It's really just special interest legislation, dressed up to sound less self-serving. Did you know Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are lobbying for net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else -- consumers, businesses and government -- will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth. [It] doesn't sound very neutral to me.
How exactly does "We already pay for our bandwidth, don't make us pay extra not to have it castrated." translate to "they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use"?
Face it net neutrality is about 1 thing, money.
Note: from here on out telco refers to both telcos & cablecos.
Facts:
Consumers pay for access to the data on the internet.
Content providers pay to provide data on the internet.
Telecos receive payment based on how many consumers and content providers they have signed up with them.
Unmetered usage for consumers is raw customer numbers - transfer limits balance customer numbers with transfer volume
I know of no unmetered usage for providers (most ISPs make you transfer to business plans if you run a volume server on a residential account)
Is there anyone who would like to dispute those 3 facts?
The telco argument is that they are providing the backbone and places like Google are making money by using that backbone without paying for it. I refer you to point 2. Google has in fact paid thier provider for the use of that backbone. Let's take a look at an example Google.
Request: Consumer -> Telco East -> Telco West -> Google
Response: Google-> Telco West -> Telco East -> Consumer
In this situation, Telco East collects money from the Consumer for the ISP service, and Telco West collects money from Google for the commercial bandwidth service. Telco East and Telco West have a Tier 1 Peering agreement saying they will allow each others traffic to pass between them.
The Telco East is now saying that the peering agreements that allowed them to build the phone system and create the demand for IP services is no longer fair, and that Google should pay them AND Telco West. The issue is that IPv6 includes as part of it's core, QoS routing. This along with the advances in traffic shaping, creates a situation where it is technologically feasable for Telco East to disable, slow, or filter Google's traffic based on arbitrary criteria. So what the telco's would like to do is charge individual providers based on the traffic volume and type, downgrading the traffic of those companies that do not pay for premium transfer even if they have paid all the other companies in the tracert.
In this ideal telco word Google would now pay Telco West for the priviledge of sending the packet, Telco East to make sure they don't downgrade it, and the consumer has to pay Telco East for the privilege of receiving the packet. Now throw out our little simple request & move into the real world. When the Chicago peering points were having some issues a couple of years ago, it wasn't unusual to see a packet route through 12 seperate networks in order to get from MA to CA. That's 13 seperate charges the telco's are collecting on each packet. Worse, if network 11 drops a packet, Google has to pay 1-10 again.
Lets move on.
Telco East wants to provide VOIP services in addition to their standard POTS phone service. Now because every VOIP inc. sale is 1 less Telco East VOIP customer, Telco East places VOIP inc at the bottom of the traffic shapping pile and their own services at the top of the pile. This ensures when Bob Consumer calls Bill Consumer, Telco East service sounds better. Now of course VOIP inc. could always pay Telco East the "QoS" premium, but what if they are located in Eastern Russia, will Telco East accept Rubles? or Vodka like Coca-Col
I know there is at least one law {47 U.S. Code 227) it is illegal to send advertising to any device capable of translating it to paper - IE fax machines/servers. Unfortunately not even the FCC is sure where SMS stands in this reguard. They feel it's covered under the same ruling, but it's not been tested in court.
Yes both sides pay for the call, or better yet the text message.
So you can see why we are all waiting with baited breath for those wonderful SMS spam messages. If it's anything like my spamtrap email address, I'd owe a couple of hundred dollars a day after my limit get's passed.
if the police had some good reason for needing the info on a particular person she should have handed it over.
She can't just hand it over.
It's not hers to give. By fact, law, and tradition the private information an organization collects about you is yours.
That's why there are a crapload of privacy laws in effect that state under what circumstances the credit reporting agencies can release your information. Why everyone is bent on the telco's giving your call records to the NSA. Why people are pissed about the FBI buying $30M of personal information from data brokers (who generally shouldn't have it) that they can't obtain legaly by requesting it without a warrent.
It's part of her job to ensure that the policies and procedures of the library are enforced. Check up above, someone actually went out & found the privacy ruling for the library in question. It's clear about when & how those records will be released. Because a cop says 'gimme' is not on the list.
For the other point, a suppena or warrent is the court saying that the police have a 'good reason for needing' whatever. So even by your standard, she was correct to require the police to get a suppena or warrent. Remember here, she didn't say "No", she said "Not without the correct paperwork." She wasn't impeding anything, she was following a set procedure which has been in place and well defined for 200 years.
The police have to prove to a judge that a certain person is criminal, then they can get a warrant, and then they can get the info on that person's library habits.
Close... they have to show to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that the information relating to the loaning of the book will help them resolve the case, and therefor the interests of the state outweigh the individual rights of privacy that may be breached in the search. There is no way for the police to prove to a judge that a certain person is a criminal if they are still trying to come up with his name.
Nice trollbait - not really sure how you got to be +4 insightful though....
Do you honestly think that any cop would rather go knocking on every door in the city looking for this book than go sit in an air conditioned courthouse for an hour & get a suppena for the record? They were lazy, they got rejected, they did it right, they got the information they wanted.
You should probably run for congress, your hyperbole is certainly world class.
Let's look at it more closely had she done as the police had asked:
Officer: Give me the records on this book [book of the day].
Librarian: Here you go.
Officer: Bob Buddy, you are under arrest.
Prossecutor: Judge we have here the book identified by the victim, as you can see it was checked out by Bob Buddy on June 10th at 5PM.
Defence: Your honor I object, the prossecution has no chain of custody for the records.
Prossecutor: Of course we do, Librarian->Officer->Me.
Defence: Where's the suppena to obtain the records?
Prossecutor: We don't have one.
Defence: Judge, that constitutes illegal search and seasure of the records. I request the book and the records be ruled as inadmissable.
Judge: Sorry, but he's right. The loan records are the property of the patron not the librarian, she had no right to release them to you without a suppena. The book & the records are ruled inadmisable.
[2 weeks later]
[Newspaper Headlines]
Accused Child Molester, freed on technicality, sues Police and Library for $30M for violating his civil rights.
In a country where police are routinely sued for 'abuse' when they do their job by the book, you don't think that suit would happen?
Today -- Librarian 1 : Cops 0 : Nutjob 0 : Board of Directors 0
If it's the MS implimentation, it usually mutilates documents beyond usefulness. That's close to what the NSA usually does, but not the legal requirement.
So, what you're saying is that something as fundamental as browsing software should not be provided by a company that is providing the fundamentals (an OS) to users?
No, never said that. I said that they should not be forcibly supplying that browser. If they offer the browser and OEMs include it great. If an OEM decides not to include it, refusing to allow them to sell the UNRELATE OS is bad. Face it, a web browser is NOT required to be on a locked down terminal box with no access to the internet. A web browser is an APPLICATION not an integral part of the OS no matter how badly you muck it up and try to shove it in there.
I imagine that Apple users would be frustrated to find that Safari was missing.
I very much doubt that, if Apple included Firefox instead. Again, the problem is not that MS makes or offers a free web browser - it's that they force you to have & use theirs.
Windows is Microsoft's product. Theirs. You can be a seller of it, or not. You can bundle some Linux distro with your hardware, or you can be Apple, or you can be a part of MS's distribution chain. But if you want to make money off of selling computers that have MS's software installed, you can do it according to their terms... or, sell something else for a living. There is no "force" involved. Their browser is part of the OS. If you want to sell their OS, you're selling an OS that has that feature... but which also allows you to go ahead and use another browser all you want.
OK let's go back & play this out again from the beginning. It is 1995, I sell OEM computers running Windows 95. I do not include IE because I sell low end computers with small hard drives and no modem anyway. Now, fall of '95 I go to MS & renew my OEM liscence. MS says OK you can sell Windows, but if you do you MUST include IE and it must be on the desktop. Now, if MS is not a monopoly, there are other places to get an OS from. Sorry even in '95 MS was a monopoly. Now is IE related to the OS here? no. Does IE add any value to my customers? no. Does it reduce the value of the system to my customers? yes, less HD space for them to use, more clutter on the desktop...etc.
Let's move to NYC. I own a restaraunt. The mafia owns the trash service. They also own several other unrelated services. I go to negotiate my trash bill for next year and Guido tells me that I can only get my trash collected if I also use Mafia Inc. laundry.
See much difference? I own an OEM, I need to sell MS Windows to be profitable. I own a restaraunt, I need the trash collected. In either case, forcing an UNRELATED service is abuse of the monopoly. MS owned & still owns the PC OS business. They are using that fact to force their way into other businesses. Nobody (legaly) cares that MS is a monopoly in the PC OS field. They care when that influence is unduly exerted to create dominance in another area.
[snip] Web-flavored presentation of information (about the local file system, or of most any reachable URL that responds to an HTTP request) is part of the operating system. MS doesn't "force" anyone to "bundle" it as some required app... it is part and parcel of Windows.
Check Windows 95/98 with IE 3. Go ahead, I'll wait... Good - go install IE 4. Notice any difference in the 'browsing the local OS' experiance? Other than a bit of skinning, there isn't any. What exactly was the technical reason for co-mingling the Browser with the OS? Oh yeah, in the marketing planning documents it was to keep Netscape from gaining market dominance. Wait that's marketing not technical, the technical reason was... 'it's a bad idea'. That's not my option, it's the opinion of the people who worked on the feasability studies. Marketing won.
Is MS doing anything now that they didn't do back in 97, nope. Back in '97 they integrated the browser
The MS abuse is in demanding that IE (a web browser) be installed on all computers containing it's Operating system. To whit: forcibly leveraging Microsofts monopoly in one area(Desktop O/S) to create a monopoly in another area(Web Browser).
There would be, and would not have been an issue except that the contracts MS was making OEMs sign said you WILL include IE on the desktop or you WILL NOT sell Windows. At one point they also penalized OEMs for including competitive browsers - IE get the liscense at $50each normally but it'll cost you $65 if you include Netscape pre-installed.
With IE 5, it was no longer uninstallable. That is, no matter what you did, IE was now part of your OS & could not be removed. In court, MS was asked how to remove it, instead they showed how to hide it. When called on it, they admitted it couldn't be removed.
So, you have a piece of software (a web browser) that is required to ship with a seperate piece of software (the OS), that even if you despise, will continue to take up a good chunk of hard drive.
Take a look at the history & documents of the actual Anti-trust case. The issue was NOT bundling the web browser with the OS. The issue was about FORCIBLY bundling the browser. IIRC, the programming level techs fought against intigrating the browser into the OS, but marketing felt it was a sure way to make/keep market share.
So to answer your question, Microsoft's abuse of it's OS Monopoly status lies in it's focible inclusion of IE on every Windows computer, thus requiring by default, that everyone who uses their Monopoly OS, is presented with their Web Browser.
It's legal to sell it because there is no law prohibiting you from selling what you're prohibited from having.
Now the problem is that the FBI is supporting these groups by buying stuff from them, rather than using the stuff they(FBI) bought from them(DataBroker) as evidence in a case to crimially proscecute them(DataBroker).
Unless you're birthday is late in the year, in which case it's not unusual to graduate at 19 - have to be 6 by Nov 1st to get into kindergarden or some such. Get born on Nov 2 & be a year behind.
Ohh, CC verification....
OK now we have just raised the minimum age for being on any social networking site to 18.
Next, we are now charging $45-$100 per year (or more saw a CC for $75 anual fee + $12/mth usage fee the other day).
Finally, a quick google on 'credit card number generator' came back with 4 million hits, including an online one.
So, can anyone tell me how exactly this is going to work? If any moron can hit a website & generate a valid card # (not nescesarily a valid account) what have we just gained? Oh, yeah, we locked out thousands of honest people & did nothing about the scum... yeah that's another great leap forward brought to you by people with no clue.
Sorry, she's 14. She should know by now not to talk to strangers, let alone go home with them. Now Question 1: is the 'sexual assault' charge based on statutory rape? IE. did she have consensual sex with him or did she say no? - sorry don't give me bull about she's 14 she can't consent, 14 year olds are consenting all the time, and at least 3 states put the age of consent at 14.
Question 2: Did he or she misrepresent themselves on MySpace? TFA indicates he said he was 19 & a senior at a local HS. Was he 19? Did her profile correctly indicate she was 14?
Question 3: When going out on this date, did her parents know about it? Did she lie to them? Did they approve of the guy?
If question 1 is 'yes it's a statutory rape charge', then to hell with it, you can't protect people from themselves. If it was in fact rape, I'm sorry for her, but I still fail to see how it's MySpace's fault. She met him, had dinner with him, and went back to his place. 3 acts of consent outside of MySpace's control. Do we get to sue BigYellow.com next because some stalker found an address there?
If the 2 accounts both correctly state the ages of their owners, how is age verification going to help? If he lied - which seems unlikely since the artical said he identified himself as a 19 year old senior and he was stated as being 19 when he was arrested - there might be some small issue. If she lied and marked herself as older, I got not sympathy. There were rules in place to protect her, she broke them & got hurt - action -> consequence see how nicely they go together? Learn from it.
Question 3 is just about parental responsibility. Let's face it, as her parents, they have a huge legal 'duty' to be aware of what she is doing, when, & with whom. They failed. That doesn't make them 'bad' parents per say, I did a crapload of stuff that my parents probably still don't know about 20 years later, but it also doesn't absolve them of the 'duty' to protect her.
Being present at MySpace does not remove a kid from their parents custody, there is no transfer of guardianship (guardian pro tem or guardian pro se, not sure which ) such as you have with a school. IANAL but if anyone is going to be charged with negligence, it should be the parents.
This should be thrown out of court as groundless, but because it's 'for the children' in an election year, you can bet it's going to be trumpeted throughout congress and it's going to end with new laws that only restrict the honest people, and do nothing about the scum.
Yeah, incompetence is my guess here also. Most cell phones are running around a 500Mhz chip operating at a 2-2.4 Ghz transmit frequency.
Now saying that the chip is running 1000X faster than the chip in your cellphone would have been a good comparison, or some quote about the average PC chip being 2Ghz & this being 250X faster would have been good comparisons, but comparing the chip to the transmit frequency of the cell phone was stupid.
Is the technology behind the EV1 a secret?
Why not create a set of plans based on the Open Source model that could be used to bypass GM like FOSS bypasses Micro$oft.
Eventually, a RedHat will come along and produce the hardware for the masses.
It may not look sexy like a Jaguar, but it will get you there.
Obligitory:
But will it run Linux?
More important:
Take 20 minutes to go Googling - you'll probably find 200 plans for electric cars - both free & pay for the plans type.
Per the obscenity lawsuits, the crime happens whereever they decide they can get the most favorable verdict.
IE., a prosecuter in WA can decide that the Nevada site www.poker-n-prostitutes.com [not real (I hope)] violates the WA statute & initiate an extradition request for the owner of the site.
Personnally I think this is a waste of time since it's going to be hammered on the 1st ammendment level. But that's government for you, if they have the choice to do something or to create a worthless law to waste everyones time & interfier with our lives... they don't have to think long before starting to start protecting us from ourselves.
Check out CNN.... guy was just charged with aiding his wife to commit suicide by ...
wait for it
getting out of the minivan at a reststop.
Yep, I am thinking bikini atol is starting to sound nicer every week. What's a little cancer compaired to this kind of crap.
Ahh, you create a dummy corp that does the compiling in a "Clean" environment. Then sell the value added of the compiling to the company. Ohh, and don't forget to charge for "Installation support".
My cohort & I were just discussing that if the national average is 6% of revenu, we have a lot of catching up to do.
4. Corrosion: titanium is more corrosion resistant than Al because it oxidizes rapidly in contact with air
To clarify, it oxidizes rapidly and forms a self protective barrier. Once there is a complete layer of oxidation, the oxidation does not continue to penetrate into the metal. As opposed to iron/steel where the oxidation (rust) continues down & through the entire structure.
Also with reguards to more corrosion resistant than Al, the TiO2 layer is less chemically active than Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3 ?). This causes the corrosion resistance, as both Ti & Al are self protecting w/ reguards to oxidation itself.
It's not modern, it's called 'watered steel' because of the wave like patterns that appear in the final blade.
The technique has been around since roughly 1000AD - it was a popular Norse technique IIRC.
Essentially, you take a bundle of thin steel or iron rods, twist & weld them together to make a bar, then form the blade from the bar. Yes, it also provides the same features as both Damascus and Japanese folded steel (there is a name for the technique, but I don't recall it off the top of my head) in that you end up with low carbon steel (flexible but soft) bonded together with the high carbon (stiff but brittle) welds.
You can say that this breaks the "spirit of the internet", but some packet discrimination is essential when routers have to choose which packets to forward first, especially when some traffic should be low-latency, other high-bandwidth, other low-priority.
Yes, and no. Everyone basically agrees that QoS as a protocol based system is a good thing. Streamed video, music, conference composites, etc all get high priority as latency dependent, torrent files are pretty much latency immune. That's not what the ISP's are talking about.
The ISP's, and yes that's backbone providers also, are discussing - "I will place Google web pages on the high priority list, if they pay, if not, they go to the general pool for best effort."
The problem is that if I pay AT&T for high priority, there is nothing to prevent SBC from dropping me back to best effort unless I pay them also. So now I have to pay for my actual bandwidth to my provider, and then 'priority extortion' to every other backbone/ISP to get & stay on the priority lists.
Also note, there isn't a lot of discussion about any QoS for protocols - except that the telco's are saying they need to be able to prioritize 'their' video/viop transmisions.
The ammendment that was rejected basically said, "we have no problem with you implimenting QoS on a Protocol level, but you have to play fair across the board, what Google gets, Yahoo gets, momnpopshop.com gets. What your VOIP gets - Vonage gets."
The issue really isn't about what is happening, or what congress is/isn't doing. The issue is that without a requirement for net neutrality, there is nothing to prevent the telco's from:
Do nothing
Sell priority bandwidth
Do nothing
Sell more priority bandwidth
Do Nothing
Add VOIP & VOD/IP to their services - on the priority bandwidth
Extort more priority bandwidth.
Profit
Tell congress that the reason the internet is having problems is they need a tax break/grant to increase bandwidth.
Profit
Return to step 1.
Let's face it US ISPs are sucking wind. Most other countries in Europe and Asia have faster pipes for less money. The telco's and cable coms say it's because they have to build over large areas that don't have a lot of people. That's nice except that they arn't providing those services in those areas anyway. Over 70% of the US population lives in 2 high density corridors - NYC - DC and LA - Seattle Washington. That amounts to 70% of the people can be reached by covering 15% of the US continental land mass. The telco's building into the other 85% of the US is supported by fees on the phone bill, grants, and tax breaks. But in general even that 15% coverage isn't fully covered.
The cable companies at least don't get the financial support so they have some excuse, but even there, the bandwidth they do sell is usually in the 3-5Mbps range and it's not unusual to see it oversold to the point of high (over 10% to ISP servers) packet loss during peak usage times. Charter is famous for that - the 6PM internet halt as packet loss hits around 50% when everyone get's home & checks mail at the same time.
If they can profit from the accounts & bandwidth and then profit again from prioritizing traffic, they have no incentive to improve the overall situation, they'll just say "buy a priority package" and fail to follow through on the bandwidth buildout they said they need these extra profits to complete.
Do you really think that Bubba down the street wouldn't vote for this if the media companies campaigned on Jerry Springer about how all this infringement was going to make his 'Honky Tonk Badonk-Adonk' [really dumbass song that's high on the country music charts in US now] go away?
Let's face it, the average American is at least as ignorant as congress about technical matters, and probably less likely to think about the consequences.
All that being said, this does appear to be one big piece of gimme-gimme legislation. Wonder how much cash went into the subcommitty to get this one on the floor.
That would be that it's been declared fair use by the courts. The cache is a technical implimentation to improve the performance of the system as a whole - it is not designed as a permanent copy of the data. Otherwise you would be seeing that view offline feature on IE disapearing in an explosion of legal venom.
What the prosecutors will have to prove is that, unlike google, TPB had intention in helping people breake the law.
Ohh so sorry, you need to have a law reguarding 'facilitating' copywrite violations.
Sweden doesn't have one. That's why it's legal.
In the US, I can legally publish a book reguarding the how & why of assasination tactics, and it's been upheld, I am not responsible for the actions of those people who buy the book.
Face it up until the DCMA, diseminating information was not a crime unless it involved government classified information - spilling trade secrets was a contract violation at best - civil law. So, it's only in the last 8 years that anything reguarding copyrights has been a crime - up until then it was a civil offence - which it should still be.
To be fair, you ISP only owns parts of the highway: the on ramp (some might own a bit more than that). I bet you'd find that a bandwidth test against a server in their network would probably report numbers very close to what they're selling you. But there are quite a few bottleneck on the internet, including the bandwidth connection of the website you're trying to reach (including the bandwidth test sites I have seen).
I might buy that for the overall issue of not recieving the bandwidth promised. However when you concider: She downgraded to the 768K plan expecting to still have 750K. Wrong, instead her speed dropped to 300K.
Note that all the numbers are in bits per second since he referenced them that way earlier in his statement.
You can see that the problem is not a bottleneck issue. If your 3Mb/s connection generates 750Kb/s and the problem is a bottleneck, then dropping the maximum speed available to you is not going to change anything. Your throughput at the bottleneck will be just as fast - 750Kb/s.
This is more likely a QoS implimentation which assigns specific allotments of bandwidth to the various levels of service. "OK, we have 100Tb/s of bandwidth, our 3Mb/s customers pay the most so we will give them 50Tb/s, 2Mb/s gets 25Tb/s... Oh, and that sucker paying $20 a month for his dialup... ehh, cut him off & tell him it's his modem is broken."
You can see the difference between bottlenecking & segregated bandwidth issues. If there's a bottleneck, everyone up to the throughput of the bottleneck doesn't know it's there. Everyone over that limit sees it exactly the same. With the bandwidth segregation, each tier will show differently based on the load at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly does "We already pay for our bandwidth, don't make us pay extra not to have it castrated." translate to "they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use"? . :
Face it net neutrality is about 1 thing, money
Note: from here on out telco refers to both telcos & cablecos.
Facts
Is there anyone who would like to dispute those 3 facts?
The telco argument is that they are providing the backbone and places like Google are making money by using that backbone without paying for it. I refer you to point 2. Google has in fact paid thier provider for the use of that backbone. Let's take a look at an example Google.
Request: Consumer -> Telco East -> Telco West -> Google
Response: Google-> Telco West -> Telco East -> Consumer
In this situation, Telco East collects money from the Consumer for the ISP service, and Telco West collects money from Google for the commercial bandwidth service. Telco East and Telco West have a Tier 1 Peering agreement saying they will allow each others traffic to pass between them.
The Telco East is now saying that the peering agreements that allowed them to build the phone system and create the demand for IP services is no longer fair, and that Google should pay them AND Telco West. The issue is that IPv6 includes as part of it's core, QoS routing. This along with the advances in traffic shaping, creates a situation where it is technologically feasable for Telco East to disable, slow, or filter Google's traffic based on arbitrary criteria. So what the telco's would like to do is charge individual providers based on the traffic volume and type, downgrading the traffic of those companies that do not pay for premium transfer even if they have paid all the other companies in the tracert.
In this ideal telco word Google would now pay Telco West for the priviledge of sending the packet, Telco East to make sure they don't downgrade it, and the consumer has to pay Telco East for the privilege of receiving the packet. Now throw out our little simple request & move into the real world. When the Chicago peering points were having some issues a couple of years ago, it wasn't unusual to see a packet route through 12 seperate networks in order to get from MA to CA. That's 13 seperate charges the telco's are collecting on each packet. Worse, if network 11 drops a packet, Google has to pay 1-10 again.
Lets move on.
Telco East wants to provide VOIP services in addition to their standard POTS phone service. Now because every VOIP inc. sale is 1 less Telco East VOIP customer, Telco East places VOIP inc at the bottom of the traffic shapping pile and their own services at the top of the pile. This ensures when Bob Consumer calls Bill Consumer, Telco East service sounds better. Now of course VOIP inc. could always pay Telco East the "QoS" premium, but what if they are located in Eastern Russia, will Telco East accept Rubles? or Vodka like Coca-Col
I know there is at least one law {47 U.S. Code 227) it is illegal to send advertising to any device capable of translating it to paper - IE fax machines/servers. Unfortunately not even the FCC is sure where SMS stands in this reguard. They feel it's covered under the same ruling, but it's not been tested in court.
Yes both sides pay for the call, or better yet the text message.
So you can see why we are all waiting with baited breath for those wonderful SMS spam messages. If it's anything like my spamtrap email address, I'd owe a couple of hundred dollars a day after my limit get's passed.
She can't just hand it over.
- It's not hers to give. By fact, law, and tradition the private information an organization collects about you is yours.
That's why there are a crapload of privacy laws in effect that state under what circumstances the credit reporting agencies can release your information. Why everyone is bent on the telco's giving your call records to the NSA. Why people are pissed about the FBI buying $30M of personal information from data brokers (who generally shouldn't have it) that they can't obtain legaly by requesting it without a warrent.
- It's part of her job to ensure that the policies and procedures of the library are enforced. Check up above, someone actually went out & found the privacy ruling for the library in question. It's clear about when & how those records will be released. Because a cop says 'gimme' is not on the list.
For the other point, a suppena or warrent is the court saying that the police have a 'good reason for needing' whatever. So even by your standard, she was correct to require the police to get a suppena or warrent. Remember here, she didn't say "No", she said "Not without the correct paperwork." She wasn't impeding anything, she was following a set procedure which has been in place and well defined for 200 years.The police have to prove to a judge that a certain person is criminal, then they can get a warrant, and then they can get the info on that person's library habits. ... they have to show to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that the information relating to the loaning of the book will help them resolve the case, and therefor the interests of the state outweigh the individual rights of privacy that may be breached in the search. There is no way for the police to prove to a judge that a certain person is a criminal if they are still trying to come up with his name.
Close
Do you honestly think that any cop would rather go knocking on every door in the city looking for this book than go sit in an air conditioned courthouse for an hour & get a suppena for the record? They were lazy, they got rejected, they did it right, they got the information they wanted.
You should probably run for congress, your hyperbole is certainly world class.
Let's look at it more closely had she done as the police had asked:
- Officer: Give me the records on this book [book of the day].
- Librarian: Here you go.
- Officer: Bob Buddy, you are under arrest.
- Prossecutor: Judge we have here the book identified by the victim, as you can see it was checked out by Bob Buddy on June 10th at 5PM.
- Defence: Your honor I object, the prossecution has no chain of custody for the records.
- Prossecutor: Of course we do, Librarian->Officer->Me.
- Defence: Where's the suppena to obtain the records?
- Prossecutor: We don't have one.
- Defence: Judge, that constitutes illegal search and seasure of the records. I request the book and the records be ruled as inadmissable.
- Judge: Sorry, but he's right. The loan records are the property of the patron not the librarian, she had no right to release them to you without a suppena. The book & the records are ruled inadmisable.
[2 weeks later][Newspaper Headlines]
Accused Child Molester, freed on technicality, sues Police and Library for $30M for violating his civil rights.
In a country where police are routinely sued for 'abuse' when they do their job by the book, you don't think that suit would happen?
Today -- Librarian 1 : Cops 0 : Nutjob 0 : Board of Directors 0
If it's the MS implimentation, it usually mutilates documents beyond usefulness. That's close to what the NSA usually does, but not the legal requirement.
No, never said that. I said that they should not be forcibly supplying that browser. If they offer the browser and OEMs include it great. If an OEM decides not to include it, refusing to allow them to sell the UNRELATE OS is bad. Face it, a web browser is NOT required to be on a locked down terminal box with no access to the internet. A web browser is an APPLICATION not an integral part of the OS no matter how badly you muck it up and try to shove it in there.
I very much doubt that, if Apple included Firefox instead. Again, the problem is not that MS makes or offers a free web browser - it's that they force you to have & use theirs.
OK let's go back & play this out again from the beginning. It is 1995, I sell OEM computers running Windows 95. I do not include IE because I sell low end computers with small hard drives and no modem anyway. Now, fall of '95 I go to MS & renew my OEM liscence. MS says OK you can sell Windows, but if you do you MUST include IE and it must be on the desktop. Now, if MS is not a monopoly, there are other places to get an OS from. Sorry even in '95 MS was a monopoly. Now is IE related to the OS here? no. Does IE add any value to my customers? no. Does it reduce the value of the system to my customers? yes, less HD space for them to use, more clutter on the desktop ...etc.
Let's move to NYC. I own a restaraunt. The mafia owns the trash service. They also own several other unrelated services. I go to negotiate my trash bill for next year and Guido tells me that I can only get my trash collected if I also use Mafia Inc. laundry.
See much difference? I own an OEM, I need to sell MS Windows to be profitable. I own a restaraunt, I need the trash collected. In either case, forcing an UNRELATED service is abuse of the monopoly. MS owned & still owns the PC OS business. They are using that fact to force their way into other businesses. Nobody (legaly) cares that MS is a monopoly in the PC OS field. They care when that influence is unduly exerted to create dominance in another area.
Check Windows 95/98 with IE 3. Go ahead, I'll wait... Good - go install IE 4. Notice any difference in the 'browsing the local OS' experiance? Other than a bit of skinning, there isn't any. What exactly was the technical reason for co-mingling the Browser with the OS? Oh yeah, in the marketing planning documents it was to keep Netscape from gaining market dominance. Wait that's marketing not technical, the technical reason was ... 'it's a bad idea'. That's not my option, it's the opinion of the people who worked on the feasability studies. Marketing won.
Is MS doing anything now that they didn't do back in 97, nope. Back in '97 they integrated the browser
The MS abuse is in demanding that IE (a web browser) be installed on all computers containing it's Operating system. To whit: forcibly leveraging Microsofts monopoly in one area(Desktop O/S) to create a monopoly in another area(Web Browser).
There would be, and would not have been an issue except that the contracts MS was making OEMs sign said you WILL include IE on the desktop or you WILL NOT sell Windows. At one point they also penalized OEMs for including competitive browsers - IE get the liscense at $50each normally but it'll cost you $65 if you include Netscape pre-installed.
With IE 5, it was no longer uninstallable. That is, no matter what you did, IE was now part of your OS & could not be removed. In court, MS was asked how to remove it, instead they showed how to hide it. When called on it, they admitted it couldn't be removed.
So, you have a piece of software (a web browser) that is required to ship with a seperate piece of software (the OS), that even if you despise, will continue to take up a good chunk of hard drive.
Take a look at the history & documents of the actual Anti-trust case. The issue was NOT bundling the web browser with the OS. The issue was about FORCIBLY bundling the browser. IIRC, the programming level techs fought against intigrating the browser into the OS, but marketing felt it was a sure way to make/keep market share.
So to answer your question, Microsoft's abuse of it's OS Monopoly status lies in it's focible inclusion of IE on every Windows computer, thus requiring by default, that everyone who uses their Monopoly OS, is presented with their Web Browser.
It's legal to sell it because there is no law prohibiting you from selling what you're prohibited from having.
Now the problem is that the FBI is supporting these groups by buying stuff from them, rather than using the stuff they(FBI) bought from them(DataBroker) as evidence in a case to crimially proscecute them(DataBroker).
Unless you're birthday is late in the year, in which case it's not unusual to graduate at 19 - have to be 6 by Nov 1st to get into kindergarden or some such. Get born on Nov 2 & be a year behind.
Ohh, CC verification....
... yeah that's another great leap forward brought to you by people with no clue.
OK now we have just raised the minimum age for being on any social networking site to 18.
Next, we are now charging $45-$100 per year (or more saw a CC for $75 anual fee + $12/mth usage fee the other day).
Finally, a quick google on 'credit card number generator' came back with 4 million hits, including an online one.
So, can anyone tell me how exactly this is going to work? If any moron can hit a website & generate a valid card # (not nescesarily a valid account) what have we just gained? Oh, yeah, we locked out thousands of honest people & did nothing about the scum
Sorry, she's 14. She should know by now not to talk to strangers, let alone go home with them.
Now Question 1: is the 'sexual assault' charge based on statutory rape? IE. did she have consensual sex with him or did she say no? - sorry don't give me bull about she's 14 she can't consent, 14 year olds are consenting all the time, and at least 3 states put the age of consent at 14.
Question 2: Did he or she misrepresent themselves on MySpace? TFA indicates he said he was 19 & a senior at a local HS. Was he 19? Did her profile correctly indicate she was 14?
Question 3: When going out on this date, did her parents know about it? Did she lie to them? Did they approve of the guy?
If question 1 is 'yes it's a statutory rape charge', then to hell with it, you can't protect people from themselves. If it was in fact rape, I'm sorry for her, but I still fail to see how it's MySpace's fault. She met him, had dinner with him, and went back to his place. 3 acts of consent outside of MySpace's control. Do we get to sue BigYellow.com next because some stalker found an address there?
If the 2 accounts both correctly state the ages of their owners, how is age verification going to help? If he lied - which seems unlikely since the artical said he identified himself as a 19 year old senior and he was stated as being 19 when he was arrested - there might be some small issue. If she lied and marked herself as older, I got not sympathy. There were rules in place to protect her, she broke them & got hurt - action -> consequence see how nicely they go together? Learn from it.
Question 3 is just about parental responsibility. Let's face it, as her parents, they have a huge legal 'duty' to be aware of what she is doing, when, & with whom. They failed. That doesn't make them 'bad' parents per say, I did a crapload of stuff that my parents probably still don't know about 20 years later, but it also doesn't absolve them of the 'duty' to protect her.
Being present at MySpace does not remove a kid from their parents custody, there is no transfer of guardianship (guardian pro tem or guardian pro se, not sure which ) such as you have with a school. IANAL but if anyone is going to be charged with negligence, it should be the parents.
This should be thrown out of court as groundless, but because it's 'for the children' in an election year, you can bet it's going to be trumpeted throughout congress and it's going to end with new laws that only restrict the honest people, and do nothing about the scum.
Yeah, incompetence is my guess here also. Most cell phones are running around a 500Mhz chip operating at a 2-2.4 Ghz transmit frequency.
Now saying that the chip is running 1000X faster than the chip in your cellphone would have been a good comparison, or some quote about the average PC chip being 2Ghz & this being 250X faster would have been good comparisons, but comparing the chip to the transmit frequency of the cell phone was stupid.
But will it run Linux?
More important:
Take 20 minutes to go Googling - you'll probably find 200 plans for electric cars - both free & pay for the plans type.
Per the obscenity lawsuits, the crime happens whereever they decide they can get the most favorable verdict. ... they don't have to think long before starting to start protecting us from ourselves. .... guy was just charged with aiding his wife to commit suicide by
...
IE., a prosecuter in WA can decide that the Nevada site www.poker-n-prostitutes.com [not real (I hope)] violates the WA statute & initiate an extradition request for the owner of the site.
Personnally I think this is a waste of time since it's going to be hammered on the 1st ammendment level. But that's government for you, if they have the choice to do something or to create a worthless law to waste everyones time & interfier with our lives
Check out CNN
wait for it
getting out of the minivan at a reststop.
Yep, I am thinking bikini atol is starting to sound nicer every week. What's a little cancer compaired to this kind of crap.
Ahh, you create a dummy corp that does the compiling in a "Clean" environment. Then sell the value added of the compiling to the company. Ohh, and don't forget to charge for "Installation support".
My cohort & I were just discussing that if the national average is 6% of revenu, we have a lot of catching up to do.
Although 'dry gas' additives to bind water condensation that is already in the gas are usually methanol or propanol.
When you've lost, declare victory & go home?
To clarify, it oxidizes rapidly and forms a self protective barrier. Once there is a complete layer of oxidation, the oxidation does not continue to penetrate into the metal. As opposed to iron/steel where the oxidation (rust) continues down & through the entire structure.
Also with reguards to more corrosion resistant than Al, the TiO2 layer is less chemically active than Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3 ?). This causes the corrosion resistance, as both Ti & Al are self protecting w/ reguards to oxidation itself.
It's not modern, it's called 'watered steel' because of the wave like patterns that appear in the final blade.
The technique has been around since roughly 1000AD - it was a popular Norse technique IIRC.
Essentially, you take a bundle of thin steel or iron rods, twist & weld them together to make a bar, then form the blade from the bar. Yes, it also provides the same features as both Damascus and Japanese folded steel (there is a name for the technique, but I don't recall it off the top of my head) in that you end up with low carbon steel (flexible but soft) bonded together with the high carbon (stiff but brittle) welds.
Yes, and no. Everyone basically agrees that QoS as a protocol based system is a good thing. Streamed video, music, conference composites, etc all get high priority as latency dependent, torrent files are pretty much latency immune. That's not what the ISP's are talking about.
The ISP's, and yes that's backbone providers also, are discussing - "I will place Google web pages on the high priority list, if they pay, if not, they go to the general pool for best effort."
The problem is that if I pay AT&T for high priority, there is nothing to prevent SBC from dropping me back to best effort unless I pay them also. So now I have to pay for my actual bandwidth to my provider, and then 'priority extortion' to every other backbone/ISP to get & stay on the priority lists.
Also note, there isn't a lot of discussion about any QoS for protocols - except that the telco's are saying they need to be able to prioritize 'their' video/viop transmisions.
The ammendment that was rejected basically said, "we have no problem with you implimenting QoS on a Protocol level, but you have to play fair across the board, what Google gets, Yahoo gets, momnpopshop.com gets. What your VOIP gets - Vonage gets."
The issue really isn't about what is happening, or what congress is/isn't doing. The issue is that without a requirement for net neutrality, there is nothing to prevent the telco's from:
Let's face it US ISPs are sucking wind. Most other countries in Europe and Asia have faster pipes for less money. The telco's and cable coms say it's because they have to build over large areas that don't have a lot of people. That's nice except that they arn't providing those services in those areas anyway. Over 70% of the US population lives in 2 high density corridors - NYC - DC and LA - Seattle Washington. That amounts to 70% of the people can be reached by covering 15% of the US continental land mass. The telco's building into the other 85% of the US is supported by fees on the phone bill, grants, and tax breaks. But in general even that 15% coverage isn't fully covered.
The cable companies at least don't get the financial support so they have some excuse, but even there, the bandwidth they do sell is usually in the 3-5Mbps range and it's not unusual to see it oversold to the point of high (over 10% to ISP servers) packet loss during peak usage times. Charter is famous for that - the 6PM internet halt as packet loss hits around 50% when everyone get's home & checks mail at the same time.
If they can profit from the accounts & bandwidth and then profit again from prioritizing traffic, they have no incentive to improve the overall situation, they'll just say "buy a priority package" and fail to follow through on the bandwidth buildout they said they need these extra profits to complete.
Do you really think that Bubba down the street wouldn't vote for this if the media companies campaigned on Jerry Springer about how all this infringement was going to make his 'Honky Tonk Badonk-Adonk' [really dumbass song that's high on the country music charts in US now] go away?
Let's face it, the average American is at least as ignorant as congress about technical matters, and probably less likely to think about the consequences.
All that being said, this does appear to be one big piece of gimme-gimme legislation. Wonder how much cash went into the subcommitty to get this one on the floor.
That would be that it's been declared fair use by the courts. The cache is a technical implimentation to improve the performance of the system as a whole - it is not designed as a permanent copy of the data. Otherwise you would be seeing that view offline feature on IE disapearing in an explosion of legal venom.
What the prosecutors will have to prove is that, unlike google, TPB had intention in helping people breake the law.
Ohh so sorry, you need to have a law reguarding 'facilitating' copywrite violations.
Sweden doesn't have one. That's why it's legal.
In the US, I can legally publish a book reguarding the how & why of assasination tactics, and it's been upheld, I am not responsible for the actions of those people who buy the book.
Face it up until the DCMA, diseminating information was not a crime unless it involved government classified information - spilling trade secrets was a contract violation at best - civil law. So, it's only in the last 8 years that anything reguarding copyrights has been a crime - up until then it was a civil offence - which it should still be.
To be fair, you ISP only owns parts of the highway: the on ramp (some might own a bit more than that). I bet you'd find that a bandwidth test against a server in their network would probably report numbers very close to what they're selling you. But there are quite a few bottleneck on the internet, including the bandwidth connection of the website you're trying to reach (including the bandwidth test sites I have seen). ... Oh, and that sucker paying $20 a month for his dialup ... ehh, cut him off & tell him it's his modem is broken."
I might buy that for the overall issue of not recieving the bandwidth promised. However when you concider:
She downgraded to the 768K plan expecting to still have 750K. Wrong, instead her speed dropped to 300K.
Note that all the numbers are in bits per second since he referenced them that way earlier in his statement.
You can see that the problem is not a bottleneck issue. If your 3Mb/s connection generates 750Kb/s and the problem is a bottleneck, then dropping the maximum speed available to you is not going to change anything. Your throughput at the bottleneck will be just as fast - 750Kb/s.
This is more likely a QoS implimentation which assigns specific allotments of bandwidth to the various levels of service. "OK, we have 100Tb/s of bandwidth, our 3Mb/s customers pay the most so we will give them 50Tb/s, 2Mb/s gets 25Tb/s
You can see the difference between bottlenecking & segregated bandwidth issues. If there's a bottleneck, everyone up to the throughput of the bottleneck doesn't know it's there. Everyone over that limit sees it exactly the same. With the bandwidth segregation, each tier will show differently based on the load at the time.