Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.
I should also point out that there is a very clear difference between "illegal" and "unlawful". Basically, the difference comes down to control. "Illegal" means there is a law that forbids it. Assault, for instance, is illegal. By contrast, "lawful" means there is a law or rule that specifically allows it. I like to use jaywalking as the example. Except in very rare exceptions, it is not illegal to jaywalk. It is, however, unlawful, because the law only specifically allows crossing the street at a crosswalk.
That is why the proposed 'Net neutrality rules use the term "unlawful".
So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks.
That doesn't follow. Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.
It's very specific, in many sections, that the neutrality rules apply only to "lawful content". That phrase is all over the proposed rules, as well as the even more troubling phrase "lawful network traffic". So... how do you distinguish between what is "lawful" or not? You must inspect the content (or the protocol, in the case of "lawful network traffic"). The devil is always in the details.
He should pay restitution to the victims, except that there are none. In the US, the Supreme Court overturned a similar, Clinton era, law on the basis that there are no proven victims.
But this is still "unlawful content". So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks. Because it's not "lawful content".
Because technical incompetents (these days mostly non-sentient software) playing the stock market are the final word in the validity and future potential of a new technology.
Not really. Stock prices react to "news" quite consistently - earnings reports usually have the most dramatic effect, but everything significant from corporations will move the stock price. Compare the Apple announcements (even the widespread "rumors" of forthcoming announcements) to the movement of AAPL. Amazing what millions of people can do with a widespread meme, even when it's just a mass hallucination.
The fact that the stock continued to drop after this announcement basically says "it's nothing". Or, it's nothing they're going to make money from. But we already knew that.
Yes, because stock market investors make their decisions based on their scientific analysis of very niche technical products, and they certainly don't just follow larger trends such as, oh, I don't know, "a broad market selloff".
Well you should go ahead and put all your money into Lockeed Martin while it's at fire sale prices, then, since you have the inside track. No doubt in a few years when everybody is buying their fusion reactors you'll be rolling in dough.
I hear this a lot "molten core" "spinning" "causing magnetic field". But where's the proof? I'm not trying to be argumentative (or maybe I am to some small degree) but I would really like to know how this is "known". Because I'm under the impression that this is just a really good educated guess, that has yet to be proven, much like black holes.
I thought the latest theory is that there is actually a uranium-powered nuclear furnace in Earth's core?
Virtualization now allows admins to just add servers quickly to handle the load - still gets noticed, though. Didn't you see the "Welcome Slashdotters" sign?
Don't try to play the sex card, that guy is an asshole. Do you think the reactions 'round here would be different if it had been a woman harassing a guy?
True enough. But why shouldn't everyone be protected against death threats and harassment? Why would women get special justice (anybody remember "equal justice")?
Kathy Sierra has returned to explain why she left and what recent spates of online harassment against women portend for the future if decent people don't organize.
Why not just say against people? "I was harassed and received many death threats" - "So, what, dude? Man up!"
I would say that it is obstructionism, redistricting in ways that do nothing but try and ensure their own reelections, aka gerrymandering, and the such.
Sorta. It is basically 'we control java and no one else'. It is the same argument again. They do not want anyone adding to the language but the gatekeepers.
That had nothing to do with the technology, just the Java(tm) trademark. Google didn't do anything that used the Java(tm) trademark.
... there is a widespread lack of knowledge in the US about the UN bill of human rights and that the US has ratified it. (At least the more basic parts where it clearly says that human rights should be applied equally regardless of nationality.)
What you're referring to is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the US helped to draft. And of course it doesn't include the ridiculous "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which is a completely useless exercise in flexing international power, including a huge caveat on all of its supposed protection that basically says nothing in it applies if it gets in the way of the United Nation's plans and activities.
But the ICCPR doesn't say that a country cannot confer rights to its own citizens that it doesn't confer to others, only that the rights spelled out in the covenant must be conferred to everyone. And there is nothing like the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure in the Covenant. The closest it comes is a blanket statement that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence...", but those "arbitrary or unlawful" qualifiers are a huge loophole, especially the way the US administration has been defending their metadata collection as lawfully authorized.
And the huge loophole right at the top of the Covenant is this:
In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation
Don't you know the US is threatened by ISIS / ISIL / Al Shibob / Al Queuidea / whatever, and with that can justify throwing out those protections.
Kinesis, who makes the Advantage series (crazy bowl shaped keyboard that I'm typing on right now and love to pieces) also makes the Freestyle (two halves), and they make the latter in a Bluetooth configuration. Amusingly, a wireless keyboard with a wire (between the two halves).
No good for me - I gotta have a number pad. Okay - I see they have an add-on keypad available, but it looks like the tilt stands are all add-on options too. So that makes the Freestyle a little to pricey. Not sure from the description about the keys, either. I'll probably just have to stick with getting another ErgoMagic keyboard when my current one wears out.
So this is exactly why Apple would encrypt their entire phone and did not leave a way for them to decrypt their own devices... so that they can avoid situations like this...
Irrelevant in this case, because she (foolishly) consented to the search. We can assume she would have handed over they keys as well, since she didn't object to the search.
Just in case you aren't aware: You can block all that if you use Firefox and a few add-ons: AdBlock Plus, AniDisableHacked and NoScript. They allow me to block out video, among other things.
You don't even need any of that. Just go to Tools -> Add-ons, find Shockwave Flash, and change "Always Activate" to "Ask to Activate". Works for every website all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.
I should also point out that there is a very clear difference between "illegal" and "unlawful". Basically, the difference comes down to control. "Illegal" means there is a law that forbids it. Assault, for instance, is illegal. By contrast, "lawful" means there is a law or rule that specifically allows it. I like to use jaywalking as the example. Except in very rare exceptions, it is not illegal to jaywalk. It is, however, unlawful, because the law only specifically allows crossing the street at a crosswalk.
That is why the proposed 'Net neutrality rules use the term "unlawful".
So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks.
That doesn't follow. Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.
It's very specific, in many sections, that the neutrality rules apply only to "lawful content". That phrase is all over the proposed rules, as well as the even more troubling phrase "lawful network traffic". So... how do you distinguish between what is "lawful" or not? You must inspect the content (or the protocol, in the case of "lawful network traffic"). The devil is always in the details.
He should pay restitution to the victims, except that there are none. In the US, the Supreme Court overturned a similar, Clinton era, law on the basis that there are no proven victims.
But this is still "unlawful content". So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks. Because it's not "lawful content".
Can they be a little more specific as to what it is that's in the soda that is causing this?
You think a beverage that can be used to degrease objects is healthy ? Coca-Cola is about as effective a degreaser as you can find.
It's really good at cleaning stubborn water stains on toilets and sinks, too.
I gave three representative examples, two of which were connected. I could dig up more links but why bother when faced with PopeRatzo.
FTFY. Actually, never mind. They are mostly indistinguishable synonyms.
Because technical incompetents (these days mostly non-sentient software) playing the stock market are the final word in the validity and future potential of a new technology.
Not really. Stock prices react to "news" quite consistently - earnings reports usually have the most dramatic effect, but everything significant from corporations will move the stock price. Compare the Apple announcements (even the widespread "rumors" of forthcoming announcements) to the movement of AAPL. Amazing what millions of people can do with a widespread meme, even when it's just a mass hallucination.
The fact that the stock continued to drop after this announcement basically says "it's nothing". Or, it's nothing they're going to make money from. But we already knew that.
Yes, because stock market investors make their decisions based on their scientific analysis of very niche technical products, and they certainly don't just follow larger trends such as, oh, I don't know, "a broad market selloff".
Well you should go ahead and put all your money into Lockeed Martin while it's at fire sale prices, then, since you have the inside track. No doubt in a few years when everybody is buying their fusion reactors you'll be rolling in dough.
Clearly, they have a big winner on their hands.
Lockheed shares fell 0.6 percent to $175.02 amid a broad market selloff.
Ah. Hmmm... maybe not.
... it's only 10 years away!
I hear this a lot "molten core" "spinning" "causing magnetic field". But where's the proof? I'm not trying to be argumentative (or maybe I am to some small degree) but I would really like to know how this is "known". Because I'm under the impression that this is just a really good educated guess, that has yet to be proven, much like black holes.
I thought the latest theory is that there is actually a uranium-powered nuclear furnace in Earth's core?
Never forget, we are at /.
And, it's GameboyRMH, who has so many "freaks" he probably gets modded down regularly just for being who he is.
Can we still slashdot things?
Virtualization now allows admins to just add servers quickly to handle the load - still gets noticed, though. Didn't you see the "Welcome Slashdotters" sign?
Check your privilege
Don't try to play the sex card, that guy is an asshole. Do you think the reactions 'round here would be different if it had been a woman harassing a guy?
True enough. But why shouldn't everyone be protected against death threats and harassment? Why would women get special justice (anybody remember "equal justice")?
Kathy Sierra has returned to explain why she left and what recent spates of online harassment against women portend for the future if decent people don't organize.
Why not just say against people? "I was harassed and received many death threats" - "So, what, dude? Man up!"
I would say that it is obstructionism, redistricting in ways that do nothing but try and ensure their own reelections, aka gerrymandering, and the such.
Both parties have that in their toolbox. Check this out: Bobby Scott's gerrymandered 3rd District.
Easy to say when republicans block those measures using crony democracy at every turn.
What the hell is "crony democracy"? Dirty looks? Because that's pretty much all Republicans can do to the administration these days.
Sorta. It is basically 'we control java and no one else'. It is the same argument again. They do not want anyone adding to the language but the gatekeepers.
That had nothing to do with the technology, just the Java(tm) trademark. Google didn't do anything that used the Java(tm) trademark.
Do they know the difference between "they're" and "their"?
... there is a widespread lack of knowledge in the US about the UN bill of human rights and that the US has ratified it. (At least the more basic parts where it clearly says that human rights should be applied equally regardless of nationality.)
What you're referring to is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the US helped to draft. And of course it doesn't include the ridiculous "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which is a completely useless exercise in flexing international power, including a huge caveat on all of its supposed protection that basically says nothing in it applies if it gets in the way of the United Nation's plans and activities.
But the ICCPR doesn't say that a country cannot confer rights to its own citizens that it doesn't confer to others, only that the rights spelled out in the covenant must be conferred to everyone. And there is nothing like the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure in the Covenant. The closest it comes is a blanket statement that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence...", but those "arbitrary or unlawful" qualifiers are a huge loophole, especially the way the US administration has been defending their metadata collection as lawfully authorized.
And the huge loophole right at the top of the Covenant is this:
Don't you know the US is threatened by ISIS / ISIL / Al Shibob / Al Queuidea / whatever, and with that can justify throwing out those protections.
dishwasher
Kinesis, who makes the Advantage series (crazy bowl shaped keyboard that I'm typing on right now and love to pieces) also makes the Freestyle (two halves), and they make the latter in a Bluetooth configuration. Amusingly, a wireless keyboard with a wire (between the two halves).
No good for me - I gotta have a number pad. Okay - I see they have an add-on keypad available, but it looks like the tilt stands are all add-on options too. So that makes the Freestyle a little to pricey. Not sure from the description about the keys, either. I'll probably just have to stick with getting another ErgoMagic keyboard when my current one wears out.
Call me when RedHat ships systemd-catalystdriver, until then I'm not touching this old, crufty technology that's clearly not ready for the Cloud.
Good one.
So the problem is people that are old and in the way?
So this is exactly why Apple would encrypt their entire phone and did not leave a way for them to decrypt their own devices... so that they can avoid situations like this...
Irrelevant in this case, because she (foolishly) consented to the search. We can assume she would have handed over they keys as well, since she didn't object to the search.
Just in case you aren't aware: You can block all that if you use Firefox and a few add-ons: AdBlock Plus, AniDisableHacked and NoScript. They allow me to block out video, among other things.
You don't even need any of that. Just go to Tools -> Add-ons, find Shockwave Flash, and change "Always Activate" to "Ask to Activate". Works for every website all the time.