Windows 10 has absolutely no business being characterized as a 'security update,' not only because the scope is way too big for that but because it reduces security!
Not all hills are moraines. Some are caused by things like uplift and volcanism. (You should have been taught that in Switzerland; that's where the Alps come from!)
Anyway, one of the best things I've ever seen teaching the "why" of geography (instead of just the "what") is How the States Got Their Shapes on the History Channel. I wish there was something similar for world history.
When we where in school (I'm assuming your part of the pre millenial gen x's like myself) , teachers had no idea how to incorporate computers into lessons because the damn things where so new (And because getting a commodore 64 to boot over a network was.... traumatic)
I'm from what I've heard called "the Oregon Trail generation" (late gen-x / early millennial), and some of our teachers "got it" (e.g. using the eponymous software I just mentioned, along with Number Munchers, LOGO programming, Hypercard, etc.) while others treated the computers as glorified typewriters.
No, what we should really be doing in the US is holding you fuckers at the CRAs accountable for your systemic pattern of libel. CRAs should be obligated to vet any information submitted to them for accuracy before passing it along to others or using it to calculate a credit score.
There is this leading company which became the leading company by acquiring many different physics simulation companies.
Which software is that, and which industry (aerospace, mechanical, AEC)? I work for a company that makes BIM software (that isn't Revit) and would be interested in a best-in-class physics library.
I implore either of you to show me a single application that was denied on non-technical grounds
You're missing the point, which is that it's unreasonable for an "application" to be necessary in the first place. There needs to be a way to set it up without the need for human manual intervention between the content provider and T-Mobile, because manual intervention cannot possibly scale to every content provider on the Internet (or every ISP on the planet, after they all follow T-Mobile's lead). Having Youtube's people coordinate with T-Mobile's people is one thing; having Joe Random Admin with a Shoutcast server in his basement coordinate with Bob's Internet Service and Bait Shop in Bumfuckistan, North Dakota is quite another!
Does the caching proxy discriminate between domains? Does the ISP require websites (note: not the ISP's "users"; I'm talking about the party at the other end of the connection) to "partner" with it to opt-in to being cached?
If the answers are "no," then there's no problem.
If the answers are "yes," but all you have to do to "opt in" is something like setting your HTTP cache-control header to "public" then that's fine too.
If the answers are "yes," and you have to manually call up the ISP and ask them to manually enable it for your site, that starts to be a problem (because it's unreasonable to expect every website operator to manually coordinate with every ISP). That's what's wrong with Binge On.
If the answers are "yes" and the ISP expects each website operator to pay it for the privilege (the Comcast/Netflix extortion model), then that's totally and completely unacceptable.
Yes, of course they have fully described technical standards for this.
Oh really? Prove it! Link or it didn't happen!
If there really is "no restriction" as you say, the "fully described technical standards" will be posted online at some easily accessible URL. I couldn't find it, but clearly you can -- or you're an asshat who needs to fuck off.
Oh My God, a PDF overview of a complicated technical system doesn't provide you immediately with enough information to be able to implement it. How could they DARE be so obtuse?
Okay then, link to the specific documentation! Show me where it's posted on the Internet! 'Cause I've looked for it, and found nothing.
The fact that that particular PDF overview doesn't explain in detail is not the problem; the problem is that there is nothing else provided.
Second, have you asked them if they have such a technical document?
Yes, I tried today. I called 1-800-tmobile, was put on hold for 15 minutes and was then told to send an email to bingeon@t-mobile.com. I did so, and got the following reply:
Video is the number one way people use wireless data and with Binge On we are setting video free! With Binge On, customers on eligible plans can stream video from some of the most popular streaming services without ever using their high-speed data! Our goal is to continue to add video streaming services over time from any compatible service.
 This mailbox is not monitored by customer care. For account information please visit https://my.t-mobile.com/
 For additional questions or comments about our Binge On announcement, please reach out to TForce@T-Mobile.com.
 If you are a video streaming service provider looking to have your service added to Binge On our product team will follow up with you by email in the near future.
Binge On!
The Un-Carrier
This is an automated reply. Please do not respond directly to this e-mail message.
We'll see what happens next.
More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid! T-mobile has neither the manpower nor the time to handle it manually for everyone like that; it's abundantly clear that they intend this to be for "some of the most popular streaming services" (that's a direct quote from the email above, by the way), leaving everything else as second-class.
Did you reply to the wrong post? I ask because your complaint is the same one I've been making, but you phrased it as if you thought you were disagreeing with me.
So you would rather T-mobile not offer their customers unlimited video and audio streaming to its customers just because a company has to meet certain technical requirements and apply and accept?
As a T-Mobile customer, YES!
"Meet[ing] certain technical requirements" is perfectly fine, but having to be a company or apply for permission are entirely unacceptable!
T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't.
I want my home server to be part of Binge On, but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).
You have to use T-Mobile's API so that they can ensure the stream parameters are appropriate.
Okay, fine: what API? I looked for the RFC, but can't find it.
Link to the publicly-accessible documentation for it, explaining how any random server operator can implement it without "partnering" with T-Mobile, and I will be perfectly satisfied.
But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams.
First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service. Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile. What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.
Perhaps it is unfortunate that "any random small server" doesn't use the protocols, codecs, bit rates, etc that Youtube and Netflix agreed to.
Have you investigated the process of getting content enabled for Binge On? I actually have. It has nothing to do with protocols, bit rates, standards etc. (i.e., something that any random admin could enable by tweaking some server settings) and everything to do with having your corporation sign a contractual agreement with T-Mobile.
If the process for enabling it were only technical and accessible to any server operator instead of instead of bureaucratic, I would have no problem with it.
Is Binge On really the most well-known example? When I think of Net Neutrality violations, I think of Comcast and its extortion of Netflix.
I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but that is extremely atypical: every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for money and control. Those typical examples are the ones we should be basing our discussion around.
First of all, what I wrote still applies: it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent. That's not to say it's a bad thing -- I, for one, love paying minimal costs as long as the quality is barely sufficient! I value-engineer my entire lifestyle, and plan to be able to retire 20 years early because of it. But I digress...
The problem -- and the reason I have Binge On disabled on my account as a matter of principle, even though I would be perfectly happy with compressed video -- is that it's implemented on a site-by-site basis. If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be great! It would also then be categorized as "perfectly-acceptable QoS" rather than "a violation of net neutrality."
So instead of claiming $55 from Sony, I will pledge never to give them another dime.
You hadn't already done that six years ago, when the removal of OtherOS happened? Or before that, when they released the rootkit CDs? Or before that, when they pushed proprietary DRM'd MemorySticks instead of MMC? Or before that, when they pushed proprietary MiniDiscs?
(I might have gotten those out of chronological order, and I'm sure I missed a few entirely... Sony is evil in so many ways it's hard to keep track!)
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory XKCD
Windows 10 has absolutely no business being characterized as a 'security update,' not only because the scope is way too big for that but because it reduces security!
Not all hills are moraines. Some are caused by things like uplift and volcanism. (You should have been taught that in Switzerland; that's where the Alps come from!)
Anyway, one of the best things I've ever seen teaching the "why" of geography (instead of just the "what") is How the States Got Their Shapes on the History Channel. I wish there was something similar for world history.
I'm from what I've heard called "the Oregon Trail generation" (late gen-x / early millennial), and some of our teachers "got it" (e.g. using the eponymous software I just mentioned, along with Number Munchers, LOGO programming, Hypercard, etc.) while others treated the computers as glorified typewriters.
No, what we should really be doing in the US is holding you fuckers at the CRAs accountable for your systemic pattern of libel. CRAs should be obligated to vet any information submitted to them for accuracy before passing it along to others or using it to calculate a credit score.
You missed the "... || criminal.wealthAndPower == high" clause.
Also, you did a bitwise and instead of a logical one.
Which software is that, and which industry (aerospace, mechanical, AEC)? I work for a company that makes BIM software (that isn't Revit) and would be interested in a best-in-class physics library.
You're missing the point, which is that it's unreasonable for an "application" to be necessary in the first place. There needs to be a way to set it up without the need for human manual intervention between the content provider and T-Mobile, because manual intervention cannot possibly scale to every content provider on the Internet (or every ISP on the planet, after they all follow T-Mobile's lead). Having Youtube's people coordinate with T-Mobile's people is one thing; having Joe Random Admin with a Shoutcast server in his basement coordinate with Bob's Internet Service and Bait Shop in Bumfuckistan, North Dakota is quite another!
Does the caching proxy discriminate between domains? Does the ISP require websites (note: not the ISP's "users"; I'm talking about the party at the other end of the connection) to "partner" with it to opt-in to being cached?
If the answers are "no," then there's no problem.
If the answers are "yes," but all you have to do to "opt in" is something like setting your HTTP cache-control header to "public" then that's fine too.
If the answers are "yes," and you have to manually call up the ISP and ask them to manually enable it for your site, that starts to be a problem (because it's unreasonable to expect every website operator to manually coordinate with every ISP). That's what's wrong with Binge On.
If the answers are "yes" and the ISP expects each website operator to pay it for the privilege (the Comcast/Netflix extortion model), then that's totally and completely unacceptable.
Oh really? Prove it! Link or it didn't happen!
If there really is "no restriction" as you say, the "fully described technical standards" will be posted online at some easily accessible URL. I couldn't find it, but clearly you can -- or you're an asshat who needs to fuck off.
Okay then, link to the specific documentation! Show me where it's posted on the Internet! 'Cause I've looked for it, and found nothing.
The fact that that particular PDF overview doesn't explain in detail is not the problem; the problem is that there is nothing else provided.
Yes, I tried today. I called 1-800-tmobile, was put on hold for 15 minutes and was then told to send an email to bingeon@t-mobile.com. I did so, and got the following reply:
We'll see what happens next.
More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid! T-mobile has neither the manpower nor the time to handle it manually for everyone like that; it's abundantly clear that they intend this to be for "some of the most popular streaming services" (that's a direct quote from the email above, by the way), leaving everything else as second-class.
Did you reply to the wrong post? I ask because your complaint is the same one I've been making, but you phrased it as if you thought you were disagreeing with me.
Hi, Comcast Shill! How's life at the call center these days? Still shitty?
FYI, Netflix called it exactly that:
As a T-Mobile customer, YES!
"Meet[ing] certain technical requirements" is perfectly fine, but having to be a company or apply for permission are entirely unacceptable!
I want my home server to be part of Binge On, but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).
Okay, fine: what API? I looked for the RFC, but can't find it.
Link to the publicly-accessible documentation for it, explaining how any random server operator can implement it without "partnering" with T-Mobile, and I will be perfectly satisfied.
First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service. Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile. What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.
Have you investigated the process of getting content enabled for Binge On? I actually have. It has nothing to do with protocols, bit rates, standards etc. (i.e., something that any random admin could enable by tweaking some server settings) and everything to do with having your corporation sign a contractual agreement with T-Mobile.
If the process for enabling it were only technical and accessible to any server operator instead of instead of bureaucratic, I would have no problem with it.
Is Binge On really the most well-known example? When I think of Net Neutrality violations, I think of Comcast and its extortion of Netflix.
I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but that is extremely atypical: every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for money and control. Those typical examples are the ones we should be basing our discussion around.
Binge On is an interesting pseudo-exception.
First of all, what I wrote still applies: it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent. That's not to say it's a bad thing -- I, for one, love paying minimal costs as long as the quality is barely sufficient! I value-engineer my entire lifestyle, and plan to be able to retire 20 years early because of it. But I digress...
The problem -- and the reason I have Binge On disabled on my account as a matter of principle, even though I would be perfectly happy with compressed video -- is that it's implemented on a site-by-site basis. If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be great! It would also then be categorized as "perfectly-acceptable QoS" rather than "a violation of net neutrality."
They're paid for by increasing the price on everything else, and they reduce your freedom by increasing the cost of making alternative choices.
If you don't want somebody else to use a trademark, register it for yourself!
Like I said, evil. Records, cassettes, CDs and even MP3 downloads have proven over and over again that selling music does not require "protection."
If it requires a "license" then it's still proprietary (unless said license qualifies as FRAND).
You hadn't already done that six years ago, when the removal of OtherOS happened? Or before that, when they released the rootkit CDs? Or before that, when they pushed proprietary DRM'd MemorySticks instead of MMC? Or before that, when they pushed proprietary MiniDiscs?
(I might have gotten those out of chronological order, and I'm sure I missed a few entirely... Sony is evil in so many ways it's hard to keep track!)
I was thinking more along the lines of a polarized filter or array of CCD-blinding infrared LEDs.