Fair enough. Eliminating the monopolies is a big step. But it is only about 1/3rd of the problem. There are 3 steps, including the one you listed, that are needed to make this work: 1. Abolish the monopolies 2. Split the ISP from the physical wire provider. 3. Establish network neutrality laws
The first is what you stated. Unchanged, full stop.
The second part is an extension of your statement "No content service allowed." Many people just can't wrap their head around this concept any longer: There are 2 completely separate services bundled into one. The company providing the network access doesn't have to be the same company providing the wires. Back when we were using dial-up (or ISDN or PPoE) you could have a local monopoly providing the wires, and a totally different company as your ISP. This is how states with regulated power work: A local monopoly manages the wires, but I choose my power provider.
The last part is the easiest: carriers may not alter or disrupt the content of the message. In theory, competition prevents this because intelligent customers won't pick ISPs that do this. The problem is that in reality it doesn't work well. Customers may not know for a while. They might be willing to give-up that freedom for cheaper service. And even if they don't just complain, and choose to actually change service providers, it costs money and slows gums up the process. Unfortunately, the term "network neutrality" is conflated with other unrelated concepts like pricing, or competition, or tiers of service. It really is just the same law we've had on the books since the era of the steam train. Phone companies cannot insert ads into conversations. They can't block conversations. They can't degrade the service to certain people. Trains can't decide to keep the packages they are delivering, or damage them, or deliver them to someone else, or add or remove something from the box.
Very glad you brought this example up! This is a great example of something that has nothing to do with Network Neutrality, that people commonly conflate with neutrality.
Does the principle of net neutrality obligate me to upgrade that pipe...?
No. Definitely not. This is an issue of network management and making your customers happy.
What network neutrality does state, is that the ISP must not try to filter or alter the traffic that comes from that pipe. That's all it has to say on the matter.
means that OEMs can heavily customize Android on their devices, and Google has little control over what they do. Google can't safely update devices running code to which it doesn't even have source,
OEMs heavily customize Windows on their desktops too, and Microsoft has little control over what they do. Yet Microsoft can safely update devices running code to which it doesn't have the source.
LOL! You live in an amazing world where malls are like resorts, but you don't enjoy the kinds of things everyone else does. Sucks to be you! If you ever get a free cruise again, I'll take your ticket.
They have nothing to do with nautical travel - you're no closer to the actual sea than in a beachfront hotel room
Agreed. But I don't think that is why people do it.
You're stuck for many days inside cramped quarters with nothing interesting to do.
Huh? I just looked for a random cruise ship, and it had: pools, waterslides, bars, clubs, restaurants, mini golf, bowling, shows, basketball courts, ice skating, 3d movies, spas, hot tubs, gyms, a shopping mall, rock climbing,...
But most importantly: The boat actually goes somewhere. Sometimes, it's even cheaper than a flight to the destination + an equivalent resort!
IANAL, but I thought you cannot simply file a case in any jurisdiction you want. You can only file it in a jurisdiction where the court has an interest. A New York company wanting to go after a hacker in Thailand can't go to a court in Virginia can they?
The physical issue you bring up doesn't really prevent them from *issuing* a search warrant. But it does inhibit their ability to *execute* the warrant. Executing it might require working with another government, or remotely hacking a server, or something like that. Do warrants state *how* they will be executed? Ex: If they get a warrant to search a computer, does the warrant state that they can or cannot hack it -vs- that they can sieze it -vs- they can copy the HD contents?
I have a list of applications I'd love to create if these things were readily available. I've been seething for them for a decade. How is it that they can't find applications? I've read university students projects and DIY makers who did frieking awesome stuff with them. Maybe the price point isn't good? Or the technology isn't any good? Or have the engineers been watching too many scifi movies and not going around the real world looking for applications?
(it's why IE always has to move files when its done downloading - the file save dialog is done by a higher integrity process, and the file is downloaded to a temporary location first (the only writable area a low integrity process has) and moved by the higher integrity process.
Do you have any links on that? That is interesting. I'm running process explorer now to try and see how that works...
...most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
Microsoft issued patch MS16-928167 which patched vulnerability CVE-2016-989374 which would allow a remote attacker to obtain administrator...
I *used* that vulneratibility! Can Microsoft just "update" it out? I was pulling in 5 bitcoins a week with that one! Can microsoft just remove that because it was seen as a so-called "security" problem? Clearly it was very popular judging from then number of people who paid for me to decrypt their files.
How does one learn to write software without first enjoying it? Are there people out there who can play the violin, but don't know what to play? Why did they pick it up in the first place? If anyone out there knows woodworking but doesn't know what to build, or can do electronics but doesn't know what they want to wire - please email me and I will put you to good work.
How does someone learn a skill, particularly a fairly academic one, without having a desire to do so? Is this some kind of generational thing because everyone I know who can write software does it because they wanted to build something. Same goes for any other skill or trade. The exception would be a few "dot bomb" progarmmers who took CS because they thought it would make them money. Few of them survived beyond a few years in the trade.
The headline says this is an image processing vulnerability. That makes it sound like someone could put embed code into a PNG/JPG/SVG file or something like that. But skimming the linked articles, it looks more like ImageMagick has a server product with bad URL parsing.
Any party with a majority in the state would be going against its own interests by allowing this
True, but only if you leave it to the legislature. I meant that the state citizens should amend their constitution to require this particular assignment of electors.
I just read the US constitution on this, and it is worded interestingly
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
So the US constitution explicitly assigns the role to the legislature. Hmmm... yet I propose taking it away from the legislature, which might violate the US constitution. So the state amendment might have to be written carefully, perhaps limiting the legislatures permissible methods of assignment. That detail would need to be worked-out should anyone dare to try it.
The United States does have one person one vote. The 13th + 19th amendments established that. But we don't have direct democracy. In particular, we don't have direct election of presidents. It's actually really really easy to change this, so if it truly angers people then just do it.
The United States is a democratic republic. That means there are aspects of democracy, and aspects of a republic. Not every government office is elected via direct democracy, and that is probably a good thing for a lot of reasons too broad to cover here. This was part of the Great Compromise when the US constitution was created. The question is: Were the authors of the constitution wrong? Is direct election of presidents really a good idea?
So there are 2 paths to changing this: first, is state by state. The other is to amend the constitution.
The state-based approach is for each state to assign its electors proportionally to the popular vote. So if your state has 10 electors, and 60% of the votes go to candidate A and 40% of the votes go to candidate B, then give 6 votes to A and 4 votes to B. Most states give all 10 votes to A. Changing that will get you 90% of the way toward a direct election. The 2 limitations would be: rounding error, unless you can give half of an elector, and the fact that electors are not exactly according to population (see "The Great Compromise" I linked to above). And better yet: If there are 3 candidates, allocate the votes across all 3 instead of just the top 2.
The constitutional approach is to get 2/3 of the people to ratify an amendment calling for direct election of president. This changes it in one fell swoop instead of state-by-state, and it would be more accurate. While we are at it, lets use a run-off instead of a plurality system. That's one area I think the founders really were wrong.
The republicans and democrats must also change the way their primaries are held. I'm not sure how the parties established that or how to change it.
But looking at the presidents in the last 50 years, I'm not sure that direct election is a good idea. We have gotten too good at marketing, so the average person is too easily fooled. Today, America elects popular, wealthy, dogmatic, liars. If we went back to the old way, of having senators elect a president, perhaps we would get a real compromiser instead of a reality TV show star.
If you want to use a test result, you must first understand what the test is measuring. It isn't ever going to be as simple as "Laptop A got 536 and laptop B got 642, therefore laptop B is better at everything." This same thing applies to medical diagnostic tests, or academic test, or product quality tests. Unfortunately, this is hard. Because statistics is hard. And science is hard.
Back then, there was a theory that the LHC could destroy the universe. There is another theory that says any parallel universe that could destroy itself or cause a paradox, is not a possible universe. Therefore, no matter what we do we could never build a universe destroying or paradox generating machine. So much like in H.G. Wells "The Time Machine" something would always happen to prevent the LHC from coming online. I dismissed it as crackpot until the whole bird with baguette thing happened. I'm told the LHC went online, but there is a part of me that just thinks it is all a hoax and we will forever be plagued with storms, earthquake, weasels, or baguettes at the very last moment before startup, until we give up trying to start the dang thing.
The article says it requires 150 people for 36-hours. Suppose these highly-paid medical professionals cost $100/hr. So $100/hr x 150 people x 36 hours = $540,000 just in labor. Add the machinery, the cost of the hospital rooms, the months to years of recovery, the training, medications - $20M seems like a bargain.
Also: From the standpoint of the body, it is a head upgrade!:-)
Could it be that the settlement against Microsoft established in 2002 which, amongst other things, required them to open their browser to competition, was preventing them from eliminating competing search engines? The only reason Microsoft permitted other browsers, and by extension, search engines in the browser, was because of this case. I suspect that they just forgot that they can now be evil again.
I suspect that hardcore PC gamers use controllers along with keyboards.
Anecdote: In my gaming group of about a dozen, I'll guess that 50% use XBOX controllers. Many of them used to use PS2/3 controllers with USB adapters. All are quite adept with the mouse and keyboard but prefer controllers for slower-paced or more indie games. Most of them have gaming mice, gaming keyboards, etc. I recently joked that some of us bought XBOX Ones, discarded the console, and kept the controller for PC gaming.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. Eliminating the monopolies is a big step. But it is only about 1/3rd of the problem. There are 3 steps, including the one you listed, that are needed to make this work:
1. Abolish the monopolies
2. Split the ISP from the physical wire provider.
3. Establish network neutrality laws
The first is what you stated. Unchanged, full stop.
The second part is an extension of your statement "No content service allowed." Many people just can't wrap their head around this concept any longer: There are 2 completely separate services bundled into one. The company providing the network access doesn't have to be the same company providing the wires. Back when we were using dial-up (or ISDN or PPoE) you could have a local monopoly providing the wires, and a totally different company as your ISP. This is how states with regulated power work: A local monopoly manages the wires, but I choose my power provider.
The last part is the easiest: carriers may not alter or disrupt the content of the message. In theory, competition prevents this because intelligent customers won't pick ISPs that do this. The problem is that in reality it doesn't work well. Customers may not know for a while. They might be willing to give-up that freedom for cheaper service. And even if they don't just complain, and choose to actually change service providers, it costs money and slows gums up the process. Unfortunately, the term "network neutrality" is conflated with other unrelated concepts like pricing, or competition, or tiers of service. It really is just the same law we've had on the books since the era of the steam train. Phone companies cannot insert ads into conversations. They can't block conversations. They can't degrade the service to certain people. Trains can't decide to keep the packages they are delivering, or damage them, or deliver them to someone else, or add or remove something from the box.
Very glad you brought this example up! This is a great example of something that has nothing to do with Network Neutrality, that people commonly conflate with neutrality.
Does the principle of net neutrality obligate me to upgrade that pipe...?
No. Definitely not. This is an issue of network management and making your customers happy.
What network neutrality does state, is that the ISP must not try to filter or alter the traffic that comes from that pipe. That's all it has to say on the matter.
They have sorta figured this out. There seems to be a big phone release every year, rather than ever 3 months. For a while it was crazy.
means that OEMs can heavily customize Android on their devices, and Google has little control over what they do. Google can't safely update devices running code to which it doesn't even have source,
OEMs heavily customize Windows on their desktops too, and Microsoft has little control over what they do. Yet Microsoft can safely update devices running code to which it doesn't have the source.
I was smoking an e-cig while riding on my hoverboard when my Dell laptop battery exploded in my backpack.
LOL! You live in an amazing world where malls are like resorts, but you don't enjoy the kinds of things everyone else does. Sucks to be you! If you ever get a free cruise again, I'll take your ticket.
They have nothing to do with nautical travel - you're no closer to the actual sea than in a beachfront hotel room
Agreed. But I don't think that is why people do it.
You're stuck for many days inside cramped quarters with nothing interesting to do.
Huh? I just looked for a random cruise ship, and it had: pools, waterslides, bars, clubs, restaurants, mini golf, bowling, shows, basketball courts, ice skating, 3d movies, spas, hot tubs, gyms, a shopping mall, rock climbing, ...
But most importantly: The boat actually goes somewhere. Sometimes, it's even cheaper than a flight to the destination + an equivalent resort!
IANAL, but I thought you cannot simply file a case in any jurisdiction you want. You can only file it in a jurisdiction where the court has an interest. A New York company wanting to go after a hacker in Thailand can't go to a court in Virginia can they?
The physical issue you bring up doesn't really prevent them from *issuing* a search warrant. But it does inhibit their ability to *execute* the warrant. Executing it might require working with another government, or remotely hacking a server, or something like that. Do warrants state *how* they will be executed? Ex: If they get a warrant to search a computer, does the warrant state that they can or cannot hack it -vs- that they can sieze it -vs- they can copy the HD contents?
Can someone explain to me: If the person has an antibody that prevents HIV from binding to a cell, how are they HIV positive?
I have a list of applications I'd love to create if these things were readily available. I've been seething for them for a decade. How is it that they can't find applications? I've read university students projects and DIY makers who did frieking awesome stuff with them. Maybe the price point isn't good? Or the technology isn't any good? Or have the engineers been watching too many scifi movies and not going around the real world looking for applications?
Fascinating links, thanks.
(it's why IE always has to move files when its done downloading - the file save dialog is done by a higher integrity process, and the file is downloaded to a temporary location first (the only writable area a low integrity process has) and moved by the higher integrity process.
Do you have any links on that? That is interesting. I'm running process explorer now to try and see how that works...
The people who built the robots, of course.
To quote futurama:
...most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
According to Immerman, it does exactly what you just asked for. Tesla states the mode change audibly and gives the user opportunity to cancel.
Microsoft issued patch MS16-928167 which patched vulnerability CVE-2016-989374 which would allow a remote attacker to obtain administrator...
I *used* that vulneratibility! Can Microsoft just "update" it out? I was pulling in 5 bitcoins a week with that one! Can microsoft just remove that because it was seen as a so-called "security" problem? Clearly it was very popular judging from then number of people who paid for me to decrypt their files.
(jk)
I am confused.
How does one learn to write software without first enjoying it? Are there people out there who can play the violin, but don't know what to play? Why did they pick it up in the first place? If anyone out there knows woodworking but doesn't know what to build, or can do electronics but doesn't know what they want to wire - please email me and I will put you to good work.
How does someone learn a skill, particularly a fairly academic one, without having a desire to do so? Is this some kind of generational thing because everyone I know who can write software does it because they wanted to build something. Same goes for any other skill or trade. The exception would be a few "dot bomb" progarmmers who took CS because they thought it would make them money. Few of them survived beyond a few years in the trade.
The headline says this is an image processing vulnerability. That makes it sound like someone could put embed code into a PNG/JPG/SVG file or something like that. But skimming the linked articles, it looks more like ImageMagick has a server product with bad URL parsing.
Good discussion points!
Any party with a majority in the state would be going against its own interests by allowing this
True, but only if you leave it to the legislature. I meant that the state citizens should amend their constitution to require this particular assignment of electors.
I just read the US constitution on this, and it is worded interestingly
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
So the US constitution explicitly assigns the role to the legislature. Hmmm... yet I propose taking it away from the legislature, which might violate the US constitution. So the state amendment might have to be written carefully, perhaps limiting the legislatures permissible methods of assignment. That detail would need to be worked-out should anyone dare to try it.
One person - one vote isn't a radical idea.
The United States does have one person one vote. The 13th + 19th amendments established that. But we don't have direct democracy. In particular, we don't have direct election of presidents. It's actually really really easy to change this, so if it truly angers people then just do it.
The United States is a democratic republic. That means there are aspects of democracy, and aspects of a republic. Not every government office is elected via direct democracy, and that is probably a good thing for a lot of reasons too broad to cover here. This was part of the Great Compromise when the US constitution was created. The question is: Were the authors of the constitution wrong? Is direct election of presidents really a good idea?
So there are 2 paths to changing this: first, is state by state. The other is to amend the constitution.
The state-based approach is for each state to assign its electors proportionally to the popular vote. So if your state has 10 electors, and 60% of the votes go to candidate A and 40% of the votes go to candidate B, then give 6 votes to A and 4 votes to B. Most states give all 10 votes to A. Changing that will get you 90% of the way toward a direct election. The 2 limitations would be: rounding error, unless you can give half of an elector, and the fact that electors are not exactly according to population (see "The Great Compromise" I linked to above). And better yet: If there are 3 candidates, allocate the votes across all 3 instead of just the top 2.
The constitutional approach is to get 2/3 of the people to ratify an amendment calling for direct election of president. This changes it in one fell swoop instead of state-by-state, and it would be more accurate. While we are at it, lets use a run-off instead of a plurality system. That's one area I think the founders really were wrong.
The republicans and democrats must also change the way their primaries are held. I'm not sure how the parties established that or how to change it.
But looking at the presidents in the last 50 years, I'm not sure that direct election is a good idea. We have gotten too good at marketing, so the average person is too easily fooled. Today, America elects popular, wealthy, dogmatic, liars. If we went back to the old way, of having senators elect a president, perhaps we would get a real compromiser instead of a reality TV show star.
If you want to use a test result, you must first understand what the test is measuring. It isn't ever going to be as simple as "Laptop A got 536 and laptop B got 642, therefore laptop B is better at everything." This same thing applies to medical diagnostic tests, or academic test, or product quality tests. Unfortunately, this is hard. Because statistics is hard. And science is hard.
Sorry. :-(
Does everyone remember when a bird with a baguette disabled the LHC?
Back then, there was a theory that the LHC could destroy the universe. There is another theory that says any parallel universe that could destroy itself or cause a paradox, is not a possible universe. Therefore, no matter what we do we could never build a universe destroying or paradox generating machine. So much like in H.G. Wells "The Time Machine" something would always happen to prevent the LHC from coming online. I dismissed it as crackpot until the whole bird with baguette thing happened. I'm told the LHC went online, but there is a part of me that just thinks it is all a hoax and we will forever be plagued with storms, earthquake, weasels, or baguettes at the very last moment before startup, until we give up trying to start the dang thing.
The article says it requires 150 people for 36-hours. Suppose these highly-paid medical professionals cost $100/hr. So $100/hr x 150 people x 36 hours = $540,000 just in labor. Add the machinery, the cost of the hospital rooms, the months to years of recovery, the training, medications - $20M seems like a bargain.
Also: From the standpoint of the body, it is a head upgrade! :-)
Could it be that the settlement against Microsoft established in 2002 which, amongst other things, required them to open their browser to competition, was preventing them from eliminating competing search engines? The only reason Microsoft permitted other browsers, and by extension, search engines in the browser, was because of this case. I suspect that they just forgot that they can now be evil again.
I suspect that hardcore PC gamers use controllers along with keyboards.
Anecdote: In my gaming group of about a dozen, I'll guess that 50% use XBOX controllers. Many of them used to use PS2/3 controllers with USB adapters. All are quite adept with the mouse and keyboard but prefer controllers for slower-paced or more indie games. Most of them have gaming mice, gaming keyboards, etc. I recently joked that some of us bought XBOX Ones, discarded the console, and kept the controller for PC gaming. :-)