If we viewed the rest of the world as our colonies, we'd grant all of you the same rights we grant ourselves. Now lay down on the board so we can strap you in and stuff this rag in your mouth so you can't cough the water out.
And, yet, I'm not having my neighbors suggested as friends, while my wife (who does run the app) is. I'd say it's a safe bet that my method works, at least for Facebook.
It would cause a massive spike in the value of used cars, actually... hmm... seems now might be a good tie to invest in some barely-running junkers and a lot to store them on.
I can't disagree with this. However, I fail to see what that has to do with the security procedure having been expanded post-9/11. That only served to make the lines longer and, thus, juicier targets.
Bingo. This is how things were (mostly, at least officially) done pre-9/11, and I think it's how things should be done. Yes, dragnet surveillance programs existed, but they had to exist in shadows back then and were limited by that fact; now, they largely have public support and, as a result, have expanded. We need to revert back to "this is not okay" and make getting caught running or participating in one of these programs a career-ending offense, as it once was.
As it is now, not only do I have to "worry" (I don't, actually -- if it happens, it happens) about falling victim to a terrorist attack, I have to worry (note the lack of quotes) about the feds busting down my door over an innocent comment, purchase, or internet search and putting one through my forehead. The real terror, for many of us, comes from these surveillance programs and how they are mis-applied; the people running them as they're currently run are, by the book, terrorists.
A family member of mine, who I will decline to identify (for their security, as well as my own) is a US customs agent, also on the JTTF, and uses the data collected by these programs on a near daily bases. Even he agrees the overreach is incredible and, in fact, the sheer volume of data makes his job more difficult, rather than easier. I believe he would also refer to the people running these programs as they're currently run as terrorists, but he's not allowed to target them for investigation.
I'll have to ask him if he can let me know how many watch lists I'm on this month.
Right, and that first line still existed when it was x-ray for bags and metal detectors for people. The expanded security line (which Istanbul implemented shortly after the US) only meant there were more targets. There was still a security line before the expansion and it would have had the same effect.
Terrorism has nothing to do with maximizing collateral damage and everything to do with fear and terror. Killing a metric shit-ton of people is one way to do that, but anything done with the intent of inciting fear and terror in the general public is an act of terrorism. For example, walking around a crowded venue and firing a gun into the crowd; or telling people that all gun owners want to do this.
(Meaning: we should keep an eye on this, it might be a terrorist attack.)
No, we should stop rewarding the negative, attention-seeking behavior with attention. It won't stop immediately and, in fact, will probably get worse in the short-term, but when it stops having the desired effect, it will stop.
The point isn't to kill as many people as possible, it's to strike fear into the hearts of those who survive. Stop paying attention to "potential terror attacks" like a scared dog and the attacks stop having the desired effect and become pointless.
And we can lessen the likelihood of that happening successfully by shortening those lines. We do that by ensuring that all the checkpoint lines are always open and by reverting the screening process back to what it was pre-9/11, which is all that is necessary now that all airliners have solid locking cockpit doors. There is no reason to pat down everyone passing through the checkpoint, or make us all take off our shoes; just x-ray our bags, pass us through a metal detector, and save the body searches for special cases. We had the actual security issue solved before the TSA was fully staffed; we don't need them and we never did.
It's interesting, though, because it still gives us suggestions whenever people move into our old apartment complex (we moved to a condo, then to this apartment, so we're talking two moves ago) based on that "feature", because neither of us every updated our profiles after moving from there. Facebook thinks we still live in the old place, about 30 miles away, so it's definitely suggesting current neighbors based on location, and it's only suggesting them to her because she's using the app on her phone and I'm not giving up that location data.
Did I say all continents? I surely did not. You're limiting the discussion to places where the magstripe has fallen out of favor and I'm merely pointing out that more places than those exist.
Our neighbor across the hall and the apartment directly below them we've actually talked to; everyone else has kept to themselves. And none of them have our full names to have looked us up on Facebook. I could see your theory ringing true for one or two neighbors, but literally a hundred or so residents of our apartment complex? Nah. I smell a troll, and not even a particularly good one.
Exactly. At least in states I've lived in they treat it as a debt rather than a ticket, so you can't lose your license or go to jail over it. I got popped by a speed trap camera in a school zone because i floored it to clear an intersection ahead of a guy who was running a red light; clocked me at 27 in a 25. Of course I fought it; the guy running the light was BEHIND ME, IN THE INTERSECTION in the photo. The judge laughed that it was even sent to me, dismissed it, and sent me on my way.
If I ever find myself living in a place that bypasses due process entirely, I won't find myself there for long.
This. We moved 2 months ago and, within a week, Facebook started suggesting neighbors as people my wife may know, while I've still not gotten a single such suggestion. She has the FB app on her phone, I use it only via the website. Coincidence? Nah.
And I'll just head off the "she does 'know' those guys" jokers by pointing out that I work from home and know that to not be the case; also, half the suggestions are women and, well, I'd just find that hot if it were true.
My wife and I moved a few towns over 2 months ago; neither of us have updated out address info on Facebook since before out last move. Within a week of the move, she had Facebook suggest that she might know each and every one of our neighbors, while I've still not had a single such suggestion in two months. The difference? She has the Facebook app on her phone and I do not.
Right, along with the photo that caught them, which will show who was driving at the time. If it wasn't them, they can very simply prove that "owner" != "driver" by going to court and holding the photo up next to their own face. Also, those citations are sent by the private company that operated the cameras on behalf of the city they operate in and are representative of civil infractions, not serious crimes that can ruin someone's life; the burden of evidence is much lower.
I'm not sure what's up with that lameness filter. Feel free to drop that long-ass response into an email (yes, that *is* my real email up there -- or at least an alias thereof) and we can quit littering this page with our ramblings.
I actually really like your first option; it's very similar to something I mentioned (or agreed with, now I can't remember) in a thread on DSLReports.com a few weeks back. If I recall correctly (and this is why I'm glad to have a text record of what I've said -- my brain is broken when it comes to remembering details of conversations) my point was that Binge-On may be a trial for that; it was during this conversation with you that I theorized about it being a trial run for increasing the "over-limit" bandwidth.
The second option, I feel, would at least require some form of manual auditing to ensure that site A didn't add the servers of site B to hamstring them, leaving their own servers at full speed. I could even see site A paying site C in an unrelated field to add site B's servers, so the function still worked for users of site A who wanted it, but random users of site C would have problems on site B, particularly if site B happened to be a service that didn't function well at lower bitrates. If that makes sense. I do generally like the idea, but we both know people aren't trustworthy enough to be given that power unmoderated. Then, there's the issue of CDNs; remember, this is ostensibly not about T-Mobile's bandwidth to the internet, but the user's bandwidth to the tower, so T-Mobile colocating servers for the CDNs doesn't really solve that (unless we're being lied to, that is).
The third option, well... I agree with your assessment, but I don't want to leave it at that. I'd actually be really happy to see this one happen, for a variety of reasons, but for the very same reasons I know it won't. First of all, it would require service providers to switch to those ports, they'd have to release new versions of their apps to use those ports, and only those ports, which might be a rather large undertaking for some of them; and the support headache of people insisting zero-rating should work with their old version and not wanting to upgrade for whatever reason. Ugh... don't even get me started about people not wanting to upgrade... one of my clients is about to release V12 of their application and they still have people using V8 and complaining that new modules don't work for them. When I first started working for them 6 years ago (almost to the day, interestingly), V9 was old, so V8 is ancient by now. They'd have to be able to serve video on the old ports as well as the new, which honestly would be the least of their problems. That said, as for why I'd actually want to see this: anything over those ports would be zero-rated. That means torrents. Lots and lots of torrents. And, ostensibly, it would be throttled per-connection (as it is now), not in aggregate, so it really wouldn't affect torrents in the slightest; which, of course, is why it'll never happen.
I'm really glad you shared those ideas with me; I really do like the first one and hope T-Mo takes that direction at some point, as it really puts all the control in the user's hand, where it belongs. There would still need to be some application process for providers who can't deliver a 1.5Mbps stream to grant T-Mobile transcoding/re-compression rights for their streams, limited to this specific purpose, but that would be a secondary and completely optional process; it could even be something T-Mo does by proxy, setting up am industry association that obtains these rights on behalf of all association members, allowing any ISP to join. In that way, providers wouldn't have to make deals with each ISP, they could just apply to the association and grand rights across the board. And, if they didn't apply, no big deal, their service might experience issues when the "slow" option is turned on, if they can't stream at a low enough bitrate.
I think we're getting somewhere here; T-Mobile should pe
Slashdot Mirror
If we viewed the rest of the world as our colonies, we'd grant all of you the same rights we grant ourselves. Now lay down on the board so we can strap you in and stuff this rag in your mouth so you can't cough the water out.
And yet they were still attacked and someone managed to shoot their way through it. It surely is theater, indeed.
And, yet, I'm not having my neighbors suggested as friends, while my wife (who does run the app) is. I'd say it's a safe bet that my method works, at least for Facebook.
It would cause a massive spike in the value of used cars, actually... hmm... seems now might be a good tie to invest in some barely-running junkers and a lot to store them on.
Before anyone takes you seriously... yeah, we'll have humans controlling the robots. That should end well.
I can't disagree with this. However, I fail to see what that has to do with the security procedure having been expanded post-9/11. That only served to make the lines longer and, thus, juicier targets.
Bingo. This is how things were (mostly, at least officially) done pre-9/11, and I think it's how things should be done. Yes, dragnet surveillance programs existed, but they had to exist in shadows back then and were limited by that fact; now, they largely have public support and, as a result, have expanded. We need to revert back to "this is not okay" and make getting caught running or participating in one of these programs a career-ending offense, as it once was.
As it is now, not only do I have to "worry" (I don't, actually -- if it happens, it happens) about falling victim to a terrorist attack, I have to worry (note the lack of quotes) about the feds busting down my door over an innocent comment, purchase, or internet search and putting one through my forehead. The real terror, for many of us, comes from these surveillance programs and how they are mis-applied; the people running them as they're currently run are, by the book, terrorists.
A family member of mine, who I will decline to identify (for their security, as well as my own) is a US customs agent, also on the JTTF, and uses the data collected by these programs on a near daily bases. Even he agrees the overreach is incredible and, in fact, the sheer volume of data makes his job more difficult, rather than easier. I believe he would also refer to the people running these programs as they're currently run as terrorists, but he's not allowed to target them for investigation.
I'll have to ask him if he can let me know how many watch lists I'm on this month.
Right, and that first line still existed when it was x-ray for bags and metal detectors for people. The expanded security line (which Istanbul implemented shortly after the US) only meant there were more targets. There was still a security line before the expansion and it would have had the same effect.
Terrorism has nothing to do with maximizing collateral damage and everything to do with fear and terror. Killing a metric shit-ton of people is one way to do that, but anything done with the intent of inciting fear and terror in the general public is an act of terrorism. For example, walking around a crowded venue and firing a gun into the crowd; or telling people that all gun owners want to do this.
The x-ray detectors did nothing, the cop simply did his job.
No, we need to ban underwear, as well.
(Meaning: we should keep an eye on this, it might be a terrorist attack.)
No, we should stop rewarding the negative, attention-seeking behavior with attention. It won't stop immediately and, in fact, will probably get worse in the short-term, but when it stops having the desired effect, it will stop.
The point isn't to kill as many people as possible, it's to strike fear into the hearts of those who survive. Stop paying attention to "potential terror attacks" like a scared dog and the attacks stop having the desired effect and become pointless.
And we can lessen the likelihood of that happening successfully by shortening those lines. We do that by ensuring that all the checkpoint lines are always open and by reverting the screening process back to what it was pre-9/11, which is all that is necessary now that all airliners have solid locking cockpit doors. There is no reason to pat down everyone passing through the checkpoint, or make us all take off our shoes; just x-ray our bags, pass us through a metal detector, and save the body searches for special cases. We had the actual security issue solved before the TSA was fully staffed; we don't need them and we never did.
It's interesting, though, because it still gives us suggestions whenever people move into our old apartment complex (we moved to a condo, then to this apartment, so we're talking two moves ago) based on that "feature", because neither of us every updated our profiles after moving from there. Facebook thinks we still live in the old place, about 30 miles away, so it's definitely suggesting current neighbors based on location, and it's only suggesting them to her because she's using the app on her phone and I'm not giving up that location data.
Does someone care to explain to me how the above comment is flamebait? Informative, perhaps, but not flamebait...
Did I say all continents? I surely did not. You're limiting the discussion to places where the magstripe has fallen out of favor and I'm merely pointing out that more places than those exist.
Our neighbor across the hall and the apartment directly below them we've actually talked to; everyone else has kept to themselves. And none of them have our full names to have looked us up on Facebook. I could see your theory ringing true for one or two neighbors, but literally a hundred or so residents of our apartment complex? Nah. I smell a troll, and not even a particularly good one.
Exactly. At least in states I've lived in they treat it as a debt rather than a ticket, so you can't lose your license or go to jail over it. I got popped by a speed trap camera in a school zone because i floored it to clear an intersection ahead of a guy who was running a red light; clocked me at 27 in a 25. Of course I fought it; the guy running the light was BEHIND ME, IN THE INTERSECTION in the photo. The judge laughed that it was even sent to me, dismissed it, and sent me on my way.
If I ever find myself living in a place that bypasses due process entirely, I won't find myself there for long.
I have an S7 without Facebook... You just don't sign in, then you disable the app.
This. We moved 2 months ago and, within a week, Facebook started suggesting neighbors as people my wife may know, while I've still not gotten a single such suggestion. She has the FB app on her phone, I use it only via the website. Coincidence? Nah.
And I'll just head off the "she does 'know' those guys" jokers by pointing out that I work from home and know that to not be the case; also, half the suggestions are women and, well, I'd just find that hot if it were true.
My wife and I moved a few towns over 2 months ago; neither of us have updated out address info on Facebook since before out last move. Within a week of the move, she had Facebook suggest that she might know each and every one of our neighbors, while I've still not had a single such suggestion in two months. The difference? She has the Facebook app on her phone and I do not.
Right, along with the photo that caught them, which will show who was driving at the time. If it wasn't them, they can very simply prove that "owner" != "driver" by going to court and holding the photo up next to their own face. Also, those citations are sent by the private company that operated the cameras on behalf of the city they operate in and are representative of civil infractions, not serious crimes that can ruin someone's life; the burden of evidence is much lower.
I'm not sure what's up with that lameness filter. Feel free to drop that long-ass response into an email (yes, that *is* my real email up there -- or at least an alias thereof) and we can quit littering this page with our ramblings.
I actually really like your first option; it's very similar to something I mentioned (or agreed with, now I can't remember) in a thread on DSLReports.com a few weeks back. If I recall correctly (and this is why I'm glad to have a text record of what I've said -- my brain is broken when it comes to remembering details of conversations) my point was that Binge-On may be a trial for that; it was during this conversation with you that I theorized about it being a trial run for increasing the "over-limit" bandwidth.
The second option, I feel, would at least require some form of manual auditing to ensure that site A didn't add the servers of site B to hamstring them, leaving their own servers at full speed. I could even see site A paying site C in an unrelated field to add site B's servers, so the function still worked for users of site A who wanted it, but random users of site C would have problems on site B, particularly if site B happened to be a service that didn't function well at lower bitrates. If that makes sense. I do generally like the idea, but we both know people aren't trustworthy enough to be given that power unmoderated. Then, there's the issue of CDNs; remember, this is ostensibly not about T-Mobile's bandwidth to the internet, but the user's bandwidth to the tower, so T-Mobile colocating servers for the CDNs doesn't really solve that (unless we're being lied to, that is).
The third option, well... I agree with your assessment, but I don't want to leave it at that. I'd actually be really happy to see this one happen, for a variety of reasons, but for the very same reasons I know it won't. First of all, it would require service providers to switch to those ports, they'd have to release new versions of their apps to use those ports, and only those ports, which might be a rather large undertaking for some of them; and the support headache of people insisting zero-rating should work with their old version and not wanting to upgrade for whatever reason. Ugh... don't even get me started about people not wanting to upgrade... one of my clients is about to release V12 of their application and they still have people using V8 and complaining that new modules don't work for them. When I first started working for them 6 years ago (almost to the day, interestingly), V9 was old, so V8 is ancient by now. They'd have to be able to serve video on the old ports as well as the new, which honestly would be the least of their problems. That said, as for why I'd actually want to see this: anything over those ports would be zero-rated. That means torrents. Lots and lots of torrents. And, ostensibly, it would be throttled per-connection (as it is now), not in aggregate, so it really wouldn't affect torrents in the slightest; which, of course, is why it'll never happen.
I'm really glad you shared those ideas with me; I really do like the first one and hope T-Mo takes that direction at some point, as it really puts all the control in the user's hand, where it belongs. There would still need to be some application process for providers who can't deliver a 1.5Mbps stream to grant T-Mobile transcoding/re-compression rights for their streams, limited to this specific purpose, but that would be a secondary and completely optional process; it could even be something T-Mo does by proxy, setting up am industry association that obtains these rights on behalf of all association members, allowing any ISP to join. In that way, providers wouldn't have to make deals with each ISP, they could just apply to the association and grand rights across the board. And, if they didn't apply, no big deal, their service might experience issues when the "slow" option is turned on, if they can't stream at a low enough bitrate.
I think we're getting somewhere here; T-Mobile should pe
I'll take 2, please.
You call it an ad, I call it entertainment. This is what's considered high-en these days? HA!