here I am unable to use netflix on my dual core 3ghz machine intel machine with 8gb RAM, being labelled "thief" because I choose not to settle for a substandard experience and because I'm not interested in re-downloading Alien every time I want to re-watch it, all because Netflix can't be bothered releasing a Linux client...
Before anybody suggests it: browsers are for viewing web pages, not playing videos.
Huh? The reason you have to download the movie every time you want to watch it is because Netflix isn't a store, it's a rental service. They've always been very clear about this. Remember when they mailed DVDs? You were supposed to return those. This has nothing to do with the "lack of" a Linux native client. (HTML5 works fine on Linux, by the way. If you wanted to use Netflix rather than going to a store and buying DVDs, which is what you really want, you could do so on Linux.)
The GWB administration tried to replace "suicide bomber" with "homicide bomber."
Your larger point is true, but this is false. A media organization tried to change the euphemism, not the actual government. The government's position was and is "Pretty much all terrorist bombers are trying to commit homicide. The useful distinction made by the phrase suicide bomber is that the bomber is also trying to kill themselves."
I have no idea what the adapter does, but you have always been able to connect a wireless xb1 controller to a Windows PC. (The first time, you have to connect it via USB so it will install the driver, but it works wirelessly after that.)
That's the problem. The ISP that pushes more traffic usually pays the one that pushes less traffic in a settled interconnect. (If the traffic flow is the same in either direction, the ISPs agree to "settlement free peering" where neither side pays anything.) Netflix's ISP refused to pay Verizon, and then lied in the press about it. Netflix started making its own interconnect deals once they figured out what was going on, but they're still pushing for Title II because they want to go back to using cheap ISPs who can now demand settlement free peering.
[Trey Gowdy, R-SC and chairman of the Select Committee on the Benghazi attacks] argued that the use of personal emails by Ms. Clinton preclude the State Department from turning over all of her correspondence in relation to the Benghazi investigation.
“The fact is the State Department cannot certify that they have produced all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails because they do not have all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails, nor do they control access to them,” he explained, later adding that it made “any claim of a definitive report impossible.”
Hey DNC Joe, the first time the public has heard of Clinton hiding her emails was in this NYT story. The NYT found out because Team Clinton had to admit to hiding them, because the Select Committee had already caught them hiding the emails.
This was first publicly revealed Tuesday, when the NYT published this story. There's no "It wasn't a big deal then" because nobody knew about it until Tuesday.
As far as formally charging Clinton with a crime, that will come, but Howdy needs to make sure he has as much evidence as he can get his hands on, because like anyone else, Clinton is protected from Double Jeopardy.
And finally, DNC Joe, if you think Clinton wasn't planning her 2016 run when the attacks happened in 2012, much less when the investigations started in 2013, you need to have your head examined.
Sorry, but the law is very clear on whether you are allowed to pretend emails don't exist when they are under subpoena. That's why Clinton had the separate email server... So they couldn't subpoena her.
Sebilius and Jackson were using the multiple email accounts to evade transparency requirements. Specifically, a FOIA request/subpoena for "all of Lisa Jackson's emails on whatever topic" won't turn up emails sent to or from her doppelganger, Richard Windsor, so everyone would send sensitive/embarrassing emails to the doppelganger account. Similarly, subpoenas and FOIA requests for Clinton will only include her official account, not the secret one she actually uses.
Of note: Palin used a private email for private correspondence, and an official email for state business. Clinton sent ALL email from a private address, and didn't even HAVE an official one.
These emails were fished out by the committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. If the e-mails had been sent from her official account (as is required of all Cabinet Secretaries by the Presidential Records Act), the Select Committee would have had them a year ago. Just today, the head of the committee said that they may never get all the emails because Clinton deliberately evaded record keeping laws, and so did some of her top staffers.
Goodlatte is a Republican who represents Virginia's 6th Congressional District. Any credible editor (i.e. not the Slashdot ones) would make sure that American legislators are identifed by, at a minimum, their State and party.
Nobody claimed that either Bush wasn't a multimillionaire. And like President Obama earned his millions somewhere other than the Senate, Clinton earned money outside the governor's office. The Bushes earned money in businesses. Obama earned money as an author. And Clinton earned money in real estate and some other investments. There's nothing wrong with any of this (well, other than Whitewater), but none of them were in the middle class when they entered the White House.
Palin used a personal account for personal stuff. We know this because a 4chan hacker (whose father was a Democrat state senator) hacked into it, and there was no state business emails in there. According to the NYT, Clinton didn't HAVE an official account. But you keep pretending they're the same thing.
And Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, came into the office basically upper-middle to lower-upper class, and left or will leave as multimillionaires
Obama was a multimillionaire before entering the White House, mainly on the strength of his book deals. And Clinton had more than a few investment properties in his Arkansas days. (Famously including Whitewater, but there were some presumably legitimate ones in there too.) Clinton's net worth was almost definitely in the millions when he took office.
The Slashdot headline repeats the headline of the New York Times story, which was the original report, verbatim.
The "possibly" stuff in the NYT report is because they're accusing her of a crime. (She apparently didn't have a State Dept. e-mail, ever. If she handled anything classified on this address, that's supposed to mean jail time. There would be fines or whatnot if its not an actual security breach.) The justice system, and thus the press, is supposed to refer to people who have been accused of crimes, but not yet convicted, as "alleged" criminals. Here, Clinton and her staff admit to using the illicit email server, but because she hasn't been tried and convicted, she "possibly" broke the law. That's why the NYT phrased it the way they did.
As far as Slashdot, that's just lax editorial standards.
That's not quite how it works. Key revocation revokes the key of the player, not the key of the media. The media has a list of revoked keys, accurate as of the day the disk was pressed. If the key of the player is on the disk's revoked list, the disk won't play. Previously pressed disks, which do not have the key on the revoked list, will still work.
When they were hacking through the Blu-Ray protection trying to get the key, plenty of software based players had their keys exposed and revoked. Being software players, they were quickly fixed by software update.
Actually the FCC is preventing states from nullifying the will of municipalities.
And the municipalities are nullifying the will of private citizens. The idea here is that because the government can subsidize their business schemes through tax dollars on everyone, people who use the business and people who do not, government interference should be kept to a minimum. The fear is that the government will put in a shitty connection and subsidize it with taxes. That will make it harder for people who want a better connection to get one, because the real ISP can't make a profit if they can't wire up most of the town.
If you missed it, Comcast was slowing down Netflix data on purpose, until Netflix paid Comcast extra for it.
That's not true. Netflix's ISP, Cognet, was slowing Netflix down to protect its other customers, who were paying a higher rate than Netflix. The "Netflix paying off Comcast" bullshit is really Netflix serving Comcast customers by connecting to Comcast directly rather than through their ISP, essentially being partially their own ISP.
The decision is kind of a surprise to me given the head of the FCC was an influential telco lobbyist prior to his appointment. In this case it seems to me the FCC are doing their job by telling telco's what to do, rather than the other way around (as one would expect with such blatantly insestious oversight).
This was a grudge thing. In the early 80s, Wheeler ran a business that was essentially AOL over cable lines. AOL could force phone companies to partner with them, because of Title II. Wheeler could not because Title II didn't apply to cable companies, so AOL succeeded, Wheeler failed, and cable companies started providing internet access themselves when the market for it emerged.
Wheeler's op ed a few weeks ago was about this experience. He hates the cable companies, and wanted to screw them. He got his chance.
Congress has a Net Neutrality bill (banning blocking and fast lanes) that doesn't impose Title II. Democrats in the Senate are blocking it because they want to impose the regulations that Title II comes with.
Those two articles have different bylines. The anti-Title II one was written by Corynne McSherry, and the pro-Title II one was written by Jeremy Gillula and Mitch Stoltz. So three different people supposedly have two opposing views.
Secondly, the first piece asked for a specific change to the Title II regulation. (They waited so long to raise the issue because the FCC never actually released the final text of the rule. Still, by the way. It will be actually published for the first time in a few weeks.) The first piece thinks that the "General Conduct rule," which lets the FCC act against ISP "abuses" that aren't blocking or throttling, is too broadly worded. (Essentially, Ms. McSherry's argument here is that the Title II rule should have a specific set of things that it bans, and the government shouldn't be able to punish someone unless they violate those rules.)
What do Mr. Gillula and Mr. Stoltz think of the General Conduct Rule?
But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.
For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule...We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach.
The actual order is over 300 pages long, and it’s not widely available yet. Details matter.
That sounds like the EFF giving a mixed review of the Title II regulation to me. More importantly, the pieces don't contradict each other.
Slashdot Mirror
here I am unable to use netflix on my dual core 3ghz machine intel machine with 8gb RAM, being labelled "thief" because I choose not to settle for a substandard experience and because I'm not interested in re-downloading Alien every time I want to re-watch it, all because Netflix can't be bothered releasing a Linux client...
Before anybody suggests it: browsers are for viewing web pages, not playing videos.
Huh? The reason you have to download the movie every time you want to watch it is because Netflix isn't a store, it's a rental service. They've always been very clear about this. Remember when they mailed DVDs? You were supposed to return those. This has nothing to do with the "lack of" a Linux native client. (HTML5 works fine on Linux, by the way. If you wanted to use Netflix rather than going to a store and buying DVDs, which is what you really want, you could do so on Linux.)
Home audio generally means the opposite of that. You're listening to stuff sent to you by Google. Google isn't listening to stuff sent by you.
The GWB administration tried to replace "suicide bomber" with "homicide bomber."
Your larger point is true, but this is false. A media organization tried to change the euphemism, not the actual government. The government's position was and is "Pretty much all terrorist bombers are trying to commit homicide. The useful distinction made by the phrase suicide bomber is that the bomber is also trying to kill themselves."
I have no idea what the adapter does, but you have always been able to connect a wireless xb1 controller to a Windows PC. (The first time, you have to connect it via USB so it will install the driver, but it works wirelessly after that.)
That's the problem. The ISP that pushes more traffic usually pays the one that pushes less traffic in a settled interconnect. (If the traffic flow is the same in either direction, the ISPs agree to "settlement free peering" where neither side pays anything.) Netflix's ISP refused to pay Verizon, and then lied in the press about it. Netflix started making its own interconnect deals once they figured out what was going on, but they're still pushing for Title II because they want to go back to using cheap ISPs who can now demand settlement free peering.
If she broke the law, she will be charged
In the world of Louis Lerner, Lisa Jackson, Eric Shinseki, Tom Perez, and Eric Holder, you can't possibly believe that that's not true.
[Trey Gowdy, R-SC and chairman of the Select Committee on the Benghazi attacks] argued that the use of personal emails by Ms. Clinton preclude the State Department from turning over all of her correspondence in relation to the Benghazi investigation.
“The fact is the State Department cannot certify that they have produced all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails because they do not have all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails, nor do they control access to them,” he explained, later adding that it made “any claim of a definitive report impossible.”
- a different New York Times story
This was first publicly revealed Tuesday, when the NYT published this story. There's no "It wasn't a big deal then" because nobody knew about it until Tuesday.
As far as formally charging Clinton with a crime, that will come, but Howdy needs to make sure he has as much evidence as he can get his hands on, because like anyone else, Clinton is protected from Double Jeopardy.
And finally, DNC Joe, if you think Clinton wasn't planning her 2016 run when the attacks happened in 2012, much less when the investigations started in 2013, you need to have your head examined.
Sorry, but the law is very clear on whether you are allowed to pretend emails don't exist when they are under subpoena. That's why Clinton had the separate email server... So they couldn't subpoena her.
Sebilius and Jackson were using the multiple email accounts to evade transparency requirements. Specifically, a FOIA request/subpoena for "all of Lisa Jackson's emails on whatever topic" won't turn up emails sent to or from her doppelganger, Richard Windsor, so everyone would send sensitive/embarrassing emails to the doppelganger account. Similarly, subpoenas and FOIA requests for Clinton will only include her official account, not the secret one she actually uses.
1. Obstructing the investigation by hiding emails from subpoenas BY NOT MAINTAINING AN OFFICIAL EMAIL ACCOUNT.
Of note: Palin used a private email for private correspondence, and an official email for state business. Clinton sent ALL email from a private address, and didn't even HAVE an official one.
These emails were fished out by the committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. If the e-mails had been sent from her official account (as is required of all Cabinet Secretaries by the Presidential Records Act), the Select Committee would have had them a year ago. Just today, the head of the committee said that they may never get all the emails because Clinton deliberately evaded record keeping laws, and so did some of her top staffers.
Goodlatte is a Republican who represents Virginia's 6th Congressional District. Any credible editor (i.e. not the Slashdot ones) would make sure that American legislators are identifed by, at a minimum, their State and party.
Nobody claimed that either Bush wasn't a multimillionaire. And like President Obama earned his millions somewhere other than the Senate, Clinton earned money outside the governor's office. The Bushes earned money in businesses. Obama earned money as an author. And Clinton earned money in real estate and some other investments. There's nothing wrong with any of this (well, other than Whitewater), but none of them were in the middle class when they entered the White House.
Palin used a personal account for personal stuff. We know this because a 4chan hacker (whose father was a Democrat state senator) hacked into it, and there was no state business emails in there. According to the NYT, Clinton didn't HAVE an official account. But you keep pretending they're the same thing.
And Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, came into the office basically upper-middle to lower-upper class, and left or will leave as multimillionaires
Obama was a multimillionaire before entering the White House, mainly on the strength of his book deals. And Clinton had more than a few investment properties in his Arkansas days. (Famously including Whitewater, but there were some presumably legitimate ones in there too.) Clinton's net worth was almost definitely in the millions when he took office.
The "possibly" stuff in the NYT report is because they're accusing her of a crime. (She apparently didn't have a State Dept. e-mail, ever. If she handled anything classified on this address, that's supposed to mean jail time. There would be fines or whatnot if its not an actual security breach.) The justice system, and thus the press, is supposed to refer to people who have been accused of crimes, but not yet convicted, as "alleged" criminals. Here, Clinton and her staff admit to using the illicit email server, but because she hasn't been tried and convicted, she "possibly" broke the law. That's why the NYT phrased it the way they did.
As far as Slashdot, that's just lax editorial standards.
When they were hacking through the Blu-Ray protection trying to get the key, plenty of software based players had their keys exposed and revoked. Being software players, they were quickly fixed by software update.
This is an interesting tech demo, and it's always good to be aware of the potential of these things, but it doesn't seem to be a likely threat vector.
- The head of security for Iran's nuclear program on hacks via compromised thumb drives.
Actually the FCC is preventing states from nullifying the will of municipalities.
And the municipalities are nullifying the will of private citizens. The idea here is that because the government can subsidize their business schemes through tax dollars on everyone, people who use the business and people who do not, government interference should be kept to a minimum. The fear is that the government will put in a shitty connection and subsidize it with taxes. That will make it harder for people who want a better connection to get one, because the real ISP can't make a profit if they can't wire up most of the town.
If you missed it, Comcast was slowing down Netflix data on purpose, until Netflix paid Comcast extra for it.
That's not true. Netflix's ISP, Cognet, was slowing Netflix down to protect its other customers, who were paying a higher rate than Netflix. The "Netflix paying off Comcast" bullshit is really Netflix serving Comcast customers by connecting to Comcast directly rather than through their ISP, essentially being partially their own ISP.
The decision is kind of a surprise to me given the head of the FCC was an influential telco lobbyist prior to his appointment. In this case it seems to me the FCC are doing their job by telling telco's what to do, rather than the other way around (as one would expect with such blatantly insestious oversight).
This was a grudge thing. In the early 80s, Wheeler ran a business that was essentially AOL over cable lines. AOL could force phone companies to partner with them, because of Title II. Wheeler could not because Title II didn't apply to cable companies, so AOL succeeded, Wheeler failed, and cable companies started providing internet access themselves when the market for it emerged.
Wheeler's op ed a few weeks ago was about this experience. He hates the cable companies, and wanted to screw them. He got his chance.
Congress has a Net Neutrality bill (banning blocking and fast lanes) that doesn't impose Title II. Democrats in the Senate are blocking it because they want to impose the regulations that Title II comes with.
Secondly, the first piece asked for a specific change to the Title II regulation. (They waited so long to raise the issue because the FCC never actually released the final text of the rule. Still, by the way. It will be actually published for the first time in a few weeks.) The first piece thinks that the "General Conduct rule," which lets the FCC act against ISP "abuses" that aren't blocking or throttling, is too broadly worded. (Essentially, Ms. McSherry's argument here is that the Title II rule should have a specific set of things that it bans, and the government shouldn't be able to punish someone unless they violate those rules.)
What do Mr. Gillula and Mr. Stoltz think of the General Conduct Rule?
But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.
For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule...We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach.
The actual order is over 300 pages long, and it’s not widely available yet. Details matter.
That sounds like the EFF giving a mixed review of the Title II regulation to me. More importantly, the pieces don't contradict each other.