, make it illegal to release a balloon?
Even better, just tying a string to the drone and holding the other end as a tether makes your drone a "kite" in the eyes of the FAA, which it has no authority to regulate. The whole thing is so stupidly and randomly arbitrary.
Well, Slashdot, your slashvertisements have hit a new low. Going to have to add the entire root domain to ABP now.
I've been reading Slashdot for a VERY long time. I've seen it go down hill these past few years, but this is the first "story" that made me say "What the actual fuck?" out loud.
Slashdot Mirror
HTTPs only encrypts the contents of what you are retrieving, not the location (URL) that you are retrieving it from. Seems rather pointless to push it everywhere. It only has a purpose when the user and/or server want to exchange secret payloads (e.g. credit card numbers).
Umm... the full URL certainly IS encrypted.
https://stackoverflow.com/ques...
It has been repeatedly proven that BingeOn throttles all video streams all the time. It just doesn't charge you for the one on their white-list.
In fact Binge On ALSO expands user choice from the sense that now you are not consuming data through Netflix any longer so you have more to use with Binge On....
By that logic they could expand user choice by completely blocking Netflix.
By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.
I'm fine with giving things away for free, but deep packet inspection in order to throttle the streams of non-participating content providers is still a violation of net neutrality.
It would be fine if they didn't slow down (throttle) the streams on non-participating content providers.
In my opinion this does not violate net neutrality because they give users some content for free.
It violates net neutrality because it actively snoops and disrupts the packets of non-participating content providers.
When a person is convicted of a wrongdoing and is offered the choice to pay a fine or go to jail and then don't pay the fine, why should they not then go to jail?
If it was a non-violent crime then they should be some kind of mandatory rehabilitation / education program for them. Jails cost the tax payer money,destroy people's lives who then go on to cause more criminal activity just to survive. The only people to come out ahead are the stock holders (and the people who get justice boners from seeing people punished).
If we can make them better people instead of destroying them then everyone wins in the end.
Not many of the drivers that I've seen. Light turns red and 3 more cars go zipping through.
Hey, I can live with everything else provided zero taxes. With the money saved we can all send our kids to private school.
Well, except for those single parents raising 3 kids while working 2 minimum wage jobs. But they obviously don't count because they are lazy and poor.
My understanding is that the blockchain can be forged if more than half of the network agrees ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). What would happen if the groups that control the massive botnets got together and decided to forge the blockchain? I don't know exactly how all the numbers play out, but would that be enough processing power to take control of the blockchain?
Nobody is anonymous on the internet. Ok, maybe I should say most are not anonymous. The reason? Everyone has a MAC address. While it can be changed, and probably is when someone is acting nefariously, most people have no idea what it is. So, like outlawing firearms, making a law to ban "anonymous Internet access" would only hurt law abiding citizens. I will certainly add more complexity to ISPs and that will trickle down to users in some way that probably won't be pleasant.
Your MAC address never goes beyond the first router.
All the malware authors could make some easy money selling him some processing time from all the botnets they run.
So if pretty much every manufacturer is doing this, how is this not equal to a kind of mass civic protest?
If in reality car emissions are higher than overly ambitious standards, but still low enough that air quality is OK - should the cars be "fixed" (as in the pet related term, neutered) or instead should the regulations be brought to realistic levels based on what cars are actually emitting today?
You think our air quality is ok?
Can't block them all.
iptables -A INPUT -j DROP
That has to be it right, the results would show how toxic the water is, forcing the state to step in and clean it up. That's the only logical reason for denying this request.
Or some hyperactive lawyer decided that O.P.R.A was generic enough that it could, in theory, be applied to animals, so he told them to play it safe.
Nobody bought Windows 7 believing that Microsoft would forcefully seize control of their computers and disable their manually-changed settings.
Well, it was just sort of assumed, wasn't it?
The whole idea that Jury Nullification is valid is offset by the oath you take when serving on a jury. "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" As Jury Nullification is not law, serving on a jury with the intent to nullify is perjury.
If you have that intent BEFORE hearing any evidence then you HAVE perjured yourself, and you deserve everything that comes from it.
You're getting free downloads, and you are upset that they are slow? Turn it off, get them fast and use up your data allotment.
They are throttling even the providers that you still get charged for.
The total data rate for all customers combined is limited. This means that throttling the rate for some users will make it faster for everyone else.
It is better for everyone else if video download speed is limited to what is making sense. Let's just hope that they introduced transfer speed control to make sure that everyone gets enough data to watch the videos. People not getting more than they need is just added since it comes for free and helps others.
Throttling on a 100 mb/s link is fine if you have 200 users each trying to pull 1 mb/s. Throttling on a 100 mb/s link when you have 10 users trying to pull 1 mb/s isn't.
They can censor anything they want to, or not censor anything they want to.
This isn't a 'Free Speech' issue, so all the anti-SJW's can go back to their homes, nothing more to see here.
It isn't a constitutional free speech issue, but it is still an issue of being able to speak freely.
> Could easily be intentionally misinterpreted
Easily and intentionally and misinterpreted are an incompatible combination. You aren't misinterpreting something you do intentionally. Logical contortions are not often easy so that barely makes sense.
Intentional misinterpretation is a VERY real thing,especially in public, politically charged settings. Just watch how a politician comments on something said by their opposition.
Seems odd you can’t voice a dissenting opinion without what amounts to threatening violence to express your political opinion. You wouldn’t be Republican would you?
I can be against all sorts of behaviors without resorting to harassment or abuse. This seems squarely aimed at intimidating replies to others or exhorting to violence. Seems this almost fall under regular law and Twitter is just enforcing it more directly.
It's all about how the audience interprets what you said. With today's hyper PC attitudes on many trendy websites, saying something as innocent as "I won't vote for Hillary Clinton because her views on fighting ISIS are dumb." Could easily be intentionally misinterpreted as "I hate Hillary because she is a woman." in order to shut down any opinions that deviate from the site's group-think.
While OpenJDK is almost identical to Oracle Java, I have had many problems with OpenJDK in the past. OpenJDK will core dump on code that Oracle Java won't; literally the entire process crashes. So I'm also curious as to what the new and exciting problems will be.
Considering that Android doesn't actually run the Java code, it just uses the same API, it shouldn't have any problems like that. The only thing that should break is binary compatibility if there is an API call mismatch.
So wtf do they call a "drone" this week?
Can I still fly my plain-old R/C plane? Because that's NOT A DRONE AND NEVER HAS BEEN (except for the ignorant).
What if it's unpowered (like an RC glider)?
If the language is sufficiently vague, how about model rockets? Bottle rockets? Fireworks?
Hey, maybe they could expand the definition, make it illegal to release a balloon?
Even better, just tying a string to the drone and holding the other end as a tether makes your drone a "kite" in the eyes of the FAA, which it has no authority to regulate. The whole thing is so stupidly and randomly arbitrary.
Well, Slashdot, your slashvertisements have hit a new low. Going to have to add the entire root domain to ABP now.
I've been reading Slashdot for a VERY long time. I've seen it go down hill these past few years, but this is the first "story" that made me say "What the actual fuck?" out loud.