So for you, by definition, people cannot send spam?
More or less. I prefer to say spammers are not behaving as people, and career spammers are below even many species of mammals capable of rising above their selfish unsympathetic desires, but mostly so it doesn't sound as horrible of a thought as it really is.
Ultimately I'm OK with that.
Most of the spam I get (at work) are people asking me to be an "invited speaker" at their "conference" in some wacky place. They're sent by people. I assume the conference is real, although I've never checked. It's just that they're "spam conferences" like the "spam journals" (which I am also asked to send articles to) that have popped up in the free-for-all of "open publishing".
Lucky you! On the being invited by a personalized email from a person anyway. I don't believe I've ever gotten anything more than a generic template email asking for money that was spewed out by a program.
Or you're simply far better at whatever that topic is than I am at anything.
It only takes a couple of emails with a subject that contains the word "pilules" to know what the entire email is about. Ditto "Look, I know it's a fair..." or "I can show you the video". "Can we meet this weekend" is a little harder, but when the sending domain is 12000 miles away I think it is safe to assume the answer is no and the question isn't honest to begin with.
Fair enough because I didn't state it, but I do exempt spam as being 'email' as well as being sent by a person.
Thankfully spam filters are pretty decent these days so few like that ever end up in my inbox or anywhere I would see them. But on the occasion they do, I always flag spam as soon as I see it, both to do my part in helping train the filters, as well as have it deleted. I'm not even sure when I last had to look in my junk filters folder to fish a message out of it I was expecting. It's been a while!
No in all of my posts in this thread I've only been referring to actual people senders.
A subject of "hey" from a known contact would make a far better example.
Then you should create a "Won't Read" folder. You threw the baby out with the bathwater.
That would be even more confusing. All of my unread emails get read. Not within sub-second times like the kids these days but certainly within the same day.
"Won't read" implies I am not going to read them. It's the same problem as the person I replied to. It's pretty hard to filter something into a specific category before I read it and know what category I want it in.
I see no problem with my system that you guys do. New emails come into the inbox. When I next check email I read them. I then reply and/or move them out of my Inbox.
You kids these days labeling emails you read as "won't read" and knowing what the sender said before reading what they said. I swear.
Why would you keep those all in your inbox? Do they have a reason to be there?
Well, I used to filter away unread emails into a folder called 'unread emails', but then someone told me that is what the word 'inbox' means.
Ever since then I leave my unread emails in my inbox, until after I read them and determine which folder would be appropriate for that email to go into:P
Payroll tends to be by far the largest expense a company has.
It is orders of magnitude easier to justify a windows license that gets rolled up into the price of a product than it is to justify hiring developers that know more than.NET or re-train your existing ones.
I'm not saying the outcome is a good thing, just that is typically what ends up happening in such situations.
You can't make one thing faster without making something else slower. That's just how the internet works. So if throttling wouldn't be allowed, but prioritization would, you've just made a contradiction as they are exactly the same thing.
Only in the "one is faster one is slower" sense are they the same. NN never defined things so broadly however, and we really don't want them to be either. You have to look at the "pattern matching" side, not the "action" side.
Throttling adjust speeds after a preset limit, such as bytes transferred or a time period. Prioritization adjust speeds based on the source/destination, and also implies one of those two paying an additional amount to be such a source or destination.
In that sense they are unrelated to each other.
Comcast slowing all video streaming except their own (prioritization) would occur independent of you transferring 5 or 5000 GB that month. Similarly, you hitting a transfer amount limit and having your throughput lowered (throttling) would happen no matter if you are trying to transfer data from youtube, netflix, or "other".
It may seem like nit-picking but these are the differences that really do matter. Confusing the two things above will cause more harm than not.
Those knowledgeable about networks know you can't transfer more than 100% of a lines capacity. Prioritization based on WHERE the traffic is going is considered unfair. Prioritization based on WHAT traffic however is a necessary thing for networks to even function.
For example, DNS being UDP has no delivery guarantees, but is a pretty critical protocol. So long as "DNS" is the type of traffic given a higher priority, there is nothing wrong with this, and in bulk transfer situations is almost required if you plan to have more than a single TCP stream going. Only after "where" your DNS goes or doesn't go comes into play are there abuse potentials.
With proper definitions like the above it is very possible to enforce policy to limit the worst of the possible abuses and at the same time still have properly functioning networks.
They don't need your DNA, just someone close to you in the family tree, and they'll basically have your DNA as well.
What you mean is they don't need the perpetrator of the crime to have been tested by Family Tree DNA, they just need your sample collected at the crime scene to match for distant relatives.
What you mean is they don't need your DNA at all, they let Family Tree DNA pick a random name out of a hat and then focus the investigation you, ala Salem Witch Trial style.
The tests all showed them as non-matches and some showed them as unrelated, even though they are identical twins from the same parents.
So it isn't even possible for the FBI *using this DNA data* to narrow down anything, they are literally getting random peoples names and any successful detective work was in spite of the contradicting DNA data, not because of it.
He says if no web-server was running, he went by DNS records.
Just because a domain doesn't have a website doesn't mean that it isn't used for something.
From his report, he has two categories for "No A record but does have MX" and "No MX record but does have A records with no apparent web server"
Mail (2.6% or ~3.5 million) Any domain not in any other category, but with MX DNS records (for email), I categorized as Mail. I did not attempt to see if the mail server was working or if delivery was possible. It's possible that many of these domains are not actually used for email, but I've given them the benefit of the doubt.
No Web Server (11% or ~16 million) If I was unable to connect to, or receive a valid response from, port 80 or 443 for either the top-level domain or the www subdomain and the domain had no MX records, I placed the domain in this category. Some of these domains likely have some non-web use, such as an FTP or video game server, but I expect them to be a small fraction. Additionally, the crawling server was only configured for IPv4, so any IPv6-only websites would have been grouped here.
It would seem all the other categories were determined from data returned by a web server.
Youtube rips for non-public use are LEGAL around here.
Where is here (roughly)?
There are certainly plenty of conditions making it legal right here in the USA.
A major MCN (multi channel network) called Machinima was purchased by Warner Media last year, bought by Time Warner who after being bought by AT&T was finally given the order just last week to gut and shut down Machinima completely.
Millions of videos on the Machinima channel, that Machinima didn't own but belonged to their customers the creators, were deleted in mass with zero warning.
This MCN has been around about 15 or so years, and back then MCNs were the only way anyone could make ad money from their youtube videos. And I don't mean make significant money, I mean contractually Youtube would ONLY send ad checks to MCN companies and never directly to their members. That's just how it worked.
Also 15 years ago storage space wasn't as cheap as it is today, and to somewhat non-technical people that are artists/entertainers/video producers at heart, it's fair enough to say massive amounts of storage weren't easily manageable by such people on their own. We're talking non-tech types with a couple HDs plugged in their windows computer JBOD style, where maybe they had a second copy serving as a fake-backup.
Now that storage is far cheaper and RAID NAS is point-and-click to setup and run, this isn't a problem moving forward, but what about all that content made in the past that was recorded, uploaded, and deleted off their C drive to make room for the next video?
Some of these people used video rippers more recently to download copies of their own creations and work to be archived. For those that haven't, their work is now lost forever.
You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any "here" in the world that would NOT find it legal to copy your own copyright protected works. And this is just a single use case that came up 6 days ago.
There are plenty of videos where the creator did give permission to use them for personal purposes. But with the changes Youtube made with Youtube red, it actually costs us end users a monthly fee to join Youtube red and get access to the "download" button that the video uploader enabled for everyone to use. A bullshit move on youtubes part to do, but both well within their own rights to do, and also well within our rights to subvert. Copyright permission has been granted and so no laws are broken.
The one specific use-case the RIAA puts forth, which itself is illegal, is not the only use for youtube ripping by far.
They are quite literally attempting to convince the court that "the only use for kitchen knives is murdering people" and having knives banned on that false premise. We aren't saying they are stupid for thinking that murder is a crime, we are saying they are stupid for trying to convince others that is the only possible use for a kitchen knife, when it is so obvious that isn't their only use or even their primary use.
The thing I'm wondering about is what happens to the people who did order the domains? What happens to the registry when the company behind it completely disappears?
ICANN auctions off the TLD to other TLD operators to be maintained, presumably only other TLD operators in good standing and with a good history at running one.
So at a technical level the TLD continues to function for domain holders, but legally it is with a new registrar company, new terms, maybe new pricing.
I didn't even know about the Obihai certificate hack until reading your post.
Ultimately I let all my google voice trunk services just die two months ago when they shut down XMPP.
I had two SIP extensions, both handsets tossed back in the boxes, and I just moved one number to an iOS client on my cell. Noticed that the junk calls have been skyrocketing to that number lately so will probably turn that off too.
Otherwise I only had a "toy" IVR and incoming fax set of trunks I don't even care about. Asterisk is still running but I'm assuming has been failing its reconnect attempts since last November. Not even inclined to shut it down, let alone find another working solution.
If there is even one good thing about the incumbent phone companies, once they deploy something they tend to keep it running exactly the same way for decades. 5ESS switches still 40 years later support pulse-dialing, when 2/3rds of the US population has no idea such a feature ever existed or what that is, let alone know it still works.
That's longer than Google has existed let alone managed to keep a service of theirs running consistently.
I thought it was $300K... is $25K a renewal price?
Scroll down to section 5 "Fees & Timelines"
5.2: The evaluation fee is estimated at US$185,000. Applicants will be required to pay a US$5,000 deposit fee per requested application slot when registering. The US$5,000 will be credited against the evaluation fee.
5.7:..there are two fees: (a) a fixed fee of US$6,250 per calendar quarter; (b) and a transaction fee of US$0.25. The latter does not apply until and unless more than 50,000 transactions have occurred in the TLD during any calendar quarter or any four calendar quarter period.
It's $185,000, $5000 of that up front. That $6250/quarter is the $25,000/year. That comes to $210,000 the first year and another $25,000/year going forward.
That transaction fee part sounds stupid complex, but does say per quarter if you have enough registrations. 50,000 * 0.25 * 4 = $50k which brings that up to $260k the first year, assuming that's how they figure it. A bit closer to your $300k figure.
It stands to reason that no sales would result in no resource usage, so the $25k may be the only real expense. This is not evidence that the price is too high, but rather a bunch of TLDs are stupid.
Or looking at it from the other way, presume you sell domains on your new TLD for $25/year. You would need to sell 1000 domains to pay just the ICANN fees. Or only 2000 domains to pay the fee and have $25k/yr for operating expenses.
If there aren't enough people wanting 1000 domains, there is pretty much no reason what so ever for that TLD to exist as a separate group in the first place, IMHO.
Biometrics are widely deployed. How many in-the-wild exploits have there been?
So long as you are willing to count "incorrectly implemented" as an exploit, then there have been countless exploits. This sounds like one of those times.
Think about it, he wants to take an actual biometric - something humans have but bots don't - and interpret that biometric through an electronic reader device (be it fingerprint sensor or camera or whatever) to convert it into a series of bits to transfer over a network - something bots can do perfectly well.
Biometrics work OK as a form of identification when you have a full chain of trust between the use of the reader and *all* hardware up to the point the identification is used. "Trust" in this sense means trusted by Twitter, not necessarily trust involving you. A twitter owned and controlled reader, electrical connection, processor, and server.
TouchID and FaceID have this, as Apple tightly controls all of the hardware in their device and makes it as difficult as possible for anyone else to get their fingers anywhere inside the this chain of events. (pun not intended)
Short of carrying around a twitter built security device, this simply can't work. And if they are willing to go that far and issue security devices, why not just use a self-destructing-on-tamper certificate key / smartcard style fob and just skip the biometrics all together?
This is a torn issue. There's A/B testing that shows there's users wanting to take a screenshot and share it.
Well, sending it to someone for some users is providing a shorten link to a web address. I get it, that's not everyone, but reading the boards I think I recall them indicating having use case numbers that indicated that some folks are link sharers.
However, there was some A/B testing and some discussion about if ditching the upload function altogether should be the course of action. I think that the end of the Test Pilot program settled the debate, which is the servers that were receiving the images.
(For others, all three of those quotes are taken from separate parts of parents post)
All this pretty much boils down to keeping "Save" work the same way "Save" did and always has worked, in firefox and anything else. Adding a separate button, perhaps "Share" or "Upload" or even "Publish" shouldn't be so beyond their programmers abilities.
Had they not changed, nay broken, expected functionality and just simply added the new feature with a new button/label to indicate what was actually happening, I doubt anyone at all would have cared, complained, or had any issue.
I quoted the parts above because I seriously doubt a single one of those people being tested wanted the "Save" button to do this. Not the people who want local copies and expect "Save" to actually save, and not even the ones that wanted a link to give to others who would expect a "Share" button to do that and avoid a "Save" button.
If their UI people can't manage more than a single button existing (which I could believe) changing the word to actually describe that buttons function should be well within their grasp. Of course in that case people wanting a local save would likely complain they removed that feature, but that wouldn't be beyond their standard operating procedure, and certainly wouldn't have resulted in such drama.
I agree they should be focusing on what they claim to be good at, but if they want to try their hand at an image hosting service, more power to them. Those of us not wanting it would simply ignore that feature and the new button to use it. We managed to ignore Pocket just fine after all:P
But not adding a button with a proper description, or replacing the existing Save button, is just outright misleading to everyone, and no matter the actual case is really hard for a user to accept was anything but intentional and for nefarious purposes.
For those wanting a local copy, Save is now broken and has potential serious problems with what happens. For those wanting a link, they aren't going to even bother clicking Save since that doesn't ever give you a link, and they will still think Firefox can't do the thing they want despite the misleading button actually doing so.
If I'm not misunderstanding, the police can still search the phone, if they can find a way in.
From the second link above to the document by the judge, it seems the issue is the police requested a warrant for the phones of the two suspects, and it was both granted and forcing them to unlock the phones is fine. But the cops also requested a warrant to force every person also found in those homes that had nothing to do with the case nor were suspects, and the judge said no to both the warrant and said the cops can't force the unrelated people to do anything.
Which to anyone with common sense this is how it *should* work. If the cops can't be bothered or have no reason for asking for a warrant they shouldn't be allowed to violate those peoples rights. If the cops ask a judge for a warrant and the judge agrees with it, they can force them.
So this issue is mainly about illegal warrantless searches being reaffirmed as illegal.
Damn, I'm sorry to hear, that sounds like a mess. Hopefully well behind you now.
I've not heard of one of these ever played out before, as the few friends that were under them quit, left on good terms, and never heard anything about it again.
But I always thought non competes were pretty shady.
In once instance for me, they didn't even have it in their employee handbook, but brought a separate contract out at the end of the second interview for me to sign, and they refused to let me take it with me for review. Almost like they didn't want a lawyer to see it. So I didn't even know what the "penalty" would have been to break it.
In the other instance it was in the employee handbook and didn't mention any penalties. Not that I asked, I just crossed it out and sent it back asking them if the changes made were agreeable. Never heard from them again.
When first hearing your story I got the idea "wait, what could be the worst thing that happens to ignore it? They can't fire you after you quit" and knew if that was at all correct the stupid things wouldn't even exist, so had to be missing something.
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.
Out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking, what was the company requesting from the court if you were found in violation? Just a financial compensation or was there more to it?
Was the current employer at the time willing to help you in any way, or was it the type you believe would fire you instantly if requested? Presuming you were employed at the time that lawsuit happened.
Only asking as I've managed to never work for a company using non-competes, and of the small handful I applied to with them I was not hired after refusing to agree to them (likely part or all of the reason for not being hired, those were all in my just-getting-started days)
This isn't to counter your point, but you may find it amusing. The law has a very specific, and very odd to most, definition of a "legal person" A "legal person" doesn't require a soul, nor does it require to be human. But the definition is very specific and inclusive.
ALM lists: person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
"Bot", or software for that matter, is not in the list. So it's a simple clear cut answer of No.
But the amusing part, only the first out of four specifically listed things is a human! (I'll operate on the assumption that being a person is a prerequisite for having a soul to most people that use that term)
For a bot to have personhood under the law, and thus rights like freedom of speech, the law will need to be changed to include them in the definition of "person" (and I for one hope that doesn't happen)
There are several huge issues with this call: First of all, mostly likely the suspect has long gotten rid of the device and I'm not sure how finding his device in logs might help anyone (aside from narrowing down his whereabouts but then we have to presume that the CCTV footage at that location still remains which is highly unlikely).
It may possibly lay out a point or two on a map that may possibly show the accused was near the same spot more than once, or may possibly lower other suspects on the priority list who were known to be elsewhere.
It's quite the long shot for certain, but worst that can happen is "nothing" and they are no worse off than they are now.
Second of all, assuming he's not a total idiot, he could have modified his device MAC address which is possible for most Android smartphones. Thirdly, this device was probably produced by Motorola/Lenovo, because F8E079 is their unique MAC prefix.
Don't assume they aren't an idiot, there are plenty of idiots that do bad things and shouldn't be crossed off the list just for being an idiot:P
Fourthly, most people keep their routers password-protected which makes the task even harder. Lastly, most Wi-Fi routers can barely keep more than a week worth of logs and they are not stored permanently, so reboot wipes them clean.
Yea I don't see anything coming out of residential router owners for something like this. If anything it would be business owners and other wifi offering services.
Many businesses here offer wifi for free to their customers. Many just open free wifi. Others utilize a guest portal type thing, where you put in a code from your receipt or something like that. The AP runs open though and allows any device to connect. It just filters by MAC until a valid code is entered. Both cases have the potential to log a connecting devices MAC.
Now granted, most places doing such things try to keep their signal from extending much outside of the building, but you never know.
Our university used to use the guest portal on open wifi method long ago too, and that had campus wide coverage and roaming logs. They have since switched to wpa2-enterprise for student login but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some form of guest network operating.
It's certainly worse odds than "one in a million", but on the other hand it can't hurt to ask!
That would be your problem. I did read the summary, and the linked article, and the watch groups public complaint. They simply don't agree with each other.
The article correctly points out the problem. The watch groups lawsuit doesn't mention that, nor does the judges ruling. That is what makes it such a cluster fuck worth pointing out as such.
In fact I would be perfectly happy with having amazon clarifying the language of their terms. As-is that implies you may one day press your "hefty trash bags" button and receive a set of toenail clippers or something. In practice it has always meant that if you link to "hefty trash bags, 30 count, $9.49 from amazon wareshouse" that one day you may receive "hefty trash bags, 30 count, $8.99 from random seller"
Also in practice when my "pepperidge farm goldfish crackers, spicy pizza" button was pressed and apparently that flavor was discontinued, far from sending a random item, amazon emailed saying the order wasn't placed due to unavailability.
Sure, they most certainly suggested the other flavors of that brand as well as similar brands to re-link the button to. But it was a very simple matter of me just not doing that.
Has anyone actually had a more expensive item ordered automatically as was implied can happen? Because yea I can see the issue with that.
But the "issue" of getting a different product, which is really an issue of getting the same product from a different seller, clearly wasn't a problem enough to be bought up in court now was it. It also wasn't enough of a problem for the court to actually make amazon stop doing on their website. It also wasn't enough of a problem to have them reword their terms to state they wouldn't do that with the dash buttons, but instead they just outright banned the buttons all together.
So yes, the entire situation is stupidly hilarious. The ruling was nonsensical, and the actual problems around the issue were not even bought up at the time as problems.
Effing joke. You have to buy the buttons, and if they sell you something you didn't want return it.
It's more hilarious than that. When you set the button up on your wifi, you have to link the button to a product on amazon for it to order.
So one has to purchase the button, install a smartphone app, give the button their wifi password, explicitly link it to a particular product, then push the button.
Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product they linked the button to on their site after setting it up with a password to their wifi on a phone app...
Am I to presume contracts signed in blood and sacrificing your first born in order to agree to are also not legally binding in germany under the reasoning all of that can be done on accident?
IANAL, but I understood that first sale applies to books and records and physical things.
That would be why I quoted copyright law and not the first sale doctrine:} Lacking any sort of licence agreement or contract, pure title 17 laws are all that apply.
That phrase, in that font, in that typeset, in an oval, in all caps, and either one full line or split over two lines as "choose your / own adventure" That's the trademark.
Details: Mark Drawing Type: 3 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WHICH INCLUDES WORD(S)/ LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S) Description of Mark: The mark consists of the words "CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE" in a stylized format all contained within an oval. Color(s) Claimed: Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. Design Search Code(s): 26.03.21 - Ovals that are completely or partially shaded
So I haven't watched this episode of black mirror. Does that exact mark get displayed within the show anywhere? I'd be shocked if netflix would be that dumb.
But as you said, just using the phrase to refer to the actual book series, is perfectly legal and required by law. You are required to use a mark when referring to a product the mark applies to, forbidden from referring to the product as anything else but the mark, and forbidden from using the mark to refer to any other product.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the /. editors actually read what they post?
The summary looks fine to me. slices extracted from decapitated editors. It is a really interesting topic!
So for you, by definition, people cannot send spam?
More or less. I prefer to say spammers are not behaving as people, and career spammers are below even many species of mammals capable of rising above their selfish unsympathetic desires, but mostly so it doesn't sound as horrible of a thought as it really is.
Ultimately I'm OK with that.
Most of the spam I get (at work) are people asking me to be an "invited speaker" at their "conference" in some wacky place. They're sent by people. I assume the conference is real, although I've never checked. It's just that they're "spam conferences" like the "spam journals" (which I am also asked to send articles to) that have popped up in the free-for-all of "open publishing".
Lucky you! On the being invited by a personalized email from a person anyway.
I don't believe I've ever gotten anything more than a generic template email asking for money that was spewed out by a program.
Or you're simply far better at whatever that topic is than I am at anything.
It only takes a couple of emails with a subject that contains the word "pilules" to know what the entire email is about. Ditto "Look, I know it's a fair ..." or "I can show you the video". "Can we meet this weekend" is a little harder, but when the sending domain is 12000 miles away I think it is safe to assume the answer is no and the question isn't honest to begin with.
Fair enough because I didn't state it, but I do exempt spam as being 'email' as well as being sent by a person.
Thankfully spam filters are pretty decent these days so few like that ever end up in my inbox or anywhere I would see them.
But on the occasion they do, I always flag spam as soon as I see it, both to do my part in helping train the filters, as well as have it deleted.
I'm not even sure when I last had to look in my junk filters folder to fish a message out of it I was expecting. It's been a while!
No in all of my posts in this thread I've only been referring to actual people senders.
A subject of "hey" from a known contact would make a far better example.
Then you should create a "Won't Read" folder. You threw the baby out with the bathwater.
That would be even more confusing. All of my unread emails get read.
Not within sub-second times like the kids these days but certainly within the same day.
"Won't read" implies I am not going to read them.
It's the same problem as the person I replied to. It's pretty hard to filter something into a specific category before I read it and know what category I want it in.
I see no problem with my system that you guys do.
New emails come into the inbox. When I next check email I read them. I then reply and/or move them out of my Inbox.
You kids these days labeling emails you read as "won't read" and knowing what the sender said before reading what they said. I swear.
I've got over 31,000 unread emails.
Why would you keep those all in your inbox? Do they have a reason to be there?
Well, I used to filter away unread emails into a folder called 'unread emails', but then someone told me that is what the word 'inbox' means.
Ever since then I leave my unread emails in my inbox, until after I read them and determine which folder would be appropriate for that email to go into :P
Why?
Payroll tends to be by far the largest expense a company has.
It is orders of magnitude easier to justify a windows license that gets rolled up into the price of a product than it is to justify hiring developers that know more than .NET or re-train your existing ones.
I'm not saying the outcome is a good thing, just that is typically what ends up happening in such situations.
You can't make one thing faster without making something else slower. That's just how the internet works. So if throttling wouldn't be allowed, but prioritization would, you've just made a contradiction as they are exactly the same thing.
Only in the "one is faster one is slower" sense are they the same. NN never defined things so broadly however, and we really don't want them to be either.
You have to look at the "pattern matching" side, not the "action" side.
Throttling adjust speeds after a preset limit, such as bytes transferred or a time period.
Prioritization adjust speeds based on the source/destination, and also implies one of those two paying an additional amount to be such a source or destination.
In that sense they are unrelated to each other.
Comcast slowing all video streaming except their own (prioritization) would occur independent of you transferring 5 or 5000 GB that month.
Similarly, you hitting a transfer amount limit and having your throughput lowered (throttling) would happen no matter if you are trying to transfer data from youtube, netflix, or "other".
It may seem like nit-picking but these are the differences that really do matter.
Confusing the two things above will cause more harm than not.
Those knowledgeable about networks know you can't transfer more than 100% of a lines capacity.
Prioritization based on WHERE the traffic is going is considered unfair.
Prioritization based on WHAT traffic however is a necessary thing for networks to even function.
For example, DNS being UDP has no delivery guarantees, but is a pretty critical protocol.
So long as "DNS" is the type of traffic given a higher priority, there is nothing wrong with this, and in bulk transfer situations is almost required if you plan to have more than a single TCP stream going.
Only after "where" your DNS goes or doesn't go comes into play are there abuse potentials.
With proper definitions like the above it is very possible to enforce policy to limit the worst of the possible abuses and at the same time still have properly functioning networks.
They don't need your DNA, just someone close to you in the family tree, and they'll basically have your DNA as well.
What you mean is they don't need the perpetrator of the crime to have been tested by Family Tree DNA, they just need your sample collected at the crime scene to match for distant relatives.
What you mean is they don't need your DNA at all, they let Family Tree DNA pick a random name out of a hat and then focus the investigation you, ala Salem Witch Trial style.
It was only two weeks ago Slashdot posted this article: https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/01/18/2253228/identical-twins-test-5-dna-ancestry-kits-get-different-results-on-eac
Two identical twins "bought home kits from AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA, and mailed samples of their DNA to each company for analysis"
The tests all showed them as non-matches and some showed them as unrelated, even though they are identical twins from the same parents.
So it isn't even possible for the FBI *using this DNA data* to narrow down anything, they are literally getting random peoples names and any successful detective work was in spite of the contradicting DNA data, not because of it.
How do they know it's not in use?
He says if no web-server was running, he went by DNS records.
Just because a domain doesn't have a website doesn't mean that it isn't used for something.
From his report, he has two categories for "No A record but does have MX" and "No MX record but does have A records with no apparent web server"
Mail (2.6% or ~3.5 million)
Any domain not in any other category, but with MX DNS records (for email), I categorized as Mail. I did not attempt to see if the mail server was working or if delivery was possible. It's possible that many of these domains are not actually used for email, but I've given them the benefit of the doubt.
No Web Server (11% or ~16 million)
If I was unable to connect to, or receive a valid response from, port 80 or 443 for either the top-level domain or the www subdomain and the domain had no MX records, I placed the domain in this category. Some of these domains likely have some non-web use, such as an FTP or video game server, but I expect them to be a small fraction. Additionally, the crawling server was only configured for IPv4, so any IPv6-only websites would have been grouped here.
It would seem all the other categories were determined from data returned by a web server.
Youtube rips for non-public use are LEGAL around here.
Where is here (roughly)?
There are certainly plenty of conditions making it legal right here in the USA.
A major MCN (multi channel network) called Machinima was purchased by Warner Media last year, bought by Time Warner who after being bought by AT&T was finally given the order just last week to gut and shut down Machinima completely.
Millions of videos on the Machinima channel, that Machinima didn't own but belonged to their customers the creators, were deleted in mass with zero warning.
This MCN has been around about 15 or so years, and back then MCNs were the only way anyone could make ad money from their youtube videos.
And I don't mean make significant money, I mean contractually Youtube would ONLY send ad checks to MCN companies and never directly to their members. That's just how it worked.
Also 15 years ago storage space wasn't as cheap as it is today, and to somewhat non-technical people that are artists/entertainers/video producers at heart, it's fair enough to say massive amounts of storage weren't easily manageable by such people on their own.
We're talking non-tech types with a couple HDs plugged in their windows computer JBOD style, where maybe they had a second copy serving as a fake-backup.
Now that storage is far cheaper and RAID NAS is point-and-click to setup and run, this isn't a problem moving forward, but what about all that content made in the past that was recorded, uploaded, and deleted off their C drive to make room for the next video?
Some of these people used video rippers more recently to download copies of their own creations and work to be archived. For those that haven't, their work is now lost forever.
You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any "here" in the world that would NOT find it legal to copy your own copyright protected works. And this is just a single use case that came up 6 days ago.
There are plenty of videos where the creator did give permission to use them for personal purposes. But with the changes Youtube made with Youtube red, it actually costs us end users a monthly fee to join Youtube red and get access to the "download" button that the video uploader enabled for everyone to use.
A bullshit move on youtubes part to do, but both well within their own rights to do, and also well within our rights to subvert. Copyright permission has been granted and so no laws are broken.
The one specific use-case the RIAA puts forth, which itself is illegal, is not the only use for youtube ripping by far.
They are quite literally attempting to convince the court that "the only use for kitchen knives is murdering people" and having knives banned on that false premise.
We aren't saying they are stupid for thinking that murder is a crime, we are saying they are stupid for trying to convince others that is the only possible use for a kitchen knife, when it is so obvious that isn't their only use or even their primary use.
The thing I'm wondering about is what happens to the people who did order the domains? What happens to the registry when the company behind it completely disappears?
ICANN auctions off the TLD to other TLD operators to be maintained, presumably only other TLD operators in good standing and with a good history at running one.
This happened last year with the .fan and .fans gTLDs
http://domainincite.com/22982-centralnic-now-managing-failing-fan-and-fans
So at a technical level the TLD continues to function for domain holders, but legally it is with a new registrar company, new terms, maybe new pricing.
I didn't even know about the Obihai certificate hack until reading your post.
Ultimately I let all my google voice trunk services just die two months ago when they shut down XMPP.
I had two SIP extensions, both handsets tossed back in the boxes, and I just moved one number to an iOS client on my cell.
Noticed that the junk calls have been skyrocketing to that number lately so will probably turn that off too.
Otherwise I only had a "toy" IVR and incoming fax set of trunks I don't even care about. Asterisk is still running but I'm assuming has been failing its reconnect attempts since last November. Not even inclined to shut it down, let alone find another working solution.
If there is even one good thing about the incumbent phone companies, once they deploy something they tend to keep it running exactly the same way for decades.
5ESS switches still 40 years later support pulse-dialing, when 2/3rds of the US population has no idea such a feature ever existed or what that is, let alone know it still works.
That's longer than Google has existed let alone managed to keep a service of theirs running consistently.
I thought it was $300K ... is $25K a renewal price?
Scroll down to section 5 "Fees & Timelines"
5.2:
The evaluation fee is estimated at US$185,000. Applicants will be required to pay a US$5,000 deposit fee per requested application slot when registering. The US$5,000 will be credited against the evaluation fee.
5.7: ..there are two fees: (a) a fixed fee of US$6,250 per calendar quarter; (b) and a transaction fee of US$0.25. The latter does not apply until and unless more than 50,000 transactions have occurred in the TLD during any calendar quarter or any four calendar quarter period.
It's $185,000, $5000 of that up front. That $6250/quarter is the $25,000/year.
That comes to $210,000 the first year and another $25,000/year going forward.
That transaction fee part sounds stupid complex, but does say per quarter if you have enough registrations.
50,000 * 0.25 * 4 = $50k which brings that up to $260k the first year, assuming that's how they figure it. A bit closer to your $300k figure.
It stands to reason that no sales would result in no resource usage, so the $25k may be the only real expense. This is not evidence that the price is too high, but rather a bunch of TLDs are stupid.
Or looking at it from the other way, presume you sell domains on your new TLD for $25/year.
You would need to sell 1000 domains to pay just the ICANN fees.
Or only 2000 domains to pay the fee and have $25k/yr for operating expenses.
If there aren't enough people wanting 1000 domains, there is pretty much no reason what so ever for that TLD to exist as a separate group in the first place, IMHO.
Biometrics are widely deployed. How many in-the-wild exploits have there been?
So long as you are willing to count "incorrectly implemented" as an exploit, then there have been countless exploits.
This sounds like one of those times.
Think about it, he wants to take an actual biometric - something humans have but bots don't - and interpret that biometric through an electronic reader device (be it fingerprint sensor or camera or whatever) to convert it into a series of bits to transfer over a network - something bots can do perfectly well.
Biometrics work OK as a form of identification when you have a full chain of trust between the use of the reader and *all* hardware up to the point the identification is used.
"Trust" in this sense means trusted by Twitter, not necessarily trust involving you. A twitter owned and controlled reader, electrical connection, processor, and server.
TouchID and FaceID have this, as Apple tightly controls all of the hardware in their device and makes it as difficult as possible for anyone else to get their fingers anywhere inside the this chain of events. (pun not intended)
Short of carrying around a twitter built security device, this simply can't work.
And if they are willing to go that far and issue security devices, why not just use a self-destructing-on-tamper certificate key / smartcard style fob and just skip the biometrics all together?
This is a torn issue. There's A/B testing that shows there's users wanting to take a screenshot and share it.
Well, sending it to someone for some users is providing a shorten link to a web address. I get it, that's not everyone, but reading the boards I think I recall them indicating having use case numbers that indicated that some folks are link sharers.
However, there was some A/B testing and some discussion about if ditching the upload function altogether should be the course of action. I think that the end of the Test Pilot program settled the debate, which is the servers that were receiving the images.
(For others, all three of those quotes are taken from separate parts of parents post)
All this pretty much boils down to keeping "Save" work the same way "Save" did and always has worked, in firefox and anything else.
Adding a separate button, perhaps "Share" or "Upload" or even "Publish" shouldn't be so beyond their programmers abilities.
Had they not changed, nay broken, expected functionality and just simply added the new feature with a new button/label to indicate what was actually happening, I doubt anyone at all would have cared, complained, or had any issue.
I quoted the parts above because I seriously doubt a single one of those people being tested wanted the "Save" button to do this.
Not the people who want local copies and expect "Save" to actually save, and not even the ones that wanted a link to give to others who would expect a "Share" button to do that and avoid a "Save" button.
If their UI people can't manage more than a single button existing (which I could believe) changing the word to actually describe that buttons function should be well within their grasp.
Of course in that case people wanting a local save would likely complain they removed that feature, but that wouldn't be beyond their standard operating procedure, and certainly wouldn't have resulted in such drama.
I agree they should be focusing on what they claim to be good at, but if they want to try their hand at an image hosting service, more power to them. Those of us not wanting it would simply ignore that feature and the new button to use it. :P
We managed to ignore Pocket just fine after all
But not adding a button with a proper description, or replacing the existing Save button, is just outright misleading to everyone, and no matter the actual case is really hard for a user to accept was anything but intentional and for nefarious purposes.
For those wanting a local copy, Save is now broken and has potential serious problems with what happens.
For those wanting a link, they aren't going to even bother clicking Save since that doesn't ever give you a link, and they will still think Firefox can't do the thing they want despite the misleading button actually doing so.
If I'm not misunderstanding, the police can still search the phone, if they can find a way in.
From the second link above to the document by the judge, it seems the issue is the police requested a warrant for the phones of the two suspects, and it was both granted and forcing them to unlock the phones is fine.
But the cops also requested a warrant to force every person also found in those homes that had nothing to do with the case nor were suspects, and the judge said no to both the warrant and said the cops can't force the unrelated people to do anything.
Which to anyone with common sense this is how it *should* work.
If the cops can't be bothered or have no reason for asking for a warrant they shouldn't be allowed to violate those peoples rights.
If the cops ask a judge for a warrant and the judge agrees with it, they can force them.
So this issue is mainly about illegal warrantless searches being reaffirmed as illegal.
Damn, I'm sorry to hear, that sounds like a mess. Hopefully well behind you now.
I've not heard of one of these ever played out before, as the few friends that were under them quit, left on good terms, and never heard anything about it again.
But I always thought non competes were pretty shady.
In once instance for me, they didn't even have it in their employee handbook, but brought a separate contract out at the end of the second interview for me to sign, and they refused to let me take it with me for review. Almost like they didn't want a lawyer to see it.
So I didn't even know what the "penalty" would have been to break it.
In the other instance it was in the employee handbook and didn't mention any penalties.
Not that I asked, I just crossed it out and sent it back asking them if the changes made were agreeable. Never heard from them again.
When first hearing your story I got the idea "wait, what could be the worst thing that happens to ignore it? They can't fire you after you quit" and knew if that was at all correct the stupid things wouldn't even exist, so had to be missing something.
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.
Out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking, what was the company requesting from the court if you were found in violation? Just a financial compensation or was there more to it?
Was the current employer at the time willing to help you in any way, or was it the type you believe would fire you instantly if requested? Presuming you were employed at the time that lawsuit happened.
Only asking as I've managed to never work for a company using non-competes, and of the small handful I applied to with them I was not hired after refusing to agree to them (likely part or all of the reason for not being hired, those were all in my just-getting-started days)
They don't have a soul.
This isn't to counter your point, but you may find it amusing.
The law has a very specific, and very odd to most, definition of a "legal person"
A "legal person" doesn't require a soul, nor does it require to be human. But the definition is very specific and inclusive.
ALM lists:
person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
"Bot", or software for that matter, is not in the list. So it's a simple clear cut answer of No.
But the amusing part, only the first out of four specifically listed things is a human!
(I'll operate on the assumption that being a person is a prerequisite for having a soul to most people that use that term)
For a bot to have personhood under the law, and thus rights like freedom of speech, the law will need to be changed to include them in the definition of "person"
(and I for one hope that doesn't happen)
There are several huge issues with this call:
First of all, mostly likely the suspect has long gotten rid of the device and I'm not sure how finding his device in logs might help anyone (aside from narrowing down his whereabouts but then we have to presume that the CCTV footage at that location still remains which is highly unlikely).
It may possibly lay out a point or two on a map that may possibly show the accused was near the same spot more than once, or may possibly lower other suspects on the priority list who were known to be elsewhere.
It's quite the long shot for certain, but worst that can happen is "nothing" and they are no worse off than they are now.
Second of all, assuming he's not a total idiot, he could have modified his device MAC address which is possible for most Android smartphones.
Thirdly, this device was probably produced by Motorola/Lenovo, because F8E079 is their unique MAC prefix.
Don't assume they aren't an idiot, there are plenty of idiots that do bad things and shouldn't be crossed off the list just for being an idiot :P
Fourthly, most people keep their routers password-protected which makes the task even harder.
Lastly, most Wi-Fi routers can barely keep more than a week worth of logs and they are not stored permanently, so reboot wipes them clean.
Yea I don't see anything coming out of residential router owners for something like this.
If anything it would be business owners and other wifi offering services.
Many businesses here offer wifi for free to their customers. Many just open free wifi.
Others utilize a guest portal type thing, where you put in a code from your receipt or something like that. The AP runs open though and allows any device to connect. It just filters by MAC until a valid code is entered.
Both cases have the potential to log a connecting devices MAC.
Now granted, most places doing such things try to keep their signal from extending much outside of the building, but you never know.
Our university used to use the guest portal on open wifi method long ago too, and that had campus wide coverage and roaming logs.
They have since switched to wpa2-enterprise for student login but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some form of guest network operating.
It's certainly worse odds than "one in a million", but on the other hand it can't hurt to ask!
That would be your problem.
I did read the summary, and the linked article, and the watch groups public complaint. They simply don't agree with each other.
The article correctly points out the problem. The watch groups lawsuit doesn't mention that, nor does the judges ruling. That is what makes it such a cluster fuck worth pointing out as such.
In fact I would be perfectly happy with having amazon clarifying the language of their terms.
As-is that implies you may one day press your "hefty trash bags" button and receive a set of toenail clippers or something.
In practice it has always meant that if you link to "hefty trash bags, 30 count, $9.49 from amazon wareshouse" that one day you may receive "hefty trash bags, 30 count, $8.99 from random seller"
Also in practice when my "pepperidge farm goldfish crackers, spicy pizza" button was pressed and apparently that flavor was discontinued, far from sending a random item, amazon emailed saying the order wasn't placed due to unavailability.
Sure, they most certainly suggested the other flavors of that brand as well as similar brands to re-link the button to. But it was a very simple matter of me just not doing that.
Has anyone actually had a more expensive item ordered automatically as was implied can happen?
Because yea I can see the issue with that.
But the "issue" of getting a different product, which is really an issue of getting the same product from a different seller, clearly wasn't a problem enough to be bought up in court now was it.
It also wasn't enough of a problem for the court to actually make amazon stop doing on their website.
It also wasn't enough of a problem to have them reword their terms to state they wouldn't do that with the dash buttons, but instead they just outright banned the buttons all together.
So yes, the entire situation is stupidly hilarious.
The ruling was nonsensical, and the actual problems around the issue were not even bought up at the time as problems.
Effing joke. You have to buy the buttons, and if they sell you something you didn't want return it.
It's more hilarious than that.
When you set the button up on your wifi, you have to link the button to a product on amazon for it to order.
So one has to purchase the button, install a smartphone app, give the button their wifi password, explicitly link it to a particular product, then push the button.
Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product they linked the button to on their site after setting it up with a password to their wifi on a phone app...
Am I to presume contracts signed in blood and sacrificing your first born in order to agree to are also not legally binding in germany under the reasoning all of that can be done on accident?
IANAL, but I understood that first sale applies to books and records and physical things.
That would be why I quoted copyright law and not the first sale doctrine :}
Lacking any sort of licence agreement or contract, pure title 17 laws are all that apply.
That was along the lines of my thought process when I saw the headline..
"Why would Netflix copy the official choose your own adventure logo/title?!?"
"Wait, did choose your own adventure even *have* a logo?"
A quick check on ye olde bookshelf and sure enough, no logo, and their title is simply white text in an orange/red oval border.
So I went to look it up, it being the actual registered trademark.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=4889435
That phrase, in that font, in that typeset, in an oval, in all caps, and either one full line or split over two lines as "choose your / own adventure"
That's the trademark.
Details:
Mark Drawing Type: 3 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WHICH INCLUDES WORD(S)/ LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S)
Description of Mark: The mark consists of the words "CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE" in a stylized format all contained within an oval.
Color(s) Claimed: Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
Design Search Code(s): 26.03.21 - Ovals that are completely or partially shaded
So I haven't watched this episode of black mirror. Does that exact mark get displayed within the show anywhere? I'd be shocked if netflix would be that dumb.
But as you said, just using the phrase to refer to the actual book series, is perfectly legal and required by law.
You are required to use a mark when referring to a product the mark applies to, forbidden from referring to the product as anything else but the mark, and forbidden from using the mark to refer to any other product.