If security researchers in the US are in danger because of the code they work with, then using my special psychic powers, I can foresee what is going to happen.
Yes.
The fog is clearing, I am getting a vision . . .
Security research will be done outside the US. Other countries will have all the good hacking tools. The US will also not have done any real research into how to defend against attacks, because knowing how to defend against attacks requires understanding how the attack will work. Otherwise you end up with software like . . .
MickeySoft Maginot Line Defender ! Professional Edition
The US has no penetration tools and weak defenses . . . and . . . something major is happening now . . .
Actually the power companies could make a very similar argument to what Verizon was with Netflix.
Certain types of appliances put a much heavier load on the electric utility grid than light bulbs do.
Therefore, makers of those large energy consuming appliances should have to pay electric utilities an 'interconnect fee' to wire such heavy loads to the incoming utility service. Just as Netflix should pay Verizon for the amount of bandwidth that netflix uses.
That argument makes sense for the electric utilities to make. Verizon has already set the precedent.
And I think the water and natural gas utilities should take note.
Less visionary dinosaurs should adopt AT&T's ingenious model.
For example, the US Post office. If I exchange postal correspondence with certain addresses, the cost should be substantially higher. But incoming junk mail should be zero rated and not count against my monthly US Postal mailing limit.
If I need to send or receive more snail mail each month, then the US Post Office could offer a higher priced tier that allows exchanging more pieces of snail mail.
Electricity companies should similarly follow AT&T's lead. If I exceed my monthly killowatt-hour usage, I can move into a pricier plan. Certain uses could be zero-rated. For example if the electric utility can strike a deal with Maytag, then, use of Maytag washing machines and dishwashers could be zero-rated and not count against my monthly killowatt-hour usage. Or I could move to a higher priced plan.
Similarly, the water company . . .
Similarly, the natural gas company . . .
Thank you AT&T for getting it right. Nobody should have to suffer with a plan that simply charges a fair price by the bandwidth consumed without regard to how that bandwidth is used, or where it is connecting to.
Don't forget other terror tools in every terrorist's toolkit: * freedom of expression * freedom of assembly * freedom to move across borders * freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
What a bunch of terrorist supporters our founding fathers were. /sarc
If only Our Dear Leader could tell us what we are supposed to think, then there wouldn't need to be any debate about surveillance. And using the surveillance, the Dear Leader could suppress any debate by sending debaters to a re-education camp for right thinking.
I would like to address a platitude about the online exposure of music. From all quarters we hear that, this is the platitude: “We need to figure out how to make internet distribution work for everyone.” I use finger quotes to indicate intellectual distance between myself and the quotation. I have a friend, Tim Midgett, who uses three fingers for finger quotes to indicate extra irony. . . . .
I disagree with this rather inoffensive platitude. It’s innocuous and vapid and fills the air after someone asks the question, “How is the music scene these days?” And it maintains hope that the current state of affairs as mentioned, presumed to be tragic, can be changed for the better. For “everyone”. That word everyone is important to the people using the sentence. In their mind the physical distribution model worked for everyone. But the new one does not. Not yet, not yet. Not until we “figure it out”. I’m sure we’re all going to get tired of me doing that [air quotes].
I disagree that the old way is better. And I do not believe this sentence to be true: “We need to figure out how to make this digital distribution work for everyone.” I disagree with it because within its mundane language are tacit assumptions: the framework of an exploitative system that I have been at odds with my whole creative life. Inside that trite sentence, “We need to figure out how to make this work for everyone,” hides the skeleton of a monster.
Originally I was thinking in terms of free and totally neutral internet access. Subsidized by someone. As it started above.
I think along the way I conflated that with paid internet access. Ideally paid internet access should be neutral. It should be cheap enough that it is irrelevant what sites you use.
Free: * free as in speech or as in freedom (open source) * free as in beer (freeware) * free as in the first hit is free (called 'microsoft' free)
Open: * open as in transparent * open as in available for anyone to use * open as in a roach motel, fruit fly trap, or Venus fly trap * open as how a leech opens your vein to suck out patent royalties
I suppose I could understand that if you consider Wikipedia to be 'in competition' with anything. I guess I do not.
As I said before, Wikipedia has its problems. Overall, I still think it is a valuable resource for everyone and would encourage that access to it should not count towards internet connection limits.
Similarly, if there are other 'competitors', that are similarly valuable resources, I would encourage access to those to be free as well. It doesn't have to be either/or.
What would your criticism of Wikipedia be? Just curious.
I am unfamiliar with this. But the way you described it, sounds like Wikipedia would subsidize certain carriers (that they could come to agreement with) to not charge for access to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia being a large database of information seems like it would be beneficial for everyone to have easy access to. Especially the poor.
I don't see this as comparable to Netflix paying (certian) carriers to offer free, unlimited, or unthrottled access to Netflix. Netflix is for profit, and charges for access to Netflix. Wikipedia does not charge for access to its site.
Also Wikipedia's information is probably of more actual value to poor countries than Netflix's streaming of Hollywood content. Which probably helps to keep people dumb without going quite so far as making their brains explode which could trigger liability for Hollywood.
Wikipedia has its problems. But there is a lot of useful information there.
On the post: US Government Making Another Attempt To Regulate Code Like It Regulates International Weapons Sales
Re: Re: Fun memories from the early 1990's.
On the post: US Government Making Another Attempt To Regulate Code Like It Regulates International Weapons Sales
Re: Re: Security Researchers
On the post: US Government Making Another Attempt To Regulate Code Like It Regulates International Weapons Sales
Security Researchers
Yes.
The fog is clearing, I am getting a vision . . .
Security research will be done outside the US. Other countries will have all the good hacking tools. The US will also not have done any real research into how to defend against attacks, because knowing how to defend against attacks requires understanding how the attack will work. Otherwise you end up with software like . . .
MickeySoft Maginot Line Defender ! Professional Edition
The US has no penetration tools and weak defenses . . . and . . . something major is happening now . . .
. . . oh darn, the vision is doing dark . . .
On the post: US Government Making Another Attempt To Regulate Code Like It Regulates International Weapons Sales
Fun memories from the early 1990's.
But what about a textbook on encryption? What about a really good textbook? A book that includes source code examples and listings?
Last time, the US wasn't willing to stop people from exiting the country with a textbook in their hand. Maybe this time that will change.
On the post: AT&T: Broadband Usage Caps Are Awesome, And Preventing Us From Abusing Them Is A Horrible Injustice
Re: Re: AT&T is truly visionary
Certain types of appliances put a much heavier load on the electric utility grid than light bulbs do.
Therefore, makers of those large energy consuming appliances should have to pay electric utilities an 'interconnect fee' to wire such heavy loads to the incoming utility service. Just as Netflix should pay Verizon for the amount of bandwidth that netflix uses.
That argument makes sense for the electric utilities to make. Verizon has already set the precedent.
And I think the water and natural gas utilities should take note.
On the post: CIA Boss Claims That Merely Debating Surveillance Is Helping The Terrorists
Re: If only we had A Dear Leader
I would point out that police states have always had remarkably low crime, including terrorism.
On the post: CIA Boss Claims That Merely Debating Surveillance Is Helping The Terrorists
Re:
> to leverage that power for themselves
I would assume the CIA is smart enough to use their capability for economic advantage as well. Information is power.
On the post: AT&T: Broadband Usage Caps Are Awesome, And Preventing Us From Abusing Them Is A Horrible Injustice
AT&T is truly visionary
For example, the US Post office. If I exchange postal correspondence with certain addresses, the cost should be substantially higher. But incoming junk mail should be zero rated and not count against my monthly US Postal mailing limit.
If I need to send or receive more snail mail each month, then the US Post Office could offer a higher priced tier that allows exchanging more pieces of snail mail.
Electricity companies should similarly follow AT&T's lead. If I exceed my monthly killowatt-hour usage, I can move into a pricier plan. Certain uses could be zero-rated. For example if the electric utility can strike a deal with Maytag, then, use of Maytag washing machines and dishwashers could be zero-rated and not count against my monthly killowatt-hour usage. Or I could move to a higher priced plan.
Similarly, the water company . . .
Similarly, the natural gas company . . .
Thank you AT&T for getting it right. Nobody should have to suffer with a plan that simply charges a fair price by the bandwidth consumed without regard to how that bandwidth is used, or where it is connecting to.
On the post: CIA Boss Claims That Merely Debating Surveillance Is Helping The Terrorists
Re:
* freedom of expression
* freedom of assembly
* freedom to move across borders
* freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
What a bunch of terrorist supporters our founding fathers were. /sarc
On the post: CIA Boss Claims That Merely Debating Surveillance Is Helping The Terrorists
If only we had A Dear Leader
On the post: Steve Albini Takes On 'Parasitic' Record Labels And Copyright's 'Outdated' Illusion Of Control
Check out this quote
On the post: Judge Orders Newspaper To Delete Article, Newspaper Reminds Judge That It's In The US And The 1st Amendment Exists
Re:
On the post: Judge Orders Newspaper To Delete Article, Newspaper Reminds Judge That It's In The US And The 1st Amendment Exists
Re: Re:
On the post: Insanity Rules In Ireland: Media Ordered Not To Report On Parliamentary Speech
Don't worry, it will work
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think along the way I conflated that with paid internet access. Ideally paid internet access should be neutral. It should be cheap enough that it is irrelevant what sites you use.
On the post: Ford Pretends To Open Up Its Patents Like Tesla, But Doesn't; Media Falls For It
Words have multiple definitions
* free as in speech or as in freedom (open source)
* free as in beer (freeware)
* free as in the first hit is free (called 'microsoft' free)
Open:
* open as in transparent
* open as in available for anyone to use
* open as in a roach motel, fruit fly trap, or Venus fly trap
* open as how a leech opens your vein to suck out patent royalties
On the post: Ford Pretends To Open Up Its Patents Like Tesla, But Doesn't; Media Falls For It
Re: Re:
> and often don't make any effort to fix them at all.
For various definitions of 'fix', those publications definitely 'fix' them in Hollywood media outlet style.
By silently rewriting the article to say something entirely different.
By silently removing the article.
By going legal on anyone who criticizes them.
And various other 'fixes'.
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[x] Advertising
[_] Terrorism
[_] Think of the children
[_] Infringement
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re: Re: Re:
As I said before, Wikipedia has its problems. Overall, I still think it is a valuable resource for everyone and would encourage that access to it should not count towards internet connection limits.
Similarly, if there are other 'competitors', that are similarly valuable resources, I would encourage access to those to be free as well. It doesn't have to be either/or.
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re:
I am unfamiliar with this. But the way you described it, sounds like Wikipedia would subsidize certain carriers (that they could come to agreement with) to not charge for access to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia being a large database of information seems like it would be beneficial for everyone to have easy access to. Especially the poor.
I don't see this as comparable to Netflix paying (certian) carriers to offer free, unlimited, or unthrottled access to Netflix. Netflix is for profit, and charges for access to Netflix. Wikipedia does not charge for access to its site.
Also Wikipedia's information is probably of more actual value to poor countries than Netflix's streaming of Hollywood content. Which probably helps to keep people dumb without going quite so far as making their brains explode which could trigger liability for Hollywood.
Wikipedia has its problems. But there is a lot of useful information there.
Next >>