Somehow, you have the pomposity to believe your own PR. That's not unusual.
Whether de facto, de jure, de legis, amazingly, you agree that there is a monopoly, so there's hope for you. When the TCA wrested control of communications infrastructure away from the states, who in turn made sure that they could give it up by strangling what was left of Tariff 12 and any other theories of local communications companies, this legislation was bought and paid for. Fie on you for asserting any other theory.... I watched the fleets of lawyers make the rounds of the congressional buildings in DC.
But this is also about the topic of privacy, and where DNS comes in is pretty amusing. There's a lot of $$$ being made selling DNS hit info to the miners of ads, not to mention those that extract ostensible meaningful trend data, or perhaps worse-- dark data. It's revenue based upon the emaciation of privacy, and as onerous as deep packet filtering.
Summary: yes, monopolies, yes litigious, yes they'll go kicking and screaming through the courts dragging things down for decades, no they have no interests in giving up any of their revenue streams because it took a lot of bribery/campaign contributions/"PR" to get their way and finally yes they're claws have even more entanglements whose talons will be exorcised one at a time, causing the great Satans of monopolies to scream.
And each of these clawed-in data providers will go kicking and screaming through court fight after court fight until all is won or lost, because they need the data as an extra layer of revenue.
So, you can weasel-word what you'd like, but most people have no choice in their provider, so it is a de facto monopoly, and in some cases where legislatures were bribed to inhibit/prohibit communities from doing their own networks de jure monopolies.
And once this is through the courts, then what of the DNS data they collect? What of how they actually calculate data caps, and by what means?
Consumers are pretty much f#cked when it comes to cable and broadband "service providers", their lousy services, their monopoly-ingrained mindset, and their revenue-at-all-costs stance.
I just love it when they hard-code user/passwd in an R/O file system. Mmmm. Maybe they even salt it with a nice hash or two. Better still-- SSH certs! Yummy! Same cert on every device? A buffet!! Wowzers!!
Constant shouts of Soros are pretty silly. He's the ostensible boogeyman behind everything. I don't think he gives a fleep about the whole matter. OTOH, I know individuals that have nothing to do with corporate money that are plentifully incensed about the pipeline, and it would seem from the facts, with good reason.
Statistically, pipeline spills are up, and their damage increasing. I have no financial stake in any of it.
He plays a game called, "I'm just crazy enough to do it", a sort of bully's aggression play. Might work well in business, but that's money vs lives at stake vs uncontrolled war.
Very, very true. I'm against Citizens United, but also, campaign contributions from 1) outside the USA of any kind 2) outside of an electoral district from any source 3) contributions that aren't made from an anonymous donor pool and 4) contributions of over $500 by any individual-- and only corporations domiciled within the electoral district, paid once, to one candidate per office.
That said, there is a dearth of people that think things threw. When faced with two dystopias, they'll pick the one that sides with their bias.
In the HRC dystopia, it's not as bad as Trump White Peoples Party getting power.
In the Trump dystopia, the loosest cannonball in recent US electoral history gets a finger near the big red button on the football, and nukalar war is in the offing, something we were trying to avoid because it's more or less suicide. I believe that Trump's solution to ISIS might involve them. I cannot abide by such a dystopia, so I'm picking Clinton's.
The memes of Trump's lack of sunny disposition didn't seem to cost very much money. He seems to have done it all himself.
Money buys noise. And I must disagree with you about Hillary being everything Democrats hate. Many find her not the best choice, but they're behind her. When viewed as an antagonist of most things Trump stands for, her win is a near certainty.
Whether OVA or VMDK, moving workloads back and forth among cloud vendors isn't quite simple, but it is do-able on Azure, or if you think about it, other cloud vendors. The control plane to do this is immature, but it might not make much difference if the herd moves from VMs to container fleets.
Full compute costs are cheaper on AWS, for now, but Windows on AWS vs Windows on Azure isn't "insanely more expensive", not even "moderately more expensive".
Oracle, however, largely requires a customer to be in lockstep with 1) the OS 2) need the musculature the platform supports 3) be willing to waste a lot of compute unless the denominator of workload is comparatively huge and 4) want to swallow the Oracle KoolAid.
Oracle's biggest problem is Oracle. They once drove markets, but no longer. Now they're missing revenue targets, and making lots of clientele unhappy, the recent settlement with the State of Oregon just one emblematic failure in several high-profile stains.
In a perfect world, what you say is true, but the parent poster has a good point.
1. Because there's no such thing as a truly random number, one characterizes the number generator and then determine its bias. (See NSA-NIST->RSA foibles)
2. The decrypting machinery has to be perfect, and not cache the results in some mind-numbing way (see several CVEs)
3. In the actual case, the capability of resetting the NAND or using proximal bit-flipping techniques to force recounts to null are well-known. Just crowbar the location by stunning it with nearby high/low bits as appropriate, and buh bye state.
Yes, admittedly, crappy engineering. But zenith/stellar/foolproof engineering doesn't really exist, it's a lofty goal. With a big enough hammer, you can break anything.
The American adherence to common law is not quite as evolved as in the rest of the British-origined systems. Constitutional arguments are favoured. Something that happens in the EU/UK doesn't have direct bearing on outcomes, or so is my experience.
For a couple of decades, Microsoft hired bright coders (and a handful of dullards). That there are more Microsoft open source coders is no surprise. Coders code, and some are compensated for projects, and in other cases, do free/open work.
The where of a code repository is somewhat meaningless, so long as there's accessibility. Git is one place, others have flourished then largely disappeared.
Do people own rights at birth? Age of majority? The trust and guardianship of a minor varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I'm a guardian for an individual whose limitations prevent the capacity to thrive independently in the world. This individual is otherwise aware enough to have dignity.
Does a parent have the right to administer, guardian, or otherwise control a child or ward after 1) age of consent, 2) age of consent, or 3) age of consent, as you attempt to disambiguate consent in its somewhat artificially constructed sense?
We say that a child can't give consent for sex until an arbitrary year, which varies from 12-18 in the EU. A picture of a nude baby is not usually prurient to a "normal" individual, but is to a pedophile: porn and lascivious. When is such a photograph exposure in an indignant manner, as the subject loses the value of dignity and privacy?
In my mind, this is really about embarrassment and loss of dignity through the revelation of objects that are information that would under other terms, be of a private nature. Dignity and embarrassment start wars where people die, and borders change. It is a powerful value of self, an asset not to be trifled with. The embodiment of ideals has value, in certainty. Where does one draw the line of what is a loss of dignity, and the rest is: STFU?
Parents, guardians can both proxy consent, but can't grant consent. This is the rationale behind statutory rape-- a child cannot give consent. And why sex with animals is immoral-- they can't give consent. And so forth.
I'm a parent & a guardian. My job is to protect interests, provide safety, look after health, and so forth. I neither receive compensation (financially) as a parent or from my ward. There are those that do. Do they have incumbent liability, as in the "Huggies" tort defence cited elsewhere in this thread? Nope.
I believe that you don't care. And, Space cowboy, unless your gender is mistaken, you're taking it from a male point of view, and there are more than just an American male's point of view as regards exposing a youth's naked pictures to the Internet. I'm not the woman in the pics, and she has the nexus of being injured by this, not me.
Some people do care, and are embarrassed for her, or by contrast, her parents. There are lots of questions, and no answers, until a judge makes one. I find it fascinating and interesting. Personally, I hope she wins. Some families are really dysfunctional, and parents clueless, leading to this litigation.
It depends on the jurisdiction you're in, and how much the local prosecutors want to get elected. Baby pics are one thing, a little older pics, and one gets into the realm of ostensible prurient interests.
There are indeed infant and child sex abusers out there. But more important is the dignity of a young person, or at least the perceived dignity in *her* mind.
Dignity is important, and women's dignities are battered ferociously in many cultures. Where is the line drawn? Perhaps an Austrian judge will draw the first line.
Except in this context, it's an Austrian nexus, not the USA. And in the USA, there are plentiful prudes and people to test the prudes at all quadrants.
This said, there are untold numbers of child molesters, and the number of registered sex offenders climbs every year.
Embarrassing your daughter in such a way is heinous, in my mind, and damaged mind that refused to take them down has real problems. Does this woman own her privacy, her nudity, and embodiment of self, or can her parents haul out trash and wave it for control or demented entertainment?
Whatever is ruled has no effect legally in the USA. But many women will be watching the outcome, and for good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation, please.
Let me disambiguate your response.
Somehow, you have the pomposity to believe your own PR. That's not unusual.
Whether de facto, de jure, de legis, amazingly, you agree that there is a monopoly, so there's hope for you. When the TCA wrested control of communications infrastructure away from the states, who in turn made sure that they could give it up by strangling what was left of Tariff 12 and any other theories of local communications companies, this legislation was bought and paid for. Fie on you for asserting any other theory.... I watched the fleets of lawyers make the rounds of the congressional buildings in DC.
But this is also about the topic of privacy, and where DNS comes in is pretty amusing. There's a lot of $$$ being made selling DNS hit info to the miners of ads, not to mention those that extract ostensible meaningful trend data, or perhaps worse-- dark data. It's revenue based upon the emaciation of privacy, and as onerous as deep packet filtering.
Summary: yes, monopolies, yes litigious, yes they'll go kicking and screaming through the courts dragging things down for decades, no they have no interests in giving up any of their revenue streams because it took a lot of bribery/campaign contributions/"PR" to get their way and finally yes they're claws have even more entanglements whose talons will be exorcised one at a time, causing the great Satans of monopolies to scream.
And each of these clawed-in data providers will go kicking and screaming through court fight after court fight until all is won or lost, because they need the data as an extra layer of revenue.
So, you can weasel-word what you'd like, but most people have no choice in their provider, so it is a de facto monopoly, and in some cases where legislatures were bribed to inhibit/prohibit communities from doing their own networks de jure monopolies.
And once this is through the courts, then what of the DNS data they collect? What of how they actually calculate data caps, and by what means?
Consumers are pretty much f#cked when it comes to cable and broadband "service providers", their lousy services, their monopoly-ingrained mindset, and their revenue-at-all-costs stance.
Bait-and-switch? Amazon?? Oh no!!!! Never happens.
I just love it when they hard-code user/passwd in an R/O file system. Mmmm. Maybe they even salt it with a nice hash or two. Better still-- SSH certs! Yummy! Same cert on every device? A buffet!! Wowzers!!
Constant shouts of Soros are pretty silly. He's the ostensible boogeyman behind everything. I don't think he gives a fleep about the whole matter. OTOH, I know individuals that have nothing to do with corporate money that are plentifully incensed about the pipeline, and it would seem from the facts, with good reason.
Statistically, pipeline spills are up, and their damage increasing. I have no financial stake in any of it.
He plays a game called, "I'm just crazy enough to do it", a sort of bully's aggression play. Might work well in business, but that's money vs lives at stake vs uncontrolled war.
It's my greatest fear.
I've volunteered to protest. No one needs to pay me. Soros is a skunk.
You dismiss many people in one swoop. Do you fear these people that much?
Whose payroll are YOU on that you post AC?
I don't even think you're a Democrat.
Very, very true. I'm against Citizens United, but also, campaign contributions from 1) outside the USA of any kind 2) outside of an electoral district from any source 3) contributions that aren't made from an anonymous donor pool and 4) contributions of over $500 by any individual-- and only corporations domiciled within the electoral district, paid once, to one candidate per office.
I currently have 1 mod point left.
That said, there is a dearth of people that think things threw. When faced with two dystopias, they'll pick the one that sides with their bias.
In the HRC dystopia, it's not as bad as Trump White Peoples Party getting power.
In the Trump dystopia, the loosest cannonball in recent US electoral history gets a finger near the big red button on the football, and nukalar war is in the offing, something we were trying to avoid because it's more or less suicide. I believe that Trump's solution to ISIS might involve them. I cannot abide by such a dystopia, so I'm picking Clinton's.
Please remember your history. There was a lot of mire in the Middle East before 9/11, exacerbated by the mess Pres Geo Bush got us into.
This isn't her fault, much of it isn't Pres Geo Bush's fault. This has been boiling for forty+ years.
You're not paying attention, in my opinion.
The memes of Trump's lack of sunny disposition didn't seem to cost very much money. He seems to have done it all himself.
Money buys noise. And I must disagree with you about Hillary being everything Democrats hate. Many find her not the best choice, but they're behind her. When viewed as an antagonist of most things Trump stands for, her win is a near certainty.
This isn't what you get with the Citizens United decision. This is what you get when money can buy hate.
Hey, my AP was open. Anyone coulda impersonated me. Oh, wait....
No, not quite.
Whether OVA or VMDK, moving workloads back and forth among cloud vendors isn't quite simple, but it is do-able on Azure, or if you think about it, other cloud vendors. The control plane to do this is immature, but it might not make much difference if the herd moves from VMs to container fleets.
Full compute costs are cheaper on AWS, for now, but Windows on AWS vs Windows on Azure isn't "insanely more expensive", not even "moderately more expensive".
Oracle, however, largely requires a customer to be in lockstep with 1) the OS 2) need the musculature the platform supports 3) be willing to waste a lot of compute unless the denominator of workload is comparatively huge and 4) want to swallow the Oracle KoolAid.
Oracle's biggest problem is Oracle. They once drove markets, but no longer. Now they're missing revenue targets, and making lots of clientele unhappy, the recent settlement with the State of Oregon just one emblematic failure in several high-profile stains.
In a perfect world, what you say is true, but the parent poster has a good point.
1. Because there's no such thing as a truly random number, one characterizes the number generator and then determine its bias. (See NSA-NIST->RSA foibles)
2. The decrypting machinery has to be perfect, and not cache the results in some mind-numbing way (see several CVEs)
3. In the actual case, the capability of resetting the NAND or using proximal bit-flipping techniques to force recounts to null are well-known. Just crowbar the location by stunning it with nearby high/low bits as appropriate, and buh bye state.
Yes, admittedly, crappy engineering. But zenith/stellar/foolproof engineering doesn't really exist, it's a lofty goal. With a big enough hammer, you can break anything.
The American adherence to common law is not quite as evolved as in the rest of the British-origined systems. Constitutional arguments are favoured. Something that happens in the EU/UK doesn't have direct bearing on outcomes, or so is my experience.
I hope they heal.
For a couple of decades, Microsoft hired bright coders (and a handful of dullards). That there are more Microsoft open source coders is no surprise. Coders code, and some are compensated for projects, and in other cases, do free/open work.
The where of a code repository is somewhat meaningless, so long as there's accessibility. Git is one place, others have flourished then largely disappeared.
Permission is permission.
Consent is consent.
Do people own rights at birth? Age of majority? The trust and guardianship of a minor varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I'm a guardian for an individual whose limitations prevent the capacity to thrive independently in the world. This individual is otherwise aware enough to have dignity.
Does a parent have the right to administer, guardian, or otherwise control a child or ward after 1) age of consent, 2) age of consent, or 3) age of consent, as you attempt to disambiguate consent in its somewhat artificially constructed sense?
We say that a child can't give consent for sex until an arbitrary year, which varies from 12-18 in the EU. A picture of a nude baby is not usually prurient to a "normal" individual, but is to a pedophile: porn and lascivious. When is such a photograph exposure in an indignant manner, as the subject loses the value of dignity and privacy?
In my mind, this is really about embarrassment and loss of dignity through the revelation of objects that are information that would under other terms, be of a private nature. Dignity and embarrassment start wars where people die, and borders change. It is a powerful value of self, an asset not to be trifled with. The embodiment of ideals has value, in certainty. Where does one draw the line of what is a loss of dignity, and the rest is: STFU?
Parents, guardians can both proxy consent, but can't grant consent. This is the rationale behind statutory rape-- a child cannot give consent. And why sex with animals is immoral-- they can't give consent. And so forth.
I'm a parent & a guardian. My job is to protect interests, provide safety, look after health, and so forth. I neither receive compensation (financially) as a parent or from my ward. There are those that do. Do they have incumbent liability, as in the "Huggies" tort defence cited elsewhere in this thread? Nope.
This is a tort of a different colour, indeed.
I believe that you don't care. And, Space cowboy, unless your gender is mistaken, you're taking it from a male point of view, and there are more than just an American male's point of view as regards exposing a youth's naked pictures to the Internet. I'm not the woman in the pics, and she has the nexus of being injured by this, not me.
Some people do care, and are embarrassed for her, or by contrast, her parents. There are lots of questions, and no answers, until a judge makes one. I find it fascinating and interesting. Personally, I hope she wins. Some families are really dysfunctional, and parents clueless, leading to this litigation.
It depends on the jurisdiction you're in, and how much the local prosecutors want to get elected. Baby pics are one thing, a little older pics, and one gets into the realm of ostensible prurient interests.
There are indeed infant and child sex abusers out there. But more important is the dignity of a young person, or at least the perceived dignity in *her* mind.
Dignity is important, and women's dignities are battered ferociously in many cultures. Where is the line drawn? Perhaps an Austrian judge will draw the first line.
Don't worry. It's in a directory called /speedtest.
Except in this context, it's an Austrian nexus, not the USA. And in the USA, there are plentiful prudes and people to test the prudes at all quadrants.
This said, there are untold numbers of child molesters, and the number of registered sex offenders climbs every year.
Embarrassing your daughter in such a way is heinous, in my mind, and damaged mind that refused to take them down has real problems. Does this woman own her privacy, her nudity, and embodiment of self, or can her parents haul out trash and wave it for control or demented entertainment?
Whatever is ruled has no effect legally in the USA. But many women will be watching the outcome, and for good reason.