Ran across a YouTube channel where a driver in a mid-sized U.S. city has been surreptitiously recording passengers and posting on a (presumably monetized) channel. Driver uberBeardedman616 is even so bold as to include his driver referral link.
I use a system similar to yours with rigorously different usernames on every forum I register for. Makes it more difficult for stalkers/doxxers to connect the dots.
You can use that "logic" against any analogy; the original analogy is still salient and the deflection to house vs. doll-house is nice rhetoric but is a non sequitur.
Both travel over wires. Both rely on a substantially centralized infrastructure (Baran's dream of a true peer-to-peer network aside). Both are fundamentally electricity. Both are subjects of a discussion of differential pricing and availability based on what the resource is used for. The analogy holds up pretty well.
What you describe is parallel with network neutrality, because it's based on usage only. What the implication of the article was is that somehow the utility would target miners only with higher prices.
A couple of people have made the point that although the headline talks about charging miners more, what they really want to do is to charge higher volume users more. While it has the same effect, it's entirely different than, say, charging double for electricity to run a second air conditioner.
Precisely -- and moreover, if we detect you're running a mining operation, your electricity capacity will be lowered at the meter even if you're within the stated capacity.
A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity while at the same time arguing that its none of ISP's business how their data pipes are used, no?
"That would be like if senior management at Amazon, Uber, and Microsoft exchanged emails saying "this James Damore guy might have some skills but he's the disruptive type.. I'd look at other candidates first."
It's more like if Amazon, Uber, and Microsoft all saw James Damore's memo and the resulting kerfuffle covered in mass media and decided not to hire him. Hardly collusion, though that wouldn't be illegal if it had been.
If I were an NFL owner, I would have fired Kapernick for costing me money. He needed to find some other outlet than his employer's entertainment venue to express his displeasure with the United States.
Nailed it! I am pretty middle of the road along the liberal-conservative spectrum but support the right of both of these employers to fire these employees who are engaging in speech out of alignment with corporate values on company time: neither are a government employer subject to the First Amendment.
I suspect the Bureau of Prisons and the equivalent state and local authorities would have no problems providing GIS compatible boundaries of their facilities.
P.S.: Or prisons could just become cell-free zones. Radios could be used to communicate internally and landlines externally. This is not a hard problem to solve should the government have the will.
The whitelisted IMEIs could be subject to monitoring. Traffic patterns would differ between COs calling home and gang leaders running operations. The NSA has this down--there could be a little technology transfer.
Slashdot Mirror
Wish I had points for you - great explanation.
Had logged in to post that the EFF Streisand-ed that bitch.
Ran across a YouTube channel where a driver in a mid-sized U.S. city has been surreptitiously recording passengers and posting on a (presumably monetized) channel. Driver uberBeardedman616 is even so bold as to include his driver referral link.
I use a system similar to yours with rigorously different usernames on every forum I register for. Makes it more difficult for stalkers/doxxers to connect the dots.
You can use that "logic" against any analogy; the original analogy is still salient and the deflection to house vs. doll-house is nice rhetoric but is a non sequitur.
Both travel over wires. Both rely on a substantially centralized infrastructure (Baran's dream of a true peer-to-peer network aside). Both are fundamentally electricity. Both are subjects of a discussion of differential pricing and availability based on what the resource is used for. The analogy holds up pretty well.
Agreed -- going after volume is technically different than going after coin miners, even if running the miners out of town is the intended effect.
What you describe is parallel with network neutrality, because it's based on usage only. What the implication of the article was is that somehow the utility would target miners only with higher prices.
A couple of people have made the point that although the headline talks about charging miners more, what they really want to do is to charge higher volume users more. While it has the same effect, it's entirely different than, say, charging double for electricity to run a second air conditioner.
Precisely -- and moreover, if we detect you're running a mining operation, your electricity capacity will be lowered at the meter even if you're within the stated capacity.
Really? Safety? We're talking about amount of consumption, not the gauge of wire coming into the service.
Ad hominem, the refuge of those without an argument. What I posted, if I were partisan, would actually be a conservative talking point.
You could make the same argument about bandwidth and use it to justify throttling. Still not seeing a difference, simple or trite though it may be.
A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity while at the same time arguing that its none of ISP's business how their data pipes are used, no?
before it expires (or NVIDIA asks Google to clear it): here
I'm pretty surprised the FBI didn't say he had one then wail that they'd figure the whole crime out had it not been for TEH EVIL ENCRYPTION.
"That would be like if senior management at Amazon, Uber, and Microsoft exchanged emails saying "this James Damore guy might have some skills but he's the disruptive type.. I'd look at other candidates first." It's more like if Amazon, Uber, and Microsoft all saw James Damore's memo and the resulting kerfuffle covered in mass media and decided not to hire him. Hardly collusion, though that wouldn't be illegal if it had been.
If I were an NFL owner, I would have fired Kapernick for costing me money. He needed to find some other outlet than his employer's entertainment venue to express his displeasure with the United States.
Nailed it! I am pretty middle of the road along the liberal-conservative spectrum but support the right of both of these employers to fire these employees who are engaging in speech out of alignment with corporate values on company time: neither are a government employer subject to the First Amendment.
And then phones in those areas are blocked at the tower level. I thought that was self evident, sorry.
And the circle is then complete :).
I suspect the Bureau of Prisons and the equivalent state and local authorities would have no problems providing GIS compatible boundaries of their facilities.
Because it hasn't been implemented. This is quite soluble.
P.S.: Or prisons could just become cell-free zones. Radios could be used to communicate internally and landlines externally. This is not a hard problem to solve should the government have the will.
The whitelisted IMEIs could be subject to monitoring. Traffic patterns would differ between COs calling home and gang leaders running operations. The NSA has this down--there could be a little technology transfer.