A few years ago I read about how torrents were able to deliver video for immediate viewing, like streaming service do now. The thing was, that they used much less bandwidth, but needed some initial buffering time. I never tried it, so I don't know how well it worked. What I don't understand is why all these new streaming services aren't working on this technology, improving it. It would certainly help them. But to them torrents are EVIL, so why would they want to help EVIL? Short sighted, as always.
I do use torrents. It is how I get my updates for LibreOffice. It is how I get my new Linux distros when they come out. If there are enough seeders (and there usually are) I get those large files very rapidly. Fast enough so that watching a movie or TV show would certainly be feasible. Even in the highest quality HD.
If streaming content providers were to use the technology and the programs are popular then there would be sufficient seeders for smooth delivery of torrent to viewing scenarios with reduced bandwidth at both ends. How much could they save? It might even help with the bandwidth shortage they (those that provide both connectivity and content) claim as an excuse for the bandwidth caps (yeah, right).
"DNA testing is still fairly expensive. Prosecutors don't care, it's tax money paying for it. So they'll routinely have DNA evidence retested before trial."
Sorry, I was referring to this statement. It is one thing for the Prosecutor to retest using public money, it is another thing for a defendant to pony up for a test (just how expensive is it?). Either way, the Prosecutor has a responsibility to get it right.
Which is more expensive, two or three more DNA tests at different labs, or incarcerating an innocent person for many years? That question is about money, then there is the moral question.
But, but, but, isn't 5G just a ploy to cause turnover in the cellphone hardware market? Especially when they start deprecating 4G making all old hardware obsolete.
Also, since 5 is bigger than 4 there will be an associated rise in rates while data caps will inversely be slashed by a corresponding ratio.
Re: to protect people from the power of the government
"Also, what Street Crime was happening at the house?"
None, they were acting on a tip. A tip to that is not elucidated, but what does that matter to them? They had a tip. They, under rules promulgated by the County did a knock and talk. A knock and talk about what? As you say, what street crime?
In Ohio this sounds like a tip to a misdemeanor. (misdemeanors require eight officers?) but we are not clued in to the size of the plants 'observed' or what their yield might be (I hear that marijuana is typically dried before use or transport for sale, but, you know, rumors).
So what dastardly deed was the SCRAP after? A bust, any bust, a bust that might justify their existence? And for that, they get qualified immunity with very little in the qualifications area.
No, I use Google, but have turned off all the available options to turn off. If they are doing more, shame on them and when they get caught at it, there will be more to turn off, ie. the new accusation that when you go to a Google site you are automatically logged in. That, I expect, when sufficient user and world commendation takes place will be disabled.
The problem with GDRC is that it mandates what Google calls Takeout (which I have never heard of until today) and which I presume is an opt in service. With GDRC there is no opt in or out. The platforms are required to make information easily downloadable.
The hackers are merely making use of that (unusual) ability. That the GDRC demands that downloading client data be made 'easy' is merely making targets for hackers.
That websites are inherently insecure is not news (ask the developers who asked for the budget to do so and were turned down, we hear from them a lot). That they do nothing about it is not news. That they don't do anything about it, given the demands of GDRC will eventually be really big news, and I suspect a whole lot of things will be done to secure websites. Especially after a few of them are sued for not taking appropriate precautions.
What are appropriate precautions? Time will tell as the vectors for attack will change. But there are things that can be done now (best practice stuff) and things that will need to be done in the future. Timeliness will become important if things are left as they are.
Websites will be sued. Users are stupid. 2F authentication is not the end all many think it is, (and yes that article is old, but what has changed?) What if you lose your Yubikey? What if your cellphone is stolen or lost? What if...what if...what if...? Biographical data (eye scan, finger print, dna, whatever) good for a login name. Password managers and a website that allows a 64 digit (or more if we need to) not just alpha/numeric passwords? Not many of them around, my bank won't and I seriously wonder why.
And governments demand things with unintended consequences that they do not perceive partially because they fail to listen to experts (at least experts that don't spend their time validating the outcome their clients want) and don't think things through because their agenda doesn't allow of any other outcome.
I think they are trying to establish that president is more important than the Constitution. Or at least that courts' interpretations of the Constitution in previous cases is more important. That people, legislators, and courts fail to interpret the Constitution correctly, all the time (a large portion of Appeals and Supreme courts business) and even get incorrectly amended upon appeal.
It is a mess, and the Constitution seems fairly clear. When they get involved in trying to read the Framers minds things get convoluted.
"GDPR doesn't mandate that, so your problem here is imaginary."
No, they mandated this:
"That's because, under the GDPR, platforms are supposed to make all of the data they have on you easily downloadable."
So the GDPR made it easier and the platforms failed to be secure for their clients data. That doesn't seem imaginary, but it does make the problem more than just the GDPR.
Fake left, move right, explain up while moving down
"...a regulation designed to increase our privacy..."
Was it actually designed to increase privacy, or was a bunch of platitudes that supported one agenda or another thrown together so that it met a multitude of goals that were actually other than the ones stated? The process used to move it through the legislature certainly seems to suggest so.
Closed mindedness could be likened to bipartisanship. What is attempted now. Everyone talking past the others, not listening and only striving toward their own agenda, everyone else be damned. That is why I call it closed mindedness, no one listens.
What we need is non-partisanship. Where people listen to each other with open minds, leaving their prejudices and ideologies aside and doing what is right for the majority. Doing right for everyone is a panacea, but if one leaves out their ideology and prejudices when making decisions, those decisions would likely be better.
It is sort of like talking about supreme beings. One side promotes their supreme being. Another side promotes their different supreme being. Still another side promotes their different still supreme being. And yet another side promotes that the concept of supreme beings is just ridiculous. So when one of those sides makes decisions based upon the dogma that is dictated by adherents to their supreme being it is possible that that decision is antithetical to anyone who is not partial to that flavor of adherent. When someone says in 'supreme beings we trust', everyone else has to ask, who's or which supreme being? The point is, that decisions need to be made without reference to any supreme being as there may be moralistic values in ones thinking, there leaves little room for reason, or anyone who is not of that particular moral persuasion.
The same goes for partisanship and its band-aid cure bipartisanship, and why non-partisanship is necessary for all of our well being, which necessitates listening and leaving ideology and prejudice out of the decision making process. So except for #1, we are in agreement.
One could argue that eliminating political parties could ameliorate such ideological initiatives (and I have and will continue to do so). But that action would not remove the tension between so called conservative (in their various flavors) and so called liberals (in their various flavors) or that fact that some exist as so called moderates (in their various flavors). It might help to exclude the power structures (party leadership, organization, influence, and therefore pressure). That could be a good thing.
The thing is, I don't think it will stop anyone from actively listening to anyone who is not of their ideological persuasion. So what is the cure for closed mindedness? Teaching about tolerance in peoples formative years might help, but that would necessitate there be existing tolerance in the school systems, which we know does not currently exist. Which leaves what?
I am still trying to figure out how the whole hurting competition thing fits into Session's rhetoric. Is he saying that if Facebook or Twitter ban some conservatives then other social media platforms are harmed? Or is he saying that 'conservatives' are harmed? Since 'conservatives' are not engaged in business, as 'Conservatives Inc.' where do the antitrust issues arise?
Or is Session's and minions seriously trying to tie politics with commerce? Now there is some understanding that corporations are major players in the economics of politics in both the hard and soft money arenas, but politicians seem to attempt to distance themselves from what certainly appears to be graft (except when accepting checks or large bags of cash). Now we have a government agent with a fairly high level of responsibility telling us that political money should be competitive. Some of those corporations give to both parties, or both candidates as a hedge on their bets. Is Sessions suggesting that all corporate contributions be equally divided between parties/candidates?
If he is, then he may be shooting his team in the foot/head as that would eliminate any advantage. Something he is clearly trying to endorse, but only for his side (at least in his limited way of thinking).
Because they are public servants. Do we want to know when they need or want to take a shit? No, unless it happens at the same time as they claim to be apprehending, or observing, or interacting with a suspect. What if the 'shit' time corresponds with a shooting (provable by forensics that it was the officers gun) that is not near the 'shit place'? What do we believe then?
There are other things that might be 'discoverable' for the defense. All of them must be available.
There are some things that are not our business. There is some difference between what we think is our business and what they think is our business, but they work for us. The difference between what we think and what they think is not for them to decide. It is up to a court. Not them, not their union, the court. What is the court going to decide against? Things not pertinent to the instant case. The case might be criminal or the case might be about how the agency conducts their business. Depending on the case in front of the court, all communication are pertinent until determined not to be.
Otherwise, we give in to them, and that is just not acceptable.
at least as understood by a socialist trained capitalist.
Petroff & Boshiroff may be trademarked in Russia with the limitations of:
"The trademark will allow its holders to manufacture and sell industrial chemicals and perfume, as well as operate fitness centers and travel agencies"
Like they wanted to be known, even if they didn't use their real names, they are now known. Suspecting for either of them to come forward for the ignominious fortunes redeemed by this trademark would be but a national camaraderie event. The FSB will be proud and totally understanding of making their business public.
Oh, and let's not forget the scent. There was a perfume involved, wasn't there? That's gonna make some...erm...really high charts, of the kind of charts that are beneficial or something...wont' it?
I should add, working with a software development company (early 1980'S) that was writing back end software (Accounting type stuff and some more) for an existing POS (point of sale terminal) we got involved as Alpha testers, and with that unusual access to the development team. Back then, what the held did I know?
But it came to pass that the first manual, the one for accounts payable, was not just good, it was really great. The next manual to come out (I forget which it was, but it was not discernible to any rational English language speaker) we were less than pleased.
Speaking with the owner of the software development company I was told that he had gone out of his way to find a computer illiterate technical writer to write the manuals. The problems was that he wound up living in the environment, and he learned. That learning came out in the second manual, and the owner could not see his way to firing his technical writer because he knew too much.
To this day, problematical or not, I see tech manual writers as knowing too much, when they should also know everything. Knowing too much means they can't explain it to Joe blow (the quintessential computer know nothing), and knowing everything (what actually happens when you install it in x and y and z environments, etc.) which might mean there is no need for a support department (given a certain quantum license for exaggeration). In some cases that might mean a savings, in others an opportunity for continuing revenue, and in others having customers who know enough to sue you.
Personally I would rather manuals make sense, for Joe blow, but have appendices that work for not just the rest of us, but for those who actually know what they are doing.
On the post: Thanks To Streaming Fragmentation, Bittorrent Traffic Is Suddenly Rising In Traffic Share
Missing an ongoing opportunity
I do use torrents. It is how I get my updates for LibreOffice. It is how I get my new Linux distros when they come out. If there are enough seeders (and there usually are) I get those large files very rapidly. Fast enough so that watching a movie or TV show would certainly be feasible. Even in the highest quality HD.
If streaming content providers were to use the technology and the programs are popular then there would be sufficient seeders for smooth delivery of torrent to viewing scenarios with reduced bandwidth at both ends. How much could they save? It might even help with the bandwidth shortage they (those that provide both connectivity and content) claim as an excuse for the bandwidth caps (yeah, right).
On the post: Study Buried For Four Years Shows Crime Lab DNA Testing Is Severely Flawed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I was referring to this statement. It is one thing for the Prosecutor to retest using public money, it is another thing for a defendant to pony up for a test (just how expensive is it?). Either way, the Prosecutor has a responsibility to get it right.
On the post: Study Buried For Four Years Shows Crime Lab DNA Testing Is Severely Flawed
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Next-Gen Wireless (5G) Won't Magically Fix The Broken U.S. Broadband Market
Churn
Also, since 5 is bigger than 4 there will be an associated rise in rates while data caps will inversely be slashed by a corresponding ratio.
On the post: After Fielding Third Case On Point, Court Finally Decides Curtilage-Violating 'Knock And Talks' Are Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: to protect people from the power of the government
None, they were acting on a tip. A tip to that is not elucidated, but what does that matter to them? They had a tip. They, under rules promulgated by the County did a knock and talk. A knock and talk about what? As you say, what street crime?
In Ohio this sounds like a tip to a misdemeanor. (misdemeanors require eight officers?) but we are not clued in to the size of the plants 'observed' or what their yield might be (I hear that marijuana is typically dried before use or transport for sale, but, you know, rumors).
So what dastardly deed was the SCRAP after? A bust, any bust, a bust that might justify their existence? And for that, they get qualified immunity with very little in the qualifications area.
On the post: Unintended Consequences: How The GDPR Can Undermine Privacy
Re: Re: Re:
No, I use Google, but have turned off all the available options to turn off. If they are doing more, shame on them and when they get caught at it, there will be more to turn off, ie. the new accusation that when you go to a Google site you are automatically logged in. That, I expect, when sufficient user and world commendation takes place will be disabled.
The problem with GDRC is that it mandates what Google calls Takeout (which I have never heard of until today) and which I presume is an opt in service. With GDRC there is no opt in or out. The platforms are required to make information easily downloadable.
The hackers are merely making use of that (unusual) ability. That the GDRC demands that downloading client data be made 'easy' is merely making targets for hackers.
That websites are inherently insecure is not news (ask the developers who asked for the budget to do so and were turned down, we hear from them a lot). That they do nothing about it is not news. That they don't do anything about it, given the demands of GDRC will eventually be really big news, and I suspect a whole lot of things will be done to secure websites. Especially after a few of them are sued for not taking appropriate precautions.
What are appropriate precautions? Time will tell as the vectors for attack will change. But there are things that can be done now (best practice stuff) and things that will need to be done in the future. Timeliness will become important if things are left as they are.
Websites will be sued. Users are stupid. 2F authentication is not the end all many think it is, (and yes that article is old, but what has changed?) What if you lose your Yubikey? What if your cellphone is stolen or lost? What if...what if...what if...? Biographical data (eye scan, finger print, dna, whatever) good for a login name. Password managers and a website that allows a 64 digit (or more if we need to) not just alpha/numeric passwords? Not many of them around, my bank won't and I seriously wonder why.
And governments demand things with unintended consequences that they do not perceive partially because they fail to listen to experts (at least experts that don't spend their time validating the outcome their clients want) and don't think things through because their agenda doesn't allow of any other outcome.
On the post: Unintended Consequences: How The GDPR Can Undermine Privacy
Re:
On the post: After Fielding Third Case On Point, Court Finally Decides Curtilage-Violating 'Knock And Talks' Are Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: clearly settled law
It is a mess, and the Constitution seems fairly clear. When they get involved in trying to read the Framers minds things get convoluted.
On the post: Unintended Consequences: How The GDPR Can Undermine Privacy
Re:
No, they mandated this:
So the GDPR made it easier and the platforms failed to be secure for their clients data. That doesn't seem imaginary, but it does make the problem more than just the GDPR.
On the post: District Court Misses The Forest For The Trees In Dismissing Constitutional Challenge To FOSTA
Re: Where was this?
Right in the embedded document it says:
and there were multiple plaintiffs, so deciding where to bring the case was not theirs alone.
On the post: Unintended Consequences: How The GDPR Can Undermine Privacy
Fake left, move right, explain up while moving down
Was it actually designed to increase privacy, or was a bunch of platitudes that supported one agenda or another thrown together so that it met a multitude of goals that were actually other than the ones stated? The process used to move it through the legislature certainly seems to suggest so.
On the post: Louisiana's Attorney General Wants To Break Up Google Over 'Bias'
Re: Re: The party the parties need but won't have
What we need is non-partisanship. Where people listen to each other with open minds, leaving their prejudices and ideologies aside and doing what is right for the majority. Doing right for everyone is a panacea, but if one leaves out their ideology and prejudices when making decisions, those decisions would likely be better.
It is sort of like talking about supreme beings. One side promotes their supreme being. Another side promotes their different supreme being. Still another side promotes their different still supreme being. And yet another side promotes that the concept of supreme beings is just ridiculous. So when one of those sides makes decisions based upon the dogma that is dictated by adherents to their supreme being it is possible that that decision is antithetical to anyone who is not partial to that flavor of adherent. When someone says in 'supreme beings we trust', everyone else has to ask, who's or which supreme being? The point is, that decisions need to be made without reference to any supreme being as there may be moralistic values in ones thinking, there leaves little room for reason, or anyone who is not of that particular moral persuasion.
The same goes for partisanship and its band-aid cure bipartisanship, and why non-partisanship is necessary for all of our well being, which necessitates listening and leaving ideology and prejudice out of the decision making process. So except for #1, we are in agreement.
On the post: Louisiana's Attorney General Wants To Break Up Google Over 'Bias'
The party the parties need but won't have
The thing is, I don't think it will stop anyone from actively listening to anyone who is not of their ideological persuasion. So what is the cure for closed mindedness? Teaching about tolerance in peoples formative years might help, but that would necessitate there be existing tolerance in the school systems, which we know does not currently exist. Which leaves what?
On the post: New York Times Sues FCC With Eye On Bogus Russian Net Neutrality Comments
Re:
I heard that Comcast just bought SKY. Wait till the try to wrap their heads around the rules over there.
On the post: In Which A Bunch Of Us Try To Explain The 1st Amendment To Jeff Sessions Concerning 'Social Media Bias'
Economic Competitiveness in Politics, new rules
Or is Session's and minions seriously trying to tie politics with commerce? Now there is some understanding that corporations are major players in the economics of politics in both the hard and soft money arenas, but politicians seem to attempt to distance themselves from what certainly appears to be graft (except when accepting checks or large bags of cash). Now we have a government agent with a fairly high level of responsibility telling us that political money should be competitive. Some of those corporations give to both parties, or both candidates as a hedge on their bets. Is Sessions suggesting that all corporate contributions be equally divided between parties/candidates?
If he is, then he may be shooting his team in the foot/head as that would eliminate any advantage. Something he is clearly trying to endorse, but only for his side (at least in his limited way of thinking).
On the post: California Police Officers Used Self-Destructing Messaging App For Years
Re: Big Deal
There are other things that might be 'discoverable' for the defense. All of them must be available.
There are some things that are not our business. There is some difference between what we think is our business and what they think is our business, but they work for us. The difference between what we think and what they think is not for them to decide. It is up to a court. Not them, not their union, the court. What is the court going to decide against? Things not pertinent to the instant case. The case might be criminal or the case might be about how the agency conducts their business. Depending on the case in front of the court, all communication are pertinent until determined not to be.
Otherwise, we give in to them, and that is just not acceptable.
On the post: Russian Company Wants To Gift A Trademark For 'Chemical Production' On Two Accused Russian Assassins
Re: Capturing capitalism at its finest:
Oh, totally forgot, there's this:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/14/skripal-poisoning-suspects-passport-d ata-shows-link-security-services/
Which was linked in the article above, but in case you missed it...
How could anyone set up a farcical, comedic, satirical, slapstick situation any better? And this was real life! Not actually copyright-able.
On the post: Russian Company Wants To Gift A Trademark For 'Chemical Production' On Two Accused Russian Assassins
Capturing capitalism at its finest:
at least as understood by a socialist trained capitalist.
Petroff & Boshiroff may be trademarked in Russia with the limitations of:
"The trademark will allow its holders to manufacture and sell industrial chemicals and perfume, as well as operate fitness centers and travel agencies"
In Russia.
But that won't prevent the next Ian Flemming, or John le Carré or Carl Hiassen or other from creating a slapstick comedy of how two Russian Laurel and Hardy wannabe's actually managed to accomplish a murder in the UK and at the same time enticed someone to make that trademark...well...known...as it is likely the only way for it to be known...for anything...except killing.
Like they wanted to be known, even if they didn't use their real names, they are now known. Suspecting for either of them to come forward for the ignominious fortunes redeemed by this trademark would be but a national camaraderie event. The FSB will be proud and totally understanding of making their business public.
Oh, and let's not forget the scent. There was a perfume involved, wasn't there? That's gonna make some...erm...really high charts, of the kind of charts that are beneficial or something...wont' it?
On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket
Re: Re: RTBF dyslexia
But it came to pass that the first manual, the one for accounts payable, was not just good, it was really great. The next manual to come out (I forget which it was, but it was not discernible to any rational English language speaker) we were less than pleased.
Speaking with the owner of the software development company I was told that he had gone out of his way to find a computer illiterate technical writer to write the manuals. The problems was that he wound up living in the environment, and he learned. That learning came out in the second manual, and the owner could not see his way to firing his technical writer because he knew too much.
To this day, problematical or not, I see tech manual writers as knowing too much, when they should also know everything. Knowing too much means they can't explain it to Joe blow (the quintessential computer know nothing), and knowing everything (what actually happens when you install it in x and y and z environments, etc.) which might mean there is no need for a support department (given a certain quantum license for exaggeration). In some cases that might mean a savings, in others an opportunity for continuing revenue, and in others having customers who know enough to sue you.
Personally I would rather manuals make sense, for Joe blow, but have appendices that work for not just the rest of us, but for those who actually know what they are doing.
On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket
Re: RTBF dyslexia
Now if manuals actually made sense??
Next >>