I just bought my house three years ago and wired it with cat 6. Wireless is for mobile devices, temporary connections, and people who want ease-of-install more than they want reliability or speed. I do this for a living; dropped connections cost me and my clients money. Wireless will probably not be the right answer for my workstations in my lifetime.
yeah it's weird in that regard that they went for opening that pandoras box... the chinese will just indict in response.
Weird enough that it has me trying to figure out why they would do it. The other thing that seems weird is that we're charging the guys who were just following orders. Why charge the foot soldiers instead of the generals who ordered the action? It's a pretty extreme tinfoil hat scenario, but could they be trying to establish a story frame of throwing the boots to the wolves, so Clapper and Alexander don't go down?
The amendment made it so that only a court order would allow for the banning of content, and not a legislative provision, as originally proposed, according to RT. "We do not support any proposals that mean we cannot enforce our laws,"
I find it fascinating when politicians assert that they can tell when something is illegal without consulting the courts. Just what exactly do they think the courts are for? Here's a hint; think about the word, "judge," and what it means as a verb.
If this shit worked, there wouldn't be huge Hollywood films which fall on their face because nobody is interested. All it really does it make lowest common denominator stuff which nobody actually likes.
You may be right about the objective quality of the product, but if this stuff didn't work, the lowest common denominator drek that nobody actually likes wouldn't sell so fast. You can't use this stuff to write Milton, but you can use it to sell the shit out of whatever syrupy self-help book Oprah is hawking this week.
Psychological operations aren't about influencing the most discriminating minds, and they're not about making everyone do exactly what you say. They're about nudging the masses far enough to tip the scale.
Tom Wheeler is a cable lobbyist, so I get it. He's doing his (evil, sociopathic) job. He's a bad person,, and is acting in bad faith, and he should be fired. The Republicans are idiots, they think that lack of regulation means a closer approximation of the ideal free market (even though almost every single one of the biggest commercial successes of the Internet era said the opposite, and the ISPs depend on regulation in rights-of-way, easements, and spectrum). They're ignorant true believers, and should be fired.
But Obama, Rosenworcel, and Clyburn have some 'splainin' to do. They claim to understand the issue, they claim to support net neutrality. But you can't vote to kick a puppy and then say you oppose puppy-kicking. We can't keep accepting their bullshit theatrics; "It's not so bad, because we're only kicking the puppy a few times." No more death by a thousand cuts. Stop voting to kick the puppy, or we have to stop believing your lies.
If I say, "Chicks who root their phones are hot," is it objectification?
If so, is it: A. because I used the word, "chick," B. because I'm focusing on a single characteristic, rooting a phone, instead of the whole person, or C. because I'm implying that the most important thing about a woman rooting her phone is that it increases her sexual attractiveness?
You're better off not watching. I watched for about five minutes and wanted to punch somebody. The eloquence with which these spindocs are explaining why black is white is disgusting.
Hear Hear! (sorry, no mod points today, but I too vomited a little in my mouth before closing the stream)
with both dissenters doing so because they believe it should be left to Congress to decide, and they both seem to be in favor of eliminating net neutrality.
Don't kid yourself. The dissenting votes were theater, just like Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel saying they favored net neutrality. If Clyburn and Rosenworcel had voted against and the two R's had voted for, it would have broken the "along partisan lines" story that our one political party relies on. This is the only way the vote could go to achieve the three goals:
1. Kill net neutrality. 2. Maintaining the pretense that Obama and the dem's are fighting for net neutrality. 3. Maintain the "bitter partisan divide" story that keeps the one party (the D's and R's) from having any competition.
I wanted to believe in Rosenworcel and Clyburn. I posted here in support of them. But they are as full of shit as Obama. The Republicans are worse, because they don't even claim to support non-discriminatory communication networks, but they are all selling our future down the same river.
In particular, the term "attack", used technically, implies nothing about the motivation of the actor mounting the attack. The motivation for PM can range from non-targeted nation-state surveillance, to legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes by commercial enterprises, to illegal actions by criminals. The same techniques to achieve PM can be used regardless of motivation. Thus, we cannot defend against the most nefarious actors while allowing monitoring by other actors no matter how benevolent some might consider them to be, since the actions required of the attacker are indistinguishable from other attacks. The motivation for PM is, therefore, not relevant for how PM is mitigated in IETF protocols.
I think your question calls for a multi-context response:
Greatest combined offensiveness and pervasiveness today: NSA, though GCHQ gets a solid nod for being more offensive and nearly as pervasive (especially if you count cooperation with NSA, but that cuts both ways). Most pervasive today / greatest potential psy-ops threat: US corporations (Google and Facebook so far out in front that it doesn't even look like a competition) Most offensive monitoring program today: Corporations monitoring public school students. Most scary if I thought they posed a credible threat: North Korea Most scary based on capability and recent offensive behavior: Russian government. Most scary based on capability and mid-term offensive behavior: Chinese government. Most scary based on capability and long-term offensive behavior: Russian government.
I echo your sentiment about the difficulty of separating Chinese and Russian thugs/corporations/government.
create more competition and more choice for consumers. Yes, it will mean a tiny bit less profit for the majors,
Actually, that's one of the great things about the ideal free market; competition only hurts the incumbents in the short run. In the long run, everyone makes more money and gets more stuff, even the carriers.
Of course, the ideal free market is a mathematical theory. It can't be achieved by running a laissez-faire system on flawed humans. The closest we can get in the real world is a regulated market. With things like regulated rights of way for carrier cables, regulated wireless bands for carrier signals, and regulation of traffic discrimination by operaters of the carriage networks.
And this is nothing new, from Adam Smith's recognition that unregulated markets would be distorted by unscrupulous businesses to the establishment of the first common carrier regulations in the physical goods transport industry, we have already studied, tested in the real world, and documented the answers many decades ago.
You're missing something. He didn't say anything about limiting fast lane sales to Apple, Netflix, &c, and the line about cardio results is hogwash -- cardio results are a few bytes per second, they don't need a fast lane, they need high availability, which fast lanes do not provide (see HA versus HP clusters, for a similar case). He's trying to manipulate you.
some public-interest cases like a healthcare company sending electrocardiography results
This is a patently deceptive meme. It is intended to tug at your heart strings to sell the case, but it is not a good application of a fast lane. Cardio results do not need high performance lines, because they produce a tiny trickle of data. They need high availability, which a fast lane does not help. If Mr. Wheeler is really suggesting that paid prioiritization will render the standard lane so unusably clogged that a few bytes of cardio data won't fit over the pipe in a split second, then he is hoisting himself by his own petard.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he will revise proposed rules for regulating broadband Internet, and is offering assurances that the agency won't allow companies to segregate Web traffic into fast and slow lanes.
Hooray! Same thing it says at the beginning of the article, same thing that made me prematurely celebrate. You see, a bit further down in the WSJ article:
The new proposal will also seek comment on whether such "paid prioritization" should be prohibited altogether.
What? WTF do you think we mean when we say we want net neutrality? Yes, you idiot, we want paid prioritization to be prohibited altogether. ISPs should deliver every packet the customer asks for with the same diligence, without preference. Not delivering some packets faster. Not delivering some packets slower. Handing every packet the same regardless of the content or source. That is what net neutrality is. Are you stupid, or just pretending to be so you can keep doing what your lobby tells you to do?
We haven't saved it yet, but we have been heard. Don't stop now.
Yeah, very agreed. I meant the "this attack" fragment to imply that it will happen again, but re-reading my post it doesn't capture that very well. Thanks for the addendum.
I choose to take this at face value, that he really has seen that We The People want net neutrality.
And that is because of you. You who signed the petition, sent letters to your legislators, sent comments to the FCC, emailed your friends, posted the issue on your social networks, wrote letters to the editor, and everything else you did. You did this. You saved the Internet from this attack by greedy cynics who would turn the Internet into TV for a few pieces of silver. You protected the most important advance our generation has built. Thank you, and congratulations!
And I cannot believe that there are lickspittles like you, who try to disenfranchise others from taking every public stand available to them. Your shameless service to your masters may get you a favorable scrap from the table today, but you will never have a seat. You will die in the same place you are today, grovelling at their feet, whimpering about your impotence.
We need one more big surge of traffic, ideally starting Monday or Tuesday morning at around 10 AM Eastern, to get the Net Neutrality petition to 100k votes on time. I've been tracking the vote rate and it runs fastest on Tuesday, during the work day. We will get the most traction if as many people as possible promote the petition on their social network channels starting early this week. Please consider raising the issue and the petition on your social network channels to help generate the final surge in traffic we need to hit 100k signatures. The petition may not have as much legal authority as we would like, but at least it is a potent rhetorical device for Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn, the two FCC commissioners who are already raising opposition to allowing a fast lane.
You can use the library all you want in your programs (thus making use of the API), but you may not re-implement the library functions and have an identical API as the other proprietary library.
Yes, I get that is what Oracle wants to be true, and what the judge implicitly ruled. But that's not the question I'm asking. What I'm asking is; how do you get there from copyright?
Copyright says you can't copy things beyond fair use. But fair use doesn't define the difference between programming and writing a library with a compatible API; are they saying programming is educational? satire? criticism? reportage? And the amount of copying involved in both activities is, or at least can be, the same.
How far does this copyrightability of APIs go? If I write a program in Java, am I infringing?
Collections.unmodifiableList( Collections.sort( new ArrayList(){{add(String.valueOf(Math.pow(3,9)));add(String.valueOf(Math.pow(3,6)));}}));
Is that enough copying of their API to trigger copyright? If it is, then this ruling means we have to stop all software development, sort this out, then start again once we understand the license terms of every language. If this duplication of their API is not potentially infringing, then how can a copy of the API in a slightly different form (as the signatures of an implementation) be infringing?
The only rational conclusion is that the API are uncopyrightable facts, not copyrightable artistic expression. Anything else makes programming itself infringement.
Does the administration sincerely believe that bringing these people to America will make us stronger? I tend to agree. Give them green cards, so they can stay. H1B visas with little hope for a green card are indentured servitude.
2) Publisher B wants a cut of the profits and so makes a run of the books with their own cover art. However, they put the author's name on the cover. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money.
This (specifically #2) is what originally spawned copyright.
That is a common, but subtly flawed misconception. The raison d'etre of copyright is not to prevent others from doing anything. It is to motivate the progress of science and the useful arts. You are confusing the mechanism with the purpose. The current mechanism that we use to channel cashflow to inventors and creatives is limited monopoly. The purpose of that monopoly is the cashflow; if we could acheive the same thing without the monopoly, the world would be a better place.
It is this confusion of the mechanism with the purpose of copyright that leads to things like DRM, which fails to inhibit infringement but does require non-infringing users to jump through hoops and use intentionally crippled hardware.
He's apparently super paranoid (worried about the government eavesdropping on your cell phone calls and tracking you?
But, they are tracking everyone, and under various criteria that apply to RMS, they do eavesdrop without a warrant. What may once have been paranoia is now merely a minimal degree of awareness.
Slashdot Mirror
mice ... may simply exercise because they like to.
Hence the term, "Gym Rats".
Thank you, thank you. Remember to tip the waitstaff, I'll be here all week.
Poles and cables? The future is wireless.
I just bought my house three years ago and wired it with cat 6. Wireless is for mobile devices, temporary connections, and people who want ease-of-install more than they want reliability or speed. I do this for a living; dropped connections cost me and my clients money. Wireless will probably not be the right answer for my workstations in my lifetime.
yeah it's weird in that regard that they went for opening that pandoras box... the chinese will just indict in response.
Weird enough that it has me trying to figure out why they would do it. The other thing that seems weird is that we're charging the guys who were just following orders. Why charge the foot soldiers instead of the generals who ordered the action? It's a pretty extreme tinfoil hat scenario, but could they be trying to establish a story frame of throwing the boots to the wolves, so Clapper and Alexander don't go down?
The amendment made it so that only a court order would allow for the banning of content, and not a legislative provision, as originally proposed, according to RT. "We do not support any proposals that mean we cannot enforce our laws,"
I find it fascinating when politicians assert that they can tell when something is illegal without consulting the courts. Just what exactly do they think the courts are for? Here's a hint; think about the word, "judge," and what it means as a verb.
If this shit worked, there wouldn't be huge Hollywood films which fall on their face because nobody is interested. All it really does it make lowest common denominator stuff which nobody actually likes.
You may be right about the objective quality of the product, but if this stuff didn't work, the lowest common denominator drek that nobody actually likes wouldn't sell so fast. You can't use this stuff to write Milton, but you can use it to sell the shit out of whatever syrupy self-help book Oprah is hawking this week.
Psychological operations aren't about influencing the most discriminating minds, and they're not about making everyone do exactly what you say. They're about nudging the masses far enough to tip the scale.
Tom Wheeler is a cable lobbyist, so I get it. He's doing his (evil, sociopathic) job. He's a bad person,, and is acting in bad faith, and he should be fired. The Republicans are idiots, they think that lack of regulation means a closer approximation of the ideal free market (even though almost every single one of the biggest commercial successes of the Internet era said the opposite, and the ISPs depend on regulation in rights-of-way, easements, and spectrum). They're ignorant true believers, and should be fired.
But Obama, Rosenworcel, and Clyburn have some 'splainin' to do. They claim to understand the issue, they claim to support net neutrality. But you can't vote to kick a puppy and then say you oppose puppy-kicking. We can't keep accepting their bullshit theatrics; "It's not so bad, because we're only kicking the puppy a few times." No more death by a thousand cuts. Stop voting to kick the puppy, or we have to stop believing your lies.
If I say, "Chicks who root their phones are hot," is it objectification?
If so, is it: A. because I used the word, "chick," B. because I'm focusing on a single characteristic, rooting a phone, instead of the whole person, or C. because I'm implying that the most important thing about a woman rooting her phone is that it increases her sexual attractiveness?
You're better off not watching. I watched for about five minutes and wanted to punch somebody. The eloquence with which these spindocs are explaining why black is white is disgusting.
Hear Hear! (sorry, no mod points today, but I too vomited a little in my mouth before closing the stream)
with both dissenters doing so because they believe it should be left to Congress to decide, and they both seem to be in favor of eliminating net neutrality.
Don't kid yourself. The dissenting votes were theater, just like Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel saying they favored net neutrality. If Clyburn and Rosenworcel had voted against and the two R's had voted for, it would have broken the "along partisan lines" story that our one political party relies on. This is the only way the vote could go to achieve the three goals:
1. Kill net neutrality.
2. Maintaining the pretense that Obama and the dem's are fighting for net neutrality.
3. Maintain the "bitter partisan divide" story that keeps the one party (the D's and R's) from having any competition.
I wanted to believe in Rosenworcel and Clyburn. I posted here in support of them. But they are as full of shit as Obama. The Republicans are worse, because they don't even claim to support non-discriminatory communication networks, but they are all selling our future down the same river.
From the RFC, so delicious it must be fattening:
In particular, the term "attack", used technically, implies nothing about the motivation of the actor mounting the attack. The motivation for PM can range from non-targeted nation-state surveillance, to legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes by commercial enterprises, to illegal actions by criminals. The same techniques to achieve PM can be used regardless of motivation. Thus, we cannot defend against the most nefarious actors while allowing monitoring by other actors no matter how benevolent some might consider them to be, since the actions required of the attacker are indistinguishable from other attacks. The motivation for PM is, therefore, not relevant for how PM is mitigated in IETF protocols.
I think your question calls for a multi-context response:
Greatest combined offensiveness and pervasiveness today: NSA, though GCHQ gets a solid nod for being more offensive and nearly as pervasive (especially if you count cooperation with NSA, but that cuts both ways).
Most pervasive today / greatest potential psy-ops threat: US corporations (Google and Facebook so far out in front that it doesn't even look like a competition)
Most offensive monitoring program today: Corporations monitoring public school students.
Most scary if I thought they posed a credible threat: North Korea
Most scary based on capability and recent offensive behavior: Russian government.
Most scary based on capability and mid-term offensive behavior: Chinese government.
Most scary based on capability and long-term offensive behavior: Russian government.
I echo your sentiment about the difficulty of separating Chinese and Russian thugs/corporations/government.
create more competition and more choice for consumers. Yes, it will mean a tiny bit less profit for the majors,
Actually, that's one of the great things about the ideal free market; competition only hurts the incumbents in the short run. In the long run, everyone makes more money and gets more stuff, even the carriers.
Of course, the ideal free market is a mathematical theory. It can't be achieved by running a laissez-faire system on flawed humans. The closest we can get in the real world is a regulated market. With things like regulated rights of way for carrier cables, regulated wireless bands for carrier signals, and regulation of traffic discrimination by operaters of the carriage networks.
And this is nothing new, from Adam Smith's recognition that unregulated markets would be distorted by unscrupulous businesses to the establishment of the first common carrier regulations in the physical goods transport industry, we have already studied, tested in the real world, and documented the answers many decades ago.
If these big ISPs can not adapt, then they will die.
Promise?
So did we win? Or am I missing something?
You're missing something. He didn't say anything about limiting fast lane sales to Apple, Netflix, &c, and the line about cardio results is hogwash -- cardio results are a few bytes per second, they don't need a fast lane, they need high availability, which fast lanes do not provide (see HA versus HP clusters, for a similar case). He's trying to manipulate you.
some public-interest cases like a healthcare company sending electrocardiography results
This is a patently deceptive meme. It is intended to tug at your heart strings to sell the case, but it is not a good application of a fast lane. Cardio results do not need high performance lines, because they produce a tiny trickle of data. They need high availability, which a fast lane does not help. If Mr. Wheeler is really suggesting that paid prioiritization will render the standard lane so unusably clogged that a few bytes of cardio data won't fit over the pipe in a split second, then he is hoisting himself by his own petard.
From the synopsis:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he will revise proposed rules for regulating broadband Internet, and is offering assurances that the agency won't allow companies to segregate Web traffic into fast and slow lanes.
Hooray! Same thing it says at the beginning of the article, same thing that made me prematurely celebrate. You see, a bit further down in the WSJ article:
The new proposal will also seek comment on whether such "paid prioritization" should be prohibited altogether.
What? WTF do you think we mean when we say we want net neutrality? Yes, you idiot, we want paid prioritization to be prohibited altogether. ISPs should deliver every packet the customer asks for with the same diligence, without preference. Not delivering some packets faster. Not delivering some packets slower. Handing every packet the same regardless of the content or source. That is what net neutrality is. Are you stupid, or just pretending to be so you can keep doing what your lobby tells you to do?
We haven't saved it yet, but we have been heard. Don't stop now.
Yeah, very agreed. I meant the "this attack" fragment to imply that it will happen again, but re-reading my post it doesn't capture that very well. Thanks for the addendum.
I choose to take this at face value, that he really has seen that We The People want net neutrality.
And that is because of you. You who signed the petition, sent letters to your legislators, sent comments to the FCC, emailed your friends, posted the issue on your social networks, wrote letters to the editor, and everything else you did. You did this. You saved the Internet from this attack by greedy cynics who would turn the Internet into TV for a few pieces of silver. You protected the most important advance our generation has built. Thank you, and congratulations!
And I cannot believe that there are lickspittles like you, who try to disenfranchise others from taking every public stand available to them. Your shameless service to your masters may get you a favorable scrap from the table today, but you will never have a seat. You will die in the same place you are today, grovelling at their feet, whimpering about your impotence.
We need one more big surge of traffic, ideally starting Monday or Tuesday morning at around 10 AM Eastern, to get the Net Neutrality petition to 100k votes on time. I've been tracking the vote rate and it runs fastest on Tuesday, during the work day. We will get the most traction if as many people as possible promote the petition on their social network channels starting early this week. Please consider raising the issue and the petition on your social network channels to help generate the final surge in traffic we need to hit 100k signatures. The petition may not have as much legal authority as we would like, but at least it is a potent rhetorical device for Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn, the two FCC commissioners who are already raising opposition to allowing a fast lane.
You can use the library all you want in your programs (thus making use of the API), but you may not re-implement the library functions and have an identical API as the other proprietary library.
Yes, I get that is what Oracle wants to be true, and what the judge implicitly ruled. But that's not the question I'm asking. What I'm asking is; how do you get there from copyright?
Copyright says you can't copy things beyond fair use. But fair use doesn't define the difference between programming and writing a library with a compatible API; are they saying programming is educational? satire? criticism? reportage? And the amount of copying involved in both activities is, or at least can be, the same.
How far does this copyrightability of APIs go? If I write a program in Java, am I infringing?
Collections.unmodifiableList( Collections.sort( new ArrayList(){{add(String.valueOf(Math.pow(3,9)));add(String.valueOf(Math.pow(3,6)));}}));
Is that enough copying of their API to trigger copyright? If it is, then this ruling means we have to stop all software development, sort this out, then start again once we understand the license terms of every language. If this duplication of their API is not potentially infringing, then how can a copy of the API in a slightly different form (as the signatures of an implementation) be infringing?
The only rational conclusion is that the API are uncopyrightable facts, not copyrightable artistic expression. Anything else makes programming itself infringement.
Does the administration sincerely believe that bringing these people to America will make us stronger? I tend to agree. Give them green cards, so they can stay. H1B visas with little hope for a green card are indentured servitude.
2) Publisher B wants a cut of the profits and so makes a run of the books with their own cover art. However, they put the author's name on the cover. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money.
This (specifically #2) is what originally spawned copyright.
That is a common, but subtly flawed misconception. The raison d'etre of copyright is not to prevent others from doing anything. It is to motivate the progress of science and the useful arts. You are confusing the mechanism with the purpose. The current mechanism that we use to channel cashflow to inventors and creatives is limited monopoly. The purpose of that monopoly is the cashflow; if we could acheive the same thing without the monopoly, the world would be a better place.
It is this confusion of the mechanism with the purpose of copyright that leads to things like DRM, which fails to inhibit infringement but does require non-infringing users to jump through hoops and use intentionally crippled hardware.
He's apparently super paranoid (worried about the government eavesdropping on your cell phone calls and tracking you?
But, they are tracking everyone, and under various criteria that apply to RMS, they do eavesdrop without a warrant. What may once have been paranoia is now merely a minimal degree of awareness.