All fanbois will probably keep using whatever platform they like. As an iOS user personally, I could care less how much money they make off of the App Store. In fact, I had never even factored that into my purchasing decision.
I see you've bought the outrage of the day bait. Two minutes hate, if you will.
Anyway, the ISPs could always sell your data. There has never been an enforced law or regulation that stopped them, like any internet company, from selling the data you willingly give them or which passes across their networks.
Some regulations were put into place last year (but never enforced, mind you) that would have prevented ISPs from selling certain data about you. Note that other internet companies, like Facebook, Google, etc. would NOT have been affected by these regulations, this was only a restriction on ISPs.
Congress has essentially decided that the playing field should be level between the Facebooks and Googles and the ISPs. Essentially, keeping the internet functioning the way it has been since its inception and letting the ISPs choose whether or not and what data they will and won't monetize.
Long story short, no rules were "shredded". This is partisan clickbait nonsense being pushed by the media and sites with a political agenda, like Slashdot. So to answer your question, the date at which point they can choose to sell your data is whenever you signed up for internet service, because nothing has ever stopped them from doing this before, and you fell for the bait like most uninformed people.
So, just out of curiosity, what happens when someone who legitimately calls you from an unknown/new number needs to get in touch with you but you won't answer the phone, and they can't leave you a voicemail so you can call them back?
It sounds like a stretch, or this person was just extremely unlucky in which recycled phone number they received. It sounds like he may have been using some ultra-cheap MVNO based on the Google Voice limitation.
I've never seen a USA-based number that couldn't be registered with GV, nor have I ever gotten a number that upon receiving a few unwanted calls (not robocalls, but usually bill collectors, banks, and other services the previous owner of the number signed up for) I couldn't just call up and get the credit refunded and be assigned a new, fresh number.
It shouldn't be hard to set up a procedure systemwide wherein if you'd like to use a particular number as your outgoing caller ID, you have to verify that you can receive inbound calls TO that number first.
I believe this is referring to the passive tracking of unassociated WLAN clients by rogue elements. Once you're associated with an AP and on the open internet, all bets are off because as you said, there are about 1000 better ways to track you at that point other than your MAC address.
And that's why real world experience always trumps what you're taught out of a book. Yes, in theory, all physical addresses are unique. But in practice this has really never been the case. In the mid-2000s I remember tracking down an issue with two brand-name (3Com) NICs having identical MAC addresses.
On a large wired LAN, duplicate MACs can cause issues. Beyond Layer 2, it shouldn't make one lick of difference whether your physical address is unique or not. Of course if you spoof your MAC, you're probably using the MAC of another device, somewhere, out in the wild. But unless they're on the same physical segment (or for cases of large scale DHCP and static leasing, the same LAN) no one will ever know. Any network admin worth their salt already knows that address can very well be duplicated and should have taken steps to mitigate any issues it might cause.
Or are you under the impression that somehow MAC addresses are important to TCP/IP routing on the open internet? Because trust me, it doesn't matter at that level. That's what TCP/IP is for!
What in the everloving fuck are you talking about?
You shouldn't smoke that high-test shit before you post on the internet, especially this early in the morning. Get a cup of coffee and try to get the buzz to wear off a bit before you make anymore comments on the internet that you can't delete!
Many tech folks I've met are Pro-Trump. Not all, and maybe not even a majority, but it's a sizeable chunk. However, amongst the "tech" people I know (you know who I'm talking about), it's almost 100% against him.
It's almost as if people (across any given field) who have no real skills or understanding of business are threatened by someone who would rather see equal chances given to everyone instead of being forced to provide everyone with equal outcomes.
Oh yes, it's the right-wingers setting up sanctuary cities to harbor illegals against the rule of law. Do you think people are supposed to believe you just because you decide to let some of your verbal diarrhea out of your mouth?
Wait, do, do you think that an 80% failure rate is good just because there are courts with HIGHER rates?
I see you use the classic communist tactics of building up a strawman (highest rate, Breitbart, etc. none of which I mentioned) and somehow proving how smart you are by knocking it down.
Obviously, many of the courts are fucked. And the Ninth is by far and away one of the most batshit-insane groups of assholes in the nation. The fact that you stick up for them speaks volumes.
Oooh, beat me with a clue stick oh wise one! How kinky.
All that bullshit aside, the Supreme Court takes so few cases per year that EVERY court's number of cases appealed up is so small as to almost be negligible. The fact remains that when the Ninth Circuit's cases get to the Supremes, they're overruled in 8 out of 10 cases.
That should scare you, because how many people just plain don't have the resources to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, or how many cases are just unable to be heard by them because of time restraints?
Would you trust a police officer whose cases only made it to a jury a small number of times, but 80 percent of those times the jury found he had made a wrongful arrest? Or would you want him fired from the force?
They're already forming a new court to get around the more liberal ones that run out of California...
Bwahaha, you mean the fucking Ninth Circuit? The one that, on appeal to the Supreme Court, gets overturned a whopping 80 percent of the time? Yeah, I think any court with that kind of failure rate should be disbanded, as well.
There's some supreme nuttery going on out in California these days...
You read a simple historical fact about Mussolini and immediately think it has some similarities to current events?
The only similarities I see between then and now is that the tools of fascism haven't changed. All you have to look at is see who is being physically violent against who to know who the good guys and the bad guys are.
But yeah, you're right. You we're just giving a "history lesson" in a thread completely unrelated to WWII-era dictators. I'd stick to that story too, if I were you.
True satire can't exist in an environment where no one can take a joke.
Even Jerry Seinfeld realized two years ago that comedy and the perpetually offended crowd can't mix. Now think how much worse it's gotten in those two years.
Between the crazed liberal snowflakes and the persecution complex on the right, I'm surprised comedy clubs aren't looked at the same as Klan meetings by now.
People just need to relax and realize that life really isn't this serious.
Good thing the fascists lost in our most recent national election.
Although it's fun watching them flame out spectacularly (no pun intended, see: Berkeley), the true fascists are still out beating innocent people up, destroying property, and otherwise using violence to shut down free speech like they always do, and that saddens me.
At least you're thinly veiling your allusions to sedition, most of your ilk aren't that smart and will find out the hard way what happens when you advocate such things.
There's no explaining this to someone who has been indoctrinated into believing they always have the "moral high ground", whether or not they actually do.
Most smart businesses will shit bricks if their CEOs, employees, representatives or anyone associated with their brand does ANYTHING, even in the slightest, to offend or otherwise piss off even small groups of their customers.
Even if a group of people only represent small portions of your customer base, a 1-3% drop in your market share can equate to a tanking stock price, boards replacing executives, layoffs/downsizing, etc. But if you piss off roughly half of the country? Well that's OK because they're deplorable and you don't want such unwashed Nazi KKK member redneck backwoods uneducated stump-jumping hillbillies giving you money anyway.
Then wonder why your customer base is steadily dropping, because those deplorable people are only a fringe minority of nutcases, right? Right?? Again, a smart business stays the fuck out of politics and tells their representatives to do the same. Notice you don't see the largest blue chip corporations playing this identity politics bullshit, at least out in the public view where everyone can see it. Do you see Verizon posting BLM nonsense? Do you see IBM letting their employees off to march against Trump? Even if those megacorps are the ones behind the scenes pulling the strings, they're smart enough to keep their fucking name off of it!
Point being, it doesn't make sense from a business perspective to get involved in this kind of public virtue signalling or identity politics. The blue chip companies understand this, the new money trash think they're invincible. Any company that does (looking at you Silly Valley), should expect their stock price to drop and people to slowly migrate away from their products. You see, most people who stop using Mozilla aren't going on Twitter or Facebook to broadcast how wonderful of a person they are because they're boycotting a product. They just silently note to themselves that this company isn't worthy of their business and they move on. When you've got large portions of the population keeping track of these things in their heads and making conscious efforts to actually use products that support their beliefs (or at the bare minimum, keep their mouth shut about what they think), you'll see the death of these companies that only cater to the virtue signalling trendy hoards on social media while paying customers look the other way.
Why is it OK to ridicule anyone because of the way they're born? No one has control over becoming schizophrenic any more than they have control over their sexuality, gender, race, color, creed, or disability. While your joke is funny (I tend to enjoy off-color humor), you'd be raked across the coals if you made light of any of the other statuses besides mental illness.
All sarcasm aside, I'm actually shocked we still consider anything to be mental illness anymore.
It seems like it's all been normalized so we can explain it away as "born that way", "eccentric" or "that's what their brain feels they are" so we can hand-wave anyone who seriously considers helping people that are obviously mentally ill as bigots or hate-mongers.
Eventually, I fear even the more serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, will be lumped in with the rest and we have to give them their safe space and won't be allowed to suggest they might get any kind of help.
Slashdot Mirror
All fanbois will probably keep using whatever platform they like. As an iOS user personally, I could care less how much money they make off of the App Store. In fact, I had never even factored that into my purchasing decision.
I see you've bought the outrage of the day bait. Two minutes hate, if you will.
Anyway, the ISPs could always sell your data. There has never been an enforced law or regulation that stopped them, like any internet company, from selling the data you willingly give them or which passes across their networks.
Some regulations were put into place last year (but never enforced, mind you) that would have prevented ISPs from selling certain data about you. Note that other internet companies, like Facebook, Google, etc. would NOT have been affected by these regulations, this was only a restriction on ISPs.
Congress has essentially decided that the playing field should be level between the Facebooks and Googles and the ISPs. Essentially, keeping the internet functioning the way it has been since its inception and letting the ISPs choose whether or not and what data they will and won't monetize.
Long story short, no rules were "shredded". This is partisan clickbait nonsense being pushed by the media and sites with a political agenda, like Slashdot. So to answer your question, the date at which point they can choose to sell your data is whenever you signed up for internet service, because nothing has ever stopped them from doing this before, and you fell for the bait like most uninformed people.
So, just out of curiosity, what happens when someone who legitimately calls you from an unknown/new number needs to get in touch with you but you won't answer the phone, and they can't leave you a voicemail so you can call them back?
It sounds like a stretch, or this person was just extremely unlucky in which recycled phone number they received. It sounds like he may have been using some ultra-cheap MVNO based on the Google Voice limitation.
I've never seen a USA-based number that couldn't be registered with GV, nor have I ever gotten a number that upon receiving a few unwanted calls (not robocalls, but usually bill collectors, banks, and other services the previous owner of the number signed up for) I couldn't just call up and get the credit refunded and be assigned a new, fresh number.
It shouldn't be hard to set up a procedure systemwide wherein if you'd like to use a particular number as your outgoing caller ID, you have to verify that you can receive inbound calls TO that number first.
You scum don't even bother to try and avoid invoking Godwin on the first post, eh?
You insensitive clods!
I believe this is referring to the passive tracking of unassociated WLAN clients by rogue elements. Once you're associated with an AP and on the open internet, all bets are off because as you said, there are about 1000 better ways to track you at that point other than your MAC address.
And that's why real world experience always trumps what you're taught out of a book. Yes, in theory, all physical addresses are unique. But in practice this has really never been the case. In the mid-2000s I remember tracking down an issue with two brand-name (3Com) NICs having identical MAC addresses.
On a large wired LAN, duplicate MACs can cause issues. Beyond Layer 2, it shouldn't make one lick of difference whether your physical address is unique or not. Of course if you spoof your MAC, you're probably using the MAC of another device, somewhere, out in the wild. But unless they're on the same physical segment (or for cases of large scale DHCP and static leasing, the same LAN) no one will ever know. Any network admin worth their salt already knows that address can very well be duplicated and should have taken steps to mitigate any issues it might cause.
Or are you under the impression that somehow MAC addresses are important to TCP/IP routing on the open internet? Because trust me, it doesn't matter at that level. That's what TCP/IP is for!
Union? Confederates?
What in the everloving fuck are you talking about?
You shouldn't smoke that high-test shit before you post on the internet, especially this early in the morning. Get a cup of coffee and try to get the buzz to wear off a bit before you make anymore comments on the internet that you can't delete!
Yes, let the hate flow.
Many tech folks I've met are Pro-Trump. Not all, and maybe not even a majority, but it's a sizeable chunk. However, amongst the "tech" people I know (you know who I'm talking about), it's almost 100% against him.
It's almost as if people (across any given field) who have no real skills or understanding of business are threatened by someone who would rather see equal chances given to everyone instead of being forced to provide everyone with equal outcomes.
Oh yes, it's the right-wingers setting up sanctuary cities to harbor illegals against the rule of law. Do you think people are supposed to believe you just because you decide to let some of your verbal diarrhea out of your mouth?
Try again, asswipe.
Wait, do, do you think that an 80% failure rate is good just because there are courts with HIGHER rates?
I see you use the classic communist tactics of building up a strawman (highest rate, Breitbart, etc. none of which I mentioned) and somehow proving how smart you are by knocking it down.
Obviously, many of the courts are fucked. And the Ninth is by far and away one of the most batshit-insane groups of assholes in the nation. The fact that you stick up for them speaks volumes.
Oooh, beat me with a clue stick oh wise one! How kinky.
All that bullshit aside, the Supreme Court takes so few cases per year that EVERY court's number of cases appealed up is so small as to almost be negligible. The fact remains that when the Ninth Circuit's cases get to the Supremes, they're overruled in 8 out of 10 cases.
That should scare you, because how many people just plain don't have the resources to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, or how many cases are just unable to be heard by them because of time restraints?
Would you trust a police officer whose cases only made it to a jury a small number of times, but 80 percent of those times the jury found he had made a wrongful arrest? Or would you want him fired from the force?
They're already forming a new court to get around the more liberal ones that run out of California...
Bwahaha, you mean the fucking Ninth Circuit? The one that, on appeal to the Supreme Court, gets overturned a whopping 80 percent of the time? Yeah, I think any court with that kind of failure rate should be disbanded, as well.
There's some supreme nuttery going on out in California these days...
Hear a resounding "thud" in their head when they read this? I'm sure this will be extremely popular with precisely no one.
You read a simple historical fact about Mussolini and immediately think it has some similarities to current events?
The only similarities I see between then and now is that the tools of fascism haven't changed. All you have to look at is see who is being physically violent against who to know who the good guys and the bad guys are.
But yeah, you're right. You we're just giving a "history lesson" in a thread completely unrelated to WWII-era dictators. I'd stick to that story too, if I were you.
True satire can't exist in an environment where no one can take a joke.
Even Jerry Seinfeld realized two years ago that comedy and the perpetually offended crowd can't mix. Now think how much worse it's gotten in those two years.
Between the crazed liberal snowflakes and the persecution complex on the right, I'm surprised comedy clubs aren't looked at the same as Klan meetings by now.
People just need to relax and realize that life really isn't this serious.
Good thing the fascists lost in our most recent national election.
Although it's fun watching them flame out spectacularly (no pun intended, see: Berkeley), the true fascists are still out beating innocent people up, destroying property, and otherwise using violence to shut down free speech like they always do, and that saddens me.
At least you're thinly veiling your allusions to sedition, most of your ilk aren't that smart and will find out the hard way what happens when you advocate such things.
Yes, let me tell you. The Village Voice's "Pazz and Jop" chart is where I go first to see what's trending amongst large swaths of Americans.
In fact, I and everyone in here in the office celebrate the entire catalog of "Nipsey Hussle".
There's no explaining this to someone who has been indoctrinated into believing they always have the "moral high ground", whether or not they actually do.
Most smart businesses will shit bricks if their CEOs, employees, representatives or anyone associated with their brand does ANYTHING, even in the slightest, to offend or otherwise piss off even small groups of their customers.
Even if a group of people only represent small portions of your customer base, a 1-3% drop in your market share can equate to a tanking stock price, boards replacing executives, layoffs/downsizing, etc. But if you piss off roughly half of the country? Well that's OK because they're deplorable and you don't want such unwashed Nazi KKK member redneck backwoods uneducated stump-jumping hillbillies giving you money anyway.
Then wonder why your customer base is steadily dropping, because those deplorable people are only a fringe minority of nutcases, right? Right?? Again, a smart business stays the fuck out of politics and tells their representatives to do the same. Notice you don't see the largest blue chip corporations playing this identity politics bullshit, at least out in the public view where everyone can see it. Do you see Verizon posting BLM nonsense? Do you see IBM letting their employees off to march against Trump? Even if those megacorps are the ones behind the scenes pulling the strings, they're smart enough to keep their fucking name off of it!
Point being, it doesn't make sense from a business perspective to get involved in this kind of public virtue signalling or identity politics. The blue chip companies understand this, the new money trash think they're invincible. Any company that does (looking at you Silly Valley), should expect their stock price to drop and people to slowly migrate away from their products. You see, most people who stop using Mozilla aren't going on Twitter or Facebook to broadcast how wonderful of a person they are because they're boycotting a product. They just silently note to themselves that this company isn't worthy of their business and they move on. When you've got large portions of the population keeping track of these things in their heads and making conscious efforts to actually use products that support their beliefs (or at the bare minimum, keep their mouth shut about what they think), you'll see the death of these companies that only cater to the virtue signalling trendy hoards on social media while paying customers look the other way.
Why is it OK to ridicule anyone because of the way they're born? No one has control over becoming schizophrenic any more than they have control over their sexuality, gender, race, color, creed, or disability. While your joke is funny (I tend to enjoy off-color humor), you'd be raked across the coals if you made light of any of the other statuses besides mental illness.
All sarcasm aside, I'm actually shocked we still consider anything to be mental illness anymore.
It seems like it's all been normalized so we can explain it away as "born that way", "eccentric" or "that's what their brain feels they are" so we can hand-wave anyone who seriously considers helping people that are obviously mentally ill as bigots or hate-mongers.
Eventually, I fear even the more serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, will be lumped in with the rest and we have to give them their safe space and won't be allowed to suggest they might get any kind of help.
You're an edgy fuck, aren't you.
Oh, BTW, you've been reported to the proper authorities.