And as it relates to any topic, a person writing a story or an article can always find a slant one way or another to meet their own political views or agendas.
As far as new taxes, have you looked at your bill recently.. all those lovely below the line fee's disguised as taxes of some sort, or regulatory recovery fees, you know things that should be included in the price because they are the cost of doing business, but instead are disguised as creative taxes and fees which are not mandated by any gov (state local or federal) entity, just so the company can keep it's base advertized price the same and claim they are not raising prices.
Under regulation, this would hopefully go away. Also, the feds have said they do not have to apply all of the Title II regulations (and they specifically call out the tax portions) to ISPs.
If they are cycling those kinds of distances without a support vehicle, they are stupid and let Darwin have his shot. The statement is correct, very very rarely will a cyclist be without the ability to obtain water, even when riding distances.
And as has been previously pointed out numerous times, the amount of fluid you would need to take in to generate water in this devices, far outweighs what this device can produce. You are screwed either way
Not to mention when out on the trails, you inevitably come across a rider who did not bring enough water, and you have to share (well you don't have to, but you would be an ass not to)
We use thinks like NUUN, Gatorade powder (this stuff sucks and makes you more thirsty, but is not the same as what comes in Gatorade you buy at the 7 11), and dozens of other brands. basically fancy salt tabs with some additional stuff. Some of them are tasty.. some not so much.
I'm a cyclist. So I can safely say, that serious cyclist spending $5k+ on a bike are doing so for weight. Those are the same people who spend $100 for a carbon bottle cage that weighs only a few grams less than a $5 plastic or metal cage.
They will most likely never purchase something like this for any serious use. Those that do, are those who have more money than sense, and buy expensive bikes so they can ride down the trail at 5mph on their expensive bikes in their expensive clothing blocking the paths looking like a cyclist.
As for me, I do 100 mile rides regularly, for events, there are always rest stops every 20 miles or so, for non events, rarely are you going to cycle any place that you won't be able to find water to refill your bottle at least every 40 or 50 miles (I can go 40 to 50 miles on 2 bottles of water). And if they are in areas like that, odds are they will have a camelback or something similar for water, and additional supplies (tubes, tools, nutrition etc).
They cannot switch off the recording and monitoring equipment. However, there is nothing stopping them from tampering with the equipment to cause the monitoring to fail (which I would hope is a firing offense.. but probably not)
I'm sorry, $5 a month (the Progressive Snapshot thing) discount on what is typically a $100+ monthly payment is not worth them tracking my driving habits.
Sure it does, right to privacy, right to vote, right to not self incriminate. Whether through the original, or amendments to the Constitution, those are all rights.
While politics and profit, lack of competition all are major factors in our crappy broadband options, we have to keep in mind that the US is vastly greater, and far more spread out then many countries we are being compared against.
The cost to wire up rural areas, hell even some of teh suburbs of major metro areas is significantly more that it is to wire up more densely populated areas. These are businesses after all, they are out to make a profit, and honestly, I do not have an issue with that.
What I do have an issue with is companies lobbying for anti competitive laws that prevent local governments from doing what the for profit companies won't do.
Trying to wring every last cent out of us. They make billions, yet refuse to upgrade because that will eat into their profits, and the lack of competition between what is essentially a duopoly. And while there is no concrete proof (ie written documentation), it appears that collusion between those duopolies is the name of the game, prices never come down, only go up.
Then there are the un fees, below the line fees made to look like regulatory and gov fees, but really are just a way of jacking up the price, without actually having to hike the base price. Almost 30% of my bill is just fees.
I could go on, but you can go peruse dslreports/broadbandreports if you really want to know more.
Yes, contractors do maintain sensitive data, but it is usually (I say usually because some people get lazy, and then dinged by audits, quite often) stored in a SCIF, or a secured section of the datacenter that is secured in the same way as a SCIF.
Actually, anyone traveling legally in the US is protected by the US Constitution. Note I said protected, not afforded all the rights, like right to vote. So yes, a foreign person traveling on US soil is still protected by the 4th Amendment.
The US gets around this by declaring a person an enemy combatant, and then all protections go out the window.
Actually, this is not true. In some cases, the laws apply to you wherever you go. While it may not necessarily be applied to computer crimes, it most certainly does to crimes involving children (yes I know, think of the children).
Example: American man goes to place where sex with children is legal (personally, those places need to be nuked from orbit), man returns to the US, the authorities had been notified of such through whatever mechanism, man is arrested upon landing (might have to clear customs first, not sure on that point).
Granted, this is only 1 aspect in a sea of them, but the fact remains, US law was enforced on someone who did something legal in another country.
Yes, it really is a question. Simply due to the fact that there are laws and rules in place to prevent law enforcement, or even opposing defendants from obtaining that information to use against you, similar to the 5th Amendment.
I guess a better way to ask the question would be will the insurance companies follow those same rules as it relates to the same data, or is there fine print buried in your contract that says they can do with it as they please.
I somewhat agree with you here. There are a few caveats though. Will the insurance company furnish the data to law enforcement on request or court order. Black box data in cars is typically at the vehicle owners discretion to be provided in any criminal or civil case, or insurance claim. The vehicles owner has the right to decline access to that data regardless of the circumstances (although that will make you more of a suspect in some cases). Now you are streaming that data to a third party, who can probably be forced to hand it over via court orders and what not.
Also, the discount is worthless, I'm sorry, but $5 off a month when my insurance is close to $150 a month is not worth the hassle.
All helmets follow the exact same safety testing, and must comply with those tests to be sold. The only difference between a $400 helmet, and a $4000 one, is teh comfort level, name brand recognition, and amenities (built in communications, bluetooth etc)
So yes, a cheap helmet will protect your cheap head just as much as the expensive helmet will.
And considering helmets are 1 time impact, cheap comfy helmets are the best bet. example, knock it off the table and it hits the ground.. time for a new helmet.
I find that it does not matter what the hotel costs, or how fancy it is.. the internet sucks. I tend to tether to my phone and use LTE as the hotel internet is worthless for anything other than check email.. Certainly not Netflix streaming.
I disagree. The border is just one aspect, and your typical threats tend to be the result of intentional stupidity (employee systems), or internal maliciousness (soon to be ex employee).
A border firewall will not help in this particular case. Additionally, depending on the users access, no firewall may help.
My preference, is typically to setup every server with a default deny, permit IPSEC traffic only to and from the support components on the internal network. Then obviously open the business requirements to provide a server. Example, a Web server that connects to a DB and image processing server, port 80/443 open from external to DMZ web server (DMZ and Application zones are separate), all other incoming ports from external are blocked, your border router can cover this.
Internally, default deny to everything, permit IPSEC, between Web Server, DB and Image processing server, as well as terminal/jump servers. Tunnel all communications over IPSEC between the servers.
In that way, man in the middle attacks become almost impossible, there is no sniffing traffic if a user manages to get local segment access, If the system is compromised in some way (SQL injection, etc, assuming the services are not running as administrator), the servers cannot be used as a jump point to other servers and components in the network, and vice versa....
Call me paranoid.. but that is how I do things.
Also, there is no additional cost (except system overhead, and that can be compensated for by crypto cards, or the new Intel AES CPU instruction sets on their current gen Xeons, and I am sure other procs) to running IPSec, it has been included on every Windows server since 2003, and for Unix, Raccoon is free and works just fine.
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of music trade body the BPI, said VCAP was about "persuading the persuadable, such as parents who do not know what is going on with their net connection." He added: "VCAP is not about denying access to the internet. It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice."
We could not get file sharers drawn and quartered, so we are going to spin the decision that we fought kicking and screaming to our advantage and make us look better than we really are.
How about to make their fucking customers happy. I pay Verizon (because my only other choice is Comcast, and I hate them more). I request a service, I expect my provider to give me access to this service. Netflix pays L3, L3 is their service provider. Service providers peer, that is the way the internet has always worked.
I have FIOS... Yes my Netflix performance is piss poor, but so are the connections to other services that just happen to use the same transit providers as Netflix.
Particularly the VPS providers that I was using (I just switched due to the latency). I have 2 VPS providers, 1 in Reston, 1 in the UK. The one in Reston is just down the street from Verizons datacenter (used to be UUNET), but the provider to the VPS company I use was Cogent, heavy latency right at the peering point.
Of course, Verizon likes to blame Netflix for picking crappy transit providers, but had it been Company XYZ instead of L3 and Cogent, Verizon would have done the exact same thing to XYZ and let the peers saturate.
I did manage to switch to a different VPS that does not use Cogent or L3, and I have consistent low transit times, which I use as a VPN endpoint. Seems to do the trick (I have been doing this long before any people started publicizing using VPN's to get around Verizon and Comcasts shenanigans, mostly to keep Verizons prying eyes from monetizing my internet behavior, not to keep gov spying eyes out. If VZ wants to pay me [no, not give me a discount on already overpriced service, but give me cold hard cash] for my browsing and internet habits, then I will more than be happy to let them snoop)
They could have handled it better. Yes they have to protect their brand. No they do not have to use C&D and lawsuits to do it. The link you even posted specifies that legal action is not required.
There are many ways to protect a brand. Ikea could have easily approached the site to add disclaimers, or offer to sponsor the site in exchange for removing advertising, or ask them to at least change the colors and fonts to be less Ikea like.
Not saying they (Ikea) were wrong, even the sites operator realized that, what we are saying, is don't be an asshole about it, especially since there are some projects on teh site that resulted in sales. At least for me, there are some products I would never have even considered (the Lack for example as I mentioned earlier) had it not been for hacks and alternative use options.
Now, I will not be shopping at Ikea if I can avoid it (I have a wife, avoidance might be an issue)
Slashdot Mirror
And as it relates to any topic, a person writing a story or an article can always find a slant one way or another to meet their own political views or agendas.
As far as new taxes, have you looked at your bill recently.. all those lovely below the line fee's disguised as taxes of some sort, or regulatory recovery fees, you know things that should be included in the price because they are the cost of doing business, but instead are disguised as creative taxes and fees which are not mandated by any gov (state local or federal) entity, just so the company can keep it's base advertized price the same and claim they are not raising prices.
Under regulation, this would hopefully go away. Also, the feds have said they do not have to apply all of the Title II regulations (and they specifically call out the tax portions) to ISPs.
Reading comprehension fail... I completely missed what you had in parenthesis...
I will take my beatings
Easter egg.. sorta...
Look at the first letter of each paragraph :)
If they are cycling those kinds of distances without a support vehicle, they are stupid and let Darwin have his shot. The statement is correct, very very rarely will a cyclist be without the ability to obtain water, even when riding distances. And as has been previously pointed out numerous times, the amount of fluid you would need to take in to generate water in this devices, far outweighs what this device can produce. You are screwed either way
Not to mention when out on the trails, you inevitably come across a rider who did not bring enough water, and you have to share (well you don't have to, but you would be an ass not to)
We use thinks like NUUN, Gatorade powder (this stuff sucks and makes you more thirsty, but is not the same as what comes in Gatorade you buy at the 7 11), and dozens of other brands. basically fancy salt tabs with some additional stuff. Some of them are tasty.. some not so much.
I'm a cyclist. So I can safely say, that serious cyclist spending $5k+ on a bike are doing so for weight. Those are the same people who spend $100 for a carbon bottle cage that weighs only a few grams less than a $5 plastic or metal cage. They will most likely never purchase something like this for any serious use. Those that do, are those who have more money than sense, and buy expensive bikes so they can ride down the trail at 5mph on their expensive bikes in their expensive clothing blocking the paths looking like a cyclist. As for me, I do 100 mile rides regularly, for events, there are always rest stops every 20 miles or so, for non events, rarely are you going to cycle any place that you won't be able to find water to refill your bottle at least every 40 or 50 miles (I can go 40 to 50 miles on 2 bottles of water). And if they are in areas like that, odds are they will have a camelback or something similar for water, and additional supplies (tubes, tools, nutrition etc).
I drive an AMG C63.. slightly higher risk car :)
They cannot switch off the recording and monitoring equipment. However, there is nothing stopping them from tampering with the equipment to cause the monitoring to fail (which I would hope is a firing offense.. but probably not)
I'm sorry, $5 a month (the Progressive Snapshot thing) discount on what is typically a $100+ monthly payment is not worth them tracking my driving habits.
And yes, I read the article, and I know it says the exact opposite about population density, I disagree with it.
Sure it does, right to privacy, right to vote, right to not self incriminate. Whether through the original, or amendments to the Constitution, those are all rights.
While politics and profit, lack of competition all are major factors in our crappy broadband options, we have to keep in mind that the US is vastly greater, and far more spread out then many countries we are being compared against. The cost to wire up rural areas, hell even some of teh suburbs of major metro areas is significantly more that it is to wire up more densely populated areas. These are businesses after all, they are out to make a profit, and honestly, I do not have an issue with that. What I do have an issue with is companies lobbying for anti competitive laws that prevent local governments from doing what the for profit companies won't do. Trying to wring every last cent out of us. They make billions, yet refuse to upgrade because that will eat into their profits, and the lack of competition between what is essentially a duopoly. And while there is no concrete proof (ie written documentation), it appears that collusion between those duopolies is the name of the game, prices never come down, only go up. Then there are the un fees, below the line fees made to look like regulatory and gov fees, but really are just a way of jacking up the price, without actually having to hike the base price. Almost 30% of my bill is just fees. I could go on, but you can go peruse dslreports/broadbandreports if you really want to know more.
Yes, contractors do maintain sensitive data, but it is usually (I say usually because some people get lazy, and then dinged by audits, quite often) stored in a SCIF, or a secured section of the datacenter that is secured in the same way as a SCIF.
Actually, anyone traveling legally in the US is protected by the US Constitution. Note I said protected, not afforded all the rights, like right to vote. So yes, a foreign person traveling on US soil is still protected by the 4th Amendment. The US gets around this by declaring a person an enemy combatant, and then all protections go out the window.
Actually, this is not true. In some cases, the laws apply to you wherever you go. While it may not necessarily be applied to computer crimes, it most certainly does to crimes involving children (yes I know, think of the children). Example: American man goes to place where sex with children is legal (personally, those places need to be nuked from orbit), man returns to the US, the authorities had been notified of such through whatever mechanism, man is arrested upon landing (might have to clear customs first, not sure on that point). Granted, this is only 1 aspect in a sea of them, but the fact remains, US law was enforced on someone who did something legal in another country.
Yes, it really is a question. Simply due to the fact that there are laws and rules in place to prevent law enforcement, or even opposing defendants from obtaining that information to use against you, similar to the 5th Amendment. I guess a better way to ask the question would be will the insurance companies follow those same rules as it relates to the same data, or is there fine print buried in your contract that says they can do with it as they please.
I somewhat agree with you here. There are a few caveats though. Will the insurance company furnish the data to law enforcement on request or court order. Black box data in cars is typically at the vehicle owners discretion to be provided in any criminal or civil case, or insurance claim. The vehicles owner has the right to decline access to that data regardless of the circumstances (although that will make you more of a suspect in some cases). Now you are streaming that data to a third party, who can probably be forced to hand it over via court orders and what not. Also, the discount is worthless, I'm sorry, but $5 off a month when my insurance is close to $150 a month is not worth the hassle.
All helmets follow the exact same safety testing, and must comply with those tests to be sold. The only difference between a $400 helmet, and a $4000 one, is teh comfort level, name brand recognition, and amenities (built in communications, bluetooth etc) So yes, a cheap helmet will protect your cheap head just as much as the expensive helmet will. And considering helmets are 1 time impact, cheap comfy helmets are the best bet. example, knock it off the table and it hits the ground.. time for a new helmet.
I find that it does not matter what the hotel costs, or how fancy it is.. the internet sucks. I tend to tether to my phone and use LTE as the hotel internet is worthless for anything other than check email.. Certainly not Netflix streaming.
I disagree. The border is just one aspect, and your typical threats tend to be the result of intentional stupidity (employee systems), or internal maliciousness (soon to be ex employee). A border firewall will not help in this particular case. Additionally, depending on the users access, no firewall may help. My preference, is typically to setup every server with a default deny, permit IPSEC traffic only to and from the support components on the internal network. Then obviously open the business requirements to provide a server. Example, a Web server that connects to a DB and image processing server, port 80/443 open from external to DMZ web server (DMZ and Application zones are separate), all other incoming ports from external are blocked, your border router can cover this. Internally, default deny to everything, permit IPSEC, between Web Server, DB and Image processing server, as well as terminal/jump servers. Tunnel all communications over IPSEC between the servers. In that way, man in the middle attacks become almost impossible, there is no sniffing traffic if a user manages to get local segment access, If the system is compromised in some way (SQL injection, etc, assuming the services are not running as administrator), the servers cannot be used as a jump point to other servers and components in the network, and vice versa.... Call me paranoid.. but that is how I do things. Also, there is no additional cost (except system overhead, and that can be compensated for by crypto cards, or the new Intel AES CPU instruction sets on their current gen Xeons, and I am sure other procs) to running IPSec, it has been included on every Windows server since 2003, and for Unix, Raccoon is free and works just fine.
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of music trade body the BPI, said VCAP was about "persuading the persuadable, such as parents who do not know what is going on with their net connection." He added: "VCAP is not about denying access to the internet. It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice."
We could not get file sharers drawn and quartered, so we are going to spin the decision that we fought kicking and screaming to our advantage and make us look better than we really are.
How about to make their fucking customers happy. I pay Verizon (because my only other choice is Comcast, and I hate them more). I request a service, I expect my provider to give me access to this service. Netflix pays L3, L3 is their service provider. Service providers peer, that is the way the internet has always worked.
I have FIOS... Yes my Netflix performance is piss poor, but so are the connections to other services that just happen to use the same transit providers as Netflix.
Particularly the VPS providers that I was using (I just switched due to the latency). I have 2 VPS providers, 1 in Reston, 1 in the UK. The one in Reston is just down the street from Verizons datacenter (used to be UUNET), but the provider to the VPS company I use was Cogent, heavy latency right at the peering point.
Of course, Verizon likes to blame Netflix for picking crappy transit providers, but had it been Company XYZ instead of L3 and Cogent, Verizon would have done the exact same thing to XYZ and let the peers saturate.
I did manage to switch to a different VPS that does not use Cogent or L3, and I have consistent low transit times, which I use as a VPN endpoint. Seems to do the trick (I have been doing this long before any people started publicizing using VPN's to get around Verizon and Comcasts shenanigans, mostly to keep Verizons prying eyes from monetizing my internet behavior, not to keep gov spying eyes out. If VZ wants to pay me [no, not give me a discount on already overpriced service, but give me cold hard cash] for my browsing and internet habits, then I will more than be happy to let them snoop)
They could have handled it better. Yes they have to protect their brand. No they do not have to use C&D and lawsuits to do it. The link you even posted specifies that legal action is not required.
There are many ways to protect a brand. Ikea could have easily approached the site to add disclaimers, or offer to sponsor the site in exchange for removing advertising, or ask them to at least change the colors and fonts to be less Ikea like.
Not saying they (Ikea) were wrong, even the sites operator realized that, what we are saying, is don't be an asshole about it, especially since there are some projects on teh site that resulted in sales. At least for me, there are some products I would never have even considered (the Lack for example as I mentioned earlier) had it not been for hacks and alternative use options.
Now, I will not be shopping at Ikea if I can avoid it (I have a wife, avoidance might be an issue)