Yeah, but this is one of those things where the rewards are literally beyond our comprehension. Do you think fusion, large-scale space exploration, and things being "expensive" will be remotely problematic once we hit the technological singularity?
It's a high barrier but, once crossed, things will become incredibly easy very quickly. Just look at how quickly atomic physics progressed from a solid theory to practical applications.
Arguably, once we have the technology to "simulate" a human brain in real-time, it should be relatively easy to simulate that brain in faster-than-real-time. Progress should become exponential from there.
It really surprises me that we're on the cusp of such a technological singularity and we don't seem to have a single company/government putting forth any serious effort toward achieving it. How relevant will today's governments and economy be when you have superbrains capable of outsmarting anything else on the planet in virtually no time? It seems like there might be at least a little value in getting there first, you know?
While I generally agree with your post, I'm curious to know what you mean by this:
resold fairly with no oversubscription
How do you run an ISP without oversubscribing? If you provide 20Mbit DSL to 10,000 customers, does that mean you need 200 Gbit connections to all of your peers? Or just the anticipated peak traffic (100th percentile? 99th?)? Further, if you aren't oversubscribed, then, by definition, none of your links will ever become congested. With everything being served non-blocking, at line rates, what would net neutrality even mean?
Google does not give a rat's ass about net neutrality of any sort now that they own their own net.
Just think about all that wireless spectrum Google bought... and now they don't want wireless net neutrality. What a shocker!
What spectrum are you talking about? The spectrum that Google placed a bid on, but then lost? The spectrum where Google said, "We'll bid on this, but only if the FCC puts net neutrality requirements on whoever wins it"?
Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.
So, in order for Google to push for an agreement or legislation protecting wireless, in your eyes, they would have to first argue that:
1. Wireless is no longer more competitive than wired 2. Wireless carriers no longer need to manage wireless networks more actively; and 3. Network and device openness failed to take off in the wireless space.
I do not believe these are the prerequisites you seem to think they are. These are reasons Google didn't push harder for wireless neutrality, not reasons for Google to stop pursuing it (or to support a non-neutral wireless industry). Again, I think you're confusing a lack of agreement on wireless neutrality with a desire to prevent wireless neutrality.
Wireless can be more competitive than wired, and we could still benefit from neutrality restrictions. Wireless networks may need more active management, but that shouldn't preclude conditions on that management that maximize wireless neutrality. Network and device openness may be beginning to take off, but that doesn't mean all networks and devices will be open.
All Google appears to be saying is that wireless isn't expected to be as bad as wired when it comes to anti-neutrality tactics (and their effects), so it's OK to focus on wired networks now and we'll address wireless neutrality later.
Why is it more difficult?? This legislation does not say, "wireless must be kept non-neutral forever". It's simply not addressed. This agreement does not preclude future work by Google (or anyone) toward wireless neutrality.
If your goal is net neutrality, this agreement has achieved half of that goal, right?
I still think you're missing my point, sorry. Google says they would support wireless neutrality legislation. Google then supports legislation that doesn't deal with wireless neutrality. Why do you presume that Google has given up on wireless neutrality?
I don't mean to get all pedantic here, but you are abusing the word "supporting". There is no legislation or agreement here about wireless neutrality for Google to support, so it's impossible for Google to support it. The proposal only addresses wired neutrality. You are, quite literally, inventing something to be upset about.
This proposal also does not address quality, low-cost health care. Therefore, Google does not support quality, low-cost health care! Google is evil!
By all means, continue pursuing our goals (yours and mine) of neutrality for wireless. I don't see how Google has done a thing to harm that.
Please point me to Google's statement saying they do not support wireless net neutrality.
You appear to be confusing Google's failure to get Verizon to agree to wireless neutrality protections with some sinister plot by Google to prevent wireless net neutrality.
but Google is now advocating for NO net neutrality for wireless, reversing their previous position.
Wait, what? Just because Google couldn't get Verizon to agree to wireless neutrality protections doesn't mean Google is advocating for "NO net neutrality for wireless".
Should Google have held their ground until Verizon agreed to have the same protections in place for wireless? Verizon could have chosen to walk away from this agreement at any time and we would be exactly where we were before: with no net neutrality protections at all. Now we appear to have some, but it doesn't go as far as people would like. How in the world do you justify saying Google is evil when they just accomplished a major win for neutrality? I'm truly baffled here.
What you actually have is a conspiracy theory. The judicial branch wouldn't have "failed" if the executive branch hadn't done the deed in the first place. And since this type of thing has been happening for decades, and the legislative branch hasn't felt the need to do anything to fix it, they're in on it as well. In short, you have all three branches of the US government in agreement about this. Have you really not considered the possibility that it's you that might have it wrong?
In any event, the obvious course of action is for you to contact your legislature and get them to fix this.
I'm skeptical that this would fly. A court would likely see it for exactly what it is: a way to communicate something you're forbidden from communicating. It doesn't matter what the words say, or how the communication occurs. It just matters that you've set up a scheme to communicate something, and you used it.
I was also there when *cough* alt.sex was created; it took all the sex off mainstream usenet and put it in one tidy place..xxx will do the same over time
This only happened because news readers typically presented newsgroups as a hierarchy. You didn't need to use a search engine to find a newsgroup. Of course, if a lot of people are looking for sex-related newsgroups, and you put it all under one branch, that's a huge findability win and of course it's going to be popular. The same assumptions do not apply to DNS. People don't browse a big DNS hierarchy looking for content.
DNS doesn't validate real-world identity (is ebaypayments.com run by eBay, or some guy that happened to register the domain for his phishing scam?), and it puts DNS (by definition) in the trust path, which may not be desirable if there's a risk that your upstream servers (a government, perhaps) might want to put their own records in your zone. (Yes, they can do that today, but any attempt to redirect e.g. SSL sites will fail unless they also control a SSL certificate authority. Putting your eggs in one basket makes this type of attack much easier.)
Don't access points make this really easy, and really clear when you open the box and set it up? The last AP I bought had a large red sticker on it warning about unsecured networks, and the AP's setup went right into securing the AP. If "Grandma" is setting up her own AP, she'd have to go out of her way to keep her network unsecured. Odds are, it's her 12-year-old grandson doing the setup, and he just doesn't want to mess with passwords. That, or they own some device that doesn't work with WPA/WEP, so they unsecured the network out of necessity, but then they've made a conscious decision to do it.
I don't believe wiretapping laws apply here. There's a difference between recording a conversation between two people, and recording one side of a conversation. You are free to record yourself having a telephone conversation with someone else, without notifying the other party, so long as you don't capture their side of the conversation.
However, states have other privacy laws, wholly independent of wiretapping laws, that usually forbid the capture of any private conversations (e.g. audio bugs on a restaurant table) without notification/consent. That's why security cameras don't usually record audio.
How can you read anything about this event without also reading a description of what Google's stated purposes were? It's in every single article, and mentioned dozens of times in every Slashdot article that discusses these articles.
I think the "ChromeOS" solution to this problem is for someone to write a web-based IDE, and do your development and builds in the cloud rather than on your local device.
This is easy to explain if you understand that most engineers are there to produce software for Google's production infrastructure, and those production systems run Linux. One way or the other, most engineers are writing software for Linux.
It's not like I'm going to block.xxx at home and then be like 'WTF? Why can't I get to my porn?'
I think if you exercise a bit of imagination, the following similar scenarios have obvious implications:
- A spouse or roommate says, "Hey, our ISP bill says they offer a.xxx block now, and it's not enabled on our account. What do you think about blocking.xxx?" - You check in to a hotel that bills itself as "family friendly" and, by popular request, has chosen to block.xxx "for your peace of mind." - Another hotel might add a $10 charge to your hotel bill to enable.xxx.
This particular line of argument has nothing to do with ensnaring accidental clicks on porn ads. It has more to do with deterring access by people that are actually want to see that content. This translates to a direct and likely dramatic loss of revenue for adult sites, so I'd expect nothing but opposition from them.
A.kids domain has exactly the same problems as a.xxx domain. What's kid-safe in one community may not be in another. And then the filtering would start, and people would try to stretch the definitions of kid-safe to get their content through the whitelists (as opposed to an.xxx domain, where they'd be trying to get around the blacklists).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but this is one of those things where the rewards are literally beyond our comprehension. Do you think fusion, large-scale space exploration, and things being "expensive" will be remotely problematic once we hit the technological singularity?
Arguably, once we have the technology to "simulate" a human brain in real-time, it should be relatively easy to simulate that brain in faster-than-real-time. Progress should become exponential from there.
It really surprises me that we're on the cusp of such a technological singularity and we don't seem to have a single company/government putting forth any serious effort toward achieving it. How relevant will today's governments and economy be when you have superbrains capable of outsmarting anything else on the planet in virtually no time? It seems like there might be at least a little value in getting there first, you know?
While I generally agree with your post, I'm curious to know what you mean by this:
How do you run an ISP without oversubscribing? If you provide 20Mbit DSL to 10,000 customers, does that mean you need 200 Gbit connections to all of your peers? Or just the anticipated peak traffic (100th percentile? 99th?)? Further, if you aren't oversubscribed, then, by definition, none of your links will ever become congested. With everything being served non-blocking, at line rates, what would net neutrality even mean?
What spectrum are you talking about? The spectrum that Google placed a bid on, but then lost? The spectrum where Google said, "We'll bid on this, but only if the FCC puts net neutrality requirements on whoever wins it"?
I assume you're talking about this?
So, in order for Google to push for an agreement or legislation protecting wireless, in your eyes, they would have to first argue that:
1. Wireless is no longer more competitive than wired
2. Wireless carriers no longer need to manage wireless networks more actively; and
3. Network and device openness failed to take off in the wireless space.
I do not believe these are the prerequisites you seem to think they are. These are reasons Google didn't push harder for wireless neutrality, not reasons for Google to stop pursuing it (or to support a non-neutral wireless industry). Again, I think you're confusing a lack of agreement on wireless neutrality with a desire to prevent wireless neutrality.
Wireless can be more competitive than wired, and we could still benefit from neutrality restrictions. Wireless networks may need more active management, but that shouldn't preclude conditions on that management that maximize wireless neutrality. Network and device openness may be beginning to take off, but that doesn't mean all networks and devices will be open.
All Google appears to be saying is that wireless isn't expected to be as bad as wired when it comes to anti-neutrality tactics (and their effects), so it's OK to focus on wired networks now and we'll address wireless neutrality later.
Why is it more difficult?? This legislation does not say, "wireless must be kept non-neutral forever". It's simply not addressed. This agreement does not preclude future work by Google (or anyone) toward wireless neutrality.
If your goal is net neutrality, this agreement has achieved half of that goal, right?
I still think you're missing my point, sorry. Google says they would support wireless neutrality legislation. Google then supports legislation that doesn't deal with wireless neutrality. Why do you presume that Google has given up on wireless neutrality?
but I will fight for legislation that protects my rights and interests.
Isn't that exactly what Google has done here? They got Verizon to agree to neutrality for wired networks. Your fight just got easier, right?
I don't mean to get all pedantic here, but you are abusing the word "supporting". There is no legislation or agreement here about wireless neutrality for Google to support, so it's impossible for Google to support it. The proposal only addresses wired neutrality. You are, quite literally, inventing something to be upset about.
This proposal also does not address quality, low-cost health care. Therefore, Google does not support quality, low-cost health care! Google is evil!
By all means, continue pursuing our goals (yours and mine) of neutrality for wireless. I don't see how Google has done a thing to harm that.
So you would rather have no net neutrality protections than wired net neutrality protections?
Please point me to Google's statement saying they do not support wireless net neutrality.
You appear to be confusing Google's failure to get Verizon to agree to wireless neutrality protections with some sinister plot by Google to prevent wireless net neutrality.
but Google is now advocating for NO net neutrality for wireless, reversing their previous position.
Wait, what? Just because Google couldn't get Verizon to agree to wireless neutrality protections doesn't mean Google is advocating for "NO net neutrality for wireless".
Should Google have held their ground until Verizon agreed to have the same protections in place for wireless? Verizon could have chosen to walk away from this agreement at any time and we would be exactly where we were before: with no net neutrality protections at all. Now we appear to have some, but it doesn't go as far as people would like. How in the world do you justify saying Google is evil when they just accomplished a major win for neutrality? I'm truly baffled here.
What you actually have is a conspiracy theory. The judicial branch wouldn't have "failed" if the executive branch hadn't done the deed in the first place. And since this type of thing has been happening for decades, and the legislative branch hasn't felt the need to do anything to fix it, they're in on it as well. In short, you have all three branches of the US government in agreement about this. Have you really not considered the possibility that it's you that might have it wrong?
In any event, the obvious course of action is for you to contact your legislature and get them to fix this.
I'm skeptical that this would fly. A court would likely see it for exactly what it is: a way to communicate something you're forbidden from communicating. It doesn't matter what the words say, or how the communication occurs. It just matters that you've set up a scheme to communicate something, and you used it.
This only happened because news readers typically presented newsgroups as a hierarchy. You didn't need to use a search engine to find a newsgroup. Of course, if a lot of people are looking for sex-related newsgroups, and you put it all under one branch, that's a huge findability win and of course it's going to be popular. The same assumptions do not apply to DNS. People don't browse a big DNS hierarchy looking for content.
DNS doesn't validate real-world identity (is ebaypayments.com run by eBay, or some guy that happened to register the domain for his phishing scam?), and it puts DNS (by definition) in the trust path, which may not be desirable if there's a risk that your upstream servers (a government, perhaps) might want to put their own records in your zone. (Yes, they can do that today, but any attempt to redirect e.g. SSL sites will fail unless they also control a SSL certificate authority. Putting your eggs in one basket makes this type of attack much easier.)
Don't access points make this really easy, and really clear when you open the box and set it up? The last AP I bought had a large red sticker on it warning about unsecured networks, and the AP's setup went right into securing the AP. If "Grandma" is setting up her own AP, she'd have to go out of her way to keep her network unsecured. Odds are, it's her 12-year-old grandson doing the setup, and he just doesn't want to mess with passwords. That, or they own some device that doesn't work with WPA/WEP, so they unsecured the network out of necessity, but then they've made a conscious decision to do it.
I don't believe wiretapping laws apply here. There's a difference between recording a conversation between two people, and recording one side of a conversation. You are free to record yourself having a telephone conversation with someone else, without notifying the other party, so long as you don't capture their side of the conversation.
However, states have other privacy laws, wholly independent of wiretapping laws, that usually forbid the capture of any private conversations (e.g. audio bugs on a restaurant table) without notification/consent. That's why security cameras don't usually record audio.
How can you read anything about this event without also reading a description of what Google's stated purposes were? It's in every single article, and mentioned dozens of times in every Slashdot article that discusses these articles.
Tell me... what IDE runs on ChromeOS?
I think the "ChromeOS" solution to this problem is for someone to write a web-based IDE, and do your development and builds in the cloud rather than on your local device.
This is easy to explain if you understand that most engineers are there to produce software for Google's production infrastructure, and those production systems run Linux. One way or the other, most engineers are writing software for Linux.
I call bullshit.
I think if you exercise a bit of imagination, the following similar scenarios have obvious implications:
- A spouse or roommate says, "Hey, our ISP bill says they offer a .xxx block now, and it's not enabled on our account. What do you think about blocking .xxx?" .xxx "for your peace of mind." .xxx.
- You check in to a hotel that bills itself as "family friendly" and, by popular request, has chosen to block
- Another hotel might add a $10 charge to your hotel bill to enable
This particular line of argument has nothing to do with ensnaring accidental clicks on porn ads. It has more to do with deterring access by people that are actually want to see that content. This translates to a direct and likely dramatic loss of revenue for adult sites, so I'd expect nothing but opposition from them.
A .kids domain has exactly the same problems as a .xxx domain. What's kid-safe in one community may not be in another. And then the filtering would start, and people would try to stretch the definitions of kid-safe to get their content through the whitelists (as opposed to an .xxx domain, where they'd be trying to get around the blacklists).
kW/h != kWh