"A year ago, ‘zero rating’ wasn’t on anyone’s radar."
It was on Canada's radar. We didn't want it either. Which colonialists pulled the wool over our eyes?
319 posts • joined 9 Mar 2007
It was on Canada's radar. We didn't want it either. Which colonialists pulled the wool over our eyes?
"Competitive option", nice euphemism. Tried here in Canada, we don't want it either.
It will be a choice between life being like an endless ride on The Axiom in Wall-E where AI takes care of everything for us and AI decides what is best for us, or life being like in Idiocracy where AI takes care of everything for us and we decide what is best for us. The singularity will come, anything will be possible, and I despair we won't make anything worthwhile out of it.
All infrastructure should be public.
Nobody is going to build their own 2nd or 3rd road network, where you have 3 driveways in your yard attached to 3 separate road networks and you pick which one you want to pay for access too. So government owns the roads because there is no chance of competition, and a level playing field is provided. Private enterprise stays where it's useful, running taxis and buses and delivery vans and tow trucks and dump trucks etc.
Should be the same with internet. Government owns all the wires and provides a level playing field. Private enterprise can use those wires to offer internet service, software, servers, websites, etc.
"browser histories out of the hands of eavesdroppers" - How does that work then? I was under the impression that https secures the content, but the requests still have to fly around for everyone to see do they not?
Plus anyone could always have created their own certificates for free any time they wanted to, the news here is that these ones are trusted by default by browsers. Hands up who actually feels secure when your browser automatically trusts a certificate? Tumbleweeds... We've all heard how these certificate authority operations more or less function. Now handing out "trustworthy" certificates to anyone with an email address helps the "web of trust" how exactly???
I want to be happy about this because of the names involved but... Maybe they are just poking fun at a ridiculous situation?
"There's an almost an instantaneously favorable gut response from people when you explain that they can revoke a company's charter, distribute their assets and put them out of business,"
I always thought they should have done a currency split - issue new money: old $5 is worth new $1, old dollar is worth new 20c, old nickel is worth 1 new penny, old penny is useful for cheap flooring.
"engineers regard any system that’s actually working as a temporary anomaly"
the spooks are installing surveillance upgrades
40 years of research sure, but almost exclusively flailing around desperately hunting for any serious harm and coming up basically empty.
The sun is shining on my head just fine, and my brain is comfortably soiled :)
You can share code however you like. But the converse of that is that you can take code that has been shared however the person sharing it likes. If you don't like the way that someone shares their code, then you are right back where you started without that code, no harm no foul. If you then use your second chance to instead of just reinventing the wheel like you ought to, instead you decide to attack that person who is sharing their code, then you sir can go fuck yourself with the rustiest tool you can get your hands on. The person sharing their code did not do anything to harm you, they only offered to help you. If you don't want to accept the offer then go get on yer bike. Why on earth would you put up up a giant blinking neon "-> raging asshole right here ->" sign to the left of you and lash out against that person?
If money could just fall into my pocket without that "you need to work for it" restriction I would sure love that too, but that doesn't mean I go around town raving at employers about if they do hourly wage or salary or commision. Give your head a shake.
What exactly is your problem? You don't want to share your code? You think sharing code is an evil communist plot? That's perfectly fine (and retarded), you have a right to your opinion.
Sharing your code is an awful burden nobody should force on you, OK. But you feel you have some kind of right to use code that other people have shared in any way you see fit? GPL places some restrictions on you, and you can't stand it? You place much more severe restrictions on people who use your code, and that's fine, but if someone puts any restrictions on you using their code then that's some kind of harsh human rights abuse? I really can't see your point through the forest of hypocrisy.
You don't like sharing code, fine go crawl back under your rock and reinvent wheels all day. What do you think gives you the right to demand anything from people who do like sharing code? GPL code isn't going anywhere, all the code that is GPL now will always be GPL, and there is more and more of it every day, leaving people free to solve new problems instead of wasting time working around moldy old proprietary software patents and restrictive copyright, making life better for everyone. There are lots of people who get paid to write, modify, maintain, and support it. More of them very day. I'm thankful for all of them, and even more thankful for the even greater number of people who freely volunteer the fruits of their labour for the greater good. You should show a bit of class instead of trying to twist their altruism into some kind of blasphemy.
Ranting and raving against the way some people choose to share their code with you would be much more valid if you weren't so vehemently against sharing any of your code at all in the first place.
"Next you'll be saying they have insecure sign in pages, 3rd party tracking cookies, missing Alt tags from images, not using https to protect privacy......"
Using Flash on a website does not make that website insecure.
Flash insecurity goes from nasty guys using nasty flash on their nasty websites to you and your browser. Flash insecurity does not go up from those nasty guys to regular otherwise properly secured websites that happen to be using flash. If you're not surfing random porn or torrent tracker or conspiracy sites built by who knows who then you are 99% OK. Besides bad actors on advertising networks you are completely fine with Flash enabled on BBC or CBC or government websites or our very own El Reg. Flash can be a tool for hijacking browsers, not for compromising web servers.
That said Flash is stupid and should die a slow painful death like it is doing, but keep it in perspective people.
Using https on a public website of static pages does not make that website private, nor does it help in any way whatsoever to hide the fact if you visit that website.
Insecure login pages are a major problem for banking websites, but who the fuck cares for a simple discussion forum 8+ characters including upper and lower case and a number and a special character and no dictionary words is simply infuriating.
3rd party tracking cookies are pure evil. Easily blocked, tell all your friends.
Missing image alt tags are quite annoying to the sight impaired, but I can see fine so I only notice them at all on xkcd.
That is all.
"That's not our fault, it's the fault of the combatants who chose where to fight from."
They "chose" to fight from their homelands when foreign military forces invaded. Yes it sure would be nice if all the people who didn't like their country being invaded would all just gather together en masse in the middle of the open desert with their ak47s and rpgs so they could all be entirely annihilated in moments by a few missiles from safely afar, but they savagely ignore the plight of our poor poor consciences and try to do what little damage they can while remaining contemptibly alive, near their homes and families, leaving no other option but to "save the village by destroying it". Evil cowards with no honour, apparently.
I've heard of Tibet, it has most recently been part of China for over 60 years now.
Over the last several decades China has not invaded anyone, bombed anyone, drone attacked anyone, or opened any new military bases outside of its own borders. Food for thought.
"WAY more cops get shot by criminals than the other way around."
<thweep> <thweep> * * * total fucking bullshit alarm * * * <thweep> <thweep>
117 dead police:
1,100 killed by police:
"various companies, including Netflix, are already evaluating..."
The end of Silverlight!!!!!
The really good add-ons were already there. Adding the incentive turned it into a crooked fuckfest. Big surprise.
I could get nostalgic for the days of gopher and use lynx to browse the web text only. I could be blind and use a screen reader, or near blind and mess with your precious font sizes, or colour blind and mess with your precious colours. I could be brain damaged and use IE and not see anything the way you planned, or you could be brain damaged and design for IE where my proper browser wouldn't see anything the way you planned. I could be a search engine spider and process the response from your server and never display it on any screen. Finally, I could go through through your server's response rendering it to my screen and when it gets to <img src="http://privacyhah.com/somestupidbullshit.png"> I could say no thank you sorry but I don't feel like fetching that extra file because reasons. Exactly what do you think you could do about *any* of that???
"That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Maybe you should educate yourself about how laws (especially, but not limited to copyright law) and contracts work."
It's my computer. It's your server. My computer makes a request to your server. Your server gives my computer a response. After this point you are entirely removed from the equation. My computer will do whatever it likes with the response you give it. If you want it some other way then you are going to have to come up with something different from www, good luck with that!
"it refuses to turn its music-matching filters to block unlicensed uploads"
"and [immune] to take-down procedures"
"how about if your ISP sold statistics on which health-related Wikipedia pages you had been reading to your health insurance provider?"
How in the hell does https stop anyone from knowing you were looking at wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Fungus?
The proposed laws "would essentially force all foreign companies, including US companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms where they can snoop and keep track of all the users of those services," Obama added.
"As you might imagine, tech companies are not going to be willing to do that," he said.
It was called Napster.
Hmmm upload a file to Google so that you can't download it, print it, or copy it - is that somehow better than simply deleting the file because cloud?
How about executed?
Climate scientists tell us that burning fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic climate change. Economists tell us about things like goodwill and support levels and market impact. A person is not "a twonk" if they listen to the experts and put 2 and 2 together. Thank you for your contribution :)
Nothing freaks out a capitalist more than the idea that anyone might do anything for any reason other than maximum glory to the almighty dollar. This is worth supporting for that entertainment value alone :)
"seeing a further thaw in relations with its neighbors, most notably the US"
Except for the USA (and Israel), is there any country that doesn't love Cuba??
Does nobody remember CALEA??? I can't believe it hasn't gotten a single mention!!!
"CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband internet and VoIP traffic... USA telecommunications providers must install new hardware or software, as well as modify old equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any telephone or Internet traffic."
What the hell is the difference between CALEA and what China is proposing? You don't need to bring up any NSA boogeymen to spot the glaring hypocricy, that's totally besides the point. "At least China is being open about it"?!? It's been the law in the USA for more than 2 decades!!!
"The U.S. and UK do not control the internet and never have. Monitoring international communication to deter crime is not control of the Net."
ummm they do a bit more than monitoring
"Don't bother posting in reply if you can't make a factual and accurate reply to the two points I raise."
1. Hi there. In response to your second point, I'd just like to say: chicken. Chicken chicken chicken, chicken-chickens chickening chicken chickens.
Peter picked a peck of pickles, feck the puck of poppers peepers pint...
The rain in Spain explains the pain plainly part...
OK wait... I can do thish...
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously! RESULT!!!
At least I can English, so I got that going for me, which is nice *8)
"a sweeping new policy that affects much of the world"
I've seen this sentiment numerous times, and I don't understand it so I have to ask - how will these rules affect anyone or anything outside the jurisdiction of the USA? I mean they do usually try to apply their laws across the globe, with varying degrees of success, but here in Canada we had an open internet last week, we still have one today, and as far as I can tell we will still have one next week and into the forseeable future. What is going to change in any other country?
"What would actually happen is that the cable companies would throw lobbyist money at it like there was no tomorrow, and the whole process would drown in partisan politics and legal challenges."
Hello? McFly? That's the current situation, not some hypothetical future scenario.
"with the report suddenly dropping 15 pages to 317 pages following a last-minute letter from Google... in response to a last minute submission from a major California based company, an entire core part of the document was removed with respect to broadband subscriber access service... spend the next few weeks in ex parte meetings listening to stakeholder concerns"
On this side of the pond that happened in 1994 with NAFTA chapter 11. Corporations have the god given right to collect all the profit they plan on collecting no matter what democracy tries to whimper about it. The idea has been spreading like cancer around the globe ever since.
So do we get to actually see the actual rules now?
"It sometimes happens, even in science, that one man can be right against the world. Professor Fessenden was that man. He fought bitterly and alone to prove his theories. It was he who insisted, against the stormy protests of every recognized authority, that what we now call radio was worked by continuous waves sent through the ether by the transmitting station as light waves are sent out by a flame. Marconi and others insisted that what was happening was a whiplash effect. The progress of radio was retarded a decade by this error. The whiplash theory passed gradually from the minds of men and was replaced by the continuous wave, with all too little credit to the man who had been right."
Copyright / Trademark
Who has the most government control of the internet and who does the most censorship? Grinds my gears the way some people talk...
WMD in Iraq, they obviously didn't look hard enough, they're all over:
According to professor Noam Chomsky, "Fallujah,..., was one of the worst atrocities of the 21st century."
So they get someone like Matt Bryant to add the 13,147st comment to a major news article, that's supposed to be some kind of blow for freeedom? Once the noise to signal ratio rockets past 1,000% and the forum is basically overgrown with astroweeds, reclaimed by the astrojungle, who would they think remains to be influenced, is there anyone spending their days hyper obsessively reading every inane talking point comment? Will it be like an auto trading stock market crash, where everyone and their dog / blog squad has to keep up their pro/anti comment ratios and basically ddos all of the internets? How many major news outlets have a comments section where it's worth anything to read past the first 2 or 3 comments that show? How many more specialized forums like this one don't just laugh jokers like this off the stage? Up until there are just too many of them to bother with comments anymore...
I'd really like to see an organization like our esteemed paper of record The Register for example do some commenter analysis, and brand astrowarrior posts with the logo of the gang of thugs who spawned them based on IP addresses. I guess that wouldn't help sell ads though?