now this... this seems like something I'd be interested in reading about. Is there some real discussion about this, or did you come up with it yourself? (It's not a bad idea at all at first blush)
There most certainly is a "good or bad" - your own assertion that every government in the world is corrupt supports that, in fact. I have no idea why you went on the anti-US rant there, but whatever.
The issue to discuss is the difficult position that Mozilla finds itself in now: an intentional and self-imposed obligation to act when cert authorities are compromised coupled with the unintended consequence of now having to decide if a Sovereign nation, acting legally within its own jurisdiction, constitutes a "compromised" cert auth. But it's their own damn fault for putting themselves in the situation where they presume to act on behalf of their userbase despite the userbase not all having identical use cases for their software.
I think their best course of action is for Mozilla to implement some sort of "greylist" that they can turn on something like a red SSL banner (instead of green) indicating a potentially compromised cert or key authority. That banner could then be turned on and off by the user if they desire, without the effect of cutting off legitimately issued SSL certs in the process. Nobody is cut off, but Mozilla feels better about warning end users of the "problem" that they feel obligated to act on. No harm except for the butthurt that some finite number of users might feel about "imperialists forcing morality" or whatever other rot they can conjure up.
if you're in a community property jurisdiction, then you have a reasonable expectation of being able to use her account to buy something without breaching wiretap/hacking laws. If you know her password, and she knows you know her password, you are a de facto authorized user - all she has to do in order to deauthorize you is to change the password.
Don't overreact just because it's emotionally stimulating to do so.
no, I think he's saying that the city should put up the utility right-of-ways and infrastructure, and let private industry handle the actual delivery of services. Like how roads are built by the city, but your garbage collector isn't run by the city. (Mine isn't, anyway... I suppose YMMV on that.)
Put another way: Austin's power company (delivery portion) is city-owned, and therefore the permits for leasing right-of-way on the poles is an easy road to traverse with only a single agency to deal with. You can still buy your power from any generation provider, but only Austin Energy is going to deliver it on the "last mile", since they own the poles.
I've said for a while now that fiber to the home will become a utility eventually, and just like the power companies all have different generation points, distribution points, and delivery points, same will go with fiber. (DSL is already sorta like this, anyway, with the Bell system usually only providing the last mile connectivity for the other DSL providers in the area.)
Austin is hardly a city to sneeze at... maybe population-wise, sure, but the sheer number of tech companies moving or expanding here is rather eye-opening. The people who make decisions about moving tech companies here are going to have a much easier decision once the GF infrastructure is done. ISPs are largely regional anyway, so the fact that the "flyover" region is the only one starting to get the Google treatment doesn't mean that your region's ISPs aren't paying very close attention, too.
actually, I'd wager it's Google who bungled it - they store items their own way - because they can - and when asked to move the old mailbox, my bet is that Google didn't use the IMAP protocol as written and transferred all the deleted mail in a folder marked something like "Google-like deleted folder but not really deleted just archived". When the Yahoo servers received it, they ignored it as non-standard and shunted the "deleted" (but not actually deleted) mail to the inbox.
If Google had actually deleted the mail instead of archiving it, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Or am I completely missing the point to this article?
Yes.
It's talking about spoofed requests - much like if someone sent a request for more information to a Scientology center, and they put your return address on the form. Suddenly you're getting very creepy mail from the Scientologists and you have no idea where it came from. If they do it enough times to enough organizations, and your mailbox is full, and your Netflix Blu-ray of Tootsie is deferred until you can clean out your mailbox.
because the demand for unedited audio is low enough that it's not usually worth the effort of authors to provide it - and if you include doing voiceovers for the author's own commentary, which generally happens after the interview is complete and the author has the time to verify and rebut statements made by the interviewee, you're talking about a LOT more work than simply putting out a text-based article.
submitter is playing a bit fast and loose in the description here... the law is *centrally* concerned with gambling, and any operation not involved with gambling but that does provide computers for the public's use is completely untouched by this - not just places like Starbucks. Not sure why the outrage, really. If gambling is illegal in Florida, this closes existing loopholes that some gambling houses used to skirt the law. It doesn't affect non-gambling "internet cafes" as they are traditionally known.
the effects would be the same, because the 3rd belt has (presumably) always been there... it's just that our understanding of the effects might change in light of the new data.
whoever owns the franchise... think along the lines of what the Bell companies do for phone. (Pretty much whoever is the existing cable operator would become the last mile provider)
well, capitalism without competition isn't actually capitalism, it's more like feudalism, so don't feel bad for knocking the idea of a monopoly around... the concept of cable monopolies is going to have to be reexamined eventually. They did it with the phone companies where you have "last mile" providers and backbone providers - I think eventually cable operators will be relegated to "last mile" status, and you'll be able to push other providers' services down the same pipe over time, just like you can get DSL from multiple providers over the same copper pair. Probably take 5-10 years, though.
(this is admittedly an oversimplification of the situation, but the basic idea is that the monopolies either need to be broken, or coax cable needs to be replaced with something more carrier neutral like utility fiber to the neighborhood.)
my sarcasometer is out for repair, so I'm unsure if serious... but I *am* a TWC customer, and I pay for their top residential tier, because I require it for my home business (IT consulting). It's stupid expensive for the upload speeds that I'm offered, which is really what I need the top tier for. I most certainly *am* their target audience, I get no less than two pieces of physical mail per month asking me to go for their TV and phone bundle. They LOVE the fact that they can charge me as much as they do, because I have no viable alternative right now, at least not until I can move to the next town over (Verizon FiOS) or into an office with a fiber provider. The woes of living in the 'burbs.
The article goes on to quote her: '...residential customers have thus far shown little interest in TWC's top internet tiers. "A very small fraction of our customer base" ultimately choose those options.'"
Um, yeah - that's because it's waaaaaaaay overpriced.
start knocking on doors and asking your neighbors if they would mind terribly if you spoke with their 15 year old son for a few minutes, because you've determined he's been hacking your wifi. Eventually, you'll hit the right house. For the wrong houses, act confused and say you must have miscalculated by a house or two, and that you're sorry. Bring cookies to show you're not an ass, though.
I live in the suburbs of Austin, and will continue to shop at stores outside the city limits in order to keep my "single use" plastic bags (the ones that are, in fact, recyclable, sometimes made of biodegradable vegetable products, and are ALWAYS reused by my household for cat litter/dog crap pickup and disposal.)
Here's the REALLY stupid part of this all... if all bags had remained the Wal-Mart style of thick recyclable stuff, we wouldn't have a problem, since there already exists suitable recycling facilities to handle them. If all bags had moved to biodegradable, then they could be composted and again, no problem. The problem now exists in the difference between the biodegradable bags which cannot be recycled and the recyclable bags which do not biodegrade. There's no single stream answer for the dichotomy, so the answer they came up with is "ban all single use bags"... All they really had to do is ban the use of one or the other, and provide a process for recycling or mulching the bags that remained. Hell, the local HEBs all have the "recycle your shopping bags here" drop off boxes when you enter the store, just in case you can't figure out on your own that they're recyclable.
Mountain out of a molehill turned into a sweeping restriction on commerce. Color me surprised that it's happening in Austin, where the "metro train" is frequently empty... but hey, at least we have feel-good public transport options, right?
Slashdot Mirror
now this... this seems like something I'd be interested in reading about. Is there some real discussion about this, or did you come up with it yourself? (It's not a bad idea at all at first blush)
There most certainly is a "good or bad" - your own assertion that every government in the world is corrupt supports that, in fact. I have no idea why you went on the anti-US rant there, but whatever.
The issue to discuss is the difficult position that Mozilla finds itself in now: an intentional and self-imposed obligation to act when cert authorities are compromised coupled with the unintended consequence of now having to decide if a Sovereign nation, acting legally within its own jurisdiction, constitutes a "compromised" cert auth. But it's their own damn fault for putting themselves in the situation where they presume to act on behalf of their userbase despite the userbase not all having identical use cases for their software.
I think their best course of action is for Mozilla to implement some sort of "greylist" that they can turn on something like a red SSL banner (instead of green) indicating a potentially compromised cert or key authority. That banner could then be turned on and off by the user if they desire, without the effect of cutting off legitimately issued SSL certs in the process. Nobody is cut off, but Mozilla feels better about warning end users of the "problem" that they feel obligated to act on. No harm except for the butthurt that some finite number of users might feel about "imperialists forcing morality" or whatever other rot they can conjure up.
if you're in a community property jurisdiction, then you have a reasonable expectation of being able to use her account to buy something without breaching wiretap/hacking laws. If you know her password, and she knows you know her password, you are a de facto authorized user - all she has to do in order to deauthorize you is to change the password.
Don't overreact just because it's emotionally stimulating to do so.
no, I think he's saying that the city should put up the utility right-of-ways and infrastructure, and let private industry handle the actual delivery of services. Like how roads are built by the city, but your garbage collector isn't run by the city. (Mine isn't, anyway... I suppose YMMV on that.)
Put another way: Austin's power company (delivery portion) is city-owned, and therefore the permits for leasing right-of-way on the poles is an easy road to traverse with only a single agency to deal with. You can still buy your power from any generation provider, but only Austin Energy is going to deliver it on the "last mile", since they own the poles.
I've said for a while now that fiber to the home will become a utility eventually, and just like the power companies all have different generation points, distribution points, and delivery points, same will go with fiber. (DSL is already sorta like this, anyway, with the Bell system usually only providing the last mile connectivity for the other DSL providers in the area.)
Austin is hardly a city to sneeze at... maybe population-wise, sure, but the sheer number of tech companies moving or expanding here is rather eye-opening. The people who make decisions about moving tech companies here are going to have a much easier decision once the GF infrastructure is done. ISPs are largely regional anyway, so the fact that the "flyover" region is the only one starting to get the Google treatment doesn't mean that your region's ISPs aren't paying very close attention, too.
I hear the Freewinds runs on circular logic. Screw nuclear power, you've got free energy forever with that stuff!
actually, I'd wager it's Google who bungled it - they store items their own way - because they can - and when asked to move the old mailbox, my bet is that Google didn't use the IMAP protocol as written and transferred all the deleted mail in a folder marked something like "Google-like deleted folder but not really deleted just archived". When the Yahoo servers received it, they ignored it as non-standard and shunted the "deleted" (but not actually deleted) mail to the inbox.
If Google had actually deleted the mail instead of archiving it, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Or am I completely missing the point to this article?
Yes.
It's talking about spoofed requests - much like if someone sent a request for more information to a Scientology center, and they put your return address on the form. Suddenly you're getting very creepy mail from the Scientologists and you have no idea where it came from. If they do it enough times to enough organizations, and your mailbox is full, and your Netflix Blu-ray of Tootsie is deferred until you can clean out your mailbox.
because the demand for unedited audio is low enough that it's not usually worth the effort of authors to provide it - and if you include doing voiceovers for the author's own commentary, which generally happens after the interview is complete and the author has the time to verify and rebut statements made by the interviewee, you're talking about a LOT more work than simply putting out a text-based article.
You could always try text-to-speech.
this, like most laws, clarifies and expands on an existing statute... so, essentially, they're doing exactly what you propose.
submitter is playing a bit fast and loose in the description here... the law is *centrally* concerned with gambling, and any operation not involved with gambling but that does provide computers for the public's use is completely untouched by this - not just places like Starbucks. Not sure why the outrage, really. If gambling is illegal in Florida, this closes existing loopholes that some gambling houses used to skirt the law. It doesn't affect non-gambling "internet cafes" as they are traditionally known.
if they don't actually implement it, though, then they'll have some serious antitrust questions to answer.
yes, because a youtube link makes you* much less of an ass.
*(I treat all ACs as if they were the same poster)
nice. great set of priorities you got there, chief.
came here to make this reference, surprised it took scrolling down this far to find it :)
the effects would be the same, because the 3rd belt has (presumably) always been there... it's just that our understanding of the effects might change in light of the new data.
whoever owns the franchise... think along the lines of what the Bell companies do for phone. (Pretty much whoever is the existing cable operator would become the last mile provider)
well, capitalism without competition isn't actually capitalism, it's more like feudalism, so don't feel bad for knocking the idea of a monopoly around... the concept of cable monopolies is going to have to be reexamined eventually. They did it with the phone companies where you have "last mile" providers and backbone providers - I think eventually cable operators will be relegated to "last mile" status, and you'll be able to push other providers' services down the same pipe over time, just like you can get DSL from multiple providers over the same copper pair. Probably take 5-10 years, though.
(this is admittedly an oversimplification of the situation, but the basic idea is that the monopolies either need to be broken, or coax cable needs to be replaced with something more carrier neutral like utility fiber to the neighborhood.)
my sarcasometer is out for repair, so I'm unsure if serious... but I *am* a TWC customer, and I pay for their top residential tier, because I require it for my home business (IT consulting). It's stupid expensive for the upload speeds that I'm offered, which is really what I need the top tier for. I most certainly *am* their target audience, I get no less than two pieces of physical mail per month asking me to go for their TV and phone bundle. They LOVE the fact that they can charge me as much as they do, because I have no viable alternative right now, at least not until I can move to the next town over (Verizon FiOS) or into an office with a fiber provider. The woes of living in the 'burbs.
The article goes on to quote her: '...residential customers have thus far shown little interest in TWC's top internet tiers. "A very small fraction of our customer base" ultimately choose those options.'"
Um, yeah - that's because it's waaaaaaaay overpriced.
start knocking on doors and asking your neighbors if they would mind terribly if you spoke with their 15 year old son for a few minutes, because you've determined he's been hacking your wifi. Eventually, you'll hit the right house. For the wrong houses, act confused and say you must have miscalculated by a house or two, and that you're sorry. Bring cookies to show you're not an ass, though.
get a yagi antenna - it's a good excuse to get one ;)
best. answer. ever.
I live in the suburbs of Austin, and will continue to shop at stores outside the city limits in order to keep my "single use" plastic bags (the ones that are, in fact, recyclable, sometimes made of biodegradable vegetable products, and are ALWAYS reused by my household for cat litter/dog crap pickup and disposal.)
Here's the REALLY stupid part of this all... if all bags had remained the Wal-Mart style of thick recyclable stuff, we wouldn't have a problem, since there already exists suitable recycling facilities to handle them. If all bags had moved to biodegradable, then they could be composted and again, no problem. The problem now exists in the difference between the biodegradable bags which cannot be recycled and the recyclable bags which do not biodegrade. There's no single stream answer for the dichotomy, so the answer they came up with is "ban all single use bags"... All they really had to do is ban the use of one or the other, and provide a process for recycling or mulching the bags that remained. Hell, the local HEBs all have the "recycle your shopping bags here" drop off boxes when you enter the store, just in case you can't figure out on your own that they're recyclable.
Mountain out of a molehill turned into a sweeping restriction on commerce. Color me surprised that it's happening in Austin, where the "metro train" is frequently empty... but hey, at least we have feel-good public transport options, right?