It certainly is, but I would look very closely at the agreement before signing off on it.
I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.
Poaching the USF with promises of what it is supposed to be used for, without actually delivering, is the actual track record here.
I would only support this kind of deal if there were strong liabilities for failure to deliver. I am talking board and CEO jail time levels of liability here.
You already use persistent session cookies, for a raft of purposes. Combine a session cookie with a browser generated key pair, that gets created when a user clicks on a button on the loaded page.
Require an actual mouse hover, and actual click. (No automatic bullshit.)
Name the button something like "I would like notifications". Once pushed, the browser generates a signature which gets attached to the session cookie. The webpage can then check for the cookie, the browser can check the signature, and then the dynamic content can proceed-- You either get the notifications, or you dont (and get the button on the page.)
The constant "FOO.COM wants to send notifications!" from EVERY GOD DAMN SITE is annoying as fucking hell. No, If I want you to send me notifications, I will let you know. Stop asking me like that. You dont have t be a douche like with the "We need cookies Yo" notifications, since you DO NOT actually NEED to send notifications for your site to work as intended, which is very different from cookie use-- so a simple "Notify me of new content" or similar checkbox or option for the site, with signature enforcement through the browser, would work great, and not be intrusive or abusive.
Your eyes lack the total number of photo receptors to accommodate 4k video. That is why you don't need it.
The human eye has between 6 and 7 million cone cells in it. That number is divided into 3, because each cone cell is receptive to only a single notch of the light spectrum.
This gives your eye a total "RGB" receptivity of about 2 million total "pixels".
4k video streams 8,294,400 ACTUAL, Fully RGB pixels every frame.
That is 4 times the resolution of your eyeball.
If you were capturing the high res data for offline review later, that is fine, but you don't need to stream that. You stream what you are actively watching. Again, your eyes physically cannot accommodate that. Sending that over the wire is absurd. You dont need it.
"Hey, I will give you money if you disclose flaws directly to me, so I can fix them before the word gets out!"
Is an offer for a contract.
Creation of a bug bounty program, with rules and verbiage on how to participate, how to submit a bounty, et al-- are all terms and conditions established for the transaction of that contract.
Creating a bounty program, and telling a researcher that "Hey, I will tots pay you if you tell me first, and then keep it under wraps for awhile!", waiting for some researcher to take you up on that offer, then suddenly shouting "EXTORTION! EXTORTION!" is pretty much straight up barratry and contract violation.
"hey man, I understand that you are the top guy in the operations of this company and all that. I am a bounty program participant that has presented findings to claim one of your bounties, and I was in contact with one of your underlings about that process, but they suddenly stopped responding to my inquiries. Can you give me some heads up? Did you cancel the bounty program or what?"
To which the response was
"HOW FUCKING DARE YOU DEMEAN MY COMPANY AND OUR PRODUCTS BY IMPLYING YOU FOUND A FLAW! AND THEN YOU HAVE THE GALL TO WANT TO KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T PAY YOU!? RAAAAAWWWWR!!"
This is very much not the same thing as showing up like a baby momma causing drama.
Indeed; The fear is that their customers would lose confidence in their products, if it became well known that the products in question had a severe vulnerability that changed their payout rates.
A natural fear, since casinos RELY on those rates, and the magic of statistics, to always be profitable, even when making payouts.
The games maker, however, only has incentive to smile like a slimy used car salesman, and lie their asses off about how amazing and uncheatable their games are. They might have a token bug bounty program, but that is there for show to help calm their buyers; When an actual bounty is claimed, it's suddenly "EXTORTION!"
"Once upon a time, there was a wonderful and profitable company that made perfect products that never failed, and were perfectly secure. They had an iron-clad confidentiality framework to protect the privacy and anonymity of their customers, and data breaches never happened to them. They made lots of money, and the investors lived happily ever after."
But Grandpa, what about that time when --
BILLY! WHAT DID I JUST SAY!? -- I said IRON CLAD, PERFECTLY SECURE, and BREACHES NEVER HAPPENED!
But Grandpa, that's not..
BILLY, GO TO YOUR ROOM!
[This is essentially what goes on with security disclosures, except instead of a senile patriarch insisting on an absurd bedtime story's plot, you have corporate leadership refusing to budge even an inch in the face of reality about their companies, their products, and their business practices-- Lest the investors get scared and withdraw their investments. They treat every bit of truth or fact that detracts from their carefully manicured narrative as a direct personal attack, because it is worth more to them than the losses incurred by the problem itself. A researcher asking when their bug bounty payment will be sent, is immediately 'EXTORTION!!', because "disclosing the dirty secret!" that their product actually is not fairytale perfectly secure, is a deadly thing to their corporate image, don't you know! Because lying to investors is an industry staple these days, apparently. They would rather send Billy to his room and keep him there forever, than admit that the fairytale is a fairytale.]
There's no need for 4k streaming of anything, IMO.
However, there *IS* a need for telecoms to stop hoarding their profits to make investors shit rainbows, and instead actually improve their networks. I wont hold my breath for that though.
I would further point out the issue with robocalls.
Telecoms are quite capable of clamping this down with an iron fist, but don't. There's overwhelming demand for that clampdown to happen, but --- somehow --- the telecoms just won't self-regulate like GP insists is possible.
It's almost like the proposed methodology just does not work in the real world or something..../s
Why, they very notion that an overpriced product that gives inferior sound quality, and has a propensity to get lost, or ingested by toddlers, could have such a shortened service life compared to the older tech it replaced! Who could have forseen it!/s
My bad, NVME can drive at 32gigaBYTES per second, so you would need appreciably more bonded ethernet cables than cited above, but that just makes it even more absurd to expect that in a LAN.
"Hold on, I have to plug in more than 256 bonded ethernet cables for my workstation, AND IN THE RIGHT PORTS--- Give me a bit to set that up ok?"
Or his SSD simply has more throughput than typical office LAN cabling permits.
Considering that an NVME SSD can deliver a whopping 32GBit, you would need more than (because of transmission errors and the many quirks the different load balancing algos introduce) 32 bonded gigabit cables, and hardware capable of handling the link aggregation (which is not normally found in a LAN, and much more often found in a SAN instead) to get the same degree of performance.
It's probably just cheaper to dump it onto a fast, and very spacious storage device, then drop it on the target system.
See also "Cannot beat the throughput of a minivan loaded with magnetic tape."
I see you used the word "Attached"-- Did you mean to add an attachment? (On a letter offering condolences on their accidental amputation, and how relieved you are that they could get it re-attached.)
I see you are writing a letter, would you like help? (never mind that you have been writing letters for years, and dont need any help from an over-exuberant paperclip.)
Because contrary to the science that has already been done (cited above), and that this hardware and a little extra labware would enable, making your own "Very VERY special micro brew" is totally impossible!
If the device itself is reasonably inexpensive, this, plus CRISPR/CAS9 and some yeast would make drug enforcement completely impossible, and would make designer lifeforms a new garage hobby.
I still keep a land line for emergency use since I live in tornado alley.
It gets called about 6 times every day just after noon, and other 8 times every day between 8 and 9pm.
I never answer it. It is meant for outbound calls only.
I am fairly sure that a good portion of them are political ads, since this is / will be an election year, but the total volume has not really changed from this. I think it is the max that can squeeze in, in the "hot" hours.
I work 3rd shift, so I have gotten used to sleeping through the phone ringing (though I have considered disabling the ringer). Unless they want to call at 7 to 8am, they are not going to get me at my prime time hours.:P
Glad to see they still havent gotten that brazen with people's cell numbers yet, but it's only a matter of time. This is what naked capitalism looks like. The next time some schmuck advocates a market based solution, remind them of the cold calling menace, and ask how well that market self-regulation has worked.
Did you even fucking READ the first link, asshole? Here, let me quote it for you.
Although these treaties ban the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, they do not prevent states from placing other types of weapons in space. As a result, many states argue that existing treaties are insufficient for safeguarding outer space as âoethe common heritage of mankind.â In order to address this, the final document of the UN General Assemblyâ(TM)s Special Session on Disarmament mandated that negotiations should take place in what is now the Conference on Disarmament (CD), âoein order to prevent an arms race in outer spaceâ that are âoeheld in accordance with the spirit of the [Outer Space Treaty].â
The last fucking sentence is pretty damn contradictory to your argument. It is pretty abundantly clear that the consensus position of the UN and its member nations is that the treaty should have applied to all weapons, and they have been trying VERY hard ever since to make that so.
Our own legislature, as I pointed out, has *ALSO* tried several times.
The problem, is that for some reason that escapes me, people like you and the GP are hell bent on creating an escalation of force in space for no tangible benefit.
And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver? the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear, and the "Not a weapon of mass destruction! *raspberry*" loophole you seem so enamored by, is exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.
You are welcome to check that out. It outright forbid *all* space based weapons.
and we even attempted to pass legislation on this--- MANY TIMES-- but warmongering asshats like the GP get butthurt over such things immediately, so we have never actually passed it.
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly is, but I would look very closely at the agreement before signing off on it.
I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.
Poaching the USF with promises of what it is supposed to be used for, without actually delivering, is the actual track record here.
I would only support this kind of deal if there were strong liabilities for failure to deliver. I am talking board and CEO jail time levels of liability here.
worse--
The telecom industries were paid handsomely in the 90s to roll out a next generation fiber optic backbone infrastructure.
They laid a very small amount of fiber, and pocketed the rest of the money, then shrugged when asked where the money went.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
I see this all over again. Especially with Pai at the helm of the FCC.
It's a novel concept:
You already use persistent session cookies, for a raft of purposes.
Combine a session cookie with a browser generated key pair, that gets created when a user clicks on a button on the loaded page.
Require an actual mouse hover, and actual click. (No automatic bullshit.)
Name the button something like "I would like notifications". Once pushed, the browser generates a signature which gets attached to the session cookie. The webpage can then check for the cookie, the browser can check the signature, and then the dynamic content can proceed-- You either get the notifications, or you dont (and get the button on the page.)
The constant "FOO.COM wants to send notifications!" from EVERY GOD DAMN SITE is annoying as fucking hell. No, If I want you to send me notifications, I will let you know. Stop asking me like that. You dont have t be a douche like with the "We need cookies Yo" notifications, since you DO NOT actually NEED to send notifications for your site to work as intended, which is very different from cookie use-- so a simple "Notify me of new content" or similar checkbox or option for the site, with signature enforcement through the browser, would work great, and not be intrusive or abusive.
Your eyes lack the total number of photo receptors to accommodate 4k video. That is why you don't need it.
The human eye has between 6 and 7 million cone cells in it. That number is divided into 3, because each cone cell is receptive to only a single notch of the light spectrum.
This gives your eye a total "RGB" receptivity of about 2 million total "pixels".
4k video streams 8,294,400 ACTUAL, Fully RGB pixels every frame.
That is 4 times the resolution of your eyeball.
If you were capturing the high res data for offline review later, that is fine, but you don't need to stream that. You stream what you are actively watching. Again, your eyes physically cannot accommodate that. Sending that over the wire is absurd. You dont need it.
I would say it is in the realm of contract law.
"Hey, I will give you money if you disclose flaws directly to me, so I can fix them before the word gets out!"
Is an offer for a contract.
Creation of a bug bounty program, with rules and verbiage on how to participate, how to submit a bounty, et al-- are all terms and conditions established for the transaction of that contract.
Creating a bounty program, and telling a researcher that "Hey, I will tots pay you if you tell me first, and then keep it under wraps for awhile!", waiting for some researcher to take you up on that offer, then suddenly shouting "EXTORTION! EXTORTION!" is pretty much straight up barratry and contract violation.
I get the impression it was more
"hey man, I understand that you are the top guy in the operations of this company and all that. I am a bounty program participant that has presented findings to claim one of your bounties, and I was in contact with one of your underlings about that process, but they suddenly stopped responding to my inquiries. Can you give me some heads up? Did you cancel the bounty program or what?"
To which the response was
"HOW FUCKING DARE YOU DEMEAN MY COMPANY AND OUR PRODUCTS BY IMPLYING YOU FOUND A FLAW! AND THEN YOU HAVE THE GALL TO WANT TO KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T PAY YOU!? RAAAAAWWWWR!!"
This is very much not the same thing as showing up like a baby momma causing drama.
Indeed; The fear is that their customers would lose confidence in their products, if it became well known that the products in question had a severe vulnerability that changed their payout rates.
A natural fear, since casinos RELY on those rates, and the magic of statistics, to always be profitable, even when making payouts.
The games maker, however, only has incentive to smile like a slimy used car salesman, and lie their asses off about how amazing and uncheatable their games are. They might have a token bug bounty program, but that is there for show to help calm their buyers; When an actual bounty is claimed, it's suddenly "EXTORTION!"
"Once upon a time, there was a wonderful and profitable company that made perfect products that never failed, and were perfectly secure. They had an iron-clad confidentiality framework to protect the privacy and anonymity of their customers, and data breaches never happened to them. They made lots of money, and the investors lived happily ever after."
But Grandpa, what about that time when --
BILLY! WHAT DID I JUST SAY!? -- I said IRON CLAD, PERFECTLY SECURE, and BREACHES NEVER HAPPENED!
But Grandpa, that's not..
BILLY, GO TO YOUR ROOM!
[This is essentially what goes on with security disclosures, except instead of a senile patriarch insisting on an absurd bedtime story's plot, you have corporate leadership refusing to budge even an inch in the face of reality about their companies, their products, and their business practices-- Lest the investors get scared and withdraw their investments. They treat every bit of truth or fact that detracts from their carefully manicured narrative as a direct personal attack, because it is worth more to them than the losses incurred by the problem itself. A researcher asking when their bug bounty payment will be sent, is immediately 'EXTORTION!!', because "disclosing the dirty secret!" that their product actually is not fairytale perfectly secure, is a deadly thing to their corporate image, don't you know! Because lying to investors is an industry staple these days, apparently. They would rather send Billy to his room and keep him there forever, than admit that the fairytale is a fairytale.]
There's no need for 4k streaming of anything, IMO.
However, there *IS* a need for telecoms to stop hoarding their profits to make investors shit rainbows, and instead actually improve their networks. I wont hold my breath for that though.
I would further point out the issue with robocalls.
Telecoms are quite capable of clamping this down with an iron fist, but don't. There's overwhelming demand for that clampdown to happen, but --- somehow --- the telecoms just won't self-regulate like GP insists is possible.
It's almost like the proposed methodology just does not work in the real world or something.... /s
SHOCKING I SAY!
Why, they very notion that an overpriced product that gives inferior sound quality, and has a propensity to get lost, or ingested by toddlers, could have such a shortened service life compared to the older tech it replaced! Who could have forseen it! /s
My bad, NVME can drive at 32gigaBYTES per second, so you would need appreciably more bonded ethernet cables than cited above, but that just makes it even more absurd to expect that in a LAN.
"Hold on, I have to plug in more than 256 bonded ethernet cables for my workstation, AND IN THE RIGHT PORTS--- Give me a bit to set that up ok?"
Or his SSD simply has more throughput than typical office LAN cabling permits.
Considering that an NVME SSD can deliver a whopping 32GBit, you would need more than (because of transmission errors and the many quirks the different load balancing algos introduce) 32 bonded gigabit cables, and hardware capable of handling the link aggregation (which is not normally found in a LAN, and much more often found in a SAN instead) to get the same degree of performance.
It's probably just cheaper to dump it onto a fast, and very spacious storage device, then drop it on the target system.
See also "Cannot beat the throughput of a minivan loaded with magnetic tape."
The issue is that local government tends toward naked nepotism, and flagrant corruption.
The ISPs know this. They bank on this.
I see you used the word "Attached"-- Did you mean to add an attachment? (On a letter offering condolences on their accidental amputation, and how relieved you are that they could get it re-attached.)
I see you are writing a letter, would you like help? (never mind that you have been writing letters for years, and dont need any help from an over-exuberant paperclip.)
I see you just bolded some text-- would you like
NO CLIPPY, I WOULD NOT. GO AWAY.
that's where the hate comes from.
Merlin the wizard.
Then there was Bonzi buddy, who used the same engine to install malware and spy on your browsing history while acting like an idiot on your taskbar,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Because contrary to the science that has already been done (cited above), and that this hardware and a little extra labware would enable, making your own "Very VERY special micro brew" is totally impossible!
YES, IMPOSSIBLE! /s
Overrated my ass.
If the device itself is reasonably inexpensive, this, plus CRISPR/CAS9 and some yeast would make drug enforcement completely impossible, and would make designer lifeforms a new garage hobby.
This is very dangerous tech.
You mean retroviruses do that. Normal viruses use dna.
I still keep a land line for emergency use since I live in tornado alley.
It gets called about 6 times every day just after noon, and other 8 times every day between 8 and 9pm.
I never answer it. It is meant for outbound calls only.
I am fairly sure that a good portion of them are political ads, since this is / will be an election year, but the total volume has not really changed from this. I think it is the max that can squeeze in, in the "hot" hours.
I work 3rd shift, so I have gotten used to sleeping through the phone ringing (though I have considered disabling the ringer). Unless they want to call at 7 to 8am, they are not going to get me at my prime time hours. :P
Glad to see they still havent gotten that brazen with people's cell numbers yet, but it's only a matter of time. This is what naked capitalism looks like. The next time some schmuck advocates a market based solution, remind them of the cold calling menace, and ask how well that market self-regulation has worked.
But what does it do when you feed it really good pixel art, or feed it an actual landscape?
Did you even fucking READ the first link, asshole? Here, let me quote it for you.
The last fucking sentence is pretty damn contradictory to your argument. It is pretty abundantly clear that the consensus position of the UN and its member nations is that the treaty should have applied to all weapons, and they have been trying VERY hard ever since to make that so.
Our own legislature, as I pointed out, has *ALSO* tried several times.
The problem, is that for some reason that escapes me, people like you and the GP are hell bent on creating an escalation of force in space for no tangible benefit.
And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver? the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear, and the "Not a weapon of mass destruction! *raspberry*" loophole you seem so enamored by, is exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.
You are welcome to check that out. It outright forbid *all* space based weapons.
https://www.nti.org/learn/trea...
and we even attempted to pass legislation on this--- MANY TIMES-- but warmongering asshats like the GP get butthurt over such things immediately, so we have never actually passed it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
Because we just *GOTTA* fucking have space lasers. /s
Checking facts, like how we are a party to a UN treaty prohibiting this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, that's an undesirable fact-- gotta IGNORE that part!
That was airplane mounted, not space based. :P