I've never read the actual wording so you may be correct. I thought it was basically just, "if you bias against any traffic or filter in any way, you lose status."
By selectively banning accounts for certain types of traffic, AT&T has effectively disqualified themselves from the safe harbor provisions. All that someone needs to do is download some pics of kiddy diddling and AT&T could be sued to oblivion for providing child pornography. Safe harbor ONLY applies when the ISP doesn't bias network traffic.
Rest in peace. Both the world and academia need more men like you. Thank you for the inspiration you've given me without ever even meeting me. You will be missed.
Jwait til the parties responsible for his sentencing get an earful about it. The judge/da will both probably catch a ton of flack for putting a sociopath in a minimum security resort instead of a real prison. I see this potentially snowballing into tougher penalties for all spammers (good thing) but potentially worse penalties for other computer-related infractions as well (bad thing).
Given that no other data is given, I really don't have much more to go on. If you do, please share. Yes, the point of custody transfer is that retransmits can be handled by the routers that form the network. But therein lies the problem. When TCP was created the goal was to create a network that could survive a nuclear war. TCP is designed so that if there's no confirmation, the source retransmits. However according to this article the routers handle retransmits. What happens if there is a bit of data that gets transmitted to a router, but the router currently has no other connection point besides the source. It caches that data to be retransmitted as soon as another link is available. However, what if in the meantime that router (the one holding the data in 'custody') gets destroyed or otherwise taken out of commission. What if it gets caught in an ion storm. These are real possibilities. It seems like a very, VERY risky way to do it. Unless of course they're planning to use this as yet another layer which resides somewhere between layers 3 and 4 functions to confirm retransmits from each individual link to the previous link and then ultimately back to the source - which would equate to a LOT of overhead and wasted bandwidth. Unless they're planning to use a connectionless style internetworking protocol, but I doubt that they'd be willing to let data get lost in things this critical.
"Reliability in DTN is provided by a mechanism called custody transfer, where nodes in the network can assume responsibility for retransmitting lost messages. This allows for retransmissions from inside the network rather than having to retransmit data from the source, as is the case with TCP."
Hmmm, sounds like DoS just got a whole lot easier. Instead of having to get nasty at an endpoint, you could attack a single router and have everything get all kinds of wonky. I understand why they want to do it this way, but the seperation of responsibility was put there for a reason in TCP waaaaay back in the DARPA days so that if any link goes down you have no data loss. What happens if critical data is being transmitted from a source, and the source gets cut off. The retransmitting router gets hit by a meteor and is trashed. Critical data loss. Am I missing something?
Considering they've already issued a press release that they won't be doing the pay your own thing again, (it was just a publicity stunt), I'm thinking this is exactly the same. Just a way for a bunch of old rockers to get some notice. I'll ignore it - if their efforts were genuine support for open source, that'd be one thing. But they're not.
Actually, you're wrong. Apple market share has grown by leaps and bounds, as has *nix market share thanks to microsoft forcing vista down peoples' throats. I expect it will get even worse now that the official end of life has ended for XP and the only OEM still selling it is dell.
I've retyped a response to this about 8 times, including things like Katz v. US, the fourth and fifth amendments, the police powers, and even the fact that you are reading the constitution wrong. See, the bill of rights isn't a list of rights you have - its a list of things they can't take from you. You're a fool if you're willing to give up any right you have as an American citizen. Period.
"... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the people who once upon a time
handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now
restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses"
My fellow Americans, we have failed ourselves. This is why the second Amendment was invented, as clearly explained in the declaration of independence. Do you think they would have voted this way if 3/4ths of the nation was standing, armed, in front of the senate? Our apathy has doomed this nation to becoming an Orwellian police state.
Logical skills and constructing a rock-solid argument towards a particular problem are some of the traits in our best computer scientists. They're also the bed rock of a great attorney.
Agreed. People scoff at the idea of 2012 having major significance, ignoring the fact that on December 21st 2012 we'll cross the galactic meridian, which historically has signalled a pole shift.
Actually, you're incorrect. They were displaced because the Israeli army forcibly removed them from their homes. The Palastinians had lived peacefully with Mizrahi Jews for a millenia. Their conflict has nothing to do with antisemitism, it has to do with being displaced.
Further, those Palastinians who did stay behind, Israeli Palastinians, are forced to carry permission papers to even leave their homes, and must bear different license plates on their cars indicating them as a "danger to the state." There is also a possibility that their homes can be confiscated at any time to be used to make room for more Israeli settlers. They're relegated to second class citizens. If your statement was correct, then there would have never been a purpose for any of the Intifadas, or more importantly, the 1967 UN Resolution that Israel must stay within defined borders because they were forcefully displacing the surrounding populace.
But I guess you're right, the UN did that for no reason.
Please take a class or two on middle eastern history, or spend some time working in a Palastinian refugee camp before you run your mouth. Hell, even talking to some refugees would be extremely enlightening. K? Thx.
The original purpose of jails was not for separation and retribution, but to rehabilitate the offender. Any first year criminal justice student could tell you that this idea has long since disappeared in the American thirst for revenge and retribution and the affection that have politicians have for "looking tough on crime." When the Quakers formed the original prisons they were basically exactly like the towns you and I know, only populated criminals. This was perverted over time. Now if a criminal goes into a prison, they not only have a 80% recidivism rate when they come out, most are more likely to commit a violent crime, and most have spent so much time exposed to an even worse element that any chance of rehabilitation they may have garnered is utterly shattered.
I would support police if they did their job to serve and protect. However, in protecting potential victims, they forget the root of the problem - a person who needs to be rehabilitated. They forget about protecting and serving them. Instead of fixing the problem, they toss the convict in a cage to become even more of a problem. Then they release him and say, "all better!" only for him to turn around and act exactly as he needed to act in prison for survival - but now in a civilian population. They say he's hopeless when in fact he was never truly hopeless, he's hopeless because they don't want to acknowledge that their system is broken.
Then, not only is ex-con a problem to himself and others, hes also blackballed in most of society, being unable to get most decent jobs outside of minimum wage. This leads to drug abuse, and further crimes to try to get ahead, and still more prison time.
There are criminals out there, but there are also people who have a single minor transgression and then have to pay dearly for the rest of their life thanks to a single police officer who felt pissy one day.
And yes, I've been a victim, I had my home broken into and had two laptops stolen while I was held at gunpoint. Yes it sucks, but I'd rather the person who stole them get help for their drug addiction and financial situation than have them locked in a cage for 5 years only to come out and actually shoot the next time they rob someone because "the big house" taught them to leave no witnesses.
Exactly - a gun sitting on a table unloaded will never shoot a person. Period. Therefore how does a law outlawing guns save someone? It makes as much sense as outlawing hammers if someone gets blugeoned to death with a hammer, or outlawing kitchen knives because someone gets stabbed.
Oh really? Consensus dictates laws? I think you used the wrong word, as consensus means "majority opinion." If your belief is so, then why is filesharing under constant attack? The consensus holds that there is nothing wrong with file sharing. Very few people benefit from the RIAA and MPAA's crusades, and yet thousands of people are sued for the benefit of very, very few people.
Also, very few people would feel that laws against positions outside of missionary are valid, and yet there they are on the books. The same goes with sex toy laws.
Your belief that laws equate to consensus are very, very optimistic.
Also, your example is illogical as the relationship between needing laws for a fundamentally good man differs from the relationship of "being a good shopper" and the necessity of reading prices. Please use a more appropriate simile if you want to get your point across.
Finally, my quote has a source as well, his name is Ammon Hennacy - one of the driving forces behind the Christian Anarchist movement. If you're not familiar, it is the idea that God's law supercedes man's, and therefore the laws of man do not matter if they are not in accord with the laws of God.
Note also that the phrase "well regulated militia being necessary to a free state" was also a throw back to the Declaration of Independence, wherin it states that it is the people's duty to reinstitute a free state if the government becomes oppressive to the ideals under which the free state was originally created.
Slashdot Mirror
...OP was full ot Libshitz.
I've never read the actual wording so you may be correct. I thought it was basically just, "if you bias against any traffic or filter in any way, you lose status."
By selectively banning accounts for certain types of traffic, AT&T has effectively disqualified themselves from the safe harbor provisions. All that someone needs to do is download some pics of kiddy diddling and AT&T could be sued to oblivion for providing child pornography. Safe harbor ONLY applies when the ISP doesn't bias network traffic.
Rest in peace. Both the world and academia need more men like you. Thank you for the inspiration you've given me without ever even meeting me. You will be missed.
Jwait til the parties responsible for his sentencing get an earful about it. The judge/da will both probably catch a ton of flack for putting a sociopath in a minimum security resort instead of a real prison. I see this potentially snowballing into tougher penalties for all spammers (good thing) but potentially worse penalties for other computer-related infractions as well (bad thing).
Given that no other data is given, I really don't have much more to go on. If you do, please share. Yes, the point of custody transfer is that retransmits can be handled by the routers that form the network. But therein lies the problem. When TCP was created the goal was to create a network that could survive a nuclear war. TCP is designed so that if there's no confirmation, the source retransmits. However according to this article the routers handle retransmits. What happens if there is a bit of data that gets transmitted to a router, but the router currently has no other connection point besides the source. It caches that data to be retransmitted as soon as another link is available. However, what if in the meantime that router (the one holding the data in 'custody') gets destroyed or otherwise taken out of commission. What if it gets caught in an ion storm. These are real possibilities. It seems like a very, VERY risky way to do it. Unless of course they're planning to use this as yet another layer which resides somewhere between layers 3 and 4 functions to confirm retransmits from each individual link to the previous link and then ultimately back to the source - which would equate to a LOT of overhead and wasted bandwidth. Unless they're planning to use a connectionless style internetworking protocol, but I doubt that they'd be willing to let data get lost in things this critical.
"Reliability in DTN is provided by a mechanism called custody transfer, where nodes in the network can assume responsibility for retransmitting lost messages. This allows for retransmissions from inside the network rather than having to retransmit data from the source, as is the case with TCP." Hmmm, sounds like DoS just got a whole lot easier. Instead of having to get nasty at an endpoint, you could attack a single router and have everything get all kinds of wonky. I understand why they want to do it this way, but the seperation of responsibility was put there for a reason in TCP waaaaay back in the DARPA days so that if any link goes down you have no data loss. What happens if critical data is being transmitted from a source, and the source gets cut off. The retransmitting router gets hit by a meteor and is trashed. Critical data loss. Am I missing something?
Considering they've already issued a press release that they won't be doing the pay your own thing again, (it was just a publicity stunt), I'm thinking this is exactly the same. Just a way for a bunch of old rockers to get some notice. I'll ignore it - if their efforts were genuine support for open source, that'd be one thing. But they're not.
Actually, you're wrong. Apple market share has grown by leaps and bounds, as has *nix market share thanks to microsoft forcing vista down peoples' throats. I expect it will get even worse now that the official end of life has ended for XP and the only OEM still selling it is dell.
Any government will be quick to steal power.
None ever give it back.
Come and throw me in Gitmo you bastards. Its better to die on my feet than live in chains of your f*cking police state.
But it also had some excellent usage of guillotines on people who had betrayed their countrymen.
the People have abdicated our duties; for the people who once upon a time
handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now
restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses"
My fellow Americans, we have failed ourselves. This is why the second Amendment was invented, as clearly explained in the declaration of independence. Do you think they would have voted this way if 3/4ths of the nation was standing, armed, in front of the senate? Our apathy has doomed this nation to becoming an Orwellian police state.
I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.
Logical skills and constructing a rock-solid argument towards a particular problem are some of the traits in our best computer scientists. They're also the bed rock of a great attorney.
Agreed. People scoff at the idea of 2012 having major significance, ignoring the fact that on December 21st 2012 we'll cross the galactic meridian, which historically has signalled a pole shift.
Cite your sources and do some research. http://books.google.com/books?id=Vuk73CLyFi0C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=quakers+penal+system&source=web&ots=2hPbrwg_J-&sig=_rR1k4N4QZjPlpvyOwTpLtYqyhc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
Actually, you're incorrect. They were displaced because the Israeli army forcibly removed them from their homes. The Palastinians had lived peacefully with Mizrahi Jews for a millenia. Their conflict has nothing to do with antisemitism, it has to do with being displaced. Further, those Palastinians who did stay behind, Israeli Palastinians, are forced to carry permission papers to even leave their homes, and must bear different license plates on their cars indicating them as a "danger to the state." There is also a possibility that their homes can be confiscated at any time to be used to make room for more Israeli settlers. They're relegated to second class citizens. If your statement was correct, then there would have never been a purpose for any of the Intifadas, or more importantly, the 1967 UN Resolution that Israel must stay within defined borders because they were forcefully displacing the surrounding populace. But I guess you're right, the UN did that for no reason. Please take a class or two on middle eastern history, or spend some time working in a Palastinian refugee camp before you run your mouth. Hell, even talking to some refugees would be extremely enlightening. K? Thx.
Dear god, please, never ever touch ADA :)
The original purpose of jails was not for separation and retribution, but to rehabilitate the offender. Any first year criminal justice student could tell you that this idea has long since disappeared in the American thirst for revenge and retribution and the affection that have politicians have for "looking tough on crime." When the Quakers formed the original prisons they were basically exactly like the towns you and I know, only populated criminals. This was perverted over time. Now if a criminal goes into a prison, they not only have a 80% recidivism rate when they come out, most are more likely to commit a violent crime, and most have spent so much time exposed to an even worse element that any chance of rehabilitation they may have garnered is utterly shattered. I would support police if they did their job to serve and protect. However, in protecting potential victims, they forget the root of the problem - a person who needs to be rehabilitated. They forget about protecting and serving them. Instead of fixing the problem, they toss the convict in a cage to become even more of a problem. Then they release him and say, "all better!" only for him to turn around and act exactly as he needed to act in prison for survival - but now in a civilian population. They say he's hopeless when in fact he was never truly hopeless, he's hopeless because they don't want to acknowledge that their system is broken. Then, not only is ex-con a problem to himself and others, hes also blackballed in most of society, being unable to get most decent jobs outside of minimum wage. This leads to drug abuse, and further crimes to try to get ahead, and still more prison time. There are criminals out there, but there are also people who have a single minor transgression and then have to pay dearly for the rest of their life thanks to a single police officer who felt pissy one day. And yes, I've been a victim, I had my home broken into and had two laptops stolen while I was held at gunpoint. Yes it sucks, but I'd rather the person who stole them get help for their drug addiction and financial situation than have them locked in a cage for 5 years only to come out and actually shoot the next time they rob someone because "the big house" taught them to leave no witnesses.
Exactly - a gun sitting on a table unloaded will never shoot a person. Period. Therefore how does a law outlawing guns save someone? It makes as much sense as outlawing hammers if someone gets blugeoned to death with a hammer, or outlawing kitchen knives because someone gets stabbed.
Oh really? Consensus dictates laws? I think you used the wrong word, as consensus means "majority opinion." If your belief is so, then why is filesharing under constant attack? The consensus holds that there is nothing wrong with file sharing. Very few people benefit from the RIAA and MPAA's crusades, and yet thousands of people are sued for the benefit of very, very few people. Also, very few people would feel that laws against positions outside of missionary are valid, and yet there they are on the books. The same goes with sex toy laws. Your belief that laws equate to consensus are very, very optimistic. Also, your example is illogical as the relationship between needing laws for a fundamentally good man differs from the relationship of "being a good shopper" and the necessity of reading prices. Please use a more appropriate simile if you want to get your point across. Finally, my quote has a source as well, his name is Ammon Hennacy - one of the driving forces behind the Christian Anarchist movement. If you're not familiar, it is the idea that God's law supercedes man's, and therefore the laws of man do not matter if they are not in accord with the laws of God.
Note also that the phrase "well regulated militia being necessary to a free state" was also a throw back to the Declaration of Independence, wherin it states that it is the people's duty to reinstitute a free state if the government becomes oppressive to the ideals under which the free state was originally created.
Police aren't there to defend you, they are there to arrest people (generally after they commit a crime).
Why I generally detest police - I can't stand the thought of a person who makes their living putting their fellow man in cages. Period.Yup, there's an old anarchist saying: "Oh judge, what good are your laws? The bad man will not follow them, and the good man does not need them."