Facebook may be evil and may suck but saying they didn't give warning is false.
They actually gave warning way back on Aug 31, 2020:
77 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Oct 2014
You're lucky. At least the ISP web site told you service wasn't available. There has been horror stories about how someone called the ISP, got told there was service, bought the house and tried to get service only to discover that either all ports were full and they'd have to wait for someone else to drop service or it wasn't actually available.
I realize I'm replying very late but maybe you'll see it. See how each comment is indented? That shows who was replied to. Since my response was indented under codejunky that indicates my response was directed at him not you. As I'm sure you'll agree, codejunky's post does have a number of issues.
I'm more curious as to how any company will block "equivalent" posts. If I say politician X is a fat head and the equivalent has to be blocked how would posts like:
the politician has a big head
the politician has a large gourd
the politician has a gigantic melon
be handled? What filter could determine this accurately? How big of a staff would be required if it isn't automated? This seems unworkable.....
You're right the main problem with arbitration is that it's virtually always biased for whomever pays the bill. If the payer picks an arbiter and they don't find in the payers interest enough times the payer will select a new arbiter until they find one that does. This drive arbiters that are fair/biased against the payer out of business creating a uneven playing field. This is exactly why every company loves binding arbitration because they are typically the payers. The only way I see to avoid this is to have both sides equally pick/fund an arbitrator so if the arbitrator favors 1 side too often they'll lose half their funding.
I partially agree with you. I live in the middle of nowhere now and I'd love even 15Mbps, low latency and no data caps. However, the reason I don't agree completely is that the bulk of the cost for new lines is the trenching/labor/permits not the cost of the cable itself. So if you're already creating a trench then why would you want to install an inferior solution instead of a marginally more expensive and vastly better one?
I am so confused by your statement. Did you forget the /s flag? Have you read on this subject at all? The problem is that there is essentially NO local independent ISPs offering broadband. At 25Mbps 40% have 1 or fewer choices and 80% have 2 or fewer choices. I guarantee you that the 2 choices are more likely going to be Comcast and AT&T than Comcast and local ISP. As a result at least 80% of American's don't have a "local independent ISP" offering broadband to support.
One of the parts of the CA law I found interesting is that it actually doesn't out right ban zero-rating. Instead if says the ISPs can zero rate classes of data but not specific programs/apps/companies. For example AT&T could zero rate streaming music as a class but it can't zero rate Tidal alone.
I want you to explain how "everyone will win" if ISPs can charge for a "fast lane". I ask this because you routinely rant about how evil Facebook and Google are. If you allow ISPs to charge for a fast lane guess who will be able to easily pay for that? Google and Facebook. Guess who won't. Every other start up that may be better. I also assume you think that the additional profits the ISPs will collect from these fees will be spent on improving their networks. Again you are clearly insane since they have no incentive to do so because they have zero competition. I am completely confused by your claim "it then becomes a matter of choice, as to what brand you want" since in the majority of the US people have 1 or 2 ISPs offering over 25 Mbps. This point is also why your analogy about Chevy and Cadillac fails. People can't get a Cadillac because they aren't offered in the same area where Chevys are sold.
No one disagrees that Congress should pass a law regarding NN. The issue is that Congress is either
1. Stuck in an us vs them mindset. Republicans can't/don't care that their constituents also want neutrality rules and are fixated solely on opposing the Democrats.
2. Thoroughly bought by the big ISPs and will write a bad loop hole filled law. (See Marsha Blackburn's BS "Net Neutrality" law)
As such everyone is leery of letting Congress try to fix it.
Almost everyone agrees there is virtually no chance of this actually saving the old rules. However, I don't think politician's positions on NN will be only a minor effect in the mid-term elections. For example Marsha Blackburn's Senate bid is looking decidedly bad. She was/is losing by 10 points in a state where Trump won by 26 points. I haven't heard of her screwing anything up other than being an ISP shill so I'm assuming that accounts for her terrible polling numbers. But hey, she is an extreme example so maybe other races won't see that large of an effect after all but we can hope.
Theism is the belief in a god/gods. (burden of proof)
Atheism is the lack of belief either for or against a god/gods. (default position - no burden of proof)
Anti-Theist is the belief there is no god/gods. (burden of proof)
Think of it this way. I either have an even or odd number of blades of grass in my yard. Logically one of the two options must be true. However, you can either believe I have an even number or an odd number (Theist and Anti-Theist) or you can say I don't know because there's insufficient evidence either way (atheist).
Because it's off topic and your post is just shameless whataboutism. We are discussing Pai and his dismantaling of NN. If Google, Facebook, et al are an issue then that is something else that can be discussed later. Their sins (if any) do not excuse what Pai is doing so why bring them up? For more about whataboutism watch John Olivers segment about it.
I dislike discussing this topic as an analogy but:
You go to ship a package 1st class with the Royal Mail. First class stamps are advertised as 1 Euro and are delivered by plane.
First they charge you a flat 1 Euro first class shipping fee and then tack on 2 Euros of hidden below the line fees bringing your actual total to 3 Euros.
Next they look at the destination. If you are shipping to some place popular like Google or Amazon they charge an additional popularity fee.
Then they see if your destination has paid the first class delivery fee. If they haven't they will pick your package up from your home with a plane and deliver it to their local hub. From your local hub to your destination's they'll ship it by foot.
See the issues?
First they advertised a low rate while hiding a bunch of fees which greatly inflate the cost.
Then they want to charge you more based on who you are shipping to not based on distance, weight or speed.
Finally, despite paying for 1st class service, you STILL can't actually get that speed unless your destination has also paid their post AND yours.
I like the ad hominem attack opening. Very classy.
I'm actually suprised you actually mention illusory superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority) and then prove that example.
Your arguement is flawed since you assume that someone's skill and attention is "strong" for one of the "games". As you mentioned repeated studies have proven people suck at that judgement. Would your arguement still be valid if people were far (45%+) less skilled and more distracted then they believe they are?
You are also making the assumption that the driver/player's skill will always improve their odds. However, ham fisted attempts could make it worse and actually decrease the odds of success.
Finally, is the 1/1000 before or after your skill is added? If that is the odds after your skill then I'd still take random chance because it is still my best bet for success.
Will autonomous vehicles kill people? Probably. How many can they kill daily and still be preferable? 3,286. That is one less than the average number who die daily from humans driving (asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics). They don't have to be perfect. Simply better.
That's pretty rich, considering AT&T is responsible for many of the woes Google is experiencing.
KeePass can sorta fill them in web pages for you. If you've saved a sites URL you can right click an entry and pick open URL in: and pick a browser option. Then you can right click the entry again and select auto type. This will automatically fill in your user name and password automatically. Obviously it lacks the convenience LastPass provides since you have to fire up KeePass prior to going to the web site.
The lawsuit centers on the question of "is a referb the equivalent to new"?
Almost any site you buy from offers referb items at a discount. This means that businesses either believe referbs are inferior or at least that customers perceive them that way and so must sell them at a discount. Apple even sells their referbs at a discount. If they are "good as new" why sell them at a discount? Why even tell people they are referb if they'll never be able to tell the difference? This is why the people suing have a case.
Now that is a literal read of the T&C. The spirit of what the T&C meant obviously is that you can receive a referb. Of course, it is hard to feel sorry for businesses who will take a contract literally when it is in their best interest.
Even assuming YouTube paid out more it wouldn't really matter. The labels are gobbling up almost 75% post tax income.
While the article is a little over 1 year old I highly doubt the situation has changed much.
I agree with your assessment. It is obvious he dislikes Google, fair use, and net neutrality. He is certainly entitled to his opinion but it almost seems like all his articles should be filed under an op-ed section. At this point I can read an article title and with a 99% accuracy predict if he is the author or not.
First of all you do not need permission for fair use so I'm not sure why it keeps being brought up over and over. Now there may be disagreement over is it fair use so how about we focus on that and stop crying/whining that Google didn't ask permission.
There are four factors when considering fair use.
Nature of the copywritten work
Effect on the market
For the first factor the courts found Google's use transformative citing caselaw involving other "full-text searchable database[s]" as a "quintessentially transformative use."
The courts didn't comment much on the second factor.
For the third factor they found that while Google scanned the whole book they did not re-use the entire thing. The snippets are normally an eighth of a page and no more than three snippets are shown for any searched term with no more than one per page. Also some parts are "blacklisted" entirely including one full page out of ten. It also doesn't display snippets that may satisfy a reader's need like definitions or recipes.
For the last factor they found that the number of people who would be satisfied with the snippets wouldn't have that large of an impact on the market.
So if you think it isn't fair use then you either disagree it was transformative in which you disagree with prior case law. You can disagree that it is the amount looked at/scanned and not just the amount shown that matters. Or finally you can argue that the authors are losing a lot of money since many people want to see less than an 1/8th of a page. I personally don't find any of those disagreements compelling and agree with the courts decision.
Andrew's bad analogy is entirely predicated on that YouTube/Google KNOW that something is being used without permission.
How is Google/YouTube suppose to know if something is being used without permission? The song posted could be something the poster created, that they have permission to use, fair use or something they "stole". The only people who are going to know this is the creator/owner which is why they have to carry the burden of IDing infringing content.
So if that burden is stuck with the creator/owner what to do if something is IDed as unauthorized? The answer that Andrew advocates is filters. However, how will the filters work? Previous court decisions (at least in the US) have ruled you can use the ENTIRE thing in some cases and it still be fair use. This means someone has to manually review the content EVERY time something is flagged.
Andrew seems to think the site provider should do that because they are making advertising revenue and providing the service. I disagree and think that the content owner should because they are the ones who are making the claims and are making money off that content. Plus they only have to worry about what they own. If YouTube has to enforce copyright they have to look at every upload for every content owner. Further Google isn't responsible for what other people do. If they ran a swap meet they wouldn't be liable for someone selling stolen items so why should they be liable because it is a digital good?
Then this doesn't even discuss the abuse. Someone can easily claim something has been used without permission when they didn't have the right to do so. Or they completely ignore fair use. Which is what makes notice and stay down a bad idea.
At the end of the day the only real solution here is to either create a system where the goods can't be copied or to offer a product that is compelling enough people want to pay for it rather than get a knock off.
To address Paulf and Hellwig:
YouTube probably would have jumped all over Binge On but couldn't because most of their data streams are encrypted. This resulted in them not being able to join Binge On and ultimately them complaining due to Binge On throttling. T-Mobile never optimized anything. Essentially what they did was throttle both partner and non-partner connections to 1.5Mbps and hope the provider would notice and reduce the resolution of the video. Should the provider be unable or unwilling to do so all you got was more buffering or stuttering of the video. This is why everyone said T-Mobile was flat out lying about Binge On optimizing anything.
What upset the non-partners/users is that they were being throttled AND having it count against data caps while Binge On was enabled. What should have been done originally is what they are trying to do now. No throttling but using data for non-partners and throttling and free data for partners.
From the EFF's research:
"Our last finding is that T-Mobile’s video “optimization” doesn’t actually alter or enhance the video stream for delivery to a mobile device over a mobile network in any way. 2 This means T-Mobile’s “optimization” consists entirely of throttling the video stream’s throughput down to 1.5Mbps. If the video is more than 480p and the server sending the video doesn’t have a way to reduce or adapt the bitrate of the video as it’s being streamed, the result is stuttering and uneven streaming—exactly the opposite of the experience T-Mobile claims their “optimization” will have.
Given the difference between what T-Mobile implies they do and what we found, we contacted them to get clarification. They confirmed that they don’t do any actual optimization of video streams other than reducing the bandwidth allocated to them (and relying on the provider to notice, and adapt the bitrate accordingly).
T-Mobile has claimed that this practice isn't really "throttling," but we disagree. It's clearly not "optimization," since T-Mobile doesn't alter the actual content of the video streams in any way. Even the term "downgrading" is inaccurate, because that would mean video streams are simply being given a lower priority than other traffic. If that were true, then in the absence of higher priority traffic, videos should stream at the same throughput as any other content. But that's not the case: our tests show that video streams are capped at around 1.5Mbps, even when the LTE connection and the rest of T-Mobile's network can support higher throughput between the customer and the server."
So unless you subscribe to some odd definition of throttling (IE is something you do to kill something) then T-Mobile IS throttling (TallGuy has the correct definition).
So they are throttling. Even this wouldn't be an issue if:
1. When Binge-On is enabled and you're downloading from a non-partner your video wasn't throttled and it still counted against your data caps.
2. T-Mobile wasn't obscuring what they were doing.
3. It was opt in. Instead it is opt out and as such customers with unlimited plans are being affected by the throttling until they disable Binge-On.
So what about the slippery slope? The concern is that while Binge-On is currently free it would be trivial for it to stop being so. If it isn't protested now zero rating could become the status quo and that much harder to roll back later.
The problem with zero rating is it essentially does the same thing as throttling.
Let's make up an extreme example:
I offer a plan where you get 1 MB before I start charging $500 per MB.
I offer my streaming video plan for $5 and it doesn't cost against your data cap
Are you going to stream from Netflix or Hulu?
Now that will get people to use my service but what if I don't want to just get that measly $5 from customers. What if I want the big bucks? Well then I tell Netflix give me $5 million and I won't count your data against the cap. If they do pay are you then going to stream from Hulu or Netflix? Eventually I could charge $5 for the customer to access the zero rating package that includes Netflix and whomever else paid me. Oh look. Now I'm being paid $5 by the customer AND $5M from Netflix et al. How sweet it is to be a monopoly!
The whole point of net neutrality was to prevent the ISPs from picking losers and winners on the net. Zero rating is a way of getting money out of other businesses by threatening to cripple those who don't pay up. They can set any arbitrary bar for companies to be zero rated. Want zero rating? Send us $5M, a picture of your CEO wearing a funny hat, and a short essay telling us how awesome we are. If you don't our customers will find they have to pay $500/MB to access your service while your competition is "free".
Actually a key logger may be ineffective in swiping passwords from KeePass. In the program you can select auto-type. No actual typing occurs so if a key logger is watching for key presses it will get nothing. Another option is copying the password to the clip board and then pasting it onto the site. The program wipes the clip board after something like 10 seconds so it can't be copied later. This also should defeat key loggers.
I keep my KeePass files on a usb stick which is only attached to my computer when logging in. Would this exploit be able to still get the info?
Quote from Ars: "The third factor is Google's mountain to climb: the amount of the copyrighted work that's used. Google scanned the entire book. But that didn't kill its argument. Courts have rejected any "categorical rule" that a whole copy can't be a fair use."
As such you are incorrect saying at that point Google broke the law and it should have been the end of the issue. It is also why the court considered all four factors of fair use when making their ruling.
Please see my previous post. You can not keep looking up "snippets" until you get the entire book.
A quote from Ars:
"The judges also carefully analyze Google's use of "snippet view." The snippets are small, normally an eighth of a page. No more than three snippets are shown for any searched term, and no more than one per page. Google also "blacklists" some parts of each page—and one full page out of each ten—excluding them from snippet view entirely. Finally, snippet view isn't available in cases where a snippet might entirely satisfy a reader's needs, such as in dictionaries or cookbooks."
Ars Technica has an excellent write up about this. To summarize:
Yes Google is making an entire copy of the book.
No The copy can't be accessed by anyone. The courts reviewed the security and found it sufficient.
Yes Google shows small snippets
No the snippets are not replacements for the original work. In fact where the snippet could replace the original they won't show it. IE recipes. They also show no more than 8 snippets from a single source and they won't show snippets at all from certain pages.
Yes Google has links on the page if you want to buy the book
No they aren't showing any other ads
Finally the Ars article notes that researchers are also using this information to do research on word usage and such. Something that couldn't be performed if the entire book wasn't scanned.
I get the point of the law and it isn't just about people who committed crimes. Let's imagine there was an article about that one stupid frat who hung bed sheets asking people to drop off their daughters that named a couple of frat members. 4-5 years later those people have graduated and are looking for jobs. If you search for their names they probably would prefer that the first result not be them hanging those sheets. The assumption is they grew up during their time in college and should not continued to be haunted by that one stupid event. On the other hand I can also see how if I was hiring I may want to know that this guy had demonstrated misogyny and extreme stupidity at least once and I may want to keep an eye on him. The balancing of those two views is the tricky part. For myself I don't think the EUs solution is the right balance and so I typically oppose it.
So TechDirt wrote an article about one Thomas Goolnik who asked to have that article memory holed. An article about that memory holing then also got shoved down the memory hole. Now with the third story up:
I'm wondering if TechDirt will sue if he tries to memory hole the stories that can be found on the Google.com domain.
If TechDirt does sue (and I'm pretty sure the US will find opposite of the EU) then which court does Google listen to?
This is the first time I think that being technically correct is not the best kind of correct I've encountered.
Technically they are correct as long as they don't say unlimited at the advertised rate. If I offer you 10GB at 1GB per second and infinite after 10GB but at 56KBps you can still download an infinite amount after those 10 seconds have elapsed just very very slowly.