It's a case of someone using bad Latin to sound smart, and failing. Prote is the middle Latin conjugation of Proteo, meaning "first among". They're trying to say she was one of the earliest of the decriers. Unfortunately, given the woman's demonstrated propensity to speak about things she does not understand, they're also probably correct.
Just read through my post history. I do this kind of crap all the time. Also, feel free to friend flag me - it'll take the stuff falsely marked "troll" out of the gutters (which also happens a lot, particularly when I'm making fun of warezers.)
Good luck with that "withholding rent" strategy. Ever tried it?
With Verizon, SBC, Equitable Gas, Dusquesne Light, GNAX and two realtors, yes. Once I had to take a utility to court (I am legally unable to discuss whom). Every other utility knew I was in the right and that it wasn't worth wasting the money in court, and ceded the point. It costs them more than $30 to send the message that they need to make a decision what to do, in terms of man-hours and payscale. They're business people, and you may-or-may-not have the law on your side. (You do, but they don't care; it's not worth the money to find out.)
What you are claiming isn't true and landlords know it.
Uh. You should probably check into that. Look for "warrant of habitability" in about two thirds of the states in the US. This is a fundamental provision issue for feudalism, and is the basis on which feudal lords were accountable - in fact, that's why we still use the term "accountable" to mean "to be held to duty," since the feudal lords' accounts were dependant on doing their duties. We inherited this concept from the Magna Carta, and it's still in force today.
Unfortunately, the requirements are different state to state, county to county, and frequently even city to city, so I can't just give you a FAQ on the topic. Most areas require certified notice with a warning period, some areas require regulatory involvement, some areas require a permit, et cetera. I can, however, point you to FAQs for specific areas. The only federal level commentary I can find from an authoritative source is very brief, but it's the American Bar Association, who are responsible for certifying all lawyers and judges, so I'm willing to bet they know their stuff.
It is worth noting that two states - Illinois and Nevada - do not allow rent withholding. If you live in either of those states, that's probably the origin of your confusion. Illinois has an equivalent mechanism where you may spend your rent money on the repairs directly, which sets a limit both on how much you can withhold (no holding back $1200 of rent on $150 of repairs) and how quickly you may force your landlord's hand (no draining them for $20k in one month on a $1200 rent, even if it's necessary.) Nevada's withholding mechanism is complicated and I don't understand it well enough to comment.
What you are claiming isn't true and landlords know it. You will find yourself in court with a nice judgement against you and probably evicted as well.
I wonder why you would say something like that. This is one of the basic tenets of American law, and shows up in every rental - not just real estate, but also equipment rental, rights rental, and so on. With all due respect, I don't believe that you have legal training. In the meantime, I have actually done this quite a few times, and I've won every time, including the time it went to court.
The eviction takes time. The judgement not as long.
Evictions don't require judgements, champ. Two certified letters and no proof of payment is all the sheriff needs. I wish you wouldn't try so hard to pretend to know things you don't know. It lowers the quality of the experience for all of us.
Just to clarify; censors who examine and modify music/literature/etc. to remove anything objectionable/etc. are clearly engaging in an act defined as censorship. Just because they don't do it on behalf of a government doesn't mean the activity isn't censorship.
Er, yes, it does. What you're confused by is that the private individuals are editors, not censors. The reason what they're doing is called censorship is that they are following the rules set by government censors. You get a similar issue around taxation: only the government may tax, whereas private individuals and firms can bill, fee or fine. The general underlying mechanism is the same. The title you use when you're doing it according to law is "taxation." No resteraunt may tax you, but they all impose government taxes.
You don't have to be a member of the government to be the official responsible for carrying out government edicts; this much is true. However, whereas there may be editors within Time Warner engaged in censorship, Time Warner may not itself censor. Time Warner may not, for example, issue a document that says "nobody may use the word fuck." The federal government may, and in limited circumstances (broadcast media in timeframes) has through its FCC regulatory body. There was great debate over whether or not that was censorship; it was settled that the issue was not censorship but rather the ability to limit distribution by default, which is the same basis by which pornography was relegated to behind the desk, in an opaque bag or on the top shelf, like it has been in so many states. They may still publish titty rags, but the titty rags have to be in the back room of the store, and kids can't go back there. (That's New Jersey and Pennsylvania; laws vary, but you get the idea.)
So, here's your clarification. The issue is simple when we use nuclear bomb plans. Nuclear bomb plans were the first document class to be publically and officially censored by the US Government, back in the 1940s. (Other things that lead to awful weapons have been added to the list.) That required a hell of a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, and technically the USA can censor stuff now; we just don't without an enormous hullabaloo.
So. Let's say - and I have to invent a job title here because the job title is in question - but let's say you're a Senior Text Control Officer at some big book publishing firm. Your responsibility is to go through a manuscript after the firm has decided it wants to publish, and to make sure the book can legally be published. You look for libel and slander. You look for threats against heads of state. You look for instructions on manufacturing currency. None of that's there. Good to go. Then you're on the last chapter, and you see this big stack of technical documents. After 30 minutes of flipping through them, to your horror, you realize that this is a set of plans for a breeder reactor. Because of acts from the 1940s, you know your firm cannot publish this book, because of these plans.
What I am suggesting is that in this role, you are not the censor. Rather, I am suggesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the censor. You are an editor. Yes, you are engaged in censorship, but the censor is not under your authority; you are following a proscription, rather than issuing an edict. There is only one censor behind a specific censury, and there are - who knows, maybe thousands? - of people enacting it as editors. People who refer to "tv censors" are similar to people who confuse fusion and fission. Hell, the TV news still calls people "alleged murderers," when the allegation is once you're convicted. You need to understand that most people's use of the language is just piss poor.
It isn't censorship unless it's a broad-spectrum forbidding of publishment. Let's disregard issues of whether or not that has to be a government issue. Practically speaking, Comcast doesn't have the ability to prevent me from putting my book out there. Ho
...but which accounts for 100% of my bittorrent activity. I should be complacent and happy to be penalized for the misdeeds of others just because there are a lot of them?
Well, let's see. There are crosswalks because most people don't cross at the middle of the street well. You can't buy cocaine because most people who do it end up becoming violent thieves. You have to have car insurance because most people who couldn't afford to cover someone else's injuries won't stop driving until they've got savings. You have to drive 65mph because most people don't know how to pin a turn at 140 in the rain, which is actually quite safe if you know what you're doing. You're not allowed to mod your generator, even though you could get 3-5% more efficiency out of it by tuning it for a specific fuel, because most people who do that would cause an explosion. You can't read off The Iliad in a movie theater because most people can't yell "fire" without causing a panic - the scene where Ulysses sends the archers at the walls of Troy is stirring, but verboten. You're not allowed to perform an appendectomy on your neighbor, even if you're an ex-surgeon whose license is expired and even if you'd save them more money than switching to Geico, because of the horrible visceral drama that everyman surgery would create.
Don't even get me started on the list of chemicals you're not allowed to buy, what you can't bring on a plane, what you may not say to a cop, the jokes you can't tell about the president, the things you can't do with your DVD collection, what you can say in a head shop, the redactions from your nuclear physics textbook or commentary regarding libel and/or slander.
But, of course, that wasn't my point. You've managed to make a fool of yourself on a complete non-sequitor. My point was about that what ComCast is doing isn't censorship. I think what they're doing is disgusting and reprehensible. I don't disagree with you, that it should not be happening. It just isn't censorship.
Get off the cross until you learn to read what someone else actually said, instead of what you wanted to hear.
You were probably modded a troll because BitTorrent does not necessarily equate to piracy.
I never said it did. What I said was that some people think anti-piracy throttling is censorship, about which they're wrong. Please read what I said again - at no point did I make any such suggestion. Both of the people who've replied, and I presume the person who modded me troll, have made that same mistake.
Sometimes I wonder why it is that when I make fun of pirates, so many people go "bittorrent isn't about piracy." All I was doing was pointing out one reason that stupid people might have added a tag to a story. Take off the rose colored glasses and read what I said again.
You kinda were trolling. There are far more uses for BitTorrent than just piracy.
I never said there weren't. The connection is hoary, I agree - that's why I seemed so put off by it. Nonetheless, what I'm answering is why the censorship tag comes up on a comcast article. I'm not making any commentary on the nature of BitTorrent; you're seeing things that aren't there. All I did was to point out something stupid that a specific group of people think.
Pirates think anti-piracy is censorship. Simple as that. That's just where the tag came in. I'm not saying BitTorrent is about piracy. I'm saying that in a pirate's eyes, Comcast's anti-BitTorrent stuff is censorship. I'm also saying that in reality, that's not censorship at all.
I'm discussing a group's opinion. Please spend less time defending against things I didn't say about BitTorrent.
I've never noticed a slow down when getting torrents over my Comcast internet service.
Most of the pirates pretending anti-P2P is censorship aren't even ComCast customers. I was just answering the question "why is this story tagged censorship?"
I find it amusing how you've fallen into the very thing you're discussing. Censorship was an official Roman government post more than two thousand years ago, and there is no language authority which has ever cited it as anything other than a government action. The very notion of censorship is the absolute forbidding of the ability to publish; very rare is the society in which anything other than the Government, or possibly a religious body, would even have the ability to do so.
You and I get along, and you are taking the laudable position of formality and correctness. I invite you to produce an authority (you and I both know that means no wikipedia) which makes any claim to censorship being something other than the centralized forbidding of a publishment across all points, or the explanation of a situation in which something other than government or religious government would have the ability to create such a situation.
The word censere was created for a specific purpose. Unlike most ancient words, we know who coined this term, when, and why. The office "censere" was established by the General Pompeii to restrict the traffic of documents which were spreading the idea that he might rise up against the Caesars, since having that sort of suggestion made about you - even by a third party - was punishable by death (indeed, that's the official reason they crucified Jesus, too, for being the "king of the Jews." Never claim authority in ancient Rome.) Pompeii wanted to make it very clear that he was prosecuting people making those suggestions because he had been entrusted to take a legion and quite a bit of support military to trim up the edges of the empire; you can even see commentary on the importance of the censura in the Biblical discussion of the Maccabees. Read that part of the Bible. It won't make any sense unless it's governmentally driven.
Indeed, none of American censorship law makes sense unless censorship is government-only. It's not enough to say "but they just mean governmental censorship", as the law isn't actually written that way. The law makes plain that no censorship is tolerable in any form. Companies aren't off the hook for law because of some unspoken tacit understanding that "it only means these people" or what have you, and there is no point in the law wherein anything to the effect of "we only mean government censorship" is actually said.
It's great for you to posit alternate theories, and it's great for you to suggest that many of the misunderstandings are the repetition of things that people heard. However, this time that isn't the case. Censorship in the historical context is something I've paid great and diligent attention to. You and I get along because we share a fascination with people who take personal beliefs over reference material when bitterly arguing the denotation of words.
The problem is, I've got history and reference on my side.
You're a smart and a convivial guy. I invite you to find reference that suggests I am incorrect, when I say the following clearly: "The concept of censorship only makes sense when coming from a central authority, such as government or governmentalized religion. Censorship is the act of preventing the publication of material wholesale. A publisher declining a work is simply a business decision, as one can have the work brought to another publisher. No business, school, civic office or similar device in American culture has the privilege of censorship, or even a sensible mechanism therefor."
However, to be plain - and I risk seeming standoffish here - your entire point seems to be that people have a tendency to argue from impression and belief, as opposed to reference, history, context or weighted argument. I put forward the idea that in fact that is exactly what you have done, albeit in a very convincing and interesting fashion. This is, in essence, a red herring: you have used personal misapprehensions about what may or may not be the validity of someone's statement to argue their statement.
You're right - in the previous posting I could have been more thorough. I have now done so. I don't actually see any reference backing you up. Could you be doing what you decry?
Where do people get the idea that censorship is the sole domain of government? A business/school/church/organization/publication/etc. are all capable of censorship.
No, they aren't. Censorship doesn't mean "we choose not to run your piece." Censorship means "you may not run your piece anywhere." No business, church, school, organization or publication can prevent me from publishing my work; all they can do is decline their own involvement. The word comes from the latin "censura" meaning judgement, and became attached to the judgement of morals and ethics in 1592. The role of censura in Roman government was to evaluate whether or not a piece may be distributed: a publisher would go to the censura, and ask whether they may disseminate the author's work, after they'd decided that they wanted to. This was one of the mechanisms of suppressing anti-governmental or anti-praetorian text, and was frequently the means by which revolutions were crushed.
Of course, given that you're insisting that something you believe is true, ignorant of reference work, I'm willing to bet you're a descriptivist, and that you have no idea what descriptivism is. Giant shock: the language doesn't change just because you're no good at it. You can, in fact, be wrong; just because a group of people misuses a word doesn't mean its meaning has changed.
If what you said about censorship was true, then American censorship law would make no sense whatsoever. How could the government say that censorship would never, ever happen in this country, if any random company could censor?
Where do people get the idea that censorship is the sole domain of government?
From having a familiarity with a word borne of literature, legal context, or just knowing what they're talking about. Where do you get the idea otherwise? Your buddy Stan?
That's easy to fix. Call the business department, or whatever they call the department that deals with signing up new customers. Tell them "I am renting equipment from you, and this equipment is dead. Unfortunately, service people believe that I am liable to pay money to repair rented equipment. Under federal rental law, you are required to come repair your equipment, and I don't have to pay you for the rest of the service that I'm receiving until you've done so; this tactic is used on a regular basis against slumlords to enforce the maintenance of apartment buildings, but unfortunately it seems your service department thinks that that's limited to real estate. I will continue to enjoy my cable and internet at your expense until you've come to repair your equipment. If you shut me off for following my federally guaranteed right to withhold your money until you've fulfilled your obligations, I will inform the state attorney general's office. When may I expect my federally required free serviceperson for my rented equipment, please?"
Don't give them an opportunity to speak until you've gotten to the last sentence. If they try to interrupt you, raise your volume, start anew at the beginning of your current sentence, and speak slower. Every time they try to interrupt you, repeat this behavior. You will get your service for free.
Why, of course. If there's something you don't know about, it's got to be a media lie, right? Well, welcome to reality: cable is a shared backbone. It's an artifact of the design of cable television networks, and it's cable's biggest problem. This isn't "press puffery," it's a real problem for these people. Right now it doesn't come up much because the backbones can handle 5 megabit times 1500 customers. However, the big reason it took so long to deploy ADSL2 was because it required the phone companies to gut their infrastructure and lay down more capacity. DOCSIS 3 is going to do the same thing to the cable companies.
Please stop pretending to know things you don't actually know. Grandparent was quite correct - cable is a shared connection, and it's going to hurt the cable companies pretty badly in about two years. This is the nature of the technology. Read a book.
What is Verizon's provisioning on the FIOS back end ?
There's no such thing as a "FIOS back end". Fiber is a discrete network like ethernet. If you and your neighbor have FIOS, and you connect to your neighbor, it goes from you to your phone pole to their phone pole to them. It doesn't go to any "back end". Unlike DSL and cable, it never goes back to a central office, which I assume is what you mean by "back end", since that term does not come up in telecomms infrastructure. Namedropping doesn't make you clueful, even if the word sounds really convincing to you.
How much do they underprovision ?
They don't. It's a brand new network. They won't be cutting bandwidth for at least five years. Also, please stop putting spaces before your question marks. It's obnoxious, it causes problems with line wrapping, and you look like a reject from third grade.
It is a very safe bet that there is not 10 Mbps of Internet transit reserved for every FIOS customer
No.
so there is still sharing of bandwidth
It's a discrete network. Bandwidth sharing isn't possible. You probably mean network bandwidth arbitrage, which is very different. Do you go into your car mechanic and talk about Carnot cycles because you read about it in a slashdot article about engine efficiency? No? Then don't do that here, please, because the only difference is that, unlike the lucky greasemonkey, I am unable to laugh in your face to display for you just how much of an ass you're being. Just because you're used to calling your web server code deployments and your sql choices "back ends" doesn't mean that every time you've imagined yourself up the arbitrary need for some service provision that it's automatically called a backend, nor does it mean that the arbitrary service provision even exists.
Doesn't it bother you to get so high up on a soapbox about a network you know nothing about?
This could be better or worse than Comcast
The only reason you believe that is that you know literally nothing about either technology. Doesn't it bother you to say "because I don't know jack, there is no way to differentiate between the two offers?" Verizon just dumped billions into a brand spanking new network. They hit this choke wall five years ago, because they were running on a much older general case network. Verizon is off of this hook for at least five years, and probably a decade. Comcast is just having the same set of problems that Verizon had in 2001, and the same set of problems that Verizon will have again in (checking crystal ball) approximately 2018.
but you don't know and can't tell just from the bandwidth of the edge circuit.
Jesus H. Christ. NEITHER of these networks has anything even resembling an edge circuit. You have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you just do us all a favor and stop pretending otherwise? The cable network is a trunk
I know that there are censorship issues associated with Comcast
No, there aren't. Censorship is when a government forbids you the ability to publish a document. Comcast, and all telecomm infrastructure providers, are incapable of censorship, and there is nothing of censorship in throttling P2P. Quit being such drama queens - choking bittorrent isn't even close to censorship, and you should feel primitive for having suggested otherwise.
You do not have the inalienable right to theft, and don't even bother wasting my time telling me about all the other legitimate uses of BitTorrent which account for less than one tenth of one percent of all BitTorrent activity.
I realize the tagging is in beta, but why censorship?
Because Comcast throttles BitTorrent, and the pirate kiddies can't tell the difference between the right to free speech and the ability to steal. It's pretty sad.
Anyone doing this kind of work really should be familiar with what Tilden has done.
You seem to have missed the point. The new research isn't about group behavior as a legitimate emergent effect of simple rules; that's well known. The new research is about demonstrating that the effect not only is in fact in practice specifically in cockroaches, but that the system of the cockroach can be understood and manipulated with simple tools. It's one thing to show that it's possible. It's another thing entirely to demonstrate an operating case, and to understand it well enough to dominate it. If anything, this is the ratification of the work you're indicating.
Not to be thick-headed here, but what happens when they have a hardware failure? I'm not sure what the failure rate is on their hardware, but it must be greater than zero, right?
Given Sun's recent push towards grid computing, I'm betting they'll just shut off the node, mark the loss and call it a day. Replication is amazingly win if you get it right.
Adding 20 new, unobserved, unproven particles makes for an "exceptionally simple" theory? Wonder what Occam would say about that.
Please remember that William of Ockham was concerned with situations where none of the upshots looked likely, and was resolving between several severely complex explanations. Sure, adding 20 particles to our set of several hundred may sound unlikely, but compare that to a model that requires sixteen dimensions, and suddenly the scales don't look quite so unbalanced.
To compare a theory to the current belief is admirable, but in so doing, you do actually need to look critically at the current belief.
Why do I get the feeling that that's the reason you're the only person in here both trying and succeeding to make this material available to the lay ministers?
it's not back to the same orientation until you turn it around 720 degrees, instead of 360 like normal objects
I've found that a variation on the Flatland theme really helps people come to terms with this - it's easier for us to look down then map back up when we're trying to understand things outside our physical experience, at least in my opinion. The one I've been using is a sphere on an axis, painted identically on two sides, and a very young child observer. Generally speaking, the toddler won't be able to tell the half-rotation from a full rotation. Following that, I usually invoke the toy ball with the second ball suspended inside in a thin fluid, and posit that it rotates at precisely half the speed of the exterior ball, and revoke the identical side-to-side painting. If the outer ball is only slightly transparent, a young child won't notice that after a full rotation, the interior sphere has only rotated halfway - then you mumble something about an analog clock or a car gearing down, depending on your audience - and point out that only an adult would notice that it takes two rotations to get the state back.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a case of someone using bad Latin to sound smart, and failing. Prote is the middle Latin conjugation of Proteo, meaning "first among". They're trying to say she was one of the earliest of the decriers. Unfortunately, given the woman's demonstrated propensity to speak about things she does not understand, they're also probably correct.
Seriously? You think an object when dropped falls to the ground because people believe in gravity?
You, sir, play too many role playing games. Gravity predates opinion.
Sir, I find your ideas intriguing, but I would not like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Just read through my post history. I do this kind of crap all the time. Also, feel free to friend flag me - it'll take the stuff falsely marked "troll" out of the gutters (which also happens a lot, particularly when I'm making fun of warezers.)
Unfortunately, the requirements are different state to state, county to county, and frequently even city to city, so I can't just give you a FAQ on the topic. Most areas require certified notice with a warning period, some areas require regulatory involvement, some areas require a permit, et cetera. I can, however, point you to FAQs for specific areas. The only federal level commentary I can find from an authoritative source is very brief, but it's the American Bar Association, who are responsible for certifying all lawyers and judges, so I'm willing to bet they know their stuff.
It is worth noting that two states - Illinois and Nevada - do not allow rent withholding. If you live in either of those states, that's probably the origin of your confusion. Illinois has an equivalent mechanism where you may spend your rent money on the repairs directly, which sets a limit both on how much you can withhold (no holding back $1200 of rent on $150 of repairs) and how quickly you may force your landlord's hand (no draining them for $20k in one month on a $1200 rent, even if it's necessary.) Nevada's withholding mechanism is complicated and I don't understand it well enough to comment.I wonder why you would say something like that. This is one of the basic tenets of American law, and shows up in every rental - not just real estate, but also equipment rental, rights rental, and so on. With all due respect, I don't believe that you have legal training. In the meantime, I have actually done this quite a few times, and I've won every time, including the time it went to court.Evictions don't require judgements, champ. Two certified letters and no proof of payment is all the sheriff needs. I wish you wouldn't try so hard to pretend to know things you don't know. It lowers the quality of the experience for all of us.
Er, yes, it does. What you're confused by is that the private individuals are editors, not censors. The reason what they're doing is called censorship is that they are following the rules set by government censors. You get a similar issue around taxation: only the government may tax, whereas private individuals and firms can bill, fee or fine. The general underlying mechanism is the same. The title you use when you're doing it according to law is "taxation." No resteraunt may tax you, but they all impose government taxes.
You don't have to be a member of the government to be the official responsible for carrying out government edicts; this much is true. However, whereas there may be editors within Time Warner engaged in censorship, Time Warner may not itself censor. Time Warner may not, for example, issue a document that says "nobody may use the word fuck." The federal government may, and in limited circumstances (broadcast media in timeframes) has through its FCC regulatory body. There was great debate over whether or not that was censorship; it was settled that the issue was not censorship but rather the ability to limit distribution by default, which is the same basis by which pornography was relegated to behind the desk, in an opaque bag or on the top shelf, like it has been in so many states. They may still publish titty rags, but the titty rags have to be in the back room of the store, and kids can't go back there. (That's New Jersey and Pennsylvania; laws vary, but you get the idea.)
So, here's your clarification. The issue is simple when we use nuclear bomb plans. Nuclear bomb plans were the first document class to be publically and officially censored by the US Government, back in the 1940s. (Other things that lead to awful weapons have been added to the list.) That required a hell of a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, and technically the USA can censor stuff now; we just don't without an enormous hullabaloo.
So. Let's say - and I have to invent a job title here because the job title is in question - but let's say you're a Senior Text Control Officer at some big book publishing firm. Your responsibility is to go through a manuscript after the firm has decided it wants to publish, and to make sure the book can legally be published. You look for libel and slander. You look for threats against heads of state. You look for instructions on manufacturing currency. None of that's there. Good to go. Then you're on the last chapter, and you see this big stack of technical documents. After 30 minutes of flipping through them, to your horror, you realize that this is a set of plans for a breeder reactor. Because of acts from the 1940s, you know your firm cannot publish this book, because of these plans.
What I am suggesting is that in this role, you are not the censor. Rather, I am suggesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the censor. You are an editor. Yes, you are engaged in censorship, but the censor is not under your authority; you are following a proscription, rather than issuing an edict. There is only one censor behind a specific censury, and there are - who knows, maybe thousands? - of people enacting it as editors. People who refer to "tv censors" are similar to people who confuse fusion and fission. Hell, the TV news still calls people "alleged murderers," when the allegation is once you're convicted. You need to understand that most people's use of the language is just piss poor.
It isn't censorship unless it's a broad-spectrum forbidding of publishment. Let's disregard issues of whether or not that has to be a government issue. Practically speaking, Comcast doesn't have the ability to prevent me from putting my book out there. Ho
Don't even get me started on the list of chemicals you're not allowed to buy, what you can't bring on a plane, what you may not say to a cop, the jokes you can't tell about the president, the things you can't do with your DVD collection, what you can say in a head shop, the redactions from your nuclear physics textbook or commentary regarding libel and/or slander.
But, of course, that wasn't my point. You've managed to make a fool of yourself on a complete non-sequitor. My point was about that what ComCast is doing isn't censorship. I think what they're doing is disgusting and reprehensible. I don't disagree with you, that it should not be happening. It just isn't censorship.
Get off the cross until you learn to read what someone else actually said, instead of what you wanted to hear.
Sometimes I wonder why it is that when I make fun of pirates, so many people go "bittorrent isn't about piracy." All I was doing was pointing out one reason that stupid people might have added a tag to a story. Take off the rose colored glasses and read what I said again.
Pirates think anti-piracy is censorship. Simple as that. That's just where the tag came in. I'm not saying BitTorrent is about piracy. I'm saying that in a pirate's eyes, Comcast's anti-BitTorrent stuff is censorship. I'm also saying that in reality, that's not censorship at all.
I'm discussing a group's opinion. Please spend less time defending against things I didn't say about BitTorrent.Most of the pirates pretending anti-P2P is censorship aren't even ComCast customers. I was just answering the question "why is this story tagged censorship?"
I get really tired of BitTorrent non-arguments.
I find it amusing how you've fallen into the very thing you're discussing. Censorship was an official Roman government post more than two thousand years ago, and there is no language authority which has ever cited it as anything other than a government action. The very notion of censorship is the absolute forbidding of the ability to publish; very rare is the society in which anything other than the Government, or possibly a religious body, would even have the ability to do so.
You and I get along, and you are taking the laudable position of formality and correctness. I invite you to produce an authority (you and I both know that means no wikipedia) which makes any claim to censorship being something other than the centralized forbidding of a publishment across all points, or the explanation of a situation in which something other than government or religious government would have the ability to create such a situation.
The word censere was created for a specific purpose. Unlike most ancient words, we know who coined this term, when, and why. The office "censere" was established by the General Pompeii to restrict the traffic of documents which were spreading the idea that he might rise up against the Caesars, since having that sort of suggestion made about you - even by a third party - was punishable by death (indeed, that's the official reason they crucified Jesus, too, for being the "king of the Jews." Never claim authority in ancient Rome.) Pompeii wanted to make it very clear that he was prosecuting people making those suggestions because he had been entrusted to take a legion and quite a bit of support military to trim up the edges of the empire; you can even see commentary on the importance of the censura in the Biblical discussion of the Maccabees. Read that part of the Bible. It won't make any sense unless it's governmentally driven.
Indeed, none of American censorship law makes sense unless censorship is government-only. It's not enough to say "but they just mean governmental censorship", as the law isn't actually written that way. The law makes plain that no censorship is tolerable in any form. Companies aren't off the hook for law because of some unspoken tacit understanding that "it only means these people" or what have you, and there is no point in the law wherein anything to the effect of "we only mean government censorship" is actually said.
It's great for you to posit alternate theories, and it's great for you to suggest that many of the misunderstandings are the repetition of things that people heard. However, this time that isn't the case. Censorship in the historical context is something I've paid great and diligent attention to. You and I get along because we share a fascination with people who take personal beliefs over reference material when bitterly arguing the denotation of words.
The problem is, I've got history and reference on my side.
You're a smart and a convivial guy. I invite you to find reference that suggests I am incorrect, when I say the following clearly: "The concept of censorship only makes sense when coming from a central authority, such as government or governmentalized religion. Censorship is the act of preventing the publication of material wholesale. A publisher declining a work is simply a business decision, as one can have the work brought to another publisher. No business, school, civic office or similar device in American culture has the privilege of censorship, or even a sensible mechanism therefor."
However, to be plain - and I risk seeming standoffish here - your entire point seems to be that people have a tendency to argue from impression and belief, as opposed to reference, history, context or weighted argument. I put forward the idea that in fact that is exactly what you have done, albeit in a very convincing and interesting fashion. This is, in essence, a red herring: you have used personal misapprehensions about what may or may not be the validity of someone's statement to argue their statement.
You're right - in the previous posting I could have been more thorough. I have now done so. I don't actually see any reference backing you up. Could you be doing what you decry?
I wasn't trolling. I was answering grandparent's question, correctly. Metamoderators, on your mark.
Of course, given that you're insisting that something you believe is true, ignorant of reference work, I'm willing to bet you're a descriptivist, and that you have no idea what descriptivism is. Giant shock: the language doesn't change just because you're no good at it. You can, in fact, be wrong; just because a group of people misuses a word doesn't mean its meaning has changed.
If what you said about censorship was true, then American censorship law would make no sense whatsoever. How could the government say that censorship would never, ever happen in this country, if any random company could censor?From having a familiarity with a word borne of literature, legal context, or just knowing what they're talking about. Where do you get the idea otherwise? Your buddy Stan?
That's easy to fix. Call the business department, or whatever they call the department that deals with signing up new customers. Tell them "I am renting equipment from you, and this equipment is dead. Unfortunately, service people believe that I am liable to pay money to repair rented equipment. Under federal rental law, you are required to come repair your equipment, and I don't have to pay you for the rest of the service that I'm receiving until you've done so; this tactic is used on a regular basis against slumlords to enforce the maintenance of apartment buildings, but unfortunately it seems your service department thinks that that's limited to real estate. I will continue to enjoy my cable and internet at your expense until you've come to repair your equipment. If you shut me off for following my federally guaranteed right to withhold your money until you've fulfilled your obligations, I will inform the state attorney general's office. When may I expect my federally required free serviceperson for my rented equipment, please?"
Don't give them an opportunity to speak until you've gotten to the last sentence. If they try to interrupt you, raise your volume, start anew at the beginning of your current sentence, and speak slower. Every time they try to interrupt you, repeat this behavior. You will get your service for free.
Why, of course. If there's something you don't know about, it's got to be a media lie, right? Well, welcome to reality: cable is a shared backbone. It's an artifact of the design of cable television networks, and it's cable's biggest problem. This isn't "press puffery," it's a real problem for these people. Right now it doesn't come up much because the backbones can handle 5 megabit times 1500 customers. However, the big reason it took so long to deploy ADSL2 was because it required the phone companies to gut their infrastructure and lay down more capacity. DOCSIS 3 is going to do the same thing to the cable companies.
Please stop pretending to know things you don't actually know. Grandparent was quite correct - cable is a shared connection, and it's going to hurt the cable companies pretty badly in about two years. This is the nature of the technology. Read a book.
There's no such thing as a "FIOS back end". Fiber is a discrete network like ethernet. If you and your neighbor have FIOS, and you connect to your neighbor, it goes from you to your phone pole to their phone pole to them. It doesn't go to any "back end". Unlike DSL and cable, it never goes back to a central office, which I assume is what you mean by "back end", since that term does not come up in telecomms infrastructure. Namedropping doesn't make you clueful, even if the word sounds really convincing to you.
They don't. It's a brand new network. They won't be cutting bandwidth for at least five years. Also, please stop putting spaces before your question marks. It's obnoxious, it causes problems with line wrapping, and you look like a reject from third grade.
No.
It's a discrete network. Bandwidth sharing isn't possible. You probably mean network bandwidth arbitrage, which is very different. Do you go into your car mechanic and talk about Carnot cycles because you read about it in a slashdot article about engine efficiency? No? Then don't do that here, please, because the only difference is that, unlike the lucky greasemonkey, I am unable to laugh in your face to display for you just how much of an ass you're being. Just because you're used to calling your web server code deployments and your sql choices "back ends" doesn't mean that every time you've imagined yourself up the arbitrary need for some service provision that it's automatically called a backend, nor does it mean that the arbitrary service provision even exists.
Doesn't it bother you to get so high up on a soapbox about a network you know nothing about?
The only reason you believe that is that you know literally nothing about either technology. Doesn't it bother you to say "because I don't know jack, there is no way to differentiate between the two offers?" Verizon just dumped billions into a brand spanking new network. They hit this choke wall five years ago, because they were running on a much older general case network. Verizon is off of this hook for at least five years, and probably a decade. Comcast is just having the same set of problems that Verizon had in 2001, and the same set of problems that Verizon will have again in (checking crystal ball) approximately 2018.
Jesus H. Christ. NEITHER of these networks has anything even resembling an edge circuit. You have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you just do us all a favor and stop pretending otherwise? The cable network is a trunk
You do not have the inalienable right to theft, and don't even bother wasting my time telling me about all the other legitimate uses of BitTorrent which account for less than one tenth of one percent of all BitTorrent activity.
Compared to plumbers, it's surprisingly affordable to have elves visit from the future to build you a robot from solid gold bars.
I listen to SocialCase.
It's hard to tell whether it's what you said or the way you said it which makes you look the more stupid, here.
To compare a theory to the current belief is admirable, but in so doing, you do actually need to look critically at the current belief.