Did the editor at the Register die?
Seems there was next to zero proofreading of this article before publication. There are so many typos, grammar errors, etc., it makes it really difficult to read, much less take seriously.
94 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Oct 2011
"Why can't any corporation have some sense of moral responsibility?"
Because they'll claim they have a moral responsibility to their shareholders. Can't you hear the cries from the boardroom? "What about the shareholders? Who will save the shareholders?!"
"Why the hell don't our lawmakers fix this by making these companies responsible"
Because they know who's paying for their re-election campaign, and they want to secure a fat paycheck after they're out of office.
"There are idiots on both extreme ends of the spectrum, AC. Right and Left both have their share of moonbats all too willing to sacrifice all rights of a few, or a few rights of all, in exchange for the illusion of "security""
Sorry, but that's false equivalence.
First, the share of "moonbats" on the right is currently much higher, as is evident by the current President of the U.S. Second, the consequences of the right's agenda is much more severe. What would we get by following some of the currently mainstream "extreme" left views right now? A few more kids mistakenly self labeling as transgender and insisting their name is "Jace" before they're old enough to really even understand what they're talking about? More directors being fired for telling bad jokes? Both not great things -- but solvable.
Now, it is true that if you go far enough left or right, you'll end up in the chewy fascist center. But the vast majority of current "leftists" are nowhere near that extreme, where the evangelical movement in the U.S. has made "right" synonymous with "lunatic" -- unless you think policies like medicare for all, net neutrality, etc. etc, are extreme, but then you're just being foolish.
The number of leftists with truly dangerous views is relatively low -- and certainly not anywhere near the threat of the right's agenda that's currently supported by a majority of those identifying as "right". The problem we have right now is that the right has gone so far right that normally sensible ideas from the left somehow seem extreme.
On a visit to the KAUST campus in Saudi Arabia a few years back, the network connections available there MITM'd every HTTPS request with valid/signed wild-card certificates they were able to obtain from "trusted" CAs.
HTTPS only works if you trust the CAs your browser trusts. When some of those CAs give out certificates to government agencies for domains the government has no business having certificates for, then you really can't trust HTTPS.
No. Without regulation, eventually ISPs will consolidate with media conglomerates and start picking and choosing which services you get unmetered, which are metered, etc., etc. It'll fracture the net.
What good does it do you if you have a choice of, say, Centurylink, and the "Facebook + Twitter + DishNetwork" package that excludes or severely limits Netflix, or the Comcast package that does much the same but with different services?
Doubt that will happen? They already do it to some extent.
I think it's important to point out that ALL information security is through obscurity, be it a physical human guard obscuring your access, legal maneuvering to make use of it impractical, or private encryption keys.
In the case of encryption, you just hope the obscurity you've chosen to implement is complex enough that unintended decryption of the information is as close to impossible as is possible with current technology.
> "I suspect from your hysteria and rudeness that you are deeply troubled by something."
Yes. I'm deeply troubled by rampant peddling of bullshit. Further, it deeply troubles me that others are not troubled by this, or worse, enthusiastically engage in it.
> "when postulating one entity (God) will do the job"
And yet you can't really define what this "God" is. Is this god, this thing that can do anything and everything, not a complex entity? How did this complex entity come into existence? How does the postulation of it answer any questions with any degree of honesty?
Every god postulated so far is simply the ejaculate of mental masturbation. Deepity conjectures bolstered by unfalsifiable nonsense.
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
You completely misrepresent Eisenstein's position. He's basically just telling you to try adjusting your perspective. To not be afraid of challenging previously established science. To not be blinded by your bias of what you think you know. He's telling you to use the scientific method. He's not telling you to have blind faith in your hypothesis.
> "Not really... [Religion]'s more about attempting to answer questions that science can't answer."
Science has answered many of these questions. Often, the answer is "currently, we just don't know." It's the same answer religion should give you, if it was honest. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. To claim you do know when you don't or can't know, is not a valid answer.
> "Many of the famous names in science believed in God. They were clear on what science is about and what religion is about and realized that they don't really cross over."
Science is about trying to find the most reliable answer a question you can using the available data we have, admitting when you're shown to be wrong and updating that answer.
Religion is about taking the most unreliable path we've ever had to an answer: blind faith that the answer given is correct.
See where they cross over? Answering questions.
See what religion fails to do? Actually answering the question in an honest way.
"Google's policy for Android updates / security fixes have been known for a couple of years"
Doesn't make a 3 year life span, max, (unless you like flying by the seat of your unsecured pants) for $400 to $900+ kit any less obscene.
I blame the millennials... because they're retarded.
> 1. There are 4 pistons, which can only engage with the 4 landing legs on the Falcon 9 core.
I suspect they engage similar to the hold-down clamps used during a launch, holding the body, not the legs.
> 3. [...] but it's wheels (or treads) aren't visible. [...]
To the left and right of center there appears to be treads.
> Add it all up, and it seems the robot's purpose is to move freshly-landed cores.
My guess is that it's to stabilize the landed booster stage during transport, possibly using electromagnets to secure the robot to the deck.
It's great to see AMD finally stepping up, but what about performance per watt? I've yet to see any claim on how well it performs against Intel on a per watt basis.
Energy consumption in data centers plays a huge part in hardware selection, so it's surprising to see this left out.
What you're missing is "intent". You, nor anyone else, has established any criminal intent or harm in Clinton's use of a private email server -- and not for lack of trying. Was it a dumb thing to do? Yes. Did it actually cause any issues? No.
That said, Clinton should have been, and was, and length, investigated over the issue. Now, will you say the same about Trump's campaign and the potential of Russian influence, or do you believe Trump should be immune from investigation over this?
A warning, like most GPS navigation systems have, that detects you're moving, warns you not to use the device while driving and has you agree before continuing, may help a few people think twice before they inevitably choose to be an idiot anyway. (I'd like to say it would also reduce the risk of litigation, but someone would likely sue Apple because they [insert incident here] while reading the warning message.)
Still, I can't imagine the pain these parents are going through, and hope I never have to. Just about lost control of my vehicle last night, with my child in the car, avoiding becoming part of a nasty pile-up on i94 that was caused by a combination of icy conditions and, allegedly, a texting driver. Had I lost concentration for split second, I likely wouldn't be typing this.
"If you require full transparency in donations, you enable public intimidation"
One man's "public intimidation" is another's free speech. (Unless we're talking about physical threats, which we're not.) Corporations that invest in elections should be ready for the consequences if they support a candidate that their customers don't appreciate. There should be no anonymity in political donations -- only anonymity in your vote.
"Yet when you merely want voters to have to prove who they are (to insure against voter fraud)"
Bullshit. It's well documented that these are not to "to insure against voter fraud" but to disenfranchise minority voters. Please tell me where this rampant voter fraud is? Yes, that's right: "Redistricting".
So, let's see... We have dark money that has a proven negative effect on the quality of elected officials and policy. Then there's a claim of "voter fraud" having zero credible evidence to show it's actually a problem (unless allowing those with lower income to vote is a problem for you), but plenty of evidence showing that these voter IDs laws have placed an undue burden on those with lower income, reducing voter turnout for that group. Knowing this, you're all for dark money and voter ID laws?
However, since a search engine had indexed data on this open FTP server, this is more analogous to leaving your door open AND putting up an "Open House, please come in" sign.
Please read the more complete account at:
It's advertised as such on their webpage, and I've used the service in the past. But, regardless, it's immaterial. If you believe that a streaming service offered over your internet connection (not just the same wire, but same IP network), but it also available to the outside world should not be allowed to be zero-rated, yet the same service, offered over the same IP network, that _is_ closed to outside world, should be allowed to be zero-rated then you really need to think the situation over a bit more in-depth.
We're not talking about cable boxes here. We're talking about streaming to your internet connected devices, with no other connection than your internet connection.
" Comast's internal video service is likewise and can be equated to Video On Demand which DOES goes out over the cable and IS NOT counted as part of their Internet service."
No. Stream TV uses your Comcast internet connection to deliver content to your internet connected devices, but Comcast wrongly zero-rates the service. It is happening on the same IP network. Additionally, even though it has no real bearing, Comcast does allow you to use these services on other ISPs by logging into your Comcast account. Comcast is simply trying to fool everyone with a shell game, and make their bandwidth seem like a scare resource -- which it is not. You seem to have fallen for it.
An Intranet is for the END USER. Comcast is an ISP. There is no such thing as an INTRAnet on their internet offering. If they use a separate network (can share the same cabling) and separate devices to interface with their offering, like they do with their current set-top boxes, cable cards, etc., then they may have a case. But if your internet connected devices are accessing their IP offering over the same IP network, as their Stream TV does, then they MUST treat that traffic the same as all other traffic. Stream TV does not work without Comcast's internet service.
INTRAnet is for END USERS. When using Comcast Internet service, Comcast is the ISP. Not the end user. The LAN is local to the END USER. All of Comcast's IP offerings over the shared, and resold, IP network are now part of the Internet -- not Intranet.
"I can easily equate this to Bloomberg's private network and the Wall Street clients who use them everyday."
That is immaterial. In these cases, Bloomberg is likely not acting as an ISP. In the case that they are, they're not reselling an internet service with a zero-rated value added service to other entities.
"CORPORATE LANs wouldn't exist."
The corporation is the end user, not the individual corporate divisions on the private network. They are not reselling an internet service with zero-rated value added service to other entities.
"But the ISP is offering MORE than the Internet. Telephone, Cable television, and On-Demand Video are NOT Internet Services"
And, if any of those are offered over the same IP network as the internet service they offer, then they need to be treated the same as any other service offered on that network.
"by your logic, private LANs are ALSO on the Internet"
NO! Again, NO! A private LAN is the end user. If you start reselling your internet service to others THEN you are an ISP, and any other services you offer over that IP network are no longer "private", and must be treated the same as every other service delivered over the IP network. This really isn't that difficult!
"never goes out on the Internet"
By supplying it to you over your "Internet connection", it already is over the "Internet". The private roads analogy doesn't work for ISPs -- only for end users. The ISP is just that: An Internet Service Provider.
Google doesn't have usage caps on its Fiber network -- so there's no zero rating to worry about. Comcast is free to offer streaming TV service over its Internet connection, just like Google -- but it needs to be treated the same as all other traffic on the network, just like Google.
"customers will be able to buy access to the public Internet over that connection"
You're trying to add complication where there is none. If Comcast wants to have a separate network with their own offering over the same physical connection, they can (and do -- see: digital cable) do that -- but then you'll need separate devices to connect to it. The IP traffic coming out the Ethernet or wireless of your cable modem is the Internet you are paying for. All legal traffic coming over that network, including IP services offered by Comcast, must be treated equally.
"Using your logic my LAN is part of the Internet and I shouldn't be restricting traffic."
No. You missed the point entirely. Since you are the end user, you are not the intermediary. You are not an ISP. If you were to start reselling an internet connection to others, then at that time you shouldn't be restricting traffic to your customers.
It is certainly NOT where your ISP connects to the backbone. It is, by definition of the service offered, where the end user connects to their ISP -- note the "I" in "ISP". The moment Comcast begins shuffling IP traffic to you, their network is now part of that thing called the "Internet". That they provide a "private" streaming service only accessible to Comcast subscribers is immaterial.
There is nothing "hard" about this call -- Comcast is zero rating an IP service delivered over a common IP network. That is anti-competitive -- and that is a bad thing.
What part of arbitrary, non-universal, zero-rating are you having trouble understanding? Do you not get that it favors one service over another? Do you not get that practice will spread to other ISPs? Are you really that naive?
It doesn't matter that consumers want it. You can convince consumers that Homeopathy works and should be paid for by their insurance -- doesn't mean it's a good thing.
"No one is being held up for cash to get binge-on's benefits, and users can disable it if they want."
That the service does not and cannot include all video services immediately means that is DOES violate net neutrality. It picks winners. Services that are unable to be included in Binge-On are automatically put at a disadvantage.
If T-Mobile included an open API that allowed services and customers to automatically request that traffic to/from specific addresses/ports be throttled and zero-rated on a per customer and per service basis, then, and only then, could it avoid being anti-competitive. But then T-Mobile would complain that the API could be abused for non-video traffic -- and it would be abused -- so, no Binge-On then.
"Tech blogs took up the cry - although it wasn’t clear exactly why"
You damn well know why: It's because zero rating one video service over another is anti-competitive. Video services that are unable to implement adaptive bit-rate are automatically excluded. It allows the ISP to pick winners and losers rather than the free market. It reduces competition in the (in this case, video streaming) market. Reduced competition is ALWAYS bad for consumers.
On top of that, T-mobile's rules for binge-on are not exactly clear. For example: Why isn't YouTube part of the zero-rating, even though t-mobile has demonstrated they already can and do throttle it? How about services such as Plex, TabloTV, HDHomeRun PVR, etc., that allow you to stream media you already own, like recorded TV, etc., directly from your own home internet connection? There is no clear way for t-mobile to be able to detect and throttle that kind of service, putting such services at a disadvantage.
Google has answered that in detail:
Basically, they use data about atmospheric conditions that they collect themselves from their balloon swarm, combined with other sources like NOAA. That data is used when adjusting altitudes to catch different wind-streams, allowing them reasonable accuracy when moving the balloons where they'd like. With enough balloons, they can keep an area well covered.
"If Comcast is carving specific DOCSIS bands"
They are not. They are simply zero-rating data delivered over the same DOCSIS bands used for all the other content you're receiving. It's all on the same IP network.
What this does is allow Comcast to claw back cash they've been loosing from cord cutters. What will happen next is that Comcast will set bandwidth caps on their cheapest internet offering to the lowest amount (least amount of data) the market will bear. This will force price conscious customers to think about the data they're consuming -- limiting use of services like Netflix, Amazon prime video, etc., instead choosing to use Comcast's video offering because it doesn't count against their data.
It's anti-competitive and NOT a very good thing for the consumer, nor does it bode well for the future of the internet as we've come to know it. What we want as consumers is cheap, plentiful, bandwidth. What Comcast has available is cheap, plentiful, bandwidth, and Comcast doesn't like that -- they want to artificially increase the value of that bandwidth by making it appear like a scarce commodity.
Yes, all Abrahamic (and many other) religions are deeply flawed. We all know the Abrahamic God was a vindictive little shit. But you only need to compare the figureheads of Christianity and Islam, Jesus vs. Muhammad, to see the stark differences in how these religions shape its followers.
Please find me a verse in the new testament, or in any other text from the era, where Jesus goes around killing those that don't believe he is the son of god. Just one.
Muhammad, on the other hand, is all about dispatching pesky non-believers. Next to abusing young girls and subjugating women, it seems to be his favorite hobby.
There is simply no comparison. Islam is by far the most violent and bigoted religion [that's widely practiced] in our modern world.
Yes. I'm one of those atheists that will smear Christianity, or any religion, every chance I get.
But I'm also able to clearly see that Islam and Christianity are not even close when it comes to violence in the modern day.
You'll be hard pressed to find a verse in the new testament that says anything remotely close to:
Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?"
(Since the Qur'an prescribes death as the punishment for the crimes, by saying "What could be more wicked", the Qur'an is applying the death penalty for this.)
Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"
And from the Hadtih:
Bukhari (4:241) - "Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority."
Remember your history. Remember the barbaric actions of this beloved Muhammad. The "perfect" Muslim.
Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Anyone that claims this is extremely ignorant about Islam, deluded beyond belief, or outright lying.
Winston Churchill said it best with:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy."
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
Except in this case, the Islamic faith actively encourages strong reaction to those that blaspheme their faith.
Look at the lashings Raif Badawi, and many others that speak out, receive. Other are put to death.
Violence, even murder, as a response to blasphemy of Islamic faith is not unusual.
Like many other major religions, Islamic faith is a faith deeply rooted in bigotry and violence. However, while other major religions have generally softened over time, Islam is currently trending the other way.
And no, in case you're going to go there, it is not Islamophobia point out the this issues with the faith. I'm sick and tired of people constantly spouting on about how Islam is a peaceful religion. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but no, Islam is not a peaceful religion.
"You do realise that multimedia educational sites exist now?"
Where's the evidence that sitting children in front of PCs and/or tablets result in better education?
I selected the school my child goes to specifically because the students don't use PCs/tablets in the classroom. It happens to be the top performing public school in the city, out-performs most of the more desirable private schools, has a waiting list larger than the student body -- and all on a shoe-string budget.
$1.5bn should be directed to training and hiring better teachers, creating a better curriculum, and to support staff that can properly manage problem students so they don't interfere with the education of others.
"Unfortunately you get no benefit from the traffic and its costing you money. "
Your customers are paying you for internet connectivity, and they expect to be able to access services, like Netflix. Is that payment of "no benefit" to you? Did you expect them not to use the service they are paying for?
"all of this traffic from Netflix going across your pipes to another peering partner"
Netflix will offer you free caching proxies to alleviate that traffic. They will even offer direct peering in some cases. The question is, should you be able to throttle Netflix to force them into a separate peering arrangement, then charge Netflix for that f#ckery?
Re: "because they haven't been paid once"
Er, yes they have -- or does my $80 per month to my ISP not count as a payment in your book?
Re: "direct peering arrangement"...
That's simply another way of saying: "We'll throttle traffic on your current transit provider unless you pony up for a 'direct peering arrangement'" -- and that's _exactly_ what happens.