Posts by The BigYin 3080 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Any device which I did not install, I do not have the ability to fully configure and for which I do not have access to the source; will find itself off on a DMZ and behind a very strict firewall (if it is even permitted to connect).
I cite LG as one reason why.
When the system if fully under my control - OK, I might find that advantageous. When it is under the control of a third party - screw that.
"The Internet is a multi-purpose network and so better analogies would be with the postal service or courier firms."
Depends how you view it. You view the electrical network as "single purpose" as is "move the elcetrons back-and-forth". So is the Internet. Move the packets around. One purpose.
You claim the Internet is multi-purpose. Well I can claim the electrical network is multiple purpose. It powers TV, microwaves, MRI scanners and even time-stamps telephone calls. Now, do you want to be charged a different electrical rate depending on the device?
"I think Verizon's argument is that they should be free to offer premium services on top of standard."
What you think and what is in actuality are not the same. The argument is to permit Verizon of retard data from other sources and thus push their own. If Verizon want to provide a premium service, there is nothing stopping them going out and building that network. But they want to use the Internet (built by others) and then degrade that to gouge their customers.
No.
Fuck that shit.
Electricity. All power goes into the same lines.
Gas. All gas goes into the same pipes.
Even telecoms. Many companies share the same links.
Net neutrality defines the Internet and the free movement of information. If Verizon win, I hope their customers drop them like the steaming turd they will have shown themselves to be.
My experience is that they are slower than a person. I'm almost 2m tall - takes the machine an age to work out where my face is. But I am using a biometric passport, surely my height is in there? Surely the machine could say "Oh, I'll start at 1.9m rather than 2mm off the floor".
Peer pressure, mob rule, groupthink, circlejerk; yes, these are all a thing.
Does social media add to this or, by making it easier to access other opinions, detract from it? With all the walled gardens and filter-bubbles in effect, I am siding with "add to".
Has, what might be an interesting study, been over simplified for cheap and sensationalist journalism?
Exactly. A "false positive" (you'll get "false negatives" too). And this is the kind of censorship that they wish to impose on the nation.
The great-unthinking who can't work out how to install a net-nanny will assume this to be a magic solution and not take the time to educate or talk to their kids.
It's not a magic solution, it's pandering to the knuckle-dragging Sun/Mail reader and trying to score brownie points all "for the children".
They want to protect the children? Advise parents to get a clue before letting their kids play on-line.
Westminster can't even install the most basic-of-basic web filters, and yet Cameron wants to censor the entire nation?
edit 1: my mistake - I missed a couple of pertinent words in my first read. The requests were blocked. Good.
So now that Cameron knows local blocks work, why not just let folks filter their own connection as they see fit? Just like people censor their movies by (intake of breath) not watching things they don't like.
edit 2: Nice of them to mention that false positives are a problem. Do they understand that they wish to impose that problem country wide? I don't think they do. Idiots.
"Scots council cops £100K fine for spaffing vulnerable kids' data ONLINE"
Should read
"Scots council tax payers cop £100K fine for spaffing vulnerable kids' data ONLINE"
Were the managers who had failed to put the policies in place (or block home-working) fired?
No.
So nothing will change.
Civil servants are immune to any censure. But "lessons will be learned" and "core competencies will be reinforced". Then a few consultants brought in at extortionate expense to rubber stamp everything and nothing will actually change.
But our MPs' friends will be much richer, so that's all right then.
"provides access to SweetLabs' own app store"
It's cute 'n all the way Windows and Windows partners are trying desperately to copy the GNU/Linux package management system; if hilarious the way they are turning it into a total clusterfuck.
"Hey kids, Win8 sucks as. Here's a fix and a store you never wanted."
"A thief (or a so-called locksmith in much of Europe) does not piss around picking a lock when it can be drilled"
This is noisy, it attracts attention (especially if the barrel is hardened against drilling). As for snapping, an anti-snap lock will leave the thief holding a useless shard of metal with the lock still firmly in the door. Bumping? Well helloooooo anti-bump locks. Yes, if you buy a £10 piece of crap then your points hold. If, however, you throw some actual wedge at an actual lock you improve your chances. And one good lock at that, not six shitty ones weakening the door and frame
When we moved house we changed the locks after a few lock-picking classes. Eye-opener. Bumping is a piece of piss on a cheap lock. If you are reading this, own property and you haven't been to lock-picking classes, go.
The goal is not to be impenetrable - the goal is to be too much bother so bastards move on.
> And yet camouflage is still used even on armoured vehicles.
Nice try, and I did chuckle.
"Security by obscurity" is more like painting your armoured vehicle luminescent yellow and then getting all upset when people can see it. And, if you were the MPAA/RIAA/BPI demanding a law be passed to make it illegal for people to look at your luminescent yellow armoured vehicle rather than fix the actual issue.
But they didn't. IT said "not our problem", the library staff said "it's the WiFi, not us". it was only when it went public on blog/Twitter that the library saw fit to stop censoring books.
Paedos only rape 0.0001% of children, so that's OK too?
Terrorists only kill 0.001% of people, so is that OK?
Muggers only blight the lives of 0.01% of people, that must be fine.
Seriously NSA, you are meant to be smart. An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless of the number of people it affects.
ICANN needs to get a grip. .org, .net. com etc...these are all cool. They make (some) sense.
.co.uk, .co.us etc...also good. One is a UK company, the other a USA one. They make sense.
Of course borders change, companies move (probably to avoid tax) so locking yourself into geographic domain might be a bit short-sighted. Back to the TLDs.
.bank? Yeah, that makes good sense. Especially if they have strict rules on security, who can join etc. I am sure you can think of more.
.coke? No. .cola? No. .buttplug? Ah...no; no thanks.
The increasing number of TLDs will make it harder on users as well. Should they go to creditcard.com? creditcard.co.au? credit.card? Or my.creditcard? "creditcard" will also have to register everything to prevent domain squatters and abuse. A nice money spinner for ICANN.
ICANN - defenders of ICANN's wallet!
Also, if DMC can object to DMI wanting .delmonte; can I object to a company using my family surname as a TLD? Heck, there's a money spinner right there. Register surnames and then sell off big.yin etc. ICANN won't complain too much, more money for them!
...when I discovered my mobile internet service was censored. I didn't consider the site I was accessing to be "adult".
This just comes back to parents needing to take responsibility for their kids. Make the tools available. Educate people. But do not censor everyone "for the children".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
