When you made your post, it was already Monday in Japan. Trains had started to run more frequently on Sunday, but now the trains here (I'm in Japan at the moment) are running a much reduced schedule. The Narita Express (direct line from Tokyo to Narita airport) isn't running. Buses to the airport are sold out.
I took a taxi to Narita and was shocked at how quiet it is here. I surmise they have canceled a lot of flights.
Many shops are closed. Since the trains are on a very reduced schedules, people can't get to work.
The electricity shortage is going to have a big impact on GDP if it isn't solved soon.
The basic premise on which patents are based is flawed. The patent system assumes that a given invention is invented once by a single individual or company. In reality, may inventions are invented by several people working independently around the same time. In this case, why should one person be rewarded for the invention while others are not?
Even if people don't agree with my assertions above, the implentation of patents is broken by the very low threshold or originality required to obtain a patent.
I am just outside Tokyo and the shaking here was insane. The building shook for about 2 minutes, then it died down, but very shortly later the after-quakes hit. Over three hours after the initial quake and the building is still shaking. Trains are shut down, so people can't get home.
They weren't even under investigation until the break in
So there is no possible claim to inevitability of discovery, and pretty much ANY evidence developed out of this evidence is tainted.
I think that the authorities could get a subpoena for the emails based on reasonable suspicion (the anon leaks). . I don't think anyone could credibly argue that anon were acting in concert with the police/FBI/etc.. Furthermore, HBGary is already being sued, so they can't delete their emails.
The phrase "Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network."
The summary is wrong. TFA doesn't say that. The stipulation prevents Comcast from totally disconnecting Netflix from its customers, but Comcast can still throttle Netflix traffic as much as it likes, "if Comcast thought it needed to do so to keep its network running to its satisfaction.". In other words, Comcast can throttle Netflix to the point that it is unusable.
My wife goes to bed every night with the same radio station on and I swear I have heard the same 5 songs repeated over and over and over and over again for the past 8 months to the point where I want to shove an icepick in to my eye.
Where I live, the owner of a classical radio station has decided to use the frequency for classic rock instead. So, that's one strike against it. They have advertised the classic rock that they claim to play on the local TV. Yet, when I tuned to that station (what can I say -- eclectic music tastes), they were reporting some local sport -- WTF? They told me there would be Led Zeppelin, Queen and the like and there was sports reporting. Never mind that they killed the classical music, do they really expect me to push the button for their station when they don't play what they advertise?
In a fit of stupidity, I bought a Sony car radio a couple of years ago. Not only do I regret supporting Sony with my dollars, it's a crap radio. For example, it can play mp3s off a flash drive, but it is very picky about the filesystem. I can write the flash drive under Linux and Windows will see the music, but the Sony radio won't. Move things around under Windows and now the radio will see the music. It's a FAT filesystem (formatted by the flash drive manufacturer), so I highly doubt that my Linux box is not writing the data correctly. Also, forget using flash drives larger than 4GB. I bought the radio when 64GB flash drives were available, but this cr*ppy radio can only read the first 4GB.
IMHO, postal votes should be reserved for those who can't get to the polling station because of some disability or travel. The problem with postal votes is that, for a family, or anywhere that has a shared postal address, you simply don't know who is completing the ballots and returning them.
I expect that there are many households where the head of the household collects all the postal ballots, completes them, and then instructs the family member to sign (or simply forges a signature).
Online voting has the same problem, plus many others.
Privacy on any level is about concealment, whether necessary or un-necessary, for good or bad
Exactly, Unless you conceal a large portion of your activities, then the presence of concealment is like putting a large arrow on your really private activity, saying: "INVESTIGATE THIS".
You don't need to be involved in any nefarious stuff to use encryption. I've ordered several things via emai
with credit cards, and I always send it encrypted.
Encryptions is ubiquitous today, you just have to:
1. Log onto your bank's website.
2. Use Gmail with default settings.
3. Order anything online.
4. Use a VPN (many, many company laptops are configured with VPNs)
Does anyone think it is a coincidence that, just a few months after all the information about Stuxnet has come out and presumably Iran has secured its critical computers against drive-by install from flash drives, Microsoft closes the autorun hole with an update?
BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will.
Why connection is there between this unsigned singer and piracy? In your post, I see only unsupported assertions on a connection between piracy and risk-taking.
I suspect that the problem for artists is that there is always another artist who is just that little bit more desperate to be signed. Labels love control and they sign the artists that can be most easily controlled. Those artists that are created by labels -- how much does the money distribution favor the artists versus the labels, when compared to an artist that has already established some level of support and fame? In other words, there is a strong financial incentive to create and sign acts rather than discovering artists. .
This post is full of speculative suggestions, but I will assert that it has as much evidential basis as yours (ie. none!).
My god, what an appalling piece of writing. If one wanted to claim to state a position and then not make it, I don't know if they could waste so many words as Mr. Maher.
Any little information on what he believes or not is made moot by his apparent lack of understanding of the differences between vaccines and antibiotics. There are clear reasons why we should lessen the use of antibiotics, but whether that is so or not, is completely irrelevant to the use of vaccines.
So, I for one will put him down as a dangerous fruitcase. One who doesn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge.
The providers stand to make more money if they charge websites to carry bytes to the providers' end customers irrespective of
whether the last mile bandwidth is saturated or not. In your three options, your third option mixes two options which are essentially independent.
Thus, any claim that wireless bandwidth should be treated differently as far as net neutraility is concerned is bogus. In fact, it's even more bogus than wired connections when the total cost to the provider is even more heavily skewed towards the last mile costs than it is for wired providers.
Now, if you read my comments carefully, you will see that I explicitly mention that providing unlimited bandwidth is not a requirement for net neutrality. Please re-consider your coments in that light.
I don't think you understand what net neutrality means.
Net neutrality and monthly data transfer limits are orthogonal.
Net neutrality means that ISPs don't discriminate between packets with different sources or destinations. In other words, they treat packets from Google with the same priority as packets from the search engine that your neighbor just started from his house. However, once you use your monthly allowance, then the ISP shuts you off, or slows down all packets* going to your device.
* When I write "all packets" obviously, there may be reasons to treat media streams differently from emails, but again, according to net neutrality principles it should not matter who is providing the video stream or the emails.
If the problem is wireless bandwidth why are wireless companies pushing so hard against network neutrality?
I'm not saying that you are wrong, just pointing out that the anti-network neutrality push is really a push for monopoly rents that has nothing to do with technical limitations.
These systems are nothing but trouble if you find yourself on a road without booths and you are in a rental car. You either pay a high daily rate plus usage, to get a car with a transponder, or you really get zapped if they forward a bill a month later
Not in Dallas. The cars are charged based on license plate number and they just add tolls to your rental cost.
I thought the whole point of the patent system was that the Inventions became public knowledge, such that inventors (and researchers) *could* in fact, learn from them and improve on them.
That may have been the idea at one time, but the moronic "triple damages for wilful infringement" means that researchers effectively can't use the patent datatbase, lest they turn a normal infringement into a wilful infringement.
Less than 18 months ago, I foolishly bought a Sony car radio. It's cr*p. I won't be buying any Sony products again.
As an example, the radio can read mp3s from a flash drive, but, it appears that this only works if the flash drive is less than 4GB. Even then, it seems to be very picky about the format of the filesystem (picky about a FAT filesystem!!!).
It has some other stupid design "features", which are too numerous to mention.
I've wondered if a criminal defendent could use the interstate commerce clause against a state law.
For example, someone is prosecuted under state law for some offence. Criminal defendent says: "but this affects interstate commerce, hence it is the province of the federal governement to regulate it -- and, by the way, there isn't a federal law prohibiting this offense". Since the Supremes have completely gutted any limit to the interstate commerce clause, it's hard to imagine any activity that could not be described as affecting interstate commerce. Unless there is a federal law that specifically allows the states to regulate that activity, it seems like it would be an interesting tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
When you made your post, it was already Monday in Japan. Trains had started to run more frequently on Sunday, but now the trains here (I'm in Japan at the moment) are running a much reduced schedule. The Narita Express (direct line from Tokyo to Narita airport) isn't running. Buses to the airport are sold out.
I took a taxi to Narita and was shocked at how quiet it is here. I surmise they have canceled a lot of flights.
Many shops are closed. Since the trains are on a very reduced schedules, people can't get to work.
The electricity shortage is going to have a big impact on GDP if it isn't solved soon.
The basic premise on which patents are based is flawed. The patent system assumes that a given invention is invented once by a single individual or company. In reality, may inventions are invented by several people working independently around the same time. In this case, why should one person be rewarded for the invention while others are not?
Even if people don't agree with my assertions above, the implentation of patents is broken by the very low threshold or originality required to obtain a patent.
I am just outside Tokyo and the shaking here was insane. The building shook for about 2 minutes, then it died down, but very shortly later the after-quakes hit. Over three hours after the initial quake and the building is still shaking. Trains are shut down, so people can't get home.
I think that the authorities could get a subpoena for the emails based on reasonable suspicion (the anon leaks). . I don't think anyone could credibly argue that anon were acting in concert with the police/FBI/etc.. Furthermore, HBGary is already being sued, so they can't delete their emails.
The summary is wrong. TFA doesn't say that. The stipulation prevents Comcast from totally disconnecting Netflix from its customers, but Comcast can still throttle Netflix traffic as much as it likes, "if Comcast thought it needed to do so to keep its network running to its satisfaction.". In other words, Comcast can throttle Netflix to the point that it is unusable.
Where I live, the owner of a classical radio station has decided to use the frequency for classic rock instead. So, that's one strike against it. They have advertised the classic rock that they claim to play on the local TV. Yet, when I tuned to that station (what can I say -- eclectic music tastes), they were reporting some local sport -- WTF? They told me there would be Led Zeppelin, Queen and the like and there was sports reporting. Never mind that they killed the classical music, do they really expect me to push the button for their station when they don't play what they advertise?
I totally agree.
In a fit of stupidity, I bought a Sony car radio a couple of years ago. Not only do I regret supporting Sony with my dollars, it's a crap radio. For example, it can play mp3s off a flash drive, but it is very picky about the filesystem. I can write the flash drive under Linux and Windows will see the music, but the Sony radio won't. Move things around under Windows and now the radio will see the music. It's a FAT filesystem (formatted by the flash drive manufacturer), so I highly doubt that my Linux box is not writing the data correctly. Also, forget using flash drives larger than 4GB. I bought the radio when 64GB flash drives were available, but this cr*ppy radio can only read the first 4GB.
Sony violated copyright law by distributing a copyrighted work without a license.
The distinction is important and we should always describe this type of action as violating copyright.
Make sure people know that are Sony the pirates!
IMHO, postal votes should be reserved for those who can't get to the polling station because of some disability or travel. The problem with postal votes is that, for a family, or anywhere that has a shared postal address, you simply don't know who is completing the ballots and returning them.
I expect that there are many households where the head of the household collects all the postal ballots, completes them, and then instructs the family member to sign (or simply forges a signature).
Online voting has the same problem, plus many others.
Exactly, Unless you conceal a large portion of your activities, then the presence of concealment is like putting a large arrow on your really private activity, saying: "INVESTIGATE THIS".
Encryptions is ubiquitous today, you just have to:
1. Log onto your bank's website.
2. Use Gmail with default settings.
3. Order anything online.
4. Use a VPN (many, many company laptops are configured with VPNs)
5. Use SMTP-TLS or POP-TLS.
etc.
I wrote to my Congressman in support of net neutrality and got a note back saying that he also supports net neutrality.
Obviously, he must be a communist loon..... Wait, what does that make me?
Does anyone think it is a coincidence that, just a few months after all the information about Stuxnet has come out and presumably Iran has secured its critical computers against drive-by install from flash drives, Microsoft closes the autorun hole with an update?
Why connection is there between this unsigned singer and piracy? In your post, I see only unsupported assertions on a connection between piracy and risk-taking.
I suspect that the problem for artists is that there is always another artist who is just that little bit more desperate to be signed. Labels love control and they sign the artists that can be most easily controlled. Those artists that are created by labels -- how much does the money distribution favor the artists versus the labels, when compared to an artist that has already established some level of support and fame? In other words, there is a strong financial incentive to create and sign acts rather than discovering artists. .
This post is full of speculative suggestions, but I will assert that it has as much evidential basis as yours (ie. none!).
Hah, hah! While I won't argue with the proposition that it is possible to make Windows secure, the idea that installing AV is sufficient is laughable.
Show me the AV tool that catches 100% of viruses, including new viruses that have just been seen in the wild.
My god, what an appalling piece of writing. If one wanted to claim to state a position and then not make it, I don't know if they could waste so many words as Mr. Maher. Any little information on what he believes or not is made moot by his apparent lack of understanding of the differences between vaccines and antibiotics. There are clear reasons why we should lessen the use of antibiotics, but whether that is so or not, is completely irrelevant to the use of vaccines. So, I for one will put him down as a dangerous fruitcase. One who doesn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge.
I think that your analysis is muddled.
The providers stand to make more money if they charge websites to carry bytes to the providers' end customers irrespective of whether the last mile bandwidth is saturated or not. In your three options, your third option mixes two options which are essentially independent.
Thus, any claim that wireless bandwidth should be treated differently as far as net neutraility is concerned is bogus. In fact, it's even more bogus than wired connections when the total cost to the provider is even more heavily skewed towards the last mile costs than it is for wired providers.
Now, if you read my comments carefully, you will see that I explicitly mention that providing unlimited bandwidth is not a requirement for net neutrality. Please re-consider your coments in that light.
I don't think you understand what net neutrality means.
Net neutrality and monthly data transfer limits are orthogonal.
Net neutrality means that ISPs don't discriminate between packets with different sources or destinations. In other words, they treat packets from Google with the same priority as packets from the search engine that your neighbor just started from his house. However, once you use your monthly allowance, then the ISP shuts you off, or slows down all packets* going to your device.
* When I write "all packets" obviously, there may be reasons to treat media streams differently from emails, but again, according to net neutrality principles it should not matter who is providing the video stream or the emails.
If the problem is wireless bandwidth why are wireless companies pushing so hard against network neutrality?
I'm not saying that you are wrong, just pointing out that the anti-network neutrality push is really a push for monopoly rents that has nothing to do with technical limitations.
Whoops!
Not in Dallas. The cars are charged based on license plate number and they just add tolls to your rental cost.
That may have been the idea at one time, but the moronic "triple damages for wilful infringement" means that researchers effectively can't use the patent datatbase, lest they turn a normal infringement into a wilful infringement.
Less than 18 months ago, I foolishly bought a Sony car radio. It's cr*p. I won't be buying any Sony products again.
As an example, the radio can read mp3s from a flash drive, but, it appears that this only works if the flash drive is less than 4GB. Even then, it seems to be very picky about the format of the filesystem (picky about a FAT filesystem!!!).
It has some other stupid design "features", which are too numerous to mention.
I've wondered if a criminal defendent could use the interstate commerce clause against a state law.
For example, someone is prosecuted under state law for some offence. Criminal defendent says: "but this affects interstate commerce, hence it is the province of the federal governement to regulate it -- and, by the way, there isn't a federal law prohibiting this offense". Since the Supremes have completely gutted any limit to the interstate commerce clause, it's hard to imagine any activity that could not be described as affecting interstate commerce. Unless there is a federal law that specifically allows the states to regulate that activity, it seems like it would be an interesting tactic.
And it doesn't work in all cases. It could not detect that I am logged into gmail.