Had you actually clicked the link instead of staring at it you would have been greeted with several pages of peers.
Good point. They need to learn how to design a webpage. Their sites on par with Geocities.
But that still doesn't solve all the other problems with their agreement requirements. It also doesn't solve the problem of netflix switching peers almost at random.
Both promote ignorance of a science. Both undermine science, both speak on subjects they no nothing about. Intentional undermining a science, using your status to continue to spread ignorance harms us all. Not understand science becasue of people like these ass hats is exactly why kids are dead.
His 'logic' is the same type of 'logic' that makes people susceptible to claims from people like Jenny McCarthy, and a host of other pseudosciences.
Scientific ignorance puts us all in mortal peril.
So do you. So do I. I'm sure I could trawl your posts and find some examples of you disagreeing with established science, not that I care to. By that reasoning we're all equally related to Jenny McCarthy. McCarthy is a bad person because she uses peer pressure to convince unwitting mothers into putting children in very real danger. She's made a fortune doing so. Mims simply has a different opinion. I see nothing wrong with that even if I disagree with him.
I believe in God (or something like God) and that Evolution IS creation. Science is simply understanding how God did it. Does that make me a bad person?
So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized.
If the ISP is concerned about this, they can just ask Netflix for a caching box. Total cost to the ISP is a couple of ports in a switch, a few rack units, and power. I.e. approximately zero.
The cache does no good if both Netflix and the ISPs do not have reciprocal peering agreements. Also, there are a lot of problems with these agreements.
So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.
Level 3 has stated that this is common issue across the entire Internet, which is why Level 3 has an average peak port utilization of 37%. Level 3 has designed their network to handle large shifts. You can pay Level 3 to handle peering for you or you can do it yourself, but don't come crying when someone changes routes.
It is a common problem. But it was something that wasn't really done until Netflix pioneered it. Traffic moves all over, but Netflix is 33% of traffic. That's not just traffic moving, that's re-engineering your entire network overnight. The ISPs were just switching peers and following Netflix for a while but their network utilization is just too large to ignore now. The ISPs should have seen this coming and approached the FCC to enshrine the "Gentlemans agreement" they'd always had with content providers into law. But they hate regulation... so here we are. Now their solution is STILL less regulation in the guise of these fast lanes. It's insanity. They're shooting themselves in the foot. The most direct, common sense solution is to regulate how peering agreements are made. If you're creating 30%+ of all internet traffic and it's not even related to free speech you SHOULD be regulated.
Verizons Tier1 network is separate from their consumer business. It's illegal for them to do both. They are different in the same way "Verizon Mobile" is different. So they have to pay either way. In fact, I've worked for 3 ISPs and all 3 have had Verizon as customers in that regard. ISPs work in conjunction like that. A simple example: Most phone companies have a peering agreement on 1 phone line and one dataline with their closest competitor. In the event of a large outage, theres a phone and data connection in that building that run off their competitors network and should remain up. No money is exchanged, it's just common courtesy in the industry. They are most used during natural disasters, and it's common for technicians from a rival company to come to the aid of their colleges when they get stranded due to weather and such.
What they mean by that is Netflix has to pay for peering but they've refused to do this in an industry standard way... which is, they go to the ISP and they both sign mutual agreements with one Peer for a period of years. Netflix instead goes with the cheapest provider and signs no deal with the ISPs. The tier1 providers understand this and offer discounts to netflix. Once they switch, they then gouge the ISP. It's a very simple and very effective strategy. This isn't entirely Netflix or Verizons fault. It's both their problem along with the tier1 providers. If anything Verizon in concert with other ISPs should have realized some company would do this sort of thing a long time ago and lobbied to get the FCC to enact rules to cover it. Netflix should have worked within the industry standard framework for these agreements and the Tier1 providers are just being plain evil.
And if Netflix moves their servers to Russia because it's cheaper? Do you expect the same speeds to their services? Ever notice watching videos from China/Russia doesn't work so hot? Is that Verizons vault? Is it "throttling" because they don't have 10gig trunks leading to Siberia?
That's basically what's happening here. Netflix is using the "Least cost" tier3 provider and switch networks at will. Verizon could have had an adequate agreement with the same peer as Netflix when this all started and if Netflix just switched providers over night (which they do all the time) they would suddenly be throttled because the ISP wasn't expecting 1/3rd of their traffic to suddenly switch networks.
No other content provider comes anywhere close to Netflix. Netflix provides 33% of all peak traffic. A very distant second is Youtube.
The problem is Netflix is working with the Tier3 providers to extort the ISPs. They peer with one company and then switch. They expect the ISP to switch along with them and the ISPs are refusing. The Tier3 providers are offering netflix discounts to get them to move there and then gouging the ISPs when they try to follow. This particular issue has nothing to do with the last mile (its still a problem, just not related to this particular topic) When 33% of the ISPs incoming traffic switches carriers overnight the ISP has a problem. Unfortunately for the ISPs this is a very complicated issue and nearly impossible to explain to their customers. Even if Netflix's graph was accurate in regards to Comcast it would mean nothing. What did Netflix do at the same time? Were they hitting comcast via the same peers? or did that drop in traffic coincide with peering agreement changes on Netflix's side? I think the latter is more likely the case.
The solution is Netflix and everyone else needs to let you buffer based on your available bandwidth. If your connection is too slow to watch the HD movie you have paid for then it should pretty much download the whole thing and then let you watch it.
The whole concept of live streaming accross the internet has always been a stupid idea for pre-recorded non-live media consumption
Most of the ISP industry groups confronted Netflix with this very idea. They refused.
Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.
Specifically: "The ISP network must be located in or connected to the same peering locations as the Netflix network " Which, on its face, you make it untenable. But then follow the link to their peering locations: https://www.netflix.com/openco...
They're exactly like mims. They know 1 thing, apply it to things outside of their field and make nonsense statements.
What Jenny McCarthy is to vaccines he is to the theory of evolution.
Jenny McCarthy is indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe even thousands of Children. She's peer pressured mothers all over the world into putting their children in mortal danger. Mims gave a few speeches in front of like minded Christians and wrote a few papers. I've never though that if I sat down to dinner with him and disagreed that he'd bat an eye at it. Jenny McCarthy would probably leap across the table and throttle you if she found out you vaccinated your kids. The two are not even remotely comparable.
I hate to break it to you but women didn't have any historical protection from punches. In fact, I'm willing to bet women were punched far more often than men until recently.
It's more complicated than that. Netflix's speeds on Verizon, or any other carriers, network are determined by peering agreements. There are multiple "Tier1" providers out there... these are the networks that interconnect all the ISPs. Random example: Level3
So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.
In most cases the content provider would inform you ahead of time. You make peering agreements in concert with each other. "We'll both sign a peering agreement with AT&T for a period of 2 years" The big change with Netflix is they do not make agreements like this. They switch peers without notice.
So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized. The ISP is reluctant to sign with Level3 because who says Netflix wont just switch peers again? The Tier1 providers are aware of this situation and are using it to their advantage. Particularly Level3. We've no idea what's going on here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix is just as much to blaim her as Verizon.
Netflix has no financial incentive to be friendly with the ISPs and that's what this whole "Fast lane" is about. I don't like the plan but the ISPs concerns aren't just made up. There is a real and legitimate problem with Netflix and it's not just some conspiracy to prevent people from watching movies.
If Snowden hadn't been treated like a traitor by his country, he wouldn't've had to flee in the first place. Uncle Sam only have himself to blame if snowden is spilling the beans in Russia.
You don't understand the event sequence, so you are wrong. It went like this.
1) Snowden steals a bunch of documents in secret. He flies to Hong Kong. At this point, nobody knows anything about him or what he has done except Snowden himself.
2) While in Hong Kong, Snowden gives a bunch of documents to various members of the press and holds a press conference to announce what he has done and to point out that he "had" to do it because it was the only way to let the American people know the truth.
3) The US government wakes up and realizes it has a really big problem on its hands. It's only now that the "traitor" charges begin and the US leans on China to send him back, instead prompting China to turn a blind eye as Russia agrees to make this its problem and headache to deal with. This gets China off the hook, although the Chinese have surely previously copied Snowden's stuff and possibly reached a deal with the USSR, cough cough, I mean Russia to share with each other what they find out.
Sorry, you're off by quite a bit there.
Snowden knew what the NSA Was doing. He didn't want to release it because Obama was going to win and promised to end the secret programs. Obama took office and not only did the program continue, it was ramped up. Snowden saw whistleblowers getting nailed all over the place. The NSA actually FRAMED one guy. Litterally framed him. When the documents were found to be fake the feds dropped the case. Snowden then realized that there would be no fair trail inside the US. He would be framed as well. He also saw how other leakers had released information to a single news source and that news source had spiked the story at the whitehouses request. He contacted 3 journalists over a period of months and setup a meeting in Hong Kong With multiple media sources, no single org could stop the story. If one covered it up, the others could release it. The journalists met him in a hotel room there where they interviewed him over a period of a week or two. He gave them all the data. They sent some of their documents back to the US for stories and then watched the whitehouses reaction. They hoped there would be an immediate turn around in policy as the public realized what was going on and the NSA realized what snowden had stolen. Instead President Obama came out and flatly lied to the public. Not just a little, not just speaking out of context, he told bold faced lies and members of the justice department and congress went along with him. Snowden realized this meant it was an institutional conspiracy. There would be change without releasing all of the data. So Snowden went public because he wanted to counter what was so obviously a lie. Without an "inside man" to explain how things really worked the president could spin the story any way he wanted to. By being the face to the story, he made it very real to most Americans.
Have no doubt, he sacrificed himself for us. I don't know what else he does or his political views. I'm sure there are things about him I'd dislike or even hate. But if more of us could have a moment of clarity like he did, if we could do the right but painful thing that needed to be done more often, we'd all be better off.
Didn't he release all of his information? What more use would be interrogating him?
I see some possibilities here:
1. He did not actually release everything he had. 2. Why would Russia release this information? What do they have to gain from saying this?
He did not. Snowden released ALL of the data to 2 reporters and a documentary film maker. He was caught in a catch 22. If he did not release all of the data, the government could argue he was trying to manipulate the government by only release bits and pieces. At the same time, if he released all of it as Manning did, it could put some people in danger. He's always argued that he did not want to harm the US's legitimate interests.
So he picked journalists that he thought were responsible and he thought he could trust, gave them all of the data and relied on them to keep it safe and only release data that would further his transparency goals. This is also why he didn't approach the NewYork Times. They'd already agreed to hide information they had on government programs with the Whitehouse. Snowden knew this, and didn't trust them because of it. Their complicity lost them the biggest story in the history of the world.
The Obama administrations ability to vet technology is, to say the least, questionable. So far it seems he's using funding like this to pay back major campaign donors. Not that every president doesn't do that, but frankly, I don't trust a word that comes out of the whitehouse.
"This tape will self destruct in 5 seconds" *POOF*
But seriously, any truly secure system will have to take several things into account:
1. Any data transmitted in any way is vulnerable to interception. 2. Systems can be hacked using security vulnerabilities you're not even aware of. 3. Given enough time, all systems become circumventable with new technology.
So, so account for #1, you can't allow the data to be transmitted. So the data must be stored physically and locally. For #2, you must limit the readers ability to access the data. The more rudimentary the better. For #3 you need to prevent the physical storage device from making it into the future.
So, what I'd propose is a box that's at least an inch thick and made of lead (or other very dense material.) Access to the data on the device would be through a single serial port. You could only connect via telnet, and your security would remain internal. Power would need to be provided by an internal battery. The entire device would need to be lined with white phosphorous/oxidizer or other chemical igniter. The rules for setting off the phosphorous would need to be relatively simply so it couldn't be gamed. Any shock, rapid heat change, or attempt to open the device should set it off. And an attempt to drill a hole into the device would expose the phosphorous to air and likewise set it off. Also, after a certain period of time had elapsed OR the battery started to run low, it should go off. Attempts to hack the serial interface should set it off.
Real summary: There was a telecom company named IFone. 4yrs later along came Apple with their IPhone. Carriers in Mexico that competed with IFone, started carrying IPhones, and they started advertising as such. Apple sued to try and take the trademark from the company. Even though the name clearly predated Apples. IFone counter sued, and said that the name was confusing customers as to where to get their service.
The court said Apple could keep the name because they are in different industries. But the cross-advertising did, in fact, confuse consumers, so other Telecoms could not advertise with the word IPhone.
All this ruling does is let Apple continue to sell their phones in Mexico, and bar telecoms for advertising it along with their service. IFone can still sue for damages. Apple will likely settle out of court as it's pretty clear they are going to lose.
Chances are, the detected frequencies may be due to reflection of radio energy that's been transmitted by transmitters around the world. Radio amateurs have been using meteor-scatter as a way of reflecting radio frequency energy for short periods to make intercontinental contact - so this may be a contributor to the signals detected at "radio quiet" locations.
They specifically rule that out if you read the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Had you actually clicked the link instead of staring at it you would have been greeted with several pages of peers.
Good point. They need to learn how to design a webpage. Their sites on par with Geocities.
But that still doesn't solve all the other problems with their agreement requirements. It also doesn't solve the problem of netflix switching peers almost at random.
Both promote ignorance of a science. Both undermine science, both speak on subjects they no nothing about.
Intentional undermining a science, using your status to continue to spread ignorance harms us all.
Not understand science becasue of people like these ass hats is exactly why kids are dead.
His 'logic' is the same type of 'logic' that makes people susceptible to claims from people like Jenny McCarthy, and a host of other pseudosciences.
Scientific ignorance puts us all in mortal peril.
So do you. So do I. I'm sure I could trawl your posts and find some examples of you disagreeing with established science, not that I care to.
By that reasoning we're all equally related to Jenny McCarthy.
McCarthy is a bad person because she uses peer pressure to convince unwitting mothers into putting children in very real danger. She's made a fortune doing so. Mims simply has a different opinion. I see nothing wrong with that even if I disagree with him.
I believe in God (or something like God) and that Evolution IS creation. Science is simply understanding how God did it. Does that make me a bad person?
So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized.
If the ISP is concerned about this, they can just ask Netflix for a caching box. Total cost to the ISP is a couple of ports in a switch, a few rack units, and power. I.e. approximately zero.
The cache does no good if both Netflix and the ISPs do not have reciprocal peering agreements. Also, there are a lot of problems with these agreements.
So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.
Level 3 has stated that this is common issue across the entire Internet, which is why Level 3 has an average peak port utilization of 37%. Level 3 has designed their network to handle large shifts. You can pay Level 3 to handle peering for you or you can do it yourself, but don't come crying when someone changes routes.
It is a common problem. But it was something that wasn't really done until Netflix pioneered it. Traffic moves all over, but Netflix is 33% of traffic. That's not just traffic moving, that's re-engineering your entire network overnight. The ISPs were just switching peers and following Netflix for a while but their network utilization is just too large to ignore now. The ISPs should have seen this coming and approached the FCC to enshrine the "Gentlemans agreement" they'd always had with content providers into law. But they hate regulation... so here we are. Now their solution is STILL less regulation in the guise of these fast lanes. It's insanity. They're shooting themselves in the foot. The most direct, common sense solution is to regulate how peering agreements are made. If you're creating 30%+ of all internet traffic and it's not even related to free speech you SHOULD be regulated.
Verizons Tier1 network is separate from their consumer business. It's illegal for them to do both. They are different in the same way "Verizon Mobile" is different. So they have to pay either way. In fact, I've worked for 3 ISPs and all 3 have had Verizon as customers in that regard. ISPs work in conjunction like that. A simple example: Most phone companies have a peering agreement on 1 phone line and one dataline with their closest competitor. In the event of a large outage, theres a phone and data connection in that building that run off their competitors network and should remain up. No money is exchanged, it's just common courtesy in the industry. They are most used during natural disasters, and it's common for technicians from a rival company to come to the aid of their colleges when they get stranded due to weather and such.
What they mean by that is Netflix has to pay for peering but they've refused to do this in an industry standard way... which is, they go to the ISP and they both sign mutual agreements with one Peer for a period of years. Netflix instead goes with the cheapest provider and signs no deal with the ISPs. The tier1 providers understand this and offer discounts to netflix. Once they switch, they then gouge the ISP. It's a very simple and very effective strategy. This isn't entirely Netflix or Verizons fault. It's both their problem along with the tier1 providers. If anything Verizon in concert with other ISPs should have realized some company would do this sort of thing a long time ago and lobbied to get the FCC to enact rules to cover it. Netflix should have worked within the industry standard framework for these agreements and the Tier1 providers are just being plain evil.
And if Netflix moves their servers to Russia because it's cheaper? Do you expect the same speeds to their services? Ever notice watching videos from China/Russia doesn't work so hot? Is that Verizons vault? Is it "throttling" because they don't have 10gig trunks leading to Siberia?
That's basically what's happening here. Netflix is using the "Least cost" tier3 provider and switch networks at will. Verizon could have had an adequate agreement with the same peer as Netflix when this all started and if Netflix just switched providers over night (which they do all the time) they would suddenly be throttled because the ISP wasn't expecting 1/3rd of their traffic to suddenly switch networks.
No other content provider comes anywhere close to Netflix. Netflix provides 33% of all peak traffic. A very distant second is Youtube.
The problem is Netflix is working with the Tier3 providers to extort the ISPs. They peer with one company and then switch. They expect the ISP to switch along with them and the ISPs are refusing. The Tier3 providers are offering netflix discounts to get them to move there and then gouging the ISPs when they try to follow. This particular issue has nothing to do with the last mile (its still a problem, just not related to this particular topic) When 33% of the ISPs incoming traffic switches carriers overnight the ISP has a problem. Unfortunately for the ISPs this is a very complicated issue and nearly impossible to explain to their customers. Even if Netflix's graph was accurate in regards to Comcast it would mean nothing. What did Netflix do at the same time? Were they hitting comcast via the same peers? or did that drop in traffic coincide with peering agreement changes on Netflix's side? I think the latter is more likely the case.
The solution is Netflix and everyone else needs to let you buffer based on your available bandwidth. If your connection is too slow to watch the HD movie you have paid for then it should pretty much download the whole thing and then let you watch it.
The whole concept of live streaming accross the internet has always been a stupid idea for pre-recorded non-live media consumption
Most of the ISP industry groups confronted Netflix with this very idea. They refused.
Netflix already backed down: http://time.com/2848782/netfli...
Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.
No they don't.
https://www.netflix.com/openco...
Specifically: "The ISP network must be located in or connected to the same peering locations as the Netflix network "
Which, on its face, you make it untenable. But then follow the link to their peering locations:
https://www.netflix.com/openco...
and its blank.
They're exactly like mims.
They know 1 thing, apply it to things outside of their field and make nonsense statements.
What Jenny McCarthy is to vaccines he is to the theory of evolution.
Jenny McCarthy is indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe even thousands of Children. She's peer pressured mothers all over the world into putting their children in mortal danger. Mims gave a few speeches in front of like minded Christians and wrote a few papers. I've never though that if I sat down to dinner with him and disagreed that he'd bat an eye at it. Jenny McCarthy would probably leap across the table and throttle you if she found out you vaccinated your kids. The two are not even remotely comparable.
I hate to break it to you but women didn't have any historical protection from punches. In fact, I'm willing to bet women were punched far more often than men until recently.
It's more complicated than that. Netflix's speeds on Verizon, or any other carriers, network are determined by peering agreements. There are multiple "Tier1" providers out there... these are the networks that interconnect all the ISPs. Random example: Level3
So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.
In most cases the content provider would inform you ahead of time. You make peering agreements in concert with each other. "We'll both sign a peering agreement with AT&T for a period of 2 years" The big change with Netflix is they do not make agreements like this. They switch peers without notice.
So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized. The ISP is reluctant to sign with Level3 because who says Netflix wont just switch peers again? The Tier1 providers are aware of this situation and are using it to their advantage. Particularly Level3. We've no idea what's going on here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix is just as much to blaim her as Verizon.
Netflix has no financial incentive to be friendly with the ISPs and that's what this whole "Fast lane" is about. I don't like the plan but the ISPs concerns aren't just made up. There is a real and legitimate problem with Netflix and it's not just some conspiracy to prevent people from watching movies.
SOURCE: Netflix
lol
I'll run a comparison with my current network (Verizon) and when Google Fiber finally drops in my area. I'm sure I'll find all the proof I need.
Google Fiber serves a few thousand customers country wide. Don't hold your breath.
If Snowden hadn't been treated like a traitor by his country, he wouldn't've had to flee in the first place. Uncle Sam only have himself to blame if snowden is spilling the beans in Russia.
You don't understand the event sequence, so you are wrong. It went like this.
1) Snowden steals a bunch of documents in secret. He flies to Hong Kong. At this point, nobody knows anything about him or what he has done except Snowden himself.
2) While in Hong Kong, Snowden gives a bunch of documents to various members of the press and holds a press conference to announce what he has done and to point out that he "had" to do it because it was the only way to let the American people know the truth.
3) The US government wakes up and realizes it has a really big problem on its hands. It's only now that the "traitor" charges begin and the US leans on China to send him back, instead prompting China to turn a blind eye as Russia agrees to make this its problem and headache to deal with. This gets China off the hook, although the Chinese have surely previously copied Snowden's stuff and possibly reached a deal with the USSR, cough cough, I mean Russia to share with each other what they find out.
Sorry, you're off by quite a bit there.
Snowden knew what the NSA Was doing.
He didn't want to release it because Obama was going to win and promised to end the secret programs.
Obama took office and not only did the program continue, it was ramped up. Snowden saw whistleblowers getting nailed all over the place.
The NSA actually FRAMED one guy. Litterally framed him. When the documents were found to be fake the feds dropped the case.
Snowden then realized that there would be no fair trail inside the US. He would be framed as well.
He also saw how other leakers had released information to a single news source and that news source had spiked the story at the whitehouses request.
He contacted 3 journalists over a period of months and setup a meeting in Hong Kong
With multiple media sources, no single org could stop the story. If one covered it up, the others could release it.
The journalists met him in a hotel room there where they interviewed him over a period of a week or two. He gave them all the data.
They sent some of their documents back to the US for stories and then watched the whitehouses reaction.
They hoped there would be an immediate turn around in policy as the public realized what was going on and the NSA realized what snowden had stolen.
Instead President Obama came out and flatly lied to the public. Not just a little, not just speaking out of context, he told bold faced lies and members of the justice department and congress went along with him.
Snowden realized this meant it was an institutional conspiracy. There would be change without releasing all of the data.
So Snowden went public because he wanted to counter what was so obviously a lie. Without an "inside man" to explain how things really worked the president could spin the story any way he wanted to. By being the face to the story, he made it very real to most Americans.
Have no doubt, he sacrificed himself for us. I don't know what else he does or his political views. I'm sure there are things about him I'd dislike or even hate. But if more of us could have a moment of clarity like he did, if we could do the right but painful thing that needed to be done more often, we'd all be better off.
Including the planes of sitting heads of state. Don't forget about that one.
Didn't he release all of his information? What more use would be interrogating him?
I see some possibilities here:
1. He did not actually release everything he had.
2. Why would Russia release this information? What do they have to gain from saying this?
He did not.
Snowden released ALL of the data to 2 reporters and a documentary film maker.
He was caught in a catch 22. If he did not release all of the data, the government could argue he was trying to manipulate the government by only release bits and pieces. At the same time, if he released all of it as Manning did, it could put some people in danger. He's always argued that he did not want to harm the US's legitimate interests.
So he picked journalists that he thought were responsible and he thought he could trust, gave them all of the data and relied on them to keep it safe and only release data that would further his transparency goals. This is also why he didn't approach the NewYork Times. They'd already agreed to hide information they had on government programs with the Whitehouse. Snowden knew this, and didn't trust them because of it. Their complicity lost them the biggest story in the history of the world.
I think I saw a professor build one with coconuts somewhere.
The US Government is corrupt in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2. You needn't prove it to know it is true.
That's true of all government.
The Obama administrations ability to vet technology is, to say the least, questionable. So far it seems he's using funding like this to pay back major campaign donors. Not that every president doesn't do that, but frankly, I don't trust a word that comes out of the whitehouse.
Mission impossible figured this out it the 60s.
"This tape will self destruct in 5 seconds" *POOF*
But seriously, any truly secure system will have to take several things into account:
1. Any data transmitted in any way is vulnerable to interception.
2. Systems can be hacked using security vulnerabilities you're not even aware of.
3. Given enough time, all systems become circumventable with new technology.
So, so account for #1, you can't allow the data to be transmitted. So the data must be stored physically and locally. For #2, you must limit the readers ability to access the data. The more rudimentary the better. For #3 you need to prevent the physical storage device from making it into the future.
So, what I'd propose is a box that's at least an inch thick and made of lead (or other very dense material.) Access to the data on the device would be through a single serial port. You could only connect via telnet, and your security would remain internal. Power would need to be provided by an internal battery. The entire device would need to be lined with white phosphorous/oxidizer or other chemical igniter. The rules for setting off the phosphorous would need to be relatively simply so it couldn't be gamed. Any shock, rapid heat change, or attempt to open the device should set it off. And an attempt to drill a hole into the device would expose the phosphorous to air and likewise set it off. Also, after a certain period of time had elapsed OR the battery started to run low, it should go off. Attempts to hack the serial interface should set it off.
Viola, hackproof.
The summary is VERY misleading.
Real summary:
There was a telecom company named IFone.
4yrs later along came Apple with their IPhone.
Carriers in Mexico that competed with IFone, started carrying IPhones, and they started advertising as such.
Apple sued to try and take the trademark from the company. Even though the name clearly predated Apples.
IFone counter sued, and said that the name was confusing customers as to where to get their service.
The court said Apple could keep the name because they are in different industries. But the cross-advertising did, in fact, confuse consumers, so other Telecoms could not advertise with the word IPhone.
All this ruling does is let Apple continue to sell their phones in Mexico, and bar telecoms for advertising it along with their service.
IFone can still sue for damages. Apple will likely settle out of court as it's pretty clear they are going to lose.
So the dude the religion is named after is less important than the dude that worshiped him?
Chances are, the detected frequencies may be due to reflection of radio energy that's been transmitted by transmitters around the world. Radio amateurs have been using meteor-scatter as a way of reflecting radio frequency energy for short periods to make intercontinental contact - so this may be a contributor to the signals detected at "radio quiet" locations.
They specifically rule that out if you read the article.