DISA's request ties in with recommendations that the Defense Science Board issued in April that said Defense is more vulnerable to cyberattacks because of its decentralized networks and systems.
What the fuck, over? I seem to recall this same Department designed the internet some 30 years ago so that decentralization was a core feature in order to improve its resiliance to cyberattack. </facepalm>
Yep, they're great. I am posting using a PHS300 right now from my boat which is moored at Isthmus Cove on Catalina Island. 4 bars and 2.5mbit/s downloads here (670kbit/s up). That's better than the Wifi offered for boaters here at Two Harbors. I have a grandfathered unlimited Verizon 3G account with the UM175 dongle.
When I'm commuting to work, I listen to Pandora on the bus with my iPod touch.
The only thing they need to start, is news that you can't get anywhere else. Special insight. Exclusive interviews. Reporters traveling to places where no-one else goes, finding stories that no-one else has.
Why do they sell me a phone that can run a multi-protocol IM client, only to pipe those messages over the SMS network instead of my data plan, and charge me SMS rates for it? Stupid. Now I don't have a use for my data plan - cancelled! And I don't send very many texts or IMs - cancelled the text plan, too. Good job!
No really. I'm on a boat. I live aboard at the marina. Can't even get a POTS line, let alone DSL or FIOS or cable. But I have a very strong 3G signal at the docks, and even out in the Catalina channel.
I've lived aboard my boat for the past 8 months with Verizon Wireless as my only internet access. I play Xbox360 games, EVE Online, and download songs and the occasional video from iTMS. It's got better performance than the WiFi ISP that covers the marina. They charge $40/month and rate limit to 1Mb/sec download. I usually get at least that, and often up to 2200kb/sec. Latency is OK, 100-200ms. Fast games do not seem to lag.
I use the CradlePoint CTR-350 router on the boat, and carry a PHS-300 battery-powered hotspot with me on the commute to work which I use to listen to Pandora or surf the web on my iPod touch.
I have a grandfathered unlimited data plan for $59.95 that I've been using for three years before moving onto my boat.
That's what I'm using. Lets me do all sorts of things Verizon won't let me do with their phones, like listen to Pandora or other audio streams, watch YouTube videos, buy songs and videos from iTMS.
Verizon just won't let me use my 3G Chocolate 3 phone for anything interesting. Tried Rhapsody, it's total Chrapsody. Popular artists aren't available by subscription, but only purchase (and lots of older artists: you can't get Eagles by subscription! The almost-40-year old band Eagles are too precious for subscription! Bah!) and you can't use the data plan on the phone to add subscriptions songs, but can only buy songs at $1.99 ea over the air, instead of $0.99 ea when you buy the same damn song on the PC. Basically, you can't use Chrapsody with your phone unless you have a PC, which needs its own data plan - Cable, DSL, 3G, whatever - to get the songs, unless you like to pay for a data plan that allows you to pay double for the songs. WTF-over!?
So screw 'em if they won't let me out of their walled garden. I kept my grandfathered unlimited monthly 3G data plan, and cancelled the data plan on the phone.
Riddle me this: What incentive does your municipal internet have to improve services over time? or even offer the level of service you desire?
What incentive is there for your local cable internet monopoly to do the same? Are they doing it? I see stores about fee increases and bandwidth caps. Is that meeting customer demand? Where are these customer that are demanding higher fees for less service?
Your question assumes private industry is doing those things. But the fact that there is a demand for municipal internet service says private industry isn't doing that everywhere it could. Instead, they are seeking laws that prevent municipalities from filling in the gaps in coverage of private for-profit service. Private internet is intervening in the workings of the market by trying to use the law to prevent municipal providers from filling in the gaps where they aren't meeting customer demand. If that isn't anti-competitive and anti-consumer, then I don't know what is.
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In this case, yes. Municipal internet is a great idea just like municipal water, fire, police, trash collection, etc. I like my utilities to be provisioned at cost. Private enterprise won't do that.
Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea.
Can you provide an example and explain how it applies to this case?
It is not trying to establish a monoply but instead trying to take the unfair advantage away from a govt sponsored organization.
It's not unfair, and so what if it is? F TWC. If they didn't have crappy overpriced service people wouldn't be working so hard to avoid them. This is the market speaking. The market says a government sponsored business is a damn sight better than T-fucking-WC, and they can go pound sand.
Intended alternative? There was none. It was, in hindsight, a mistake to expose end users to URLs. At best, you Ctrl-U or something to bring up a dialog to type or paste in an address, if that's the only info you have. Most of the time, you'd simply use a search engine, or whatever else was developed later on (RSS feeds, social network sites, etc) to access new websites. That was the W3C idea anyway. That's how people got links to new gopher sites. They used aggregators and search engines like WAIS, and Archie and Veronica.
Fair Use is a defense to a claim of infringement. It is not a right. You can only assert if you are charged with infringement. I don't know if you can use it in a response to a DMCA notice.
The legalese blurb clearly indicates that infringement is alleged, so a Fair Use defense might be valid in the response. But the DMCA may limit the sort of response an accused party can make to "It wasn't me" or "That's not yours."
ICANN is now going to allow people to purchase their own gTLDs (for a price, of course). And when you own the TLD, you are the one who gets to set the rules for registration of domains underneath said TLD. As if WHOIS records aren't already bad enough; now companies can buy up their own TLDs and set their own rules for contact information for customers who purchase domains under said TLD.
And I can setup my own rules, too.
vi/etc/mail/access From:com OK From:net OK From:org OK From:info OK From:ac OK From:ad OK... From:zm OK From:zw OK From:* ERROR:4.2.1:"421 Cannot continue with stupid ass custom TLD":qw! makemap hash/etc/mail/access/etc/mail/access
SMTP code 421 causes sendmail to abort the socket, too.
Yes, it should have been done differently from the start. NCSA should have removed the address bar from the Mosaic 1.0 release. End users were never supposed to be exposed to URLs, that was a way for programmers to have a internet-standard equivalent to a pointer. Would you release a program that required an end user to type in the name of a pointer to access the value stored? It's unthinkable.
URLs were supposed to be hidden. That the first graphical browser left in a developer's tool - the address bar - is the cause of this.
OK, Hoffman and Simmons are GW deniers. Happy now?
If there's a single article on their site that supports AGW, I'll retract that claim. But looking around and seeing the sort of book they are selling, I really doubt they present an even-handed case. Their man gig is putting out red meat for the no-it-ain't crowd.
The clear inference here is that he learned _something_ between then and now to lead him to believe this was saving lives or in some other way acceptable.
Or he lied about his intentions. There is no way to tell, since any insight into why he decided what he did must be denied us on account of national security.
Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?
No. It means if you activate Safe Search on your Google.com account, and use the Google Search engine in Chrome, then Chrome will filter your web content as requested by you.
Slashdot Mirror
DISA's request ties in with recommendations that the Defense Science Board issued in April that said Defense is more vulnerable to cyberattacks because of its decentralized networks and systems.
What the fuck, over? I seem to recall this same Department designed the internet some 30 years ago so that decentralization was a core feature in order to improve its resiliance to cyberattack. </facepalm>
That's an appropriate byline for a story about allegations of extrajudicial killings of political enemies by a politician who was shot dead?
Really?
Yep, they're great. I am posting using a PHS300 right now from my boat which is moored at Isthmus Cove on Catalina Island. 4 bars and 2.5mbit/s downloads here (670kbit/s up). That's better than the Wifi offered for boaters here at Two Harbors. I have a grandfathered unlimited Verizon 3G account with the UM175 dongle.
When I'm commuting to work, I listen to Pandora on the bus with my iPod touch.
Any ideas from the slashdotters on what might be going on?
No. Is there anything else I can help you with?
The only thing they need to start, is news that you can't get anywhere else. Special insight. Exclusive interviews. Reporters traveling to places where no-one else goes, finding stories that no-one else has.
From News Corp. Goodluckwiththat.
Why text instead of IM?
Why do they sell me a phone that can run a multi-protocol IM client, only to pipe those messages over the SMS network instead of my data plan, and charge me SMS rates for it? Stupid. Now I don't have a use for my data plan - cancelled! And I don't send very many texts or IMs - cancelled the text plan, too. Good job!
I'm mos def on a boat.
No really. I'm on a boat. I live aboard at the marina. Can't even get a POTS line, let alone DSL or FIOS or cable. But I have a very strong 3G signal at the docks, and even out in the Catalina channel.
I've lived aboard my boat for the past 8 months with Verizon Wireless as my only internet access. I play Xbox360 games, EVE Online, and download songs and the occasional video from iTMS. It's got better performance than the WiFi ISP that covers the marina. They charge $40/month and rate limit to 1Mb/sec download. I usually get at least that, and often up to 2200kb/sec. Latency is OK, 100-200ms. Fast games do not seem to lag.
I use the CradlePoint CTR-350 router on the boat, and carry a PHS-300 battery-powered hotspot with me on the commute to work which I use to listen to Pandora or surf the web on my iPod touch.
I have a grandfathered unlimited data plan for $59.95 that I've been using for three years before moving onto my boat.
That's what I'm using. Lets me do all sorts of things Verizon won't let me do with their phones, like listen to Pandora or other audio streams, watch YouTube videos, buy songs and videos from iTMS.
Verizon just won't let me use my 3G Chocolate 3 phone for anything interesting. Tried Rhapsody, it's total Chrapsody. Popular artists aren't available by subscription, but only purchase (and lots of older artists: you can't get Eagles by subscription! The almost-40-year old band Eagles are too precious for subscription! Bah!) and you can't use the data plan on the phone to add subscriptions songs, but can only buy songs at $1.99 ea over the air, instead of $0.99 ea when you buy the same damn song on the PC. Basically, you can't use Chrapsody with your phone unless you have a PC, which needs its own data plan - Cable, DSL, 3G, whatever - to get the songs, unless you like to pay for a data plan that allows you to pay double for the songs. WTF-over!?
So screw 'em if they won't let me out of their walled garden. I kept my grandfathered unlimited monthly 3G data plan, and cancelled the data plan on the phone.
Riddle me this: What incentive does your municipal internet have to improve services over time? or even offer the level of service you desire?
What incentive is there for your local cable internet monopoly to do the same? Are they doing it? I see stores about fee increases and bandwidth caps. Is that meeting customer demand? Where are these customer that are demanding higher fees for less service?
Your question assumes private industry is doing those things. But the fact that there is a demand for municipal internet service says private industry isn't doing that everywhere it could. Instead, they are seeking laws that prevent municipalities from filling in the gaps in coverage of private for-profit service. Private internet is intervening in the workings of the market by trying to use the law to prevent municipal providers from filling in the gaps where they aren't meeting customer demand. If that isn't anti-competitive and anti-consumer, then I don't know what is.
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In this case, yes. Municipal internet is a great idea just like municipal water, fire, police, trash collection, etc. I like my utilities to be provisioned at cost. Private enterprise won't do that.
Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea.
Can you provide an example and explain how it applies to this case?
It is not trying to establish a monoply but instead trying to take the unfair advantage away from a govt sponsored organization.
It's not unfair, and so what if it is? F TWC. If they didn't have crappy overpriced service people wouldn't be working so hard to avoid them. This is the market speaking. The market says a government sponsored business is a damn sight better than T-fucking-WC, and they can go pound sand.
Exactly what laws is the school breaking by not allowing them to access certain sites?
Depends on what and why and how they are blocking them. This is what a trial is for.
The schoolboard is subject to state _laws_ and local ordinances, neither of which say anything about this, I am guessing.
Keep guessing. But don't expect to get anywhere any time soon.
Cosby, when the kids dropped off at the pool.
Intended alternative? There was none. It was, in hindsight, a mistake to expose end users to URLs. At best, you Ctrl-U or something to bring up a dialog to type or paste in an address, if that's the only info you have. Most of the time, you'd simply use a search engine, or whatever else was developed later on (RSS feeds, social network sites, etc) to access new websites. That was the W3C idea anyway. That's how people got links to new gopher sites. They used aggregators and search engines like WAIS, and Archie and Veronica.
Fair Use is a defense to a claim of infringement. It is not a right. You can only assert if you are charged with infringement. I don't know if you can use it in a response to a DMCA notice.
The legalese blurb clearly indicates that infringement is alleged, so a Fair Use defense might be valid in the response. But the DMCA may limit the sort of response an accused party can make to "It wasn't me" or "That's not yours."
Copyright. Copyrighted.
The word you used is a nonsense word.
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to moderating Slashdot editors. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. ...
ICANN is now going to allow people to purchase their own gTLDs (for a price, of course). And when you own the TLD, you are the one who gets to set the rules for registration of domains underneath said TLD. As if WHOIS records aren't already bad enough; now companies can buy up their own TLDs and set their own rules for contact information for customers who purchase domains under said TLD.
And I can setup my own rules, too.
vi /etc/mail/access ... :qw! /etc/mail/access /etc/mail/access
From:com OK
From:net OK
From:org OK
From:info OK
From:ac OK
From:ad OK
From:zm OK
From:zw OK
From:* ERROR:4.2.1:"421 Cannot continue with stupid ass custom TLD"
makemap hash
SMTP code 421 causes sendmail to abort the socket, too.
Yes, it should have been done differently from the start. NCSA should have removed the address bar from the Mosaic 1.0 release. End users were never supposed to be exposed to URLs, that was a way for programmers to have a internet-standard equivalent to a pointer. Would you release a program that required an end user to type in the name of a pointer to access the value stored? It's unthinkable.
URLs were supposed to be hidden. That the first graphical browser left in a developer's tool - the address bar - is the cause of this.
OK, Hoffman and Simmons are GW deniers. Happy now?
If there's a single article on their site that supports AGW, I'll retract that claim. But looking around and seeing the sort of book they are selling, I really doubt they present an even-handed case. Their man gig is putting out red meat for the no-it-ain't crowd.
The clear inference here is that he learned _something_ between then and now to lead him to believe this was saving lives or in some other way acceptable.
Or he lied about his intentions. There is no way to tell, since any insight into why he decided what he did must be denied us on account of national security.
For the record, I was an Obama supporter.
Hoffman and Simmons are computer engineers, not climate scientists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4khXkE5gEI
"Oh look, that was Wilkins of Finance!"
"Robertson"
"Wilkins"
"Robertson!"
"Wilkins!"
"....Oh, that was Wilkins"
"THAT was Wilkins"
Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?
No. It means if you activate Safe Search on your Google.com account, and use the Google Search engine in Chrome, then Chrome will filter your web content as requested by you.
Dumbest article ever.