What's needed is a general solution that lets me stay logged in (to any site that's not stuck in the retarded 90s with login timeouts and "use our mobile app just to stay logged in" nonsense), but reduces the power of cookies irrevocably and understandably, across the board, not with some manually-maintained whitelist pushed down by a central party that can sell off corruptions to the whitelist as a revenue model like AdBlock.
I personally do not think much will change, if anything... there is little practical downside to the choice of the FCC, and so much fear mongering from the other side of things that it greatly strains credulity.
In the next 1-2 years? Sure. There's no way they're going to go full corporate dictator at the outset. The first thing they'll do is start negotiating with the big content providers, while fending off the inevitable legal challenges. They'll also need to go full throttle on getting friendly Congresspeople (mostly Rs) reelected next year.
After that? I think we can expect to see a lot more zero rating packages and more investment in their own content services. Data caps will be pushed down to make these services and zero rating more attractive. Further down the line, they'll be extending their "partnerships" with more and more edge providers.
Eventually, they'll have enough deals that cover just enough of what people use that they can start throttling down anything else while most people will neither care nor notice. It may not happen in a year or two, but watch for *this* to happen. It won't at the outset.
You really think they've been pushing and spending this much because they *don't* expect to maximize their revenue and control?
The sad part is that they do not understand that Net Neutrality works to make sure that the Internet is there for the new companies and services that have yet to be imagined.
I'm certain they understand that. They just don't care. And that is maddening, not sad.
And yet, somehow we still keep coming up with new jobs that begin to exist because of the increases in technology.
There may be an inflection point when needs required by new technology can be fulfilled by technology itself, or fewer people due to advances in tech. I think we are seeing the latter already, and it will steadily progress to the former. There is no turning back.
History can teach us many things, but we can't ignore that some events are unprecedented.
It wasn't just the numbers. The Shermans were easily serviceable as well. Much like the T34s, but more so. In other words, technology doesn't mean jack shit if it doesn't work all the time!
Have you actually ever studied any of this? The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else (primarily the US and NATO allies). This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion.
Sort of... WWII (or the ending thereof) gave the USSR a foothold into Western Europe to expand their communist ideology. I would say the two (WWII and the Cold War) are highly related.
Can't disagree there, or speak to what propaganda effect it might have. As far as the military is concerned, though, I think this announcement will have little impact. AKA no one cares.
On the other hand, perhaps this gesture speaks of the Iranian leadership's thoughts on being an important player on the world stage. Good luck to them.. frankly I think they'd be more effective if they explored other avenues.
Well, to be honest, it does seem like more of a "we can do that too!" type of gesture. The US employs UAVs because, right or wrong, our military presence is effectively everywhere.
Don't know if this would count as a major threat. It certainly might antagonize the West, but when you think about it, to fly UAVs effectively you need a remote base (aka out of enemy range) to operate them from. In other words, your UAVs are only as effective as their operators are secure. Good strategy for the US, perhaps not so good for Iran.
ISPs in the US should still be protected by common carrier status. What this does is simply drive business from Canadian ISPs to US ( and elsewhere ) ISPs.
Hopefully that common carrier status will remain in the US. It seems there's already an assault on it in New Jersey. Knowing this conflicts with section 230 of the CDA, and that federal law supercedes state laws, it might not be a big deal. However, as more and more people are becoming aware of the ability to share information through the Internet (*especially* those who actually do have something to hide) we might see further attempts at regulation.
Of course, people have been aware of this the whole time - it's only now that the cockroaches see the lights on and are saying "OMG they're saying stuff about me on teh Internets!".... and here come the lawyers.
Just pointing out the possibility that domain name squatters are going to jump all over this.
Is it not ironic that the site I run (and no, it's not porn related) is firewalled by China but the.cn version of my domain is what I need, when I need it *and* is owned by a Chinese company?
For the Mac there's SecuritySpy, and for Linux there's Zone Minder. I haven't used ZoneMinder - I can say that I've used SecuritySpy and it's a very nice solution. Not sure how well it would work out with 200 cameras though - but it can accept multiple inputs per machine so it might be worth looking into.
Bought it for the same price (a loss of 90% of the information) and is now forced to convert it to another format. Don't know about you, but it sounds dumb to me. Why not just buy the uncompressed version? Hell, the vendor EVEN GIVES YOU THE MEDIA AT THE SAME PRICE.
The only problem with that argument is that in the real world, you end up paying $16 for that one track when you buy it on a CD.
They have a name that can be easily recognized by just about anyone that uses the Internet (and even many that don't).... that alone is worth quite a bit.
They have a lot of (paying) customers, that's also worth something.
They have some pretty bright people working for them.
I think it's a little bit more than a bunch of computers, some code and an algorithm.
Slashdot Mirror
What's needed is a general solution that lets me stay logged in (to any site that's not stuck in the retarded 90s with login timeouts and "use our mobile app just to stay logged in" nonsense), but reduces the power of cookies irrevocably and understandably, across the board, not with some manually-maintained whitelist pushed down by a central party that can sell off corruptions to the whitelist as a revenue model like AdBlock.
There is something like that. But nobody really uses it.
I personally do not think much will change, if anything... there is little practical downside to the choice of the FCC, and so much fear mongering from the other side of things that it greatly strains credulity.
In the next 1-2 years? Sure. There's no way they're going to go full corporate dictator at the outset. The first thing they'll do is start negotiating with the big content providers, while fending off the inevitable legal challenges. They'll also need to go full throttle on getting friendly Congresspeople (mostly Rs) reelected next year.
After that? I think we can expect to see a lot more zero rating packages and more investment in their own content services. Data caps will be pushed down to make these services and zero rating more attractive. Further down the line, they'll be extending their "partnerships" with more and more edge providers.
Eventually, they'll have enough deals that cover just enough of what people use that they can start throttling down anything else while most people will neither care nor notice. It may not happen in a year or two, but watch for *this* to happen. It won't at the outset.
You really think they've been pushing and spending this much because they *don't* expect to maximize their revenue and control?
The sad part is that they do not understand that Net Neutrality works to make sure that the Internet is there for the new companies and services that have yet to be imagined.
I'm certain they understand that. They just don't care. And that is maddening, not sad.
And yet, somehow we still keep coming up with new jobs that begin to exist because of the increases in technology.
There may be an inflection point when needs required by new technology can be fulfilled by technology itself, or fewer people due to advances in tech. I think we are seeing the latter already, and it will steadily progress to the former. There is no turning back.
History can teach us many things, but we can't ignore that some events are unprecedented.
Do you know how close Germany and France were and are culturally?
Geographically, yes. Culturally, are you kidding?
It wasn't just the numbers. The Shermans were easily serviceable as well. Much like the T34s, but more so. In other words, technology doesn't mean jack shit if it doesn't work all the time!
Ok come on. Iran is a very well developed nation. So we're talking about "color" television here.
Snide joke aside, they're an advanced nation. But I don't think UAVs will suit their military well.
Have you actually ever studied any of this? The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else (primarily the US and NATO allies). This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion.
Sort of... WWII (or the ending thereof) gave the USSR a foothold into Western Europe to expand their communist ideology. I would say the two (WWII and the Cold War) are highly related.
Can't disagree there, or speak to what propaganda effect it might have. As far as the military is concerned, though, I think this announcement will have little impact. AKA no one cares.
On the other hand, perhaps this gesture speaks of the Iranian leadership's thoughts on being an important player on the world stage. Good luck to them.. frankly I think they'd be more effective if they explored other avenues.
Well, to be honest, it does seem like more of a "we can do that too!" type of gesture. The US employs UAVs because, right or wrong, our military presence is effectively everywhere.
If an education is the font of all liberty, a fact can be more than merely useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Iran has a population of about 75 million. It doesn't counteract your point, but thought you'd like to know.
Don't know if this would count as a major threat. It certainly might antagonize the West, but when you think about it, to fly UAVs effectively you need a remote base (aka out of enemy range) to operate them from. In other words, your UAVs are only as effective as their operators are secure. Good strategy for the US, perhaps not so good for Iran.
Although it's a little past Halloween I dig their humor anyway...
Microsoft Hell(TM) 2006? Isn't this just a rebranded version of Windows ME?
"This site best viewed in Internet Explorer 5.5"
"Download XmigaloFunkyBrowserPlugin Now!"
"We're sorry but this site requires your browser to support ActiveX"
Woohoo! The good old days are BACK! I, for one, am going to party like it's 1999.
I see your point, but is a bluetooth travel mouse too much extra to carry around?
ISPs in the US should still be protected by common carrier status. What this does is simply drive business from Canadian ISPs to US ( and elsewhere ) ISPs.
Hopefully that common carrier status will remain in the US. It seems there's already an assault on it in New Jersey. Knowing this conflicts with section 230 of the CDA, and that federal law supercedes state laws, it might not be a big deal. However, as more and more people are becoming aware of the ability to share information through the Internet (*especially* those who actually do have something to hide) we might see further attempts at regulation.
Of course, people have been aware of this the whole time - it's only now that the cockroaches see the lights on and are saying "OMG they're saying stuff about me on teh Internets!".... and here come the lawyers.
Just pointing out the possibility that domain name squatters are going to jump all over this.
Is it not ironic that the site I run (and no, it's not porn related) is firewalled by China but the .cn version of my domain is what I need, when I need it *and* is owned by a Chinese company?
You mean like when I go to slahsdot.org and I get what I need, when I need it?
For the Mac there's SecuritySpy, and for Linux there's Zone Minder. I haven't used ZoneMinder - I can say that I've used SecuritySpy and it's a very nice solution. Not sure how well it would work out with 200 cameras though - but it can accept multiple inputs per machine so it might be worth looking into.
Bought it for the same price (a loss of 90% of the information) and is now forced to convert it to another format. Don't know about you, but it sounds dumb to me. Why not just buy the uncompressed version? Hell, the vendor EVEN GIVES YOU THE MEDIA AT THE SAME PRICE.
The only problem with that argument is that in the real world, you end up paying $16 for that one track when you buy it on a CD.
They have a name that can be easily recognized by just about anyone that uses the Internet (and even many that don't).... that alone is worth quite a bit.
They have a lot of (paying) customers, that's also worth something.
They have some pretty bright people working for them.
I think it's a little bit more than a bunch of computers, some code and an algorithm.
Giants: Citizen Kabuto.
I'm also hoping that Planet Moon will do a sequel of some kind, but alas it seems they're more focused on the PSP these days.
So if it's number 2, they're just dragging Yahoo!, MS, et cetera in for the heck of it?
Not that it would surprise me, or anything...
That's not acceptable. People there know they are being kept in the dark.
According to this article they don't, as far as some searches are concerned.