Well, the article is making reference to giant 100+ foot towers, in wide-cleared rights-of-way, refusing to bury cables, and generally abusing the locals.
And if that's how they want to do this, they should in no way be surprised when people oppose them.
Bury the cables. Don't devalue people's property with giant transmission towers.
But don't expect sympathy when you come in, hide who you are, underplay the impact, and crap all over the neighbors. That pretty much says "this company is ran by assholes who don't give a fuck about the locals".
In which case communities are right to send a big giant "fuck you" back in return.
You do realize that, for purposes of international buying and selling... gold and pretty much every other version of currency are essentially purely electronic?
I'm pretty sure if someone buys gold on the market, they'll never see it or lay hands on it. Nobody is shipping around stack of bills to people buying currency.
So, if I can buy and sell gold, Euros, or Dollars in purely electronic form, WTF is the difference with Bitcoin?
Yeah, bury your cables, don't put towers over people's houses, don't ask us for property for your data center... not treating the people near you like shit isn't unreasonable at all.
Don't come in all secret like, hide who you really are, and choose a way to do it which impacts the people who live there any more than you need to.
When billion dollar corporations want to act like assholes to save a few bucks, they get no sympathy when people get pissed off at them. People don't want to be abused so multi-billion dollar corporations can do their data center as cheap as possible and piss off the neighbors.
Spinning this like "boo hoo, the poor companies can't build data centers" is complete bullshit. Stop treating neighborhoods like ugly industrial sites and have some respect. Maybe they'll even be supportive.
Data center site selection is often a secretive process, with cloud builders using codenames to cloak their identity.
So, they basically make it impossible to know what is coming in, what the impact will be, and if you should be concerned.
Yeah, that sounds awesome... lie to everybody so you get approved, and then become really terrible neighbors once it's too late for people to have their say.
Gee, I can't see at all why people would be angry about that.
If your numbers are correct, at least 30% of ads in circulation at any given time will never be presented to me
Then you're not trying nearly hard enough.
The first thing I do when I land on a page is click on my blockers to identify any new trackers and ad companies, and make sure to block them.
Google's ad shit was among the first. There's no less than 3 Google domains which have been blocked on the page as I type this comment. Then I remove any cookies not already blocked.
If you think ignoring those social media sites means you aren't tracked on pretty much every web page, you're delusional. That crap is embedded in most web pages, so they track you even if you don't use them, unless of course you're actively blocking them.
Rest assured, Google is trying to make change because the number of people outright blocking ads is becoming noticeable. They don't give a crap about what users want.
And if you think Facebook and Twitter don't see what most people are doing, you need to look closer. It's actually kind of scary.
If you're not actively stopping them, they're watching you anyway.
It is curious that you have managed to twist around something good Google has done and spin it as something negative
Then perhaps you should read the damned comment I replied to instead of pulling this gibberish out of your backside.
Google is a corporation. By definition, they are self-serving. It just so happens that in order to be self serving, they need to periodically align with consumer interests. But they sure don't do it all the time.
The GP said they couldn't accept it as altruistic. I agree, there is no way in hell a company does anything for altruistic. Least of all Google. They were doing what was in their own self-interest, ie, it was self serving.
I'm not claiming it was intentional on your part or that it is part of a vast conspiracy but it is part of a larger pattern. Most news stories I've seen about Google doing something good have been spun into stories about Google being evil.
Boo fucking hoo.
Because you know what I've concluded about Google over the last bunch of years? Their motto to do no evil is bullshit. It's a cute slogan, nothing more.
Pretty much everything Google does is for their own means, like I expect every corporation to do.
In the same way, I trust Google and any other corporation to act like a sociopath -- I can 100% trust them to look out for their own interests, periodically things will align and actually be good for the consumer. But that doesn't mean I believe Google gives a damn about the consumer. It means they can't afford to be too antagonistic.
Even if Google is "fighting the good fight", it's to protect their own damned financial interests. Ie, it's self serving.
I have great faith and trust that Google are greedy, self-serving bastards, who may or may not consciously do evil things, and who are easy to vilify as a large and untrustworthy corporation.
But I will never attribute any of their motivations as altruistic, or focused on the needs of the populace, except where it benefits them.
So you'll excuse me if I don't care about your semantic wishful thinking about what I meant when I said self serving and aligned with consumer interests. Because I know damned well what I meant.
And it sure as hell didn't include a benevolent Google looking out solely for our interests. Every damned thing Google does is self serving, that's pretty much the definition of a corporation.
Get this through your head: Google doesn't give a fuck about you except in terms of how they make money from you. They may not actively seek your destruction, but they sure as hell don't give a crap about you. Which means they're not doing anything for you.
Possibly, but you can be cynical and not think this is altruistic... they get the PR of saying "we're on your side" to consumers, as well as eventually saying "now piss off, we can't help you" to law enforcement.
To be fair, it also said "According to the evidence gathered in the administrative court, only seven people came to speak at the original public inquiry"
Sure, but if there was nothing at all to indicate what was being built or what the level of noise would be, perhaps people looked at it and said "oh, they want to open an office building, OK, we don't care, office buildings are good quiet neighbors".
So, if anybody can dredge up translations of the original proposal and review so we can tell what people actually had to look at, we might have a clue what they were told.
If the court basically is saying this is because of noise levels, then it's entirely possible the noise levels were either not mentioned or downplayed.
In the one link in TFA, it is utterly impossible to say anything about the information available when it was approved. Maybe only 7 people spoke at the original inquiry because the provided information made it seem like a tenant was moving in nobody would object to.
All we know is, it's having its license pulled now due to noise, and the residents claim there was not sufficient information at the beginning. Other than that, there's not much real information in the story.
Which means deciding who said what to whom and when is not possible, and therefore any conclusions about anything like that is also not possible.
Apple TV connected to my desktop machine, haven't used it in months except to play music through my amp. Paired bluetooth keyboard so I don't have to type with tiny little remote.
Building a media center in a kit and maintaining it really isn't something I can muster up enough interest to give a damn about.
I pay for bandwidth, so the cable company's streaming service (included in my bill) makes sense, whereas something like NetFlix doesn't.
Oh, and I still buy physical copies of movies so I can play them as many times as I want without involving the assholes from the media companies.
Funny, I read it as incomplete review which wasn't very forthcoming (or accurate) on details: "The public inquiry was poorly conducted and did not allow people to get the full information," said Ms Sageloli. " The published notice was hard to understand and did not clearly indicate that it concerned a data center. "
And, really, the "580,000 liters of diesel fuel" is a LOT.
The court's decision to cancel Interxion's operating licence was based specifically on the noise pollution the refrigeration and backup generator systems produce.
If you're making a ton more noise than you promised, or simply failed to say "oh, BTW, we'll me making a shit-load of noise", then, yes, the review was grossly incomplete.
There is not enough words in the story to arrive at your carefully crafted "translation".
I would like to know what the information provided for the initial review -- because I'm entirely not sure of what actually happened, and neither are you. And I'm entirely willing to believe someone glossed over some details to get it approved.
Yeah, I look at this and the first one looks like an impossible thing to build on Mars.
The second one looks cool, but still fairly complicated.
Oddly the third one looks like it could be plausible.
Is this based on anything other than being pretty and allowing NASA to have some PR? Or is there some expectation of this translating into anything real?
Because the translucent shark fin seems pretty unlikely.
In one illustration from the team's proposal, the outer shell is washed in Mars' inky blue sunset, and in another it looks like it was dipped in the tea-tinged pink of the high noon on Mars.
What the actual fuck? Is this actual NASA language?
Are these things being selected on the basis of color or something?
Seriously? Tea-tinged pink of the high noon? What is this drivel?
You seem to be under the illusion they care what either SCOTUS has said, or what the Constitution says.
I'm not entirely sure that's true any more.
Law enforcement increasingly doesn't know, or doesn't care what the law and the courts have said. They just want whatever is expedient.
There's just far too many examples of them completely ignoring stuff to believe they still care about what is strictly legal. They seem to think legal is whatever they say it is.
So if governments around the world are giving themselves license to hack into our stuff, do anything they please, and share this with other governments... then it almost seems like a moral duty that every government server is now fair game.
Just sayin'. If governments are declaring war on our rights, they have no expectation people won't do this to them.
Sorry, but governments who are claiming to be defending our rights while taking those rights away have lost an awful lot of moral authority here.
Especially when they take the stuff they said they'd only use to fight terrorism, and now apply it to every day things.
Because, apparently, it is now "un-American", or straight up illegal, for private companies to NOT be part of the spy apparatus.
So, either you accept the provisions of stuff like the PATRIOT Act which says every company is required to participate and keep it secret... or you have to somehow get a court to overturn that (or have the lawmakers repeal it).
But, make no mistake about it, in the present situation, spying is a given, the requirement for corporations to help is real, and the expectation that making something you can't help them break into is just helping terrorists.
So, yes, this may not the be the right question. The problem is to whom are you supposed to ask the right question?
Because apparently most Americans now accept this crap as perfectly normal, and have fully embraced that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
The cope creep of national security and terrorism to common day to day crimes was inevitable. And now law enforcement expects to bypass any legal controls, and get what they wish because they want it.
Papers please, comrade. That particular cat has been out of the bag for a while.
Oh, wait, that's precisely the point. Like most of the rest of the US government, part of the mandate of DHS is now protecting corporate interests like copyright and making sure they can have cheap foreign labor to drive down wages.
Some nitwits with far too much time (and alcohol) on their hands in Ufa, in the Republic of Bashkortostan, in south central Russia, near Kazakhstan, came up with this putrid Jaws satire, obviously titled after the joke in Back To The Future part II, and obviously filmed on someone's cell phone. And allegedly on a budget of 100 Rubles, which, as of this writing, converts to exactly US$1.62.
No, we mean tomorrow. See, today is still today, tomorrow will be tomorrow. Apparently your today happened yesterday. Your tomorrow is the day after next.
But tomorrow, by which time it will be today, it will be time for it to be Back to the Future Day. By which time you'll probably be Friday or something stupid like that.
Do try to keep up, I know this time travel thing can be confusing.;-)
I spent some time in San Francisco in the late 90's, I assume it hasn't changed.
Rent and real estate were so ridiculous, that it's almost impossible. In part because, at the time at least,.com people were driving up the prices because they had to compete with other people who wanted the space -- which led to bidding wars which raised the prices.
I think at the time a 400 sq foot studio apartment was almost $2k monthly or something stupid.
I knew people who had two hour commutes because they could live close to work, or live in a place which had as many bedrooms as they needed. Nobody could afford to do both.
I assume that due to the cost of real estate/rental housing, this has less to do with a living wage as it does if you've been able to amass the capital needed to get into the market.
According to rental listing site Zumper.com, which tracks average market rents on a monthly basis, rental rates in San Francisco are the highest in the country. Average rent on a two bedroom apartment in San Francisco is $4,650, $1,000+ more than the number two city (New York) and $2,000 more than the rest of the biggest cities in the country.
That's almost sixty grand to rent a two bedroom apartment.
I think that at some level, we just have to trust that the most people aren't psychotic
Well, ignoring the specific definition of 'psychotic' here (which isn't how you're using it)... the problem with comparing this to your car is there's a significantly higher level of people doing malicious things on the intertubes just for the hell of it.
So, yes, people aren't likely to go around cutting brake lines on cars just for amusement sake. But from a network security perspective? I've found assuming the internet is populated with viscious little sociopaths who would pretty much do anything for a laugh to be a far safer assumption. Because it's often proven true.
When it comes to the network security of something which lives depend on? I would totally assume it needs to be secured much more than it is. I would also assume that if it can be exploited, it will be exploited.
What is it about computer security that we have to make sure things are secure against all kinds of attacks?
Do you mean other than the constant reminders that there are always people working to demonstrate that as a safe assumption?
I can't tell you why, but since any crazy idiot from anywhere in the world can (and will) try to access anything anywhere in the world... the level of malicious crap gets ratcheted up by quite a bit.
You know, actual fucking reality.
Plug a brand new PC directly into the internet. Then wait 20 minute and ask again why people assume computer security is done out of necessity and not simple paranoia.
That shit is automated, and indiscriminate. That's not paranoia, that's actual fact. Pretending like computer security is overkill is pretty much just stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the article is making reference to giant 100+ foot towers, in wide-cleared rights-of-way, refusing to bury cables, and generally abusing the locals.
And if that's how they want to do this, they should in no way be surprised when people oppose them.
Bury the cables. Don't devalue people's property with giant transmission towers.
But don't expect sympathy when you come in, hide who you are, underplay the impact, and crap all over the neighbors. That pretty much says "this company is ran by assholes who don't give a fuck about the locals".
In which case communities are right to send a big giant "fuck you" back in return.
You do realize that, for purposes of international buying and selling ... gold and pretty much every other version of currency are essentially purely electronic?
I'm pretty sure if someone buys gold on the market, they'll never see it or lay hands on it. Nobody is shipping around stack of bills to people buying currency.
So, if I can buy and sell gold, Euros, or Dollars in purely electronic form, WTF is the difference with Bitcoin?
Yeah, bury your cables, don't put towers over people's houses, don't ask us for property for your data center ... not treating the people near you like shit isn't unreasonable at all.
Don't come in all secret like, hide who you really are, and choose a way to do it which impacts the people who live there any more than you need to.
When billion dollar corporations want to act like assholes to save a few bucks, they get no sympathy when people get pissed off at them. People don't want to be abused so multi-billion dollar corporations can do their data center as cheap as possible and piss off the neighbors.
Spinning this like "boo hoo, the poor companies can't build data centers" is complete bullshit. Stop treating neighborhoods like ugly industrial sites and have some respect. Maybe they'll even be supportive.
So, they basically make it impossible to know what is coming in, what the impact will be, and if you should be concerned.
Yeah, that sounds awesome ... lie to everybody so you get approved, and then become really terrible neighbors once it's too late for people to have their say.
Gee, I can't see at all why people would be angry about that.
Then you're not trying nearly hard enough.
The first thing I do when I land on a page is click on my blockers to identify any new trackers and ad companies, and make sure to block them.
Google's ad shit was among the first. There's no less than 3 Google domains which have been blocked on the page as I type this comment. Then I remove any cookies not already blocked.
If you think ignoring those social media sites means you aren't tracked on pretty much every web page, you're delusional. That crap is embedded in most web pages, so they track you even if you don't use them, unless of course you're actively blocking them.
Rest assured, Google is trying to make change because the number of people outright blocking ads is becoming noticeable. They don't give a crap about what users want.
And if you think Facebook and Twitter don't see what most people are doing, you need to look closer. It's actually kind of scary.
If you're not actively stopping them, they're watching you anyway.
Prithee, kind sir, might one inquire as to the availability of copies of said mold?
I'll be in my bunk pondering that.
Then perhaps you should read the damned comment I replied to instead of pulling this gibberish out of your backside.
Google is a corporation. By definition, they are self-serving. It just so happens that in order to be self serving, they need to periodically align with consumer interests. But they sure don't do it all the time.
The GP said they couldn't accept it as altruistic. I agree, there is no way in hell a company does anything for altruistic. Least of all Google. They were doing what was in their own self-interest, ie, it was self serving.
Boo fucking hoo.
Because you know what I've concluded about Google over the last bunch of years? Their motto to do no evil is bullshit. It's a cute slogan, nothing more.
Pretty much everything Google does is for their own means, like I expect every corporation to do.
In the same way, I trust Google and any other corporation to act like a sociopath -- I can 100% trust them to look out for their own interests, periodically things will align and actually be good for the consumer. But that doesn't mean I believe Google gives a damn about the consumer. It means they can't afford to be too antagonistic.
Even if Google is "fighting the good fight", it's to protect their own damned financial interests. Ie, it's self serving.
I have great faith and trust that Google are greedy, self-serving bastards, who may or may not consciously do evil things, and who are easy to vilify as a large and untrustworthy corporation.
But I will never attribute any of their motivations as altruistic, or focused on the needs of the populace, except where it benefits them.
So you'll excuse me if I don't care about your semantic wishful thinking about what I meant when I said self serving and aligned with consumer interests. Because I know damned well what I meant.
And it sure as hell didn't include a benevolent Google looking out solely for our interests. Every damned thing Google does is self serving, that's pretty much the definition of a corporation.
Get this through your head: Google doesn't give a fuck about you except in terms of how they make money from you. They may not actively seek your destruction, but they sure as hell don't give a crap about you. Which means they're not doing anything for you.
Possibly, but you can be cynical and not think this is altruistic ... they get the PR of saying "we're on your side" to consumers, as well as eventually saying "now piss off, we can't help you" to law enforcement.
It can benefit consumers AND be self-serving.
Ummm ... what? If you mean the first link, "crypto" appears like 25 times.
So what, precisely, are you trying to say? Because the ENTIRE TFA is about encryption.
Sure, but if there was nothing at all to indicate what was being built or what the level of noise would be, perhaps people looked at it and said "oh, they want to open an office building, OK, we don't care, office buildings are good quiet neighbors".
So, if anybody can dredge up translations of the original proposal and review so we can tell what people actually had to look at, we might have a clue what they were told.
If the court basically is saying this is because of noise levels, then it's entirely possible the noise levels were either not mentioned or downplayed.
In the one link in TFA, it is utterly impossible to say anything about the information available when it was approved. Maybe only 7 people spoke at the original inquiry because the provided information made it seem like a tenant was moving in nobody would object to.
All we know is, it's having its license pulled now due to noise, and the residents claim there was not sufficient information at the beginning. Other than that, there's not much real information in the story.
Which means deciding who said what to whom and when is not possible, and therefore any conclusions about anything like that is also not possible.
Looks like about one fifth of an Olympic pool.
Big screen TV. No connection to the intertubes.
XBox 360. No connection to the intertubes.
BluRay player. No connection to the intertubes.
Yamaha amp. No connection to the interubes.
PVR from cable company (bought outright).
Apple TV connected to my desktop machine, haven't used it in months except to play music through my amp. Paired bluetooth keyboard so I don't have to type with tiny little remote.
Building a media center in a kit and maintaining it really isn't something I can muster up enough interest to give a damn about.
I pay for bandwidth, so the cable company's streaming service (included in my bill) makes sense, whereas something like NetFlix doesn't.
Oh, and I still buy physical copies of movies so I can play them as many times as I want without involving the assholes from the media companies.
Funny, I read it as incomplete review which wasn't very forthcoming (or accurate) on details: "The public inquiry was poorly conducted and did not allow people to get the full information," said Ms Sageloli. " The published notice was hard to understand and did not clearly indicate that it concerned a data center. "
And, really, the "580,000 liters of diesel fuel" is a LOT.
If you're making a ton more noise than you promised, or simply failed to say "oh, BTW, we'll me making a shit-load of noise", then, yes, the review was grossly incomplete.
There is not enough words in the story to arrive at your carefully crafted "translation".
I would like to know what the information provided for the initial review -- because I'm entirely not sure of what actually happened, and neither are you. And I'm entirely willing to believe someone glossed over some details to get it approved.
Yeah, I look at this and the first one looks like an impossible thing to build on Mars.
The second one looks cool, but still fairly complicated.
Oddly the third one looks like it could be plausible.
Is this based on anything other than being pretty and allowing NASA to have some PR? Or is there some expectation of this translating into anything real?
Because the translucent shark fin seems pretty unlikely.
What the actual fuck? Is this actual NASA language?
Are these things being selected on the basis of color or something?
Seriously? Tea-tinged pink of the high noon? What is this drivel?
You seem to be under the illusion they care what either SCOTUS has said, or what the Constitution says.
I'm not entirely sure that's true any more.
Law enforcement increasingly doesn't know, or doesn't care what the law and the courts have said. They just want whatever is expedient.
There's just far too many examples of them completely ignoring stuff to believe they still care about what is strictly legal. They seem to think legal is whatever they say it is.
Exactly ... take out all those pesky things which limit their powers, and it will allow them to do so much more.
What government wants to have its hands tied by protecting the rights of its citizens? That just creates extra paperwork and legal hurdles.
With a scared citizenry who knows their rights are what you tell them, you can accomplish much more.
So if governments around the world are giving themselves license to hack into our stuff, do anything they please, and share this with other governments ... then it almost seems like a moral duty that every government server is now fair game.
Just sayin'. If governments are declaring war on our rights, they have no expectation people won't do this to them.
Sorry, but governments who are claiming to be defending our rights while taking those rights away have lost an awful lot of moral authority here.
Especially when they take the stuff they said they'd only use to fight terrorism, and now apply it to every day things.
Fuck you, Big Brother. Fuck you.
All of them? At the very least, with data sharing agreements they'll all get access to it.
Are you still laboring under the illusion pretty much all the governments are colluding to fuck over their citizens rights?
Because, apparently, it is now "un-American", or straight up illegal, for private companies to NOT be part of the spy apparatus.
So, either you accept the provisions of stuff like the PATRIOT Act which says every company is required to participate and keep it secret ... or you have to somehow get a court to overturn that (or have the lawmakers repeal it).
But, make no mistake about it, in the present situation, spying is a given, the requirement for corporations to help is real, and the expectation that making something you can't help them break into is just helping terrorists.
So, yes, this may not the be the right question. The problem is to whom are you supposed to ask the right question?
Because apparently most Americans now accept this crap as perfectly normal, and have fully embraced that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
The cope creep of national security and terrorism to common day to day crimes was inevitable. And now law enforcement expects to bypass any legal controls, and get what they wish because they want it.
Papers please, comrade. That particular cat has been out of the bag for a while.
Fuck you too, Citizen.
Oh, wait, that's precisely the point. Like most of the rest of the US government, part of the mandate of DHS is now protecting corporate interests like copyright and making sure they can have cheap foreign labor to drive down wages.
Who's fucked now?
Oh, really?
Suddenly I want to see this.
No, we mean tomorrow. See, today is still today, tomorrow will be tomorrow. Apparently your today happened yesterday. Your tomorrow is the day after next.
But tomorrow, by which time it will be today, it will be time for it to be Back to the Future Day. By which time you'll probably be Friday or something stupid like that.
Do try to keep up, I know this time travel thing can be confusing. ;-)
I spent some time in San Francisco in the late 90's, I assume it hasn't changed.
Rent and real estate were so ridiculous, that it's almost impossible. In part because, at the time at least, .com people were driving up the prices because they had to compete with other people who wanted the space -- which led to bidding wars which raised the prices.
I think at the time a 400 sq foot studio apartment was almost $2k monthly or something stupid.
I knew people who had two hour commutes because they could live close to work, or live in a place which had as many bedrooms as they needed. Nobody could afford to do both.
I assume that due to the cost of real estate/rental housing, this has less to do with a living wage as it does if you've been able to amass the capital needed to get into the market.
San Francisco is an incredibly expensive place to live:
That's almost sixty grand to rent a two bedroom apartment.
Well, ignoring the specific definition of 'psychotic' here (which isn't how you're using it) ... the problem with comparing this to your car is there's a significantly higher level of people doing malicious things on the intertubes just for the hell of it.
So, yes, people aren't likely to go around cutting brake lines on cars just for amusement sake. But from a network security perspective? I've found assuming the internet is populated with viscious little sociopaths who would pretty much do anything for a laugh to be a far safer assumption. Because it's often proven true.
When it comes to the network security of something which lives depend on? I would totally assume it needs to be secured much more than it is. I would also assume that if it can be exploited, it will be exploited.
Do you mean other than the constant reminders that there are always people working to demonstrate that as a safe assumption?
I can't tell you why, but since any crazy idiot from anywhere in the world can (and will) try to access anything anywhere in the world ... the level of malicious crap gets ratcheted up by quite a bit.
You know, actual fucking reality.
Plug a brand new PC directly into the internet. Then wait 20 minute and ask again why people assume computer security is done out of necessity and not simple paranoia.
That shit is automated, and indiscriminate. That's not paranoia, that's actual fact. Pretending like computer security is overkill is pretty much just stupidity.