No, they don't - you simply don't know what you're talking about. What you have either isn't legally classified at a "digital audio recording device", probably because it's made to copy data CDs, too., or it's an illegal device in the US.
The recorders and media I mentioned make use of SCMS, which is legally required in the US and many other countries.
To comply with copyright legislation in various countries, Digital Audio Home Recorders will only make recordings on CD-R and CD-RW discs bearing the appropriate 'audio' logo. These discs are subject to levies which are payable to the relevant copyright protection associations.
Because of this, you can borrow CDs from your friends or a library, and copy them for yourself, and it's all perfectly legal.
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders (it also covers cassette tapes, FWIW). These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.25 each.
The law which allows this was enacted at the urging of the RIAA, so thanks go to them for all the CDs I got for a quarter instead of $15.
"First, it means they have to throttle your network connection, otherwise why would you push to get a burst."
No, it does not imply that at all. It works the same way any other network QoS works, by putting a priority on certain packets. There's no throttling required in order to offer a premium service - wireless bandwidth is naturally constrained, multiple users compete for a limited amount of bandwidth. This simply allows a user to pay to have some of their packets placed at the head of the line.
No, it's very different. Today, US cell providers charge based on volume (GB/mo, but everyone gets the same bandwidth), on a long term contractual basis. This service offers fine-grained bandwidth increases (QoS), on an as-needed, pay-as-you-go, basis.
"Netflix can have a seemingly better service than e.g. Vdio simply because they are a bigger company and can afford it."
And why not? In your example, it's the Netflix subscriber which is actually paying. Why shouldn't they have the choice of paying for better service? Why should Vdio and Netflix be treated differently, as long as both are offered the same price for the same service level? Should I not be able to pay for improved service at both ends of a home media server - mobile device connection, where I am both provider and service, if I so choose? As long as the carrier doesn't use their position to have a service cost advantage, it's still net neutral. You're confusing transport, where net neutrality should apply, with services.
"Not so. The canonical example of net non-neutrality is when ISPs provide services at some default (i.e. artificially degraded) speed, but allow content providers to pay extra for the privilege of having their traffic delivered at full speed"
Yes, so. Why shouldn't both endpoints be treated equally (either "user" or "service" can pay for improved bandwidth/QoS), as long as the ISP isn't favoring their own services? The only difficulty is in how they would "charge" themselves to offer improved service, in order to maintain an equitable basis with competitors.
"The difference is that in theory they're supposed to provision a certain amount of bandwidth for 10mbps and a lesser amount for 1mbps"
What US cell provider are you on, which currently provides different bandwidth to different users (as opposed to charging by volume, and ignoring 3g/4g equipment capabilities)?
Actually, AFAIK, today cell phone users typically pay based on the volume of data (newer plans charge based on GB/mo) they use. This service extends that so they can also pay for improved bandwidth/latency (i.e. QoS).
Net neutrality is all about preventing service providers from gaining competitive (monetary) advantage for their own services, not about pricing based on free market supply and demand.
"It favors those who pay more. That's the whole problem that net neutrality is against."
Huh? You don't pay your ISP more for more bandwidth today? It's not reasonable/acceptable for an ISP to charge on that basis?
If anything, this seems like a good thing, since it's granular, and pay-as-you-go -- instead of simply paying for monthly bandwidth you may or may not take advantage of, simply buy a minimal level of bandwidth, and pay more as needed.
Finally, you're wrong. Net neutrality is all about preventing service providers from charging unfavorable rates for access based on the service (especially competitive services, e.g. charging more for Netflix bandwidth than for a cable Internet provider's own IPTV offerings). There's nothing to indicate that is the case in this instance, that they would charge less for increased B/W to their own services than other ones.
Google is in the process of buying Motorola Mobility. It is not final yet. So, no, Google is not a handset manufacturer, and never has been. Even after the acquisition is complete, it will take a generation or two of new devices before one could even try to claim that the quality (or lack thereof) reflects on Google. By their own account, Google has said they will take a "hands off" approach with their ownership (Google:"Google will run Motorola Mobility as a separate business."). That only makes sense, to avoid pissing off their other Android partners. Google bought MMI mainly for their patent portfolio.
Seems that you're simply defining "catastrophic" to mean what you want it to mean. Three Mile Island, a core meltdown, seems pretty catastrophic to me, even though it didn't result in much of a radiation leak. I'd count other meltdowns as catastrophic, too, since they effectively destroy the affected reactors. Your own citation says "Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961)."
But then again, your source also says "apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident." So, maybe you shouldn't count Fukushima as being on par with Chernobyl.
"Social Security and socialized medicine are entitlements, it's something that people ought to be entitled for just for being born American citizens."
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No human has any right to force (via government taxation) any other to support them (parent/child relationships excepted). You want to be taken care of? Look to family and private, voluntary charity. I am not your keeper, except to the extent I choose to be.
You're not "entitled" to anything, except the opportunity to subsist on your own.
Much of the reason Diginotar is out of business is precisely because they weren't timely, upfront and open about the issue. They delayed any notification until after it was known by other means. They understated the extent of the issue, and AFAIK, never did admit to the full scale of the compromise. Quite simply, their own actions showed they could not be trusted.
That's why other CAs should have learned from that event, and should quickly be public and open about any compromises they may discover.
According to the article:
The data that the EFF looked at was a summary of the reasons that specific certificates were revoked by CAs, as reported by the CAs themselves in CRLs. When a certificate is revoked, the CA specifies a reason for the action, and the EFF looked through the data collected in its SSL Observatory database and found that a scan of CRLs in June showed that 10 individual CAs reported that they were revoking 55 total certificates because of a CA compromise.
I'm not knowledgeable about exactly how such revocations are marked, do they actually distinguish between the compromise of a certificate due to customer error and a cert revoked due to a compromise of the CA's infrastructure? A certificate being revoked due to a "compromise," may not actually reflect poorly on the CA - a customer could have let the private key escape, notified the CA of the compromise, and the CA simply responded as it should.
The summary and article both imply that 64 bit addressing means a 64 bit processor. That's not the case. The ARMv8 is a 64 bit processor because it adds 64 bit processing support:
The ARMv8 architecture consists of two main execution states, AArch64 and AArch32. The AArch64 execution state introduces a new instruction set, A64 for 64-bit processing. The AArch32 state supports the existing ARM instruction set.
Slashdot Mirror
The recorders and media I mentioned make use of SCMS, which is legally required in the US and many other countries.
-- http://www.mam-a.com/audio_technical
One can use a computer or other device to copy an audio CD onto a data CD/R, but to do so legally, you must use the special Audio CD/R media.
That's effectively been done, when the War Department changed to the Defense Department.
Maybe Minfree (Ministry of Freedom)?
They do that in the US, too.
Because of this, you can borrow CDs from your friends or a library, and copy them for yourself, and it's all perfectly legal. 17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders (it also covers cassette tapes, FWIW). These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.25 each.
The law which allows this was enacted at the urging of the RIAA, so thanks go to them for all the CDs I got for a quarter instead of $15.
"in what world should anyone have to support a grown woman who refuses to take care of herself?"
The Obamacare one.
"First, it means they have to throttle your network connection, otherwise why would you push to get a burst."
No, it does not imply that at all. It works the same way any other network QoS works, by putting a priority on certain packets. There's no throttling required in order to offer a premium service - wireless bandwidth is naturally constrained, multiple users compete for a limited amount of bandwidth. This simply allows a user to pay to have some of their packets placed at the head of the line.
"it's EXACTLY the same."
No, it's very different. Today, US cell providers charge based on volume (GB/mo, but everyone gets the same bandwidth), on a long term contractual basis. This service offers fine-grained bandwidth increases (QoS), on an as-needed, pay-as-you-go, basis.
You're being off topic. The discussion is about a new cellular network service Verizon intends to offer.
"Netflix can have a seemingly better service than e.g. Vdio simply because they are a bigger company and can afford it."
And why not? In your example, it's the Netflix subscriber which is actually paying. Why shouldn't they have the choice of paying for better service? Why should Vdio and Netflix be treated differently, as long as both are offered the same price for the same service level? Should I not be able to pay for improved service at both ends of a home media server - mobile device connection, where I am both provider and service, if I so choose? As long as the carrier doesn't use their position to have a service cost advantage, it's still net neutral. You're confusing transport, where net neutrality should apply, with services.
"Not so. The canonical example of net non-neutrality is when ISPs provide services at some default (i.e. artificially degraded) speed, but allow content providers to pay extra for the privilege of having their traffic delivered at full speed"
Yes, so. Why shouldn't both endpoints be treated equally (either "user" or "service" can pay for improved bandwidth/QoS), as long as the ISP isn't favoring their own services? The only difficulty is in how they would "charge" themselves to offer improved service, in order to maintain an equitable basis with competitors.
"The difference is that in theory they're supposed to provision a certain amount of bandwidth for 10mbps and a lesser amount for 1mbps"
What US cell provider are you on, which currently provides different bandwidth to different users (as opposed to charging by volume, and ignoring 3g/4g equipment capabilities)?
"Cellphone users already pay for their bandwidth"
Actually, AFAIK, today cell phone users typically pay based on the volume of data (newer plans charge based on GB/mo) they use. This service extends that so they can also pay for improved bandwidth/latency (i.e. QoS).
Net neutrality is all about preventing service providers from gaining competitive (monetary) advantage for their own services, not about pricing based on free market supply and demand.
"It favors those who pay more. That's the whole problem that net neutrality is against."
Huh? You don't pay your ISP more for more bandwidth today? It's not reasonable/acceptable for an ISP to charge on that basis?
If anything, this seems like a good thing, since it's granular, and pay-as-you-go -- instead of simply paying for monthly bandwidth you may or may not take advantage of, simply buy a minimal level of bandwidth, and pay more as needed.
Finally, you're wrong. Net neutrality is all about preventing service providers from charging unfavorable rates for access based on the service (especially competitive services, e.g. charging more for Netflix bandwidth than for a cable Internet provider's own IPTV offerings). There's nothing to indicate that is the case in this instance, that they would charge less for increased B/W to their own services than other ones.
That's still net neutral. I don't see anything here which favors any particular service/provider.
this is simply local cache (like Akamai), which is what it sounds like, it's a service, not a violation of net neutrality.
"the clothing could have an array of sensors which monitor various aspects of ones health"
The insurance companies would love that - think of the advancement of actuarial science! Real time rate adjustments!
Google is in the process of buying Motorola Mobility. It is not final yet. So, no, Google is not a handset manufacturer, and never has been. Even after the acquisition is complete, it will take a generation or two of new devices before one could even try to claim that the quality (or lack thereof) reflects on Google. By their own account, Google has said they will take a "hands off" approach with their ownership (Google:"Google will run Motorola Mobility as a separate business."). That only makes sense, to avoid pissing off their other Android partners. Google bought MMI mainly for their patent portfolio.
Seems that you're simply defining "catastrophic" to mean what you want it to mean. Three Mile Island, a core meltdown, seems pretty catastrophic to me, even though it didn't result in much of a radiation leak. I'd count other meltdowns as catastrophic, too, since they effectively destroy the affected reactors. Your own citation says "Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961)."
But then again, your source also says "apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident." So, maybe you shouldn't count Fukushima as being on par with Chernobyl.
"The reason that software is bigger these days is that it does more for you. "
"touch" does more than a Pascal compiler?
"It takes way to many actions to find and launch something compared to gnome 2."
ITYM "...the bash shell."
Read some Locke/Hobbes/anything.
"Social Security and socialized medicine are entitlements, it's something that people ought to be entitled for just for being born American citizens."
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No human has any right to force (via government taxation) any other to support them (parent/child relationships excepted). You want to be taken care of? Look to family and private, voluntary charity. I am not your keeper, except to the extent I choose to be.
You're not "entitled" to anything, except the opportunity to subsist on your own.
That's why other CAs should have learned from that event, and should quickly be public and open about any compromises they may discover.
According to the article:
I'm not knowledgeable about exactly how such revocations are marked, do they actually distinguish between the compromise of a certificate due to customer error and a cert revoked due to a compromise of the CA's infrastructure? A certificate being revoked due to a "compromise," may not actually reflect poorly on the CA - a customer could have let the private key escape, notified the CA of the compromise, and the CA simply responded as it should.
- ARM press release
"FIS scans every click on Facebook for patterns that could suggest something malicious is spreading across the social network."
Let me fix that: FIS scans every click on Facebook for patterns that could collect more personal information about users which might add to revenue.
...and ATT/Sprint/T-Mobile are better.....how?