If you read the details of the story, it becomes quite a bit less sensational.
The details make it worse because not kissing police officers asses resulted in bullshit disturbance charges. (e.g. retaliation)
Not only did the grownups at the school abuse their authority so did the police.
Have to love broad laws willfully designed to make everyone guilty.
When the kings dislike you they need to have a "legitimate" excuse to beat you down and lock you away in their dungeons.
How hard is it to cross compile an application?
The right to free speech does not mean a university has to provide the publishing infrastructure to make that speech.
No shit university can do whatever it wants.. as a result they can expect to be held accountable for propagating indefensible policies. Fact this university is state funded means they have to answer to more than just students.
By logical extension of your standards universities must also provide spray cans so that students can spray paint their thoughts onto the campus buildings.
Censoring content is not spray cans sorry.
After big data they will hire people to think and actually produce useful/actionable insights.
After that they will hire thinking machines.
After that
Cloud this cloud that... I'm sick of clouds.
If IAU gets to redefine popular language to align with scientific language having specific and unambiguous meaning why can't "Cloud" banner be wrestled out the clutches of marketeers?
Everything is networked running off some datacenter somewhere... saying "the cloud" is like saying "the thing"
Please I implore you all to stop being a bunch of sissy care bears enough with "cloud". Let the meme die already.
It isn't enough to simply look at the world as is. You must consider the world with universal deployment of kill switches and fully understand likely consequences as much as possible.
Stolen phones can be taken apart and sold for parts... Thieves doing this may well end up making more money than phone as a whole can be sold in an underground market.
If users have ability to opt-out then anyone taking phones by force could demand victim "opt out" putting owner in increased risk of harm v. lift 'n dash encounter lasting seconds. Further thieves could demand credentials to your online account linked to the phone and lock you out of it.
As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"..
There are technical solutions that could work such as a "fused" opt-in where physical device can never be opted out after an opt-in without mainboard replacement or some kind of secondary duress password to covertly signal theft... yet it seems obvious nobody is going to implement fuses and secondary passwords.
The argument that calling the carrier/police is not enough seems to hinge exclusively on the notion of phones sold overseas out of reach of carriers...
This as far as I can see means anything that would actually work while not putting victim at increased risk is also by necessity as oppressive as hell. Users should NOT have the means to lock their devices themselves as it puts them at increased risk of harm and to be effective it must either work OOB of both normal cell network/IP Internet or implement a heartbeat/watchdog with a central server to continuously prove continued availability which is one massive single point of disaster.
The OOB signal could be some kind of special backhauled PDP anchored to US carrier? I don't know enough to even guess how it might be implemented or if it is even possible.
As most technical solutions to political and or social problem I'm drawing a blank imagining a scenario whereby kill switches make a positive contribution to the world.
If people really want to cut down on theft maybe they should use common sense when wielding expensive toys in public.... or
Would you mind posting a pic of the wheel that you have engineered that would do better? thanks. Make sure to consider launch weight, and sustained temeratures below 255deg F among other things.
1. Nationally require body cameras always rolling while on-duty. Knowing you won't get away with unprofessional behavior = priceless.
2. Total national outlaw of plea deals because coercion is morally indefensible. This is supposed to be the "land of the free" not North Korea.
3. Total ban on performance/incentive structures having effect of perverting justice. This includes linkages between career status/advancement and prosecution rates and officer ticketing/arrest quotas.
4. Total ban on mandatory minimum sentencing.
Having awarded contracts for TLD's they are try to minimise the impact on those labels that didn't make the black list or that they were unaware of.
Minimization arguments are useless when there was never any articulable benefit to begin with. Selfish can't be justified no matter how hard you try.
That all being said they are the legitimate party to decide what gets added to the root zone.
If they keep it up they won't be.
At the same price point you can get last few years model of a real full featured laptop on ebay or newegg with much faster processors, more RAM and
They don't own you. However they are the authority for which names are added to the root zone.
They don't even own the root servers.
If ICANN continues to act in contravention of the best interests of the network there will eventually be consequences. Being an "authority" implies having obtained legitimacy. Acting recklessly and illegitimately for monetary gain undermines authority.
The RBDMS vendors that squatted on a TLD were not rational actors.
My example referenced reserved words rather than TLDs as an example of need for ALL sides to act rationally in potentially conflicted namespaces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
They knew or should have known that new TLDs could be added to the DNS at anytime.
Just because a namespace is conflicted does not automatically follow it must not be utilized due to unpredictable future in which ICANN is driven by self-interest rather than the greater interests of the Internet community.
ICANN knew or should have known from volumes of negative feedback it received this would happen yet they failed to act conservatively and did so for selfish reasons. Even if it can be argued separately operators acted irresponsibly it does not absolve ICANN of irresponsible behavior. Grownups don't get to simply ignore the world as it is because they claim to have the "authority" to do so.
If they wanted a reserved name they could have requested one or heaven forbid registered one.
Absolutely people have nothing better to do than waste huge sums of money registering TLDs further enriching ICANN whenever they create a TLD for limited use within their administrative domain.
This is like vendors that squatted on 1.0.0.0 address space.
Dirty space is allocated responsibly by RIRs only after efforts to clean it or where scarcity induced pressure overrides the possibility of a more conservative policy. Toward the end operators ended up with crud from the bottom of the tank by design.
Up until exhaustion if you ended up with a dirty block you at least had the ability to "take it back".
Firstly ICANN didn't just assert ownership of the root. They inherited it along with the rest of the IANA.
ICANN does not own me or anyone else. They can't force anyone to participate in their global experiments.
And the administrators gambled that no one else would ever register that tld. Sorry they just lost that bet.
I don't think there is anything wrong with making rational assumptions about the future. I gamble on the expectation RDBMS vendors act rationally with regards to staking claim to any new reserved words or system vendors to refrain from exercising their right to make irrational changes to APIs that would break everyone's software.
In this case it is clear ICANN is NOT a rational actor. Thankfully it takes little effort to opt out of their little experiment.
Step 1: Do not blindly delegate * to root servers or upstream DNS provider on systems you control.
Step 2: Tell ICANN to go fuck itself
Except if you have an AS and playing in BGP, there is a responsibility to maintain your equipment because it is a global network.
Being a global network everyone has responsibility including responsibility to refrain from unnecessarily advertising disaggregated routes.
FWIW, if everyone was IPV6, this problem would have been far worse. TCAM can hold twice as many v4 routes as v6, and the v6 by nature are more fragmented.
The only difference WRT entry count scarcity based disaggregation no longer occurs. There can be less if operators elect to act responsibly.
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand
