What I want to know is which piece of Australian legislation gives the Australian courts any kind of jurisdiction over content hosted in a foreign country and why the judge in Australia thinks they have any right to make a court order against a site located in the USA.
If an employer gives an employee $20,000 in salary as actual money, the employee has to declare that as income and pay applicable tax on that. If the employer gives the employee a car worth $20,000 the employee has to declare that as income and pay the same tax on it. If the employer (the university in this case) gives the employee x amount of free tuition that they would otherwise have to pay for, why shouldn't that be taxed?
There are (or were) rules preventing one entity from owning more than a certain number of TV stations across the entire US. Has that rule gone away with these changes as well or is there still an overall restriction? (and if so, what is the number currently set at)
I don't get why manufacturers are so reluctant to provide even the most basic security on these things. There is no reason why these bluetooth "smart locks" (for example) couldn't implement decent authentication/encryption on the things except that the manufacturer wants to save the 1c/device (multiplied by x number of devices) it would cost to pay a few programmers to actually implement decent security (heck, they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel when the open source community has already done it and they can just grab an off-the-shelf library to do most of the work for them)
And I bet playing actual soccer (even with the price of a nice pair of Nike Soccer Boots and all the other kit you need) will STILL be cheaper than playing the latest FIFA with all its microtransations...
I will never spend a cent of my money on games that feature microtransactions, loot crates or any other kind of endless-spending mechanic like this.
I will buy games where its possible to spend x amount of money and own everything there is to own at that point.
The last game I purchased (other than a few classics from gog.com and things) would have been Fallout 4 which doesn't have microtransactions, loot crates, pay-to-win or any other nasties.
Yes it has the Creators Club but A.That didn't exist when I bought the game, B.You do not need to spend a cent on Creators Club items to enjoy the game to its fullest and C.Its still possible (if you want to) to buy every single piece of creators club content and own it all (until more comes out) unlike microtransactions, loot crates or pay-to-win where you have to keep spending and spending and spending. Oh and with Fallout 4 there is nothing stopping you from getting most of what Creation Club offers via free mods (i.e. there is nothing Creators Club content can get you that mods cant except for not disabling achievements)
I will continue to support companies (including Bethesda) who haven't introduced this kind of crap but I have already blacklisted both Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard over this crap (and many other things) and will quite possibly also blacklist EA in the future (their one chance to make me like them again is if they release a new Command & Conquer game that is actually playable unlike the garbage that was C&C4)
Thinking about it some more, it does make some sense. The FBI probably wants to know if he was a criminal (who shot the place up for his own reasons) or a terrorist (who shot the place up because Islamic State or whoever told him to go commit violence in the name god).
If he was a terrorist then they need to find out how his mind got warped to the point where he decided to go shoot up a church so they can take further action in an attempt to stop other people from having their mind similarly warped and reduce the number of people who shoot up churches in the name of god.
But if he was just a regular criminal they can just make a few statements about gun violence and move onto the next case.
The guy is dead and wont be shooting anyone else and if he wasn't, they would have more enough physical evidence to send the guy to Huntsville for lethal injection.
What exactly are they hoping to find by getting into this guy's phone that they cant get through physical evidence at the crime scene?
There are a number of proposals out there for alternatives that would supplant or replace CAs as the root of trust on the web. Storing keys in DNS via DNSSEC and DANE for one.EFF Sovereign Keys proposal. And I swear there are others but I cant find any right now.
Right now we are in a situation where any one of who knows how many CAs can produce a valid certificate for a web site without the web site even knowing it (and can do so for any number of reasons including a rogue employee, a government or government agency forcing them to do it or a hacker compromising the system and stealing the keys as happened to another Dutch CA, DigiNotar)
Why has there been no interest in supporting these alternatives that eliminate the possibility of CAs producing bogus certificates?
Actually to be fair, the Android thing may still have "activated" in the background without telling me it was doing anything (it did some sort of check for updates when I turned it on for the first time).
But regardless, there is no reason a phone needs to have any kind of "activation". It should be possible insert the SIM, turn on the phone and have it able to work and do voice calls, SMS, data, WiFi and whatever else all without needing to talk to any backend stuff first.
I have owned a Motorola e376i, a Motorola l6, a Motorola z6, a Nokia N900 and most recently a Vodafone Smart Mini 7 (that I bought as a cheap temporary phone for a while because my N900 was out of action but which now sits in a drawer since I fixed my N900) and none of them have required me to register or take any action before the phone was usable.
Why these phones even need "activation" rather than just "insert your SIM card and everything starts working" like with every phone I have ever owned is beyond me.
Yes the Smart Mini 7 Android offered "register/login to Google" and the like when I turned it on but I was able to click past that and move on.
I am on an ADSL2+ connection here in Australia and I am currently syncing at 8.7mbps downstream and 1mbps upstream and I can actually GET those speeds or something close to it.
Whilst it would be nice to have something a little faster for those times when I am downloading large files, I have no complaints about either the speeds I get or the service I get from my ISP.
However, according to the map for the NBN in Australia, I am apparently going to get HFC (by far the worst fixed-line broadband technology ever invented) so my internet will probably actually get WORSE:(
If Microsoft are smart, they would have implemented a dynamic recompiler similar to what Apple did with Rosetta or what MAME and Dolphin and other emulators are doing. Writing a dynamic recompiler for the PowerPC isn't exactly a new thing.
Given how easy it is for the US to launch enough missiles (both land based and submarine launched) to turn North Korea into a smoking hole in the ground, why would they need nuclear-armed bombers that take far longer to get to the target?
There is a grey area around things like the NVIDIA blobs and other "binary kernel modules". But when companies refuse to even try to comply with the GPL and share the kernel source for their device, there is no "grey area", its just as much of a copyright violation as it is when someone shares an illegal copy of the latest Star Wars film.
Its the same when someone distributes a kernel module or changes and has based it on existing GPL code (e.g. when Samsung distributed kernels for some of their phones but didn't include the code for the ExFat module even though said module was derived from the GPL FAT code)
Considering how expensive a Galaxy or other high-end Android device is, I doubt anyone using such a thing is using one because they can't afford a "real phone" (by which I assume you mean Apple)
And if not, is there something I can add to my AdBlock filter list that will block these in-browser miners or some other way to block these that doesn't require turning off JavaScript or white-listing every JavaScript site I actually want to visit?
Given how much money laundering takes place in Russia using state-issued currencies such as the US Dollar and Russian Ruble, its a bit rich for Russia to be worried about money laundering in Bitcoin and other crypto currencies.
The real (and unstated reason) is likely to be about control, just like China. They want to stop people being able to move their wealth into assets (cryptocurrencies for example) that they cant monitor, apply taxes to or otherwise control.
Its amazing that sites run by major media organizations with huge amounts of money all buckled under the load but a geek site without a huge amount of money behind it was able to survive without failing. (at least I assume the money behind Slashdot at that time was less than the money behind entities like CNN)
Its going to cost $x to rebuild the grid with what was there before. Its going to cost $y for this solution from Tesla.
If the difference between $x and $y is low enough that it makes sense to go with the Tesla solution (because it can most likely restore power to some parts of the island faster, because it will probably require a lot less rebuilding after the next major hurricane and because it may reduce power bills for residents) then they should do it rather than just rebuilding the old solution.
Slashdot Mirror
What I want to know is which piece of Australian legislation gives the Australian courts any kind of jurisdiction over content hosted in a foreign country and why the judge in Australia thinks they have any right to make a court order against a site located in the USA.
If an employer gives an employee $20,000 in salary as actual money, the employee has to declare that as income and pay applicable tax on that. If the employer gives the employee a car worth $20,000 the employee has to declare that as income and pay the same tax on it. If the employer (the university in this case) gives the employee x amount of free tuition that they would otherwise have to pay for, why shouldn't that be taxed?
There are (or were) rules preventing one entity from owning more than a certain number of TV stations across the entire US. Has that rule gone away with these changes as well or is there still an overall restriction? (and if so, what is the number currently set at)
I don't get why manufacturers are so reluctant to provide even the most basic security on these things. There is no reason why these bluetooth "smart locks" (for example) couldn't implement decent authentication/encryption on the things except that the manufacturer wants to save the 1c/device (multiplied by x number of devices) it would cost to pay a few programmers to actually implement decent security (heck, they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel when the open source community has already done it and they can just grab an off-the-shelf library to do most of the work for them)
And I bet playing actual soccer (even with the price of a nice pair of Nike Soccer Boots and all the other kit you need) will STILL be cheaper than playing the latest FIFA with all its microtransations...
I will never spend a cent of my money on games that feature microtransactions, loot crates or any other kind of endless-spending mechanic like this.
I will buy games where its possible to spend x amount of money and own everything there is to own at that point.
The last game I purchased (other than a few classics from gog.com and things) would have been Fallout 4 which doesn't have microtransactions, loot crates, pay-to-win or any other nasties.
Yes it has the Creators Club but A.That didn't exist when I bought the game, B.You do not need to spend a cent on Creators Club items to enjoy the game to its fullest and C.Its still possible (if you want to) to buy every single piece of creators club content and own it all (until more comes out) unlike microtransactions, loot crates or pay-to-win where you have to keep spending and spending and spending. Oh and with Fallout 4 there is nothing stopping you from getting most of what Creation Club offers via free mods (i.e. there is nothing Creators Club content can get you that mods cant except for not disabling achievements)
I will continue to support companies (including Bethesda) who haven't introduced this kind of crap but I have already blacklisted both Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard over this crap (and many other things) and will quite possibly also blacklist EA in the future (their one chance to make me like them again is if they release a new Command & Conquer game that is actually playable unlike the garbage that was C&C4)
Thinking about it some more, it does make some sense. The FBI probably wants to know if he was a criminal (who shot the place up for his own reasons) or a terrorist (who shot the place up because Islamic State or whoever told him to go commit violence in the name god).
If he was a terrorist then they need to find out how his mind got warped to the point where he decided to go shoot up a church so they can take further action in an attempt to stop other people from having their mind similarly warped and reduce the number of people who shoot up churches in the name of god.
But if he was just a regular criminal they can just make a few statements about gun violence and move onto the next case.
The guy is dead and wont be shooting anyone else and if he wasn't, they would have more enough physical evidence to send the guy to Huntsville for lethal injection.
What exactly are they hoping to find by getting into this guy's phone that they cant get through physical evidence at the crime scene?
There are a number of proposals out there for alternatives that would supplant or replace CAs as the root of trust on the web. Storing keys in DNS via DNSSEC and DANE for one .EFF Sovereign Keys proposal. And I swear there are others but I cant find any right now.
Right now we are in a situation where any one of who knows how many CAs can produce a valid certificate for a web site without the web site even knowing it (and can do so for any number of reasons including a rogue employee, a government or government agency forcing them to do it or a hacker compromising the system and stealing the keys as happened to another Dutch CA, DigiNotar)
Why has there been no interest in supporting these alternatives that eliminate the possibility of CAs producing bogus certificates?
Actually to be fair, the Android thing may still have "activated" in the background without telling me it was doing anything (it did some sort of check for updates when I turned it on for the first time).
But regardless, there is no reason a phone needs to have any kind of "activation". It should be possible insert the SIM, turn on the phone and have it able to work and do voice calls, SMS, data, WiFi and whatever else all without needing to talk to any backend stuff first.
I have owned a Motorola e376i, a Motorola l6, a Motorola z6, a Nokia N900 and most recently a Vodafone Smart Mini 7 (that I bought as a cheap temporary phone for a while because my N900 was out of action but which now sits in a drawer since I fixed my N900) and none of them have required me to register or take any action before the phone was usable.
Why these phones even need "activation" rather than just "insert your SIM card and everything starts working" like with every phone I have ever owned is beyond me.
Yes the Smart Mini 7 Android offered "register/login to Google" and the like when I turned it on but I was able to click past that and move on.
Calling it a subsidy is wrong, it should really be called a "tax deduction".
"the cloud" is really just "someone else's computer" and if you store data on it, that other entity can deny you access to it.
I am on an ADSL2+ connection here in Australia and I am currently syncing at 8.7mbps downstream and 1mbps upstream and I can actually GET those speeds or something close to it.
Whilst it would be nice to have something a little faster for those times when I am downloading large files, I have no complaints about either the speeds I get or the service I get from my ISP.
However, according to the map for the NBN in Australia, I am apparently going to get HFC (by far the worst fixed-line broadband technology ever invented) so my internet will probably actually get WORSE :(
I bet the XBOX One CPU has more power than the CPUs in the first Intel Mac systems (where Apple used a PPC Dynarec to support PPC apps on Intel Macs)
If Microsoft are smart, they would have implemented a dynamic recompiler similar to what Apple did with Rosetta or what MAME and Dolphin and other emulators are doing. Writing a dynamic recompiler for the PowerPC isn't exactly a new thing.
Given how easy it is for the US to launch enough missiles (both land based and submarine launched) to turn North Korea into a smoking hole in the ground, why would they need nuclear-armed bombers that take far longer to get to the target?
There is a grey area around things like the NVIDIA blobs and other "binary kernel modules". But when companies refuse to even try to comply with the GPL and share the kernel source for their device, there is no "grey area", its just as much of a copyright violation as it is when someone shares an illegal copy of the latest Star Wars film.
Its the same when someone distributes a kernel module or changes and has based it on existing GPL code (e.g. when Samsung distributed kernels for some of their phones but didn't include the code for the ExFat module even though said module was derived from the GPL FAT code)
Considering how expensive a Galaxy or other high-end Android device is, I doubt anyone using such a thing is using one because they can't afford a "real phone" (by which I assume you mean Apple)
And if not, is there something I can add to my AdBlock filter list that will block these in-browser miners or some other way to block these that doesn't require turning off JavaScript or white-listing every JavaScript site I actually want to visit?
I wish someone would turn Neuromancer into a film, it would be far better than a lot of the garbage we get at the cinema these days.
Given how much money laundering takes place in Russia using state-issued currencies such as the US Dollar and Russian Ruble, its a bit rich for Russia to be worried about money laundering in Bitcoin and other crypto currencies.
The real (and unstated reason) is likely to be about control, just like China. They want to stop people being able to move their wealth into assets (cryptocurrencies for example) that they cant monitor, apply taxes to or otherwise control.
Its amazing that sites run by major media organizations with huge amounts of money all buckled under the load but a geek site without a huge amount of money behind it was able to survive without failing. (at least I assume the money behind Slashdot at that time was less than the money behind entities like CNN)
I think Amazon has a fair way to go yet before they are big enough to be a threat to the Walmart juggernaut.
Its going to cost $x to rebuild the grid with what was there before.
Its going to cost $y for this solution from Tesla.
If the difference between $x and $y is low enough that it makes sense to go with the Tesla solution (because it can most likely restore power to some parts of the island faster, because it will probably require a lot less rebuilding after the next major hurricane and because it may reduce power bills for residents) then they should do it rather than just rebuilding the old solution.