I already downgraded from Comcast's "Digital Starter", which ran me over $80 a month *just for TV*.
I'd can the cable internet from them too, if I could, but DSL doesn't represent a cost savings. There's no incentive to switch when, although oversold, DSL offers no speed advantage and no cost advantage.
I would gripe that if you look at either CNN or Fox (or whomever's) website, it's so busy that it's offensive, even after you take out scripts, flash, videos, etc. Simplify. (Maybe just a personal preference)
My bane lately is the trend toward these major news sites linking to "stories" that are only videos.
I don't WANT to watch video unless I ask for it. I want to see text. I want to see a version of the information that is quiet and doesn't waste bandwidth or require flash. I want to be able to scan relevant details without clunking through some 3 minute clip just to get the one detail I'm after.
What's retarded is that we can be virtually assured any new strategy will be devoid of meaningful investment in viable alternative fuels.
We might see more good money thrown after bad (ethanol) but we aren't going to see a Manhattan/Apollo project around cheap full electric vehicles and corresponding upgrades to the power grid, which is what we really need.
"the real hurdle is convincing people that a non-lawyer is entitled to call out a federal judge on their logic in the first place."
I think that's absolutely silly. Although having a JD may uniquely qualify you in matters of law, why should an average citizen not be allowed to question a judge's ruling? The laws are printed in books to which we can all refer and question the interpretation of.
I suspect the answer is, "because we like the judge's ruling" and if matters were reversed this statement would not have been included.
I fail to see any kind of plausible explanation why "We were busy defending ourselves from Anonymous" affected the poor design of their security structure.
Can you imagine the personal information gathering and targeted advertising you could do with fixed IPs?
Imagine how much Google and Apple could compile... the targeted ads they could send you... the lists they could make available for sale to advertisers...
(Just to be clear, I agree with this ruling, I'm just worrying about unintended consequences)
Currently having an open wireless does not imply that it was always open, for one thing.
I don't see any path to PC for an LEA who doesn't have anything physically or anyone actually tipping them off. The vast majority of these people are not caught any other way.
I'm not saying I'm against this ruling, I'm saying that the law is out of date and needs to be updated to be able to handle this in a sane way. The wrong person's door getting kicked down is not good, but it's worse to remedy that at this cost.
Say the police have some sort of evidence that a person is sharing illegal material, such as a torrent containing child.. material. Previously the IP probably would have been enough to get a warrant to search the premises.
If that isn't probable cause anymore, how exactly are they supposed to catch this person?
The biggest problem is that Canonical has said that the option to switch back to GNOME will be completely removed in 11.10, leaving Unity as the one and only option.
The strategy, attempting to force something that doesn't work well on the user base in order to speed up fixing/finishing it... the "involuntary beta"... is downright MSFT-like
Slashdot Mirror
I already downgraded from Comcast's "Digital Starter", which ran me over $80 a month *just for TV*.
I'd can the cable internet from them too, if I could, but DSL doesn't represent a cost savings. There's no incentive to switch when, although oversold, DSL offers no speed advantage and no cost advantage.
They get massive page views from that? Auto-refreshing every 3 minutes? Who sits on the page for 3 minutes?
(And that's only to get one additional view)
I would gripe that if you look at either CNN or Fox (or whomever's) website, it's so busy that it's offensive, even after you take out scripts, flash, videos, etc. Simplify. (Maybe just a personal preference)
My bane lately is the trend toward these major news sites linking to "stories" that are only videos.
I don't WANT to watch video unless I ask for it. I want to see text. I want to see a version of the information that is quiet and doesn't waste bandwidth or require flash. I want to be able to scan relevant details without clunking through some 3 minute clip just to get the one detail I'm after.
(sorry. rant over)
It beats the hell out of the network news sites, with their pervasive cookies, auto-start videos, and general unwanted flash-a-palooza.
What's retarded is that we can be virtually assured any new strategy will be devoid of meaningful investment in viable alternative fuels.
We might see more good money thrown after bad (ethanol) but we aren't going to see a Manhattan/Apollo project around cheap full electric vehicles and corresponding upgrades to the power grid, which is what we really need.
"...please call the Bananaphone."
"Imagine a room where a band is playing. Neighbors can't hear the music, but if someone outside the room is talking, the musicians can hear it."
How does this wall mean the musicians will hear the talking over their own music? Is there one-way sound air coming soon too?
Limewire has non-infringing uses, therefore, CNET shouldn't be liable for distributing it.
One thing that is common to extremists in every arena is that they never believe they are extremists.
"the real hurdle is convincing people that a non-lawyer is entitled to call out a federal judge on their logic in the first place."
I think that's absolutely silly. Although having a JD may uniquely qualify you in matters of law, why should an average citizen not be allowed to question a judge's ruling? The laws are printed in books to which we can all refer and question the interpretation of.
I suspect the answer is, "because we like the judge's ruling" and if matters were reversed this statement would not have been included.
Same here.
I fail to see any kind of plausible explanation why "We were busy defending ourselves from Anonymous" affected the poor design of their security structure.
I think it's more likely that Apple will add this feature, thus promoting "Why would I switch?" amongst its user base, than break it somehow.
Well, I'm guessing people who get computers at Aarons, (or Rent-A-Center, etc.) aren't the most likely to notice spyware either.
-Sigh-
modded troll?
I was honestly not trolling. I just wanted to discuss was the unintended consequences might be of this ruling.
Why do people have to mod you "troll" just for asking the question? I honestly wanted the answer.
Can you imagine the personal information gathering and targeted advertising you could do with fixed IPs?
Imagine how much Google and Apple could compile... the targeted ads they could send you... the lists they could make available for sale to advertisers...
(Just to be clear, I agree with this ruling, I'm just worrying about unintended consequences)
Currently having an open wireless does not imply that it was always open, for one thing.
I don't see any path to PC for an LEA who doesn't have anything physically or anyone actually tipping them off. The vast majority of these people are not caught any other way.
I'm not saying I'm against this ruling, I'm saying that the law is out of date and needs to be updated to be able to handle this in a sane way. The wrong person's door getting kicked down is not good, but it's worse to remedy that at this cost.
I'm thinking of this scenario:
Say the police have some sort of evidence that a person is sharing illegal material, such as a torrent containing child.. material. Previously the IP probably would have been enough to get a warrant to search the premises.
If that isn't probable cause anymore, how exactly are they supposed to catch this person?
Immoral perhaps, but no. I was thinking more of those who trade in a type of pron I don't even want to type into the outbound web server logs at work.
I agree that IP != person is a good ruling.
But this probably will close the door on the 99 cases out of 100 where an IP actually does equal a bad person who needs to be caught.
What do you propose we do to continue enforcement against these pieces of human waste? What if you can no longer get a warrant based on an IP?
I would settle for just Google and Apple not having access to my personal information.
How about if they are at the bottom of the Indian Ocean?
Hopefully (if it were encrypted and we cracked it), we would continue to put out statements in the media that we couldn't crack it...
(while we were kicking doors at his safehouses and rounding up the remainder of his minions around the world)
He further assumes that Truecrypt does not provide a backdoor to NSA for this in the first place.
The biggest problem is that Canonical has said that the option to switch back to GNOME will be completely removed in 11.10, leaving Unity as the one and only option.
The strategy, attempting to force something that doesn't work well on the user base in order to speed up fixing/finishing it... the "involuntary beta"... is downright MSFT-like
Making big, dumb Bruckheimer movies isn't really an improvement.