They can turn the filters on. So the ISP provides a service that is useful for both those who so and those who don't want filters. The article is suggesting that the ISPs have a vested interest in tailoring their service for the smaller and more expensive of those groups.
Intentionally running a MITM attack against your customers aside, there is a huge problem with the legislation to begin with.
Yes. The fact that no such legislation exists. This is a voluntary ISP scheme
Cybersitter and NetNanny are not for me, but if I had young kids I may use that type of service if I was worried about their access.
Or you could use the service the ISP provides you with for free, that's easy to set up, available in the UK, and works with all network connected devices.
These companies get paid to manage content for you, and are _completely_voluntary so don't impose restrictions on everyone.
The UK ISP filters are completely voluntary as well.
And if those services are not available in the UK, or not good enough in the UK, why not create the company and let the free market do the work?
We tried. No suitable product became available. David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service. The market obliged. If you really have a problem, you can always choose one of the dozens of ISPs that doesn't offer this service.
As bad as the US has become, I'm glad I'm not from the UK.
Why? You don't even have a choice of ISP in a lot of the US.
A handful of people have reported that the "would you like to enable parental filters" message crops up. It's onbe of those setup screensthat a lot if ISPs use for initial setup.
Seriously, what's in it for the ISP to push these things? It makes their service less useful and costs the ISP money. Filtering requires servers to run the filters.
Is it not possible, that perhaps the router was reset or something was changed at the exchange and that triggered the setup messag to appear? Click "no" and carry on browsing.
I also think it's about time they take down down on Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro" from their mp3 store until someone can do something about the number of notes.
Or maybe people dont understand that things you share with a cop, even "off the record", can be on the record. That, too, is a myth that should be dispelled.
Something people need to realise about this is "off the record" is just a social convention, and only really applies to journalist sources. It's a compromise that's seen as necessary for several complex reasons that journalists broadly agre with and cops don't give a damn about.
I've no idea if other people are representing them as that. This is my impression of these people. Not so much over GG, but over a bunch of other issues that many of the same people champion, where anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them is denounced as a hateful racist sexist who just wants to keep women out.
Perhaps there are some moderate voices inthe anti-GG camp. If so they're getting drowned out by loons, and I'm curious what they object to in gamergate that doesn't apply to the anti-GG crowd. Certainly both sides are guilty of threats, doxxing, and muck-flinging. GG seems to be trying to stamp it out and Anti-GG seems to be pretending it doesn't even exist.
I'm not trying to convince you. Believe what you want. This is just the impression I get. Most of the people I've seen speaking out against GG seem to be the politcally correct thought police, and the journalist who are accused of being corrupt.
They wouldn't blush or bluch, whatever that is, they would just shake their heads and wonder how those children became orphans, because surely children with parents would never behave like them.
Even met a teenager? A lot of them are brats. They use the language they do because they want to offend. The fact that the offence of our childhood no longer works means they need to up the ante.
There are a lot of genuine serious issues. Not that I'm all that into the culture, but I can see the lack of games that appeal to a certain serious hardcore has parallels with other media. Literature fans want deep challenging philosophical concepts, but find the shelves filled with airport thrillers.
Depression Quest is terrible. Wordy and highly preachy with a tedious storyline. Even for a morality semi-interactive story, there are better examples of the genre which have things like plot, and snappy dialogue. No idea why it got the publicity. I think GG may be seeing this as a reward for sex, but it's really just that the journalists and piblishers go to the same parties and the publishers have the ear of the journalists. It's pretty clear that a lot of publishers are very willing to do a lot of hobnobbing with the journalists, and giving some quite expensive gifts. Hell, Ubisoft was giving out Nexus tablets. They exactly weren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
A good chunk of gamergate is made up of teenage kids though, and adults that behave like teenage kids, who really aren't very good at people skills. It's a large part of the gamer demographic. The fixation on certain people within anti-GG really causes the movement problems. Anti-GG is made up largely of very self-righteous professional victims who believe they are always in the right, and know how to spin chlidish abuse to their own ends and manipulate the media into thinking that the same people haven't been turning a blind eye towards doxxing and threats themselves for years.
The other part of it is that the internet itself can be vile! Factions form, and the dogpiling starts. Nobody is actually in control of the online mob and the worst perpetrators of both sides and up being seen as representative as of the whole.
Gamergate is a conspiracy theory (although to be fair ethics in game journalism are non-existent). Anti-gamergate is made up mainly of those rich middle class women who think that nerds who have been picked on their entire lives for being nerds are somehow opressing them. The media sides with the media of course.
Gamergate is made up mostly of kids who fling slurs that would make a sailor bluch around on XBox live, and anti-GG seem surprised when their slurs and insults that usually shut down their opponents bounce off. Gamergate, on the other hand feels that they are each owed a personal explanation for each and every point made by any of the main anti-GG side.
I'm leaving out a lot of the more unpleasant aspects from both sides.
Yeah. They said it was plausible but they also decided that the escapees probably perished, because there were no reports of stolen cars (at least according to Mythbusters. The internet seems to be inconsistent here) or other crimes we'd expect as part of their escape.
This is private corporate information that the recipient knows they have no right to. Sony has a legal obligation to its shareholders, its partners and its employees to minimise the harm done here. The only thing they can do is sue!
Go to usenet, you'll see countless copies of mainstream movies and shows, usually just a few hundred K. In addition a lot of the downloads are pretty poor quality.
Torrent sites don't have that. They have ranking mechanisms and other techniques that allow real users to say whether something is real. They get rid of the crap pretty quickly.
Are you 100% certain that "violating your rights" is an arrestable offence? Can you cite case law and/or statute explicitly stating this?
Be careful with a partiak understanding of the law. It's a complex beast, and a broad understanding of your basic rights doesn't translate into an in-depth understanding of when specific rules apply.
The problem is that so many people have an agenda with this sort of research, it's very hard to tell who has an agenda and who is genuinely curious. Not sure what to do about this.
And his description of Rosalind Franklin do come across as a pretty sexist, even if you make excuses for his age.
They want to keep kids off hacking websites. These are not very technically minded people.
So yes. I'll concede that this is probably an overbroad interpretation of "hacking" which is why only 3 ISPs actually listed it as such, and one of them chenged their mind.
"3 private companies miscategorise CCC as 'hacking'" is hardly a major news story.
The filters are run by the ISPs and not the government.
In this case a total of three of them actually blocked the site.
"Hacking" is a default category.
While blocking "CCC" may be an overbroad application of this filter it does provide information on a lot of subjects that would assist a would-be hacker.
The filters aren't opt-out. You make a choice when you set up your connection. It is virtually impossible to accidentally set them up
If you are so incompetent that you set them up accidentally, the block-page tells you how to turn it off
Only three ISPs blocked this site. Two of them are mobile providers. One of them has since unblocked it.
I'd really expect technical sites like Slashdot, and CCC to actually have a clue about these filters. Instead users have latched on to a bandwagon.
I'm not defending the other argument. I'm attacking the stupidity of focussing on a group that represents less than a millionth of the population of the world as though it's somehow relevant to homelessness or low paid, dangerous jobs.
Who gives a shit about CEOs? Really? You think gender is the only reason preventing someone from becoming head of ICI?
Men, as an aggregate are more competitive than women. They're more likely to be concerned with status and money and competition. Result: More men actually strive to become CEOs. If you want to be a CEO, fight your way up the corporate ladder and become one. Nobody is going to just hand that to you out of some guilt over inequality. Every CEO fought for their position taking advantage of anything society offered them, and finding ways to mitigate their disadvantages. They take responsibility for their own success. They don't blame society, or privilege.
Honestly, there are a lot of questionable statistics. But it seems that the numbers are close enough together that gender really shouldn't enter into it. Some people are victims of violence, usually from people they have strong enough feelings for to be completely irrational over the matter, and we should actually address this as a serious concern.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The fact that no such legislation exists. This is a voluntary ISP scheme
Or you could use the service the ISP provides you with for free, that's easy to set up, available in the UK, and works with all network connected devices.
The UK ISP filters are completely voluntary as well.
We tried. No suitable product became available. David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service. The market obliged. If you really have a problem, you can always choose one of the dozens of ISPs that doesn't offer this service.
Why? You don't even have a choice of ISP in a lot of the US.
A handful of people have reported that the "would you like to enable parental filters" message crops up. It's onbe of those setup screensthat a lot if ISPs use for initial setup.
Seriously, what's in it for the ISP to push these things? It makes their service less useful and costs the ISP money. Filtering requires servers to run the filters.
Is it not possible, that perhaps the router was reset or something was changed at the exchange and that triggered the setup messag to appear? Click "no" and carry on browsing.
Typically patents are not on the concept but the implementation. The details of how to adjust pricing in an optimal way is far from obvious.
I also think it's about time they take down down on Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro" from their mp3 store until someone can do something about the number of notes.
Something people need to realise about this is "off the record" is just a social convention, and only really applies to journalist sources. It's a compromise that's seen as necessary for several complex reasons that journalists broadly agre with and cops don't give a damn about.
I've no idea if other people are representing them as that. This is my impression of these people. Not so much over GG, but over a bunch of other issues that many of the same people champion, where anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them is denounced as a hateful racist sexist who just wants to keep women out.
Perhaps there are some moderate voices inthe anti-GG camp. If so they're getting drowned out by loons, and I'm curious what they object to in gamergate that doesn't apply to the anti-GG crowd. Certainly both sides are guilty of threats, doxxing, and muck-flinging. GG seems to be trying to stamp it out and Anti-GG seems to be pretending it doesn't even exist.
I'm not trying to convince you. Believe what you want. This is just the impression I get. Most of the people I've seen speaking out against GG seem to be the politcally correct thought police, and the journalist who are accused of being corrupt.
Even met a teenager? A lot of them are brats. They use the language they do because they want to offend. The fact that the offence of our childhood no longer works means they need to up the ante.
There are a lot of genuine serious issues. Not that I'm all that into the culture, but I can see the lack of games that appeal to a certain serious hardcore has parallels with other media. Literature fans want deep challenging philosophical concepts, but find the shelves filled with airport thrillers.
Depression Quest is terrible. Wordy and highly preachy with a tedious storyline. Even for a morality semi-interactive story, there are better examples of the genre which have things like plot, and snappy dialogue. No idea why it got the publicity. I think GG may be seeing this as a reward for sex, but it's really just that the journalists and piblishers go to the same parties and the publishers have the ear of the journalists. It's pretty clear that a lot of publishers are very willing to do a lot of hobnobbing with the journalists, and giving some quite expensive gifts. Hell, Ubisoft was giving out Nexus tablets. They exactly weren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
A good chunk of gamergate is made up of teenage kids though, and adults that behave like teenage kids, who really aren't very good at people skills. It's a large part of the gamer demographic. The fixation on certain people within anti-GG really causes the movement problems. Anti-GG is made up largely of very self-righteous professional victims who believe they are always in the right, and know how to spin chlidish abuse to their own ends and manipulate the media into thinking that the same people haven't been turning a blind eye towards doxxing and threats themselves for years.
The other part of it is that the internet itself can be vile! Factions form, and the dogpiling starts. Nobody is actually in control of the online mob and the worst perpetrators of both sides and up being seen as representative as of the whole.
Gamergate is a conspiracy theory (although to be fair ethics in game journalism are non-existent). Anti-gamergate is made up mainly of those rich middle class women who think that nerds who have been picked on their entire lives for being nerds are somehow opressing them. The media sides with the media of course.
Gamergate is made up mostly of kids who fling slurs that would make a sailor bluch around on XBox live, and anti-GG seem surprised when their slurs and insults that usually shut down their opponents bounce off. Gamergate, on the other hand feels that they are each owed a personal explanation for each and every point made by any of the main anti-GG side.
I'm leaving out a lot of the more unpleasant aspects from both sides.
Yeah. They said it was plausible but they also decided that the escapees probably perished, because there were no reports of stolen cars (at least according to Mythbusters. The internet seems to be inconsistent here) or other crimes we'd expect as part of their escape.
These days used for cheap knock-off memory sticks.
Yes!
This is private corporate information that the recipient knows they have no right to. Sony has a legal obligation to its shareholders, its partners and its employees to minimise the harm done here. The only thing they can do is sue!
They literally have no choice.
Go to usenet, you'll see countless copies of mainstream movies and shows, usually just a few hundred K. In addition a lot of the downloads are pretty poor quality.
Torrent sites don't have that. They have ranking mechanisms and other techniques that allow real users to say whether something is real. They get rid of the crap pretty quickly.
Yeah. Misremembered.
Are you 100% certain that "violating your rights" is an arrestable offence? Can you cite case law and/or statute explicitly stating this?
Be careful with a partiak understanding of the law. It's a complex beast, and a broad understanding of your basic rights doesn't translate into an in-depth understanding of when specific rules apply.
I'm thinking more from a TV point of view.
With a monitor, number of pixels is important. I really liked my 1920x1280 monitor I had once, just for those extra 200 vertical pixels.
That's useful for technical matters like bandwidth calculation but the user cares about clarity.
8K can display a line half the thickness of 4K. That's what matters.
The problem is that so many people have an agenda with this sort of research, it's very hard to tell who has an agenda and who is genuinely curious. Not sure what to do about this.
And his description of Rosalind Franklin do come across as a pretty sexist, even if you make excuses for his age.
They want to keep kids off hacking websites. These are not very technically minded people.
So yes. I'll concede that this is probably an overbroad interpretation of "hacking" which is why only 3 ISPs actually listed it as such, and one of them chenged their mind.
"3 private companies miscategorise CCC as 'hacking'" is hardly a major news story.
We don't. The report that said we did had really poor methodology and a lot of speculation.
Even then, the bulk of CCTV is in private shops. You have this in every country.
I'd really expect technical sites like Slashdot, and CCC to actually have a clue about these filters. Instead users have latched on to a bandwagon.
I'm not defending the other argument. I'm attacking the stupidity of focussing on a group that represents less than a millionth of the population of the world as though it's somehow relevant to homelessness or low paid, dangerous jobs.
Who gives a shit about CEOs? Really? You think gender is the only reason preventing someone from becoming head of ICI?
Men, as an aggregate are more competitive than women. They're more likely to be concerned with status and money and competition. Result: More men actually strive to become CEOs. If you want to be a CEO, fight your way up the corporate ladder and become one. Nobody is going to just hand that to you out of some guilt over inequality. Every CEO fought for their position taking advantage of anything society offered them, and finding ways to mitigate their disadvantages. They take responsibility for their own success. They don't blame society, or privilege.
Honestly, there are a lot of questionable statistics. But it seems that the numbers are close enough together that gender really shouldn't enter into it. Some people are victims of violence, usually from people they have strong enough feelings for to be completely irrational over the matter, and we should actually address this as a serious concern.
Should possibly take that with a pinch of salt.