I think you misread the threading. PaulT's comment was in reply to the AC who mentioned a domain called poe.et, and did not actually turn it into a hyperlink, much less point to a specific sub-page which could provide some indication of what's to be found there.
That presumption (if it exists, which I think it probably does) is embedded in the existing law which exempts performance-review records from release. Nothing video-specific about it.
When an officer is accused of a violation, the disciplinary review which follows is an employee performance review.
In the course of such disciplinary reviews, video recordings from the body-worn cameras of the officers in question will be reviewed.
Therefore, the video recordings in question - having been used in an employee performance review - are performance-review records.
The possibility that any given body-worn-camera video recording will be drawn on in a future disciplinary review is such that all such recordings must be presumed to be performance-review records, in order to avoid having such records be already public (in violation of the exemption) when the review is called for.
Supposition, if companies are allowed to compete in a market that has a low barrier to entry then anyone offering a contract to people where they will not spy, will not create fast lanes, and will not bill stuff your shit hole every month will get the customers.
And if that happens, then by the very fact of it happening, the network (as provided by those companies) will be neutral.
There may not be rules requiring the network to be neutral at that point, but the network will still be neutral, and that is what matters.
And if market forces are going to lead companies to do an inherently good thing anyway, what's the harm in having rules requiring them to do it?
(Particularly when - as we've already learned is the case, from our current experience - the market conditions which lead to those market forces are fragile, and could easily collapse back into (near-)monopoly conditions.)
If those are the laws you want destroyed, why are you arguing against FCC regulation? Those laws are at the state level, and the FCC has nothing to do with them.
What federal-level regulations and/or laws do you think are restricting entry into the market?
If you want to argue against "the regulations that secure [the] monopolies", go right ahead! I'd agree that such regulations are almost certainly bad. (I'd also like to know which regulations you think those are, since I can't think of any at the federal level, but that's a separate point.)
Getting rid of those regulations would not require getting rid of net-neutrality rules, however, since rules requiring that the network be neutral would not serve to secure or entrench the monopolies.
Also, even in the absence of monopolies, network neutrality would still be essential - and while we might not need rules mandating it, they could hardly hurt. (Especially given how hard it's proving to get those rules put in place to begin with.)
The argument is that a secure backdoor could be one where any given ciphertext can be decrypted by either of two keys: the unique one controlled by the person who the encryptor means to be able to decrypt the data, and a single central key which is in the control/custody of law enforcement (or of a company which is obligated to use it upon demand of law enforcement).
No encryption-breaking is involved in that backdoor; it's just that the encryption is designed to have two valid keys. (This is also why they try to argue that it's not a backdoor, it's a second front door, or something like that.)
Of course, even leaving aside the problems with securing the central key and the likelihood that that central key would be abused even by its authorized holders, the counterargument is that a system which is designed to have two keys in this way would be inherently easier to crack than one which is designed to have only one key, because of the mathematical underpinnings of the encryption.
That counterargument is where I understand the "nerd harder" line to come in; "if you think making one that's not less secure would be impossible, you must not be trying hard enough".
Say google or facebook started slowing redirection or hiding links to other social media sites (or other sites for that matter) because they didn't choose to pay them or were competing with them.
Would that make you, as a person using the site, happy? Not likely. Well you could start using something other that google or facebook.
Not to support the position you're arguing against here, but... not necessarily.
If the reason you're using, e.g., Facebook is to connect with specific people (e.g., your grandmother), and if those people do not and - in practical terms - cannot be persuaded to use any other service (e.g., because she barely understands computers well enough to use Facebook and certainly doesn't understand them well enough to change her habits and learn to use something else, especially when her Facebook friends won't be there), then using some other service will not accomplish what you're trying to do.
Network effects produce lock-in, even among the technically, socially, and market-savvy.
Why should the customers even have to pay extra for the bandwidth?
You pay for your connection, and that gives you a certain amount of bandwidth.
If the demands of the site you're running over that connection rise to the point where that bandwidth is not enough and the visitors experience site-responsiveness problems, that just means you need to trade up to the next tier of bandwidth. (Which, yes, will probably cost more - but it would cost more whether you were running a site over it or not.)
If the demands of the site you're running never rise to the point where the connection is saturated at peak, then clearly your current connection's bandwidth is enough, and why should you have to pay extra for it?
(Okay, I see how I could get "of even of" instead of "or even of", but how the #&*! did I get "an online of context" - particularly without noticing it??)
For that matter, here's every occurrence of the term "ISP" in the article:
"giant ISPs" - clearly only talking about the big ones.
"ISPs are nervous", in the immediately following sentence - since the big ISPs are the ones cited in the previous sentence as taking action, this (explaining why they're taking that action) is clearly referring to the same thing as the previous use of the term.
"ban behaviors ISPs had no intention of doing" - not only is this also soon enough after the previous mention to implicitly be talking about the same thing, presumably the little guys don't intend to do these bad things either.
"consumers often don't have the choice of numerous ISPs" - since there aren't "numerous" big ISPs, clearly this must also include the small ones, but this also doesn't say anything (good or bad) about the ISPs except that in many markets there aren't a lot of them.
"the big ISPs plan has always been" - clearly and explicitly talking about the big ones.
"pushed by the mega-ISPs" - again, explicitly talking only about the big ones.
So... which of these usages were objectionably lumping small ISP-only companies in with the big conflict-of-interest multi-service conglomerates, again?
No, I read the other comments, but I felt it was still worth it to add my own. I considered responding to the other comment you mention, but it seemed clearly moving-the-goalposts enough that - particularly since I was running short on time before needing to leave for work - I didn't think it needed to be responded to.
You're the only person to have mentioned "ISP-ONLY"s. No one else seems to have been trying to talk about such an animal.
The in-game micro-transactions are presumably intended to provide players with an in-game benefit in exchange for real-world money.
If players can get either those same benefits, or other benefits which match them or make them irrelevant, without having completed such micro-transactions, then players can bypass those micro-transactions.
If cheating makes doing that possible, then cheating makes it possible to bypass the micro-transactions.
A troll is a person who engages in the act of trolling.
Trolling, in an online of context, has a meaning similar to that of the longer phrases "trolling for responses" or "trolling for a reaction" or "trolling for flames". In those phrases, "trolling" has the same basic meaning as it does in a fishing context, which has nothing to do with the mythical monsters (who, I'll note, appear in other myths way predating the children's tales you cite); that's a false cognate.
In other words, a troll is someone who goes looking to provoke a particular type of response, and is willing to post whatever it takes to produce that type of response, regardless of whether what gets posted is true of even of whether he(?) agrees with it.
The simplest definition of the act of trolling that I've ever encountered (that still seems accurate) is "posting with the intention of creating a furor".
It's true that the label "troll" gets applied to many people who do not fit that above definition, nowadays. (It probably got misapplied that way early on, too, as yet another way to troll people.) That doesn't make it an invalid descriptor, however - it just means that we need to be careful about who we accept as deserving of that label.
Not sure if it's even related to what you're referring to, but the traditional sound-effect of someone hitting the bottom of one's killfile is "plonk".
I don't think they ever claimed to represent all of it.
They called their new federation "the united states of America", i.e., a federation made by uniting American nations together into one polity.
It's only later on that the forces of linguistic evolution and the inexorable tendency towards verbal shorthand led people to abbreviate this name as "America", rather than as e.g. "the United States"; the latter is in fact still used, but the former has the insurmountable advantage of being shorter, both in letter count and in syllable count.
I agree that the result is an unfortunate over-broad claim of what might be called "name territory", but I don't think anyone did it intentionally; I think it's just a natural development from an unobjectionable name which people choose without realizing what would develop from it.
On the post: Vice Media Goes After Vice Industry Token, A Porn Crypto-Currency Company, For Trademark
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New York Police Union Sues NYPD To Block Public Release Of Body Camera Footage
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New York Police Union Sues NYPD To Block Public Release Of Body Camera Footage
Re:
As I read it, the argument is something like:
When an officer is accused of a violation, the disciplinary review which follows is an employee performance review.
In the course of such disciplinary reviews, video recordings from the body-worn cameras of the officers in question will be reviewed.
Therefore, the video recordings in question - having been used in an employee performance review - are performance-review records.
On the post: Harvard Study Shows Community-Owned ISPs Offer Lower, More Transparent Prices
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if that happens, then by the very fact of it happening, the network (as provided by those companies) will be neutral.
There may not be rules requiring the network to be neutral at that point, but the network will still be neutral, and that is what matters.
And if market forces are going to lead companies to do an inherently good thing anyway, what's the harm in having rules requiring them to do it?
(Particularly when - as we've already learned is the case, from our current experience - the market conditions which lead to those market forces are fragile, and could easily collapse back into (near-)monopoly conditions.)
On the post: Harvard Study Shows Community-Owned ISPs Offer Lower, More Transparent Prices
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What federal-level regulations and/or laws do you think are restricting entry into the market?
On the post: FCC Hopes Its Phony Dedication To Rural Broadband Will Make You Forget It Killed Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
...right. I somehow missed parsing the significance of "high-traffic" in your comment. Sorry for the misdirected argumentation!
On the post: Harvard Study Shows Community-Owned ISPs Offer Lower, More Transparent Prices
Re: Re:
Getting rid of those regulations would not require getting rid of net-neutrality rules, however, since rules requiring that the network be neutral would not serve to secure or entrench the monopolies.
Also, even in the absence of monopolies, network neutrality would still be essential - and while we might not need rules mandating it, they could hardly hurt. (Especially given how hard it's proving to get those rules put in place to begin with.)
On the post: FBI Director Chris Wray Says Secure Encryption Backdoors Are Possible; Sen. Ron Wyden Asks Him To Produce Receipts
Re:
The argument is that a secure backdoor could be one where any given ciphertext can be decrypted by either of two keys: the unique one controlled by the person who the encryptor means to be able to decrypt the data, and a single central key which is in the control/custody of law enforcement (or of a company which is obligated to use it upon demand of law enforcement).
No encryption-breaking is involved in that backdoor; it's just that the encryption is designed to have two valid keys. (This is also why they try to argue that it's not a backdoor, it's a second front door, or something like that.)
Of course, even leaving aside the problems with securing the central key and the likelihood that that central key would be abused even by its authorized holders, the counterargument is that a system which is designed to have two keys in this way would be inherently easier to crack than one which is designed to have only one key, because of the mathematical underpinnings of the encryption.
That counterargument is where I understand the "nerd harder" line to come in; "if you think making one that's not less secure would be impossible, you must not be trying hard enough".
On the post: FCC Hopes Its Phony Dedication To Rural Broadband Will Make You Forget It Killed Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
FYI? That's "Chip"; he's an intentional parody.
On the post: FCC Hopes Its Phony Dedication To Rural Broadband Will Make You Forget It Killed Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Not to support the position you're arguing against here, but... not necessarily.
If the reason you're using, e.g., Facebook is to connect with specific people (e.g., your grandmother), and if those people do not and - in practical terms - cannot be persuaded to use any other service (e.g., because she barely understands computers well enough to use Facebook and certainly doesn't understand them well enough to change her habits and learn to use something else, especially when her Facebook friends won't be there), then using some other service will not accomplish what you're trying to do.
Network effects produce lock-in, even among the technically, socially, and market-savvy.
On the post: FCC Hopes Its Phony Dedication To Rural Broadband Will Make You Forget It Killed Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
You pay for your connection, and that gives you a certain amount of bandwidth.
If the demands of the site you're running over that connection rise to the point where that bandwidth is not enough and the visitors experience site-responsiveness problems, that just means you need to trade up to the next tier of bandwidth. (Which, yes, will probably cost more - but it would cost more whether you were running a site over it or not.)
If the demands of the site you're running never rise to the point where the connection is saturated at peak, then clearly your current connection's bandwidth is enough, and why should you have to pay extra for it?
On the post: Censorship By Weaponizing Free Speech: Rethinking How The Marketplace Of Ideas Works
Re: Re: Now there's a thing...
On the post: AT&T's Bogus 'Internet Bill Of Rights' Aims To Undermine Net Neutrality, Foist Regulation Upon Silicon Valley Competitors
Re: Re: Re: These are not ISPs...
For that matter, here's every occurrence of the term "ISP" in the article:
"giant ISPs" - clearly only talking about the big ones.
"ISPs are nervous", in the immediately following sentence - since the big ISPs are the ones cited in the previous sentence as taking action, this (explaining why they're taking that action) is clearly referring to the same thing as the previous use of the term.
"ban behaviors ISPs had no intention of doing" - not only is this also soon enough after the previous mention to implicitly be talking about the same thing, presumably the little guys don't intend to do these bad things either.
"consumers often don't have the choice of numerous ISPs" - since there aren't "numerous" big ISPs, clearly this must also include the small ones, but this also doesn't say anything (good or bad) about the ISPs except that in many markets there aren't a lot of them.
"the big ISPs plan has always been" - clearly and explicitly talking about the big ones.
So... which of these usages were objectionably lumping small ISP-only companies in with the big conflict-of-interest multi-service conglomerates, again?
On the post: AT&T's Bogus 'Internet Bill Of Rights' Aims To Undermine Net Neutrality, Foist Regulation Upon Silicon Valley Competitors
Re: Re: Re: These are not ISPs...
You're the only person to have mentioned "ISP-ONLY"s. No one else seems to have been trying to talk about such an animal.
On the post: Denuvo Sold To Irdeto, Which Boasts Of Acquiring 'The World Leader In Gaming Security'
Re:
If players can get either those same benefits, or other benefits which match them or make them irrelevant, without having completed such micro-transactions, then players can bypass those micro-transactions.
If cheating makes doing that possible, then cheating makes it possible to bypass the micro-transactions.
On the post: Censorship By Weaponizing Free Speech: Rethinking How The Marketplace Of Ideas Works
Re: Now there's a thing...
A troll is a person who engages in the act of trolling.
Trolling, in an online of context, has a meaning similar to that of the longer phrases "trolling for responses" or "trolling for a reaction" or "trolling for flames". In those phrases, "trolling" has the same basic meaning as it does in a fishing context, which has nothing to do with the mythical monsters (who, I'll note, appear in other myths way predating the children's tales you cite); that's a false cognate.
In other words, a troll is someone who goes looking to provoke a particular type of response, and is willing to post whatever it takes to produce that type of response, regardless of whether what gets posted is true of even of whether he(?) agrees with it.
The simplest definition of the act of trolling that I've ever encountered (that still seems accurate) is "posting with the intention of creating a furor".
It's true that the label "troll" gets applied to many people who do not fit that above definition, nowadays. (It probably got misapplied that way early on, too, as yet another way to troll people.) That doesn't make it an invalid descriptor, however - it just means that we need to be careful about who we accept as deserving of that label.
On the post: AT&T's Bogus 'Internet Bill Of Rights' Aims To Undermine Net Neutrality, Foist Regulation Upon Silicon Valley Competitors
Re: These are not ISPs...
Some (nowadays, probably almost all) companies which do this also do other things, including providing services on / over the Internet.
This just means that they are also other things; it does not mean that they are not Internet-service providers.
On the post: A Perfect Storm Of Comcast Unaccountability Is Brewing
Re: Re: Re: Re: President Trump is a reasonable man...
On the post: A Perfect Storm Of Comcast Unaccountability Is Brewing
Re: Re: President Trump is a reasonable man...
On the post: Marriott Freezes Its Social Media Globally, And Makes Grovelling Apology To China, All For A Drop-Down Menu And Liking A Tweet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagine in the U.S...
They called their new federation "the united states of America", i.e., a federation made by uniting American nations together into one polity.
It's only later on that the forces of linguistic evolution and the inexorable tendency towards verbal shorthand led people to abbreviate this name as "America", rather than as e.g. "the United States"; the latter is in fact still used, but the former has the insurmountable advantage of being shorter, both in letter count and in syllable count.
I agree that the result is an unfortunate over-broad claim of what might be called "name territory", but I don't think anyone did it intentionally; I think it's just a natural development from an unobjectionable name which people choose without realizing what would develop from it.
Next >>