The judge then takes responsibility for making sure the information you get is reliable, rather than some shit you found on the internet.
That doesn't always happen. My last jury stint involved a trial with more than one defendant and an invocation of the so-called "felony murder rule". The judge wanted each jury member to affirm that they would treat the felony murder rule as Gospel, AND made this demand WITHOUT any detailed discussion of its value or history. When I specifically asked for that, the judge flatly denied my request. So I did what any freethinker would have done: during lunch I "broke the rules" using the court house's free wifi and researched the felony murder rule on my Pocket PC.
Given my experience I'm not inclined to fault this woman for what she did, even though she was more surreptitious than I was. She likely figured the judge would have simply denied such a request, as the judge did mine. Our current juror system truly does favor ignorant valueless robots. I'm not happy at all making that observation.
Sorry, but this first-sale-doctrine ship began taking on water decades ago when the absurd concept of a software "license" was allowed to be legally binding.
Yahoo still has a services contract with AT&T (formerly SBC, formerly Pacific Telesis, formerly Pacific Bell *sigh*), presumably, which is probably responsible for 90% of its income these days.
It might seem difficult to argue against transparency in the D-Day example. The challenge lies in that fact that transparency demands consensus to be effective, which didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. If it had existed back then, perhaps World War II would not have occurred and D-Day would not have been necessary. It's why President Obama has been unsuccessful in fulfilling his promise; he doesn't have the consensus of others in his own government. The same challenge exists with true consensual socialism; one capitalist fox in a socialist hen house can do damage. By the same token, one person (or nation) keeping secrets in an otherwise transparent world might cause a devolution to old habits.
We might need to strike an uneasy balance between secrecy and openness in the absence of consensus, but news like this makes it apparent that we're at risk of sliding backward down the timeline of human behavior.
I'd have no problem with that, but it's not my tax return you really want to see: it's your boss' tax return. He'd of course really rather you not see it, for the same reason that HR tells employees to never reveal their wages to each other: there's exploitation afoot and they'd really rather it not be openly discussed.
A totally open government would quickly be destroyed by non open governments.
Respectfully, bullshit. I don't think you can prove that statement. There has never been a crucible in which you can even test that claim. It's repeated ad nauseum as a justification for keeping secrets - by those who wish to keep them - precisely because it cannot be proven. It's a prerequisite to tyranny, ALWAYS. You cannot have tyranny without secrets.
The fact that there may have never been an organization that hasn't kept secrets doesn't prove that it preserves democracy; it only describes previous human (tribalistic) history. Keeping secrets is DEscriptive of human nature; open source methodology is PREscriptive: it requires effort and evolution.
Is that all to which we should aspire, only that which we have done, and how we did it, before? Aren't you a forward thinker!
The issue that concerns them is being denied the ability to keep secrets. If the majority of humans weren't so selfishly short-sighted, they would recognize this simple and obvious truth:
Keeping secrets doesn't preserve democracy... instead it enables tyranny.
Keeping secrets NEVER serves the Common Good; instead it serves selfish tribalistic goals. That tribe could be an entire nation, or more likely it's an "elite" minority within a nation seeking to gain or maintain dominance and exploitation.
This is why the so-called open source movement is far more profound than people realize; it's not just about software, it's about putting an end to ALL secrets and finally achieving true freedom for all (as opposed to a few). We need open source government, and an open source government doesn't keep secrets and doesn't need information-sharing lockdown protocols.
Your example is silly, a non sequitur: nothing in such a license would prohibit READING Wikipedia... which is all you'd be doing if you were "checking sources". If you COPIED the article into your own research-for-profit, though, you'd be begging for a smackdown.
That's what Wikipedia gets for using a not-restrictive-enough Creative Commons license: Amazon has now figured out how to monetize Wikipedia and make money from the unpaid efforts of other people. Wikipedia should have used a license that specifically denied that sort of "capitalization".
AVG has had major show-stopping problems since at least version "2009", which would stubbornly hold files open on local partitions and completely prevent them from being formatted in Windows unless AVG was uninstalled. That's the point that I stopped using it, when it denied me the ability to use a fundamental utility in Windows.
If the Anderson article is right that what Comcast demanded of Level 3 is an amount comparable to the amount that Akamai was paying Comcast under an equivalent agreement, then Level 3 seems to be the real bully. If a formerly exclusive backbone provider wants to elbow into the CDN business, they should have to pay up like other CDNs and not try to leverage their backbone status to get free peering. Level 3's tactic here smells a bit like Microsoft trying to leverage Windows to elbow into other markets.
Read the ARSTechnica perspective. It's less hyperbole and more reason. As I suggested and Nate Anderson at least agrees, there's plenty of shakedown to go around in this particular peering dispute.
Well, hell... if you want to gripe about principles, the entire physical network should be publicly owned, and both Level 3 and Comcast mere contractors. THAT would be true network neutrality, and then we wouldn't even be having peering disputes nor arguments about the contractual principles of them, would we? If you wanna solve the problem, let's actually solve the ROOT problem, not attack the symptoms of it pell-mell. Peering disputes are a symptom of the problem.
I'm not the one playing favorites here, though I'm no fan of Comcast nor the cable TV racket - and I do mean racket as in racketeering - in general. Regardless of Comcast's motives, which of course are unethical, this IS still a peering dispute. Such disputes have never been ethical when they occurred: one party or the other was always trying to use it as an opportunity to gain advantage. Here we have a dispute between a last-mile peer and a backbone-and-budding-content-network peer. Who's "right"? Probably not Comcast. Regardless, it's still a peering dispute. Seeing the term "shaken down" right in the submission title was more inflammatory than I could stand, in spite of my personal hatred of Comcast.
Life imitates art again: welcome to the world of Mad Max. Water ain't the only finite resource. Have you had the catalytic converter stolen off your SUV yet?
Customer: Hello, Netflix, I can't stream your movies anymore. Netflix: Who is your Internet service provider? Customer: Comcast. Why does that matter? Netflix: It matters because it happens to be Comcast. Comcast started demanding a "toll charge" for us to be able to deliver your online movies. We would have to start charging you an extra fee to cover the cost. Would you want that? Customer: No! Netflix: Yeah, we didn't think you would, which is why we refused to pay Comcast the toll charges, but they responded by cutting you off from our video feeds. Can you help us convince them to just be an ISP and not a toll booth collector? Customer: Sure, I can! I'm calling them right now....
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't always happen. My last jury stint involved a trial with more than one defendant and an invocation of the so-called "felony murder rule". The judge wanted each jury member to affirm that they would treat the felony murder rule as Gospel, AND made this demand WITHOUT any detailed discussion of its value or history. When I specifically asked for that, the judge flatly denied my request. So I did what any freethinker would have done: during lunch I "broke the rules" using the court house's free wifi and researched the felony murder rule on my Pocket PC.
Given my experience I'm not inclined to fault this woman for what she did, even though she was more surreptitious than I was. She likely figured the judge would have simply denied such a request, as the judge did mine. Our current juror system truly does favor ignorant valueless robots. I'm not happy at all making that observation.
And MBA = Master of Bullshit Administration?
There, fixed that for u.
Can you think of a better time to do it? That's some bonus checks that didn't get inked. The savings probably went straight to the CEO's belly.
Sorry, but this first-sale-doctrine ship began taking on water decades ago when the absurd concept of a software "license" was allowed to be legally binding.
Dude, that ain't polygamy... that's cannibalism.
(Actually it's usually more like organ theft, since so many "body" parts wind up getting discarded in the process.)
Yahoo still has a services contract with AT&T (formerly SBC, formerly Pacific Telesis, formerly Pacific Bell *sigh*), presumably, which is probably responsible for 90% of its income these days.
Just ONE free beer? What happens when that initial buzz wears off and his wallet is still empty? Poor bastard.
It might seem difficult to argue against transparency in the D-Day example. The challenge lies in that fact that transparency demands consensus to be effective, which didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. If it had existed back then, perhaps World War II would not have occurred and D-Day would not have been necessary. It's why President Obama has been unsuccessful in fulfilling his promise; he doesn't have the consensus of others in his own government. The same challenge exists with true consensual socialism; one capitalist fox in a socialist hen house can do damage. By the same token, one person (or nation) keeping secrets in an otherwise transparent world might cause a devolution to old habits.
We might need to strike an uneasy balance between secrecy and openness in the absence of consensus, but news like this makes it apparent that we're at risk of sliding backward down the timeline of human behavior.
I'd have no problem with that, but it's not my tax return you really want to see: it's your boss' tax return. He'd of course really rather you not see it, for the same reason that HR tells employees to never reveal their wages to each other: there's exploitation afoot and they'd really rather it not be openly discussed.
Naked guys wearing trench coats hanging out near schools?
Respectfully, bullshit. I don't think you can prove that statement. There has never been a crucible in which you can even test that claim. It's repeated ad nauseum as a justification for keeping secrets - by those who wish to keep them - precisely because it cannot be proven. It's a prerequisite to tyranny, ALWAYS. You cannot have tyranny without secrets.
The fact that there may have never been an organization that hasn't kept secrets doesn't prove that it preserves democracy; it only describes previous human (tribalistic) history. Keeping secrets is DEscriptive of human nature; open source methodology is PREscriptive: it requires effort and evolution.
Is that all to which we should aspire, only that which we have done, and how we did it, before? Aren't you a forward thinker!
The issue that concerns them is being denied the ability to keep secrets. If the majority of humans weren't so selfishly short-sighted, they would recognize this simple and obvious truth:
Keeping secrets doesn't preserve democracy... instead it enables tyranny.
Keeping secrets NEVER serves the Common Good; instead it serves selfish tribalistic goals. That tribe could be an entire nation, or more likely it's an "elite" minority within a nation seeking to gain or maintain dominance and exploitation.
This is why the so-called open source movement is far more profound than people realize; it's not just about software, it's about putting an end to ALL secrets and finally achieving true freedom for all (as opposed to a few). We need open source government, and an open source government doesn't keep secrets and doesn't need information-sharing lockdown protocols.
Your example is silly, a non sequitur: nothing in such a license would prohibit READING Wikipedia... which is all you'd be doing if you were "checking sources". If you COPIED the article into your own research-for-profit, though, you'd be begging for a smackdown.
That's what Wikipedia gets for using a not-restrictive-enough Creative Commons license: Amazon has now figured out how to monetize Wikipedia and make money from the unpaid efforts of other people. Wikipedia should have used a license that specifically denied that sort of "capitalization".
AVG has had major show-stopping problems since at least version "2009", which would stubbornly hold files open on local partitions and completely prevent them from being formatted in Windows unless AVG was uninstalled. That's the point that I stopped using it, when it denied me the ability to use a fundamental utility in Windows.
If the Anderson article is right that what Comcast demanded of Level 3 is an amount comparable to the amount that Akamai was paying Comcast under an equivalent agreement, then Level 3 seems to be the real bully. If a formerly exclusive backbone provider wants to elbow into the CDN business, they should have to pay up like other CDNs and not try to leverage their backbone status to get free peering. Level 3's tactic here smells a bit like Microsoft trying to leverage Windows to elbow into other markets.
Read the ARSTechnica perspective. It's less hyperbole and more reason. As I suggested and Nate Anderson at least agrees, there's plenty of shakedown to go around in this particular peering dispute.
Yeah... just how many cinnamon plantations are there? Land for more cinnamon trees or more gated communities?
Or... we could just deal with overpopulation....
Well, hell... if you want to gripe about principles, the entire physical network should be publicly owned, and both Level 3 and Comcast mere contractors. THAT would be true network neutrality, and then we wouldn't even be having peering disputes nor arguments about the contractual principles of them, would we? If you wanna solve the problem, let's actually solve the ROOT problem, not attack the symptoms of it pell-mell. Peering disputes are a symptom of the problem.
Which is what EVERY peering dispute has ever been. You're repeating yourself when just calling it a peering dispute would suffice.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888712&cid=34396772
I'm not the one playing favorites here, though I'm no fan of Comcast nor the cable TV racket - and I do mean racket as in racketeering - in general. Regardless of Comcast's motives, which of course are unethical, this IS still a peering dispute. Such disputes have never been ethical when they occurred: one party or the other was always trying to use it as an opportunity to gain advantage. Here we have a dispute between a last-mile peer and a backbone-and-budding-content-network peer. Who's "right"? Probably not Comcast. Regardless, it's still a peering dispute. Seeing the term "shaken down" right in the submission title was more inflammatory than I could stand, in spite of my personal hatred of Comcast.
Life imitates art again: welcome to the world of Mad Max. Water ain't the only finite resource. Have you had the catalytic converter stolen off your SUV yet?
That isn't how the conversation would take place:
Customer: Hello, Netflix, I can't stream your movies anymore.
Netflix: Who is your Internet service provider?
Customer: Comcast. Why does that matter?
Netflix: It matters because it happens to be Comcast. Comcast started demanding a "toll charge" for us to be able to deliver your online movies. We would have to start charging you an extra fee to cover the cost. Would you want that?
Customer: No!
Netflix: Yeah, we didn't think you would, which is why we refused to pay Comcast the toll charges, but they responded by cutting you off from our video feeds. Can you help us convince them to just be an ISP and not a toll booth collector?
Customer: Sure, I can! I'm calling them right now....