What part of the original timeline don't you understand? I can only assume it's the part where they *didn't release an unedited version right away*. Which seems rather key to the entire argument.
And as an aside, why are you such an unabashed Wikileaks apologist? Can you not admit they simply fucked up, here?
Right now ipsec requires you to pre-share secrets.
Not true. While preshared keys are *one* way to negotiate an IPSec tunnel, you can also use standard public/private key pairs.
Of course, then you have the issue of building out public key infrastructure, and DNSSEC happens to provide a nice solution for that problem. But it isn't the *only* solution by any means. The real, underlying problem is that an internet-wide PKI system was never established... and you are correct, in that DNSSEC might finally make such a system a reality.
IPv6 provides a way for applications to request handling without delay throughout the WAN. Packets have priority levels. Applications not needing top priority, e.g. email, can voluntarily downgrade their priority. Video and audio applications could upgrade their packet priority.
Open to abuse. All you need is a client tag their bulk traffic as real-time, and you hose others.
If various applications (e.g. someone's web server implementation) are cheating and saying all their traffic is video, there is a rather large and sometimes effective tech community shunning mechanism in place.
LOLFR, yeah, *great* solution, there. Let's just rely on people to not be jerks. That works all the time in the real world...
If you limit the power the government has over your life, then it doesn't matter who "controls" the government.
I love the hidden assumption here: that by limiting the power of government, you increase the power of individuals.
Of course, anyone familiar with the 1800s knows full well that doesn't follow.
The reality is that, if you limit the power of government, you increase the power of corporations. And given the growth in size and scope of corporations in the last hundred years or so, that lesson is *especially* relevant today.
No one has yet given me a technical definition of network neutrality that allows me to block or filter spam.
Spam is already illegal. Enacting rules or legislation that explicitly allows for filtering of traffic deemed illegal based on pre-existing law would be trivial enough.
If your words do not mean EXACTLY what you want, and have all the exceptions clearly encoded, you have probably made things worse rather than better.
While I believe your example is poor, in this, you are absolutely correct.
The problem is, there really are legitimate uses of QoS, and defining regulation that enforces net neutrality while *also* allowing for legitimate use of QoS is extremely challenging. For example, a rule stating "source/destination-based QoS is illegal" is too simplistic, as it still allows protocol-level discrimination (Skype is the obvious example here). If you then say "well, then make protocol-level QoS illegal" means you've made *all* QoS illegal, and that's bad, too (deprioritizing bulk transfers behind real-time traffic is the primary need QoS fills).
Fundamentally, I'll bet net neutrality regulation would have to go the way of obscenity laws... ie, the "I know it when I see it" approach. Which, obviously, has massive problems of its own.
Net Neutrality does means traffic can't be prioritized based on origin or destination.
Not type.
Your argument does not apply.
But this definition is flawed.
Skype has their protocol "type". According to your definition of "net neutrality", Comcast is free to deprioritize *all* Skype traffic in a way that gives their home-grown VoIP protocol a competitive advantage.
Yet that seems to fall under the umbrella of the "net neutrality" issue, and so should be addressed.
If the legislation isn't *very* carefully worded, it will. Ironically, this is evident right in your post. You said this was okay:
QoS on the other hand, is saying that _any_ type of VoIP packet traversing our network gets tagged priority 1, urgent and important (IE low latency and error free), and any bittorrent traffic will get tagged priority 7.
But this isn't:
BAD QoS is when the company says ComcastVoIPService gets priority 1 while Skype gets priority 6
Except, from a technology standpoint, *those are identical*. Why? Because Skype has their VoIP protocol, and Comcast might have their own. They aren't the same protocol. They may be on different ports, possibly using a different transport mechanism. So they can just shape the whole protocol, and voila, it's fine because they aren't picking on a particular company, per se... just a particular protocol.
The challenge is in identifying "anti-competitive" QoS in a way that captures the concept without being overly broad and still not leaving gaping loopholes. And it ain't easy.
Whether that's true or not is precisely beside the point.
Wikileaks shouldn't have been editing *anything* (minus necessary redactions to protect names of informants, etc). They have, themselves, flat out stated they aren't journalists. They just leak things. Well, if that's true, there should be no editorializing at all. At best, they should leak *all* the original materials, and provide time indexes to things they deem "interesting".
The information in this police report doesn't directly affect anyone except Julian & the two women making the claim.
Unless, of course, the leaks expose misconduct by the police or government in an attempt to discredit someone whose proven to be a political liability.
Note, to be clear, I don't advocate for 100% information transparency... I'm not an information anarchist nutjob. My point is simply that the dividing line between "should be leaked" and "shouldn't be leaked" is *very* complicated. And in this particular case, I really don't think it's entirely clear on which side the hammer falls.
On the one hand, we have, here, leaked details about a case which could result in a trial in the media. The result could be Assange or his accusers being denied due process.
On the other hand, if there *is* something shady going on, the public needs to know about it.
Anyone claiming to have a definitive "right" answer, in this case, is either lying or an idiot.
Ideally no, a police investigation isn't "government dealings". Maybe in your country the two are the same but I believe some countries strive to separate the two.
A few things:
1) In what mythical countries is there a complete separation between government and law enforcement? 2) If such separation existed, are you claiming law enforcement operations shouldn't be subject to whistleblowing? 3) "Ideally", wikileaks wouldn't be needed in the first fucking place. Speaking of an "ideal" world when the world is so clearly not ideal betrays amusing naivete.
Not sure if that is because of the lack of meat, or if just pasty and sickly people are more likely to give up meat
I think it far more likely that "fashionable" vegetarians and vegans don't bother to actually research what's involved in eating a properly balanced vegetarian diet. It's actually quite challenging to get the full spectrum of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids from entirely non-meat sources (unless you make allowances for eggs, milk, or fish). Entirely doable, yes, but it requires some conscious effort, which is something your average vegetarian bandwagon-jumper isn't terribly interested in.
This clockwork-universe mentality that everything to food and life is about proteins, minerals, vitamins, and this obsession of getting rid of dirt and bugs, is well, an hypothesis without basis in nature. Many people believe that there is more to food than what we can measure in its quantities.
Jesus christ almighty... talk about complete bullshit.
While you delved a bit into idiocy earlier on ("Many people have the opinion that you can eat less of organic foods, and still feel satiated."... ROFL... many people believe in fucking aliens, too, and they're also idiots), but then you had to delve into pseudo-science bullshit, didn't you?
Are you gonna start going on about the benefits of crystals and Chi, next?
Please...
It's a damn shame, too. While I think the "organic" thing is, by and large, utter bullshit, the idea of buying local and living sustainably *is* a good idea. Pity those solid, base principles get flooded out by the tons and tons of intellectual manure being spewed out by neo-hippies such as yourself.
The only military video I've seen on Wikileaks was not misrepresented, at all.
Then you don't remember the original sequence of events. The original video *was* misrepresented, in that it was edited to remove large portions of the video... it wasn't until later that the full, unedited version was provided.
Of course, you'd think, in "leaking" something, you'd just leak the whole thing and be done with it. Not so for Wikileaks...
This is exactly right. For every "I dropped out of high school and look at me!" story, there's dozens more where the end result is pumping gas for a living.
Using outliers as a baseline for decision making is a really *exceptionally* bad idea.
It is oddly seldom mentioned, but beyond parenting and teachers, I think the quality of peers that your child sits with must have a huge influence on their outcomes.
Frankly, I think peers are *more* influential than *either* parenting or teachers. 'course, parents and teachers don't like to hear that, as it takes the power straight out of their hands. But, such is the life of a parent... in the end, it's a bit of a crapshoot.
That said, that makes a *far* bigger difference earlier on in a child's development, particularly in the range from about 11 to 17. By the time they're of college/university age, if they're the type to work hard, they'll do it no matter where they go. Conversely, there are many slacker fuckups in top-notch universities.
If you are an honest businessman who refuses to pay bribes (like Rearden in Atlas Shrugged) you will pretty soon be buried by your competitors who reap all the advantages of having powerful politicians on their side. Pretty soon there will be no more businessmen who are honest because the environment created by the government power makes that impossible.
And if you're an honest businessman who refuses to burn down the stores of his competitors, pretty soon your competitors willjust burn your store down and you'll be screwed.
"But wait!", you say, "That's illegal!"
Yeah. Exactly.
The US government is corrupt because people accept that it's corrupt. They accept that legalized bribary (aka, "lobbying") is considered a-okay. They accept the utterly idiotic premise that "money" == "speech".
Of course, as a Randroid, the only obvious solution is to tear down government. Fortunately, reality is far less ridiculous, as many governments the world over seem to function without US-style cronyism, as they've passed laws and instituted structures to help battle the forces of corruption (see Elections Canada for a good example).
But, you just go back and re-read Atlas Smug... err... Shrugged, while the rest of us get on in the real world.
A special effects budget and SciFi setting doesn't nothing to make a soap opera better.
And a special effects budget and SciFi setting with no character interaction doesn't make a science fiction program better.
There is a balance to be had, of course, and SGU failed to reach that balance, particularly in it's early goings. But the most memorable moments in science fiction are those where that balance is exquisitely achieved. One need only way "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Best of Both Worlds" to see that. These episodes were great specifically *because* the science fiction elements combined with the human elements to create something that resonates with the viewer.
Well, given that witholding evidence is very much against the law, any prosecutor doing this is taking a huge risk. Could they do it? Conceivably. But given the difficulty in truly witholding evidence (remember, police records, etc, are subject to FOIA requests), it's an exceptionally risky move, and one I highly doubt actually happens in practice.
And given the option between this *possibly* happening, and idiot jurors self-educating and coming to the wrong decisions, yeah, I think I'll take the former, thanks.
That if the prosecutor had withheld exculpatory evidence...
The defense would be responsible for identifying and presenting that evidence.
We have an adversarial justice system for a reason.
but a jury forewoman cannot research a technical term.
Correct. They ask the bailiff. The question is then answered on record, and the defense and prosecution can deal with it if necessary. It's a good thing, not a bad one.
I'd be more sympathetic if the law actually stated that if a prosecutor violates any procedure in court, intentionally or unintentionally, all charges are dropped with prejudice
They are. It's called a mistrial, dumbass. Like what happened here, for example.
A juror asks, "What does X mean?" If the jury looks it up on the wik, it's a mistrial; but if one of the other jurors pulls an answer out of their ass, all's well with the world as far as the legal system goes.
Wrong. They're not supposed to "pull an answer out of their ass", either. They're supposed to ask the bailiff, so that the question can be addressed by the judge, the defense, and/or the prosecution.
What about the facts rolling around in their heads prior to being selected as jurors? Isn't most research basically the same thing, just shifted in time?
Absolutely, which is why the defense and prosecution are involved in the jury selection process, as it allows them to weed out those who might be biased by preconceived notions.
Besides which, you're also doing an excellent job of illustrating the nirvana fallacy. The system today isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean the only other option is to throw it away. The rules aren't without their flaws, but they're far *far* better than allowing juries to research shit on the 'net as they see fit.
Incidentally, here's an email from Geoff Watts, owner and coffee buyer for Intelligentsia Coffee (nom nom). They employ what they call a "direct trade" model of coffee buying, whereby they have a direct, very close relationship with their suppliers. In it, he discusses some of the issues he sees in the Fair Trade model, though none of them touch on your rather extreme claims (in fact, he specifically states that FT kept many farmers alive during the crisis years between 1999 and 2004, when the market price for coffee plummeted).
Slashdot Mirror
Since they provided unedited video as well
What part of the original timeline don't you understand? I can only assume it's the part where they *didn't release an unedited version right away*. Which seems rather key to the entire argument.
And as an aside, why are you such an unabashed Wikileaks apologist? Can you not admit they simply fucked up, here?
Right now ipsec requires you to pre-share secrets.
Not true. While preshared keys are *one* way to negotiate an IPSec tunnel, you can also use standard public/private key pairs.
Of course, then you have the issue of building out public key infrastructure, and DNSSEC happens to provide a nice solution for that problem. But it isn't the *only* solution by any means. The real, underlying problem is that an internet-wide PKI system was never established... and you are correct, in that DNSSEC might finally make such a system a reality.
IPv6 provides a way for applications to request handling without delay throughout the WAN.
Packets have priority levels. Applications not needing top priority, e.g. email, can voluntarily downgrade their priority.
Video and audio applications could upgrade their packet priority.
Open to abuse. All you need is a client tag their bulk traffic as real-time, and you hose others.
If various applications (e.g. someone's web server implementation) are cheating and saying all their traffic is video, there is a rather large
and sometimes effective tech community shunning mechanism in place.
LOLFR, yeah, *great* solution, there. Let's just rely on people to not be jerks. That works all the time in the real world...
Huh? IPSec is everywhere, today. It's not mandatory for v4, but it's out there. Our company uses it to power the VPNs to our remote sites.
In v6, it's mandatory, so naturally, if you deploy v6, you get IPSec.
If you limit the power the government has over your life, then it doesn't matter who "controls" the government.
I love the hidden assumption here: that by limiting the power of government, you increase the power of individuals.
Of course, anyone familiar with the 1800s knows full well that doesn't follow.
The reality is that, if you limit the power of government, you increase the power of corporations. And given the growth in size and scope of corporations in the last hundred years or so, that lesson is *especially* relevant today.
No one has yet given me a technical definition of network neutrality that allows me to block or filter spam.
Spam is already illegal. Enacting rules or legislation that explicitly allows for filtering of traffic deemed illegal based on pre-existing law would be trivial enough.
If your words do not mean EXACTLY what you want, and have all the exceptions clearly encoded, you have probably made things worse rather than better.
While I believe your example is poor, in this, you are absolutely correct.
The problem is, there really are legitimate uses of QoS, and defining regulation that enforces net neutrality while *also* allowing for legitimate use of QoS is extremely challenging. For example, a rule stating "source/destination-based QoS is illegal" is too simplistic, as it still allows protocol-level discrimination (Skype is the obvious example here). If you then say "well, then make protocol-level QoS illegal" means you've made *all* QoS illegal, and that's bad, too (deprioritizing bulk transfers behind real-time traffic is the primary need QoS fills).
Fundamentally, I'll bet net neutrality regulation would have to go the way of obscenity laws... ie, the "I know it when I see it" approach. Which, obviously, has massive problems of its own.
Net Neutrality does means traffic can't be prioritized based on origin or destination.
Not type.
Your argument does not apply.
But this definition is flawed.
Skype has their protocol "type". According to your definition of "net neutrality", Comcast is free to deprioritize *all* Skype traffic in a way that gives their home-grown VoIP protocol a competitive advantage.
Yet that seems to fall under the umbrella of the "net neutrality" issue, and so should be addressed.
Net Neutrality isn't going to stop QoS
If the legislation isn't *very* carefully worded, it will. Ironically, this is evident right in your post. You said this was okay:
But this isn't:
Except, from a technology standpoint, *those are identical*. Why? Because Skype has their VoIP protocol, and Comcast might have their own. They aren't the same protocol. They may be on different ports, possibly using a different transport mechanism. So they can just shape the whole protocol, and voila, it's fine because they aren't picking on a particular company, per se... just a particular protocol.
The challenge is in identifying "anti-competitive" QoS in a way that captures the concept without being overly broad and still not leaving gaping loopholes. And it ain't easy.
If anything, the full version was worse.
Whether that's true or not is precisely beside the point.
Wikileaks shouldn't have been editing *anything* (minus necessary redactions to protect names of informants, etc). They have, themselves, flat out stated they aren't journalists. They just leak things. Well, if that's true, there should be no editorializing at all. At best, they should leak *all* the original materials, and provide time indexes to things they deem "interesting".
The information in this police report doesn't directly affect anyone except Julian & the two women making the claim.
Unless, of course, the leaks expose misconduct by the police or government in an attempt to discredit someone whose proven to be a political liability.
Note, to be clear, I don't advocate for 100% information transparency... I'm not an information anarchist nutjob. My point is simply that the dividing line between "should be leaked" and "shouldn't be leaked" is *very* complicated. And in this particular case, I really don't think it's entirely clear on which side the hammer falls.
On the one hand, we have, here, leaked details about a case which could result in a trial in the media. The result could be Assange or his accusers being denied due process.
On the other hand, if there *is* something shady going on, the public needs to know about it.
Anyone claiming to have a definitive "right" answer, in this case, is either lying or an idiot.
Ideally no, a police investigation isn't "government dealings". Maybe in your country the two are the same but I believe some countries strive to separate the two.
A few things:
1) In what mythical countries is there a complete separation between government and law enforcement?
2) If such separation existed, are you claiming law enforcement operations shouldn't be subject to whistleblowing?
3) "Ideally", wikileaks wouldn't be needed in the first fucking place. Speaking of an "ideal" world when the world is so clearly not ideal betrays amusing naivete.
Not sure if that is because of the lack of meat, or if just pasty and sickly people are more likely to give up meat
I think it far more likely that "fashionable" vegetarians and vegans don't bother to actually research what's involved in eating a properly balanced vegetarian diet. It's actually quite challenging to get the full spectrum of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids from entirely non-meat sources (unless you make allowances for eggs, milk, or fish). Entirely doable, yes, but it requires some conscious effort, which is something your average vegetarian bandwagon-jumper isn't terribly interested in.
This clockwork-universe mentality that everything to food and life is about proteins, minerals, vitamins, and this obsession of getting rid of dirt and bugs, is well, an hypothesis without basis in nature. Many people believe that there is more to food than what we can measure in its quantities.
Jesus christ almighty... talk about complete bullshit.
While you delved a bit into idiocy earlier on ("Many people have the opinion that you can eat less of organic foods, and still feel satiated."... ROFL... many people believe in fucking aliens, too, and they're also idiots), but then you had to delve into pseudo-science bullshit, didn't you?
Are you gonna start going on about the benefits of crystals and Chi, next?
Please...
It's a damn shame, too. While I think the "organic" thing is, by and large, utter bullshit, the idea of buying local and living sustainably *is* a good idea. Pity those solid, base principles get flooded out by the tons and tons of intellectual manure being spewed out by neo-hippies such as yourself.
The only military video I've seen on Wikileaks was not misrepresented, at all.
Then you don't remember the original sequence of events. The original video *was* misrepresented, in that it was edited to remove large portions of the video... it wasn't until later that the full, unedited version was provided.
Of course, you'd think, in "leaking" something, you'd just leak the whole thing and be done with it. Not so for Wikileaks...
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
A police investigation *isn't* "government dealings"?
This is exactly right. For every "I dropped out of high school and look at me!" story, there's dozens more where the end result is pumping gas for a living.
Using outliers as a baseline for decision making is a really *exceptionally* bad idea.
It is oddly seldom mentioned, but beyond parenting and teachers, I think the quality of peers that your child sits with must have a huge influence on their outcomes.
Frankly, I think peers are *more* influential than *either* parenting or teachers. 'course, parents and teachers don't like to hear that, as it takes the power straight out of their hands. But, such is the life of a parent... in the end, it's a bit of a crapshoot.
That said, that makes a *far* bigger difference earlier on in a child's development, particularly in the range from about 11 to 17. By the time they're of college/university age, if they're the type to work hard, they'll do it no matter where they go. Conversely, there are many slacker fuckups in top-notch universities.
If you are an honest businessman who refuses to pay bribes (like Rearden in Atlas Shrugged) you will pretty soon be buried by your competitors who reap all the advantages of having powerful politicians on their side. Pretty soon there will be no more businessmen who are honest because the environment created by the government power makes that impossible.
And if you're an honest businessman who refuses to burn down the stores of his competitors, pretty soon your competitors willjust burn your store down and you'll be screwed.
"But wait!", you say, "That's illegal!"
Yeah. Exactly.
The US government is corrupt because people accept that it's corrupt. They accept that legalized bribary (aka, "lobbying") is considered a-okay. They accept the utterly idiotic premise that "money" == "speech".
Of course, as a Randroid, the only obvious solution is to tear down government. Fortunately, reality is far less ridiculous, as many governments the world over seem to function without US-style cronyism, as they've passed laws and instituted structures to help battle the forces of corruption (see Elections Canada for a good example).
But, you just go back and re-read Atlas Smug... err... Shrugged, while the rest of us get on in the real world.
A special effects budget and SciFi setting doesn't nothing to make a soap opera better.
And a special effects budget and SciFi setting with no character interaction doesn't make a science fiction program better.
There is a balance to be had, of course, and SGU failed to reach that balance, particularly in it's early goings. But the most memorable moments in science fiction are those where that balance is exquisitely achieved. One need only way "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Best of Both Worlds" to see that. These episodes were great specifically *because* the science fiction elements combined with the human elements to create something that resonates with the viewer.
where character interaction became more important than plot and vision.
Yes. God forbid one should build a show based on character interaction...
Let me guess: you're a B5 fan, aren't you?
Well, given that witholding evidence is very much against the law, any prosecutor doing this is taking a huge risk. Could they do it? Conceivably. But given the difficulty in truly witholding evidence (remember, police records, etc, are subject to FOIA requests), it's an exceptionally risky move, and one I highly doubt actually happens in practice.
And given the option between this *possibly* happening, and idiot jurors self-educating and coming to the wrong decisions, yeah, I think I'll take the former, thanks.
That if the prosecutor had withheld exculpatory evidence...
The defense would be responsible for identifying and presenting that evidence.
We have an adversarial justice system for a reason.
but a jury forewoman cannot research a technical term.
Correct. They ask the bailiff. The question is then answered on record, and the defense and prosecution can deal with it if necessary. It's a good thing, not a bad one.
I'd be more sympathetic if the law actually stated that if a prosecutor violates any procedure in court, intentionally or unintentionally, all charges are dropped with prejudice
They are. It's called a mistrial, dumbass. Like what happened here, for example.
A juror asks, "What does X mean?" If the jury looks it up on the wik, it's a mistrial; but if one of the other jurors pulls an answer out of their ass, all's well with the world as far as the legal system goes.
Wrong. They're not supposed to "pull an answer out of their ass", either. They're supposed to ask the bailiff, so that the question can be addressed by the judge, the defense, and/or the prosecution.
What about the facts rolling around in their heads prior to being selected as jurors? Isn't most research basically the same thing, just shifted in time?
Absolutely, which is why the defense and prosecution are involved in the jury selection process, as it allows them to weed out those who might be biased by preconceived notions.
Besides which, you're also doing an excellent job of illustrating the nirvana fallacy. The system today isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean the only other option is to throw it away. The rules aren't without their flaws, but they're far *far* better than allowing juries to research shit on the 'net as they see fit.
References? Sounds like an interesting topic.
Incidentally, here's an email from Geoff Watts, owner and coffee buyer for Intelligentsia Coffee (nom nom). They employ what they call a "direct trade" model of coffee buying, whereby they have a direct, very close relationship with their suppliers. In it, he discusses some of the issues he sees in the Fair Trade model, though none of them touch on your rather extreme claims (in fact, he specifically states that FT kept many farmers alive during the crisis years between 1999 and 2004, when the market price for coffee plummeted).