"Watch them try"
I'm sure you'll eventually hear: We didn't tamper with evidence, we accidentally deleted the video while reviewing evidence. The interwebs are hard, don'tchaknow.
71 posts • joined 27 Oct 2011
"Watch them try"
I'm sure you'll eventually hear: We didn't tamper with evidence, we accidentally deleted the video while reviewing evidence. The interwebs are hard, don'tchaknow.
However, since a search engine had indexed data on this open FTP server, this is more analogous to leaving your door open AND putting up an "Open House, please come in" sign.
Please read the more complete account at:
"The coaxial line DOES NOT connect to the Internet but to the corporate INTRAnet"
The Ethernet cable coming out of that modem, and the IP service on it, is what we're talking about.
It's advertised as such on their webpage, and I've used the service in the past. But, regardless, it's immaterial. If you believe that a streaming service offered over your internet connection (not just the same wire, but same IP network), but it also available to the outside world should not be allowed to be zero-rated, yet the same service, offered over the same IP network, that _is_ closed to outside world, should be allowed to be zero-rated then you really need to think the situation over a bit more in-depth.
We're not talking about cable boxes here. We're talking about streaming to your internet connected devices, with no other connection than your internet connection.
" Comast's internal video service is likewise and can be equated to Video On Demand which DOES goes out over the cable and IS NOT counted as part of their Internet service."
No. Stream TV uses your Comcast internet connection to deliver content to your internet connected devices, but Comcast wrongly zero-rates the service. It is happening on the same IP network. Additionally, even though it has no real bearing, Comcast does allow you to use these services on other ISPs by logging into your Comcast account. Comcast is simply trying to fool everyone with a shell game, and make their bandwidth seem like a scare resource -- which it is not. You seem to have fallen for it.
An Intranet is for the END USER. Comcast is an ISP. There is no such thing as an INTRAnet on their internet offering. If they use a separate network (can share the same cabling) and separate devices to interface with their offering, like they do with their current set-top boxes, cable cards, etc., then they may have a case. But if your internet connected devices are accessing their IP offering over the same IP network, as their Stream TV does, then they MUST treat that traffic the same as all other traffic. Stream TV does not work without Comcast's internet service.
INTRAnet is for END USERS. When using Comcast Internet service, Comcast is the ISP. Not the end user. The LAN is local to the END USER. All of Comcast's IP offerings over the shared, and resold, IP network are now part of the Internet -- not Intranet.
"I can easily equate this to Bloomberg's private network and the Wall Street clients who use them everyday."
That is immaterial. In these cases, Bloomberg is likely not acting as an ISP. In the case that they are, they're not reselling an internet service with a zero-rated value added service to other entities.
"CORPORATE LANs wouldn't exist."
The corporation is the end user, not the individual corporate divisions on the private network. They are not reselling an internet service with zero-rated value added service to other entities.
"But the ISP is offering MORE than the Internet. Telephone, Cable television, and On-Demand Video are NOT Internet Services"
And, if any of those are offered over the same IP network as the internet service they offer, then they need to be treated the same as any other service offered on that network.
"by your logic, private LANs are ALSO on the Internet"
NO! Again, NO! A private LAN is the end user. If you start reselling your internet service to others THEN you are an ISP, and any other services you offer over that IP network are no longer "private", and must be treated the same as every other service delivered over the IP network. This really isn't that difficult!
"never goes out on the Internet"
By supplying it to you over your "Internet connection", it already is over the "Internet". The private roads analogy doesn't work for ISPs -- only for end users. The ISP is just that: An Internet Service Provider.
Google doesn't have usage caps on its Fiber network -- so there's no zero rating to worry about. Comcast is free to offer streaming TV service over its Internet connection, just like Google -- but it needs to be treated the same as all other traffic on the network, just like Google.
"they start prioritising their own video over other types of traffic"
Zero rating one video service and not another is prioritizing the zero-rated video service.
"customers will be able to buy access to the public Internet over that connection"
You're trying to add complication where there is none. If Comcast wants to have a separate network with their own offering over the same physical connection, they can (and do -- see: digital cable) do that -- but then you'll need separate devices to connect to it. The IP traffic coming out the Ethernet or wireless of your cable modem is the Internet you are paying for. All legal traffic coming over that network, including IP services offered by Comcast, must be treated equally.
"Using your logic my LAN is part of the Internet and I shouldn't be restricting traffic."
No. You missed the point entirely. Since you are the end user, you are not the intermediary. You are not an ISP. If you were to start reselling an internet connection to others, then at that time you shouldn't be restricting traffic to your customers.
It is certainly NOT where your ISP connects to the backbone. It is, by definition of the service offered, where the end user connects to their ISP -- note the "I" in "ISP". The moment Comcast begins shuffling IP traffic to you, their network is now part of that thing called the "Internet". That they provide a "private" streaming service only accessible to Comcast subscribers is immaterial.
There is nothing "hard" about this call -- Comcast is zero rating an IP service delivered over a common IP network. That is anti-competitive -- and that is a bad thing.
Weak use and poor implementations of Diffie Hellman can be cracked -- not Diffie Hellman in its entirety.
Diffie Hellman is still in very wide use. Like every time you access an HTTPS resource.
What part of arbitrary, non-universal, zero-rating are you having trouble understanding? Do you not get that it favors one service over another? Do you not get that practice will spread to other ISPs? Are you really that naive?
It doesn't matter that consumers want it. You can convince consumers that Homeopathy works and should be paid for by their insurance -- doesn't mean it's a good thing.
"No one is being held up for cash to get binge-on's benefits, and users can disable it if they want."
That the service does not and cannot include all video services immediately means that is DOES violate net neutrality. It picks winners. Services that are unable to be included in Binge-On are automatically put at a disadvantage.
If T-Mobile included an open API that allowed services and customers to automatically request that traffic to/from specific addresses/ports be throttled and zero-rated on a per customer and per service basis, then, and only then, could it avoid being anti-competitive. But then T-Mobile would complain that the API could be abused for non-video traffic -- and it would be abused -- so, no Binge-On then.
"Tech blogs took up the cry - although it wasn’t clear exactly why"
You damn well know why: It's because zero rating one video service over another is anti-competitive. Video services that are unable to implement adaptive bit-rate are automatically excluded. It allows the ISP to pick winners and losers rather than the free market. It reduces competition in the (in this case, video streaming) market. Reduced competition is ALWAYS bad for consumers.
On top of that, T-mobile's rules for binge-on are not exactly clear. For example: Why isn't YouTube part of the zero-rating, even though t-mobile has demonstrated they already can and do throttle it? How about services such as Plex, TabloTV, HDHomeRun PVR, etc., that allow you to stream media you already own, like recorded TV, etc., directly from your own home internet connection? There is no clear way for t-mobile to be able to detect and throttle that kind of service, putting such services at a disadvantage.
Google has answered that in detail:
Basically, they use data about atmospheric conditions that they collect themselves from their balloon swarm, combined with other sources like NOAA. That data is used when adjusting altitudes to catch different wind-streams, allowing them reasonable accuracy when moving the balloons where they'd like. With enough balloons, they can keep an area well covered.
"If Comcast is carving specific DOCSIS bands"
They are not. They are simply zero-rating data delivered over the same DOCSIS bands used for all the other content you're receiving. It's all on the same IP network.
What this does is allow Comcast to claw back cash they've been loosing from cord cutters. What will happen next is that Comcast will set bandwidth caps on their cheapest internet offering to the lowest amount (least amount of data) the market will bear. This will force price conscious customers to think about the data they're consuming -- limiting use of services like Netflix, Amazon prime video, etc., instead choosing to use Comcast's video offering because it doesn't count against their data.
It's anti-competitive and NOT a very good thing for the consumer, nor does it bode well for the future of the internet as we've come to know it. What we want as consumers is cheap, plentiful, bandwidth. What Comcast has available is cheap, plentiful, bandwidth, and Comcast doesn't like that -- they want to artificially increase the value of that bandwidth by making it appear like a scarce commodity.
Yet, if you do this in the US, you're violating the DMCA. (Not sure what applicable laws you're violating outside the US, though I'm sure there are plenty.)
Yes, all Abrahamic (and many other) religions are deeply flawed. We all know the Abrahamic God was a vindictive little shit. But you only need to compare the figureheads of Christianity and Islam, Jesus vs. Muhammad, to see the stark differences in how these religions shape its followers.
Please find me a verse in the new testament, or in any other text from the era, where Jesus goes around killing those that don't believe he is the son of god. Just one.
Muhammad, on the other hand, is all about dispatching pesky non-believers. Next to abusing young girls and subjugating women, it seems to be his favorite hobby.
There is simply no comparison. Islam is by far the most violent and bigoted religion [that's widely practiced] in our modern world.
Yes. I'm one of those atheists that will smear Christianity, or any religion, every chance I get.
But I'm also able to clearly see that Islam and Christianity are not even close when it comes to violence in the modern day.
You'll be hard pressed to find a verse in the new testament that says anything remotely close to:
Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?"
(Since the Qur'an prescribes death as the punishment for the crimes, by saying "What could be more wicked", the Qur'an is applying the death penalty for this.)
Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"
And from the Hadtih:
Bukhari (4:241) - "Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority."
Remember your history. Remember the barbaric actions of this beloved Muhammad. The "perfect" Muslim.
Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Anyone that claims this is extremely ignorant about Islam, deluded beyond belief, or outright lying.
Winston Churchill said it best with:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy."
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
Except in this case, the Islamic faith actively encourages strong reaction to those that blaspheme their faith.
Look at the lashings Raif Badawi, and many others that speak out, receive. Other are put to death.
Violence, even murder, as a response to blasphemy of Islamic faith is not unusual.
Like many other major religions, Islamic faith is a faith deeply rooted in bigotry and violence. However, while other major religions have generally softened over time, Islam is currently trending the other way.
And no, in case you're going to go there, it is not Islamophobia point out the this issues with the faith. I'm sick and tired of people constantly spouting on about how Islam is a peaceful religion. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but no, Islam is not a peaceful religion.
"You do realise that multimedia educational sites exist now?"
Where's the evidence that sitting children in front of PCs and/or tablets result in better education?
I selected the school my child goes to specifically because the students don't use PCs/tablets in the classroom. It happens to be the top performing public school in the city, out-performs most of the more desirable private schools, has a waiting list larger than the student body -- and all on a shoe-string budget.
$1.5bn should be directed to training and hiring better teachers, creating a better curriculum, and to support staff that can properly manage problem students so they don't interfere with the education of others.
"Unfortunately you get no benefit from the traffic and its costing you money. "
Your customers are paying you for internet connectivity, and they expect to be able to access services, like Netflix. Is that payment of "no benefit" to you? Did you expect them not to use the service they are paying for?
"all of this traffic from Netflix going across your pipes to another peering partner"
Netflix will offer you free caching proxies to alleviate that traffic. They will even offer direct peering in some cases. The question is, should you be able to throttle Netflix to force them into a separate peering arrangement, then charge Netflix for that f#ckery?
Re: "because they haven't been paid once"
Er, yes they have -- or does my $80 per month to my ISP not count as a payment in your book?
Re: "direct peering arrangement"...
That's simply another way of saying: "We'll throttle traffic on your current transit provider unless you pony up for a 'direct peering arrangement'" -- and that's _exactly_ what happens.
"It’s like bringing your own cockroach to McDonalds, then making a complaint about their hygiene"
No, it's more like dropping a bus load of customers off at McDonalds, but McDonalds insists that they will serve the passengers at a slower rate than everyone else, unless the bus driver pays McDonalds an inconvenience charge.
How is Netflix getting a free ride? They pay for their connection, just as you pay for yours. Why should they pay your ISP when they are already paying theirs?
Please read, and understand, this:
The idea that warming has stopped in the last 15 years is a complete fallacy.
"That sir is faith. Not science"
Same is said about evolution through natural selection. We can't predict exactly what evolution will produce -- there are far too many variables -- but we know environmental pressures will shape an organism's DNA.
Just because you don't understand the nuances of a given theory, doesn't make it wrong. AGW _is_ falsifiable. Much like attempts to falsify evolution by natural selection, so far _every_ attempt to falsify AGW (as should be done -- every hypothesis and theory must be vigorously and continuously tested as new data arises) have only served to validate the theory.
There are many articles out there that claim to have falsified evolution by natural selection, but every single one of them have failed -- even if the original authors refuse to admit defeat. (Often the original authors do admit defeat, but ID zealots keep regurgitating the old, inaccurate, information.) This _exact_ same thing holds true with AWG.
"there has been no warming"
and Glenn Tamblyn's response to Roy W. Spencer's tantrum (the basis of your position):
Just like the "Evolution through natural selection people" bully and intimidate anybody that believes the earth is 6000 years old?
There is FAR more bullying and intimidation coming from both the intelligent design crowd and AGW deniers than any scientists. Explaining how any why your belief is wrong is not "bullying", no matter how gutted you feel afterwards.
"At some point Americans are going to wake up and see ..."
... that the Earth far older than 6,000 years?
... that evolution by natural selection is real?
... that corporations are /not/ people?
... ... ...
Sorry, I don't think enough of my fellow Americans will be waking up. Critical thinking is not taught in the majority of our schools, nor is it nurtured in the majority of our families.
Please review before posting:
I have the lucky "choice" of Comcast (cable) or CenturyLink (dsl). Problem is, DSL maxes out at 7mbps in my area, but I'm lucky to get 1,5Mbps. Cable has a minimum of 30Mbps, up to 105Mbps. 30Mbps cable or 1.5-7mbps dsl (no real difference in price). Not really any "choice" there, unless you enjoy watching paint dry.
> "You'll note that there are points where high CO2 correlates with high temp, and also points where low CO2 correlates with high temps. There are also points where increasing CO2 correlates with rising temps, and points where increasing CO2 correlates with falling temps"
All this tells us is that c02 isn't the only driver of climate, and not a single climate scientist will claim it is. But we do know it is one of the drivers of climate. It's ridiculous to think that we can dump endless amounts of it into our atmosphere with zero effect, especially when we can model and observe quite the opposite.
"What predictions of climate scientists' models *ever* been proved to be even remotely accurate?"
Look around you.
Does evolution through natural selection predict exactly what lifeforms you're going to end up with? Of course not. What do you expect the climate models to predict? Exactly where, when and what a temperature increase will be? Exactly where and when we will see increased climate volatility? We simply don't have the computational power to do that. But they did accurately predict increased average temperature and climate volatility as c02 level rise. Have these not come to pass? What's next? Are you going to say that evolution isn't real because there are "gaps in the fossil record?"
"Since the vast majority of "scientific" opinions - or perhaps that ought to be scientific "opinions" - are paid by one special interest group or another, and many, mostly AGW advocates by both, your reasoning leads to the conclusion that we can ignore the entire issue"
One group has a vested interest in disproving and creating controversy, much like ID and evolution. The other has, for the most part, scientific method. The reason I put "scientist" in quotes, is because most of the deniers do not apply scientific method to the data at hand. They find what they think is an issue in the data (like a warm or cold period), and, just like god-in-the-gaps with evolution, they believe they've blown the whole thing out of the water, without taking all the evidence as a whole. Like standing too close to a Monet, and saying "All I see is dots!".
"Hypotheses which cannot make predictions..."
They have made predictions... and, so far, they've been right. You just don't like the predictions they've made.
"'I can't think of another reason therefore he did it' doesn't cut it in the real world I'm afraid."
Lets see: Witness saw him enter the pub with a gun. gun was fired. Suspect has power residue on his hands after leaving the pub. Suspect has history of action. No other individual in the establishment has a gun, nor was another gun found.
That's not "can't think of another reason". That's, "given the evidence, no other reason fits".
Same thing applies to C02 and climate change -- except we have even more evidence with c02 and climate change.
"To what extent we are contributing to it is still a very open question."
To the average Joe? Sure, but then Joe may also believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
The more data that is gathered, the more apparent the current warming trend is related to c02, and our release of it. While you can argue "correlation does not equal causation", and "climate is too complex to model accurately", those claims do not hold up to the preponderance of evidence.
Trying to maintain your claim is like saying "I saw Bob enter the pub with a gun. I heard one shot fired, and when he left, police captured him and found powder residue on his hand. We know that no one else left the pub, and a thorough search turned up no other gun. Bob also has a history of shooting guns in pubs, but I just don't believe Bob fired the gun. Correlation doesn't equal causation, don't-cha-know."
We know the release of c02 has an effect on climate -- there is no denying this. We know the level of c02 in the atmosphere is increasing -- there is no denying this. We know our climate is changing -- there is no denying this. All other proposals for why the climate is changing have been found wanting -- there is no denying this. We have models that show c02 being a probable candidate. Yet Bob still didn't pull the trigger?
"Scientists" that have been paid by those benefiting from denying anthropogenic climate change don't count.
Remember the lead pollution from leaded gasoline? There were plenty of paid shills, some of them "scientists", that twisted the results of others' research attempting to show there wasn't an issue -- and it worked for many years.
Are you saying we should still allow tetraethyl lead in our gas because a few paid shills, and millions poured in propaganda, tried to convince the public that it wasn't an issue?
The first AI that we'll recognise as equal to our own will happen after we're able to simulate the growth of a human in a computer in near real time. This ethically dubious "virtual human" will be no less intelligent than ourselves, and what we learn from it will finally crack the nut, allowing us to expand on this type of intelligence without resorting to growing a human, or other animal, in a simulator.
So, would the superstitious among us believe such a "virtual human" to have a soul?
Now if only some of that extra cash flow could make their network useable outside of larger cities and major highways...
"As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?"
Nice logical fallacy you have there. Travel by commercial airline is statistically safer than automobile, yet we all don't have a commercial airliner in our garage. Does the fact that I can't maintain service for a Boeing 747 in my garage somehow make them less safe?
In science, "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you're thinking of "hypothesis"?
For evolution to have made it to "theory" means that it a very solid science indeed.
This is what comes from Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection used by our government. Just like when you choose the lowest bid for work done on your home, more often than not you end up with crap results.
Please tell point me to these "loads of security issues" in Android's Dalvik JVM. Android has security issues, but I haven't seen Dalvik pointed out as the attack vector for these issues.
And read up on exactly what Oracle's suit was about, and why they effectively lost. A nine-line rangeCheck function, and the "structure, sequence and organization of the Java Application Programming Interface (API)" does not make a JVM, nor does it equal "loads" of code.
AC says "In order to make Java secure it needs a complete rewrite from the ground up (not constant patching that currently happens)."
You do know that Android doesn't use Oracle's JVM, right? It uses Dalvik JVM -- Dalvik doesn't have the same security issues that Oracle's JVM has -- and it doesn't run in a browser on Android -- the main attack vector when using Oracle's JVM.
The KitKats here in the states have a waxy yet gritty texture, seem needlessly sweeter, have less cookie/wafer, and just taste poor in comparison.
So, does this naming mean that the UK version of Android will be better?