I'm running Firefox with NoScript and Adblock Plus - didn't have to disable Adblock Plus to see the video, but I did have to manually reload the page after allowing it under NoScript in order to load the video.
LMAO. Good job guys. Now the internet is completely secure. As we all know, all child pornographers only use port 80 for all of their dissemination needs.
This situation seems so obviously set up to block "unpopular" news and opinion more than anything else. How can your public figures even keep a straight face when they announce things like this?
"Actually we don't care about the children and we're not doing anything"
It would be so incredibly awesome to hear this from a politician. I'd devote my life to ensuring any politician who said those words remains in power. Well, maybe not. But I still vote for him/her and lobby for others to vote the same way.
Actually, the argument over the Bill of Rights was that if it were included than possibly sometime in the future the government might assume that the rights enumerated within might be considered the only rights that citizens have.
Hence the 9th Amendment, which clearly states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Here in the U.S., citizens have any and all rights to do whatever they can imagine, the sole exceptions being actions that interfere with others' rights, and rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights that have been constrained by law for the purpose of the common welfare.
At least, that's how it's supposed to be. Our government has been ignoring the Constitution for a long time now. Things need to be set right.
Look for both https:/// and a company-specific logo in the address bar. We can't trust generic padlock symbols anymore.
Of course, if a hacker is targeting only a specific site, he'll just use that logo. But there's better ways to target a single business than using SSLStrip.
The best thing you can do is manually type the https:/// in yourself. This simple act appears to defeat SSLStrip. I've got all my secure logins bookmarked with https addresses now.
I've been corrected by Belial6, who offers a far better terminology - fiduciary responsibility. You can read his comment for a better explanation.
The sad fact is, "fiduciary responsibility" has been taken to mean "obligation to show profit". I've spoken with major shareholders and corporate administrators on several occasions, and when I mention "legal obligation to show profit", I get a lot of head nods and "yes, that true".
Whether or not a corporation has a literal legal obligation to profit, almost everyone at the top now assumes that this is indeed the case. Just in the same way that while there is no actual judicial precedent showing that a corporation is indeed a person, enough attempts to do so have succeeded in court for the wrong reasons that it is now considered a legal precedent even though it is not.
Companies face a barrage of legal requirements (the right things to do) which they are *legally obliged* to obey.
Corporations face a set of piecemeal legislation that address specific political and public concerns or lobby interests without any over-arcing philosophy. Moreover, since the worst scenario a corporate entity faces is a stiff fine (the sole exception being a breach of fiduciary trust), following legal guidelines becomes optional - large (and small - I've worked for highly illegal private corporations in the past) corporations have a history of breaking the law whenever it can be found to be substantially profitable.
A reform is needed here - corporations were originally constructed "for the public good", and publicly elected oversight is a good place to start (and I don't mean the federal and state governments - I mean local committees formed at each and every installation the corporation has).
You know, I sometimes have the feeling that if some megacorporation figured out a way to make a profit torturing puppies to death, people like you would say, "Well, you know, they're just honoring their obligations to the shareholders!"
The sad thing is that the people who said that would be correct. In fact, there probably is a corporation out there right now making a profit from torturing puppies (probably a cosmetics company).
Corporations have a legal obligation to make a profit. They do not have a legal obligation to do the right thing. In fact, most seem to think that the legal obligation to turn a profit trumps the legal obligation to follow the law (in nearly every circumstance, if the chance of getting caught * the fine it would have to pay < the ROI from breaking the law, the law gets broken).
Modern corporations need severe public oversight. Or we could nix the public stock market and finally get the Supreme Court to announce "Corporations are not People". I don't think I'll live to see either of these things come to pass.
Nah. I try never to underestimate the stupidity of my fellow Americans. The point is, I think, exactly how are they going to harass others with this system?
Let's say we establish a new emergency hotline for incoming reports from people watching the cameras - we'll call it 912. When people witness a crime in progress, they can call the dispatcher and say something like "check camera 8731". The dispatcher can check the camera, confirm the crime in progress, and send police out to intervene.
What are these "moralistic idiots" going to do? Call in loitering? Smoking within 50' of an entrance? These aren't emergencies, and the caller will get slapped with abuse of an emergency line, an arrestable offense.
Go the camera's location and physically harass the individual they don't like? Smooth move - now the whole world has a public record of the idiot being a dick in public - keep repeating it, and eventually get charged with harassment.
"Officer, I've been watching this house on camera 5723, and they've been getting a lot of traffic. I think they're dealing drugs." This is hearsay and speculation, and if you call an emergency line with it, you'll get arrested.
There's no identification of people in this system (and I support the idea of low-tech, grainy cameras that are cheap and easily replaced - less taxpayer money, better recovery after inevitable vandalism). Are people going to track individuals to their homes, note the address, and send threatening letters? That's harassment by mail, a federal offense (so is going to the mailbox and physically inserting anything).
With this kind of setup, really the worst thing a person can do is nothing at all. Ultimately, I trust 200 million idiots over 200 not-quite idiots who don't have to answer to the public.
The U.S.A. was originally designed to be a bottom-up federalist republic where the governing body grows more restricted as it becomes more removed from the local level.
Municipal powers are open, but the states powers are also open (with minor exception), and they're a lot bigger. As for whether or not a city could pass criminal law, usually the state says no. But towns and cities and counties do have prohibition laws (alcohol and firearms mainly), and while possession may only be a misdemeanor, I'm almost positive it's still an arrestable offense (I'm in uncharted territory here: I live up in Maine, and we don't see laws like this).
Federal powers are not open. The federal government's primary concern is ensuring peaceful and productive relations between states and with foreign powers. They've just gotten a little big for their britches lately (in the last 100 years or so).
The role of government is shaped by the values of the community which created it.
Depends on the scope of the government you're talking about.
Local government (municipal and county) can pass any damn law they feel like, and states aren't very limited, either. So long as they abide by the specifically protected freedoms in the U.S. Constitution.
If Mississippi wants to declare all pornography to be obscenity, and mandate 20 years in prison for violators, than that's for Mississippi's citizens to deal with. They can either abide by the law, lobby for a change, or move somewhere else if they disagree with the majority of the communities there.
The federal government, on the other hand, has a very specific list (18 things, in fact) that it can do - and serving as a moral compass for its citizens is not one of them. The entire premise that a national governing body that spans 3000 miles (5000 if you count Hawaii) can determine what is or is not proper for all of its local communities is absurd. What is obscene in Kansas may not be obscene in New York City.
The Feds need to stay the fuck out of this crap
I know of no government which will not insist on its right to protect minors against themselves and those who would exploit them.
That can not and will not limit a minor's freedom of action.
Minors have no guaranteed rights under basic law. They are property of their parents. Why do you think they use the term "emancipated" minor?
It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage, file it right along side the model release form - and call it a day. A little extra insurance saves tons of headaches later in life, and a little prudence and CYA never killed anyone in this lawsuit-happy world.
This has indeed been the case for a good long time already - an adult content producer would be crucified if s/he didn't provide photocopies of the models' ids along with their model releases (usually with the address black out for privacy reasons).
Back in 2003, the DOJ simply changed/expanded the definitions that the 2257 regulations refer to, so that now all secondary producers (anyone who redistributes any adult material whether or not for commercial sale, or makes available to the public in any way [such as use in advertising]) must also hold copies of the proof of age and model release forms.
...But it doesn't stop there. All records must be cross-referenced by actor/actress, any and all known aliases, and all titles of all productions s/he may have appeared in. Furthermore, these records must be held by all producers, both primary and secondary, for a least 5 years after the cessation of publication.
...But it doesn't stop there. All primary and secondary producers must post, on every web page or other form of publication, a link or reference to a page that includes where to find the records-keeper (usually the producer him/herself) in each case, including full name and address, which must be available to the general public. The DOJ has already announced that it won't accept 3rd-party record-keepers. Furthermore, the records-keeper must list hours of availability, which must include at least 20 hours a week during "normal business hours", for the purpose of entertaining random check-ins by the DOJ/FBI.
And, should a producer fail to keep his/her database open during listed hours of operation, or should s/he have incomplete records, or even if s/he has complete records but they contain small errors or are not organized the way the DOJ wants them to be, said producer faces up to 5 years in prison per infraction.
What this means is that, if you want to use adult advertising on your web page, you need to maintain a massive, arcane, staffed database somewhere for the feds to go whenever they feel like stopping by. For most small publishers (literally thousands of U.S. citizens), this involves opening up their homes to random checks by the federal government. It also means facing felony charges for record-keeping errors resulting from failure to completely understand legal text deliberately written to confuse most lawyers.
The issue got into the courts because a swingers' magazine published adult material without quoting the producers - because the images were self-produced, and the individual swingers didn't want their full names and addresses listed in the magazine next to their nude photographs. Moreover, should people really be required to keep records on themselves just because they have compromising photographs?
Do you see now why the 6th circuit originally claimed the new 2257 regulations "facially invalid and constitutionally overbroad"?
The whole goal of the previous administration's DOJ with these regulations was to make it prohibitively difficult and/or expensive for amateur adult webmasters, and thereby reduce the amount of pornography on the internet (theoretically to "save the children") by imprisoning or scaring the shit out of anybody who thought of posting so much as a nudie pic on their website.
What would be wrong with a web cam in every politician's office monitoring their actions and accessible by the general public, after all they are meant to be working for the public so the public should be able to supervise them.
Amen to that. Of course, in these cases, I would want a microphone to go along with that camera.
I'll agree with you that there is nothing wrong with public surveillance. What I don't like is not having public access to "public" surveillance.
I'm all for cameras on every street corner, if I can go home and http over to Chicago.net (or.tv, or whatever) and pick from all the cameras which street corner I'd like to watch.
Not that I'd bother that much - seems like it would be boring as far as I'm concerned. But I don't people-watch in general.
I think those that do people-watch would have a new hobby, and having millions of eyes on all the public places would eliminate the possibility of corrupt oversight. Also, it would enable concerned citizens to call in crimes that are in progress, and drastically improve response time of the police, to the point where they might actually offer some degree of preventative other than deterrence.
Now before someone goes off on how this could be abused, the only way I can conceive of to abuse a system like this is to include identification capabilities into the camera system (like facial recognition), which I am totally opposed to - that's just a little too invasive in a "free" society. No one is going to use cameras to stalk people: they'd be spotted on camera doing the stalking. And harassing phone calls... well, that's an issue of tracing the phone call, not blaming the camera.
Anyone else with thoughts on this? I personally think it's a great idea, and most people I've mentioned it to seem to be either for it or ambivalent towards it (meaning they can't find any fault with it, but just don't feel comfortable with the idea of surveillance regardless).
Public surveillance is going to happen - the least we can do is to make sure the right people (that is, everyone together) have control over it.
Is there anyone who'll even TRY to argue that Netscape 4 didn't completely suck in every meaningful way possible compared to IE4?
I'll take that challenge.
I began using Netscape as soon as MS forced them to release it for free in order to compete, and continued using it all the way to Netscape 7, after which I moved on to Firefox.
Originally I did it because Netscape seemed better: it certainly looked nicer. Later on, during the 4.x browser wars, I'll admit there wasn't much of a difference between the two in terms of quality.
The reason I stayed with Netscape from that point on? Both browsers crashed frequently on me. The difference was, even though Netscape crashed something like 3x more often, nothing else happened. I just restarted the browser and continued browsing.
When IE went down, it would take Explorer with it. I'd lose my taskbar (sometimes temporarily, sometimes until I restarted the computer), and along with that any control over any apps that were running in the app tray only (like Winamp). The OS would get extremely buggy. I'd occasionally get the old Blue Screen of Death, just from a browser crash (or from attempting to access folders after the crash).
To make a long story short, the very fact that IE was integrated into the system was the major reason for me to avoid it like the plague, even if it meant embracing Netscape 4.x
I think the appropriate action would have been to snatch the phone out of her hands while she was texting, and given it to the administrative office, so she can pick it up at the end of the day. This is how it would have gone down in my school (if they had had such devices when I was in high school).
Or just ignore her. It's not like texting someone in class is a serious disruption. Hell, I used to carry on normal conversation with other students while ignoring my teachers throughout my entire school career. That's a lot more disruptive, and I got away with that scott free.
If the latter, how will they convince people to adopt a new browser, particularly those people who barely understand the concept of the current browsers?
Oh, that's easy. The new and improved Web 2.0 browser will come packaged with Windows 10, of course.
Please, never underestimate the stupidity or the complacency of the masses.
Unfortunately, the government's idea of Net Neutrality may not mean what you think it means. Everything they've written about net neutrality has "lawful" qualifiers all over the place - "lawful use", etc.
There's absolutely no text covering packet sniffing or similar methods in any dissertation on net neutrality. So while the ISPs may not be able to throttle or drop packets the way they want to, there's nothing currently in place to stop them from combing through all their (your) traffic (other than the 4th amendment) and reporting anything "suspicious" to interested parties.
Have you even taken a look at it? It may take up an ungodly number of pages, but it's double-spaced with large print. There's only a few paragraphs on each page. It shouldn't take that long to read...
Here in the US it's going to take the money of a large corporation to get the phone FCC type approved. I doubt it is much better elsewhere.
Actually, no approval is needed to build your own cellphone. Just the desire to innovate.
Even if you get past that the carriers won't touch it. They want to charge you for each program you install, each ringtone you download etc... Then they want to charge it again when you upgrade to a new phone. They won't let your open phone on their network.
Verizon, at least, has no choice but to let you enjoin their service. I'm sure they can still charge you an arm and a leg, and you may still have to run VOIP.
Even ignoring the C Block spectrum, it seems most providers have no qualms with you running your own devices on their service, as long as you pay them for it.
If you read the article, you know the answer to these questions.
They plan to sniff for the hash, of course, and compare it to a list of hashes for "forbidden files".
It's not new technology - the same approach is used in China (according to the article).
And no, I don't think this is legal in the EU (not yet at least), and certainly not in the U.S., as it requires sniffing through everybody's stuff, regardless of what they're downloading.
Seriously though, I think Joe the plumber could do at least as well as some of the current congressmen - it's not like they have a clue about what they're voting on as it is now.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running Firefox with NoScript and Adblock Plus - didn't have to disable Adblock Plus to see the video, but I did have to manually reload the page after allowing it under NoScript in order to load the video.
it only filters port 80
LMAO. Good job guys. Now the internet is completely secure. As we all know, all child pornographers only use port 80 for all of their dissemination needs.
This situation seems so obviously set up to block "unpopular" news and opinion more than anything else. How can your public figures even keep a straight face when they announce things like this?
"Actually we don't care about the children and we're not doing anything"
It would be so incredibly awesome to hear this from a politician. I'd devote my life to ensuring any politician who said those words remains in power. Well, maybe not. But I still vote for him/her and lobby for others to vote the same way.
Actually, the argument over the Bill of Rights was that if it were included than possibly sometime in the future the government might assume that the rights enumerated within might be considered the only rights that citizens have.
Hence the 9th Amendment, which clearly states:
Here in the U.S., citizens have any and all rights to do whatever they can imagine, the sole exceptions being actions that interfere with others' rights, and rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights that have been constrained by law for the purpose of the common welfare.
At least, that's how it's supposed to be. Our government has been ignoring the Constitution for a long time now. Things need to be set right.
What can we even do?
Look for both https:/// and a company-specific logo in the address bar. We can't trust generic padlock symbols anymore.
Of course, if a hacker is targeting only a specific site, he'll just use that logo. But there's better ways to target a single business than using SSLStrip.
The best thing you can do is manually type the https:/// in yourself. This simple act appears to defeat SSLStrip. I've got all my secure logins bookmarked with https addresses now.
I've been corrected by Belial6, who offers a far better terminology - fiduciary responsibility. You can read his comment for a better explanation.
The sad fact is, "fiduciary responsibility" has been taken to mean "obligation to show profit". I've spoken with major shareholders and corporate administrators on several occasions, and when I mention "legal obligation to show profit", I get a lot of head nods and "yes, that true".
Whether or not a corporation has a literal legal obligation to profit, almost everyone at the top now assumes that this is indeed the case. Just in the same way that while there is no actual judicial precedent showing that a corporation is indeed a person, enough attempts to do so have succeeded in court for the wrong reasons that it is now considered a legal precedent even though it is not.
Companies face a barrage of legal requirements (the right things to do) which they are *legally obliged* to obey.
Corporations face a set of piecemeal legislation that address specific political and public concerns or lobby interests without any over-arcing philosophy. Moreover, since the worst scenario a corporate entity faces is a stiff fine (the sole exception being a breach of fiduciary trust), following legal guidelines becomes optional - large (and small - I've worked for highly illegal private corporations in the past) corporations have a history of breaking the law whenever it can be found to be substantially profitable.
A reform is needed here - corporations were originally constructed "for the public good", and publicly elected oversight is a good place to start (and I don't mean the federal and state governments - I mean local committees formed at each and every installation the corporation has).
Mod parent up.
That's got to be the most apt and insightful analogy to situations like this I've seen on /.
You know, I sometimes have the feeling that if some megacorporation figured out a way to make a profit torturing puppies to death, people like you would say, "Well, you know, they're just honoring their obligations to the shareholders!"
The sad thing is that the people who said that would be correct. In fact, there probably is a corporation out there right now making a profit from torturing puppies (probably a cosmetics company).
Corporations have a legal obligation to make a profit. They do not have a legal obligation to do the right thing. In fact, most seem to think that the legal obligation to turn a profit trumps the legal obligation to follow the law (in nearly every circumstance, if the chance of getting caught * the fine it would have to pay < the ROI from breaking the law, the law gets broken).
Modern corporations need severe public oversight. Or we could nix the public stock market and finally get the Supreme Court to announce "Corporations are not People". I don't think I'll live to see either of these things come to pass.
Nah. I try never to underestimate the stupidity of my fellow Americans. The point is, I think, exactly how are they going to harass others with this system?
Let's say we establish a new emergency hotline for incoming reports from people watching the cameras - we'll call it 912. When people witness a crime in progress, they can call the dispatcher and say something like "check camera 8731". The dispatcher can check the camera, confirm the crime in progress, and send police out to intervene.
What are these "moralistic idiots" going to do? Call in loitering? Smoking within 50' of an entrance? These aren't emergencies, and the caller will get slapped with abuse of an emergency line, an arrestable offense.
Go the camera's location and physically harass the individual they don't like? Smooth move - now the whole world has a public record of the idiot being a dick in public - keep repeating it, and eventually get charged with harassment.
"Officer, I've been watching this house on camera 5723, and they've been getting a lot of traffic. I think they're dealing drugs." This is hearsay and speculation, and if you call an emergency line with it, you'll get arrested.
There's no identification of people in this system (and I support the idea of low-tech, grainy cameras that are cheap and easily replaced - less taxpayer money, better recovery after inevitable vandalism). Are people going to track individuals to their homes, note the address, and send threatening letters? That's harassment by mail, a federal offense (so is going to the mailbox and physically inserting anything).
With this kind of setup, really the worst thing a person can do is nothing at all. Ultimately, I trust 200 million idiots over 200 not-quite idiots who don't have to answer to the public.
The U.S.A. was originally designed to be a bottom-up federalist republic where the governing body grows more restricted as it becomes more removed from the local level.
Municipal powers are open, but the states powers are also open (with minor exception), and they're a lot bigger. As for whether or not a city could pass criminal law, usually the state says no. But towns and cities and counties do have prohibition laws (alcohol and firearms mainly), and while possession may only be a misdemeanor, I'm almost positive it's still an arrestable offense (I'm in uncharted territory here: I live up in Maine, and we don't see laws like this).
Federal powers are not open. The federal government's primary concern is ensuring peaceful and productive relations between states and with foreign powers. They've just gotten a little big for their britches lately (in the last 100 years or so).
The government is not our moral compass.
The role of government is shaped by the values of the community which created it.
Depends on the scope of the government you're talking about.
Local government (municipal and county) can pass any damn law they feel like, and states aren't very limited, either. So long as they abide by the specifically protected freedoms in the U.S. Constitution.
If Mississippi wants to declare all pornography to be obscenity, and mandate 20 years in prison for violators, than that's for Mississippi's citizens to deal with. They can either abide by the law, lobby for a change, or move somewhere else if they disagree with the majority of the communities there.
The federal government, on the other hand, has a very specific list (18 things, in fact) that it can do - and serving as a moral compass for its citizens is not one of them. The entire premise that a national governing body that spans 3000 miles (5000 if you count Hawaii) can determine what is or is not proper for all of its local communities is absurd. What is obscene in Kansas may not be obscene in New York City.
The Feds need to stay the fuck out of this crap
I know of no government which will not insist on its right to protect minors against themselves and those who would exploit them.
That can not and will not limit a minor's freedom of action.
Minors have no guaranteed rights under basic law. They are property of their parents. Why do you think they use the term "emancipated" minor?
It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage, file it right along side the model release form - and call it a day. A little extra insurance saves tons of headaches later in life, and a little prudence and CYA never killed anyone in this lawsuit-happy world.
This has indeed been the case for a good long time already - an adult content producer would be crucified if s/he didn't provide photocopies of the models' ids along with their model releases (usually with the address black out for privacy reasons).
Back in 2003, the DOJ simply changed/expanded the definitions that the 2257 regulations refer to, so that now all secondary producers (anyone who redistributes any adult material whether or not for commercial sale, or makes available to the public in any way [such as use in advertising]) must also hold copies of the proof of age and model release forms.
...But it doesn't stop there. All records must be cross-referenced by actor/actress, any and all known aliases, and all titles of all productions s/he may have appeared in. Furthermore, these records must be held by all producers, both primary and secondary, for a least 5 years after the cessation of publication.
...But it doesn't stop there. All primary and secondary producers must post, on every web page or other form of publication, a link or reference to a page that includes where to find the records-keeper (usually the producer him/herself) in each case, including full name and address, which must be available to the general public. The DOJ has already announced that it won't accept 3rd-party record-keepers. Furthermore, the records-keeper must list hours of availability, which must include at least 20 hours a week during "normal business hours", for the purpose of entertaining random check-ins by the DOJ/FBI.
And, should a producer fail to keep his/her database open during listed hours of operation, or should s/he have incomplete records, or even if s/he has complete records but they contain small errors or are not organized the way the DOJ wants them to be, said producer faces up to 5 years in prison per infraction.
What this means is that, if you want to use adult advertising on your web page, you need to maintain a massive, arcane, staffed database somewhere for the feds to go whenever they feel like stopping by. For most small publishers (literally thousands of U.S. citizens), this involves opening up their homes to random checks by the federal government. It also means facing felony charges for record-keeping errors resulting from failure to completely understand legal text deliberately written to confuse most lawyers.
The issue got into the courts because a swingers' magazine published adult material without quoting the producers - because the images were self-produced, and the individual swingers didn't want their full names and addresses listed in the magazine next to their nude photographs. Moreover, should people really be required to keep records on themselves just because they have compromising photographs?
Do you see now why the 6th circuit originally claimed the new 2257 regulations "facially invalid and constitutionally overbroad"?
The whole goal of the previous administration's DOJ with these regulations was to make it prohibitively difficult and/or expensive for amateur adult webmasters, and thereby reduce the amount of pornography on the internet (theoretically to "save the children") by imprisoning or scaring the shit out of anybody who thought of posting so much as a nudie pic on their website.
You're technically buying the license.
What would be wrong with a web cam in every politician's office monitoring their actions and accessible by the general public, after all they are meant to be working for the public so the public should be able to supervise them.
Amen to that. Of course, in these cases, I would want a microphone to go along with that camera.
I'll agree with you that there is nothing wrong with public surveillance. What I don't like is not having public access to "public" surveillance.
I'm all for cameras on every street corner, if I can go home and http over to Chicago.net (or .tv, or whatever) and pick from all the cameras which street corner I'd like to watch.
Not that I'd bother that much - seems like it would be boring as far as I'm concerned. But I don't people-watch in general.
I think those that do people-watch would have a new hobby, and having millions of eyes on all the public places would eliminate the possibility of corrupt oversight. Also, it would enable concerned citizens to call in crimes that are in progress, and drastically improve response time of the police, to the point where they might actually offer some degree of preventative other than deterrence.
Now before someone goes off on how this could be abused, the only way I can conceive of to abuse a system like this is to include identification capabilities into the camera system (like facial recognition), which I am totally opposed to - that's just a little too invasive in a "free" society. No one is going to use cameras to stalk people: they'd be spotted on camera doing the stalking. And harassing phone calls... well, that's an issue of tracing the phone call, not blaming the camera.
Anyone else with thoughts on this? I personally think it's a great idea, and most people I've mentioned it to seem to be either for it or ambivalent towards it (meaning they can't find any fault with it, but just don't feel comfortable with the idea of surveillance regardless).
Public surveillance is going to happen - the least we can do is to make sure the right people (that is, everyone together) have control over it.
Is there anyone who'll even TRY to argue that Netscape 4 didn't completely suck in every meaningful way possible compared to IE4?
I'll take that challenge.
I began using Netscape as soon as MS forced them to release it for free in order to compete, and continued using it all the way to Netscape 7, after which I moved on to Firefox.
Originally I did it because Netscape seemed better: it certainly looked nicer. Later on, during the 4.x browser wars, I'll admit there wasn't much of a difference between the two in terms of quality.
The reason I stayed with Netscape from that point on? Both browsers crashed frequently on me. The difference was, even though Netscape crashed something like 3x more often, nothing else happened. I just restarted the browser and continued browsing.
When IE went down, it would take Explorer with it. I'd lose my taskbar (sometimes temporarily, sometimes until I restarted the computer), and along with that any control over any apps that were running in the app tray only (like Winamp). The OS would get extremely buggy. I'd occasionally get the old Blue Screen of Death, just from a browser crash (or from attempting to access folders after the crash).
To make a long story short, the very fact that IE was integrated into the system was the major reason for me to avoid it like the plague, even if it meant embracing Netscape 4.x
I think the appropriate action would have been to snatch the phone out of her hands while she was texting, and given it to the administrative office, so she can pick it up at the end of the day. This is how it would have gone down in my school (if they had had such devices when I was in high school).
Or just ignore her. It's not like texting someone in class is a serious disruption. Hell, I used to carry on normal conversation with other students while ignoring my teachers throughout my entire school career. That's a lot more disruptive, and I got away with that scott free.
If the latter, how will they convince people to adopt a new browser, particularly those people who barely understand the concept of the current browsers?
Oh, that's easy. The new and improved Web 2.0 browser will come packaged with Windows 10, of course.
Please, never underestimate the stupidity or the complacency of the masses.
Unfortunately, the government's idea of Net Neutrality may not mean what you think it means. Everything they've written about net neutrality has "lawful" qualifiers all over the place - "lawful use", etc.
There's absolutely no text covering packet sniffing or similar methods in any dissertation on net neutrality. So while the ISPs may not be able to throttle or drop packets the way they want to, there's nothing currently in place to stop them from combing through all their (your) traffic (other than the 4th amendment) and reporting anything "suspicious" to interested parties.
Have you even taken a look at it? It may take up an ungodly number of pages, but it's double-spaced with large print. There's only a few paragraphs on each page. It shouldn't take that long to read...
Here in the US it's going to take the money of a large corporation to get the phone FCC type approved. I doubt it is much better elsewhere.
Actually, no approval is needed to build your own cellphone. Just the desire to innovate.
Even if you get past that the carriers won't touch it. They want to charge you for each program you install, each ringtone you download etc... Then they want to charge it again when you upgrade to a new phone. They won't let your open phone on their network.
Verizon, at least, has no choice but to let you enjoin their service. I'm sure they can still charge you an arm and a leg, and you may still have to run VOIP.
Even ignoring the C Block spectrum, it seems most providers have no qualms with you running your own devices on their service, as long as you pay them for it.
Nah. If Bittorrent becomes overly problematic, P2P protocols will simply evolve.
If you read the article, you know the answer to these questions.
They plan to sniff for the hash, of course, and compare it to a list of hashes for "forbidden files".
It's not new technology - the same approach is used in China (according to the article).
And no, I don't think this is legal in the EU (not yet at least), and certainly not in the U.S., as it requires sniffing through everybody's stuff, regardless of what they're downloading.
"The internet is like a series of pipes..."
Seriously though, I think Joe the plumber could do at least as well as some of the current congressmen - it's not like they have a clue about what they're voting on as it is now.
Maybe if they read their own bills now and again.
err, I *wouldn't*