the proof of your statements are in the pudding. we [americans] pay much more than most for our internet connections, and are yet about 10years behind most other counties in terms of speed an reliability. this is because they [the carrier decision makers] already do exactly as say.
on the surface i'm sure this pay-as-you go thing looks great for those who don;t use the internet much. but fact of the matter is in the end they'll likely pay the same or more for the same usage. if anything this will make a lot of things on the internet WORSE. imagine getting ready to purchase a software online, only to realize that you'll also have to pay for the extra bandwidth fort he download. or that because you use netflix your internet is going to be more than your cable bill.
during the napster days there were a numbers of artists whom i would have never heard or bothered with otherwise. it is a double edged sword. even when it comes to software, most of the pirating is items that those same users would have never purchased in the first place - just want to play around with it. like professional grade video editing software. an individual user just isn't very likely to pay for that - they would instead just use one of the cheap/free versions. but instead these professional softs become better known by larger audiences and if.when that individual decides to take his talents into a career thy will be more likely to use/suggest that software (autocad anyone). again, double edge sword.
i personally don;t the losses are anywhere near what they think they are - they are typically a simple matter of (cost * number times pirated)... but take out the number of "thefts" from users who would have never bought in the first place and add in sales that wouldn't have happened otherwise. i would imagine there are a number of cases that this ends up actually being a positive number.
i'm sure the support staff at voxeo.com/prophecy would be more than happy to provide a telephony solution for this; they live for this kind of thing. i would imagine you could even run it over a free developer account. worth checking out at least! they also run IMified.com which could make it people only need to text.
my biggest problem with all of this is that *facts* about misdeeds by our government shouldn't be protected by anything, not even by "top secret" stamps being placed on them.
lets say someone finds documents for the order of Kennedy made by our government, (not saying i think this to be true, just an example) and they reveal it to the world. are they really guilty of a crime? in the technical sense, yes. but that doesn't make them "dangerous criminals who need to be locked away for the protection of society at large" if anything it makes them a hero who sheds light on the fact that big powers to commit heinous crimes.
technologies and names are the only items which should be considered protected IMHO. Otherwise, we simply wont be able to hold our government accountable for their actions. the fact that so many people are perfectly fine with whatever terrible things the government does because its "patriotic" to stand behind them no matter what is a different story. but the point remains, if you don't want mud on your face don't do things to put it there. Its not like i can write a letter to a hitman for someone murder and then claim it to be have been "top secret" if exposed. why should the government be afforded the same luxury?
no. something like this would be the responsibility of the press outlet responsible for the forum. i cannot imagine any news station NOT turning such info into the authorities without hesitation. there should be NO laws forcing the press to reveal sources regardless of the median that the information is obtained.
the least they could do is provide a method for some people to be cleared for such game play. Dont get me wrong, this is all rather distgusting... but if the aim is to limit the amount of MMO exposure people get, then those who work/commute all day will be limited to 0. even more, i can't imagine this being aimed at anything other than children/young adults (<25 ?)
besides, how do they intend on dealing with proxies? it all seems kind of pointless considering that anyone can get around it by proxys and remote login...
as far as i understand that is how it has been. catch wind of a cyber crime, ASK the ISP for logs, or get a subpoena. I personally don't understand WHY retaining logs for such a long amount of time would be helpful for such events. its not like they;re all of a sudden going to notice that "hey, a year ago, this IP tried to hack this other one" and go investigate. and its not like people spend a year attempting to hack something. maybe i'm being dense here, but what purpose would this serve? aside from forcing the ISP to purchase massive amount of storage that is....
he has boosted his ratings by getting all the smart people talking about him, and likely put a dent in googles margin by getting all of the dumb people listening to him. if this is enough of a hit, he could likely procure some extra $$$ from google to retract his statement. any which way he won. likely making millions with this one BS statement.
from wired.com, the very first search result that came up:
`About two dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, were skeptical enough to file an open letter opposing the idea. They are concerned that the measure, if it became law, might be used to censor the internet.
“It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights,” (.pdf) the groups wrote last year to Congress.
A congressional white paper (.pdf) on the measure said the proposal prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship “based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Oddly, it’s exactly the same language in the Patriot Act used to test whether the government can wiretap or investigate a person based on their political beliefs or statements.`
i suppose none of them have bothered to read the bill either, huh.
look, my only point is simply that anything giving anyone a broad level of control over the internet is a bad idea, as it will be abused at some point or another. whether its current intentions are naive or not. argue all you want, but a bill called "the internet kill switch" is likely capable of killing the internet - whether that is the "intent" of it or not.
how is it that you're the only person on these boards that seems to have insight on why controlling the internet isn't a big deal? i still submit to you that if it were as innocent that you make it out to be that there wouldn't even be any talk about it, much less a constant stream of news and not passing legislation....
i will admit i've only read enough to make out that it is as bad as the media seems to be making it out as. but i guess according to you i should read the rest?... that everyone else is wrong.
p.s. this is the like 20th "source" that you call a sensationalized article that has come across slashdot. all reading the same. maybe you should put together your own article to help the rest of us maroons understand what you so clearly do.
no. I just don't think we should give any entity the chance of having that level of control over us. while it may be unlikely that any official would ever use it for population control/censorship, the mere fact that they could is a bad thing IMO.
we have tons of hackers doing real damage all day every day who barely get noticed or caught. why is our government putting so much energy into getting these activists?
I think you misunderstand why they would even need to pass a bill to "kill the internet"... if the goal was to merely cut off.gov domains and hi-security networks during an internet attack they wouldn't need a bill! they already own it; and can do what they want with it.. hence, the only purpose such a bill could possibly serve is to shut off the internet (as the bill is aptly named) not just for there own slice of the pie - but for all. including you.
while i appreciate you're attempt to call this a conspiracy theory.... the basic idea of the bill goes directly in the face of what you're trying to dismiss. The biggest consideration in my mind is that it isn't likely that a president would ever abuse such a power. but i don;t think its a good idea to even give them a chance. Moreover, i can't imagine a case where such a switch would actually be of benefit; it seems cutting off the US from communications would be a GOAL of terrorists... an if they were to ever release some kind of worm that would need to be isolated via a kill-all-of-the-internet switch, it would most likely spread much faster than the government could react.
this is exactly what i feared the moment i heard about a kill switch. its akin to how romans used to use water to control the populace.
not to say that i think obama or any other president would ever abuse such power....... but its probably best that we dont even give them the chance. besides that, isn't bringing the internet kind of the main intent of such attacks?? how would a kill switch help anything.
the whole reason they dont have experience with homebrew and modding is because they've been so restricted against it. if only knew the possibilities.
whats gets me more about these types of restrictions is that it limits young people exposures to "tinkering" and thus restricting the chance for them to get into technology and how things work. I mean imagine who would learn how to program even simple html if they could never view it and had to get special $$ SDK's to even start using it. or if compilers were all $$$ and operating systems were as restrictive and forceful as the consoles.... my point is simply that we are limiting more than ourselves by allowing these types of restrictions on technologies which we purchase.
my thought exactly. I liked the player made content on the original xbox and the general ability to mod/screw with games in general... plus the media player and internet access from my main television was sweet. if my only motivation for hacking it were free games i probably wouldn't have bothered. but add in all of the other goodies........
to me, if they made these things correctly in the first place, the masses wouldn't feel the need to hack them. Just make it so that the ONLY reason someone would want to hack the system is to play pirated games - and the problem would go down dramatically I'm sure.
P.S. stop with the damn forced updates. when I come home after a long day of work, and *finally* get the chance to sit down the last thing i want to do is spend my entire free time watching an update that could have just as easily been applied later....
most medicinal study's have control groups purely for the purpose of comparing results to the placebo effect - and are proven effective when the results are better than the placebo effect. so yes, they have a measurable, repeatable effect which the placebos do not. don't fool yourself into thinking that becuase this guy has proven to you that the body can heal itself given the proper motivation that all medicine is crap, that's simply not true.
we already click ads, allow (often unknowingly) devs to track our every move on the web and buy items via microtransactions. something as dangerous as giving out our personal contact information just doesn't seem necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
the proof of your statements are in the pudding. we [americans] pay much more than most for our internet connections, and are yet about 10years behind most other counties in terms of speed an reliability. this is because they [the carrier decision makers] already do exactly as say.
on the surface i'm sure this pay-as-you go thing looks great for those who don;t use the internet much. but fact of the matter is in the end they'll likely pay the same or more for the same usage. if anything this will make a lot of things on the internet WORSE. imagine getting ready to purchase a software online, only to realize that you'll also have to pay for the extra bandwidth fort he download. or that because you use netflix your internet is going to be more than your cable bill.
during the napster days there were a numbers of artists whom i would have never heard or bothered with otherwise. it is a double edged sword. even when it comes to software, most of the pirating is items that those same users would have never purchased in the first place - just want to play around with it. like professional grade video editing software. an individual user just isn't very likely to pay for that - they would instead just use one of the cheap/free versions. but instead these professional softs become better known by larger audiences and if.when that individual decides to take his talents into a career thy will be more likely to use/suggest that software (autocad anyone). again, double edge sword.
... but take out the number of "thefts" from users who would have never bought in the first place and add in sales that wouldn't have happened otherwise. i would imagine there are a number of cases that this ends up actually being a positive number.
i personally don;t the losses are anywhere near what they think they are - they are typically a simple matter of (cost * number times pirated)
i'm sure the support staff at voxeo.com/prophecy would be more than happy to provide a telephony solution for this; they live for this kind of thing. i would imagine you could even run it over a free developer account. worth checking out at least! they also run IMified.com which could make it people only need to text.
my biggest problem with all of this is that *facts* about misdeeds by our government shouldn't be protected by anything, not even by "top secret" stamps being placed on them.
lets say someone finds documents for the order of Kennedy made by our government, (not saying i think this to be true, just an example) and they reveal it to the world. are they really guilty of a crime? in the technical sense, yes. but that doesn't make them "dangerous criminals who need to be locked away for the protection of society at large" if anything it makes them a hero who sheds light on the fact that big powers to commit heinous crimes.
technologies and names are the only items which should be considered protected IMHO. Otherwise, we simply wont be able to hold our government accountable for their actions. the fact that so many people are perfectly fine with whatever terrible things the government does because its "patriotic" to stand behind them no matter what is a different story. but the point remains, if you don't want mud on your face don't do things to put it there. Its not like i can write a letter to a hitman for someone murder and then claim it to be have been "top secret" if exposed. why should the government be afforded the same luxury?
no. something like this would be the responsibility of the press outlet responsible for the forum. i cannot imagine any news station NOT turning such info into the authorities without hesitation. there should be NO laws forcing the press to reveal sources regardless of the median that the information is obtained.
this is plain BS and needs to quashed now.
the least they could do is provide a method for some people to be cleared for such game play. Dont get me wrong, this is all rather distgusting... but if the aim is to limit the amount of MMO exposure people get, then those who work/commute all day will be limited to 0. even more, i can't imagine this being aimed at anything other than children/young adults (<25 ?)
besides, how do they intend on dealing with proxies? it all seems kind of pointless considering that anyone can get around it by proxys and remote login...
as far as i understand that is how it has been. catch wind of a cyber crime, ASK the ISP for logs, or get a subpoena.
I personally don't understand WHY retaining logs for such a long amount of time would be helpful for such events. its not like they;re all of a sudden going to notice that "hey, a year ago, this IP tried to hack this other one" and go investigate. and its not like people spend a year attempting to hack something. maybe i'm being dense here, but what purpose would this serve? aside from forcing the ISP to purchase massive amount of storage that is....
just when i started to think that M$ was finally getting their heads out of their asses.
you have to admit, the man is a genius.
he has boosted his ratings by getting all the smart people talking about him, and likely put a dent in googles margin by getting all of the dumb people listening to him. if this is enough of a hit, he could likely procure some extra $$$ from google to retract his statement. any which way he won. likely making millions with this one BS statement.
that actually made me chuckle a bit.
from wired.com, the very first search result that came up:
`About two dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, were skeptical enough to file an open letter opposing the idea. They are concerned that the measure, if it became law, might be used to censor the internet.
“It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights,” (.pdf) the groups wrote last year to Congress.
A congressional white paper (.pdf) on the measure said the proposal prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship “based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Oddly, it’s exactly the same language in the Patriot Act used to test whether the government can wiretap or investigate a person based on their political beliefs or statements.`
i suppose none of them have bothered to read the bill either, huh.
look, my only point is simply that anything giving anyone a broad level of control over the internet is a bad idea, as it will be abused at some point or another. whether its current intentions are naive or not. argue all you want, but a bill called "the internet kill switch" is likely capable of killing the internet - whether that is the "intent" of it or not.
how is it that you're the only person on these boards that seems to have insight on why controlling the internet isn't a big deal? i still submit to you that if it were as innocent that you make it out to be that there wouldn't even be any talk about it, much less a constant stream of news and not passing legislation....
i will admit i've only read enough to make out that it is as bad as the media seems to be making it out as. but i guess according to you i should read the rest?... that everyone else is wrong.
p.s. this is the like 20th "source" that you call a sensationalized article that has come across slashdot. all reading the same. maybe you should put together your own article to help the rest of us maroons understand what you so clearly do.
no. I just don't think we should give any entity the chance of having that level of control over us. while it may be unlikely that any official would ever use it for population control/censorship, the mere fact that they could is a bad thing IMO.
of all of the massively important/pressing issues, why are you putting so much energy into ruining one of the few things left that are actually free?
we have tons of hackers doing real damage all day every day who barely get noticed or caught. why is our government putting so much energy into getting these activists?
I think you misunderstand why they would even need to pass a bill to "kill the internet" ... if the goal was to merely cut off .gov domains and hi-security networks during an internet attack they wouldn't need a bill! they already own it; and can do what they want with it..
hence, the only purpose such a bill could possibly serve is to shut off the internet (as the bill is aptly named) not just for there own slice of the pie - but for all. including you.
while i appreciate you're attempt to call this a conspiracy theory.... the basic idea of the bill goes directly in the face of what you're trying to dismiss. The biggest consideration in my mind is that it isn't likely that a president would ever abuse such a power. but i don;t think its a good idea to even give them a chance.
Moreover, i can't imagine a case where such a switch would actually be of benefit; it seems cutting off the US from communications would be a GOAL of terrorists... an if they were to ever release some kind of worm that would need to be isolated via a kill-all-of-the-internet switch, it would most likely spread much faster than the government could react.
All i'm saying is that the con's outweigh pro's
this is exactly what i feared the moment i heard about a kill switch. its akin to how romans used to use water to control the populace.
not to say that i think obama or any other president would ever abuse such power....... but its probably best that we dont even give them the chance. besides that, isn't bringing the internet kind of the main intent of such attacks?? how would a kill switch help anything.
yeah, you're right. the Egyptian gov couldn't possibly have a way of tracking HAM radio's....
the whole reason they dont have experience with homebrew and modding is because they've been so restricted against it. if only knew the possibilities.
whats gets me more about these types of restrictions is that it limits young people exposures to "tinkering" and thus restricting the chance for them to get into technology and how things work.
I mean imagine who would learn how to program even simple html if they could never view it and had to get special $$ SDK's to even start using it. or if compilers were all $$$ and operating systems were as restrictive and forceful as the consoles....
my point is simply that we are limiting more than ourselves by allowing these types of restrictions on technologies which we purchase.
my thought exactly. I liked the player made content on the original xbox and the general ability to mod/screw with games in general... plus the media player and internet access from my main television was sweet. if my only motivation for hacking it were free games i probably wouldn't have bothered. but add in all of the other goodies... .....
to me, if they made these things correctly in the first place, the masses wouldn't feel the need to hack them. Just make it so that the ONLY reason someone would want to hack the system is to play pirated games - and the problem would go down dramatically I'm sure.
P.S. stop with the damn forced updates. when I come home after a long day of work, and *finally* get the chance to sit down the last thing i want to do is spend my entire free time watching an update that could have just as easily been applied later....
lol, got me.
most medicinal study's have control groups purely for the purpose of comparing results to the placebo effect - and are proven effective when the results are better than the placebo effect. so yes, they have a measurable, repeatable effect which the placebos do not. don't fool yourself into thinking that becuase this guy has proven to you that the body can heal itself given the proper motivation that all medicine is crap, that's simply not true.
we already click ads, allow (often unknowingly) devs to track our every move on the web and buy items via microtransactions. something as dangerous as giving out our personal contact information just doesn't seem necessary.
lol, yeah i posted that and not but 30 minutes later i saw a story about FB selling home addresses and phone numbers....
lol - try reading one of their RFC's!