And for a real look at how nasty people can get, have the Lead for your area move away years ago and not nominate a replacement. What little control their might have been, vanishes completely.
And having worked for several companies that made the equipment they use, I knew the caps were BS earlier than most. You buy a switch with 10G upstream, then demand we change the software so you can oversubscribe all the customer links? We resisted for awhile, before the top execs started making threats to us, not the ISP.
I'm pleasantly surprised it's held up this well. I'm happy as hell that a lot of the things I worked on in my life suddenly get used the way the people I worked with and I envisioned.
I'm just hoping that the average person is paying attention to how many of the artificial limits are being shown as greed and will fight back if those limits try to return.
AU: Pay or Else
Google: Provide a list of every org that complained or we need to pay
AU: Uh ...
Google: Indexing is now turned off for those sources for a year.
AU News Orgs: Oh hell ...
So you might have to release your games on PC's instead of your restricted hardware? Oh, my, so NOT sorry for you.
There are $X in the market for games. You want to be stupid with platform restrictions? The market for that, older gamer's who remember those platforms, they AREN'T the future being defined by young players these days.
I'm in Washington, who is the New York Times? Oh, one of those old papers I'd never see, from a place I'd never visit, except that I see their name show up occasionally in Google News?
I want to build X. If there is no way for me to freely access the laws and restrictions involved, I can't be prosecuted for violating them? As I recall, a fair number of the complaints were made by building/wiring code writers, who wanted to double dip. Make money by writing the addendum's to the law, make money off the inspectors who have to pay to know the law and make money off the public to even have a guess at what the law is if they did the work themselves.
You violated code X, addendum Y, part 59.
Show me the public accessible website that documents that.
And US vendors ship switches from the factory with telnet enabled and default logins that are published in the User Manual. The customer is expected to be minimally smart enough to read the manual, do the initial configuration and then turn all of that off.
Vodafone failed the "minimally smart enough to read" test is seems.
A switch from the factory that you can't talk to in order to configure, won't sell well, so there has to be a few ways for a customer to get into it and configure it the first time.
I have never used Facebook because I never trusted it and I see no reason to do so no matter how many changes they make. The basic mindset and business model is still there, "Add more people, sell the data we collect about them."
They finally got so blatant about it that people rebelled, so they are making a few cosmetic changes, but who trusts that a year from now they aren't right back selling our data, they've just gotten more sneaky about it?
We are the product being sold, pick a company, it doesn't have to be Facebook. Until it's impossible to make us the product, I don't see this mess getting better.
That was my nickname for them. These are probably the same execs that thought a time protocol with an accuracy of +/- 128ms, could be used for circuit testing using packets with a round-trip time of 1ns or less.
They knew it was a lie, but those tests get trotted out to prove a customer is getting their contractual bandwidth and latency.
If they already had everything decrypted, do you think they'd be fighting so hard in public. I rather suspect they'd just use what they found and be fighting a battle for evidence to be allowed where the gathering method was a "National Security Secret".
I'm more inclined to believe that they are outnumbered by the number of people developing encryption versus how many people they have trying to break it, so that's why they keep fighting in public for their "only us good guys" backdoor.
So the employee's can only read and deal with the email request via their corporate Internet access, which would be using company resources for personal use, or they can go home and hope their residential Internet is working? :)
Well, not exactly impossible to deal with, just takes the will to deal with it. "You're insane, we're terminating service to you. You return to sanity, send a Fax to this number asking to be reconnected, after the one year mandatory waiting period."
See if you get a Fax a year later letting you know that the politicians and judges were the first up against the wall when the revolution came. :)
[Hitchhikers Guide to Germany, Second Edition, 2020]
Or it's time for ICANN to revoke the registry authority.
I'm an old fart, first domain from the late 80's, and the WHOIS database was required to be accurate. You wanted to know who was attacking your network, you looked up their contact info and gave them crap. They let the anon middlemen into the picture and that's when things started going to hell. Now, we're seeing the conclusion of that journey, nobody cares, or will deal with problems, and we're forbidden by law from knowing who to complain to?
UDP
And UUNET discovered what the Usenet Death Penalty was when the server owners said "Enough is Enough".
(untitled comment)
And for a real look at how nasty people can get, have the Lead for your area move away years ago and not nominate a replacement. What little control their might have been, vanishes completely.
(untitled comment)
And having worked for several companies that made the equipment they use, I knew the caps were BS earlier than most. You buy a switch with 10G upstream, then demand we change the software so you can oversubscribe all the customer links? We resisted for awhile, before the top execs started making threats to us, not the ISP.
I'm pleasantly surprised it's held up this well. I'm happy as hell that a lot of the things I worked on in my life suddenly get used the way the people I worked with and I envisioned.
I'm just hoping that the average person is paying attention to how many of the artificial limits are being shown as greed and will fight back if those limits try to return.
(untitled comment)
AU: Pay or Else
Google: Provide a list of every org that complained or we need to pay
AU: Uh ...
Google: Indexing is now turned off for those sources for a year.
AU News Orgs: Oh hell ...
Option C
Here is my receipt. You owe me a working copy of the game or a refund.
(untitled comment)
It's kinda hard to make money, when you have to include a $1 bribe with every attempt to beg people to fill out your survey. :)
Never mind that the survey only allowed for pre-canned answers that didn't match all the various ways we acquire the content we watch.
Too bad, so sad
So you might have to release your games on PC's instead of your restricted hardware? Oh, my, so NOT sorry for you.
There are $X in the market for games. You want to be stupid with platform restrictions? The market for that, older gamer's who remember those platforms, they AREN'T the future being defined by young players these days.
Who?
I'm in Washington, who is the New York Times? Oh, one of those old papers I'd never see, from a place I'd never visit, except that I see their name show up occasionally in Google News?
So much for that evidence
Tainted, collected illegally, inadmissible.
(untitled comment)
I want to build X. If there is no way for me to freely access the laws and restrictions involved, I can't be prosecuted for violating them? As I recall, a fair number of the complaints were made by building/wiring code writers, who wanted to double dip. Make money by writing the addendum's to the law, make money off the inspectors who have to pay to know the law and make money off the public to even have a guess at what the law is if they did the work themselves.
You violated code X, addendum Y, part 59.
Show me the public accessible website that documents that.
No, you have to pay to know that.
Judge: Case Dismissed bang
(untitled comment)
And US vendors ship switches from the factory with telnet enabled and default logins that are published in the User Manual. The customer is expected to be minimally smart enough to read the manual, do the initial configuration and then turn all of that off.
Vodafone failed the "minimally smart enough to read" test is seems.
A switch from the factory that you can't talk to in order to configure, won't sell well, so there has to be a few ways for a customer to get into it and configure it the first time.
(untitled comment)
I have never used Facebook because I never trusted it and I see no reason to do so no matter how many changes they make. The basic mindset and business model is still there, "Add more people, sell the data we collect about them."
They finally got so blatant about it that people rebelled, so they are making a few cosmetic changes, but who trusts that a year from now they aren't right back selling our data, they've just gotten more sneaky about it?
We are the product being sold, pick a company, it doesn't have to be Facebook. Until it's impossible to make us the product, I don't see this mess getting better.
(untitled comment)
That was my nickname for them. These are probably the same execs that thought a time protocol with an accuracy of +/- 128ms, could be used for circuit testing using packets with a round-trip time of 1ns or less.
They knew it was a lie, but those tests get trotted out to prove a customer is getting their contractual bandwidth and latency.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re: Re:
I'm more inclined to believe that they are outnumbered by the number of people developing encryption versus how many people they have trying to break it, so that's why they keep fighting in public for their "only us good guys" backdoor.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
See if you get a Fax a year later letting you know that the politicians and judges were the first up against the wall when the revolution came. :)
[Hitchhikers Guide to Germany, Second Edition, 2020]
(untitled comment)
I'm an old fart, first domain from the late 80's, and the WHOIS database was required to be accurate. You wanted to know who was attacking your network, you looked up their contact info and gave them crap. They let the anon middlemen into the picture and that's when things started going to hell. Now, we're seeing the conclusion of that journey, nobody cares, or will deal with problems, and we're forbidden by law from knowing who to complain to?
(untitled comment)
More comments from UniKyrn >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by UniKyrn.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt