I wonder what's the cost for content providers to join Binge On? Unless it's onerous, I really can't see the censorship part of it.
Your choice of terminology reveals that you don't understand the issue: in reality, there is no such thing as a "content provider" as a separate and distinct class on the Internet. T-Mobile should not be making a distinction between Netflix and the proverbial Icecast server in some random guy's basement! In principle, all users are content providers.
And even though Binge On is apparently free for the content provider, it's still a problem because this pdf is the only thing I can easily find about how to join it, and although it's sorely lacking in detail, it's fairly clear that setting it up requires manual coordination with T-Mobile, which they obviously aren't going to be willing to do for anyone who isn't a fairly large company. Moreover, even if setting it up were as easy for the content provider as typing your domain name into a web form and clicking a "binge on me" button, that still would prove to be an unreasonable burden when every other ISP started doing the same thing and every random guy with an Icecast server had to spend huge quantities of time signing up with all the ISPs. Netflix can pay somebody to do that as a full-time job; normal people can't.
This makes me think of another issue: as a T-Mobile user, how do I enable Binge On zero-rating for video uploaded from my phone? The inability to do that violates the principle of net neutrality, too!
On the contrary: I remember the default-gray backgrounds. I remember the "under construction" animated.gifs. I remember the Motif-esque beveled table borders. I remember the crappy Geocities webpages about people's pets.
And if I could wish Facebook, Doubleclick, etc. away at the cost of accepting all that back, I'd make that trade in a heartbeat.
See, people got so wrapped up with the principle of Net Neutrality (that each person/company should only have to pay their own ISP), that they lost sight of the reason why we wanted Net Neutrality. Increasing costs is a symptom of economic inefficiency. Decreasing costs happen when you make economic transactions more efficient. We want to make the economy more efficient. That's what gives up productivity gains, and increases our standard of living despite us doing the same amount of work as before.
No. We didn't want net Neutrality in order to make things more efficient; we want it in order to keep things FAIR.
Binge On is tantamount to censorship, in the sense that T-Mobile is directly limiting the amount of non-"participating" video you can view.
Nah, what was metered was the number of page views without ads (or maybe it was days without ads, or something). Either way, subscription expiration was strictly tied to turning off ads.
FYI, subscriptions never entirely went away. I paid once and did not choose to suppress ads (I wanted some of the other benefits), so my subscription never expired and I still have the little asterisk next to my name on posts to this day.
You can certainly give up on legitimate uses of encryption, but criminals aren't going to quit using it themselves.
Therefore, the choice is not whether to give up freedom in return for safety, but whether to give up freedom in return for nothing of value at all. Unless you're a totalitarian sociopath, it's an easy choice!
Sure, that makes sense. I think the only point we differ on is the meaning of the idiom "to hang your hat on." The fireplace analogy is, by all means, worthwhile to bring up. I just don't think it should be the only (or even necessarily primary) argument.
Who said anything about Romney? I voted for Jon Huntsman in the primary, and Gary Johnson (the libertarian candidate) in the general.
This year will be Sanders though, or the libertarian again if Clinton wins the primary. (Sanders is weak on encryption rights, but strong enough on other stuff that he's worth voting for. Clinton, however, is not.)
The Fourth Amendment isn't the right one to hang our hats on here, as it has that exception about "warrants" or "probable cause."
The right argument to make is that code is speech, thus the First Amendment holds that the government cannot either censor a software author by restricting him from writing encryption without a backdoor, or compel speech by forcing him to disclose his private signing key.
The other right argument to make is that the Fifth Amendment holds that anyone is free to use unbreakable encryption and cannot be forced to testify against himself by divulging his encryption key.
I voted for you twice but you're fucking wrong on this.
I voted for him once, solely due to his "Constitutional scholar" shtick. I figured out that was a blatant lie during his first term, and learned my lesson.
I have a right to encrypt whatever the fuck I want, and the government cannot compel me to testify against myself by giving them the encryption key. Fifth Amendment.
Apple has a right to make whatever speech it wants -- or, crucially, to refrain from speaking. In particular, it has a right not to tell the government its signing key, either. First Amendment.
Totalitarian shitbag Obama needs to back the fuck off. At this point he's even worse than George "goddamn piece of paper" W. Bush!
We should be building solar and wind power plants as fast as we feasibly can. While that happens, we should be decommissioning the coal-fired plants first, then the oil-fired ones, then the natural gas-fired ones, then evaluating the hydroelectric dams for damage to river ecosystems and demolishing the sufficiently-harmful ones, and only then decommissioning the nuclear plants after everything worse is already gone.
You do realize eating ANYTHING from the Pacific Ocean is very very risky... right?
To the extent that's true, it's true mostly because of mercury contamination produced form coal-fired power plants, not radioactive particles from Fukushima.
It's like talking to a brick wall about how a factor 9 quake accompanied with a 500 foot tall tsunami is going to crush it and then sweep all the bricks onto the top of the hill it can see in the distance.
Well, just fucking build it above 500 ft and put base isolators under it, then!
The issue is not that we "cant" build nuclear power plants that are safe; the issue is that we stupidly chose not to.
Your brainpower must be exceedingly limited if you don't understand the length of time and scope of problem that a nuclear meltdown poses to the environment versus some "carbon", that arguably does or does not have a limited effect solely on the climate of the planet.
You miss the point. Ignore the CO2 and all the "traditional" pollutants (particulates, VOCs, SOx, NOx, etc.) completely. Forget about it; it's irrelevant for the purpose of this post. We're not talking about carbon, or any of the rest of those, at all. Got it?
Okay. Now, understand this: even then, coal-fired plants are still worse because they collectively release more radiation per MWh in normal operation than nuclear plants have done, even including meltdowns!
They can't just build more housing because the zoning code doesn't allow it. Hence my statement that "Reasonable zoning codes that would allow for an increase in density would help too, of course."
Slashdot Mirror
Your choice of terminology reveals that you don't understand the issue: in reality, there is no such thing as a "content provider" as a separate and distinct class on the Internet. T-Mobile should not be making a distinction between Netflix and the proverbial Icecast server in some random guy's basement! In principle, all users are content providers.
And even though Binge On is apparently free for the content provider, it's still a problem because this pdf is the only thing I can easily find about how to join it, and although it's sorely lacking in detail, it's fairly clear that setting it up requires manual coordination with T-Mobile, which they obviously aren't going to be willing to do for anyone who isn't a fairly large company. Moreover, even if setting it up were as easy for the content provider as typing your domain name into a web form and clicking a "binge on me" button, that still would prove to be an unreasonable burden when every other ISP started doing the same thing and every random guy with an Icecast server had to spend huge quantities of time signing up with all the ISPs. Netflix can pay somebody to do that as a full-time job; normal people can't.
This makes me think of another issue: as a T-Mobile user, how do I enable Binge On zero-rating for video uploaded from my phone? The inability to do that violates the principle of net neutrality, too!
On the contrary: I remember the default-gray backgrounds. I remember the "under construction" animated .gifs. I remember the Motif-esque beveled table borders. I remember the crappy Geocities webpages about people's pets.
And if I could wish Facebook, Doubleclick, etc. away at the cost of accepting all that back, I'd make that trade in a heartbeat.
No. We didn't want net Neutrality in order to make things more efficient; we want it in order to keep things FAIR.
Binge On is tantamount to censorship, in the sense that T-Mobile is directly limiting the amount of non-"participating" video you can view.
I miss the Internet of the late '90s, before every company started trying to track, analyze and monetize everything I do.
Your post is like somebody saying they got into construction because they like playing with hammers, when what they really like is building stuff.
Anybody know why the file extension is ".~BT"? Is Microsoft using a BitTorrent-like protocol to download Windows 10?
Drones are already restricted near airports. That doesn't mean they need to be similarly restricted everywhere else!
Nah, what was metered was the number of page views without ads (or maybe it was days without ads, or something). Either way, subscription expiration was strictly tied to turning off ads.
FYI, subscriptions never entirely went away. I paid once and did not choose to suppress ads (I wanted some of the other benefits), so my subscription never expired and I still have the little asterisk next to my name on posts to this day.
Having a list of names of immigrants is one thing. Requiring the immigrants to disclose their religion is quite another!
And what is that percentage in the US?
The problem is that a judge and/or jury has to (a) understand what parallel construction is, and (b) care.
You can certainly give up on legitimate uses of encryption, but criminals aren't going to quit using it themselves.
Therefore, the choice is not whether to give up freedom in return for safety, but whether to give up freedom in return for nothing of value at all. Unless you're a totalitarian sociopath, it's an easy choice!
Sure, that makes sense. I think the only point we differ on is the meaning of the idiom "to hang your hat on." The fireplace analogy is, by all means, worthwhile to bring up. I just don't think it should be the only (or even necessarily primary) argument.
Who said anything about Romney? I voted for Jon Huntsman in the primary, and Gary Johnson (the libertarian candidate) in the general.
This year will be Sanders though, or the libertarian again if Clinton wins the primary. (Sanders is weak on encryption rights, but strong enough on other stuff that he's worth voting for. Clinton, however, is not.)
The Fourth Amendment isn't the right one to hang our hats on here, as it has that exception about "warrants" or "probable cause."
The right argument to make is that code is speech, thus the First Amendment holds that the government cannot either censor a software author by restricting him from writing encryption without a backdoor, or compel speech by forcing him to disclose his private signing key.
The other right argument to make is that the Fifth Amendment holds that anyone is free to use unbreakable encryption and cannot be forced to testify against himself by divulging his encryption key.
I voted for him once, solely due to his "Constitutional scholar" shtick. I figured out that was a blatant lie during his first term, and learned my lesson.
DO YOU SPEAK IT?
I have a right to encrypt whatever the fuck I want, and the government cannot compel me to testify against myself by giving them the encryption key. Fifth Amendment.
Apple has a right to make whatever speech it wants -- or, crucially, to refrain from speaking. In particular, it has a right not to tell the government its signing key, either. First Amendment.
Totalitarian shitbag Obama needs to back the fuck off. At this point he's even worse than George "goddamn piece of paper" W. Bush!
We should be building solar and wind power plants as fast as we feasibly can. While that happens, we should be decommissioning the coal-fired plants first, then the oil-fired ones, then the natural gas-fired ones, then evaluating the hydroelectric dams for damage to river ecosystems and demolishing the sufficiently-harmful ones, and only then decommissioning the nuclear plants after everything worse is already gone.
To the extent that's true, it's true mostly because of mercury contamination produced form coal-fired power plants, not radioactive particles from Fukushima.
Well, just fucking build it above 500 ft and put base isolators under it, then!
The issue is not that we "cant" build nuclear power plants that are safe; the issue is that we stupidly chose not to.
You miss the point. Ignore the CO2 and all the "traditional" pollutants (particulates, VOCs, SOx, NOx, etc.) completely. Forget about it; it's irrelevant for the purpose of this post. We're not talking about carbon, or any of the rest of those, at all. Got it?
Okay. Now, understand this: even then, coal-fired plants are still worse because they collectively release more radiation per MWh in normal operation than nuclear plants have done, even including meltdowns!
Well, there are always counterexamples like Detroit...
They can't just build more housing because the zoning code doesn't allow it. Hence my statement that "Reasonable zoning codes that would allow for an increase in density would help too, of course."
Even that won't always help you anymore. See Kelo v. New London.