0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
One doesn't have to forsake capitalism in order to run a company based on (non-economic) principles. At the risk of getting burnt (no asbestos underwear on today) the Steve Jobs of olde had certain design principles to which he held Apple, often at the expense of higher dividends. But surely no one would claim he was anti-capitalist. |
I think we're still a few years away from having anything practical. There are economic problems that will keep darknets from growing significantly in the short term:
anonymity adds overhead (economic cost to provide the service)
anonymity encourages leeching
money can't be taken out of the system (easily) without giving up your anonymity
So, there's no economic incentive to provide services on a darknet, it costs more, and there's more potential for people to use services without contributing anything back to the system.
IMO the only way darknets will thrive is if they start looking at byte level accounting for network capacity. That is, if you want to take 1GB of data out of the system, you have to contribute whatever the equivalent is in terms of network overhead. For example, a TOR circuit with 3 hops would mean you have to give 3GB to the network for every 1GB you take out.
Plus, it needs to be possible to contribute network capacity anonymously and at a different location than the one in which you want to withdraw it. For example, most home users wouldn't be able to contribute enough network capacity from their home network, so they would need to earn credit using shared hosting, EC2, etc. and be able to transfer their 'credit' to their home machine so they can download from the network. Remember, it has to be anonymous too.
Add in fluctuations in peak demand and all of a sudden your economic system needs to account for the time of day. For example, contributing network capacity at 7PM needs to be more valuable than contributing at 3AM. Again, anonymously.
Then, to top it all off, there's no way to keep the system 100% anonymous if anyone wants to take money out of the system. Most file sharing sites are in it for the money and they're not going to jump onto a darknet and start giving things away for free.
The only way current day darknets could become usable for file sharing is if enough people start using them that they see a massive increase in excess capacity. What do you think the chances are that everyone in North America is going to leave their darknet client running 24/7 when most people have bandwidth caps? |
Network Engineer that lives in China here. It's more then that. They actually do stateful manipulation of DNS. Just changing DNS servers won't help.
Inside going out, they do quite a few things. They send random TCP connection resets to hosts inside of China. Especially for unblocked western video streaming sites. They just like to poison the connection. My tcpdump outputs are rather colorful on one end, but seem perfectly fine on the other end. Other times they DNS poison, specifically to blocked sites. Using 8.8.x.x won't help, they will intercept it (easy, it's UDP), and send a what they want. Outbound SSL connection are terrible slow. To login to gmail can take up to 5 minutes anywhere. And of course the null route networks they're not fond of. So even if you were to manipulate your hosts file, you're screwed.
Inside going In: Every webpage hosted in China needs an ICP license that is put on every html page (think 'every'). IDC's are required to preform stateful sniffing, and block any html page not returning an ICP. I work in the make shift webhosting industry inside of China, and can attest to them shutting down servers/networks due to no ICP.
The internet as whole inside of China is amateurish. It's hard to find BGP IDC's. If you do, you don't actually run BGP, they tell you 'They run BGP'. So getting blocks of say a /20 isn't possible. I don't think even the largest IDC's get those types of blocks. Most IDC's are run by psuedo .gov telecom companies. |
I wish the people attacking these Chinese websites understood more about censorship in China. It's not as big of a problem or attack on civil liberties as people make it out to be. From someone who has spent time in China and had intimate talk about this issue with Chinese people, it seems that the censorship in the news is just a more biased take on what's going on. If you think Chinese censorship of news is completely different than the bias in American news, you need to take a deeper look into what really goes on. |
Right for the wall of fire to be taken down, there would have to be a man on the inside working for the techies that mantain an repair the wall because they WILL have safeguards and systems that can only be used with proper authorization from INSIDE a government building. WE now transverse from script kiddes with LOIC to very serious shit, if they try an pull this off. Get caught in china messing around doing ANYTHING other than the normal touristy shit an they will arrest you, interrogate you, and deport you if your lucky put you in a chinese prison if your not. |
I have been scanning the net and reporting such things in my free time for years now.
It all started when I was studying Psychology & Neuroscience and moderated a pretty busy Gaming Forum. I noticed that nude pictures were being posted and naturally deleted them. However, they kept reappearing and I wasn't always online to take them down immediately. As it turned out, those nude images were of a girl I knew in game. She was ashamed to report the incident, fearing it might get worse if she did. I urged her (and this is where my psychology came in handy) to explain to me what is going on so I could help her more efficiently. She told me about her ex and how he is trying to make everyone believe she is a whore. As a result, she had already lost some of her real life friends.
Although I wasn't in the position to judge anyone, I did know that publishing someone's images without permission is illegal and so my quest began. I also wasn't anywhere near ready to become a therapist, I tried to give here some psychological support, using active listening techniques and other tricks I picked up during my study. I hope it helped.
Removing all the images of the internet isnt so easy. We all know the rule: "what's on the internet stays on the internet." However, as the incident happened in the Philippines, no official authority bothered to help this girl. She told me that I am the only one. Even now, I search the web regularly for her images and file reports on her behalf so that she can live a "normal" life. |
The other day I bought some green apples.
When I got home I saw there was a red apple in the bag. I should have gone back to the supermarket and complained...but I allowed it to happen; knowing full well that others would suffer the same fate.
OMG guys its like, totally the same as the Stanford prison experiment right!? |
I paid a ridiculous amount of money for my iPhone 3GS when they first came out. I've had it 4 years, and it still amazes me. The longest I've ever owned a phone before that was 1 year, and that's because it was a company phone and I didn't have a choice. It was replaced 3 times in that year. I have replaced the screen on my phone once, and that's because I dropped it. Everything else has worked flawlessly. |
We live in an end-unit townhouse. I planted blueberries the first spring, and last year we got quite a few pints. My daughters caught onto the color thing.
That being said, I put something in contrast to your story - and not in disregard.
The one time I served on jury duty was for a petty theft (home business that had hired a person who was accused of stealing money, software, other things). The plaintiff was male, defendant female (stating this for "he" and "she" purposes).
She was guilty. Plain and simple. She did steal from the guy.
HOWEVER, the case was not drawn correctly in the court. At all.
When we adjourned after the first day, to the jury room, 9 folks were adamant to just say guilty. I said there wasn't a case. The other two folks were in the middle. We asked for certain clarifications, mainly about what we had to decide (the points of decision).
After one more day we went non-guilty. All of us did say that she was probably guilty as sin, but the prosecution failed utterly. Some of the jury actually chased down the prosecution to inform her of her bad work. I went to the elevator. |
im sorry, you seem to have taken my statement as speculation:
From the article:
>GigaOM: It has to be asked: Is Google going to become an ISP?
>
>Ingersoll: We are not planning to roll out a nationwide ISP network. This is a test bed for innovation.
This is a kick in the pants to ISPs. Google does not want to become an ISP, they simply want broadband access to improve. This is not purely altruistic - more internet speed means more internet usage, and more internet usage means more google usage, which means more google money.
Google is built around Big Data and that is their focus. Their fiber test beds COULD lead to a stepping stone in them running an ISP as well, but it doesn't make sense for them right now. Creating an ISP network would be a huge, massive investment with lots of risk. |
But actually a lot of potential uses for nanotubes would give potential for the nanotubes to be released into the air at some stage after the product is manufactured. Say you drilled into some nanotube based plastic for example.
Loose asbestos in dust form is only part of the problem with asbestos - a lot of asbestos is perfectly safe in situ as it currently is because it is contained within a product as manufactured. But disturbing that product by drilling into it, knocking it, breaking it or removing it can cause dust to be released. This is why removal of asbestos is actually the least preferred option as the removal process is very expensive and can release asbestos dust, causing more danger than if the asbestos is safely contained and not releasing dust. |
Gasoline has been a mainstay for about 50 years world wide and been in development for another ~75. Hydrogen and Nuclear both have a researched period of about 60 years and have never come close to being any sort of international energy standard. |
I'm sorry but yes, we should tell them tough shit. These are huge expenses for food services to provide something to a very small portion of the school population. They need a whole separate kitchen to comply with kosher standards. You literally cannot let any utensils touch non kosher food. I frequent a kosher restaurant and its a huge pain in the ass for them to comply, let alone our underfunded public schools. Schools could direct that money and effort towards making food healthier for all rather than meeting the needs of a tiny portion of the population. What you suggest gives special privilege to a religious group at a large cost to the school. I'm fine with free things (wearing religious clothes, prayer, etc).
I said nothing about purchasing kosher food with food stamps. That is totally irrelevant as that food is prepared in the individuals homes. Giving kosher meals to these groups at schools for lower income houses also gives them more than their non kosher counter parts, which is not OK.
Edit: |
Following a structured schedule of being in certain classes at certain times.
I've had various jobs, and any decent paying job I've had has very little built in scheduling - The key is, did the work get done, by the deadline? If yes, awesome. If no, why the fuck not? - and did you communicate ahead of time that the project may not get completed ontime do to whatever set back, or miscalculation on the estimated time needed?
In a job like say, at Starbucks, the only question is - can you follow instructions? If yes, can you show up to your job ontime? If yes, great - if no, GTFO, we will find someone who will. People can learn damn quick to show up on time, and ready to work. You don't need 12 years of education to work a minimal wage job, you need 6 of them - just enough to have basic writing skills, and basic math - and the basic math skills is even debatable.
>I'm having a hell of a time understanding why this is a bad thing.
Because it is crossing the line. It is moving from "structure" into "invading privacy" - now, In the event that the person wilfully signed the contract and agreed to where an identifying card, that is one thing. But in this case, a person is being forced against there will into displaying an identifying piece of information.
I never remember needing to have an ID card on me. And I never had a problem so long as A. work got handed in on time, and B. I showed up for tests - hell I wrote a couple high school level physics exams without a calculator and was still done earlier then half the class - the point is, the work got handed in. The job was completed = no problem. |
Australians, this is one case where one must opine with their pocket.
Use Ubuntu, use Android, use anything that isn't Windows, wherever you can, whenever you can. If you have to use Windows for your job, don't pick Win8. Seriously, why pick it in the first place? What does it offer that Win7 can't give you? |
um, thats out-right price. On most (~)$60 plans, the iPhone 5 is $6-7/month. 6-7*24= 144 - 168 for the handset. On the (~)$50 plans, it is approximately $10/month, which is $240 for the handset.
The US sells iPhones for much cheaper by bundling them with flexible post-pay services... |
Disclaimer: I'm not in any way involved with the nuclear industry. I'm an engineer, so I'm good at crunching numbers, but I can't vouch for the methods used to obtain the numbers.
> Please give me the reasons that nuclear expansion is a good route to go down. Because unless the major disadvantages are somehow averted, I really can't see a good one.
The issue at stake here is not that nuclear power is a great route, but rather that coal sucks even worse. The difference is that nuclear tends to fail spectacularly at veeeeery long intervals, and get tons of media coverage. Coal on the other hand, continuously does small amounts of damage that rarely draw any attention, so it largely goes unnoticed until you start crunching the numbers. (I'll get to that a little later)
To address your concerns about Fukushima, the newer models of reactor all rely on passive factors for cooling, such as gravity. In the event of a complete loss of power, the reactors will passively cool themselves until the reaction stops.
In Fukushima's case, the reactors relied on active pumps to circulate coolant. Once power was lost, the reactors were no longer being cooled. This is why they were scrambling to get fossil fuel generators back online to run the cooling system, and then pumping in seawater when that failed. Even given everything that happened at Fukushima, there were only 2 radiation-related deaths so far.
As far as the creation of waste goes, I'll give you a breakdown in terms of amount of radioactive waste produced per unit of energy produced (In Terawatt-hours (TWh).
Coal plants produce 2.1 metric tons/TWh of uranium and thorium waste as by-products. This is left over in the ash after the coal is burned.
Nuclear plants produce 2.9 metric tons/TWh of high-level nuclear waste (Mostly spent fuel).
However, the coal plants release about 1% of the ash into the atmosphere through the smokestacks, and the rest of the ash is stored in surface ponds. This is to say nothing of the many, many more tons of other particulates that coal generates.
High-level nuclear waste, on the other hand, is strictly regulated, and carefully monitored.
As a result, the statistics for actual human exposure to the radiation from the various kinds of waste favor nuclear over coal.
As far as radiological equivalents and human exposure go, coal is estimated to expose people to 490 person-rem/year of radiation, while nuclear only exposes them to 136 person-rem/year, even when including the entire fuel cycle.
Because the energy density of coal is so much lower that than of uranium, vastly more coal must be mined to meet a given energy demand than uranium.
Uranium contains 75,500,000 MJ of energy in each kilogram. Coal, on the other hand, contains 24 MJ/kg. The energy conversion efficiency of current reactors is not very good right now, which means there is a lot of untapped energy left in "spent" fuel. It's entirely possibly that with future reactor designs we could start feeding current waste products into newer reactors and getting more energy out of them. However, even with the poor efficiency, the amount of uranium needed to meet a power demand, is many, many, orders of magnitude lower than coal.
Consider that the total waste output of nuclear reactors per unit of energy is 2.9 tons / TWh of spent fuel, and that's basically all the waste they produce. The total waste output of coal power plants is 4 million tons / TWh of fly ash. Only a small fraction of coal waste is radioactive, but simply consider the volume of waste being produced, and the fact that EPA regulations allow for up to 1% of that waste to be released into the atmosphere. That's a lot of particulate matter floating around. When the solid/liquid coal waste breaches containment, it's not pretty either.
Here's a Wikipedia article on the largest fly ash spill. It involved the release of 1.1 billion gallons (4 million m^3 ) of sludge.
Finally, one of the most astonishing comparisons is that of deaths per unit of energy generated, considering supply chain, energy production, and disposal.
Taking into account all of that, coal power causes around 160 times as many deaths per unit of energy as nuclear power, even when you include all the recorded nuclear disasters related to power generation. |
I think a Cyborg is someone wo replaces his own bodyparts because the replacements are more powerful than the original . Right now we only replace defect body parts with replacements that do a worse job than a healhy original body part would. That's prothetics, not cyborg.
When people replace their perfectly healthy bodyparts with artifical ones because when artifical body parts are better than original ones and have more features, then we have the first true cyborgs . |
Clapping on the offbeats, 2 and 4, is how a lot of jazz (and other music) is accented. Since Treme focuses musically on N.O. Jazz and that character is a musician, his comment is really about how "square" or "straight" -- regarding rhythm -- people from oregon are. |
As far as presenting information, I think they do that pretty good. But a lot of the tutorials(I've done about ~750 lessons over 80 days now) I've come across are plagued by any of these three things:
Bad explanation on what you need to do.
Lesson creator assumes prior knowledge on x, y, z.
Bugged(The answer-checker.)
Also, because of the fact that the courses are made up of multiple lessons created by many people(Most without any knowledge on how to teach, or have a developed teaching style), how information is presented and taught varies greatly. The Javascript(esp. the old one) is a great example of this. I recall rather vividly how in some lessons an educator would describe something really well and I'd get it, and then later on in a new lesson, a different guy would be very terse, and it'd be very difficult to grasp what was supposed to be done.
I have some problems with the site as a whole, such as the encouragement of type(x) being encouraged in the Python course, but as a whole in the Python community it's strongly discouraged since it's very rigid in what it allows you to do. [See here]( just CRTL+F and type in "Nothing, really" and you'll see.
Also, lessons don't really change at all if there's an issue with it. I recall(since it was two days ago), a lesson by Adam W. Cooper where the answer checker was bugged slightly, and would only accept one single(although correct) way of doing the question. Even in the WebDev course, one I've completed fully . Canvas is touched on in the Project course, but that's about fuckin' it. |
This is a very common misunderstanding. Prior to this decade nearly every movie ever made was shot on film, which has a much higher resolution than current Blu-rays. There are films from the 30s (like Wizard of Oz) that look incredible on the format.
The recent remastered seasons of Star Trek: TNG are major improvements over prior releases because the studio went and rescanned the original film stock. There's an interesting special feature that explains this process. |
Kind of unrelated but I just stopped paying for Live after realizing I don't use it enough for it to be worth the monthly fee. Then I discovered that you have to pay for live to access netflix on top of what I already pay to netflix. I immediately said nope since that is about the only thing I would use it for and did not see that as justifying the cost seeing that every other device I own (and all other consoles) lets me use netflix without an additional fee.
Why the hell would netflix even let them do that? |
Dear Mr. Clapper and every little and big drone at the NSA.
You suck as Americans. You may justify your actions by thinking you're keeping us safe, you are not. You are laying the ground work for a potential totalitarian surveillance/control state beyond pale, and in which Stalin would applaud.
You are woodsman chopping at the tree of liberty with every little incursion from your terminals. The terrorists take insect bites with their attacks, but you and your ilk are dumping poison into the very ground in which the tree grows. I'll take unsafe liberty over an institutional surveillance state designed to protect the government from its people, with a side benefit of protecting its people from occasional harm. |
Well, fuck me sideways.
US has Fiber, Japan has So-net, and the best thing I can get is this , unstable and my ISP's support consists of a bunch of untrained chimps that barely know how to fucking plug the issued "router" (Sagem reject) in. |
Oh dude, don't get me started.
In 2008 I called to cancel my services FOR March 28th on FEBRUARY 12th, so well over the 30 days needed.
March 28th comes around, Bell came to install Fibe + TV + Phone, so obviously all Rogers services are disconnected at this point (should point out I live in a condo that has an agreement with Bell, so they took care of everything). They tested all my Rogers services with me in the room, TV - no worky, Internet, no worky, cell phone # was ported to Bell that AM too, worked fine on my new bell phone, home phone, no worky, so the tech was like "Ok we will go hook you up with us). He does his thing, and everything worked in like less than an hour.
Fast forward to mid april, I get a bill..... from Rogers. All services, full normal regular bill March 28th (my bill date) to April 28th. I call, and get the "Oh it's because the system auto generated that prior to March 28th blah blah I'm fucking lying blah blah blah". So I let it go.
Mid May comes around..... another bill. This includes the 200~ish dollars from last month, + another 200$ + bill reminding me I'm "late to pay". So I make ANOTHER call, keep in mind these are 30 minute + calls. "Oh Mr. Parkesto we'll get that sorted out, I'm so sorry I waived the charges BLAH BLAH BLAH IM STILL LYING".
June rolls around. Call from a FUCKING COLLECTION AGENCY advising I owe Rogers 600$+. Holyyyyyyyyyyyyyy fuckkkkkkkkkkk did they get an earful. I flipped absoloute shit on Rogers (not collections) and spent TWO HOURS on the phone because now they are saying I didn't cancel and all my services are active (including my cell phone). I honest to fucking god had to fax them my Bell bills for the last 3 months to "prove" I had actually moved. |
Maybe we can hop off the PRISM karma train long enough to not be sensationalist via ambiguity, eh?
There's nothing dark and sinister happening here. Amazon isn't helping the CIA determine if that copy of Fight Club that you just bought was part of some anti-government plot. They aren't serving up every click you make through their gargantuan storefront to the NSA to see if your click patterns match those of known terrorists. They're building a fucking server farm.
Amazon is helping the CIA build their own in-house cloud service - a private cloud , if you will. Many businesses do this (albeit not often to this scale), it's not a big deal by any means. If you run a home NAS, media server, home automation system, etc - any sort of centralized service culminating from a combination of hardware and software - you are, in some loose sense, running your own private cloud.
The CIA could've gone to HP, Dell, Oracle, IBM, EMC, VMWare, or any number of dozens of other vendors to do this; they could have even tried to set it up themselves in-house. Instead, they liked Amazon's platform, and asked Amazon to come build it for them under their own roof. |
My point was: you pointing out that 1 person you know learned it without pirating has zero bearing on whether or not the majority of people learn it from pirating. |
You're completely missing the point.
First of all, they can learn more about you and me by monitoring our internet, then by a camera in our living room. What do you do in your living room? You watch TV -- digital TV --, which uses the internet. So they know what you watch. What else do you do in your living room? Have dinner. For which you either order take-away (over the internet), or you cook yourself, with ingredients you've bought in the supermarket, which are sent to their central database over the internet. You may decide to masturbate in the living room, you'd want to hide that from a camera. However, they'd be easily capable of deducing that your masturbating, due to the streaming video from xhamster. I can think of nothing that you could do in the living room that they can figure out with a camera, but not by monitoring the entire internet.
To make it worse, information over the internet has convenient meta-data and text is easy to filter. Computers have more trouble interpreting video data. So a video surveillance system allows for some privacy, unless they employ a significant proportion of the population to continuously monitor the camera's. This is not the case for PRISM. They can pick up certain data with much less effort.
In short, PRISM isn't like having a camera in the living room. It's a much bigger invasion of privacy.
Secondly, you are required (without choice) to trust these agencies. Which you appear to do, and others don't. But it won't be easy to hold them accountable for any mistake on their side at your expense. The combination of non-accountability and power is a bad combination. A similar combination in the banking sector led to the recent/current economic crisis. If non-accountability and power for those in charge of finance lead to a financial crisis, then it's not a stretch to believe that non-accountability and power in those in charge of your (human/civil/constitutional) rights lead to a crisis of said rights. I don't even want to think about what a human rights crisis would entail.
Thirdly, even if you trust the agencies, and you are correct in this trust, do you trust all future agencies in your country and others? Due to the fact that all my encrypted data (= all data, including all my banking data) is stored indefinitely in another country, means that if, in 40 years, that country changed so much that I became a despised minority (or they dislike those who've gone against the word of god by watching porn), they can harm me for doing things that are currently and locally completely legal, and which are currently and locally considered morally acceptable.
Finally, you can wonder how effective these measures are financially.
Why don't we connect the seat-belt sensor (the annoying bleeping one) to a central database, that registers driving without a seat-belt, and applies a 0% tolerance policy on driving without a seat-belt? It's an invasion of privacy, but a smaller one. And it prevents more deaths than any measure against terrorism could ever hope to achieve. Even if we could prevent a 9/11 size attack every couple of years. (Which we cannot even prevent with certainty under the current surveillance.) |
Regulations are not legislation. See Chevron v. NRDC. 2. As your article mentions, attorney-client privilege is an evidentiary principle, meaning it prohibits the admission of evidence gleaned from its violation, but it does not (in and of itself) pertain the actual gathering of the information. (pg. 1234.) 3. It also acknowledges attorney-client privilege as a common law right, not a statutory one (although it is codified in many jurisdictions). (1235 fn. 7, 17, 19.) 4. The entire purpose of attorney-client privilege is to foster honest communication between counsel and client, and this adequately serve by it exclusionary elements, as repeatedly reinforced by case law. See Upjohn. 5. The only pieces of actual legislation cited by this article actually permit the interception of attorney-client communication; Although it does prohibit its use as evidence, I never disputed this. (The bottom of page 1245-the top of 1246.)
I stopped reading, because that article was more of an angry rant than actual sound legal analysis (I got bored). Although it raised some Sixth Amendment issues, I still feel that the right to counsel is not infringed if it is limited to actual legal issues (a lawyer, despite some of the absurd assertions, is not a publicist). It is also preserved by the exclusionary principles of the Sixth Amendment. |
Wow! Fox News can afford to put lots of giant touchscreens in front of a camera! /s
I'll call it like it is and shamelessly steal from the comments at the same time.
They could do everything they're doing on those screens with a conventional newsroom. They’ve chosen this specific set-up because it evokes some hazy notion of ‘cutting edge journalism.’ It’s designed to ape what the uninitiated and tech-illiterate think the newsroom of the future would look like. |
You can't make any money of off a private road, that's why no one does it. It is just too expensive to buy up the land needed, and there are already interstates everywhere that major transit corridors are needed.
You would be competing with the government which has the ability to take land with eminent domain.
There is a private bridge from Michigan to Canada, but the |
Lets just take a moment and realize that they can already track us anyway. The black box that they will use will probably be to avoid having to pay the GPS companies or car companies get the information for the taxes. At first glance, this sounded terrible but this money will help give us improved roads. Although it may be cleche, it will give more jobs to Americans. If you don't drive much, it goes without saying that you don't use the roads or the benefits of the taxes, why should you pay as much for them as a frequent driver? |
When given an option between multiple ways of accomplishing the same task, government prefers the one that allows it to spy on you and control your life the maximum possible amount.
I'd rather pay gas taxes than have a government black box in my car that monitors my every movement, thank you very much. |
Why hate on driving?
Because drivers dont fully pay the cost of accidents, transportation planning, road construction, road maintenance, opportunity cost in land usage, environmental impacts from hard top surfaces and emissions, and geopolitical instability due to consumption and reliance on oil. |
Actually, it's exactly the "taxed for only the portions of the systems you use" that libertarians push for social programs.
>Think about it - why should YOU (the person who doesn't drive very much), pay the same registration fee (tax) as the dude who drives 500 miles a day? You barely make use of the roads, and he's wearing them out! He should have to pay more than you!
You realize roads are paid for by Federal and State gasoline tax on every gallon of gasoline? The dude who drives 500 miles per day wearing them out is already paying more under the current system. |
There's a lot of hate here on reddit but it's not anywhere close to being a new idea, as someone who heavily follows transportation news it's something that's been a long time coming. It's been proposed several times at the state level, for instance. |
Truck driver weighing in here. I can say with no uncertain amount of confidence if this happens ALL prices of ALL consumer goods will triple simply in transport costs. Name one thing in your house that got there by plane train or boat. Nothing. Nothing at all. Remember when dreidel went up and everyone freaked cause the price for everything went up a few bucks? Well truck drivers are paid by the mile driven. Tax that and it will get passed on in spades. |
You're comparing apples and oranges.
The 9400 miles/year (15,200 KM) is the average per year for light vehicles across Canada. Average distance for medium trucks is 1/3rd more at around 20,400 KM/year, and heavy trucks put them both to shame; averaging 69,800 KM/year. So, for your Canadian figure, you're excluding two groups responsible for the most miles.
The number you used for American statistics compares driving across age groups and would seem to be a blended figure - including light, medium, and heavy truck use. |
Bro I bench 220 and i have veins in my forearms bigger than your wimpy little arms. I have I'm a mod at r/broscience and I've forgotten more about lifting than you've ever known. I constantly fuck 9/10s and never call them again, cuz they arent worth my time. I'm the alpha that your girlfriend fantasizes about when you flop around ontop of her. On the rare occasion that you are able to satisfy her, its because she was thinking about my cut body and massive dong. She would leave you immediately if I so much as hinted that I wanted to be with her. |
I got in a debate over email with a state representative on this issue a couple years ago. Obviously the better and simpler way is to raise the gas tax. Aside from the politics of it, the reason why he said they wouldn't do that is because it would unfairly tax gas guzzlers like pick-up trucks and SUVs more.
My response was " good "!! That has the added benefit of further encouraging more gas efficient vehicles (less oil consumed, less pollution, less greenhouse gas). Besides, those heavy vehicles also tear up the roads, so it makes sense in that way as well.
His response was something about how if he wants to drive around in his gas guzzler Hummer all day, that should be his own business and he shouldn't have to pay extra for it.
That was when I ended the conversation.
Not only is this a dumb, costly, overly complicated way to tax drivers, it certainly has to be less acceptable to the public than raising the gas tax anyway (...if the comments here are any indication). |
I'm not sure how it necessarily benefits 'rich people' but I CAN tell you that the car's characteristics would be taken into account when the device is installed. Weight, pollutant load, # of axles, wheel width... etc. Those would then have adjustments applied against the tax to even it out.
As for rural roads you could certainly set a different tax rate for different classifications. The FedFunc class would be a good start, but other means are certainly viable. Ideally, there would be some form of intergovernmental transfer from highly urbanized areas to assist county roads, perhaps those fees assessed for congestion time losses. you would address bad driving practices through a market solution and create a progressive program to assist rural communities. It's not perfect and my economic papers are far less well received than my engineering and funding projections. |
If nobody could speed, everyone's drive time from destinations would increase, making distance from destinations even more of a factor than today. Those who could afford it would move closer to work (usually in a city) and those who were able would telecommute. Each of these actions would directly decrease road usage and the number of taxable miles driven.
With tax revenue dropping, remaining commuters would pay more tax per mile, pushing them to either move or telecommute, like the early decision-makers. Eventually, it'd be infeasible to tax the few remaining highway users sufficiently to maintain the highways.
Highways would then have to be maintained by the government, out of a more general tax source (income, property, fuel, etc). At that point, people will begin to use the highways again. |
Actually, the primary goal is more offsetting the externalities than discouraging the overconsumption.
You're right, the second sentence doesn't make any sense, they're are not a lot of convenient alternatives in North America at the moment. As I always say, the average Westerner doesn't want more efficient, if it doesn't mean, at least, as much convenient.
The very definition of sustainable development says that the average person must be able to make a difference and there are not a lot of ways right now that this is possible and that is what we should deplore.
It shouldn't take any effort to be able to be sustainable and the research and development should be heading towards that more than anything else. |
Not as much. In fact British television, especially audience viewing patterns, is very unique compared with most other countries. Perhaps the biggest thing that television and marketing companies know is that in the UK, there's still this strange old-fashioned pattern where most people tend to watch the same programmes (X-Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, things like that) on one of the major channels like BBC One or ITV 1. The rest of the very small audience are scattered all over the rest of the channels just watching whatever. In that sense, television viewing patterns in the UK are surprisingly constant and predictable. The main differences in the UK are:
like everywhere else, viewing modes are changing as younger people use online and mobile catchup services like iPlayer to watch what they want to watch, instead of watching them live. That screws up the advertising streams of companies who aren't the BBC.
Like many other European countries, the UK's main broadcaster is publicly funded through the TV licence, which means that the BBC's ratings are less important than everyone else's (interesting note: Channel 4 is also a public broadcaster like the BBC, but only gets a small fraction of the TV licence fee. Most people don't know that). That has huge knock-on effects on the diversity of programming (they know they can pile BBC Four with art and documentaries and foreign stuff that might be a drain on a commercial company, but the BBC can afford to do it as a public service and not pay as much attention to the ratings).
Unlike, say, America, terrestrial (free-to-air) television is still by far the dominant method of watching television in much of Europe, including the UK. Cable services like Sky, Virgin Media and BT are far smaller, which means that unlike the US, people can still watch dozens of channels practically for free (just the fee of the TV licence once every 12 months), whereas that's not nearly as much of an option in the US for several long and somewhat complex reasons that vary based on where you are in the country. |
TV is not dying, tv programming is dying.
I cut the cord 5 years ago and havent looked back. Every time I do accidentally watch something two things pop out at me. 1) TV programming is complete shit these days. I can count the number of actually good and original TV shows on one hand. Even the news is a bunch of meaningless corrupt crap. 2) There are a ton of commercials. Then I start thinking about how much it costs.
During the last presidential election I got sick of the uneducated pandering on our news channels and found the BBCs news broadcast online. The difference in quality of the discussions was astounding.
Ever since then Ive been watching more european TV, mostly from the UK. Commercials are 10-15 seconds long, based on facts instead of bright colors and loud voices, and theres only 2-3 minutes of them. The content, not just on the BBC, but all their channels is much more interesting as well. Check it out if you havent yet. |
I have two responses to this:
Somewhere around the turn of the century I was surfing late at night in a university lab with my speakers turned up due to listening to music. Suddenly, one of my windows started blaring an ad for Chevy or Ford. Up until that point I had never thought about blocking ads. I first installed a flash-click-to-play add-on, but as time went on that wasn't enough to save my sanity. Pop-up after pop-up, interstitial ads - it just got worse and worse.
I'm now 13 years into trying to block ridiculously intrusive ads, and it's not like they're getting any better. Outside of maybe google's ads, there has been 0 effort to institute any sort of self-policing or industry standard to not be absolute spammy shitheads in regards to ads. If they aren't going to fix what I see as a huge fucking problem, I'm not about to just let them interrupt my life.
That said, I hit my second response: My parents and grandparents don't block ads. My younger nephews and nieces don't either. A good percentage of my coworkers don't either. It fucking drives me insane. I can't focus on their screens because of all the shit going on. I'll be doing a screen-share or video conference with a coworker and one of their tabs will start cranking out some shitty advert. I can't imagine working and living like that. But that's their prerogative. I can't force them to use some sort of sense, and they will continue paying the bills for websites. |
So I work in advertising and I kind of agree with Bill here. I happen to love some adverts, when they're clever, well executed and well planned - but I could not hate bad advertising more. I also think advertising agencies get a lot of shit for things that aren't always their fault.
See T.V. Adverts especially are very expensive not just to buy, but to get on the real ratings winners you have to shell out much more than that to even appear. T.V. Companies earn all a shit load from adverts, so if someone comes along and says "I want my ad to run during the Walking Dead season finale" but they already sold the available time, they will still run it but charge a 50% premium. In this scenario media planners are just doing their job, it's up to the network to extend the break.
Bad creative is the agencies fault sometimes, sure. But if a client gives a wooly brief like "we want something like last quarters campaign, only twice as many conversions" or "we want to appeal to young males without alienating our core middle-aged female audience, we only have budget for one ad though" there's not much we can do with that.
Finally- everyone says they hate advertising, it doesn't work on them or whatever. They are wrong. You think just because you don't pick up the phone straight after watching the ad it had no effect? It's called a path to purchase - you see the ad, maybe a week later you go online, check out some reviews, shop around and then buy - job done. Everybody hates ads, apart from the few exceptions that really speak to them. Those are the ones we want to make, the ones that clean up at Cannes and the ones people remember years later with a wave of nostalgia. Like almost any creative medium Sturgeon's law applies though so 90% are shit. |
Anything that doesn't get in the way or autoplay.
Reddit's ads are on the right side of the screen while just about everything important is on the left side of the screen. This is unintrusive because I don't need to look at them in order to use the website.
A good example of intrusive ads is YouTube, if you use adblock on this website you can start watching/buffering your video earlier, this makes the website much easier to use for people with shiternet. If using adblock makes a website more usable there is a problem with the way they are advertising. YouTube forces users to wait until the ad finishes or 'skip' the ad, then on top of that it pushes more ads in the way that need to be closed out of or otherwise block part of the video.
Sure, YouTube is less intrusive than Cable ads are, but it's still intrusive enough to justify adblock. |
Gold has the value that you can make pretty things from it and people assign an exchange rate to it also (which is not guaranteed in any way), bitcoin has value in it's technology (which can never be uninvented) not it's exchange rate. Not only has bitcoin achieved world wide usage in a short period of time, it has also not been built out to its full capabilities yet of smart properties, smart contracts, automatic/triggered transactions, etc, all specified in the bitcoin protocol, all possible right now if anyone in the world wrote the code to handle it
Fiat has come and gone throughout history, to keep it from going it eventually gets inflated to insane amounts where you pay a million xyz for something at one time cost a 100 xyz. Will the same fate fall on USD? Nobody can predict the future, and there is nothing stopping it from happening, even the fed reserve (which some would argue quickens the problem)
Of all the people in the world, a small percentage actually has access to banking services, many more people have cell phones than a bank account, and all of them can immediately use bitcoin if they choose, no applications, no hurdles, just immediately start using a worldwide network for verifiable exchange of value that can not be manipulated by any person or government, and all transactions permanent recorded and verified in an accounting ledger held by and agreed upon by everyone, the block chain, and this is bitcoins greatest value, the technology that has ever existed to allow confirmation of transactions (not double spent) without a third party
Calling bitcoin a currency has caused more issues in giving others more ways to attack what they do not understand. Bitcoin is many things, like a precious scarce metal, a payment network, and usable as an exchange of value, but all just a technology. The current exchange rate is highly volatile because of how new the technology is and how small the market capitalization is. If you want to understand the value, you absolutely have to understand the technology.
Will bitcoin replace fiat? probably not, it is closer to gold in this respect where it can be used for exchange of value (but not really goods and services anymore), but can be difficult to use in every day transactions for the entire world. However, bitcoin is already differentiated itself in the respect it CAN be used as an exchange of value for goods and services today, and the number of merchants accepting is growing by the day. Due to built in protocol limits, I would expect to see another digital currency in the future that has it's base tied (child of, not a clone) to bitcoin that allows for the properties that current transaction networks use, like credit card networks, and also credit in general, where the secondary digital currency can have credit pools and their associated risks. This has the added bonus of keeping bitcoin chain itself from getting bloated and out of control, but still allowing for easy/fast commerce still tied to the value of bitcoin. Credit is crucial to being able to fund construction, businesses, etc. Many people that do not understand credit hate it and can not see how vital it can be to an economy. But it can also be a huge detriment to an economy when the credit is basically based on itself, leading to huge bubbles and eventual collapses. History has shown what happens with this (great depression), and unfortunately the USD is once again in the same boat. Will it happen the same way as last time? hopefully not, but nobody can predict the future. This is also arguably/potentially why bitcoin was born to begin with |
For those who haven't read the paper, the researchers used Google trend data related to the search term "MySpace" or "Facebook" and applied this data to a modified formula that predicts the spread of disease within a population. Thus, the study is predicting the rise and fall of people searching for these social networks by name in Google and assuming that this is an accurate measure of use of those social media sites. They present no proof that people who search for a social network always are active users.
Firstly I think what makes more sense is as more people sign up to Facebook, the number of people searching for Facebook in Google decreases (people type in "f" in Chrome and jump straight there for example). Second an increasing number of users visit Facebook on mobile apps, which this study fails to acknowledge. |
OP was using Digg/Reddit as a metaphor. Correlation does not equal causation.
Just because MySpace had a certain arc, doesn't mean it is in any way relevant to Facebook. You can tell just by looking at the data in the article, they are two completely different trajectories.
Also, both Digg and MySpace had Reddit and Facebook take users away. Assuming the same decay will occur, without any competition, is ridiculous. |
I have no idea what your point is? A stance I took against an inactive twitter account being stolen has very few similarities, one of those few are the extreme hate you get for blaming the victim. To extrapolate that far and even imply my views are similar is idiotic. A victim of a crime CAN be making it easier to become a victim, like leaving your doors unlocked helps robbery, but they are still victims and do not deserve it. Rape, of the other millions of distantly similar crimes, has no real way to make becoming a victim easier. Most rape comes from ether complete strangers or close 'friends,' Neither situations are predictable or preventable nor is there a way to add a deterrent.
You were using ad hominem and redutio ad absurdum logic. You try to belittle my opionion, without even disputing its legitimacy, by:
Ignoring my argument entirety and directly criticizing another characteristic, which you don't even know to be true.
Taking my unpopular opionion about how a victim of a crime aided the crime unintentionally, exaggerating it to the extreme and then criticizing the result.
you are the type of redditor that makes me prefer lurking instead of offering an opinion to a website which is supposed to be "open-minded, accepting, and educated" (sumation of about reddit page). |
This doesn't even have to be true. For example, I used to work for at&t wireless. We didn't really have a process of identification between other phone reps, so when we called we just identified ourself as rep, provided the same information the customer used to verify, and we were good.
However, this information is very easy to access. Let's say my name is John Smith and my rep ID for at&t was JS1111. If I get a customer that calls me, I provide them my name at the start of a call. If they ask for my rep ID I'm supposed to provide it, and did so pretty often.
The caller can now call back and say "Hey, I'm John Smith from the customer service department, I'm trying to get X information but my systems are down. If you need it, my rep ID is JS1111." This normally wouldn't be verification for shit, but if they call enough times they can usually eventually get a rep that will provide them the information they need. If they need extra information, they can even ask information like the names of various systems, and again, reps will occasionally just hand out this information. |
Honestly, this may go against popular opinion but the social engineer did a damn fine job in telling his target the how's of what he had done.
Social Engineering is still one of the easiest ways to access personal information. Whether it be someone calling to pretend they're from corporate and asking for phone numbers, needing verification on a street address for a job background check, or just prank calling craigslist... A ton of personal information is available for free for about almost all of you. Social engineers need only to google, think, then call, asking the right questions/knowing the right info and getting what you need from the person you are talking to.
While many of you ITT are damning the companies involved for shitty security practices, you have to understand that a seasoned (hell... even a novice) social engineer can gather an obscene amount of information in just a short while with a few google searches and confidence on the phone.
If the engineer's intent had been solely to pull the twitter handle he could have done so without much risk of exposure. Indeed, this article wouldn't be much of a read without the engineer telling how it was done.
For the most part social engineers aren't sociopaths, We want to show the world how risky their personal information is in being held in so many places. Often we surprise ourselves with how ridiculously easy it is to access.
We just have the ability to get information by asking the right questions, knowing proper contextual responses and the ability to persevere even when we strike out and the person on the other end of the phone doesn't give us what we need.
I hope twitter will return the handle to the rightful owner, the social engineer got what he wanted, publicity and awareness. The awareness that more people will see how at-risk their information is to social engineers and hopefully the companies involved will use this story to show future employees and call center technicians the risk of being "overly helpful" over the phone.
Source: I social engineer in my free time, nothing illegal, always within the confines of the law and not using gained information for malicious deeds. ( My white hat does get grey at times) also I don't keep any information I gain for long.
Also. Don't put your personal phone numbers on the internet... Like, anywhere. |
I'm confused. Go daddy doesn't use the credit card number you have on file in your account settings to verify your information. They use the Credit Card number that was used to purchase the service.
What you are describing is the equivalent to go daddy's customer protection being the following situation.
You have a box. there are lots of things inside the box. Among them there are 2 dice that you have carefully placed so that both are showing the side with 6 dots up. You put the box in a locked room that you are the only person who has a key for.
One day you find out that someone else picked the lock and was able to get at your box. Before you even find out. This person has opened your box and changed the 6's to 1's.
When you lodge a complaint with the box holding company. They ask you to provide verification that the box belongs to you by telling them which side the dice will be on if they open the box. You say. I left the 6's up. But when they look. The 1's are up and therefore they tell you you are obviously not the owner of the box.
This would be that absolute more retarded method of verifying ownership i think anyone could think of. I used to work in web dev. Our go daddy accounts were occasionally attacked.
When we needed to recover them it took us 15 minutes on the phone with someone. You call from the phone number registered to your account. You provide the credit card information used to initially pay for the account. They will ask you questions like.
Before the account was compromised. What modifications to the account do you remember making. Did you change a name server recently? Does your whois point to a physical address you can confirm ownership of. When you register you have to register your name, your address, your phone. Proving you are the correct owner of these things is incredibly easy.
Additionally, the second go daddy receives warning from any party that suggests the account is compromised. Any account activity will be disabled "your website will still be live".
So if this post wasn't receiving so much attention and linked to what appears to be a credible source. i would 100% be calling bullshit on this. because in the manner described. this is not how any of this stuff actually works in those situations.
Unless you somehow go the absolute worst of all time rep when you contacted go daddy who was on his first day and answered the phone without permission. |
I downloaded Steam on the day it came out, so my Steam ID is only 5 digits long. I then played Counter Strike on a random server a few weeks later, and people on that server offered me up to $ 200 for my account, simply because it was only 5 digits long. |
I blame the CEO for being a pig
You seem to think being attracted to women makes one a pig? Or being attracted to scantily clad women? Or perhaps understanding that people are attracted to scantily clad women and using that knowledge to draw attention to a product, maybe that is the piggish thing in your mind. Why?
Horny teenaged boys aren't the only people attracted to scantily clad women. Implying people are stupid for being naturally attracted to evolutionarily beneficial traits just comes off as disingenuous, perhaps bitter. Sexual selection has been going on for a long time, it's not going away. |
But you can get it off Facebook quite easily, make/buy a profile of a pretty good SO to the target, add the target's friends, figure out who they're close with, preferably the same gender as the target. Start talking to a close friend of theirs, and try to hint at you trying to get in the target's pants, of course their friend will be a good wingman and help you out, in the hopes that you'll get together. If their friend is a childhood friend, they might remember the target's old pets, they'll probably remember if the target is a diehard Harry Potter fan, etc. |
When I had a US Cellular phone on my parents' account I lost my phone and wanted to switch back to my old phone. To do this I needed to tell them the last 4 of my mom's SSN, which I don't know. My mom had recently changed numbers, and I couldn't remember what her number was. I knew my sister's number, also on the account, and my number. I asked the US Cellular person for my mom's number so I could call her, and they refused to give it to me. I gave them all my information and their address and everything but they absolutely refused to give me my mom's freaking cell number so I could get the issue resolved. I even escalated it two levels in management and they refused to help me, I asked nicely and explained the conundrum yet they still wouldn't help. |
We had something somewhat similar for the DSL market a while back which enabled a more diverse field of providers. However the FCC has long been a paper tiger with teeth made of rubber in addition to serious problems on the regulatory capture front. So, [this]( happened, and lots of publicity was purchased while the last form of a competitive wired "last mile" died.
Cable has long had the FCC on puppet strings. Doing everything from dancing around rulings, to outright ignoring them until those in charge were changed. It still a nearly 100% geographic monopoly and has been for decades. More and more local deals that granted many of these monopolies access have also been stripped of any service coverage/quality enforcement. The power to do so moves up the food chain to larger areas in the name of infrastructure improvement.
FTTH generally has a population density requirement for anyone to even consider it beyond small footprint self/municipal installs. (Most of which usually end up in court for the right to install a fiber network to their own area. Hilarious isn't it?)
Wireless is the last bastion of salesmen. A population that became easily obsessed with wifi being pushed to believe whatever deformed version of market speak wireless will cover everyone on the cheap. Of course, the spectrum needed is always up for bids by the same corporate ententes that own all the existing spectrum so the market that should have one of the lowest last mile infrastructure barriers ends up back in the hands of a half dozen or so entities. (and they are continually trying to buy each other to consolidate a market with shrinking players) None of this even speaks to the inconsistent coverage, platform lockin, billing on multiple separate metrics simultaneously, redlining again, etc... |
It's really disturbing how few people appear to actually read the article. How can the subject say " Loses Selling License ", while the article states that;
A)
> an annulment of Mediabridge’s selling license for their routers on Amazon
B)
> As of now, the Medialink router still appears on Amazon, so you can buy the relic if you want. I personally wouldn’t recommend it though |
My first response was:
Oh! I'm sorry! I didn't realize that Netflix had invented a way to accomplish onion routing through a tag-switched MPLS Internet backbone that only makes one routing decision at a PE router. I also didn't realize that Netflix has the power to bypass Verizon's QoS profiles that determine the connections' maximum allowed throughput.
Bravo Netflix, and please show us how you accomplished such fucking feats.
Because otherwise, it's really just Verizon's fault and they're choosing phrasing that is honestly only geared toward the lay person that still somehow makes them seem not as bad. |
In traditional network from a decade ago, Verizon would be only semi-correct. Now a days, hell no.
Essentially, Netflix's service has to serve data to its customers as well as receive requests. They can set up or partner content delivery networks (CDN), which basically temporarily save the most used files (referred to as caching) for a time so that anyone else who wants the same file doesn't have to go through netflix's service directly. users make a request to the Netflix service, which then says "okay" and redirects the user to the download itself, contained on and served by the CDN instead. The end result is you the end user have lots of possible physical locations where the data to be served to you is waaaay higher.
Now, lets look at routing and forwarding in a network.
A routing decision is made whenever you're going to an IP address outside of your local network. Any time you need to send something out to the Internet, as soon as the traffic is sent, a routing decision is made.
But this happens at EVERY local network that spans from your house to Netflix. Each Network is connected to other networks, and each router must make it's own routing decision.
Netflix might be able to choose their end destination's IP, but the numerous routers owned by Verizon will also be making routing decisions as well. They ultimately decide how and how fast the traffic gets there. Besides, that is only regarding networking a decade ago before MPLS.
Now enter MPLS. Essentially, you have a single router owned by the ISP that makes a routing decision at the first hop of the ISP's network infrastructure. Based on the end destination's route, a tag for the end node router containing that route is added in the packets themselves. it traverses the MPLS cloud from point a to point b only doing one route look up, the rest of the traffic forwarding comes from tag matching and forwarding (like computers on a local network use MAC Addresses to communicate with each other).
In other words, "You may choose your destination, but the ISP chooses the path."
But MPLS doesn't just decide your route in a traditional sense, it also uses something called QoS. You can have say.. 5 different routes that all travel the same path and arrive at the same destination. each path may only allow certain maximum speeds, each path with a different speed. This is called quality of service (QoS). I can make sure bob only utilizes up to 100mb of this connection while ensuring Sally's connection receives 10mb worth of bandwidth only.
Sally is fucked.
She has no way of choosing how fast her Internet connection goes. She could be on a 1gig a second connection and still she would only be able to transfer a maximum of 10 mb per second.
So, in the end..
Verizon is using a vague concept to be quasi-correct enough sounding to make sense, but they are lying through their teeth, or rather, simply not telling you the parts that would render their argument null and void. |
God forbid you might have a nuanced view on this and actually understand why governments can help keep prices low in some places and inflate prices in others.
The key issue is competition which as everyone knows is the cornerstone of free market economics.
The problem in the US is that competition is much lower. A large part of that was due to the operators' control over the handset market particularly when Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. all use odd combinations of technologies and frequencies which mean phones can't work on other networks. In Europe (and most of the rest of the world) all operators use the same bands and same technologies for 2G, 3G and 4G. This means all handsets can work on any network.
Why is this important? Because it meant that US customers HAVE to get their handset through their operator which means that (a) almost everyone gets tied to a 2 year contract and (b) it puts a massive barrier to entry in front of new operators as they need to be able to find compatible devices as well as building a new network. Even virtual operators (i.e. those renting bandwidth from one of the big 4 rather than owning their own network) still face the issue of trying to get compatible handsets.
In Europe on the other hand, as handsets can be purchased that will work on any network, there is much greater use of prepaid subscriptions which make it VERY easy for customers to move operators if they want to. |
proper version of net neutrality
The idea that
>there are no routers inspecting and prioritizing pkts
is "proper" net neutrality is not accepted by any serious networking engineer I've ever talked to. QoS is going to be necessary as long as any part of your traffic ends up sharing a connection with someone else's; since we don't have a mesh network directly connecting every single host with every other host, that's "always"
Net neutrality is about not prioritising based on source, destination, or ownership. Prioritising based on traffic class is fine. |
Yes, users are basically always liable for what they post. The problem with that (from a practical POV) is that there are too many users and going after them makes no sense, is a huge waste of money, and is extremely unpopular.
The providers (reddit, google, youtube, imgur) are not responsible, provided they comply with certain safe harbour regulations. If they abide by these rules they are safe from any copyright infringement of its users. The specific rules for what you need to do to fall under the protection of this safe harbour differ for different kinds of services. So a file locker such as rapidshare might have to do the same things as youtube, but google or reddit need to do different things to qualify for the safe harbour.
In general, the rules for the safe harbours are
Don't knowingly allow piracy.
Remove anything copyrighted as soon as you know it is copyrighted.
People can send you a notice saying "thats copyrighted" at which point you go back to rule 2
Now lets say I post a link to a youtube video to reddit. That youtube video is game of thrones episode 1. A day later HBO sends a claim to reddit saying "thats copyrighted". Now reddit knows it is copyrighted. If they dont remove it, they are knowingly linking to copyrighted material. This violates rule nr1 and this means now reddit is guilty of copyright infringement. Obviously reddit removes the link, and this means that reddit officially did nothing wrong, even though game of thrones episode 1 was being linked on reddit for a day or two. Now on to youtube. Youtube has no idea that game of thrones episode 1 was uploaded by me. This video is up for a week more and gets linked to a lot by other websites. After a week HBO tells youtube "thats copyrighted". Again, youtube takes it down. Even though youtube was hosting it for a full week, it doesn't matter. They didn't know it was copyrighted, hence it isn't youtubes fault.
This is why it is super easy to find copyrighted stuff on youtube, but youtube is still up. Youtube just removes videos when they find out about them, but there are just so many videos that it is impossible to find out about them all. That 'knowingly' in the first rule is absolutely instrumental to how we perceive copyright infringement and efforts to prevent it.
You don't need to claim copyright to have it. You can claim copyright manually, which makes certain legal procedures easier, but you are in no way obliged to do so. Any picture you take is automatically copyrighted by yourself by default, unless you signed away your rights at any point. For instance, all your home videos, pics of your kids/family/vacation are all yours, and if you wanted to sell the rights to the pics you could. |
No, not really. America and Europe are both heterogenous places for one. This may be generally true for the US compared to France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the low countries, Switzerland and Scandinavia, but if you compare the US to eastern or southern Europe we fair better. If you do it state by state Massachusetts can roll with the best European countries in most areas, whereas Mississippi struggles. I don't see why we need to be competitive though, it gets really old. Everyone wants a world where we can all prosper and achieve a good quality of life. We all want freedom and the hope of a better life for our children. I get sick of reddit's making the same joke over and over and over about 'Muricas freedom' and what an advanced utopia Europe is. I've lived for years on both continents and the reality is more complex than that. The US is not an evil empire and Europe is not heaven. Racism, poverty, sexism, drug and alcohol abuse, these are things you'll find everywhere. The generosity, genius, compassion, industry and discipline that you find in these places far outweighs the evil. |
Bitcoin and other crypto currencies provide a trust less p2p system for consensus between peers. Once you understand and look past the idea of 'why it has value, why should I use it instead of credit cards' you come to understand that crypto block chains allow peers in a network to reach for consensus without needing permission from central organizations. This means that anyone with a knowledge of programming can create for example networks where we provide Internet with others and are paid for it without needing an Isp provider to give you Internet access, or you can have a DNS system where you can access websites without governments banning or restricting your access. I know it's not ver |
There is an amount of horrible misunderstanding by people. They use the words:
> broadband companies should treat all Internet traffic equally
carelessly. If that were the wording, it would be very bad. Even [The Oatmeal's comic on Net Neutrality]( mixes up two very different concepts:
> all information must be treated equally
and later he (unknowingly) gets it right:
> all data, regardless of origin, must be treated equally
For those of you who don't know, the difference between these two phrasings is huge , and can lead to bad things if lawmakers carelessly use the first phrasing.
What you want to do is:
stop companies from favoring content from origins that paid them more money
or slowing down content from origins they don't like
or demanding some extra cash from an IP that saturating their network with traffic
You want them to be origin neutral.
What you don't want is to be traffic neutral.
There is a concept that has existed in the TCP protocol since its inception, it is the idea that some packets are important, or not important:
a voip packets needs to be delivered in 10ms-150ms
an e-mail packet can be delivered in hundreds or thousands of milliseconds
This idea of packet priority was even baked into the TCP protocol, having a priority flag. In 1998 it was redesigned as a [ Differentiated services ]( The idea is that there are different kinds of packets that necessarily have different priority on the Internet. This requires everyone to play nicely, but it is a feature used on LANs and WANs already.
The TCP protocol defines priority code points :
Class 1 (lowest priority)
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4 (highest priority)
Low Drop
AF11
AF21
AF31
AF41
Med Drop | AF12 | AF22 | AF32 | AF42 |
High Drop | AF13 | AF23 | AF33 | AF43 |
Almost no software (yet) supports declaring their Assured Forwarding priority. A typical priority ordering might be:
ICMP/IGMP
DNS lookups
VoiP (including Skype voice)
interactive shell session
real-time gaming
video conferencing video
interactive web-browsing - small packets (html, javascript, css)
interactive web-browsing - large packets (images)
interactive web-browsing - large packets (streaming video)
file download
POP3 (e-mail pickup)
SMTP (e-mail send)
background (non-interactive) downloads (e.g. Steam, Torrent, WoW content download)
torrent seeding
You would not like it if it took 6,000 ms for a page of text to load, simply because we blindly followed the rule that all traffic must be treated equally. You want to be able to surf reddit, while seeding your torrents.
Nearly every good router implements some form of [ Traffic Shaping ]( in order to make the Internet work they way you want it. They go to great lengths to try to identify traffic, and classify it into priority queues. From Cisco and Juniper Networks, down to DD-WRT, Tomato and Linksys, and OpenBSD PC based routers, they all do traffic shaping to make the web work good.
And ISPs try to do a lot of this grunt work for us; so we can browse the internet, while watching a streaming Netflix video. |
Oh yes, they're completely stupid. I don't think they're just taking credit, I think they're the source of it. They promised outages on Christmas and it's been off and on all day, I've been following the Twitter replies from The Finest Squad. Then, Kim Dotcom, owner of Mega offered them 3000 vouchers for them to stop so he and everyone could play (especially people who bought consoles for Christmas) and the DDoS attacks stopped, and he tweeted that the vouchers were theirs. |
Had this conversation with the owner the other day. He used to buy all the domain variations to protect the company name, now it is nearly impossible
top top all of this off, many of the new TLD's are only being used to send spam since some of them cost pennies to register |
This sounds cool but I think there is one (major) flaw in how they think. The article says that the lights follow where you look at (with a delayed smoothing).
Human vision works more or less by reacting to moving objects in your field of view that causes you to focus on them. So rather than follow your vision this system should illuminate things you DON'T see causing you to focus on them.
This system makes that even worse. More obvious things receive even more focus since now they are illuminated more than those things that are going to surprise you in a moment. |
The title was the best |
It does not follow that simply because past stressors turned out "ok" by some definition; that has no bearing on current issues. There is evidence, in that there does appear to be seepage on the ocean floor as much as thirty or forty meters from the wellhead, meaning it is possible that this leak could become nearly impossible to stop. Imagine the Gulf states with the same much washing up on the shore for the next thirty years or so, and no matter if you're talking "Doomsday" in a Biblical sense, you're certainly talking about a disaster of epic proportions for the Gulf of Mexico and millions of people, both American and not. |
I'll add my 2 cents to this. Looking at the market broadly from historical perspective, pretty much any "G" terms are meaningless, including but not limited to "4G", "3G", "2.5G", "2G", and "1G".
I bought my first cell phone at the end of 1997. It was a Nokia and my carrier was newly-created Sprint. Their biggest selling point was that theirs was newly-built PCS Digital cell network. I checked coverage in all the places where I needed to travel and went with them, and for a while life was good. My plan cost $35 a month and included 180 minutes.
Now, I'm not sure if you ever seen one of those first CDMA-based Nokias but they weren't exactly tiny; very soon I started looking for alternatives. I didn't have much cash at the time so the next phone I bought in 1998 was a Qualcomm with a bunch of roaming options (here's a pic of me holding it I just took: For a while life was good again.
The king of all tiny(hah!) cell phones at the time was Motorola with their StarTAC models. If you got one with slim battery you could stick it in your pocket and it'd have ALMOST the thickness of a modern phone (if it survived one day on the full charge). They were expensive as hell ($400-500?), but I craved one forever so I finally got one in 2000 with carrier subsidy for $300, and then the white "color screen" Talkabout model in 2001.
In 2002 I made a couple of horrible memory mistakes where I forgot birthdays of people close to me (and I didn't even smoke pot!), so I decided it was time to get me one of those "smartphones". You may laugh but at the time if it had color screen and had some kind of semi-OK calendar and notes system it fell into that category according to Bestbuy salespeople. (This might have been the first time I heard the term Smartphone mentioned for that matter, mostly by people with fancy shmancy Windows CE devices).
So I got myself a Sanyo SCP color display phone and life was good again. While purchasing the phone I turned it around and on the back it said "3G ready". This sparked my curiosity - I had no idea what that meant. I called Sprint and asked them and they had no idea either.
Now would be a good time to mention that by this point I was already an avid user of WAP-enabled websites and portals. Sprint didn't charge much for this and I kinda got used to getting morning news in a geeky way. So I googled around for the whole "3G" thing and realized that life could become quite a bit better for an avid mobile surfer. So I kept calling Sprint every few months to find out when "3G" would be out and finally in 2003 they told me "We are are expected to launch our 3G service later this year". Sure enough, around fall 2003 I signed up for PCS Vision $10 data plan and life was good again.
PCSVision, CDMA2000-based "3G" service of 2003 was fast. I mean really really fast. Compared to WAP. All of a sudden my WAP websites came up with lightning speeds. Heck, in 2000 some people I knew still ran ISDN connections at home that capped at 128kbps (and my personal at home in 2003 was low-latency 384kbps SDSL), so that gives you some perspective into the fact that reaching 100kbps on wireless PCS Vision seemed magical.
However, around 2004 I started craving more. As a discerning crapper-break-surfer I started dabbling in venturing to non-mobile optimized websites and to my horror discovered that none of them worked very well. Part of this was CDMA2000, and part was crappy hardware - by this time I was using a Palm Treo 300 phone with Blazer browser. Not exactly mobile Firefox I assure you. I waited patiently for an upgrade and as soon as Treo 600 came out I bought it. The phone itself was a bit nicer but browsing experience didn't improve much. Neither did improve with Treo 650.
In 2006 Sprint unrolled their new "3G", EVDO (Power Vision) and I was craving to get in on the action, although I was a bit puzzled at the time how 3-4 year old devices could be labeled "3G" if it only just came out? Was my old 3G no longer good enough? Nevertheless when I switched phones to Treo 755p I got the new plan. The difference in surfing speeds became noticable but once again I ran into into mobile browser rendering limitations. When tethered with laptop via USB internet it was actually pretty doable to surf on business trips.
Then, when I went to AT&T in 2008 to get on the IPhone 3G bandwagon the representative that sold me the IPhone kept going on about how theirs was the REAL 3G network (considering it used WCDMA, a CDMA derivative for data I found it a bit silly
). Since then I found that despite HSDPA's top capacity in high megabits AT&T service has been steadily deteriorating. IPhone 4 browser is fairly fast handling most websites, but the actual "3G" speeds that AT&T advertises I rarely get, and mostly in rural areas. In NYC where A LOT of people have IPhones the overcrowding completely kills the service. Writing this on the 44th floor of a skyscrapper in Manhattan I'm getting this right now: . I.e. not exactly "3G" speeds. I'd pay good money if I could get my circa 2007 3G from Sprint in NYC back (on the IPhone of course). LTE which is being pitched as 4G right now won't mean a damn for me if they don't solve the urban service problem. |
Well, if it makes you feel better I read it all. |
Mmmm sorry. Got carried away with the whole thing :(
I did add " |
Most people would throw mobile into the mix and call it broadband. Most people use the word broadband too loosely and assume mobile counts when we speak of America's broadband speed. This fits perfectly into the conversation, not just your comment, about slow 'broadband' speeds killing the national average, thus making us lower on the list. |
Lame. I just moved to the sf bay area from brooklyn, and in BK I was paying $100/month to time warner for a 50/5 cable connection that only went down when we couldn't pay the bill and *always* hit 50/5 on speed tests. While we would have preferred a 25/25 (and cheaper) fios connection, because we do a ton of high-bandwidth freelance work from home (video/audio), our work and rates made the connection a no-brainer.
Now I'm in a giant, absurdly cheap loft in Fruitvale, Oakland (which, to my surprise, is more violent than our old wonderful spot in a Brooklyn ghetto -- never saw an Uzi on the east coast!) and we share a connection that is "cheap." So cheap (when shared) that I forget how much it costs. Maybe $60, max? Speedtest.net just showed 30/6. A-ok with me. I think our only reliability problems will come from the wild, free-form construction of this building... what with the leaks and all. Urban charm.
NY is really spotty with coverage. When we moved in, our option was DSL or some heinous, crappy cable package. We didn't want TV. Head over a few blocks, and you can choose from fios, dsl, or cable. Hoboken (NJ) is full of fios. Manhattan is all over the place. I grew up about 80 miles north of NYC (southern Dutchess county) and we couldn't get cable or DSL 'net until ~2003.
Which "university town" are you in?
Ah, one more thing, and perhaps a positive point for you: Time Warner somehow seems to be "good" in the DMCA / capping / etc. realm. We never ever got capped, despite using the *fuck* out of that connection (almost entirely legally, but often using bittorrent, and ISPs don't discriminate between legal and "illegal" bittorrent packets). </science> I've also found that Time Warner is almost never mentioned in any of the IP LAW CONNECTION OUTRAGE sort of articles. |
Of course, if there is information that is in the public interest it shouldn't be suppressed. But this is self-censorship which is conceptually quite different.
Mythbusters\Discovery could probably push ahead and do the episode but it would mean getting new advertisers or maybe even a new network along with throwing the jobs and standard of living of a lot of people into question. Their decision was that doing the episode would do more harm to them than the good it might achieve.
If a group of security experts got together, decided to run some tests and found some problems they could pretty easily put out a press release and it would probably get picked up. They, after all, don't have to worry about advertising money or ongoing revenue the way Discovery communications does.
If this were a case of imposed censorship (for example experts who being imprisoned, tortured or killed) instead of self-censorship (Discovery choosing not to say anything because it isn't in their interests) then it would be a very very different situation.
Isn't it a bit strange to impose a positive duty on a company like Discovery (also a private actor) to act as the watchdog of consumer products, even if it's contrary to their interests?
Surely consumer watchdoging should be left to an organisation whose only interest is the public good, it's funds guaranteed via enforcable taxation (perhaps leavied against the very companies it investigates)., and it's administration decided by elected representatives.
Mythbusters and Discovery are both private actors and above all, entertainers. Their interests cannot be expected to always line up with the public good. Ideally the point of democracy is to tie government interests with public interests via elections. Wheather that happens or not, the point is that just because government isn't doing it's job dosen't mean that private companies are obliged to pick up the slack. |
In addition to that string of internet companies based in the US .....
ICANN = you can stop arguing about who is the world internet leader here, it's America.
P.S. for those of you unfamiliar with the function of the American political system allow me to enlighten. It's a one step back two steps forward process. If and when some marginal group of idiots in Washington succeed in over stepping their authority vis-a-vis the internet they will be made example of in a very public and prolonged way that only the 24-hour news media can accomplish. |
possibly anonymous"
-sigh- That notion just gives credit to other notion that there is even such a group as 'anonymous'
I'm so sick of shitty journalistic work attributing EVERYTHING to do with the word HACKING to "ANONYMOUS"
Just because some autistic anti-social locked himself up in his room and lurks DigitalGangster and posts people's Doxs all over the place DOESN'T MAKE HIM ELITE.
Defacing a webpage is trivial without a specific target. Hell most church, and local private school's webpages are hosted on out-dated and highly vulnerable servers.
As a formally acting member of the group, I can tell you first hand...there is no hierarchy. There is no "central group" (not withstanding the splinter group lulzsec).
It's just a bunch of kids like this (usually just skids) running around the net causing damages to web-pages that are still using unsanitized SQL tables, or unpatched Apache databases. It doesn't take a wizard to surf Wolf Ram Alpha, OR GOOGLE! for a cite that has a certain type of database (hell most of the time you can get it just by screwing with the url and adding a ' to the end of it and looking at the bottom of the 404 page. Once you've found where your tailored (probably very basic overflow) exploit will work, you make up a story and claim eternal (autistic) victory. Rinse Repeat.
It's standard MO of "anonymous hacker"
The real ones, the true "hackers" grow up and get jobs like me working in the I.T field and get paid to do it....and I'm not internet wizard. |
Apple isn't to blame for MS's failure in the mobile space, they (Microsoft) are. No company IMO can rightfully blame another for their own failures. If you want to be successful release a product that people want. Windows Phone 7 is a decent product it's just way way late and now they are the underdog which isn't a position they are particularly strong at.
It's also not factual to say that Microsoft kept Apple alive. Bill and Steve were friends to an extent and they made a deal to benefit both of their companies. Microsoft wanted IE everywhere and they made it the default browser on the Mac for a good number of years, Apple wanted Office and Microsoft wanted to keep selling them Office. Etc, etc. Both companies benefited from the investment.
However you can't say with any certainty (at all) that this was a make or break for Apple's future. It more or less just put some confidence into the company from an investor standpoint after Jobs' return while they got rid of the bad management that had taken root after Jobs left.
Microsoft will not get rid of Office on the Mac, why would you intentionally cut off a profitable market/product? In fact they are probably bringing it to iOS and Android to... Microsoft is a software company at heart, they want you to buy Windows but if they can sell you some software on a Mac or Android or iPad then they certainly will.
They have already said a new Office for Mac is coming btw - it's just not ready / released for preview right now.
Even if they hypothetically got rid of Office for Mac it will hurt them more then Apple. Apple's iWork applications are already compatible with Office file formats and users will then just buy more iWork applications and Apple will then put more energy into them. They are already more then acceptable for 90% of users, Numbers is arguably lacking, but they are acceptable and would be the go-to Office suit for all the Mac users out there if Office disappeared.
It could also prompt an investigation of alternative office suites by companies out there that run both Macs and PC's, which is certainly not something Microsoft would want. (Even Microsoft has Macs internally for certain departments, XBox for example). |
the $200m figure would have to be a very very inaccurate figure
Look at it from the hosting side. Lets say someone gets your email and submits an abuse report to complain about it. Someone has to read that email and forward it to the appropriate dept to deal with, in this case its me since my company hosts that server. Now I have to figure out which server it came from and who sent it, this might take me 15-20min of digging through log files. Add to that the additional time I spend fixing the problem (disabling users, contacting customers, changing passwords, etc) In the end that can total several man-hours spent dealing with this because one person complained about it.
The more your company spams, the more time I have to spend countering it and not doing my other duties. Eventually it gets to the point where my company has to higher another person to help keep up, or create a new abuse department just to deal with the spam, so we have to raise the cost of hosting a mail server to make up for it. And dont forget about the filtering services who have to keep people on to continually update the algorithms that identify and block the spam. Multiply this all by the thousands of hosting company's and the tens of thousands of servers they're running, and you can see where that $200m is going. |
Ok... here's a dramatic simplification, maybe an oversimplification, but it's worth a shot.
Say there is someone walking by a PA speaker, and right as they pass in front of it you crank up the volume and shout, "HEY!".
Subsequently they lose some hearing.
That isn't illegal speech, that's malicious force with malicious intent; you'd know if you do something with your voice something in particular will happen that will be bad.
That essentially the same thing as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. You would know and be the direct cause of harm. Free speech is about protecting people from disseminating a message, about the free dispersal of ideas. It has absolutely nothing to do with sheltering people from the products of their malicious intent.
There is probably some fancy legal test to discern whether harm caused by speech is direct, proximate, and known, and whether the intent was premeditated, or spontaneous. |
Yeah, sorry, you're completely correct, I was just trying to get my point across in the most concise way possible. When people say "China" they usually mean PRC, and when they say "Taiwan" they usually mean ROC, in addition to referring to those actual landmasses.
OP said something along the lines of "China definitely knew since Taiwan is part of China," which is not true since each landmass is ruled by a different entity despite each entity claiming sovereignty over the other's landmass. |
Why does he look like the Alien from the Matrix Revolution? |
Tell me again why it is Google's responsibility to defend your copyrights? To defend YOUR property? If I see someone rob you, it it my legal obligation to track them down? Is it my legal responsibility to do anything? No? If Google is doing all they legally are required to do then why is it their responsibility to do more? |
because the other thread of this on r/videos the other day was all about Apple. |
Because the internet is anonymous for everyone except those who are forced to use their real names. This results in an ecosystem where Real Name people are exposed to unlimited anonymous attacks without any capability for reprisal. Our society relies on deterrence via the threat of punishment- on the Internet there are always anonymous people who are thus immune from this threat and can freely attack. Not to mention that you expose people to attack from all over the world, from countries where there is no real enforcement mechanism to pursue the offenders. |
Everyone's been suing everyone over regular patents. Nokia sued Apple, Apple sued Samsung, Google sued Apple, etc.
This is generally stupid behavior, but it's something that basically all the tech giants have been doing for a while. If Apple successfully defended "slide to unlock" (I don't know if they did or didn't...haven't kept up with this bullshit in a long time), then it may be petty, but Android/Samsung can get around it by using "press" to unlock, or "double tap"...whatever. It's obnoxious/annoying, but it's not going to break anything.
Abuse of FRAND patents changes the game. We're talking about standards-essential stuff. Think 3G connectivity, 4G, WiFi, USB...These, like other patents, can be worked around and proprietary solutions can be adopted...the problem here is that it fucks US , as consumers. If a company decides to discriminate in licensing FRAND patents and gets away with it, every company's going to go to war over these as well. Then every consumer device from every major player in the industry is going to be adopting its own proprietary standards.
Standards are adopted by an industry completely voluntarily. A company steps up and says - adopt this standard that we're developing, it will be FRAND, and we guarantee that we're not going to abuse this patent (through price discrimination or otherwise). The other companies then let that company set the standard and go along with it. This lets us have nice things like 3G on all our phones, LTE, a WiFi standard that basically all computers can connect to.
This is a big fucking problem. It doesn't matter whether you're an Apple fanboy, hater, whatever.
I think Microsoft and Google had a FRAND patent dispute a while back, but dropped it after less than a week of testimony.
FRAND patents cannot be abused. Period.
Can you imagine the clusterfuck that would happen if Samsung phones only worked and communicated with other Samsung equipment? Apple stuff worked exclusively with only other Apple stuff. Microsoft...etc. |
Just like Android?
It doesn't make sense to develop android like you would develop Ubuntu or Fedora. From a feature standpoint, everyone would know what features you're working on, and would give other phone OS manufacturers a leg up. From a end user standpoint, you require a certain degree of reliability from your phone; why would you want to use a nightly that has a broken text messaging feature that won't be fixed for a few weeks? Also, the open source phone development scene is pretty much a cluster fuck; every developer has their own color themed fork, and even some of the more refined projects, like cyanogen, usually don't have the same stability you would expect from google/samsung/htc/etc. |
I was using hyperbole. The government cannot seize whatever information it wants (at least within the provisions of CISPA), but rather cyber threat intelligence.
My contention is not the stated purpose of the bill, but rather the lack of safeguards against abuse, as I mentioned before, but nonetheless, as I understand CISPA, to say that it gives the government no power to compel anybody to share information is to fail to read the first paragraph.
Article 7 originally provided a very weak safeguard in the form of what amounted to "The Federal Government may take reasonable actions to protect civil liberties if it feels like it should."
I think it's been amended out now, but I'm not sure. Either way I know the proposed amendment from Rep. Hines to article 1 doesn't really fix anything, but rather allows more input from the Attorney General and DHS, for what good that does the public. It includes provisions that the government may take more measures to protect privacy, and at any rate the clauses are sandwiched between two instances of "...consistent with the need to protect against cyber threats in a timely manner."
There are two contentions I would have as a citizen, one being that these are very malleable terms, the other being that they bear including in the bill at all when its sponsor denies that it's a surveillance bill. Then why the verbiage at all?
Anyway, I don't want to get involved in a discussion on this at 4 in the morning. I'm not an American citizen, which only bothers me more that I seem to care more about this shit than most people I see complaining about the bill and just wanting it gone who are from the country it affects.
OTOH, we had front-page stories here on /r/technology about how Chinese hackers accessed sensitive government systems only a month or two ago, if I'm not mistaken. Do redditors just not care about that? Is it just a joke, like prison rape or go-make-me-a-sandwich-woman?
But I digress. It just seems the gov't gets caught on "let's just make sure we can share this information however we may need to," and doesn't put safeguards as high on the priority list as it should. This has been a pattern, and one that can be fixed about government, but I don't think we care enough, and that's depressing.
Anyway, it bothers the shit out of me that the masses don't care beyond "mumblemumble gubmint herberb" and just don't want the government to touch internet regulation, at all, meanwhile they're pirating Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad. I guess nobody's home in either camp.
I say the gov't, I don't mean all of it, obviously. SOPA did fail, after all, and CISPA is getting a lot of flak. |
There's an irony and a beauty to the successor to the F-1 rocket being significantly influenced by the Russian design that was meant to beat it so many decades ago. A lot of the efficiency and power gains are from using the RD-180* designs that Pratt and Whitney has been working on with the Russians. Their use of integrated turbine and pump systems with kerosene fuel was a significant development and a departure from the traditional western method of producing rockets. The RD-180 is a recent and direct descendant of the engine meant to power the Soviet N-1 manned moon rocket, the [NK-33](
Instead of attempting to build a few monstorously powerful engines like the Americans, the Soviets went with existing engines in huge quantities as on the N-1 rocket. Eventually the engine was perfected but by then the N-1 moon program was dead and the NK-33s were mothballed because there was no immediate need for them. After the Cold War some of these engines were sold and/or licensed to the West where they were found to produce almost 20% more power using equal amounts of fuel as their contemporaries.
I think it's a fascinating story of technology transfer and a cruel irony from the Russian perspective. They designed it to beat the Americans and in the end the Americans perfected it. There's a lot more technical literature on the subject but I think the documentary below is an excellent |
Its really not that bad at all. If you sign in as a dude using the lulu dude side of the app you can have your profile taken down.
In addition the girls only get to answer a set of questions and pick from already generated hash tags. Based on that lulu spits out an automatic "review" |
Apologies for the wall of text, but there is so much misguided hype around 3D printing.
Most of the 3d printers used today area virtually the same hardware and materials that was being used 25 years ago, just much more accessible. Corporations have been using 3d printing for a very long time, the recent boom in popularity has more to do with lowering costs and better, more accessible design software.
I am a designer and use 3d printing regularly for protypes and models. I bought a consumer level printer a year ago, and it isn't even capable enough to make presentation quality prototypes let alone actual products. Top of the line (upwards of $15,000) machines make very strong and clean prints, but only out of one material. There are very few products that only use one material.
There are machines in University laboratories and Corporate R&D offices that can print multiple materials at once to create complete product, but this type of printing is in its infancy, and its advantages are unclear. For the foreseeable future it will always be cheaper to mold or cast parts, assemble them in a factory and then ship them to the consumer. There are few things I could make on my printer that would be cheaper (both time and money) than just going to get them at a store. I can spend 3 hours printing a plastic cup that will probably have some leaks and a rough surface, or i can go to Ikea and get 20 solid, perfectly molded cups for $3. I recently got a professional SLS print (powdered plastic melted together with a laser) with ~100 cubic inches of material and it cost me nearly $2000. |
Xbox music on the Windows Phone has been doing this for years. Press the search button from any app/menu/whatever, and the search screen immediately pops up. Hit the music symbol at the bottom, and it listens to the music. Then it automatically brings it up at the top of the screen, and you can tap it and it takes you to the market, where you can download or stream the song or the entire album. Or hit the play button at the bottom of the screen and it will instantly start playing a playlist of similar music. |
The BBC does just fine because it's government subsidized and everyone who has a TV is taxed in order to pay for it, even if they only watch say ITV and Sky. So it comes across as if you're saying that there should be an additional tax on internet and then give everyone free Hulu without commercials by using the BBC as an example.
And nothing forces you to let your kids watch shows on Hulu or network TV with ads. If it is that much of an issue for you, then there are other methods of getting that content without advertisements.
> |
That's what is referred to as "meta"data. Usually, it means details like call start/end and how long one lasts. Unfortunately, Snowden revealed it to be more than that, and it's obviously more than just wiretapping (thanks FISA, you useless asswipe), but also monitoring connections. Whether they're performing simple network analysis or going as far as deep packet inspection, we don't know, not untill the whistleblower spilled his guts. If they weren't listening, by the way, then explain why they "weren't" listening in on people who were doing phone sex calls (not the hotlines either).
The companies can get away with it because they're, surprise surprise, PRIVATE companies! That's why you must closely read their ToS (let's face it, no one here reads it because |
What's that coming over the hill, is it a lawsuit?
Is it a lawsuiiiiit!
What a tune. |
Subsets and Splits