If the courts were half as clever as me they'd have seen the fucking bullshit for what it was and I would haven been screwed out of ~$5000 dollars. But it turns out they're very susceptible to bullshit and generally just don't give a shit. That or they're biased as fuck and the actual facts don't matter if it conflicts with what they want to happen.
If the judiciary branch of our government would have "no trouble at all" for detecting vague calls promoting censorship as 1st amendment infractions, then just what the hell are they waiting for?. Oh wait. It's like the rich and powerful don't play by exactly the same rules of law as everyone else. Almost as if your worldview on legality doesn't quite line up with reality. Like you're ignorant of the current situation and claiming that "He can't do that" is about as useful as a fart in the wind.
The question was "What if he asks Twitter to block someone or gives a vague general guideline for who twitter ought to block?" And the answer is "nothing happens".
Also, I'm on "Herding Hemingway's Cats" it's a pretty decent read. You should check it out after you go fuck yourself.
Isn't that kinda sad though? That 911 operators don't know the location of the phone call they're receiving?....Shouldn't they already be able to do that?
In approximately 96 percent of the U.S., the enhanced 9-1-1 system automatically pairs caller numbers with a physical address.[1]
so.... were they just incompetent, or were they in that 4%?
Have you thought about the fact that "Swatting" has been a thing for over a decade? 10+ years of heavily armed professionals falling for the same ploy. 2011 had legislation about it. When legislation moves faster than you, then maybe you're failing to adapt to the new situation.
So, knowing full well that people will give false intel... Why would they continue their policies that get people killed?
They cannot win with you people
Incorrect. They can very easily win with us if they showed a modicum of restraint and stopped with the militarizing of police. But doing so would make them lose with others who would really rather prefer to stomp that jackboot on more necks. It's impossible to make everyone happy. I say we put it to a vote. Like we're a democracy or something. And you can bet your ass we both know which way that would go.
So why, in a democracy, would police employ unpopular tactics with a record of unfortunate fatalities (and a small mountain of dead dogs)?
I didn't miss anything. The coward was trying to argue on the side of "non-citizens aren't protected by the 1st admendment, because that would infringe on other government's authority and their people's right to choose their government". Which is bullshit, as the 1st admendment doesn't govern other people, it governs the US government. Non-citizens most certainly enjoy full protection from the US government in regards to free speech, because the US government is barred from restricting anyone's free speech. Within reason.
And it's WAY more important than people whining on the Internet. If the constitution doesn't apply when it comes to non-citizens, then ANYONE can be black-bagged in the dead of night, locked in a cell without a lawyer or phone call as long as the cops make the claim that they're "suspected non-citizens". They can search through whatever they want and they can employ cruel and unusual punishment. That list keeps going after the 1st amendment. I don't even particularly give a shit about all those illegal immigrants here or foreigners abroad, I'm just looking out for myself and trying to avoid the rampant abuse that would come with unlimited power in a police state. The US government is restricted by the bill of rights, no exceptions. Even if some people really don't like the guys. Even if they really are scumbags.
. . . He can't complain and yell and throw a hissy fit about who he thinks ought to be banned? oh ho ho! I think you sadly underestimate the amount of whining and bitching a president is capable of. Twitter ALREADY moderates like any sane online community. Imagine if they just really like the sitting president and decided that a certain set of people happened to be violating their terms of service. "Harassment".
There is also nothing about companies being "in bed" with the government.
Yeah man, I don't think Twitter especially likes Trump. But if they did, there's a pretty obvious workaround to this courts ruling.
It's just kind of a weird situation that our president is using a private company like this and who is allowed to censor who.
Good luck trying to prove you're a US citizen while you await your indefinite trial date in a secret prison without access to a lawyer or phone. Things you don't have because apparently non-citizens don't have rights.
This is how intelligence agencies can collect foreign "private documents" without warrants.
You mean those clandestine operations we'll disavow any knowledge of? The illegal ones?
Using your interpretation the same rigt of "the people" applying to non citizenry would also grant non citizens to form armed militias within the US under the 2nd amendment. Go ahead and get a bunch of your Muslim friends from Syria to form armed militias inside the US and tell us how your argument works out.
If they're here with valid visas, they're free to go drink beer and shoot a bunch of guns out in the boonies all they want. Just like anyone else. And if they're well regulated, they'd even be keeping with the spirit of 2nd amendment and aiding with national defense. Laws on murder and city noise ordinances still apply.
If a government claims that their laws apply to all peoples, they are infringing on the rights of the government where that citizen has a home, and on the rights of the citizen to choose his governing body (either by democratic practice, or more likely by moving).
Cute, but the 1st amendment applies solely to the US government*. It RESTRICTS what the government is allowed to do. It states that the US government cannot restrict other's free speech.
No the 1st amendment does not infringe upon French citizens.
*Free speech, as an ideal, is older than US government. It's an ideal that came out of the age of Enlightenment, and it's one I like to support, but don't try to float that bullshit about the constitution here.
ok ok ok.... lemme throw a curveball then.... What if Trump (or the next president) ASKS Twitter to block people? Or gives a vague general guideline for who twitter ought to block?
I like startpage / ixquick. But it fails me sometimes and I fall back to google.
Firefox is still alright.
The alternatives to android are pretty shitty. Apple?.... Microsoft? But there's an important almost but not quite viable alternative of running F-droid.
Google services don't ship on Microsoft Windows, Apple macOS, or the various flavors of Linux.
*Cough* Android is a flavor of linux. *cough*.
And google services ship with them. And seriously don't like being removed, when you even can. If MS can get an anti-trust suit for shipping Windows with IE, then this is probably equivalent.
No one is ever a complete monopoly, but they can be dominant enough to push the market around in abusive ways. I'm not sure google has really been all that abusive though. I get the sense that they're stepping in that direction over time.
He's probably talking about this part: "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are." That'd be your face as a biometric, coupled with you name. But from the context, I think that's Schmit talking about how things COULD happen. What's possible rather than what Google does. Schmit does this. Remember when he said ~"maybe you shouldn't be doing illegal things online"? That was way less authoritarian and more "oh shit dude, big brother is looking right over my shoulder, DO NOT trust me as a confidant!" It was a good thing to remind people of, but he got roasted for that for years.
Still, the very next line "In the summer of 2016, Google quietly dropped its ban on personally-identifiable info in its DoubleClick ad service. Google's privacy policy was changed to state it "may" combine web-browsing records obtained through DoubleClick with what the company learns from the use of other Google services."
I consider google to be one of those "doomed to be an evil megacorp" types simply due to the potential for abuse. Mostly because I consider power to corrupt absolutely given time. There was a noticeable shift when they shuffled stuff around into an alphabet. I thought it'd be after the original founders died off, but maybe not.
Totally agree that Google has been ripe for this for a long time. Decade+. They've got more power and control over the masses than is reasonable and their potential for abuse is MASSIVE.
But unless there's actual instances of them abusing said power... I don't think they deserve to have anti-trust laws brought against them. And we shouldn't punish those who don't deserve it least the FTC simply become a popularity contest or worse, fall prey to crony capitalism.
Imagine the potential abuse that a malicious Microsoft could bring to bear. Nearly every business's vital information simply trusts their product to keep it secure. They trust Windows to keep the keys to their kingdom. If you couldn't trust your OS, how screwed would you be?
keeping their API's in house just enough so that they are not easy to use by competitors.
Aye, that's a fair complaint. It's subjective and iffy. It's not like others CAN'T use any sort of API. But it's not without merit.
They keep on bringing parts of Android out of open source and switching to their own system. That's kinda worrying.
I'd also like them to have different tiers of youtube monetization. Allow advertisers to connect to.... less than G-rated content. So if you post a dick joke, you don't lose all your income instantly. Different content for different audiences. Besides, their claim to fame is that they can connect viewers to the ads they would actually be interested in via the content they're viewing. I'm just saying with all those white robes, maybe detergent companies would want to be advertised on those channels. Or more realistically..... The Deadpool movie should be fine advertising on Cyanide and Happiness. It's unreasonable to simply cut them off completely. Seeing that sort of connection is what Google is supposed to be good at.
At least most organized religion understood human nature and tried to force people to adopt a behavior that would bring them happiness.
Haha, wut?
There are SO many religious types that practically worship suffering. Mother Theresa, Calvinists, Bhudda literally fasted away to escape this world. Isn't the joke that raising your kid Jewish has the goal of just making them sad all the time? And how many religions used guilt as a tool to force obedience?
No way dude, other than a few hippie cults and the Ayn Rand "greed is good" sort, religions are pretty much the opposite of "if it feels good, do it". Hell, I'd even say that overcoming our natural animalistic urges is what defines most religions.
I never said anything about preventing the Halocene mass-extinction event. I'm pretty sure that trigger has been pulled. And a human-extinction event is a crap-shoot. Seeding other planets would be "in case of".
Viewing all life as a pathogen is pretty damn cynical. Also I think you're the third person to mistakenly assume I'm talking about spreading humanity. What did I say to mess that up? Is everyone just that self-species-centric?
Doing one doesn't preclude the other. I want to do both. And I was specifically NOT talking about spreading human life, but rather seeding a planet with extreamophiles, bacteria, fungus, and whatever could survive. To establish some self-propagating ecosystem. Life.
It'd also be cool to continue human life elsewhere though.
Cancer, wisdom teeth, the laryngeal nerve makes a bullshit detour for no reason, appendix, this bullshit self-destructive telomere timeout feature, grey hair, balding, vision decay, and don't get me started on production errors.
And it's really just a rehash of the earlier Primate model with a few tweaks for brains and butts. The bulk of the code was already there.
Even the base it's built upon is pretty crufty. Gene DNA takes 3 base pairs to dictate 1 of 20 ways to bend a protein, ignoring the other ~140 combinations that could be used. It's just wasted space. But good luck refactoring that mess.
Because the worm is so complex and sophisticated, I can only give the most superficial outline of what it does
Everything else aside, this is bullshit.
You could say "I don't know how it works, so I can only give the most superficial outline of what it does". No matter how complex a thing is, if you know it well enough, you can explain it to a 5 year old. And that has a cool feedback system that helps kids get smarter faster. Standing on shoulders of giants and all that.
The use of 4 zero-days is indeed pretty sophisticated. The rest is pretty run of the mill standard operation that would have been neat in the 90's. I think this guy just isn't familiar with the industry and was pretty amazed when he took the tour. That or it's more puffery.
Personally, I wouldn't count any layers underneath, or library calls or such, that a thing makes when trying to figure out complexity and sophistication. Otherwise we'd include EVERYTHING that goes into a linux distro. So early projects that had to do it themselves all by hand would be the most sophisticated. To that extent, I'd have to go with something from early NASA. The software for the Apollo program sounds good, solely form that one picture with Margret Hamilton and the stack of sourcecode. It got man on the moon, which is way more impressive than taking a metaphorical wrench to some centrifuges.
Hmmmm, I don't want to worship lines of code though... a really sophisticated piece of software would be short and sweet and do something amazing and new.
The FCC's classification of ISPs under title ii of the Communications Act of 1934 means that they can get fined for fucking with the pipes. It was a fantastic and perfect way to force the major telecoms into maintaining network neutrality. It fullfilled the FCC's goal of promoting unfettered communication and trade. And it didn't let clueless congressmen pass along legislation written by the very companies they're trying to regulate.
This most CERTAINLY reinstates the FCC's threat of fines for any bastard trying to tear down the principles upon which the Internet operates and was founded under.
Either you're ignorant of the situation or you're a lying partisan sack of shit.
Without network neutrality, they're free to regulate him to a peasant lane unless he pays more. They can package portions of the Internet into different tiers and bundles like they sell their cable TV. Buying unlimited platinum level Internet (like you have now) will of course cost extra. They'll throttle protocols and services they don't like, as they been caught red-handed fucking with torrents. They could simply torpedo or creatively fuck with any of the Internet Services that compete's with their own brand. They could force Netflixs to pay them extra (if they could hope to have any customers if they didn't support Netflix, who is simply too big to bully these days).
These are the ways that the top US telecoms: Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verison, CenturyLink, and Mediacom have screwed people over. In the past, when they've attempted to tear down network neutrality, public outcry and bad PR kept them in check. Market consolidation.
If you don't like the fact that this is a democracy and most people WANT network neutrality, then YOU can choose to go live where that isn't an issue for you. And no, when mayors and goveners try to encourage competition or start a municipal service, they get sued into oblivion. The "contracts" you're talking about are unspoken collusion between AT&T and Comcast. I ain't got jack SHIT I can say about that.
I wholly agree that if we could get the major US telecoms to compete with each other and stop respecting each other's established territory so we could actually HAVE some choices and could make the market more free, then none of this would be such a big deal. So what do you say? Shall we whip out Uncle Sherman's hammer and go to town on these guys and bust them up like we busted up Bell? Because it's that or regulating them like common carriers that shouldn't fuck with the pipes.
Now tell me with a straight face that the FBI's suggestion to use a third-party key management system that they could go to with a warrant would be secure. Go on, let me hear it.
awwww, but you should notice that your card reads "Fuck regulation, let the market decide".
Big daddy republicans are keeping you from getting screwed by the government while they hold you down over the barrel. They spend big bucks bribing their way to meetings with Ajit Pai. Surely they deserve a little barrel time for all that hard work of opening up markets?
Don't you believe in the free market? Don't you expect some young entrepreneur to start their own ISP to meet your needs?
Well... no. The party lines are pretty obvious here. The Republicans like big business, and business in general. They don't like regulation and have that laisee-fare "let the market decide" attitude. Democrats also like big business, and business in general, but they like to have the government regulate them into playing nice and fair.
And let me be REAL CLEAR about this: Prior to the FCC's ruling about common carriers, the Internet WAS AND IS (mostly) network neutral. There are some exceptions, but the the concept that any ISP would break network neutrality was enough that customers would balk and go to the competition. The free market kept American ISPs supporting network neutrality. By and far, they depended upon it. Before the market consolidated into a handful of cable companies that carved up the US into territories they refuse to compete for.
The republicans want to go back to the old ways of that new frontier level of lawlessness because those were good times. But they fail to see how times have changed. When even Mr. moneybags Google can't make a buck and expand their fiber services, the barrier to entry is HELLA high. And that's through artificial market manipulation in the form of suing anyone that tries to touch telecom poles and selectively dropping prices wherever fiber comes to town.
I have zero confidence in Congress's ability to craft viable Network Neutrality legislation. Oh dear god we don't want that. They'll just take whatever ComCast hands them and put that to vote. No, reclassifying them as common carriers with the nice broad language of that old bill that goes along the lines of "don't fuck with the pipes" was the absolute best we could ever hope for. And I would really like it to come back.
Least we have:
Regular lanes and peasant lanes
ESPN360.com making deals with ISPs direct and turning the Internet into package deals like cable TV
ISPs deciding which protocols are valid, tyrants bribing or forcing corporations to selectively censor traffic
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a movie the same way that the bible is just a book... in the sense that both spawned religions.
And yes, terrible things were committed in their name. Fucking JarJar.
If the courts were half as clever as me they'd have seen the fucking bullshit for what it was and I would haven been screwed out of ~$5000 dollars. But it turns out they're very susceptible to bullshit and generally just don't give a shit. That or they're biased as fuck and the actual facts don't matter if it conflicts with what they want to happen.
If the judiciary branch of our government would have "no trouble at all" for detecting vague calls promoting censorship as 1st amendment infractions, then just what the hell are they waiting for?. Oh wait. It's like the rich and powerful don't play by exactly the same rules of law as everyone else. Almost as if your worldview on legality doesn't quite line up with reality. Like you're ignorant of the current situation and claiming that "He can't do that" is about as useful as a fart in the wind.
The question was "What if he asks Twitter to block someone or gives a vague general guideline for who twitter ought to block?" And the answer is "nothing happens".
Also, I'm on "Herding Hemingway's Cats" it's a pretty decent read. You should check it out after you go fuck yourself.
but we only know that in hindsight.
Isn't that kinda sad though? That 911 operators don't know the location of the phone call they're receiving? ....Shouldn't they already be able to do that?
In approximately 96 percent of the U.S., the enhanced 9-1-1 system automatically pairs caller numbers with a physical address.[1]
so.... were they just incompetent, or were they in that 4%?
Have you thought about the fact that "Swatting" has been a thing for over a decade? 10+ years of heavily armed professionals falling for the same ploy. 2011 had legislation about it. When legislation moves faster than you, then maybe you're failing to adapt to the new situation.
So, knowing full well that people will give false intel... Why would they continue their policies that get people killed?
They cannot win with you people
Incorrect. They can very easily win with us if they showed a modicum of restraint and stopped with the militarizing of police. But doing so would make them lose with others who would really rather prefer to stomp that jackboot on more necks. It's impossible to make everyone happy. I say we put it to a vote. Like we're a democracy or something. And you can bet your ass we both know which way that would go.
So why, in a democracy, would police employ unpopular tactics with a record of unfortunate fatalities (and a small mountain of dead dogs)?
I didn't miss anything. The coward was trying to argue on the side of "non-citizens aren't protected by the 1st admendment, because that would infringe on other government's authority and their people's right to choose their government". Which is bullshit, as the 1st admendment doesn't govern other people, it governs the US government. Non-citizens most certainly enjoy full protection from the US government in regards to free speech, because the US government is barred from restricting anyone's free speech. Within reason.
And it's WAY more important than people whining on the Internet. If the constitution doesn't apply when it comes to non-citizens, then ANYONE can be black-bagged in the dead of night, locked in a cell without a lawyer or phone call as long as the cops make the claim that they're "suspected non-citizens". They can search through whatever they want and they can employ cruel and unusual punishment. That list keeps going after the 1st amendment. I don't even particularly give a shit about all those illegal immigrants here or foreigners abroad, I'm just looking out for myself and trying to avoid the rampant abuse that would come with unlimited power in a police state. The US government is restricted by the bill of rights, no exceptions. Even if some people really don't like the guys. Even if they really are scumbags.
I honestly thought they already had a deal with each other for the looky feely of the iphone and the VW bug.
. . . He can't complain and yell and throw a hissy fit about who he thinks ought to be banned? oh ho ho! I think you sadly underestimate the amount of whining and bitching a president is capable of. Twitter ALREADY moderates like any sane online community. Imagine if they just really like the sitting president and decided that a certain set of people happened to be violating their terms of service. "Harassment".
There is also nothing about companies being "in bed" with the government.
Yeah man, I don't think Twitter especially likes Trump. But if they did, there's a pretty obvious workaround to this courts ruling.
It's just kind of a weird situation that our president is using a private company like this and who is allowed to censor who.
Its implied that it only applies to US citizens.
Good luck trying to prove you're a US citizen while you await your indefinite trial date in a secret prison without access to a lawyer or phone. Things you don't have because apparently non-citizens don't have rights.
This is how intelligence agencies can collect foreign "private documents" without warrants.
You mean those clandestine operations we'll disavow any knowledge of? The illegal ones?
Using your interpretation the same rigt of "the people" applying to non citizenry would also grant non citizens to form armed militias within the US under the 2nd amendment. Go ahead and get a bunch of your Muslim friends from Syria to form armed militias inside the US and tell us how your argument works out.
If they're here with valid visas, they're free to go drink beer and shoot a bunch of guns out in the boonies all they want. Just like anyone else. And if they're well regulated, they'd even be keeping with the spirit of 2nd amendment and aiding with national defense. Laws on murder and city noise ordinances still apply.
If a government claims that their laws apply to all peoples, they are infringing on the rights of the government where that citizen has a home, and on the rights of the citizen to choose his governing body (either by democratic practice, or more likely by moving).
Cute, but the 1st amendment applies solely to the US government*. It RESTRICTS what the government is allowed to do. It states that the US government cannot restrict other's free speech.
No the 1st amendment does not infringe upon French citizens.
*Free speech, as an ideal, is older than US government. It's an ideal that came out of the age of Enlightenment, and it's one I like to support, but don't try to float that bullshit about the constitution here.
ok ok ok.... lemme throw a curveball then.... What if Trump (or the next president) ASKS Twitter to block people? Or gives a vague general guideline for who twitter ought to block?
It's nice to pretend that there's a big wall between government and private companies, but that's just delusional. Government getting in bed with corporations is actually a hallmark of Fascism, and one of those things we should be wary of.
I like startpage / ixquick. But it fails me sometimes and I fall back to google.
Firefox is still alright.
The alternatives to android are pretty shitty. Apple? .... Microsoft? But there's an important almost but not quite viable alternative of running F-droid.
Google services don't ship on Microsoft Windows, Apple macOS, or the various flavors of Linux.
*Cough* Android is a flavor of linux. *cough*.
And google services ship with them. And seriously don't like being removed, when you even can. If MS can get an anti-trust suit for shipping Windows with IE, then this is probably equivalent.
No one is ever a complete monopoly, but they can be dominant enough to push the market around in abusive ways. I'm not sure google has really been all that abusive though. I get the sense that they're stepping in that direction over time.
There's plenty of issues for concern. Here you go.
He's probably talking about this part: "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are." That'd be your face as a biometric, coupled with you name. But from the context, I think that's Schmit talking about how things COULD happen. What's possible rather than what Google does. Schmit does this. Remember when he said ~"maybe you shouldn't be doing illegal things online"? That was way less authoritarian and more "oh shit dude, big brother is looking right over my shoulder, DO NOT trust me as a confidant!" It was a good thing to remind people of, but he got roasted for that for years.
Still, the very next line "In the summer of 2016, Google quietly dropped its ban on personally-identifiable info in its DoubleClick ad service. Google's privacy policy was changed to state it "may" combine web-browsing records obtained through DoubleClick with what the company learns from the use of other Google services."
I consider google to be one of those "doomed to be an evil megacorp" types simply due to the potential for abuse. Mostly because I consider power to corrupt absolutely given time. There was a noticeable shift when they shuffled stuff around into an alphabet. I thought it'd be after the original founders died off, but maybe not.
Totally agree that Google has been ripe for this for a long time. Decade+. They've got more power and control over the masses than is reasonable and their potential for abuse is MASSIVE.
But unless there's actual instances of them abusing said power... I don't think they deserve to have anti-trust laws brought against them. And we shouldn't punish those who don't deserve it least the FTC simply become a popularity contest or worse, fall prey to crony capitalism.
Imagine the potential abuse that a malicious Microsoft could bring to bear. Nearly every business's vital information simply trusts their product to keep it secure. They trust Windows to keep the keys to their kingdom. If you couldn't trust your OS, how screwed would you be?
keeping their API's in house just enough so that they are not easy to use by competitors.
Aye, that's a fair complaint. It's subjective and iffy. It's not like others CAN'T use any sort of API. But it's not without merit.
They keep on bringing parts of Android out of open source and switching to their own system. That's kinda worrying.
I'd also like them to have different tiers of youtube monetization. Allow advertisers to connect to.... less than G-rated content. So if you post a dick joke, you don't lose all your income instantly. Different content for different audiences. Besides, their claim to fame is that they can connect viewers to the ads they would actually be interested in via the content they're viewing. I'm just saying with all those white robes, maybe detergent companies would want to be advertised on those channels. Or more realistically..... The Deadpool movie should be fine advertising on Cyanide and Happiness. It's unreasonable to simply cut them off completely. Seeing that sort of connection is what Google is supposed to be good at.
At least most organized religion understood human nature and tried to force people to adopt a behavior that would bring them happiness.
Haha, wut?
There are SO many religious types that practically worship suffering. Mother Theresa, Calvinists, Bhudda literally fasted away to escape this world. Isn't the joke that raising your kid Jewish has the goal of just making them sad all the time? And how many religions used guilt as a tool to force obedience?
No way dude, other than a few hippie cults and the Ayn Rand "greed is good" sort, religions are pretty much the opposite of "if it feels good, do it". Hell, I'd even say that overcoming our natural animalistic urges is what defines most religions.
I never said anything about preventing the Halocene mass-extinction event. I'm pretty sure that trigger has been pulled. And a human-extinction event is a crap-shoot. Seeding other planets would be "in case of".
Viewing all life as a pathogen is pretty damn cynical. Also I think you're the third person to mistakenly assume I'm talking about spreading humanity. What did I say to mess that up? Is everyone just that self-species-centric?
Doing one doesn't preclude the other. I want to do both. And I was specifically NOT talking about spreading human life, but rather seeding a planet with extreamophiles, bacteria, fungus, and whatever could survive. To establish some self-propagating ecosystem. Life.
It'd also be cool to continue human life elsewhere though.
Impressive maybe, but it's a complete hack.
Cancer, wisdom teeth, the laryngeal nerve makes a bullshit detour for no reason, appendix, this bullshit self-destructive telomere timeout feature, grey hair, balding, vision decay, and don't get me started on production errors.
And it's really just a rehash of the earlier Primate model with a few tweaks for brains and butts. The bulk of the code was already there.
Even the base it's built upon is pretty crufty. Gene DNA takes 3 base pairs to dictate 1 of 20 ways to bend a protein, ignoring the other ~140 combinations that could be used. It's just wasted space. But good luck refactoring that mess.
Because the worm is so complex and sophisticated, I can only give the most superficial outline of what it does
Everything else aside, this is bullshit.
You could say "I don't know how it works, so I can only give the most superficial outline of what it does". No matter how complex a thing is, if you know it well enough, you can explain it to a 5 year old. And that has a cool feedback system that helps kids get smarter faster. Standing on shoulders of giants and all that.
The use of 4 zero-days is indeed pretty sophisticated. The rest is pretty run of the mill standard operation that would have been neat in the 90's. I think this guy just isn't familiar with the industry and was pretty amazed when he took the tour. That or it's more puffery.
Personally, I wouldn't count any layers underneath, or library calls or such, that a thing makes when trying to figure out complexity and sophistication. Otherwise we'd include EVERYTHING that goes into a linux distro. So early projects that had to do it themselves all by hand would be the most sophisticated. To that extent, I'd have to go with something from early NASA. The software for the Apollo program sounds good, solely form that one picture with Margret Hamilton and the stack of sourcecode. It got man on the moon, which is way more impressive than taking a metaphorical wrench to some centrifuges.
Hmmmm, I don't want to worship lines of code though... a really sophisticated piece of software would be short and sweet and do something amazing and new.
this bill does not reinstate Net Neutrality
What else would you call it?
The FCC's classification of ISPs under title ii of the Communications Act of 1934 means that they can get fined for fucking with the pipes. It was a fantastic and perfect way to force the major telecoms into maintaining network neutrality. It fullfilled the FCC's goal of promoting unfettered communication and trade. And it didn't let clueless congressmen pass along legislation written by the very companies they're trying to regulate.
This most CERTAINLY reinstates the FCC's threat of fines for any bastard trying to tear down the principles upon which the Internet operates and was founded under.
Either you're ignorant of the situation or you're a lying partisan sack of shit.
Without network neutrality, they're free to regulate him to a peasant lane unless he pays more. They can package portions of the Internet into different tiers and bundles like they sell their cable TV. Buying unlimited platinum level Internet (like you have now) will of course cost extra. They'll throttle protocols and services they don't like, as they been caught red-handed fucking with torrents. They could simply torpedo or creatively fuck with any of the Internet Services that compete's with their own brand. They could force Netflixs to pay them extra (if they could hope to have any customers if they didn't support Netflix, who is simply too big to bully these days).
These are the ways that the top US telecoms: Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verison, CenturyLink, and Mediacom have screwed people over. In the past, when they've attempted to tear down network neutrality, public outcry and bad PR kept them in check. Market consolidation.
If you don't like the fact that this is a democracy and most people WANT network neutrality, then YOU can choose to go live where that isn't an issue for you. And no, when mayors and goveners try to encourage competition or start a municipal service, they get sued into oblivion. The "contracts" you're talking about are unspoken collusion between AT&T and Comcast. I ain't got jack SHIT I can say about that.
I wholly agree that if we could get the major US telecoms to compete with each other and stop respecting each other's established territory so we could actually HAVE some choices and could make the market more free, then none of this would be such a big deal. So what do you say? Shall we whip out Uncle Sherman's hammer and go to town on these guys and bust them up like we busted up Bell? Because it's that or regulating them like common carriers that shouldn't fuck with the pipes.
Now tell me with a straight face that the FBI's suggestion to use a third-party key management system that they could go to with a warrant would be secure. Go on, let me hear it.
awwww, but you should notice that your card reads "Fuck regulation, let the market decide".
Big daddy republicans are keeping you from getting screwed by the government while they hold you down over the barrel. They spend big bucks bribing their way to meetings with Ajit Pai. Surely they deserve a little barrel time for all that hard work of opening up markets?
Don't you believe in the free market? Don't you expect some young entrepreneur to start their own ISP to meet your needs?
Well... no. The party lines are pretty obvious here. The Republicans like big business, and business in general. They don't like regulation and have that laisee-fare "let the market decide" attitude. Democrats also like big business, and business in general, but they like to have the government regulate them into playing nice and fair.
And let me be REAL CLEAR about this: Prior to the FCC's ruling about common carriers, the Internet WAS AND IS (mostly) network neutral. There are some exceptions, but the the concept that any ISP would break network neutrality was enough that customers would balk and go to the competition. The free market kept American ISPs supporting network neutrality. By and far, they depended upon it. Before the market consolidated into a handful of cable companies that carved up the US into territories they refuse to compete for.
The republicans want to go back to the old ways of that new frontier level of lawlessness because those were good times. But they fail to see how times have changed. When even Mr. moneybags Google can't make a buck and expand their fiber services, the barrier to entry is HELLA high. And that's through artificial market manipulation in the form of suing anyone that tries to touch telecom poles and selectively dropping prices wherever fiber comes to town.
I have zero confidence in Congress's ability to craft viable Network Neutrality legislation. Oh dear god we don't want that. They'll just take whatever ComCast hands them and put that to vote. No, reclassifying them as common carriers with the nice broad language of that old bill that goes along the lines of "don't fuck with the pipes" was the absolute best we could ever hope for. And I would really like it to come back.
Least we have:
The cynic in me assumes that'll be just long enough for them to stop caring about it.
You ever see those videos of dogs barking at each other behind gates. Only to stop the moment that the gate opens?
and general other fuckery (2 people riding on a Bird at the same time) at 15 MPH.
While I'm all for creative positions, that doesn't sound very safe and surely must run afoul of some decency laws.