I WANT my ISP to discriminate between low priority, high bandwidth sites (video) versus high priority interactive.
As an online gamer, I can sympathise with that position, but realistically, it is not going to happen. Given the approval to prioritise traffic, you know that the ISPs will do whatever they want that works out best for their bottom line.
For example, assume that Netflix caves and pays the ISPs for preferential traffic, which the ISPs have tried to bill them for, and which could happen. All of a sudden, their bandwidth hogging traffic has higher priority over your SSH. I doubt the 500 SSH using customers you mentioned could or would be willing to outpay Netflix.
On the other hand, you might take comfort in the many ads being delivered blistering fast to your screen.
Except the purpose of this banned subreddit wasn't actually to find the shooter. It was satirical. All the posters were making fun of how bad they fucked things up during the Boston bombings.
And you know that:
1. Some posters will miss the/sarcasm tag, take it seriously and post personal information of real life people. 2. Some posters will take the opportunity to post personal information of their ex's, their enemies, their bosses... 3. Some media company will miss the/sarcasm tag and flog stories about how Reddit is screwing the lives of innocent people. Again.
And what happens if those people really were more capable of helping than the government which is threatening arrest? After all, trying to rescue someone is not quite the same as actually rescuing someone.
The rescue operations also included the town of Lyons, Colorado which is the same location where the UAVs were operating.
It is not inconceivable given the scale of the rescue operations that the UAVs were impeding the helicopters. And to use your analogy, the helicopters were actively 'rescuing someone' compared to UAVs which were... mapping. You can draw your own conclusions which is more important.
Their existing data use policy is too restrictive.
It would be simpler to just have:
We promise not to use your data in the following ways:
Why would FB tie themselves down by committing not to use the data in any number of ways?
If you read TFA, FB makes it clear that under current policies they will use your data as they please.
Facebook has agreed to explain how it uses a name, profile picture, content and information in connection with ads after it got into hot water over its Sponsored Stories function, which – without prior consent – served adverts to Facebookers featuring the faces and names of people who had "Liked" a particular product.
The Mark Zuckerberg-run outfit now states that it will no longer take responsibility for how those ads are served, because users will have agreed to that usage upon signing up to the network. Existing users will also be expected to simply comply with the new terms, or else ditch Facebook in protest against how their data is being re-purposed.
Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this!...The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.
When U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair met with President Barack Obama in February to discuss a proposed new constellation of multibillion-dollar imaging satellites, the resulting series of conversations was unusual and maybe unprecedented in the country's decades-long history of using orbiting cameras to spy inside foreign borders....
Obama's personal involvement in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress was "very unusual," said a retired intelligence official. U.S. presidents often receive briefings about spy satellite capabilities at times of crisis, the official said, but he did not know of another president being involved in acquisition planning. That is normally left to the intelligence community, which manages construction of spy satellites and operates them through the National Reconnaissance Office. Acquisition proposals are accepted indirectly by presidents when they sign off on their classified budget requests to Congress.
Well, since Obama was personally (and unusually) involved in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress, I'd say the argument that he is a mere figurehead doesn't quite fly.
The Snowden leaks at this point are well past issues of Constitutional rights in the US.
Actually, I think the government intentionally breaching the Constitution is a much bigger issue than any intelligence leak. 50 years from now no one will care about the data Snowden leaked. OTOH, the government of today has set the precedent that it can ignore the protections provided by the Constitution. Imagine what the government 50 years from now can and will do.
His leaks are directly damaging to the intelligence agencies of the US and its allies.
And I'm sure you will provide some proof of that.
That is before you get to the question of friction between the US and its allies and trading partners, or the domestic political turmoil.
Friction and anger which is caused by the government's acts of covert surveillance. If your neighbour tells you a pervert has been spying on you, should you be angry with your neighbour or with the pervert?
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
So much for your comment that
'The United States cannot target a foreigner to intercept the communications of one of its own citizens, nor can it use a second party nation (UK, CAN, AUS, or NZ), or anyone else, to target US citizens or anyone else it would be otherwise prohibited from targeting.'
They've moved beyond that, they're targetting citizens directly, without warrants, i.e. illegally.
The problem with that line is that it presupposes that there is one correct view. Who gets to decide what is correct?
The scientific method or, for matters based on opinion rather than scientific evidence, vox populi, vox dei.
Fundamentally I agree with you. However, issues only get hotly debated if they are controversial, and they often become controversial precisely because science is unable to provide any definitive answers for the very same question.
Take for example one of the current hot button topics - Climate Change. I have seen papers from reputable scientists arguing that humanity's actions are affecting our climate. I have also seen papers from reputable scientists arguing otherwise. In that kind of situation, we cannot rely on science to provide an answer, at least not at present.
As for vox populi, it is largely unworkable. Short of conducting a referendum or a vote, how do we determine the popular consensus? Every faction championing a cause will almost invariably claim to have the support of the public.
Of course there is a correct view. Its called the view that corresponds to reality.
No, you've merely substituted one vaguely defined concept with another. The same objection applies- Perception of reality is subjective depending on the interpreter.
Just to use the classic example- the half-filled glass of water. A pessimist would perceive it as "the glass is half empty, I need to take action now to ensure I don't go thirsty". An optimist would perceive it as "the glass is still half full, I can just leave it alone."
Same set of facts, two different perceptions of reality. I might also add, their conclusions can be viewed as 'correct' or 'wrong' depending on which side of the fence you sit on.
Is social media a valid indicator of political behavior? We answer this question using a random sample of 537,231,508 tweets from August 1 to November 1, 2010 and data from 406 competitive U.S. congressional elections provided by the Federal Election Commission. Our results show that the percentage of Republican-candidate name mentions correlates with the Republican vote margin in the subsequent election. This finding persists even when controlling for incumbency, district partisanship, media coverage of the race, time, and demographic variables such as the district’s racial and gender composition.
Theres also a WashPo article discussing the same research paper.
So, there is some scientific basis for the assumptions stated in the earlier post.
Under the agreement, Kodak will divest its entire digital camera manufacturing requirements to Flextronics, including assembly, production, and testing. Flextronics will also manage the operations and logistics services for Kodak's digital still cameras. Kodak will continue to develop the high- level system design, product look and feel and user experience, and will conduct advanced research and development for its digital still cameras. Kodak will also retain its intellectual property.
One exception I can think of is if the poster is a member of an organisation who would like to contribute something to the discussion, but cannot reveal his identity for fear of retribution from that organisation. It is quite common for corporations to issue standing instructions for the employees not to cummunicate except therough the publicity department. Ditto if you work for any government body.
It need not even be a whistleblower kind of situation. For example, if I am an airline pilot, I might want to correct some factual errors about innocuous information like pre-flight procedures in a forum. But most airlines have a strict ban on any communication made as an identified pilot, for fear that what you say may damage their brand.
I think it works fairly well. I frequently come across posts which are obviously unpopular with the majority of slashdot users (for example, advocating government surveillance). The fact that I can still read it, and/or that it is part of a chain of back-and-forth arguments which are not censored/deleted speaks well of the system.
It might just be personal bias; if you are predisposed towards thinking that unpopular posts will be censored, invariably your mind will fixate on picking up examples of that sort, ignoring the other occasions when censorship did not take place.
The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one.
The problem with that line is that it presupposes that there is one correct view. Who gets to decide what is correct?
The premise is that posts will be moderated up for correctness and down for incorrectness, but this is not what happens, as the posts ending up at the top usually represent the prevailing ideological belief of the majority of users
I disagree with your premise. Given that every individual invariably believes his own world view to be the correct one, I don't think its even workable. Further, the prevailing ideological belief of the majority is often reflected not just in forums, but in our society at large. Its just the way it works. I think we should strive for the more modest goal of ensuring that views that contradict the prevailing ideological belief of the majority at least get heard, which is achievable.
For sites that want to foster honest discussion, I say strip away the moderation and 'reputation' systems, and leave it anonymous.
I believe that would work counter to your intended effect, since the trolls effectively would have free reign to drown out any message that they deem 'incorrect'. Honest discussion cannot take place when other parties are working actively to prevent it, for example by spam posting, by posting vulgarities or inane comments, by burying posts and many other ways you should be familiar with.
In line with its ambitions to become a platform for live broadcasting and programming, the company also said that it had acquired Adap.tv, a video advertising company that allows purchases across the Internet and on television. The cost was $405 million.
“AOL is a leader in online video, and the combination of AOL and Adap.tv will create the leading video platform in the industry,” Tim Armstrong, AOL’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “The Adap.tv founders and team are on a mission to make advertising as easy as e-commerce, and the two companies together will aggressively pursue that vision.”
When The Huffington Post’s weekly iPad magazine Huffington transitioned from a pay model to free last August, advertising was intended to sustain the tablet-native title, as consumers had resisted paying for it.
Almost a year postlaunch, it looks like advertisers are rejecting it, too.
A review of six recent issues found just one sponsor, for United Healthcare. Most issues feature a couple of promotions for HuffPost apps but no outside ads.
This part is the speculation. HuffPo has an audience, but can't sell ads. What is it that will bring advertisers to them? Targeted ads. But you can only target your ads if you know who is reading your page. How do you then convince your audience to register instead of browsing anonymously? By removing anonymous posting.
Easy - it's an OS that OEMs can customize heavily. It's not what Firefox brings to the table, it what's the OEMs can do to differentiate their phones in the market.
I don't see the distinction. OEMs already can (and do) customise Android. If the customisations go even further than that, essentially every OEM will be producing their own fork of Firefox, all of which will be incompatible with that of other OEMs. This will likely mean every OEM has its own small pool of proprietory apps. I don't see how that can compete with the iOS or Android ecosystem.
I'm not even going into the horror of how to manage upgrades.
Further, what's in it for the customer, the actual user of the phone? OEM customised experiences tend to be viewed as restrictive and loathed by their users (just see what Samsung users say about Touchwiz, HTC users about Sense, Motorola users about MotoBlur etc..). The demand for Nexus and stock Android phones also suggests that heavy OEM customisation is not popular.
Or, maybe they realised they made a mistake after the purchase.
LG seems extremely hesitant, and even confused about its future plans for the OS. Asked how webOS could be used to create "disruptive" smart TV products absent any of the content deals that have thus far stunted TV innovation, LG CTO Dr. Skott Ahn simply said that he believes "the environment will change from an app environment to a web environment." Further asked to name the core benefit of the webOS platform for smart TVs, Dr. Ahn simply remained silent for 10 seconds, prompting LG's North American VP of smart TV Samuel Chang to add that "we're at the nascent stage" of smart TV development.
Granted this is all hearsay and subjective. But if LG bought webOS and found that it did not suit their needs, and their mobile strategy requires a separate platform from iOS and Android, that might push them towards early adoption of FirefoxOS.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.... “Yes,” she concluded, “why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
No, Justice Ginsburg simply stated that there were more modern sources of legislation you can use as a sample when you want to draft a constitution today. Note the context. Her comment was not directed at the values embodied in the US Constitution. She most certainly did not say the US Constitution was bad.
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, using the language of that time. Are you saying that constitutions drafted today should use the same language?
Point 1. You do realise of course, contracts which are illegal or provide for illegal activities are void in most jurisdictions and cannot be enforced. For example, if A contracts with B to kill someone for money, A cannot sue B to force him to carry out the murder, nor can B sue A to pay up once the murder is committed. So saying 'Snowden had a contract and he broke it' means nothing.
Point 2. Your argument is specious. People who work in the courts, the Justice department, the AG's chambers etc can and often do make mistakes. Sometimes, they carry out acts which are against the law i.e. illegal which is why so many cases go before the Supreme Court on appeal. Some laws even when passed may violate for example the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and are struck down by the courts.
My point is, saying "if the legal system itself is doing something, how can it be illegal" does not make any sense.
Fact: Obama has come out swinging in support of the surveillance programs. He should be held responsible for it.
Also fact: Politicians from both parties, GOP and Dems created and voted in the laws that allowed the surveillance programs. They supported the surveillance programs and continue to support it. They should also be held accountable for it.
My point is that Obama is just a figurehead. Don't focus all your anger on him and lose sight of the fact that there is a whole bunch of politicians of all stripes behind him cheering him on. Im sure they would love it if you scapegoat Obama and let them walk free.
Slashdot Mirror
I WANT my ISP to discriminate between low priority, high bandwidth sites (video) versus high priority interactive.
As an online gamer, I can sympathise with that position, but realistically, it is not going to happen. Given the approval to prioritise traffic, you know that the ISPs will do whatever they want that works out best for their bottom line.
For example, assume that Netflix caves and pays the ISPs for preferential traffic, which the ISPs have tried to bill them for, and which could happen. All of a sudden, their bandwidth hogging traffic has higher priority over your SSH. I doubt the 500 SSH using customers you mentioned could or would be willing to outpay Netflix.
On the other hand, you might take comfort in the many ads being delivered blistering fast to your screen.
The point is that taxi drivers, no matter how bad they might be, are regulated a whole lot more than the rest of us.
And I'm sure that means regulated and licensed taxi drivers are just safer than other drivers, right. They won't, for example, intentionally step on the gas before mounting the curb and hitting a 23-year-old tourist who lost part of her leg.
My point being, you can find extreme examples of everything. Including rogue drivers, regulated or not.
Except the purpose of this banned subreddit wasn't actually to find the shooter. It was satirical. All the posters were making fun of how bad they fucked things up during the Boston bombings.
And you know that:
1. Some posters will miss the /sarcasm tag, take it seriously and post personal information of real life people. /sarcasm tag and flog stories about how Reddit is screwing the lives of innocent people. Again.
2. Some posters will take the opportunity to post personal information of their ex's, their enemies, their bosses...
3. Some media company will miss the
Reddit did the right thing by shutting it down.
And what happens if those people really were more capable of helping than the government which is threatening arrest? After all, trying to rescue someone is not quite the same as actually rescuing someone.
A little bit of context. Rescue operations were then ongoing, in fact what is now deemed the largest aerial rescue operation since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. More than 700 people were evacuated by air.
The rescue operations also included the town of Lyons, Colorado which is the same location where the UAVs were operating.
It is not inconceivable given the scale of the rescue operations that the UAVs were impeding the helicopters. And to use your analogy, the helicopters were actively 'rescuing someone' compared to UAVs which were... mapping. You can draw your own conclusions which is more important.
Hahaha I get it. Nice. =)
Their existing data use policy is too restrictive.
It would be simpler to just have:
We promise not to use your data in the following ways:
Why would FB tie themselves down by committing not to use the data in any number of ways?
If you read TFA, FB makes it clear that under current policies they will use your data as they please.
Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this! ...The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obama is apparently a a keen supporter of intelligence spending.
Well, since Obama was personally (and unusually) involved in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress, I'd say the argument that he is a mere figurehead doesn't quite fly.
Corrosion, I think, would be less of a problem than the accumulated skin/gunk which will clog up the charging slot.
So much for greater transparency.
The Snowden leaks at this point are well past issues of Constitutional rights in the US.
Actually, I think the government intentionally breaching the Constitution is a much bigger issue than any intelligence leak. 50 years from now no one will care about the data Snowden leaked. OTOH, the government of today has set the precedent that it can ignore the protections provided by the Constitution. Imagine what the government 50 years from now can and will do.
His leaks are directly damaging to the intelligence agencies of the US and its allies.
And I'm sure you will provide some proof of that.
That is before you get to the question of friction between the US and its allies and trading partners, or the domestic political turmoil.
Friction and anger which is caused by the government's acts of covert surveillance. If your neighbour tells you a pervert has been spying on you, should you be angry with your neighbour or with the pervert?
Did you even check the source/link you posted?
The very first entry as of now, is Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say
So much for your comment that
'The United States cannot target a foreigner to intercept the communications of one of its own citizens, nor can it use a second party nation (UK, CAN, AUS, or NZ), or anyone else, to target US citizens or anyone else it would be otherwise prohibited from targeting.'
They've moved beyond that, they're targetting citizens directly, without warrants, i.e. illegally.
The problem with that line is that it presupposes that there is one correct view. Who gets to decide what is correct?
The scientific method or, for matters based on opinion rather than scientific evidence, vox populi, vox dei.
Fundamentally I agree with you. However, issues only get hotly debated if they are controversial, and they often become controversial precisely because science is unable to provide any definitive answers for the very same question.
Take for example one of the current hot button topics - Climate Change. I have seen papers from reputable scientists arguing that humanity's actions are affecting our climate. I have also seen papers from reputable scientists arguing otherwise. In that kind of situation, we cannot rely on science to provide an answer, at least not at present.
As for vox populi, it is largely unworkable. Short of conducting a referendum or a vote, how do we determine the popular consensus? Every faction championing a cause will almost invariably claim to have the support of the public.
Of course there is a correct view. Its called the view that corresponds to reality.
No, you've merely substituted one vaguely defined concept with another. The same objection applies- Perception of reality is subjective depending on the interpreter.
Just to use the classic example- the half-filled glass of water. A pessimist would perceive it as "the glass is half empty, I need to take action now to ensure I don't go thirsty". An optimist would perceive it as "the glass is still half full, I can just leave it alone."
Same set of facts, two different perceptions of reality. I might also add, their conclusions can be viewed as 'correct' or 'wrong' depending on which side of the fence you sit on.
That is a HUGE set of assumptions. You would need to go do some real research to find out if that was remotely valid.
That's fair. Interestingly enough, there is such a study conducted by the Indiana University, Bloomington on the correlation between voting patterns and tweets. I'll skip to the findings here:-
Theres also a WashPo article discussing the same research paper.
So, there is some scientific basis for the assumptions stated in the earlier post.
its a company.
Judging from their corporate picture, might be a team of 13.
Not the design, or IP though .
One exception I can think of is if the poster is a member of an organisation who would like to contribute something to the discussion, but cannot reveal his identity for fear of retribution from that organisation. It is quite common for corporations to issue standing instructions for the employees not to cummunicate except therough the publicity department. Ditto if you work for any government body.
It need not even be a whistleblower kind of situation. For example, if I am an airline pilot, I might want to correct some factual errors about innocuous information like pre-flight procedures in a forum. But most airlines have a strict ban on any communication made as an identified pilot, for fear that what you say may damage their brand.
I think it works fairly well. I frequently come across posts which are obviously unpopular with the majority of slashdot users (for example, advocating government surveillance). The fact that I can still read it, and/or that it is part of a chain of back-and-forth arguments which are not censored/deleted speaks well of the system.
It might just be personal bias; if you are predisposed towards thinking that unpopular posts will be censored, invariably your mind will fixate on picking up examples of that sort, ignoring the other occasions when censorship did not take place.
The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one.
The problem with that line is that it presupposes that there is one correct view. Who gets to decide what is correct?
The premise is that posts will be moderated up for correctness and down for incorrectness, but this is not what happens, as the posts ending up at the top usually represent the prevailing ideological belief of the majority of users
I disagree with your premise. Given that every individual invariably believes his own world view to be the correct one, I don't think its even workable. Further, the prevailing ideological belief of the majority is often reflected not just in forums, but in our society at large. Its just the way it works. I think we should strive for the more modest goal of ensuring that views that contradict the prevailing ideological belief of the majority at least get heard, which is achievable.
For sites that want to foster honest discussion, I say strip away the moderation and 'reputation' systems, and leave it anonymous.
I believe that would work counter to your intended effect, since the trolls effectively would have free reign to drown out any message that they deem 'incorrect'. Honest discussion cannot take place when other parties are working actively to prevent it, for example by spam posting, by posting vulgarities or inane comments, by burying posts and many other ways you should be familiar with.
I doubt its about cleaning up the comments section.
AOL, the parent company of HuffPo, is currently refocusing its business on driving ad sales.
It's no secret that HuffPo is doing quite badly at selling ads.
This part is the speculation. HuffPo has an audience, but can't sell ads. What is it that will bring advertisers to them? Targeted ads. But you can only target your ads if you know who is reading your page. How do you then convince your audience to register instead of browsing anonymously? By removing anonymous posting.
Plausible?
I don't see the distinction. OEMs already can (and do) customise Android. If the customisations go even further than that, essentially every OEM will be producing their own fork of Firefox, all of which will be incompatible with that of other OEMs. This will likely mean every OEM has its own small pool of proprietory apps. I don't see how that can compete with the iOS or Android ecosystem.
I'm not even going into the horror of how to manage upgrades.
Further, what's in it for the customer, the actual user of the phone? OEM customised experiences tend to be viewed as restrictive and loathed by their users (just see what Samsung users say about Touchwiz, HTC users about Sense, Motorola users about MotoBlur etc..). The demand for Nexus and stock Android phones also suggests that heavy OEM customisation is not popular.
Or, maybe they realised they made a mistake after the purchase.
Granted this is all hearsay and subjective. But if LG bought webOS and found that it did not suit their needs, and their mobile strategy requires a separate platform from iOS and Android, that might push them towards early adoption of FirefoxOS.
From the same link you posted:-
No, Justice Ginsburg simply stated that there were more modern sources of legislation you can use as a sample when you want to draft a constitution today. Note the context. Her comment was not directed at the values embodied in the US Constitution. She most certainly did not say the US Constitution was bad.
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, using the language of that time. Are you saying that constitutions drafted today should use the same language?
Your innuendo is misleading and deceptive.
Point 1. You do realise of course, contracts which are illegal or provide for illegal activities are void in most jurisdictions and cannot be enforced. For example, if A contracts with B to kill someone for money, A cannot sue B to force him to carry out the murder, nor can B sue A to pay up once the murder is committed. So saying 'Snowden had a contract and he broke it' means nothing.
Point 2. Your argument is specious. People who work in the courts, the Justice department, the AG's chambers etc can and often do make mistakes. Sometimes, they carry out acts which are against the law i.e. illegal which is why so many cases go before the Supreme Court on appeal. Some laws even when passed may violate for example the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and are struck down by the courts.
My point is, saying "if the legal system itself is doing something, how can it be illegal" does not make any sense.
Parent post speaks the truth.
Fact: Obama has come out swinging in support of the surveillance programs. He should be held responsible for it.
Also fact: Politicians from both parties, GOP and Dems created and voted in the laws that allowed the surveillance programs. They supported the surveillance programs and continue to support it. They should also be held accountable for it.
My point is that Obama is just a figurehead. Don't focus all your anger on him and lose sight of the fact that there is a whole bunch of politicians of all stripes behind him cheering him on. Im sure they would love it if you scapegoat Obama and let them walk free.