Excellent, so this should mean, since my Comcast Internet-only package requires me to tack on a $20 extra fee for the limited basic cable precisely because I can plug the coax into the TV and receive all the unencrypted over-the-air channels and a few others like C-SPAN and home shopping channels, I should be able to opt out since it would require me to also lease a box if they indeed encrypt it, right? I imagine they'd find a way around that and find a way to stick it to me.
I suspect that ultimately I will mount a tall mast on the deck of my apartment complex (I'm on the highest floor) to break the tree line and get OTA reception since my apartment complex has disconnected their antenna and plans to scrap it (there's a room full of amplifiers from the early 80s that goes to the units, no idea if they even work for the DTV frequency range). Thankfully the FCC makes it legal for me to mount an antenna for DTV reception and there's not a damn thing the complex can do about it. I warned my apartment complex that I would the moment I'm compelled to pay a dime more for something I don't even want and they refuse to fix their antenna. Like hell I'm leasing a DTV box just for OTA stuff and the shopping network!
I guess it varies heavily on the company size, culture, what you want to use it for, etc. However, I've had jobs where I had rack space and relied on my servers for many things, and served as a test environment for new things to implement in the company. It's extra monitoring on my part when I'm putting the same dependence on my systems working as their systems working. It was a mutual benefit, and I've heard similar stories of policies like this elsewhere. When I took a new job, I simply found it a new home, granted if I were fired and had no notice that might be a little different. I think it makes people better employees.
Since no one has suggested it, I'll throw this out there:
What about rack space? Hey, if my shit goes down too or needs maintenance, I'm going to go out of my way to be there after hours, and perhaps catch up on a little work while waiting for my stuff to install/replicate.
How would they know these open access points are connected to the Internet without connecting to them? If they did so and it crossed state lines, they could face federal charges.
Would Americans honestly care if their access to Iran's sites were blocked? If Google was an Iranian company, I don't think most would honestly miss it much if it were banned here, especially if you were being sanctioned and a victim of cyber attacks.
I can find full length copyrighted movies and songs on Youtube with incredible ease. I can easily, through an add-on or the audio/video out, capture or record them. The point is, who cares? Yes, it's offensive, but the author doesn't seem mad because someone used his work (for example, if a portion were used in a factual science documentary), it's because his work was used in a manner that he finds offensive. He seems to be appealing to emotion and not principle.
I don't know who modded you offtopic, but your post is very relevant to this thread. The article submitter is trying to assert DMCA protections to other countries, a law that has enflamed the Slashdot community since its inception. Yet, we have one of the founders of the Pirate Bay who never shared a single file or posted copyrighted content now detained in Sweden after being found guilty for aiding in copyright infringement (getting him extradited was on completely different grounds). So the logic should be, if the argument is to hold them accountable, why not go after Youtube?
It just requires you to use subjective logic. i.e. "I don't believe the DNA examiner said there was his DNA on the bloody glove". Don't go in and say, "I think this law is bullshit and I want to nullify this." That's a quick way to dismissal.
Google already has a huge amount of information on the people who viewed this video. Correlated with these people's search history and all the information they retain, they can sell this information for a ridiculous amount of money. Whether they restrict it or not, they can follow exactly how it propagated, who talked with who, who their friends are, etc. They win either way.
There aren't charges, only suspicions. To hold someone and prevent them communicating to anyone (which is preposterous since it's all over the news) just because they may have involvement would never fly in the US. He's being detained for 2 weeks, and they can stretch that out indefinitely.
People are oblivious to the fact that the FBI and the intelligence community runs several shell companies. This proves nothing. I've never heard of this little company before, yet what are they doing with all that information? Yet, they provide ZERO proof.
Also, Anonymous claims they only released 1 million out of a purported 15 million entries. I think it's time Anonymous dumped the entire database, fully unredacted to prove them wrong.
Even more so, if Apple denies they handed it over to an agency, that doesn't mean that a shell company partnering with Apple, or a mole within Apple didn't hand it over to the NCFTA.
That's not the allegation that Apple gave the FBI that information. They never said that Apple gave it over to the FBI. The filename allegedly stolen was NCFTA_iOS_devices_intel.csv , which means it came from the NCFTA, not from Apple.
Why won't they ask Apple if they handed it to the NCFTA or that the NCFTA requested it? Then let's see what they have to say...
What has Obama or the Democrats done for you in the past four years when it concerns Internet or technology freedom?
They've blocked the AT&T - T-mobile merger. They forced Verizon to actually follow the net neutrality guidelines they agreed to as part of the spectrum auction. They approved really weak net neutrality guidelines, though this last one will take years before it really affects anything.
That's mostly it. They've had a rough four years: most government agencies are still understaffed, since so many high-level government positions are still vacant thanks to Republican fillabusters.
So if internet freedom is contingent on spending levels and an administration in power that appoints people that are pro-freedom, we're good, right? That's a pretty shaky foundation there. How about passing laws, or better yet, a constitutional amendment? Do things, you know.. if you've ever read the constitution.. legally?
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent, so this should mean, since my Comcast Internet-only package requires me to tack on a $20 extra fee for the limited basic cable precisely because I can plug the coax into the TV and receive all the unencrypted over-the-air channels and a few others like C-SPAN and home shopping channels, I should be able to opt out since it would require me to also lease a box if they indeed encrypt it, right? I imagine they'd find a way around that and find a way to stick it to me.
I suspect that ultimately I will mount a tall mast on the deck of my apartment complex (I'm on the highest floor) to break the tree line and get OTA reception since my apartment complex has disconnected their antenna and plans to scrap it (there's a room full of amplifiers from the early 80s that goes to the units, no idea if they even work for the DTV frequency range). Thankfully the FCC makes it legal for me to mount an antenna for DTV reception and there's not a damn thing the complex can do about it. I warned my apartment complex that I would the moment I'm compelled to pay a dime more for something I don't even want and they refuse to fix their antenna. Like hell I'm leasing a DTV box just for OTA stuff and the shopping network!
Exactly. Unless the people own the spectrum used, it's not a right.
Inspired by flying wheels and fiery chariots? Please, go on.
I'm trying to still wrap my head around the inspirations for Renaissance paintings like The Madonna with Saint Giovannino.
Adobe, prepare to be sued.
I guess it varies heavily on the company size, culture, what you want to use it for, etc. However, I've had jobs where I had rack space and relied on my servers for many things, and served as a test environment for new things to implement in the company. It's extra monitoring on my part when I'm putting the same dependence on my systems working as their systems working. It was a mutual benefit, and I've heard similar stories of policies like this elsewhere. When I took a new job, I simply found it a new home, granted if I were fired and had no notice that might be a little different. I think it makes people better employees.
Since no one has suggested it, I'll throw this out there:
What about rack space? Hey, if my shit goes down too or needs maintenance, I'm going to go out of my way to be there after hours, and perhaps catch up on a little work while waiting for my stuff to install/replicate.
How would they know these open access points are connected to the Internet without connecting to them?
If they did so and it crossed state lines, they could face federal charges.
You're getting your people mixed up. What does Assange have to do with the Pirate Bay? Wrong extradition, dude.
Would Americans honestly care if their access to Iran's sites were blocked? If Google was an Iranian company, I don't think most would honestly miss it much if it were banned here, especially if you were being sanctioned and a victim of cyber attacks.
> Why go after Youtube?
I can find full length copyrighted movies and songs on Youtube with incredible ease. I can easily, through an add-on or the audio/video out, capture or record them.
The point is, who cares? Yes, it's offensive, but the author doesn't seem mad because someone used his work (for example, if a portion were used in a factual science documentary), it's because his work was used in a manner that he finds offensive. He seems to be appealing to emotion and not principle.
I don't know who modded you offtopic, but your post is very relevant to this thread.
The article submitter is trying to assert DMCA protections to other countries, a law that has enflamed the Slashdot community since its inception.
Yet, we have one of the founders of the Pirate Bay who never shared a single file or posted copyrighted content now detained in Sweden after being found guilty for aiding in copyright infringement (getting him extradited was on completely different grounds). So the logic should be, if the argument is to hold them accountable, why not go after Youtube?
It just requires you to use subjective logic. i.e. "I don't believe the DNA examiner said there was his DNA on the bloody glove". Don't go in and say, "I think this law is bullshit and I want to nullify this." That's a quick way to dismissal.
Google already has a huge amount of information on the people who viewed this video. Correlated with these people's search history and all the information they retain, they can sell this information for a ridiculous amount of money. Whether they restrict it or not, they can follow exactly how it propagated, who talked with who, who their friends are, etc. They win either way.
There aren't charges, only suspicions. To hold someone and prevent them communicating to anyone (which is preposterous since it's all over the news) just because they may have involvement would never fly in the US. He's being detained for 2 weeks, and they can stretch that out indefinitely.
Maybe Gandi?
https://www.gandi.net/hosting/
People are oblivious to the fact that the FBI and the intelligence community runs several shell companies. This proves nothing. I've never heard of this little company before, yet what are they doing with all that information? Yet, they provide ZERO proof.
Also, Anonymous claims they only released 1 million out of a purported 15 million entries. I think it's time Anonymous dumped the entire database, fully unredacted to prove them wrong.
Because it's on ISM bands that people can legally transmit and receive data on and the spectrum isn't licensed to any specific network.
"No, Bill, the spaceship is not going to be cigar shaped..."
Even more so, if Apple denies they handed it over to an agency, that doesn't mean that a shell company partnering with Apple, or a mole within Apple didn't hand it over to the NCFTA.
That's not the allegation that Apple gave the FBI that information. They never said that Apple gave it over to the FBI. The filename allegedly stolen was NCFTA_iOS_devices_intel.csv , which means it came from the NCFTA, not from Apple.
Why won't they ask Apple if they handed it to the NCFTA or that the NCFTA requested it? Then let's see what they have to say...
Yes, because we all know that the American Academy of Pediatrics is in the pocket of Big Circumcision.
Of course - don't you know how many tips they receive for the procedure?
The computer really didn't want to give an answer after being asked so many times, but was forced to take a side.
Computers with natural attitudes.
What has Obama or the Democrats done for you in the past four years when it concerns Internet or technology freedom?
They've blocked the AT&T - T-mobile merger.
They forced Verizon to actually follow the net neutrality guidelines they agreed to as part of the spectrum auction.
They approved really weak net neutrality guidelines, though this last one will take years before it really affects anything.
That's mostly it. They've had a rough four years: most government agencies are still understaffed, since so many high-level government positions are still vacant thanks to Republican fillabusters.
So if internet freedom is contingent on spending levels and an administration in power that appoints people that are pro-freedom, we're good, right?
That's a pretty shaky foundation there. How about passing laws, or better yet, a constitutional amendment? Do things, you know.. if you've ever read the constitution.. legally?
What I meant to say is, what appeal to authority - in a fallacious context?