Internet customer: someone who pays me to connect them to "the Internet"
Transit provider: Someone I pay to connect me to "the Internet"
Peer: Any network with whom I agree to trade packets from my own network and my Internet customers, to his network and Internet customers, and vice versa. Put another way: we agree to trade packets only for which our respective customers have paid us to transmit or receive them. Sometimes called "settlement free peering."
You'll sometimes hear the term "paid peering" but that's actually Transit above that the Internet customer chooses to use a particular way.
BGP peer: any connection between Internet networks which uses BGP, whether customer, transit or "peer." Not relevant to this discussion, but I call it out to keep the term from creeping in as if it was the same thing as "peering."
Peering is most definitely a net neutrality issue. When one network refuses to peer with another, they force the other network to either take the long way around (throttling) or to pay for transit service (paid prioritization).
There's room for nuance here. There's no suggestion that one network must peer in exactly the manner another wants to. Or that one network must pay the direct costs of connecting with another just because the other wants to. But a flat refusal to peer based on some arbitrary and capricious measurement of the other network's nature is most emphatically a net neutrality violation.
Peering IS an Internet "fast lane," at least in a coarse sense. Your paying customers have the most favorable data rates in to and out of your network. Next come your reciprocal peers. Finally, you keep the connections you have to pay for at the highest congestion levels in order to minimize your cost.
By refusing peering to a third party, you force them to either pay you or suffer degraded data rates through your paid channel. This is throttling.
Statistically, System A. System B is still an infant. Huge infant mortality rate for systems. Those that survive tend to live to a far too ripe old age.
A Masters of Business Administration is -the- generic degree for folks who want to be middle-managers. You generally add it to a technical bachelors degree in whatever field you'd prefer to be a manager and the add things like PMP certificates depending on the kind of management you want to work.
Unfortunately, if you really wanted to be in the technical side of the work, an MBA is a bit of a hobble since it also screams of a dilettante's interest in the technology.
Not in any modern business phone system. Line 2 lights up, the caller id appears and the phone rings. There is no beep beep beep in-line on the call. Beep beep beep happens with residential and obsolete phone systems.
It isn't; it's applied by an Israeli company against a U.S. company, github. It doesn't matter where github's customer is located, the take down notice is applied against the hosting company.
The put-back notice, should the gentleman in India choose to issue one, is also applied against the hosting company, in the U.S.
You can't merely ignore a takedown notice but there are a number of things you can do instead of complying if you believe it to be in error. The only thing that happens with refusal is that -IF- the material is later judged by a court to be infringing, you -might- be subject to damages for your refusal. That seems rather unlikely in this case.
I have no idea what you mean by "pay the money to appeal against it." How do you think DMCA takedowns work anyway? It's just a formulaic letter, not necessarily even from a lawyer.
As long as half the CS grads insisting on trying to become game developers, the game industry will have no trouble continuing to abuse them. If your computer science dream is to write cool games... give up early and get a job where your peers and bosses pay you well and, in many cases, respect you too.
I periodically hear that claim. One variant is that when someone posts spam on the list a lot of folks supposedly mark it as spam, causing the list itself to lose reputation instead of the spammer.
I've not seen data to either support or refute the claim, though I have to concede it's possible. On the other hand, I'm a bit jaded about it since I most heard the claim in connection with a particular single-opt-in political list that I knew to have bogus addresses due to the lack of confirmation.
Maybe the DMCA takedown was successful because he posted it on github. A source code repository isn't really an appropriate place to post content claimed to be fair use / political criticism. Think about it.
It's the "imediately unsubscribe anyone who wishes to unsubscribe" comment that sent up a red flag for me. That's opt-out. Spammer language.
Best practices are that after you receive a request to subscribe to the mailing list you send a single email requesting confirmation, typically with a link or a code. Only after the recipient enters the code or clicks the link is he subscribed to the list.
This protects individuals from having unauthorized third parties subscribe them to the mailing list, as is often attempted especially with political mailing lists.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't but that sort of error has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
No real-world measurement is perfect. It's never -exactly- 90 degrees out. As a scientist you're expected to understand that it is -approximately- 90 degrees out. And you're expected to faithfully report how approximately your tools permit you to measure... within a degree? within a 100th of a degree?
The "error band" is a determination of how approximate the measurement is. As you combine measurements and perform computations on them, you have to carry that error through the computations so that you can understand the impact that initial fuzziness in the data has on the final result.
When scientific numbers are reported without the error band, or with an error band too close to the claimed effect, it's a red flag suggesting something fishy with the claim.
1. Were you in fact spamming? If you injected your message lots of places where it was off topic, then you were spamming and earned your ban. If you failed to follow email best practices (this means *confirmed* opt-in prior to receiving any list content) then you were spamming and earned your ban.
2. Has the web site been hacked with malicious code? Assume yes until you can get a clean bill of health by bona fide security expert.
Not in science that should be taken seriously, no. There was even an article linked on slashdot about this a few months ago which looked a bunch of historical articles where the error was around 50% of the observed value. I don't recall the exact results (get googling if you want to find them) but the short version was that they were pretty unreliable.
I guess the problem is that human beings tending to be human beings, we're a hair overly-optimistic about the accuracy of our measurements.
You really want to see error bands that are an order of magnitude or more smaller than the value which was to be measured and computed. +/- 10% at the most.
without a published error band. 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade plus or minus what? Plus or minus 0.001 degree? If the scientists can justify the assertion that the measurements are that precise I'll sit up and pay attention. Plus or minus 1 degree? That's statistically zero. No change.
Scientific measurements without an error band are nothing more than populist trash. Shame on you guys; you're supposed to know better.
"Defense: Mr. AC, why did you clear your browsing history?"
"I clear my browsing history every Monday because I'm worried about privacy."
"And that's the only reason?"
"Yes sir."
"Your witness."
Prosecutor: "Mr. AC, when did you start clearing your browsing history every Monday?"
"As long as I can remember."
"When we seized your computer it contained 4 months of browsing history. Can you explain that?"
"Uh. I don't know."
"In fact, the browsing history hadn't been cleared since shortly after the crime. Can you explain why you cleared it right after the crime but didn't do so again?"
"I thought I cleared it. I meant to clear it every Monday."
Dude, you're busted. The Jury just decided you're a liar and accepted the prosecution's claim that you cleared the browsing history with the intent of destroying evidence of web research into the crime.
This report comes from the EPA Office of Drinking Water. It pertains to Drinking Water. Not wastewater, wetlands, earthquakes or anything else to do with the broader environment. Just Drinking Water.
My father recently retired from the Office of Drinking Water. Let me tell you: if there was the slightest shred of evidence that would have allowed them to credibly connect fracking with drinking water contamination they'd have been all over it like a fly on shit.
Liberal Obama appointees and the bleeding hearts that EPA tends to attract as employees? You seriously think the fix is in favoring the oil and gas industry? Trust me, if the claims of supposed drinking water contamination were more than laughable, they'd be all the report could talk about.
The bad news is, I don't think I'll be able to explain it in a way that makes sense to you. If it hasn't already jumped out at you as obvious, it probably never will.
I'll give it one more shot anyway: actus reus - what you did, such as deleting files. mens rea - your intent in doing so, e.g. cleaning up your computer or covering up evidence of a crime.
Prove both or no crime.
No crime for deleting files merely to clean up your computer. Even if those files were evidence of a crime.
In the first example, yes absolutely Sam is obstructing justice. He deleted the files -because- he was worried they could implicate him. Destroyed files + worried about being implicated + files later determined to be evidence = crime.
In the second example, also yes. The only difference is that the second case is a slam-dunk for the prosecutor.
Note, however, that Sam's refusal to talk to the police in example #2 is NOT a crime. Not real smart since it could later be construed as evidence of conspiracy, but not in and of itself a crime.
Please re-read what I wrote and make an extra effort to employ your reading comprehension skills.
I would advise also doing the same with the article. You seem to have picked up on an important fact but clearly you do not understand -why- or under -what circumstances- that is the case.
Correct! In fact, you wouldn't be guilty even if it did later turn out to be evidence because you didn't erase it with that intention.
How about Matanov? Did he routinely wipe his browser history as a precursor to making a backup? If he did, the prosecutor will lose the case because he won't be able to prove the necessary mens rea.
I got a hunch Matanov wasn't one of those rare birds who's good about making backups. What do you figure?
Slashdot Mirror
Close but not quite.
Internet customer: someone who pays me to connect them to "the Internet"
Transit provider: Someone I pay to connect me to "the Internet"
Peer: Any network with whom I agree to trade packets from my own network and my Internet customers, to his network and Internet customers, and vice versa. Put another way: we agree to trade packets only for which our respective customers have paid us to transmit or receive them. Sometimes called "settlement free peering."
You'll sometimes hear the term "paid peering" but that's actually Transit above that the Internet customer chooses to use a particular way.
BGP peer: any connection between Internet networks which uses BGP, whether customer, transit or "peer." Not relevant to this discussion, but I call it out to keep the term from creeping in as if it was the same thing as "peering."
Peering is most definitely a net neutrality issue. When one network refuses to peer with another, they force the other network to either take the long way around (throttling) or to pay for transit service (paid prioritization).
There's room for nuance here. There's no suggestion that one network must peer in exactly the manner another wants to. Or that one network must pay the direct costs of connecting with another just because the other wants to. But a flat refusal to peer based on some arbitrary and capricious measurement of the other network's nature is most emphatically a net neutrality violation.
Peering IS an Internet "fast lane," at least in a coarse sense. Your paying customers have the most favorable data rates in to and out of your network. Next come your reciprocal peers. Finally, you keep the connections you have to pay for at the highest congestion levels in order to minimize your cost.
By refusing peering to a third party, you force them to either pay you or suffer degraded data rates through your paid channel. This is throttling.
I'm morbidly fascinated with this concept of systemd subsuming the kernel too.
Statistically, System A. System B is still an infant. Huge infant mortality rate for systems. Those that survive tend to live to a far too ripe old age.
A Masters of Business Administration is -the- generic degree for folks who want to be middle-managers. You generally add it to a technical bachelors degree in whatever field you'd prefer to be a manager and the add things like PMP certificates depending on the kind of management you want to work.
Unfortunately, if you really wanted to be in the technical side of the work, an MBA is a bit of a hobble since it also screams of a dilettante's interest in the technology.
It was written in Java. The program caught the exception and moved on.
If your receiver beeps, interrupting the caller, then somebody did a lousy job setting up your Cisco phone system. They don't normally do that.
Not in any modern business phone system. Line 2 lights up, the caller id appears and the phone rings. There is no beep beep beep in-line on the call. Beep beep beep happens with residential and obsolete phone systems.
It isn't; it's applied by an Israeli company against a U.S. company, github. It doesn't matter where github's customer is located, the take down notice is applied against the hosting company.
The put-back notice, should the gentleman in India choose to issue one, is also applied against the hosting company, in the U.S.
You can't merely ignore a takedown notice but there are a number of things you can do instead of complying if you believe it to be in error. The only thing that happens with refusal is that -IF- the material is later judged by a court to be infringing, you -might- be subject to damages for your refusal. That seems rather unlikely in this case.
I have no idea what you mean by "pay the money to appeal against it." How do you think DMCA takedowns work anyway? It's just a formulaic letter, not necessarily even from a lawyer.
As long as half the CS grads insisting on trying to become game developers, the game industry will have no trouble continuing to abuse them. If your computer science dream is to write cool games... give up early and get a job where your peers and bosses pay you well and, in many cases, respect you too.
I periodically hear that claim. One variant is that when someone posts spam on the list a lot of folks supposedly mark it as spam, causing the list itself to lose reputation instead of the spammer.
I've not seen data to either support or refute the claim, though I have to concede it's possible. On the other hand, I'm a bit jaded about it since I most heard the claim in connection with a particular single-opt-in political list that I knew to have bogus addresses due to the lack of confirmation.
Maybe the DMCA takedown was successful because he posted it on github. A source code repository isn't really an appropriate place to post content claimed to be fair use / political criticism. Think about it.
Blog that sucker instead.
It's the "imediately unsubscribe anyone who wishes to unsubscribe" comment that sent up a red flag for me. That's opt-out. Spammer language.
Best practices are that after you receive a request to subscribe to the mailing list you send a single email requesting confirmation, typically with a link or a code. Only after the recipient enters the code or clicks the link is he subscribed to the list.
This protects individuals from having unauthorized third parties subscribe them to the mailing list, as is often attempted especially with political mailing lists.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't but that sort of error has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
No real-world measurement is perfect. It's never -exactly- 90 degrees out. As a scientist you're expected to understand that it is -approximately- 90 degrees out. And you're expected to faithfully report how approximately your tools permit you to measure... within a degree? within a 100th of a degree?
The "error band" is a determination of how approximate the measurement is. As you combine measurements and perform computations on them, you have to carry that error through the computations so that you can understand the impact that initial fuzziness in the data has on the final result.
When scientific numbers are reported without the error band, or with an error band too close to the claimed effect, it's a red flag suggesting something fishy with the claim.
1. Were you in fact spamming? If you injected your message lots of places where it was off topic, then you were spamming and earned your ban. If you failed to follow email best practices (this means *confirmed* opt-in prior to receiving any list content) then you were spamming and earned your ban.
2. Has the web site been hacked with malicious code? Assume yes until you can get a clean bill of health by bona fide security expert.
Not in science that should be taken seriously, no. There was even an article linked on slashdot about this a few months ago which looked a bunch of historical articles where the error was around 50% of the observed value. I don't recall the exact results (get googling if you want to find them) but the short version was that they were pretty unreliable.
I guess the problem is that human beings tending to be human beings, we're a hair overly-optimistic about the accuracy of our measurements.
You really want to see error bands that are an order of magnitude or more smaller than the value which was to be measured and computed. +/- 10% at the most.
without a published error band. 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade plus or minus what? Plus or minus 0.001 degree? If the scientists can justify the assertion that the measurements are that precise I'll sit up and pay attention. Plus or minus 1 degree? That's statistically zero. No change.
Scientific measurements without an error band are nothing more than populist trash. Shame on you guys; you're supposed to know better.
"Defense: Mr. AC, why did you clear your browsing history?"
"I clear my browsing history every Monday because I'm worried about privacy."
"And that's the only reason?"
"Yes sir."
"Your witness."
Prosecutor: "Mr. AC, when did you start clearing your browsing history every Monday?"
"As long as I can remember."
"When we seized your computer it contained 4 months of browsing history. Can you explain that?"
"Uh. I don't know."
"In fact, the browsing history hadn't been cleared since shortly after the crime. Can you explain why you cleared it right after the crime but didn't do so again?"
"I thought I cleared it. I meant to clear it every Monday."
Dude, you're busted. The Jury just decided you're a liar and accepted the prosecution's claim that you cleared the browsing history with the intent of destroying evidence of web research into the crime.
This report comes from the EPA Office of Drinking Water. It pertains to Drinking Water. Not wastewater, wetlands, earthquakes or anything else to do with the broader environment. Just Drinking Water.
My father recently retired from the Office of Drinking Water. Let me tell you: if there was the slightest shred of evidence that would have allowed them to credibly connect fracking with drinking water contamination they'd have been all over it like a fly on shit.
Liberal Obama appointees and the bleeding hearts that EPA tends to attract as employees? You seriously think the fix is in favoring the oil and gas industry? Trust me, if the claims of supposed drinking water contamination were more than laughable, they'd be all the report could talk about.
The bad news is, I don't think I'll be able to explain it in a way that makes sense to you. If it hasn't already jumped out at you as obvious, it probably never will.
I'll give it one more shot anyway: actus reus - what you did, such as deleting files. mens rea - your intent in doing so, e.g. cleaning up your computer or covering up evidence of a crime.
Prove both or no crime.
No crime for deleting files merely to clean up your computer. Even if those files were evidence of a crime.
Mens rea. Actus reus. Nothing else matters.
In the first example, yes absolutely Sam is obstructing justice. He deleted the files -because- he was worried they could implicate him. Destroyed files + worried about being implicated + files later determined to be evidence = crime.
In the second example, also yes. The only difference is that the second case is a slam-dunk for the prosecutor.
Note, however, that Sam's refusal to talk to the police in example #2 is NOT a crime. Not real smart since it could later be construed as evidence of conspiracy, but not in and of itself a crime.
Right dood, just look at what that jerk DA Jack McCoy does!
Please re-read what I wrote and make an extra effort to employ your reading comprehension skills.
I would advise also doing the same with the article. You seem to have picked up on an important fact but clearly you do not understand -why- or under -what circumstances- that is the case.
Correct! In fact, you wouldn't be guilty even if it did later turn out to be evidence because you didn't erase it with that intention.
How about Matanov? Did he routinely wipe his browser history as a precursor to making a backup? If he did, the prosecutor will lose the case because he won't be able to prove the necessary mens rea.
I got a hunch Matanov wasn't one of those rare birds who's good about making backups. What do you figure?