Free and open internet is about routing of packets. Not about subjects discussed in online forums. Not about search engines.
If there is free and open routing of packets, then you are perfectly free to connect to (or even create!) an online forum whose echo chambers are more to your liking.
A free and open internet means that just because you create a small site that people are unable to reach it because you cannot afford to strike special "zero rated" deals with AT&T.
I agree that we all will pay for the necessary network infrastructure.
I strongly disagree about getting rid of net neutrality. We NEED net neutrality. A neutral internet is what allows it to become the global economic engine that it is. Now ISPs want to erect troll booths and non neutral traffic.
Suppose AT&T goes to Netflix and strikes up an ugly smoke-filled back room deal where Netflix pays AT&T so that Netflix customers on AT&T get "zero rated" or "preferred" or whatever you want to call it. This increases Netflix's cost. That cost will go to ALL Netflix customers even Netflix customers who use Verizon instead of AT&T. Thus Netflix customers on Verizon are now subsidizing the improved service of Netflix customers on AT&T -- while those Netflix-Verizon customers continue to have the poorer service.
So now HBO strikes up a deal with Verizon so HBO gets "zero rated" service on Verizon. Similarly HBO customers using AT&T are now subsidizing HBO-Verizon customers.
How about this: BAN this practice. If the ISP needs to build more infrastructure to handle Netflix, then CHARGE ME THE CUSTOMER for how much internet bandwidth I use. I'm going to pay for it anyway. But make it simple. Make it fair. Stop making some users subsidize other users.
There is no such thing as "building fast lanes". That is just a euphemism for building SLOW lanes. If an ISP is building out its infrastructure, then that ISP's customers should pay for what they are using that requires that infrastructure.
Finally, this "fast lanes" approach also helps cement in the established players while making it difficult for new entrants into the market. Suppose a new obscure specialized video service emerged. One whose content is mostly about the mating practices of obese new jersey millennials. The small subscriber base for this particular video service may not be powerful enough to strike a crooked back room deal with AT&T, thus resulting in it getting unfair treatment -- even though their end subscribers pay the same local ISP bill as everyone else.
You are correct in suggesting that a celebration results from some states having net neutrality regulations to protect their citizens. Especially when it affects other states.
You can't infringe a copyright that does not exist. White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it. Copyright is to protect intellectual works. There is already case law that, for example, the facts present in a telephone directory cannot be copyrighted.
Someone who created white noise cannot file a claim against someone else who might actually in fact copy it all, because, the original white noise cannot be copyrighted.
In this case, I think it is automated copyright enforcement bots run amok.
You can simply choose a more expensive plastics provider that does not pollute the air and water -- and somehow -- magically -- you'll be able to breathe and drink again!
> The people who have left were responsible for collecting and analyzing
> the intelligence that goes into the president's daily briefing.
Do we actually need those people? My understanding is that the current administration demanded a change to the daily intelligence briefing such that it is now a single page, with pictures. Yes, really. I'm serious.
Just how many NSA, CIA and other TLA people do we need to produce this? Could they employ much younger people using finger-painting and still achieve the same global geopolitical impact as the large number of people who are leaving NSA?
Your entire sentence right after "Not quite true" seems to agree with exactly what I said. Penalty of perjury. That you are, or that you represent the actual copyright owner. I didn't suggest that the penalty of perjury was about whether there was actual infringement. Although I have an opinion that it probably should. (if the copyright owner is unable to determine actual infringement, how is anyone else supposed to be able to determine what is or is not infringing?) Next, I suggested a serious penalty for what I called "bugus DMCA takedown". That means someone, who is NOT the copyright owner, or authorized agent, being seriously punished for representing that they are. This would eliminate A LOT of misuse of the DMCA. People now seem to think that the DMCA is some kind of magic want to make things on the internet go away because you don't like them. Like speech. Opinions. And other things that have little to nothing to do with copyright.
To offer further opinions, IT SHOULD be up to the copyright owner to correctly identify infringing material. Collateral takedown should absolutely be UNACCEPTABLE. Some idiot copyright owner should not be able to take down YOUR site because they think it might have an infringement, even though it doesn't. I think the counter notice mechanism could be improved.
Basically if you're going to hand copyright owners a super weapon of mass destruction, they darn well better exercise GREAT responsibility in its use. Other people have legitimate interest in their own use of the internet completely unrelated to hollywood.
The DMCA requires that the party requesting the take-down swear under penalty of perjury that they are or they represent the actual copyright owner. How to fix bogus DMCA takedowns is to have a statutory penalty for filing a bogus DMCA takedown. How about making it equal to the statutory ($150,000.00) penalty for copyright infringement?
That would be one way to prevent good stuff from being sucked off the internet by DMCA trolls.
That would offend guys who can (A) go for longer than 20 minutes, OR (B) can go twice in a row totaling more than 20 minutes. I know of data points of both instances being non zero.
Moof! Wouldn't it be better to use a newer iPhone for this purpose than an iPhone 3G? Or is there some reason for this particular choice which I am missing?
Ah, the memories of using MPW back in the day. Currently I can find nothing to like about Apple.
There are various online resources which can help you decide what to do with it if you are inexperienced in its proper use. Just be sure to do something with it before it goes away on its own. Don't let it go to waste! Ideally make use of it in some way that involves another willing person.
Since I can't be there in person, that would be my best advice.
Slashdot Mirror
Free and open internet is about routing of packets. Not about subjects discussed in online forums. Not about search engines.
If there is free and open routing of packets, then you are perfectly free to connect to (or even create!) an online forum whose echo chambers are more to your liking.
A free and open internet means that just because you create a small site that people are unable to reach it because you cannot afford to strike special "zero rated" deals with AT&T.
I agree that we all will pay for the necessary network infrastructure.
I strongly disagree about getting rid of net neutrality. We NEED net neutrality. A neutral internet is what allows it to become the global economic engine that it is. Now ISPs want to erect troll booths and non neutral traffic.
Suppose AT&T goes to Netflix and strikes up an ugly smoke-filled back room deal where Netflix pays AT&T so that Netflix customers on AT&T get "zero rated" or "preferred" or whatever you want to call it. This increases Netflix's cost. That cost will go to ALL Netflix customers even Netflix customers who use Verizon instead of AT&T. Thus Netflix customers on Verizon are now subsidizing the improved service of Netflix customers on AT&T -- while those Netflix-Verizon customers continue to have the poorer service.
So now HBO strikes up a deal with Verizon so HBO gets "zero rated" service on Verizon. Similarly HBO customers using AT&T are now subsidizing HBO-Verizon customers.
How about this: BAN this practice. If the ISP needs to build more infrastructure to handle Netflix, then CHARGE ME THE CUSTOMER for how much internet bandwidth I use. I'm going to pay for it anyway. But make it simple. Make it fair. Stop making some users subsidize other users.
There is no such thing as "building fast lanes". That is just a euphemism for building SLOW lanes. If an ISP is building out its infrastructure, then that ISP's customers should pay for what they are using that requires that infrastructure.
Finally, this "fast lanes" approach also helps cement in the established players while making it difficult for new entrants into the market. Suppose a new obscure specialized video service emerged. One whose content is mostly about the mating practices of obese new jersey millennials. The small subscriber base for this particular video service may not be powerful enough to strike a crooked back room deal with AT&T, thus resulting in it getting unfair treatment -- even though their end subscribers pay the same local ISP bill as everyone else.
It shouldn't have that effect. We need as few laws and regulations as possible. But as many as necessary.
If HP will send a technician out to replace a melted or charred battery with a less charred one, then that's a good thing.
I'm melting, melting! Oh, what a world, what a world!
Now if they could only get them not to melt or char in the first place.
You are correct in suggesting that a celebration results from some states having net neutrality regulations to protect their citizens. Especially when it affects other states.
Infinite monkeys at the keyboard and lining up at the copyright office to register their works. Now, how to make that approach scalable.
You mean copyright infringement.
You can't infringe a copyright that does not exist. White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it. Copyright is to protect intellectual works. There is already case law that, for example, the facts present in a telephone directory cannot be copyrighted.
Someone who created white noise cannot file a claim against someone else who might actually in fact copy it all, because, the original white noise cannot be copyrighted.
In this case, I think it is automated copyright enforcement bots run amok.
The DMCA is not a technical problem. No technical solution will fix it. It is a serious bug in the legislative and judicial process.
Every good circus should have three rings: Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
Dear Slashdot,
On this article, you only needed to keep the first five words of the headline. The remaining words do not add any clarity.
Just sayin'
You can simply choose a more expensive plastics provider that does not pollute the air and water -- and somehow -- magically -- you'll be able to breathe and drink again!
> rendering all such briefs obsolete
So all we'll have left is boxers.
> You can't lay off those people, the president will need them in 2020 for her presidential briefs!
Are you sure Sarah Palin wears briefs. Boxers?
Still, Hillary has larger testicles than any of them.
It will go even more wrong when there are no more men and women need a spider to be killed.
Tolerance of intolerance should not be tolerated. I absolutely am intolerant of intolerant people.
> Men will destroy the world before they allow sperm to be made in a lab.
Wrong. It will be produced in a lab. It will be delivered in convenient "to go" boxes.
> The people who have left were responsible for collecting and analyzing
> the intelligence that goes into the president's daily briefing.
Do we actually need those people? My understanding is that the current administration demanded a change to the daily intelligence briefing such that it is now a single page, with pictures. Yes, really. I'm serious.
Just how many NSA, CIA and other TLA people do we need to produce this? Could they employ much younger people using finger-painting and still achieve the same global geopolitical impact as the large number of people who are leaving NSA?
Your entire sentence right after "Not quite true" seems to agree with exactly what I said. Penalty of perjury. That you are, or that you represent the actual copyright owner. I didn't suggest that the penalty of perjury was about whether there was actual infringement. Although I have an opinion that it probably should. (if the copyright owner is unable to determine actual infringement, how is anyone else supposed to be able to determine what is or is not infringing?) Next, I suggested a serious penalty for what I called "bugus DMCA takedown". That means someone, who is NOT the copyright owner, or authorized agent, being seriously punished for representing that they are. This would eliminate A LOT of misuse of the DMCA. People now seem to think that the DMCA is some kind of magic want to make things on the internet go away because you don't like them. Like speech. Opinions. And other things that have little to nothing to do with copyright.
To offer further opinions, IT SHOULD be up to the copyright owner to correctly identify infringing material. Collateral takedown should absolutely be UNACCEPTABLE. Some idiot copyright owner should not be able to take down YOUR site because they think it might have an infringement, even though it doesn't. I think the counter notice mechanism could be improved.
Basically if you're going to hand copyright owners a super weapon of mass destruction, they darn well better exercise GREAT responsibility in its use. Other people have legitimate interest in their own use of the internet completely unrelated to hollywood.
The DMCA requires that the party requesting the take-down swear under penalty of perjury that they are or they represent the actual copyright owner. How to fix bogus DMCA takedowns is to have a statutory penalty for filing a bogus DMCA takedown. How about making it equal to the statutory ($150,000.00) penalty for copyright infringement?
That would be one way to prevent good stuff from being sucked off the internet by DMCA trolls.
That would offend guys who can (A) go for longer than 20 minutes, OR (B) can go twice in a row totaling more than 20 minutes. I know of data points of both instances being non zero.
Pr0nHub should have to post a warning:
SAFE FOR WORK
to protect people from accidentally clicking on it. If not to protect their eyes, then to save bandwidth.
I'm writing my congress critter a strongly worded letter that Pr0nHub be required to implement filters for such non-filth.
Disney can tirademark three circles that even slightly resemble their moose logo.
A vulnerability from back in 2017 is probably old enough to not be worth fixating.
Moof! Wouldn't it be better to use a newer iPhone for this purpose than an iPhone 3G? Or is there some reason for this particular choice which I am missing?
Ah, the memories of using MPW back in the day. Currently I can find nothing to like about Apple.
If phone fumbles onto hard surface, that is likely to increase phone sales.
There are various online resources which can help you decide what to do with it if you are inexperienced in its proper use. Just be sure to do something with it before it goes away on its own. Don't let it go to waste! Ideally make use of it in some way that involves another willing person.
Since I can't be there in person, that would be my best advice.
Hope that helps.