I like that, actually. Internet banishment (or at least from the major services we now think of as critical to the Internet) as a punishment for inflicting damage on the Internet.
Google would certainly have the ability to identify his connections and block Google Docs, GMail, and search. Netflix requires an account. You'd still have to get Microsoft online before you'd be able to hurt him significantly.
On the other hand, I suspect those corporations don't want to be seen taking personalized retaliatory action against a regulator.
It would, ultimately, be much better politically to buy controlling stakes in all the local ISPs and then ban him from service that way.
It would probably make a Republican's soul shiver in horror... but I think perhaps that (excepting new products and services for the first decade or so) monopolies need to be made illegal in a more effective way.
Perhaps legislation that exponentially increases the corporate tax rate for every percentage of market share over 50% (or 33% or 25% depending on what you believe the minimum required number of pie slices is for healthy competition). Force them to price themselves upwards until it's economically possible for competition to arise.
It just throws up a warning icon and leaves it there regardless of what site I visit.
ANY site you allow to run client-side scripts should be assumed to be logging your activity. Any site you give personal information to should be assumed to be either selling it or at imminent risk of having it stolen. Or both.
That's not even paranoia, that's just common bloody sense; it's what financial self interest on the part of content providers and hackers leads to.
> I wonder why these similarities and possibilities have never been considered in the drive to prove that water existed or exists on Mars.
I'm just going to throw this out there - when you're talking about dynamic activity on another planet... the people doing this research have not only considered those things, but done their best to model them to an infinite number of decimal places.
They're looking for life, and the best way we know of to find it is to look for liquid water. So they look for possible (not necessarily absolutely certain!) water. They found something that could be interpreted as a sign of water, they worked on those theories and models for a while, and now they're finding it more likely it's not water.
That's science. It not only doesn't get everything right on the first guess, the process doesn't even claim to.
>The largest censors are fighting for this rule. On general principle alone they should be denied.
That is no way to judge the content of an argument.
>You are free to speak, no one is forced to give you a platform. You are free to build your own platform.
Yep. I'll just pop out to the hardware store and buy the materials to build a second Internet from the ground up. That sounds feasible. I bet you think every road should be a corporate-owned toll road, too.
In short... I'm going to have to second that "LOL, idiot" comment. You've earned it.
People are very poor judges of cost vs. reward, especially as you scale both up.
Take the lottery, for instance. We simply can't understand 'millions', and we know people do win the lottery, so it's very difficult to understand the chances of winning the pot. We think they're much better than they are, and few people consider how much even a ticket a week adds up to over time.
Or criminals. The average bank robber or corner drug dealer ends up with less than minimum wage (slightly offset by periodic offers by the state for free room and board). They're underestimating the costs of doing business while overestimating the chance of being one of the few to be extremely successful.
This is life - people are happy with rules that leave them living at a lower standard than objectively necessary for society's functioning because they imagine they will be the exception that will receive an exceptional benefit from those rules. And the really poor simply have no power at all, no say in the matter unless they're willing to revolt - and honestly, even people who are pretty poor in the West have something to lose in a revolution.
Who is left to change things? There aren't enough people with nothing to lose or idealists willing to lose what they have.
Neither Google nor Facebook are trying to prevent me from using their competitors. Various content-providing ISPs around the USA are salivating at the thought of throttling competitor's services into uselessness.
I won't insult your intelligence as you insulted mine. Rather, I'd suggest you're being outright deceptive to promote your view.
If you think NN is about censorship, you're looking at the wrong issue.
It's about charging for preferential treatment on what should be public infrastructure. Net Neutrality is what stands between an even playing field for businesses, and gated information communities built by large vertically integrated conglomerates controlling what people in their service area are allowed to see and hear (in order to extract more money from them).
Propaganda and censorship will come with that, but they're more like a bonus than the primary goal of abolishing the regulations.
I LOVE to do that, because you know somewhere they're tracking that - "Hey, people using us to find Bing instead are up 5% today!" OK, they're probably just laughing instead of seeing it as an indication of a problem with their service, but whatever.
I do have to be in the right mood so that the amusement is worth the delay.
Google's only removing this for results served up via Google.ru, right?
Anyway, the better way to do this (for the evil government) would not be to depend on the foreign search engine, but to mandate ISPs have transparent proxies that will filter pages on the fly. And also (not coincidentally) MitM your SSL for the police and intelligence agencies to be able to access all your traffic.
Remove the links not just from Google, but from anything served up to a Russian-connected computer from any source.
I laugh at people for that, but occasionally do it myself.
Mostly because it can actually be faster when your homepage is Google, and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox. And Google can handle spelling mistakes.
Of course, then I have to click on a search result...
You know it boils down to team loyalty, right? I honestly don't know why they bother lying or trying to misdirect your attention when they don't care and will continue to support their team (or continue to act in the same way if they are the team).
Trump could pretty much come out and say, "Yeah, my team colluded with the Russians to spike Hillary. That's the way business is done, and that's why you elected me." Then there'd be a lot more screaming than there has been, and you'd find most of the Republican establishment would fail to act regardless. I'm pretty sure the only reason Trump hasn't done that is because it would lessen what he perceives as his part in his victory, and his ego won't allow it.
Holding power isn't about who is right or righteous, it's about who has enough power to hold onto their power; the appearance of being right or righteous is only maintained when it helps gain or maintain required support for holding on to power.
Eh. I think the Democrats would have been a better choice for the average American than the Republicans in the last election, and that kind of does matter. Especially if you're transsexual, female, or non-white. Or maybe if you're expecting Trump's economic policies to benefit you (and you're not one of the 1%). Or maybe you're just worried about Trump's lack of decorum causing the US issues (up to and including starting a major war) on the international stage.
The underlying problem is the American political system pretty much inevitably leads to polarization, and then people start voting for their team rather than the best person to represent them based on their individual stances on the issues. And then you have a situation where a significant minority of one half the population can install someone like Trump in the White House.
They imagine it looks superficially honest to eliminate public comment based on a bureaucratic process. What they've overlooked is that the mob doesn't care about superficial appearances when they know you're just ignoring them... and the mob REALLY doesn't like it when you rub it in their face that you don't care about them.
I think they just told the American public to eat cake.
But of course they're doing what they want, and what the Republican party wants them to do... remove impediments to fleecing the commoners (who voted for them!) more efficiently.
So... is it time for the guillotines yet? When will the public turn on those who are betraying them? When will enough of them even realize they're being betrayed?
>I live in the US and we have wild turkeys in my neighborhood, (yes, I do live in a city! They come downtown.)
I've seen foxes most often (I don't count raccoons and skunks, since at this point they're effectively urban-adapted), a couple of coyotes, and recently some wild turkeys. I couldn't even tell you where the nearest green space is, and still the critters show up. Mind you, I can count the wild animals I've seen in an urban environment over the last four decades without taking my socks off, but I HAVE seen some.
As a city-dweller... it's amazing when you come across wild animals like that.
>The best advice I've ever heard is to trust your local want ads the most.
But you still have to compare the cost of the required education to the expected income of the targeted position, and then adjust for the non-financial factors like 'will this job drain me of my will to live?' or 'will I end up wrecking my back?'.
As a general trend, anything you choose to do that involves caring for the elderly probably has a decent future as society greys... but that just means the job will be there, not that it's a great job or that it pays well.
They have a script, you know. This has been played out over and over and over and it pretty much always ends the same way - with the criminals fading away and the 'investors' moving on to get fleeced by the next crypto scam.
>, I don't want ANY mix of states stickign their noses into the traffic when the purchase I'm making is on an E-commerce site hosted in California, for a company whose physical presence is in Oregon, but incorporated in Delaware, but shipping from Texas...
An interesting problem. In terms of customer taxation, I think the sale should count from the last physical location owned by the merchant on the item's route to you. That works for 'cloud' services, too... wherever the server you connect to is located, that's the point of taxation. If it is distributed, then the vendor can worry about splitting up the taxes after collecting the combined amount from you.
But that would probably make some kind of sense, and thus never actually be codified in law.
> a felony DUI would be a reasonable reason to disqualify from most jobs, in the sense that it'd be pretty safe to assume that person is going to be working drunk quite a bit.
Assuming a confirmed period of sobriety and a lack of addiction-related criminal behaviour (like stealing to support a habit, or getting violent when under the influence) I would be OK with hiring a recovering addict. I'd even be enthusiastic about giving them a second chance if they had a parole obligation to go for drug testing periodically, even if the only result of failing the test was the parole officer informing me so I could decide whether or not to fire them.
>It's a sad thing for the world.. but a great opportunity for Europe.
For the rest of the world, services can be hosted outside the USA and we won't have a problem. Any American content that can be locally cached in our countries will be fine, too. So maybe we'll have issues with American sporting events, possibly trouble if we want to join a multiplayer gaming server in the US. I don't think it'll hurt the rest of the world enough to care. If anything, it'll reduce American media influence around the globe.
For you Americans, though... if your American ISP decides to charge based on packet type AND either the origin or destination, you're done. It's not like you can use a VPN connection to access services from outside a 'no-net-neutrality zone', because they'll be charging the highest rates for that kind of traffic specifically to prevent such behaviour.
Americans will get less choice and higher prices as ISPs promote vertical integration by adding costs to services they don't own (or aren't owned by).
Slashdot Mirror
I like that, actually. Internet banishment (or at least from the major services we now think of as critical to the Internet) as a punishment for inflicting damage on the Internet.
Google would certainly have the ability to identify his connections and block Google Docs, GMail, and search. Netflix requires an account. You'd still have to get Microsoft online before you'd be able to hurt him significantly.
On the other hand, I suspect those corporations don't want to be seen taking personalized retaliatory action against a regulator.
It would, ultimately, be much better politically to buy controlling stakes in all the local ISPs and then ban him from service that way.
It would probably make a Republican's soul shiver in horror... but I think perhaps that (excepting new products and services for the first decade or so) monopolies need to be made illegal in a more effective way.
Perhaps legislation that exponentially increases the corporate tax rate for every percentage of market share over 50% (or 33% or 25% depending on what you believe the minimum required number of pie slices is for healthy competition). Force them to price themselves upwards until it's economically possible for competition to arise.
It just throws up a warning icon and leaves it there regardless of what site I visit.
ANY site you allow to run client-side scripts should be assumed to be logging your activity. Any site you give personal information to should be assumed to be either selling it or at imminent risk of having it stolen. Or both.
That's not even paranoia, that's just common bloody sense; it's what financial self interest on the part of content providers and hackers leads to.
> I wonder why these similarities and possibilities have never been considered in the drive to prove that water existed or exists on Mars.
I'm just going to throw this out there - when you're talking about dynamic activity on another planet... the people doing this research have not only considered those things, but done their best to model them to an infinite number of decimal places.
They're looking for life, and the best way we know of to find it is to look for liquid water. So they look for possible (not necessarily absolutely certain!) water. They found something that could be interpreted as a sign of water, they worked on those theories and models for a while, and now they're finding it more likely it's not water.
That's science. It not only doesn't get everything right on the first guess, the process doesn't even claim to.
>Nice - starting off with a racist insult.
"LOL, idiot" is not racist.
>The largest censors are fighting for this rule. On general principle alone they should be denied.
That is no way to judge the content of an argument.
>You are free to speak, no one is forced to give you a platform. You are free to build your own platform.
Yep. I'll just pop out to the hardware store and buy the materials to build a second Internet from the ground up. That sounds feasible. I bet you think every road should be a corporate-owned toll road, too.
In short... I'm going to have to second that "LOL, idiot" comment. You've earned it.
People are very poor judges of cost vs. reward, especially as you scale both up.
Take the lottery, for instance. We simply can't understand 'millions', and we know people do win the lottery, so it's very difficult to understand the chances of winning the pot. We think they're much better than they are, and few people consider how much even a ticket a week adds up to over time.
Or criminals. The average bank robber or corner drug dealer ends up with less than minimum wage (slightly offset by periodic offers by the state for free room and board). They're underestimating the costs of doing business while overestimating the chance of being one of the few to be extremely successful.
This is life - people are happy with rules that leave them living at a lower standard than objectively necessary for society's functioning because they imagine they will be the exception that will receive an exceptional benefit from those rules. And the really poor simply have no power at all, no say in the matter unless they're willing to revolt - and honestly, even people who are pretty poor in the West have something to lose in a revolution.
Who is left to change things? There aren't enough people with nothing to lose or idealists willing to lose what they have.
Neither Google nor Facebook are trying to prevent me from using their competitors. Various content-providing ISPs around the USA are salivating at the thought of throttling competitor's services into uselessness.
I won't insult your intelligence as you insulted mine. Rather, I'd suggest you're being outright deceptive to promote your view.
If you think NN is about censorship, you're looking at the wrong issue.
It's about charging for preferential treatment on what should be public infrastructure. Net Neutrality is what stands between an even playing field for businesses, and gated information communities built by large vertically integrated conglomerates controlling what people in their service area are allowed to see and hear (in order to extract more money from them).
Propaganda and censorship will come with that, but they're more like a bonus than the primary goal of abolishing the regulations.
I LOVE to do that, because you know somewhere they're tracking that - "Hey, people using us to find Bing instead are up 5% today!" OK, they're probably just laughing instead of seeing it as an indication of a problem with their service, but whatever.
I do have to be in the right mood so that the amusement is worth the delay.
Google's only removing this for results served up via Google.ru, right?
Anyway, the better way to do this (for the evil government) would not be to depend on the foreign search engine, but to mandate ISPs have transparent proxies that will filter pages on the fly. And also (not coincidentally) MitM your SSL for the police and intelligence agencies to be able to access all your traffic.
Remove the links not just from Google, but from anything served up to a Russian-connected computer from any source.
I laugh at people for that, but occasionally do it myself.
Mostly because it can actually be faster when your homepage is Google, and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox. And Google can handle spelling mistakes.
Of course, then I have to click on a search result...
But... uranium deal, emails, err... HILLARY!
You know it boils down to team loyalty, right? I honestly don't know why they bother lying or trying to misdirect your attention when they don't care and will continue to support their team (or continue to act in the same way if they are the team).
Trump could pretty much come out and say, "Yeah, my team colluded with the Russians to spike Hillary. That's the way business is done, and that's why you elected me." Then there'd be a lot more screaming than there has been, and you'd find most of the Republican establishment would fail to act regardless. I'm pretty sure the only reason Trump hasn't done that is because it would lessen what he perceives as his part in his victory, and his ego won't allow it.
Holding power isn't about who is right or righteous, it's about who has enough power to hold onto their power; the appearance of being right or righteous is only maintained when it helps gain or maintain required support for holding on to power.
>IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Eh. I think the Democrats would have been a better choice for the average American than the Republicans in the last election, and that kind of does matter. Especially if you're transsexual, female, or non-white. Or maybe if you're expecting Trump's economic policies to benefit you (and you're not one of the 1%). Or maybe you're just worried about Trump's lack of decorum causing the US issues (up to and including starting a major war) on the international stage.
The underlying problem is the American political system pretty much inevitably leads to polarization, and then people start voting for their team rather than the best person to represent them based on their individual stances on the issues. And then you have a situation where a significant minority of one half the population can install someone like Trump in the White House.
It actually turns out that the candidate who was absolutely unacceptable and the one (enough of) you were willing to vote for were one and the same.
They imagine it looks superficially honest to eliminate public comment based on a bureaucratic process. What they've overlooked is that the mob doesn't care about superficial appearances when they know you're just ignoring them... and the mob REALLY doesn't like it when you rub it in their face that you don't care about them.
I think they just told the American public to eat cake.
But of course they're doing what they want, and what the Republican party wants them to do... remove impediments to fleecing the commoners (who voted for them!) more efficiently.
So... is it time for the guillotines yet? When will the public turn on those who are betraying them? When will enough of them even realize they're being betrayed?
>I can't help but think there's a less insidious, more direct relationship at work here...
Potential lifetime earning potential correlates uncomfortably well with skin colour?
>I live in the US and we have wild turkeys in my neighborhood, (yes, I do live in a city! They come downtown.)
I've seen foxes most often (I don't count raccoons and skunks, since at this point they're effectively urban-adapted), a couple of coyotes, and recently some wild turkeys. I couldn't even tell you where the nearest green space is, and still the critters show up. Mind you, I can count the wild animals I've seen in an urban environment over the last four decades without taking my socks off, but I HAVE seen some.
As a city-dweller... it's amazing when you come across wild animals like that.
>, I thought Slashdot was better than that.
Nope. Lots of clickbait makes it way in nowadays. And there's someone here who really likes cryptocurrency articles.
>The best advice I've ever heard is to trust your local want ads the most.
But you still have to compare the cost of the required education to the expected income of the targeted position, and then adjust for the non-financial factors like 'will this job drain me of my will to live?' or 'will I end up wrecking my back?'.
As a general trend, anything you choose to do that involves caring for the elderly probably has a decent future as society greys... but that just means the job will be there, not that it's a great job or that it pays well.
The best I can say about you is you have the courage of your convictions.
I wouldn't want someone like you in my country, though.
They have a script, you know. This has been played out over and over and over and it pretty much always ends the same way - with the criminals fading away and the 'investors' moving on to get fleeced by the next crypto scam.
>, I don't want ANY mix of states stickign their noses into the traffic when the purchase I'm making is on an E-commerce site hosted in California, for a company whose physical presence is in Oregon, but incorporated in Delaware, but shipping from Texas...
An interesting problem. In terms of customer taxation, I think the sale should count from the last physical location owned by the merchant on the item's route to you. That works for 'cloud' services, too... wherever the server you connect to is located, that's the point of taxation. If it is distributed, then the vendor can worry about splitting up the taxes after collecting the combined amount from you.
But that would probably make some kind of sense, and thus never actually be codified in law.
>His misuse of English
And disregard of logic. "I damaged your system, I am attempting to extort money from you, but I'm a good person doing this to help you".
It sounds more like a stupid kid than an adult. Criminal either way, though.
> a felony DUI would be a reasonable reason to disqualify from most jobs, in the sense that it'd be pretty safe to assume that person is going to be working drunk quite a bit.
Assuming a confirmed period of sobriety and a lack of addiction-related criminal behaviour (like stealing to support a habit, or getting violent when under the influence) I would be OK with hiring a recovering addict. I'd even be enthusiastic about giving them a second chance if they had a parole obligation to go for drug testing periodically, even if the only result of failing the test was the parole officer informing me so I could decide whether or not to fire them.
>It's a sad thing for the world.. but a great opportunity for Europe.
For the rest of the world, services can be hosted outside the USA and we won't have a problem. Any American content that can be locally cached in our countries will be fine, too. So maybe we'll have issues with American sporting events, possibly trouble if we want to join a multiplayer gaming server in the US. I don't think it'll hurt the rest of the world enough to care. If anything, it'll reduce American media influence around the globe.
For you Americans, though... if your American ISP decides to charge based on packet type AND either the origin or destination, you're done. It's not like you can use a VPN connection to access services from outside a 'no-net-neutrality zone', because they'll be charging the highest rates for that kind of traffic specifically to prevent such behaviour.
Americans will get less choice and higher prices as ISPs promote vertical integration by adding costs to services they don't own (or aren't owned by).