Probably because he doesn't own the infrastructure. The problem is that in the US we heavily subsidized the industry, but didn't require them to really do anything to deserve the money. We didn't require neutrality, we didn't require them to keep building out broad band, or enhance the speeds in urban areas either.
Considering that ultimately they're using public resources to provide a service, I do think they owe us at least something in exchange for making profits using our right of way or airwaves.
I have to agree, online voting has some very serious problems with it. Even if you solve the technological ones, you'd still have to figure out how to prove that the person that's actually voting is the intended voter and that there isn't anybody there that's suggesting how they should vote.
Right, which is why the ISPs ought to be throttling rather than disconnecting end users. It greatly reduces the value of a compromised computer, allows the user to download necessary patches and lessens the impact on the rest of the net. Rather than sending 250 000 spam emails in 24 hours, you might throttle it down to only 25 000 messages. Or possibly less if you just block certain ports.
When people talk of net neutrality, they generally mean authorized traffic. Meaning that if the person doesn't mean to send the traffic, and you can identify it as such, that's OK to block.
For years ISPs were blocking access to SMB shares over their connection, the reason being that people weren't generally wanting to share with the whole world their folder, and those that really did were better off with a system which was designed for that purpose.
Somehow I don't think that example violates the spirit of net neutrality.
Indeed. What would be OK, and go quite a ways in terms of solving this would be throttling. Somebody's computer is infected with something nasty, you send them a note and you throttle them back to dial up speed until it's been resolved. It slows the spread of anything they've got and allows them to still communicate with the outside world.
There was some research that suggested that throttling was ultimately just about as good as cutting people off IIRC.
Actually, under duress and pressure there's a greatly increased likelihood that a person would legitimately forget the password. Stress and poor sleep do terrible things to a persons concentration and memory.
Which is one of the reasons, apart from basic human decency, that the US government is forbade from cruel punishments. You just don't get any kind of accurate information when you have to stoop to torture. Even interrogations that are less stressful and generally regarded as lawful, you still have a significant risk of contaminating the suspect or witness with false information.
They can indeed, although the current record for that is 14 years. In practice I suspect they'd probably let him out at whatever the long end of the charges would've resulted in.
That being said, it would be a pretty blatant violation of the 5th amendment given that it's not a locked box or residence. Both of which the court could authorize to be broken into with the appropriate warrant. A person's memory is substantively different in that the only methods of breaking in their clearly require torture and other forms of illegal interrogation techniques.
After all a person doesn't have to say anything at all during an interrogation.
I'm not sure about how the judicial system works over there, over here he could've likely been hit with contempt of court charges, well ignoring the 5th amendment issue, and he could be jailed indefinitely. And contempt of court is not subjected to the normal habeas corpus rules either. It's not common, but contempt of court detentions can span years.
I can't blame him for hiding porn. I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US we don't have a mens rea requirement for possession of child porn. Meaning that if somebody emails you images anonymously, or you come across it randomly mixed in amongst an index of otherwise legal images you're just as guilty as if you were looking for them. And IIRC the courts over here recently ruled that comics of children are just as much child porn as real images are.
This is what those hidden partitions which Truecrypt provides for are for. Basically you keep some datafiles and such in their and touch them from time to time, then if need be you surrender the password for that partition. You've provided them a password which works, and they won't necessarily know whether or not it's the password they want.
It's not unsolved, what's unsolved is the mystery of how to get people to get it right. Hacking is the generalized practice of modding things and coming up with clever technical solutions. Cracking on the other hand is applied hacking, as in applied to the practice of breaking into people's stuffs.
That's been pretty well established. Being brilliant is one thing, but it's extremely rare for an individual to get anything meaningful accomplished alone. At a bare minimum the process of procuring the resources to put it into place is nigh impossible. Let alone cases where you need others to help test the hypothesis.
You mean sort of like how the facebook wouldn't exist if we had proper privacy regulations in place when it was being created? Now that's a scary thought.
Randi is an asshole. He's at least as obnoxious as the most obnoxious people on the other side.
Trust me, you put up with him and possibly win the prize. And congratulations if you do manage to win the prize, because then you have to put up with all sorts of other assholes.
Just because those of us who do have various talents, ones that can be observed by impartial observers, doesn't mean that we want to put up with that crap. It's only a million dollars, hardly worth ruining ones life over.
As an aside, as somebody who can genuinely see Auras and can see colors, I've no clue as to what meaning if any the colors have. But it's hardly unreasonable that with all the radiation that humans emit that some of it would be in terms of IR close enough to the visible spectrum that some people would be able to see it.
And no, just because people with capabilities choose not to prove it, does not mean that there are no people with capabilities. It just means that it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated. That makes it neither true nor false.
As a side note Randi is an asshole, and he doesn't require that they live up to the scientific standards that are normally necessary. He's just a bully that has a large mouth.
What makes you think that nobody can do it? Just because people that can do it don't want to be studied, doesn't mean that it isn't real. People emit radiation, both in terms of IR as well as other forms of EMR, it wouldn't be shocking if people could see one or both given that photons are just a specific type of EMR.
Additionally, it is the domain the science to come up with an explanation or disprove it. Shockingly enough with little if any research being done, scientists are failing to disprove it or come up with a credible answer.
Beyond that those that do claim to be able to do it tend to be written off as lunatics, resulting in a self fulfilling prophecy as those of us that can do it but don't want the attention don't look for it.
But, I'm sure you'll write this off as delusional, but it is ultimately a stronger position than yours is. But, it's not really confirmation bias when it suggests what you want it to, is it?
Actually, the media underhypes it if anything. Sure as far back as Vietnam, and probably earlier there were gays serving more or less openly. The problem though is that as soon as one of them starts doing something which arouses too much attention or makes somebody jealous or gets a promotion that somebody else wanted.
There's a reason why there's a difference between de juris and de facto in these cases. Hell, even if you manage to make it 18 years, there's cases where people get outed and booted anyways.
As for the matter at hand, what he's doing is illegal, and he's ultimately risking the same sort of consequences that those that haxxor other people's machines to send spam face. Assuming they were actually caught.
Citation necessary, we don't live in a capitalist society. The government regularly intervenes on behalf of business interests against the voters. Resulting in massive bubbles and a working class that can't afford to work. What's worse is that even as the working classes suffer more than at anytime in decades, the rich continue to get welfare from the government and whine about how they're not getting enough hand outs.
Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave if he heard you assert that this has any resemblance to what he envisioned as capitalism.
It's not it's entire business plan, they do make some money from google checkout and their android market. I'm guessing those are only a small fraction of their total revenue though.
Prior art? I've never had that option on TV, to pay to skip commercials or choose not to pay and sit through the commercials. Additionally, the only places I've ever had that choice at all were online, and the closest to that was Hulu with the one big commercial at the start or several smaller ones later.
It's also not really that obvious, it's obvious that somebody should provide it, I doubt very much that it's obvious as to how one goes about offering it.
Not entirely, the problem is that there's a cable/satellite provider, then there's the actual channels themselves. The problem is that when you get cable, you're paying the provider for the cable, but they're not passing all the money necessary to provide the content back to the channel.
The ads are what make up the difference. Which is why channels which don't have commercials end up being completely commercial as in HSN, pledge drives as in PBS or subscription based as in HBO.
It's a bit like sports teams that pay everybody involved more and more money even as they jack up all the fees involved. Unfortunately if you don't like it there's really not any good options other than not watching or seething in your seat.
Possibly, I do remember a long time ago, there was talk about laptops being a known risk for sterility in men. Which wasn't really a shock at the time. The reason why the Balzac hangs out there more or less unprotected is that the equipment is heat sensitive. And needs to be a bit below core temperature. Consequently it wasn't terribly shocking that a device that routinely operates above body temperature and sits on the lap might have some impact on male fertility.
It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of sensitivity to pain. There's a lot of warning labels that are there for stupid people, but there's also a lot of them which are there for a small minority that needs them. Take those warnings for people with nut allergies. Most of the things those are on don't have nuts in them officially, they were just processed in the same facility or on the same equipment. You're not going to know that there's possible contamination without the warning.
Likewise, you can't be expected to know when to stop doing something if it doesn't hurt. You're assuming that these people were hurting and that they kept it up, but that might not be true. With the kind of numbers cited, you could very easily be dealing with individuals with pain insensitivity.
You're assuming that it's painful. I come from a family with poor pain sensitivity and I've literally broken bones without knowing it.
I'm guessing with numbers that small that it's either not possible or that we're dealing with a group that doesn't really feel the pain. In either case, I'm not sure what can really be done about it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but it should've been done years ago. They dropped support for XP in 2009, at that point IPv6 had been in deployment for over a year.
Probably because he doesn't own the infrastructure. The problem is that in the US we heavily subsidized the industry, but didn't require them to really do anything to deserve the money. We didn't require neutrality, we didn't require them to keep building out broad band, or enhance the speeds in urban areas either.
Considering that ultimately they're using public resources to provide a service, I do think they owe us at least something in exchange for making profits using our right of way or airwaves.
Erm, on further thought, that would just make it like vote by mail.
I have to agree, online voting has some very serious problems with it. Even if you solve the technological ones, you'd still have to figure out how to prove that the person that's actually voting is the intended voter and that there isn't anybody there that's suggesting how they should vote.
Right, which is why the ISPs ought to be throttling rather than disconnecting end users. It greatly reduces the value of a compromised computer, allows the user to download necessary patches and lessens the impact on the rest of the net. Rather than sending 250 000 spam emails in 24 hours, you might throttle it down to only 25 000 messages. Or possibly less if you just block certain ports.
When people talk of net neutrality, they generally mean authorized traffic. Meaning that if the person doesn't mean to send the traffic, and you can identify it as such, that's OK to block.
For years ISPs were blocking access to SMB shares over their connection, the reason being that people weren't generally wanting to share with the whole world their folder, and those that really did were better off with a system which was designed for that purpose.
Somehow I don't think that example violates the spirit of net neutrality.
Indeed. What would be OK, and go quite a ways in terms of solving this would be throttling. Somebody's computer is infected with something nasty, you send them a note and you throttle them back to dial up speed until it's been resolved. It slows the spread of anything they've got and allows them to still communicate with the outside world.
There was some research that suggested that throttling was ultimately just about as good as cutting people off IIRC.
Actually, under duress and pressure there's a greatly increased likelihood that a person would legitimately forget the password. Stress and poor sleep do terrible things to a persons concentration and memory.
Which is one of the reasons, apart from basic human decency, that the US government is forbade from cruel punishments. You just don't get any kind of accurate information when you have to stoop to torture. Even interrogations that are less stressful and generally regarded as lawful, you still have a significant risk of contaminating the suspect or witness with false information.
They can indeed, although the current record for that is 14 years. In practice I suspect they'd probably let him out at whatever the long end of the charges would've resulted in.
That being said, it would be a pretty blatant violation of the 5th amendment given that it's not a locked box or residence. Both of which the court could authorize to be broken into with the appropriate warrant. A person's memory is substantively different in that the only methods of breaking in their clearly require torture and other forms of illegal interrogation techniques.
After all a person doesn't have to say anything at all during an interrogation.
I'm not sure about how the judicial system works over there, over here he could've likely been hit with contempt of court charges, well ignoring the 5th amendment issue, and he could be jailed indefinitely. And contempt of court is not subjected to the normal habeas corpus rules either. It's not common, but contempt of court detentions can span years.
I can't blame him for hiding porn. I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US we don't have a mens rea requirement for possession of child porn. Meaning that if somebody emails you images anonymously, or you come across it randomly mixed in amongst an index of otherwise legal images you're just as guilty as if you were looking for them. And IIRC the courts over here recently ruled that comics of children are just as much child porn as real images are.
This is what those hidden partitions which Truecrypt provides for are for. Basically you keep some datafiles and such in their and touch them from time to time, then if need be you surrender the password for that partition. You've provided them a password which works, and they won't necessarily know whether or not it's the password they want.
It's not unsolved, what's unsolved is the mystery of how to get people to get it right. Hacking is the generalized practice of modding things and coming up with clever technical solutions. Cracking on the other hand is applied hacking, as in applied to the practice of breaking into people's stuffs.
That's been pretty well established. Being brilliant is one thing, but it's extremely rare for an individual to get anything meaningful accomplished alone. At a bare minimum the process of procuring the resources to put it into place is nigh impossible. Let alone cases where you need others to help test the hypothesis.
You mean sort of like how the facebook wouldn't exist if we had proper privacy regulations in place when it was being created? Now that's a scary thought.
Randi is an asshole. He's at least as obnoxious as the most obnoxious people on the other side.
Trust me, you put up with him and possibly win the prize. And congratulations if you do manage to win the prize, because then you have to put up with all sorts of other assholes.
Just because those of us who do have various talents, ones that can be observed by impartial observers, doesn't mean that we want to put up with that crap. It's only a million dollars, hardly worth ruining ones life over.
As an aside, as somebody who can genuinely see Auras and can see colors, I've no clue as to what meaning if any the colors have. But it's hardly unreasonable that with all the radiation that humans emit that some of it would be in terms of IR close enough to the visible spectrum that some people would be able to see it.
And no, just because people with capabilities choose not to prove it, does not mean that there are no people with capabilities. It just means that it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated. That makes it neither true nor false.
As a side note Randi is an asshole, and he doesn't require that they live up to the scientific standards that are normally necessary. He's just a bully that has a large mouth.
What makes you think that nobody can do it? Just because people that can do it don't want to be studied, doesn't mean that it isn't real. People emit radiation, both in terms of IR as well as other forms of EMR, it wouldn't be shocking if people could see one or both given that photons are just a specific type of EMR.
Additionally, it is the domain the science to come up with an explanation or disprove it. Shockingly enough with little if any research being done, scientists are failing to disprove it or come up with a credible answer.
Beyond that those that do claim to be able to do it tend to be written off as lunatics, resulting in a self fulfilling prophecy as those of us that can do it but don't want the attention don't look for it.
But, I'm sure you'll write this off as delusional, but it is ultimately a stronger position than yours is. But, it's not really confirmation bias when it suggests what you want it to, is it?
Actually, the media underhypes it if anything. Sure as far back as Vietnam, and probably earlier there were gays serving more or less openly. The problem though is that as soon as one of them starts doing something which arouses too much attention or makes somebody jealous or gets a promotion that somebody else wanted.
There's a reason why there's a difference between de juris and de facto in these cases. Hell, even if you manage to make it 18 years, there's cases where people get outed and booted anyways.
As for the matter at hand, what he's doing is illegal, and he's ultimately risking the same sort of consequences that those that haxxor other people's machines to send spam face. Assuming they were actually caught.
Citation necessary, we don't live in a capitalist society. The government regularly intervenes on behalf of business interests against the voters. Resulting in massive bubbles and a working class that can't afford to work. What's worse is that even as the working classes suffer more than at anytime in decades, the rich continue to get welfare from the government and whine about how they're not getting enough hand outs.
Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave if he heard you assert that this has any resemblance to what he envisioned as capitalism.
It's not it's entire business plan, they do make some money from google checkout and their android market. I'm guessing those are only a small fraction of their total revenue though.
Prior art? I've never had that option on TV, to pay to skip commercials or choose not to pay and sit through the commercials. Additionally, the only places I've ever had that choice at all were online, and the closest to that was Hulu with the one big commercial at the start or several smaller ones later.
It's also not really that obvious, it's obvious that somebody should provide it, I doubt very much that it's obvious as to how one goes about offering it.
Not entirely, the problem is that there's a cable/satellite provider, then there's the actual channels themselves. The problem is that when you get cable, you're paying the provider for the cable, but they're not passing all the money necessary to provide the content back to the channel.
The ads are what make up the difference. Which is why channels which don't have commercials end up being completely commercial as in HSN, pledge drives as in PBS or subscription based as in HBO.
It's a bit like sports teams that pay everybody involved more and more money even as they jack up all the fees involved. Unfortunately if you don't like it there's really not any good options other than not watching or seething in your seat.
Possibly, I do remember a long time ago, there was talk about laptops being a known risk for sterility in men. Which wasn't really a shock at the time. The reason why the Balzac hangs out there more or less unprotected is that the equipment is heat sensitive. And needs to be a bit below core temperature. Consequently it wasn't terribly shocking that a device that routinely operates above body temperature and sits on the lap might have some impact on male fertility.
It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of sensitivity to pain. There's a lot of warning labels that are there for stupid people, but there's also a lot of them which are there for a small minority that needs them. Take those warnings for people with nut allergies. Most of the things those are on don't have nuts in them officially, they were just processed in the same facility or on the same equipment. You're not going to know that there's possible contamination without the warning.
Likewise, you can't be expected to know when to stop doing something if it doesn't hurt. You're assuming that these people were hurting and that they kept it up, but that might not be true. With the kind of numbers cited, you could very easily be dealing with individuals with pain insensitivity.
You're assuming that it's painful. I come from a family with poor pain sensitivity and I've literally broken bones without knowing it.
I'm guessing with numbers that small that it's either not possible or that we're dealing with a group that doesn't really feel the pain. In either case, I'm not sure what can really be done about it.