Nope. If the original poster owned a giant cloud computing operations then they would be just as culpable. The thing is, Google/Amazon can do it and not get blocked (at least without great cost to the blocker.) So they have the power to do something about it. A random poster on the internet does not.
And if you don't do it you're "enabling murder," but if you're small and don't do it, you're not.
Yep, a cheap and morally incoherent cop-out.
Domain fronting is gone and it's not coming back. Deal with it.
You're looking for this: Part 1608 - Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
I'm aware; I'm also aware that you're ignoring the difference between a permitted affirmative action program and a prohibited absolute bar on the inclusion of members of a certain race or gender. You'll notice that the "Policy Statement on Affirmative Action Programs for State and Local Government Agencies" (41 FR 38814) cited in the regulation does not mention anything approaching such an exclusive program:
When an employer has reason to believe that its selection procedures have * * * exclusionary effect * * *, it should initiate affirmative steps to remedy the situation. Such steps, which in design and execution may be race, color, sex or ethnic 'conscious,' include, but are not limited to, the following:
The establishment of a long term goal and short range, interim goals and timetables for the specific job classifications, all of which should take into account the availability of basically qualified persons in the relevant job market;
A recruitment program designed to attract qualified members of the group in question;
A systematic effort to organize work and re-design jobs in ways that provide opportunities for persons lacking 'journeyman' level knowledge or skills to enter and, with appropriate training, to progress in a career field;
Revamping selection instruments or procedures which have not yet been validated in order to reduce or eliminate exclusionary effects on particular groups in particular job classifications;
The initiation of measures designed to assure that members of the affected group who are qualified to perform the job are included within the pool of persons from which the selecting official makes the selection;
A systematic effort to provide career advancement training, both classroom and on-the-job, to employees locked into dead end jobs; and
The establishment of a system for regularly monitoring the effectiveness of the particular affirmative action program, and procedures for making timely adjustments in this program where effectiveness is not demonstrated.
There is a difference between increasing your efforts to recruit, train, and advance minority applicants in a conscientious manner and imposing absolute restrictions on your applicant pool.
The letter you quoted has nothing to do with an employer running a diversity program...
True. It said that those offering paid internships were subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which coincidentally forbid discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
With Domain Fronting. Exactly what we're talking about in this story. The Exact Thing they just stopped doing. FFS, that's the whole point.
I'm sorry, but your logic is all over the place here. You'll need to explain more fully.
I don't know, how many have you?
I mean, you've defined "enabling murder" as simply not allowing someone else to run their communications through their computers. Do you allow that?
I know. I also ask random posters on the internet why they keep allowing police officers to shoot unarmed people, instead of just asking those police chiefs/department/DAs/elected officials. I mean, I've defined "enabling police officers to shoot unarmed people" as "not stopping them/imposing consequences," so they're both equally guilty.
Nope, I'm comparing them to police chiefs, DAs and elected officials. That is, people who have the power to restrain the cops, but don't. Similarly, Google and Amazon have the power to restrain a dictatorship (to a limited degree), but aren't.
So Google and Amazon are the police chiefs, DAs, and elected officials because they could permit domain fronting, but choose not to do so any longer, but the original poster is not like the police chiefs, DAs, and elected officials because... they could allow communications through their computers -- even via domain fronting -- but choose not to do so at all... so that they only count as random posters on the internet and thus are less culpable.
Oh, and fuck everyone else attempting to use Google's and Amazon's services in those areas who will be/are being blocked because it's Google's and Amazon's moral responsibility to support domain fronting (but not yours, or anyone else's...).
I don't know much about Outreachy. But a program that encourages participation by women and minorities requiring that funding candidates actually be women or minorities doesn't seem at all out of place for the purpose of the organization.
The EEOC appears to disagree with you when it comes to paid internships, Bruce. Absolute bars on consideration for such positions based on race and sex are forbidden.
"The Hawaii Medical Association said it wanted the issue to be studied more deeply because there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching, and overwhelming evidence that not wearing sunscreen increases cancer rates."
Which translates into "We refuse to acknowledge the existence of peer-reviewed evidence specifically on this topic and have no countervailing peer-reviewed evidence of our own, thus that uncertainty means that the state should not act to protect corals because you just might be too lazy to switch sunscreen types..."
Nope, I'm comparing them to police chiefs, DAs and elected officials. That is, people who have the power to restrain the cops, but don't. Similarly, Google and Amazon have the power to restrain a dictatorship (to a limited degree), but aren't.
Well, isn't that a sad, little cop-out. Amazon and Google have the power to restrain Russia or Iran? With what?! A denial of gmail and prime shipping?
How many thousands of political dissidents have Google and Amazon enabled totalitarian dictatorships to murder?
I don't know, how many have you?
I mean, you've defined "enabling murder" as simply not allowing someone else to run their communications through their computers. Do you allow that?
I know. I also ask random posters on the internet why they keep allowing police officers to shoot unarmed people, instead of just asking those police chiefs/department/DAs/elected officials. I mean, I've defined "enabling police officers to shoot unarmed people" as "not stopping them/imposing consequences," so they're both equally guilty.
So in your analysis of the original post that started this I'm supposed to analogize Google and Amazon to the "police officers" and not the "random posters on the internet," because it's Amazon and Google that are "shooting" the unarmed people and not the governments of Russia, Iran, and the like?
In addition to conceding my point -- Google and Amazon withdrawing service are not the proximate cause of such murders -- you've blissfully missed that the original poster applied a criterion for guilt that likely applies equally to him or her and to you.
And to think I dared identify that point hypocrisy. For shame.
I am not advertising and selling a "cloud" service to other people to pay me to run their communications through my computers.
Sorry, I missed the philosophy class session where the morality of an action turned upon whether one advertised and engaged in commercial activity.
They are no more "enabling totalitarian dictatorships to murder" than you are when they refuse to deal with people.
Google and Amazon are making money off this. And now they are being picky about who does what with that service.
As has every service provider since the dawn of commerce. As do you in your personal affairs. It's the classic right to refuse service, and "people providing communications services that we like" are not a protected class.
As you said they (mining rigs) are USING ASICs - they are NOT ASICs themselves, which is what the sentence said. Not implied - said!
It most certainly did not.
"large mining operations are pulling back on their investment in GPUs in anticipation of dedicated mining rigs (called ASICs) that are due out before the end of the year."
It said the dedicated rigs replacing GPUs are called ASICs.
Theyarecalledthat, and more to the point your original post asserted that they called ASICs (all ASICs) dedicated mining rigs, when again they said that the non-GPU mining rigs were "ASICs.
No shame here for knowing what sentences are supposed to fucking mean.
Which you obviously don't, because you've gotten it wrong twice now in an attempt to scream "error" where the was not one. "are" != "called. Get that through your skull.
The author says "... anticipation of dedicated mining rigs (called ASICs)." This is wrong. Dedicated mining rigs may use ASICs as the main compute engine (or GPUs, or Xeons, or Unicorn smegma, or...) but Application Specific Integrated Circuits are NOT "mining rigs". C'mon/. you know better! (Hopefully, anyway.)
The sentence made perfect sense in context - "large mining operations are pulling back on their investment in GPUs in anticipation of dedicated mining rigs (called ASICs) that are due out before the end of the year."
Not all ASICs are "mining rigs," but systems that replace "multi-purpose" graphic cards with "dedicated" mining equipment are indeed using ASICs. Not GPUs (from the sentence), and certainly not Xeons...
But the software *was* genuine Dell and Microsoft. It's like putting a Ford badge on a Ford car.
Hate to say it, but it's not remotely like putting a Ford badge on a Ford car.
Ford puts Ford badges on Ford cars. If you were to put a Ford bade on a copy of a Ford card, no matter how good, it would still be counterfeiting and trademark infringment precisely because Ford did not make that car.
But he wasn't selling the IP itself, he was selling access to the IP.
He was manufacturing physical CDs with the physical data on them and at the end of the day he sold them separately from the refurbished computer. It would have been a whole different story if he had downloaded the recovery software onto the HD of a refurbished computer, or even packaged a generially labeled CD and bundled it only with a refurbished computer. He did not.
It's like a bug in the IP system caused by legacy feature support.
It is not. It is a community that either does not know or is willfully blind to the facts of this case throwing a tantrum. I cannot sell Linux distribution CDs and refuse to offer the source code while arguing that "users can download the Linux distribution and burn it onto CDs themselves, so I am just providing a convenience service on their behalf."
Unfortunately he made the wrong choices at many levels, and that left a small issue of whether counterfeit recovery CDs were counterfeiting a product that Microsoft apparently sells to OEMs for some value. Well, apparently, they do.
The choice doesn't have to be between free/open-source and pay. The choice can be between subscription (as MS is currently ramming down users' throats) and pay-once, keep the same feature-set, maybe pay for security updates.
Failure all around, the poster, the moderators who upmoderated this, and anyone who believes it.
I paid for Windows once - for Windows 7. The Windows 10 upgrade was free. Every update since has been free. No second payment.
No consumer has paid for Windows 10 more than once. Every business on a "subscription" is using essentially the same Software Assurance or volumce licensing program that has been available since before the introduction of Windows 7.
Err, sure you aren't thinking of 5ghz wifi there, champ?
Yes, I'm sure. Because while 5G will use some low frequency bands, 70MHz of bandwidth across 600-700 MHz is not going to be faster than LTE in the existing 700MHz blocks without a channel width increase, which does not increase overall network speed/capacity, just speed and capacity available to individual clients at the cost of increased congestion.
The same thing goes for the mid-bands.
High speed 5G requires millimeter wavelengths, which are even more easily absorbed than 5 GHz WiFi signals.
If the millimeter wavelength speeds of 5G are not rolled out widely, what is the motivation for the consumer to buy an all new phone to access it? Less network congestion (initially)? Has 4G LTE data congestion really been a consumer issue except in serving as an excuse for data limits -- as if those will change with 5G service?
In a world (meaning the US)
I'm pretty sure the world consists of other places too
Woosh. Also, I'm pretty sure that I don't live in those places, so I'm pretty sure I can't make informed statements concerning the state of new telecommunications infrastructure rollout, such as fiber to the home, there. Yet the US is a part of the world, I can make informed statements about that.
Oh, and while I'm at it, the FCC's regulations for transmission facilities are described in OET-65, not OET-64, and only apply to transmission frequencies above 300 kHz - and thus do not apply to AM radio.
"Most AM radio towers are series fed (end fed at the bottom) and have a ceramic insulator at the base. A few smaller ones are shunt fed about 20 feet up the tower and are grounded at the base, and a variation are metal poles grounded and have wires insulated from the pole as vertical radiators."
Up to 50,000 watts says that the primary concern is electric shock. A secondary concern is RF exposure.
Try Googling AM radio, maintenance, and "hot tower" before you lecture about areas that you plainly lack experience in.
Honest question - isn't it necessary to de-energise the transmitter before technicians can climb the tower to install or maintain hardware? Presumably it happens in the graveyard shift. The ERP right at the tower must be quite high.
You can be on the tower, or you can be on the ground, but you can't be on both. It's not the potential that kills, it's becoming a circuit path. Birds roosting on power distribution lines, which as a general rule are not insulated, don't die due to that fact.
I should be so thankful that an internet lawyer showed up to put me in my rightful place for daring to even question my corporate better's ability to decide and influence the nature of political discourse in modern society.
Actual internet lawyer. And you should be.
How silly to think that when such 'private businesses' handle, process and regulate the speech between hundreds of millions of individuals in a country, and become the authority of who will be allowed to participate, that the line between it and government could become blurred.
As if it was any different with TV, with radio, or with newspapers, going all the way back to when the first amendment was adopted, besides absolute numbers of individuals (up) versus proportion of population (same).
How are you being prevented from speaking to those individuals? Actual conversation, email, and your own website can't cut it? They're suppressing your ability to communicate because you might have to develop your own audience instead of hijacking theirs?
Since you appear to prefer legal terms, then you should understand what de facto means and how it applies in these situations. Expecting equal protection is not an authoritarian position.
There's no "de facto" exception to the first amendment -- the government shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press." But please, explain how individuals and "the press" held equal influence in the 18th century, and how it was not authoritarian for the news press to decide what viewpoints they would and would not publish.
Demanding that private interests provide "equal protection" for your speech under penalty of law, or that those private interests be nationalized for that purpose, is pretty much the definition of an authoritarian position - "Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." Yep. It is.
Simply stating that the average bill went up between 2000 and now without evaluating what services people were actually paying for then and now is, to put it generously, disingenuous.
"As their chart illustrates, prices for multichannel packages have steadily risen from just below $60 a month in 2000 to close to $100 in 2016."
You need to improve your reading comprehension. That was an apples-to-apples comparison. TFA said nothing about "average bills" with additional services such as bundled telephone service or bundled internet service. You're the one being disingenuous.
You're disagreeing with math. For the claimed numbers to be true, what cost $100 in would have to $250 today. Adjust as needed for your actual 2000 cable bill. Nowhere did I claim that the average cable bill in 2000 was $100. Try again.
No, I'm disagreeing with facts. You factually claimed an inflation rate that is incorrect to come up with a "150% raw increase" that is false -- it was 107%. You also alleged a service cost in 2000 of $100 despite a summary that expressly stated the packages were "below $60 per month," and came up with a current service cost of $250 today despite a summary that also expressly stated that service costs were $100/mo in 2016 -- but now act as if people reading your reply would not infer that the "service" that you were referring to was the same service being discussed in the summary. That was deceptive.
Your math may be perfectly accurate, but your model, basis, and conclusions are bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you don't do it you're "enabling murder," but if you're small and don't do it, you're not.
Yep, a cheap and morally incoherent cop-out.
Domain fronting is gone and it's not coming back. Deal with it.
I'm aware; I'm also aware that you're ignoring the difference between a permitted affirmative action program and a prohibited absolute bar on the inclusion of members of a certain race or gender. You'll notice that the "Policy Statement on Affirmative Action Programs for State and Local Government Agencies" (41 FR 38814) cited in the regulation does not mention anything approaching such an exclusive program:
There is a difference between increasing your efforts to recruit, train, and advance minority applicants in a conscientious manner and imposing absolute restrictions on your applicant pool.
True. It said that those offering paid internships were subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which coincidentally forbid discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
On the other hand, the report that you linked to has nothing do to with permitted practices in running a diversity program, and does nothing to refute the statement that "Absolute bars on consideration for such positions based on race and sex are forbidden." You'll notice that the EEOC expressly states that "It is illegal for a training or apprenticeship program to discriminate on the bases of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. For example, an employer may not deny training opportunities to African-American employees because of their race."
I don't see "unless you're running a diversity program." Do you?
I'm sorry, but your logic is all over the place here. You'll need to explain more fully.
So Google and Amazon are the police chiefs, DAs, and elected officials because they could permit domain fronting, but choose not to do so any longer, but the original poster is not like the police chiefs, DAs, and elected officials because... they could allow communications through their computers -- even via domain fronting -- but choose not to do so at all... so that they only count as random posters on the internet and thus are less culpable.
Oh, and fuck everyone else attempting to use Google's and Amazon's services in those areas who will be/are being blocked because it's Google's and Amazon's moral responsibility to support domain fronting (but not yours, or anyone else's...).
Do I have it right yet?
The EEOC appears to disagree with you when it comes to paid internships, Bruce. Absolute bars on consideration for such positions based on race and sex are forbidden.
I notice that you only mention "relay" and not entrance or exit node. So brave.
Which translates into "We refuse to acknowledge the existence of peer-reviewed evidence specifically on this topic and have no countervailing peer-reviewed evidence of our own, thus that uncertainty means that the state should not act to protect corals because you just might be too lazy to switch sunscreen types..."
Well, isn't that a sad, little cop-out. Amazon and Google have the power to restrain Russia or Iran? With what?! A denial of gmail and prime shipping?
Imbecile...
So in your analysis of the original post that started this I'm supposed to analogize Google and Amazon to the "police officers" and not the "random posters on the internet," because it's Amazon and Google that are "shooting" the unarmed people and not the governments of Russia, Iran, and the like?
In addition to conceding my point -- Google and Amazon withdrawing service are not the proximate cause of such murders -- you've blissfully missed that the original poster applied a criterion for guilt that likely applies equally to him or her and to you.
And to think I dared identify that point hypocrisy. For shame.
Sorry, I missed the philosophy class session where the morality of an action turned upon whether one advertised and engaged in commercial activity.
They are no more "enabling totalitarian dictatorships to murder" than you are when they refuse to deal with people.
As has every service provider since the dawn of commerce. As do you in your personal affairs. It's the classic right to refuse service, and "people providing communications services that we like" are not a protected class.
I don't know, how many have you?
I mean, you've defined "enabling murder" as simply not allowing someone else to run their communications through their computers. Do you allow that?
You can't know - Microsoft didn't make the discs.
It most certainly did not.
"large mining operations are pulling back on their investment in GPUs in anticipation of dedicated mining rigs (called ASICs) that are due out before the end of the year."
It said the dedicated rigs replacing GPUs are called ASICs.
They are called that, and more to the point your original post asserted that they called ASICs (all ASICs) dedicated mining rigs, when again they said that the non-GPU mining rigs were "ASICs.
Which you obviously don't, because you've gotten it wrong twice now in an attempt to scream "error" where the was not one. "are" != "called. Get that through your skull.
The sentence made perfect sense in context - "large mining operations are pulling back on their investment in GPUs in anticipation of dedicated mining rigs (called ASICs) that are due out before the end of the year."
Not all ASICs are "mining rigs," but systems that replace "multi-purpose" graphic cards with "dedicated" mining equipment are indeed using ASICs. Not GPUs (from the sentence), and certainly not Xeons...
Shame on you, as well...
Hate to say it, but it's not remotely like putting a Ford badge on a Ford car.
Ford puts Ford badges on Ford cars. If you were to put a Ford bade on a copy of a Ford card, no matter how good, it would still be counterfeiting and trademark infringment precisely because Ford did not make that car.
He was manufacturing physical CDs with the physical data on them and at the end of the day he sold them separately from the refurbished computer. It would have been a whole different story if he had downloaded the recovery software onto the HD of a refurbished computer, or even packaged a generially labeled CD and bundled it only with a refurbished computer. He did not.
It is not. It is a community that either does not know or is willfully blind to the facts of this case throwing a tantrum. I cannot sell Linux distribution CDs and refuse to offer the source code while arguing that "users can download the Linux distribution and burn it onto CDs themselves, so I am just providing a convenience service on their behalf."
Unfortunately he made the wrong choices at many levels, and that left a small issue of whether counterfeit recovery CDs were counterfeiting a product that Microsoft apparently sells to OEMs for some value. Well, apparently, they do.
Failure all around, the poster, the moderators who upmoderated this, and anyone who believes it.
I paid for Windows once - for Windows 7. The Windows 10 upgrade was free. Every update since has been free. No second payment.
No consumer has paid for Windows 10 more than once. Every business on a "subscription" is using essentially the same Software Assurance or volumce licensing program that has been available since before the introduction of Windows 7.
You should be embarassed at yourself.
Yes, I'm sure. Because while 5G will use some low frequency bands, 70MHz of bandwidth across 600-700 MHz is not going to be faster than LTE in the existing 700MHz blocks without a channel width increase, which does not increase overall network speed/capacity, just speed and capacity available to individual clients at the cost of increased congestion.
The same thing goes for the mid-bands.
High speed 5G requires millimeter wavelengths, which are even more easily absorbed than 5 GHz WiFi signals.
If the millimeter wavelength speeds of 5G are not rolled out widely, what is the motivation for the consumer to buy an all new phone to access it? Less network congestion (initially)? Has 4G LTE data congestion really been a consumer issue except in serving as an excuse for data limits -- as if those will change with 5G service?
Woosh. Also, I'm pretty sure that I don't live in those places, so I'm pretty sure I can't make informed statements concerning the state of new telecommunications infrastructure rollout, such as fiber to the home, there. Yet the US is a part of the world, I can make informed statements about that.
You're right. I flipped the FM numerical range with the AM units in my mind. The entire AM range is well within it.
Oh, and while I'm at it, the FCC's regulations for transmission facilities are described in OET-65, not OET-64, and only apply to transmission frequencies above 300 kHz - and thus do not apply to AM radio.
Please, tell me how AM broadcasting works (first and last visible paragraphs of section 5.5.5.2). Because for the majority of AM transmission towers you are dead wrong - literallty.
"Most AM radio towers are series fed (end fed at the bottom) and have a ceramic insulator at the base. A few smaller ones are shunt fed about 20 feet up the tower and are grounded at the base, and a variation are metal poles grounded and have wires insulated from the pole as vertical radiators."
Up to 50,000 watts says that the primary concern is electric shock. A secondary concern is RF exposure.
Try Googling AM radio, maintenance, and "hot tower" before you lecture about areas that you plainly lack experience in.
You can be on the tower, or you can be on the ground, but you can't be on both. It's not the potential that kills, it's becoming a circuit path. Birds roosting on power distribution lines, which as a general rule are not insulated, don't die due to that fact.
Actual internet lawyer. And you should be.
As if it was any different with TV, with radio, or with newspapers, going all the way back to when the first amendment was adopted, besides absolute numbers of individuals (up) versus proportion of population (same).
How are you being prevented from speaking to those individuals? Actual conversation, email, and your own website can't cut it? They're suppressing your ability to communicate because you might have to develop your own audience instead of hijacking theirs?
There's no "de facto" exception to the first amendment -- the government shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press." But please, explain how individuals and "the press" held equal influence in the 18th century, and how it was not authoritarian for the news press to decide what viewpoints they would and would not publish.
Demanding that private interests provide "equal protection" for your speech under penalty of law, or that those private interests be nationalized for that purpose, is pretty much the definition of an authoritarian position - "Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." Yep. It is.
"As their chart illustrates, prices for multichannel packages have steadily risen from just below $60 a month in 2000 to close to $100 in 2016."
You need to improve your reading comprehension. That was an apples-to-apples comparison. TFA said nothing about "average bills" with additional services such as bundled telephone service or bundled internet service. You're the one being disingenuous.
That was 18 years ago. Per the summary (and other news), the average crept above $100/mo in 2016.
No, I'm disagreeing with facts. You factually claimed an inflation rate that is incorrect to come up with a "150% raw increase" that is false -- it was 107%. You also alleged a service cost in 2000 of $100 despite a summary that expressly stated the packages were "below $60 per month," and came up with a current service cost of $250 today despite a summary that also expressly stated that service costs were $100/mo in 2016 -- but now act as if people reading your reply would not infer that the "service" that you were referring to was the same service being discussed in the summary. That was deceptive.
Your math may be perfectly accurate, but your model, basis, and conclusions are bullshit.
You try again.