Krebs had a follow up where he basically found out the identity and most of this during the whole incident back then. They picked up the wrong target to mess with.
I keep wondering if this brilliant youth used their capabilities to help others, how much better we could be now. (Sounds like an old man but I'm just a few years ahead of them).
"which hopefully any reasonable lawyer will talk them out of doing"
I can imagine the conversation: Mad Decent (MD) - We want to sue Pai for daring to use our song. Lawyer (L) - I don't think it's a good ide.. MD - *shows a bunch of money* L - $_$ (sound of old cashier) Your wish is my command.
"Tragically, we're not there yet. "
If you are religious and believe in multiple incarnations then we might have it in our next lives. I'll see you there.
You are conflating two different things. Peering and NN have absolutely nothing in common although moving carriers to Title II would allow services outside of the network to go after the ISPs if they deliberately refused to solve peering chokepoints.
You know, like Verizon did with Netflix by not upgrading a piece of equipment that Netflix offered to pay for them even if it would make service better for their customers when accessing all other services as well. You may not remember but the issue magically fixed itself when Title II came in.
It becomes a NN issue if the telcos deliberately choke their competitors via such peering shenanigans while offering the same service in their own internal networks (that don't need the peering). Forging peering agreements to better manage large chunks of traffic falls within network topography (like the CDNs you love to confuse with NN as well).
So, no, NN wouldn't have forbidden that as long as the packets are treated equally and the only limits are physical (ie distance).
"Nope, and I am not even suggesting it. Rather I am pointing out that for consumers (who want streaming video so much) certain restrictions of NN actually are hurting rather than helping. More choice for consumers is always a good thing."
Yes, you are suggesting it. NN rules do not prevent any of such competition. It actually fosters competition by forcing the owners of the infrastructure to play fair and neutral.
With that safe harbors excluding big companies and the constant attacks on freedoms it seems to me that the current Australian govt is trying to become a case study of authoritarianism before the US manages to get there.
I'd say I agree with Ars. The consumption will peak higher than it is today and then simply fall. And there's the fact that mining will cease when it reaches the 21 million cap. Another thing is, the energy consumption per processing power ratio has been steadily falling over years so there is that as well. I also don't agree with the fact that it's useless. In the long run I believe that we will reach a point where cryptocurrencies will work their way into mainstream in an usable form (bitcoin as it is today is just used like storing gold but with large signs of tulips).
As for the server farms I don't quite know what to think about it. I don't think we can fully decentralize everything (except maybe you can have several server farms all around decentralizing stuff among them) so we will have to live with them. I mean we have the Internet Archive for instance. Do we really think it can be run without any massive server farm? What I believe we can do is make data collection rational and storage/processing more efficient. Of course I don't see it happening any time soon.
"Except the problem isn't something they have created themselves. Operating within their own network, they are not subject to the costs of peering and obtaining connectivity. Why should they be blocked?"
Because I'm not paying for them to access their own services. Because if they were forced to adhere to NN rules either via regulation or because there is competition I would be able to freely choose among several services (remember most offerings from these ISPs are pure crap). They should be 100% blocked from this type of bullshit. Of course if you like being screwed in the ass you can already find one or two ISPs to satisfy your fetishes. One or two because there's no competition at all.
"By your mentality, AOL should never of existed, because the bastards use to offer services are part of your membership / access and then limit your internet! Total f--kers! :)"
You weren't forced to use AOL. The ISPs shared the copper lines and there was no limitations. Go learn history before spewing bullshit. Makes you look less ridiculous.
"if the stab wound exists only because you are trying to cut the cancer out yourself manually..."
I thought I should just put it here to contemplate how much of a moron you are.
"Pointing to one of Karl's yappy dog pieces isn't helping your stand."
Because you are either ignorant (willfully or not) or you have vested interests in not understanding. I vote the former.
"That is the only option. "
It's not. It is the one that would be more 'permanent' though. The solution is already there and Pai is trying to repeal it.
"They aren't lining up and being stupid about things."
No, they are very smart. They won't block anything. This would make them be regulated at light speed. They are very smart. They are just testing waters with small steps like data caps, zero rating, confusing/misleading fees etc. You know, shady but not blatantly illegal behavior. And you love taking it all up in your ass.
Wrong guy. It's usually that Cristopher guy that comes to the rescue of any cop when these stories pop. I guess his limit was cops forcing an underage boy to masturbate to generate evidence. Like an article these days. I haven't seen any comment from him there. I do suspect it was because the cop was dealing with child abuse charges outside of work though otherwise he'd be there defending the cops.
This needs to be done of course but they should also have their funds cut. But, the population will suffer because crime will rise! Shit happens, good luck explaining you are short on money because of your own disrespect for the law.
"and in the least surprising news ever, analysis of broadband prices following the recent Comcast/AT&T Broadband merger showed that they were going up"
Learning from history not to make the same mistakes, eh? No?
Politician: We must do something! Sane person: There is no need, the current legal framework already provide enough tools to deal with sex trafficking, both online and offline. And when they are online it's easier for law enforcement to find the criminals. Politician: But it doesn't bring me votes from ignorant people. WE MUST DO SOMETHING!
Politicians, doing something since politics exist.
On the post: China Is Building The Ultimate Surveillance Tool: A DNA Database Of Every Adult Resident In Troubled Xinjiang Region
On the post: How Minecraft Led To The Mirai Botnet
I keep wondering if this brilliant youth used their capabilities to help others, how much better we could be now. (Sounds like an old man but I'm just a few years ahead of them).
On the post: This Whole Mess With Ajit Pai, The Harlem Shake And Copyright Is Bad And Everyone's Wrong.
A few comments before taking my leave.
"which hopefully any reasonable lawyer will talk them out of doing"
I can imagine the conversation:
Mad Decent (MD) - We want to sue Pai for daring to use our song.
Lawyer (L) - I don't think it's a good ide..
MD - *shows a bunch of money*
L - $_$ (sound of old cashier) Your wish is my command.
"Tragically, we're not there yet. "
If you are religious and believe in multiple incarnations then we might have it in our next lives. I'll see you there.
On the post: New Documents And Testimony Shows Officers Lied About Their Role In An Arrested Teen's Death
Re: Instead of blaming IDIOT for using illegal drugs, Techdirt blames police.
On the post: T-Mobile's Getting Into Cable TV, Where Its Opposition To Net Neutrality May Come Back To Bite It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, like Verizon did with Netflix by not upgrading a piece of equipment that Netflix offered to pay for them even if it would make service better for their customers when accessing all other services as well. You may not remember but the issue magically fixed itself when Title II came in.
It becomes a NN issue if the telcos deliberately choke their competitors via such peering shenanigans while offering the same service in their own internal networks (that don't need the peering). Forging peering agreements to better manage large chunks of traffic falls within network topography (like the CDNs you love to confuse with NN as well).
So, no, NN wouldn't have forbidden that as long as the packets are treated equally and the only limits are physical (ie distance).
"Nope, and I am not even suggesting it. Rather I am pointing out that for consumers (who want streaming video so much) certain restrictions of NN actually are hurting rather than helping. More choice for consumers is always a good thing."
Yes, you are suggesting it. NN rules do not prevent any of such competition. It actually fosters competition by forcing the owners of the infrastructure to play fair and neutral.
On the post: DOJ Wants Protesters & Reporter Convicted For 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment'
I think it can't be emphasized enough. This guy took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He clearly isn't competent to the job.
Not that he can be removed for it. And not that he is the exception in this govt.
On the post: NY Attorney General Finds 2 Million Fake FCC Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re:
On the post: If You Are Going To Worry About Bitcoin's Energy Consumption, Worry About Server Farms Too -- For More Than One Reason
Re: Response to: Ninja on Dec 14th, 2017 @ 4:41am
On the post: Leaked E-mail Shows Even The FCC's Own CTO Thinks Gutting Net Neutrality Harms The Public
I mean, that's only so much contempt you can show the people before they decide enough is enough.
On the post: Australian Government Wants To Punish Whistleblowers And Journalists Who Leak Classified Documents With Up To 20 Years In Prison
On the post: If You Are Going To Worry About Bitcoin's Energy Consumption, Worry About Server Farms Too -- For More Than One Reason
As for the server farms I don't quite know what to think about it. I don't think we can fully decentralize everything (except maybe you can have several server farms all around decentralizing stuff among them) so we will have to live with them. I mean we have the Internet Archive for instance. Do we really think it can be run without any massive server farm? What I believe we can do is make data collection rational and storage/processing more efficient. Of course I don't see it happening any time soon.
On the post: UK Drug Lab Misconduct Calls 10,000 Convictions And Prosecutions Into Question
On the post: It Was Twenty(-odd) Years Ago Today When The Internet Looked Much Different Than It Does Now
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a good post, but...
Because I'm not paying for them to access their own services. Because if they were forced to adhere to NN rules either via regulation or because there is competition I would be able to freely choose among several services (remember most offerings from these ISPs are pure crap). They should be 100% blocked from this type of bullshit. Of course if you like being screwed in the ass you can already find one or two ISPs to satisfy your fetishes. One or two because there's no competition at all.
"By your mentality, AOL should never of existed, because the bastards use to offer services are part of your membership / access and then limit your internet! Total f--kers! :)"
You weren't forced to use AOL. The ISPs shared the copper lines and there was no limitations. Go learn history before spewing bullshit. Makes you look less ridiculous.
"if the stab wound exists only because you are trying to cut the cancer out yourself manually..."
I thought I should just put it here to contemplate how much of a moron you are.
"Pointing to one of Karl's yappy dog pieces isn't helping your stand."
Because you are either ignorant (willfully or not) or you have vested interests in not understanding. I vote the former.
"That is the only option. "
It's not. It is the one that would be more 'permanent' though. The solution is already there and Pai is trying to repeal it.
"They aren't lining up and being stupid about things."
No, they are very smart. They won't block anything. This would make them be regulated at light speed. They are very smart. They are just testing waters with small steps like data caps, zero rating, confusing/misleading fees etc. You know, shady but not blatantly illegal behavior. And you love taking it all up in your ass.
On the post: FBI Director Complains About Encryption, Offers To Sacrifice Public Safety In The Interest Of Public Safety
Shhh. The adults are having a conversation about security.
On the post: Court Holds NYPD In Contempt For Refusing To Hand Over Documents Related To Black Live Matter Surveillance
Re: I can assure you...
On the post: Court Holds NYPD In Contempt For Refusing To Hand Over Documents Related To Black Live Matter Surveillance
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Holds NYPD In Contempt For Refusing To Hand Over Documents Related To Black Live Matter Surveillance
This needs to be done of course but they should also have their funds cut. But, the population will suffer because crime will rise! Shit happens, good luck explaining you are short on money because of your own disrespect for the law.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 3rd - 9th
Learning from history not to make the same mistakes, eh? No?
On the post: Internet Censorship Bills Won't Help Catch Sex Traffickers
Sane person: There is no need, the current legal framework already provide enough tools to deal with sex trafficking, both online and offline. And when they are online it's easier for law enforcement to find the criminals.
Politician: But it doesn't bring me votes from ignorant people. WE MUST DO SOMETHING!
Politicians, doing something since politics exist.
Next >>