I use CyanogenMod; App permission management baked into the ROM. It's in others, but I like CM.
Flashing your own ROM onto an Android device is the new "nuke ane pave". It used to be wiping Windows pre-installed images, but nowadays PCs are replaced far less often than phones.
For the first time in a long time, last night I downloaded a game from the swarm. The last time I made use of torrenting for something other than fully / freely licensed media was probably within the first year of the tech being released.
I loaded up the game and... Began playing. No account sign in; no unskippable advertising at every boot for the a graphics card manufacturer, the publisher, and everyone else; no DLC to download. It just worked.
I'm not saying that I'm going to stop buying games, but I might just change where I get them from.
Replying to myself, and to a high-point comment; Double-whammy of poor conduct!
The Cisco press release has nothing to do with Net Neutrality; It's the IDG journalist who wrote the Computer World (quoted?) article that's wrong. He made the leap. He's the one dragged NN kicking and screaming into the article.
Your user ID is small enough to remember that the Borg icon was reserved for Microsoft stories.
If I was going to use any vivid imagery for Apple lawyers, it would be Tony Montana sat at his desk with a small mountain of Bolivian Marching Powder in front of him.
According to the CW article, Cisco didn't mention NN at all. Grant Gross, the IDG journo, made that connection himself. Cisco don't use the term "net neutrality" at all in their press release
Peering is separate in as much as content providers and connectivity providers are seperate. When the two come together, then yes peering is a NN issue and ISPs should be compelled not to disadvantage third-party services against their own, or others, in the same usage space.
Once again, however, I feel like I'm having to point out the obvious: Cisco is arguing for Quality of Service, not against Net Neutrality, and not against peering agreements.
There would be no appreciable difference in render time of your website should QoS be implemented correctly; We're talking about introducing milliseconds of delay while a few HTTP packets are dropped in favour of RTP, because RTP is latency-sensitive and HTTP isn't. Your page will still get to you, you will not miss out on anything, your experience will not suffer.
Besides, this isn't about competing with web page rendering. This is about two streaming services competing, and the one owned by the cable company receiving priority. I've had to explain this three times so far on this story; How are so many people getting this confused?! Net Neutrality != Quality of Service.
I absolutely want my traffic optimised. Your Bittorrent traffic can wait, whereas my VOIP call cannot.
That, however, is a quality of service issue. I'm very happy for their to be QoS on my connection. However, I don't want your Verizon StreamTV or whatever service getting priority over my Netflix service. That is a net neutrality issue.
We should not dilute the issue by confusing the two, or even discussing the two together. They are not the same thing.
The authorities don't need backdoors or attacks on encrypted systems. They get a court order demanding the encryption key, and if you' don't provide it you go to jail, indefinitely, for contempt of court. If that doesn't swing in your jurisdiction, then the law probably already has something about providing keys being mandatory in some instances (In UK law it's an offence to not provide them when requested; 2 years in jail, or 5 years if it's regarding terrorism or CP).
Failing that, they already have the best backdoor to secure systems that there is; A dark room in a foreign country where they pour water over your face until you're just about ready to end yourself.
But yeah, it should be fine for use against a smash-and-grab break in.
Cisco are a networking company, right? They should know the difference between net neutrality and QoS.
The crux of net neutrality is bits from different providers being given the same priority. Nobody is arguing that we can afford to drop some Bittorrent packets in exchange for VOIP / video streaming. What the cable companies want to do, however, is prioritise their video streaming, for example, over someone elses. That is the net neutrality issue.
Tesla need to make a vehicle which costs less than £50k.
The current popular "regular Joe" electric vehicle in the EU is the Nissan Leaf, costing around £25k in its base spec. My Hyundai i20 cost me £7000 brand new, with reasonable mod-cons (Air conditioning, heated mirrors, iPod connectivity etc) and similar performance. If I add up my running costs per year, I get to approximately £1800 PA in fuel, tax, servicing, MOT, and replaceables (tyres, brake pads etc). That means that if the Nissan Leaf had no running costs at all, I'd have to own it for 10 years to break even. That doesn't say anything about the inconvenience of 1/3 range at best, scarcity of recharging stations, and the 8 hour charge time when you find one.
The Tesla S needs a smaller brother for the UK market; We don't care as much about sports cars and fuel-hungry monsters as the US; We love the compact. They could reduce the battery pack size and motor output, get the same performance for the smaller car, and reduce charging times to boot.
Give us a Nissan Leaf competitor with the quick-charge opportunities of Tesla supercharging stations; Europe will go insane.
For anyone who doesn't know, Kim Schmitz aka Kimble aka Kim Dotcom has a history of electronic theft, theft of trade secrets, insider trading, fraud, and has narrowly avoided prison in Germany a handful of times. He's was doing it before his "career" took off, hacking into banks from as early as 1995.
Go look into Kimvestor, a shoddy investment firm, and Data Protect. He made his "fortune" selling the latter off at the peak of the dot com bubble. Later he straight up pump-and-dump'd Letsbuyit.com, netting over â1.5m in profit.
It was a parent poster who was talking about amoral serial killers as psychopaths. I was talking about those examples specifically. It was also them who stated that they were too dangerous to be put into prison, and definitely too much so for civilian life. I was offering medicated incarceration as an alternative; At least there's a reprieve from hospitalisation if a "cure" is found. The GP wanted to kill them.
You're quite right about the definition of euthenasia. However, your final point is straight-up Reductio ad Hitlerum; Because Hitler did it, it must be wrong. If, in the future, all medicine is exhausted and there are still those who cause needless damage to through mental illness, and incarceration is insufficient a protection for the population, what solution would you posit?
They aren't "mentally ill" as they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they simply gained pleasure from the suffering and death of others.
In and of itself, taking pleasure in the suffering and death of others is an inappropriate reaction to that stimulus; A symptom of mental illness. That they knew what they were doing is moot; Their broken brain didn't react in the typical way, any more than clotting in a person with haemophilia reacts improperly to bleeding.
You seem to be of the opinion that psychopaths act maliciously, as though it is their choice to react impulsively and violently and without remorse. However, we interpret their actions as malicious because we perceive them as such through our rational opinions. They are mentally ill, perhaps moreso than if they had any other form of mental illness; They are incapable of acting in a reasonable manner.
These people fit into the third category; Medicated. They should be given all the care and treatment we can offer, and only if that is totally exhausted would I consider euthenasia an option. Because it would be euthenasia; Ending the suffering of an individual incapable of functioning in civilised society, and unfortunately beyond our help. I wouldn't be at all happy being the person having to make that decision.
I didn't think anybody would still be a paid subscriber after DICE bought the site. If the cert is dead rendering SSL/TLS is pointless, are their any other compelling reasons to continue to pay?
If a cyber attack kills somebody use the manslaughter laws
Exactly.>/i>
We already have laws covering both unauthorised access to a computer, and covering loss of life (whether negligent, unintentional, or premeditated). You don't need a new law to cover them both!
Hacker causes life support machines to fail by setting off the sprinkler system, causing electrical faults? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Manslaughter (Unintended consequence, maximum life) = sentence Hacker causes industrial machinery of previous employer to fail catastrophically intentionallyy causing death? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Murder (Life) = sentence.
Death is reserved for people who are unable to reform and function in society, who are unable to function within the prison system, and who are unable to be medicated into submission for their natural lives. Death is not a punishment, it is a method of protecting society from someone so utterly abhorrent that it is literally impossible to allow them to continue living.
I don't know of anybody like that. I'm glad we don't have the death penalty.
This is not about making consumer broadband faster; We already have fast lanes. This is about making the internet slower for everyone, and then charging to take the speed restriction away.
Don't think for one Planck Time that they are going to upgrade your service with this "fast lane" option; All they'll do is strop dropping packets from external services.
Come on, America. As a Brit, I'm eager for you to shoot this down. If it succeeds, we're next.
Slashdot Mirror
I use CyanogenMod; App permission management baked into the ROM. It's in others, but I like CM.
Flashing your own ROM onto an Android device is the new "nuke ane pave". It used to be wiping Windows pre-installed images, but nowadays PCs are replaced far less often than phones.
For the first time in a long time, last night I downloaded a game from the swarm. The last time I made use of torrenting for something other than fully / freely licensed media was probably within the first year of the tech being released.
I loaded up the game and... Began playing. No account sign in; no unskippable advertising at every boot for the a graphics card manufacturer, the publisher, and everyone else; no DLC to download. It just worked.
I'm not saying that I'm going to stop buying games, but I might just change where I get them from.
Replying to myself, and to a high-point comment; Double-whammy of poor conduct!
The Cisco press release has nothing to do with Net Neutrality; It's the IDG journalist who wrote the Computer World (quoted?) article that's wrong. He made the leap. He's the one dragged NN kicking and screaming into the article.
Fuck that guy.
Your user ID is small enough to remember that the Borg icon was reserved for Microsoft stories.
If I was going to use any vivid imagery for Apple lawyers, it would be Tony Montana sat at his desk with a small mountain of Bolivian Marching Powder in front of him.
According to the CW article, Cisco didn't mention NN at all. Grant Gross, the IDG journo, made that connection himself. Cisco don't use the term "net neutrality" at all in their press release
Shoddy journalism to blame for this, I'm afraid.
Peering is separate in as much as content providers and connectivity providers are seperate. When the two come together, then yes peering is a NN issue and ISPs should be compelled not to disadvantage third-party services against their own, or others, in the same usage space.
Once again, however, I feel like I'm having to point out the obvious: Cisco is arguing for Quality of Service, not against Net Neutrality, and not against peering agreements.
How fast can you read your web page?
There would be no appreciable difference in render time of your website should QoS be implemented correctly; We're talking about introducing milliseconds of delay while a few HTTP packets are dropped in favour of RTP, because RTP is latency-sensitive and HTTP isn't. Your page will still get to you, you will not miss out on anything, your experience will not suffer.
Besides, this isn't about competing with web page rendering. This is about two streaming services competing, and the one owned by the cable company receiving priority. I've had to explain this three times so far on this story; How are so many people getting this confused?! Net Neutrality != Quality of Service.
I absolutely want my traffic optimised. Your Bittorrent traffic can wait, whereas my VOIP call cannot.
That, however, is a quality of service issue. I'm very happy for their to be QoS on my connection. However, I don't want your Verizon StreamTV or whatever service getting priority over my Netflix service. That is a net neutrality issue.
We should not dilute the issue by confusing the two, or even discussing the two together. They are not the same thing.
If this was the first instance of shoddy editing, I'd agree with you.
It's not. Not by a loooooooooong way.
The authorities don't need backdoors or attacks on encrypted systems. They get a court order demanding the encryption key, and if you' don't provide it you go to jail, indefinitely, for contempt of court. If that doesn't swing in your jurisdiction, then the law probably already has something about providing keys being mandatory in some instances (In UK law it's an offence to not provide them when requested; 2 years in jail, or 5 years if it's regarding terrorism or CP).
Failing that, they already have the best backdoor to secure systems that there is; A dark room in a foreign country where they pour water over your face until you're just about ready to end yourself.
But yeah, it should be fine for use against a smash-and-grab break in.
Cisco are a networking company, right? They should know the difference between net neutrality and QoS.
The crux of net neutrality is bits from different providers being given the same priority. Nobody is arguing that we can afford to drop some Bittorrent packets in exchange for VOIP / video streaming. What the cable companies want to do, however, is prioritise their video streaming, for example, over someone elses. That is the net neutrality issue.
Will I, as a PC gamer, be able to play online with my console playing buddies? I will literally throw money at the Rockstar offices over this.
Notes if it's affirmitive. Bags of pennies if it's negative.
Tesla need to make a vehicle which costs less than £50k.
The current popular "regular Joe" electric vehicle in the EU is the Nissan Leaf, costing around £25k in its base spec. My Hyundai i20 cost me £7000 brand new, with reasonable mod-cons (Air conditioning, heated mirrors, iPod connectivity etc) and similar performance. If I add up my running costs per year, I get to approximately £1800 PA in fuel, tax, servicing, MOT, and replaceables (tyres, brake pads etc). That means that if the Nissan Leaf had no running costs at all, I'd have to own it for 10 years to break even. That doesn't say anything about the inconvenience of 1/3 range at best, scarcity of recharging stations, and the 8 hour charge time when you find one.
The Tesla S needs a smaller brother for the UK market; We don't care as much about sports cars and fuel-hungry monsters as the US; We love the compact. They could reduce the battery pack size and motor output, get the same performance for the smaller car, and reduce charging times to boot.
Give us a Nissan Leaf competitor with the quick-charge opportunities of Tesla supercharging stations; Europe will go insane.
For anyone who doesn't know, Kim Schmitz aka Kimble aka Kim Dotcom has a history of electronic theft, theft of trade secrets, insider trading, fraud, and has narrowly avoided prison in Germany a handful of times. He's was doing it before his "career" took off, hacking into banks from as early as 1995.
Go look into Kimvestor, a shoddy investment firm, and Data Protect. He made his "fortune" selling the latter off at the peak of the dot com bubble. Later he straight up pump-and-dump'd Letsbuyit.com, netting over â1.5m in profit.
It was a parent poster who was talking about amoral serial killers as psychopaths. I was talking about those examples specifically. It was also them who stated that they were too dangerous to be put into prison, and definitely too much so for civilian life. I was offering medicated incarceration as an alternative; At least there's a reprieve from hospitalisation if a "cure" is found. The GP wanted to kill them.
You're quite right about the definition of euthenasia. However, your final point is straight-up Reductio ad Hitlerum; Because Hitler did it, it must be wrong. If, in the future, all medicine is exhausted and there are still those who cause needless damage to through mental illness, and incarceration is insufficient a protection for the population, what solution would you posit?
They aren't "mentally ill" as they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they simply gained pleasure from the suffering and death of others.
In and of itself, taking pleasure in the suffering and death of others is an inappropriate reaction to that stimulus; A symptom of mental illness. That they knew what they were doing is moot; Their broken brain didn't react in the typical way, any more than clotting in a person with haemophilia reacts improperly to bleeding.
You seem to be of the opinion that psychopaths act maliciously, as though it is their choice to react impulsively and violently and without remorse. However, we interpret their actions as malicious because we perceive them as such through our rational opinions. They are mentally ill, perhaps moreso than if they had any other form of mental illness; They are incapable of acting in a reasonable manner.
These people fit into the third category; Medicated. They should be given all the care and treatment we can offer, and only if that is totally exhausted would I consider euthenasia an option. Because it would be euthenasia; Ending the suffering of an individual incapable of functioning in civilised society, and unfortunately beyond our help. I wouldn't be at all happy being the person having to make that decision.
I didn't think anybody would still be a paid subscriber after DICE bought the site. If the cert is dead rendering SSL/TLS is pointless, are their any other compelling reasons to continue to pay?
If a cyber attack kills somebody use the manslaughter laws
Exactly.>/i>
We already have laws covering both unauthorised access to a computer, and covering loss of life (whether negligent, unintentional, or premeditated). You don't need a new law to cover them both!
Hacker causes life support machines to fail by setting off the sprinkler system, causing electrical faults? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Manslaughter (Unintended consequence, maximum life) = sentence
Hacker causes industrial machinery of previous employer to fail catastrophically intentionallyy causing death? Computer Misuse Act (10 years) + Murder (Life) = sentence.
It seems "Death by computer" is already covered.
Death is reserved for people who are unable to reform and function in society, who are unable to function within the prison system, and who are unable to be medicated into submission for their natural lives. Death is not a punishment, it is a method of protecting society from someone so utterly abhorrent that it is literally impossible to allow them to continue living.
I don't know of anybody like that. I'm glad we don't have the death penalty.
You are an enemy of America.
Pick up that can.
Post submissions are not encrypted.
Source: Wireshark capture when I previewed this post.
I'm hijacking your comment.
This is not about making consumer broadband faster; We already have fast lanes. This is about making the internet slower for everyone, and then charging to take the speed restriction away.
Don't think for one Planck Time that they are going to upgrade your service with this "fast lane" option; All they'll do is strop dropping packets from external services.
Come on, America. As a Brit, I'm eager for you to shoot this down. If it succeeds, we're next.