Does the Australian government know that even if they could compel companies like Apple access to their systems, they won't get access to what their users send especially if users are using end-to-end encryption.
And then there's the issue of once they get access to one thing, another app would soon appear that would thwart their suvelliance
Thank you! I can't believe people are just buying into these claims of harm despite there being on evidence it's actually happening. Net Neutrality is a solution to an imagined problem.
And what proof would you accept of harm? Would an ISP suing a city so that it didn't provide broadband to residents be harm for you?
Nope. Because I said: "probably" — mine was explicitly a "guestimate", which no reasonable person could possible (mis)construe as an assertion of fact.
So to counter research someone has done you've put out your "guess". What was the basis behind your "guestimate" or was it just pulled out of thin air?
I'm decidedly not a journalist. Slashdot editors and TFA's author(s) pretend to be.
The Slashdot editors have never pretended or claimed to be journalists. That is a false assertion on your part.
Why is an article citing an amount spent by one side not cite an spent by the opponents?
What part of journalism says that an article has to be fair to both sides? An article has to be factual.
At best, that's because the authors are simply lazy.
And you know this how? You claim not to be a journalist yet you know exactly what work was done and not done. Doesn't that negate any expertise you can claim on how someone else can do their job?
Well his source doesn't say what he says they do. First of all the videos don't look at Ryzen performance specifically but do compare Intel CPUs with other ones. They only briefly mention Ryzen; however, in both it clearly shows Ryzen beating out the Intel 2600K he mentions. So he either can't read a graph or is flat out lying.
My citations are here [youtube.com] and here where the 2600k beats the newer Ryzen even further [youtube.com]?
Er what? In the 930 video, at 4:45 and 10:00: The lowest AMD was the stock Rzyen CPU R5 1500X which beat out the stock 2600K but slower than the OC 2600K. The OC 1500X beat out the OC 2600K. All other Rzyen chips handily beat out the 2600K both stock and OC versions. So when you say the 2600K beats out the Ryzen, I have to ask what are you smoking?
9. Get Alex Jones and Breitbart to say that NASA doesn't lobby for enough money because Mars is full of Republican martians and refusing to go to Mars is a democratic plot to suppress voters.
No, tell Alex Jones and Breitbart that proof of the moon hoax is on Mars and NASA doesn't want anyone to go there because they would find out the truth that man can't travel to other planets. The irony would be lost on their supporters.
And we still do not know, how much the fans of the draconian measure have spent to advance it — yesterday's hysterics, probably, cost something like $100mln just for one day...
Citation needed
But we do not know such details, because researching and reporting such information would be journalism...
You don't seriously think that a company that has been manipulating Congress for a century isn't fully capable of using any net neutrality legislation or FCC market interference to its advantage?
Why would any company need to use net neutrality legislation to its advantage when the lack of legislation is to its advantage. That's as silly as saying Standard Oil could use The Sherman Antitrust Act to its advantage but was never pushing for removal of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Which ISPs are wronging their customer? How are they doing it? I have yet to see any evidence of ISPs actually doing things like slowing connections and blocking sites, just a lot of talk about what they could do.
I would say you don't read the news or are lying about it.
For one you skipped over the numbers of areas where multiple vendors of 10MB/s is available. Also when it say "fixed" satellite is removed from the equation.
Now I know you didn't bother to read it. I didn't skip over the numbers. Here is the entire paragraph:
At somewhat higher speeds, such as10 Mbps, the typical person still is able to choose among two
fixed ISPs. The typical person also has the option of choosing among three mobileISPs. At even higher speeds, however, the number of providers drops off dramatically. For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater;
only 9 percent had three or more choices
You admit you have options in your area but then say they are not viable to you. Viability and availability are two different things
So you're saying I should pick internet that I can't really use. In this discussion since we are talking about streaming videos, you'd want me to pick an ISP that can't reliably let me stream. At that point why don't you include dial-up.
Add to that you don't seem to think you can use one ISP off the other to negotiate a lower price out of one. That is done ALL THE TIME.
And how do you know I didn't negotiate? You can't know, can you? I can get a better price for 6 months, even a year. Heck I can get them to throw in free boxes. For a locked contract. The problem is that after the initial term, the price does way up and I'm stuck with that price long enough for them to make lots of money off me.
. I call yearly to get mine lowered and I am not talking 10 bucks or so. I get them to drop it in the 30 to 40 dollar range. It's pretty easy to do if you can stick to your guns and have even a drop of negotiating skills.
Well good for you. You must live in one of those areas where the ISP knows you can go to another one. My ISP knows I can't.
Lastly, there has been TONS of fiber roll out across the country. Maybe you live far out in the country, but even the edges of suburbia here have fiber and the ISP providers paid to string the lines.
OMG. All this time I've been waiting even begging for fiber. Little did I know it was always available---Except that it's not. Fiber has been rolling out TO CITIES across the country. They haven't been rolled out to all neighborhoods. If I lived 2 miles away I could get fiber but not where I live. Same thing with ISPs. If I move I can get tons more options in my city. But not my neighborhood.
I find it funny that you think that I haven't been wanting to get fiber all this time and you know something about fiber availability in my area that I didn't know. I had hope that Google Fiber would shake things up but it hasn't been rolled out to enough cities and places for the other ISPs to do something about it. However, where Google Fiber has been rolled out, the other ISPs certainly did start to offer it to those places. But Google Fiber is not being rolled out to where I live.
1. Slashdot updates a blacklist to block all currently existing code points that affect directionality and enables Unicode.
2. Unicode Consortium releases a new version of Unicode including new code points that affect directionality.
So you're relying on a hypothetical where the Unicode Consortium releasing a new version of Unicode but you're also ignoring the fact that there are current portions of Unicode which haven't changed in 20 years and that Unicode adds new characters but does not change existing ones.
3. GUI frameworks and web browsers are updated to support these new code points, but Slashdot is not because its administrators are occupied with other, more pressing aspects of site operation.
You do understand that many programming languages and standards like XML and Java rely on Unicode not changing right? Your hypothetical would undermine all of them not just Slashdot.
4. Someone uses one of the new code points that affect directionality but are not on the blacklist, causing the layout of Slashdot's comment section to break.
So someone uses something that isn't approved yet which would break functionality when Slashdot wouldn't accept anyway. That makes no sense.
At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service, 98 percent of the population had a choice of at least two mobile ISPs and 88 percent had two or more fixed ISPs available to them. . . At somewhat higher speeds, such as 10 Mbps, the typical person still is able to choose among two fixed ISPs . ..For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices . . . Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more. Only 3 percent of the population had 1 Gbps or greater available; none had two or more ISPs at that speed.
The reports says there are multiple ISPs available for 3MB/s which the government considers broadband. If you are streaming Netflix, they recommend the minimum is 3MB/s for SD, 5MB/s for HD, and 25 MB/s for 4K. These are the minimums. If you live in a household with multiple users, good luck on streaming and using the internet at the same time. It also does not separate out between different types of ISPs like cable, DSL, satellite, or fiber. I considers them all as equal options even though they are not the same.
I am not sure why people all think they have one option in their areas and most people only have one option.
Because I've done the research in my area. I only have 1 cable ISP. I only have 1 DSL. I only have 2 satellite providers. I have 0 fiber. Satellite is out of the question based on speed. DSL provider has data caps and costs more money. So then there's cable. It's the only viable choice. Other than moving.
True in the late 90's and early 2000's but ISP's do this crazy thing called expanding their markets to make more money and increase share prices.
By expanding their markets you mean merging with or buying out rivals to form larger corporations and market share, right? That reduces competition not the other way around.
How will new characters break Slashdot's layout when Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode. Also if Slashdot accepted Unicode, why would someone use new characters that haven't been added yet?
Part of the problem is that more content these days is expected to be real time. 20 years ago most consumers were on dial-up and everything took forever to download. People were delighted with the fact that email could take minutes instead of days with snail mail. So an ISP slowing down your web browsing didn't have as much as effect as web browsing was slow. Slowing down your email to hours instead of minutes also didn't deter consumers.
The landscape today is much different. If Netflix or Hulu can't stream you content near real-time (with some delay in buffering), they doesn't have customers. Consumers want their media now and won't accept delays.
The write-up this. If you wish to dispute it, you need to offer citations. When did the regulations about to be abolished come into effect?
Er? Please read up on the history before you comment.
How is this wrong?
Okay let's start out that everyone pays for a connection. Netflix pays Level 3. You pay your ISP. You pay for a Netflix subscription. Your ISP should deliver Netflix if you want; however, your ISP wants to charge Netflix to send you data that you and Netflix already paid to send. Is that simple enough?
So? Why should it be the concern of the government and the citizenry, what these private companies do?
Why should it be concern of the government if private companies are wronging the citizenry? Is that the exact question you are asking?
We are repeatedly [seattletimes.com] told [nytimes.com], "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
Well Amazon is talking about their customers so the fact that net neutrality benefits them as well as consumers (which are the "little guys") isn't all that suspect.
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
You are aware that the fight for net neutrality precedes 2014 right? It wasn't until 2014 that the Court of Appeals decided that the FCC could not enforce it under Title I protections but could enforce it under Title II.
Translation: owners of the networking equipment and cables are prevented from doing what they want with their property. War is peace. Regulations are liberty.
No. Translation: All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others. Some owners decided they can charge more for premium access while other owners don't. For example, consumer ISPs like Verizon want to do it but Tier 1 providers like Level 3 don't.
If it isn't supported here on this site, then you can't use the encoding, therefore 5 years from now, it won't be cryptic. If the site supported Unicode, the code itself does not change.
What are you taking about? UTF-8 is over 20 years old. HTML is even older. It's one thing not to use the newest emoji but to say you won't use encodings that haven't changed in 20+ years because they might change in the future isn't a great reason.
One relies heavily on proprietary software and formats and has an extremely high profit margin,
Which proprietary formats do you object to using?
the other uses industry standards and costs a lot less
Defines: "Cost a lot less". Certainly if you get top of the line Android phones, they cost as much as an iPhone. There are Android phones which are cheaper. They are some which are not cheaper.
So let's be clear on this: You're complaining that you can't run an emulator to play a Nintendo(TM) Gameboy ROM on iPhone but you can do that on Android. You are aware that unauthorized ROMs could violate copyright. There is no precedent for this but ROMs are in a legal gray area. Some would argue it's space-shifting which qualifies as Fair Use but downloading them from the Internet constitutes unauthorized distribution which is not covered by Fair Use. So the crux of your complaint is that Apple doesn't want to deal with legal gray areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the Australian government know that even if they could compel companies like Apple access to their systems, they won't get access to what their users send especially if users are using end-to-end encryption.
And then there's the issue of once they get access to one thing, another app would soon appear that would thwart their suvelliance
Short summary of the issues
Thank you! I can't believe people are just buying into these claims of harm despite there being on evidence it's actually happening. Net Neutrality is a solution to an imagined problem.
And what proof would you accept of harm? Would an ISP suing a city so that it didn't provide broadband to residents be harm for you?
Nope. Because I said: "probably" — mine was explicitly a "guestimate", which no reasonable person could possible (mis)construe as an assertion of fact.
So to counter research someone has done you've put out your "guess". What was the basis behind your "guestimate" or was it just pulled out of thin air?
I'm decidedly not a journalist. Slashdot editors and TFA's author(s) pretend to be.
The Slashdot editors have never pretended or claimed to be journalists. That is a false assertion on your part.
Why is an article citing an amount spent by one side not cite an spent by the opponents?
What part of journalism says that an article has to be fair to both sides? An article has to be factual.
At best, that's because the authors are simply lazy.
And you know this how? You claim not to be a journalist yet you know exactly what work was done and not done. Doesn't that negate any expertise you can claim on how someone else can do their job?
Well his source doesn't say what he says they do. First of all the videos don't look at Ryzen performance specifically but do compare Intel CPUs with other ones. They only briefly mention Ryzen; however, in both it clearly shows Ryzen beating out the Intel 2600K he mentions. So he either can't read a graph or is flat out lying.
My citations are here [youtube.com] and here where the 2600k beats the newer Ryzen even further [youtube.com]?
Er what? In the 930 video, at 4:45 and 10:00: The lowest AMD was the stock Rzyen CPU R5 1500X which beat out the stock 2600K but slower than the OC 2600K. The OC 1500X beat out the OC 2600K. All other Rzyen chips handily beat out the 2600K both stock and OC versions. So when you say the 2600K beats out the Ryzen, I have to ask what are you smoking?
The date of the report is December 2014 so at the time of the report, the FCC considered 3MB/s as broadband.
9. Get Alex Jones and Breitbart to say that NASA doesn't lobby for enough money because Mars is full of Republican martians and refusing to go to Mars is a democratic plot to suppress voters.
No, tell Alex Jones and Breitbart that proof of the moon hoax is on Mars and NASA doesn't want anyone to go there because they would find out the truth that man can't travel to other planets. The irony would be lost on their supporters.
And we still do not know, how much the fans of the draconian measure have spent to advance it — yesterday's hysterics, probably, cost something like $100mln just for one day...
Citation needed
But we do not know such details, because researching and reporting such information would be journalism...
You first.
A more correct one would be "You can't drive on our toll road because you are driving a chevy"
Also: "You can drive your Ford but it will be slower unless you use our Fords or Ford pays us."
You don't seriously think that a company that has been manipulating Congress for a century isn't fully capable of using any net neutrality legislation or FCC market interference to its advantage?
Why would any company need to use net neutrality legislation to its advantage when the lack of legislation is to its advantage. That's as silly as saying Standard Oil could use The Sherman Antitrust Act to its advantage but was never pushing for removal of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Which ISPs are wronging their customer? How are they doing it? I have yet to see any evidence of ISPs actually doing things like slowing connections and blocking sites, just a lot of talk about what they could do.
I would say you don't read the news or are lying about it.
Would you say Comcast suing Chattanooga to prevent it from offering fiber more than talk?
If we stick to just his alone, there are more examples
For one you skipped over the numbers of areas where multiple vendors of 10MB/s is available. Also when it say "fixed" satellite is removed from the equation.
Now I know you didn't bother to read it. I didn't skip over the numbers. Here is the entire paragraph:
At somewhat higher speeds, such as10 Mbps, the typical person still is able to choose among two fixed ISPs. The typical person also has the option of choosing among three mobileISPs. At even higher speeds, however, the number of providers drops off dramatically. For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices
You admit you have options in your area but then say they are not viable to you. Viability and availability are two different things
So you're saying I should pick internet that I can't really use. In this discussion since we are talking about streaming videos, you'd want me to pick an ISP that can't reliably let me stream. At that point why don't you include dial-up.
Add to that you don't seem to think you can use one ISP off the other to negotiate a lower price out of one. That is done ALL THE TIME.
And how do you know I didn't negotiate? You can't know, can you? I can get a better price for 6 months, even a year. Heck I can get them to throw in free boxes. For a locked contract. The problem is that after the initial term, the price does way up and I'm stuck with that price long enough for them to make lots of money off me.
. I call yearly to get mine lowered and I am not talking 10 bucks or so. I get them to drop it in the 30 to 40 dollar range. It's pretty easy to do if you can stick to your guns and have even a drop of negotiating skills.
Well good for you. You must live in one of those areas where the ISP knows you can go to another one. My ISP knows I can't.
Lastly, there has been TONS of fiber roll out across the country. Maybe you live far out in the country, but even the edges of suburbia here have fiber and the ISP providers paid to string the lines.
OMG. All this time I've been waiting even begging for fiber. Little did I know it was always available---Except that it's not. Fiber has been rolling out TO CITIES across the country. They haven't been rolled out to all neighborhoods. If I lived 2 miles away I could get fiber but not where I live. Same thing with ISPs. If I move I can get tons more options in my city. But not my neighborhood.
I find it funny that you think that I haven't been wanting to get fiber all this time and you know something about fiber availability in my area that I didn't know. I had hope that Google Fiber would shake things up but it hasn't been rolled out to enough cities and places for the other ISPs to do something about it. However, where Google Fiber has been rolled out, the other ISPs certainly did start to offer it to those places. But Google Fiber is not being rolled out to where I live.
1. Slashdot updates a blacklist to block all currently existing code points that affect directionality and enables Unicode.
2. Unicode Consortium releases a new version of Unicode including new code points that affect directionality.
So you're relying on a hypothetical where the Unicode Consortium releasing a new version of Unicode but you're also ignoring the fact that there are current portions of Unicode which haven't changed in 20 years and that Unicode adds new characters but does not change existing ones.
3. GUI frameworks and web browsers are updated to support these new code points, but Slashdot is not because its administrators are occupied with other, more pressing aspects of site operation.
You do understand that many programming languages and standards like XML and Java rely on Unicode not changing right? Your hypothetical would undermine all of them not just Slashdot.
4. Someone uses one of the new code points that affect directionality but are not on the blacklist, causing the layout of Slashdot's comment section to break.
So someone uses something that isn't approved yet which would break functionality when Slashdot wouldn't accept anyway. That makes no sense.
At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service, 98 percent of the population had a choice of at least two mobile ISPs and 88 percent had two or more fixed ISPs available to them. . . At somewhat higher speeds, such as 10 Mbps, the typical person still is able to choose among two fixed ISPs . . .For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices . . . Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more. Only 3 percent of the population had 1 Gbps or greater available; none had two or more ISPs at that speed.
The reports says there are multiple ISPs available for 3MB/s which the government considers broadband. If you are streaming Netflix, they recommend the minimum is 3MB/s for SD, 5MB/s for HD, and 25 MB/s for 4K. These are the minimums. If you live in a household with multiple users, good luck on streaming and using the internet at the same time. It also does not separate out between different types of ISPs like cable, DSL, satellite, or fiber. I considers them all as equal options even though they are not the same.
I am not sure why people all think they have one option in their areas and most people only have one option.
Because I've done the research in my area. I only have 1 cable ISP. I only have 1 DSL. I only have 2 satellite providers. I have 0 fiber. Satellite is out of the question based on speed. DSL provider has data caps and costs more money. So then there's cable. It's the only viable choice. Other than moving.
True in the late 90's and early 2000's but ISP's do this crazy thing called expanding their markets to make more money and increase share prices.
By expanding their markets you mean merging with or buying out rivals to form larger corporations and market share, right? That reduces competition not the other way around.
How will new characters break Slashdot's layout when Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode. Also if Slashdot accepted Unicode, why would someone use new characters that haven't been added yet?
Part of the problem is that more content these days is expected to be real time. 20 years ago most consumers were on dial-up and everything took forever to download. People were delighted with the fact that email could take minutes instead of days with snail mail. So an ISP slowing down your web browsing didn't have as much as effect as web browsing was slow. Slowing down your email to hours instead of minutes also didn't deter consumers.
The landscape today is much different. If Netflix or Hulu can't stream you content near real-time (with some delay in buffering), they doesn't have customers. Consumers want their media now and won't accept delays.
The write-up this. If you wish to dispute it, you need to offer citations. When did the regulations about to be abolished come into effect?
Er? Please read up on the history before you comment.
How is this wrong?
Okay let's start out that everyone pays for a connection. Netflix pays Level 3. You pay your ISP. You pay for a Netflix subscription. Your ISP should deliver Netflix if you want; however, your ISP wants to charge Netflix to send you data that you and Netflix already paid to send. Is that simple enough?
So? Why should it be the concern of the government and the citizenry, what these private companies do?
Why should it be concern of the government if private companies are wronging the citizenry? Is that the exact question you are asking?
They can afford to pay AT&T whatever fees get extorted.
But they don't want to pay. Also AT&T can charge high extortion rates.
. If people can't access Google on AT&T they will switch to someone else. That can't be said for podunk rivals.
Switch to who? Most ISPs have monopolies in their markets.
We are repeatedly [seattletimes.com] told [nytimes.com], "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
Well Amazon is talking about their customers so the fact that net neutrality benefits them as well as consumers (which are the "little guys") isn't all that suspect.
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
You are aware that the fight for net neutrality precedes 2014 right? It wasn't until 2014 that the Court of Appeals decided that the FCC could not enforce it under Title I protections but could enforce it under Title II.
Translation: owners of the networking equipment and cables are prevented from doing what they want with their property. War is peace. Regulations are liberty.
No. Translation: All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others. Some owners decided they can charge more for premium access while other owners don't. For example, consumer ISPs like Verizon want to do it but Tier 1 providers like Level 3 don't.
If it isn't supported here on this site, then you can't use the encoding, therefore 5 years from now, it won't be cryptic. If the site supported Unicode, the code itself does not change.
What are you taking about? UTF-8 is over 20 years old. HTML is even older. It's one thing not to use the newest emoji but to say you won't use encodings that haven't changed in 20+ years because they might change in the future isn't a great reason.
Reminds me whenPaul Ceglia sued Mark Zuckerberg saying Zuckerberg signed over 50% of Facebook to him.A detailed analysis of the emails showed that they had been fabricated due to small things like extra spaces in email headers that shouldn't be there and that the timestamps of the emails didn't correspond to Daily Savings time changes.
Remember when Microsoft held a "funeral" for the iPhone in 2010? Today the iPhone makes more money for Apple than all of MS.
One relies heavily on proprietary software and formats and has an extremely high profit margin,
Which proprietary formats do you object to using?
the other uses industry standards and costs a lot less
Defines: "Cost a lot less". Certainly if you get top of the line Android phones, they cost as much as an iPhone. There are Android phones which are cheaper. They are some which are not cheaper.
play a gameboy game on your device
So let's be clear on this: You're complaining that you can't run an emulator to play a Nintendo(TM) Gameboy ROM on iPhone but you can do that on Android. You are aware that unauthorized ROMs could violate copyright. There is no precedent for this but ROMs are in a legal gray area. Some would argue it's space-shifting which qualifies as Fair Use but downloading them from the Internet constitutes unauthorized distribution which is not covered by Fair Use. So the crux of your complaint is that Apple doesn't want to deal with legal gray areas.