Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Interesting argument (Score 1) 112 112

FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service []

That doesn't say what you seem to think it says. All that shows is the formalizing of the ways they already had been treating cable internet. This was largely due to lawsuits and their response to them. There was absolutely no switch in policy which is why there was absolutely no need to release the newly adopted paper- there was no change in policy or procedure- just a formalizing of it.

Stop looking only far enough back in time that you think you found something. Go back further with the computers and computers II paper and the interim report to congress in 98. You will see this clearly was no policy change.

In what respect do you believe is cable service different from DSL in this context? And while I do disagree with you in this assertion, I have a somewhat awkward assurance of your error that Kevin Martin also disagrees with you as can be seen in the link I supplied above.

This is like asking in what respect is a car different from a road when all you are thinking about is traveling. I'm not sure if I posses the patience or articulation to explain these difference clearly enough that you would grasp it. First, cable service is difference from DSL service because one delivers cable TV channels while the other is a technology primarily for delivering data or internet access over a system for communications. The question you need to ask is in what way is cable service different from POTS service. The answer to this gives the answer you seem to be missing. You see, telephone service is regulated differently than cable service and always has been. Telephone service even has it's delivery system regulated where cable service hasn't. With cable service, the regulations have largely been limited to content restrictions and timing of content, equal access for conflicting views, emergency signals, and rates to some degree. This difference is because cable service has never been considered a telecommunications service where POTS has always been considered one and the law requires different regulations for them.

Yes, that entire common carriage thing was such a nuisance what with those regulated utilities having to open up their networks to allow for competition. And we can all see exactly how well this decision has worked our given that most of us here in the US pay more for crappy service than most of the rest of the developed world. And while we're resting on our laurels, let's not forget Comcast, who has achieved the distinction of being recognized as having the worst customer service out of any corporation in our country.

Maybe you should grab a tissue and wait a minute before reading this. We both see there is a problem, I'm saying that we do not need to cut the baby in half in order to figure out the answer and you are saying the baby should never have been born so lets kill it already. I think you approach is wrong and historically has never worked. Breaking up the bells largely got us into this situation you just cried about and we need to not only be smarter about it this time, but we need actual laws passed instead of unconstitutional edicts by unelected persons who likely will lose in court when the issue is pushed because of the entire history of the FCC countering their current position.

Yes, seriously, read the evidence and citation lists in their court filing, it's pretty extensive and relies on the FCC itself quite a bit in their claim that they cannot be classified as title II by law.

Given that the internet, as we think of it today, hasn't been around for 47 years, what are you talking about? In fact, it was the common carriage rules which made it possible for all of those independent ISPs to exists.

lol.. Do you think the FCC started only caring about data crossing over communications lines when the internet as we know it today was realized? They have been discussing computer data and what to do or how to treat it since 1968 that I know of. Possibly even earlier. The computers (also known as computers I) working paper was released in that time frame but also included reference to other works done as far back as 68 in order to differentiate between computer data and telecommunications. Like I have been telling you all along, this goes back a lot further than 2002 or most likely even before you were born.

On another note, how is it that you can make all these assertions without knowing who Kevin Martin was, what his leadership over the FCC did and what effect it had over this entire process?

It's quite simple. His contributions to the process is not nearly as significant as you think it is. He did absolutely nothing that wasn't already policy in place- just formalized it. It's like you think Thaddeus Stevens crafted the suspension of habeas corpus in the civil war instead of Lincoln and his generals. You found a name, found an action, and somehow seem to be contempt to stop there instead of knowing the entire story. Nothing had changed after Kevin Martin that was already in place before in regards to this.

You will not find any FCC policy, ruling, decision, or otherwise that shows it was different before Martin. In fact, I already pointed you to 3 different sources, the computers I, computers II working papers, and the interim report to congress on universal access in 98 that specifically show the FCC treating the internet as other than telecommunications. In fact, those three papers specifically show the progression of it being originally distinguished as enhanced services, to information services, and one even talks about the congress using the previous papers as specific reference in compiling law specifically to exclude the internet from telecommunications regulation.

You should try looking at the cites and evidence provided in the filings for the lawsuit. It will fill you in on a lot that you seem to be missing. In fact, I found stuff that previously escaped me. There is a very strong case against the FCC here and it is compiled largely from official FCC documents and actions.

Comment Re: Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 192 192

No where in your argument do you explain why it is ok to kill innocent men women and children with remote controlled drones.

Why should I argue against a bogus strawman from you? You can't complain that I'm defending a position that I don't hold, though I can see why you'd try to spin in that way, in order to avoid the substance of the matter. The classic strawman maneuver, used to distract from weak positions.

Cowardly, by the way, is spending your day blowing up women in children in vegetable markets or school buses because they are insufficiently Islamic, and then retreating to your hideout in a village, surrounding yourself with other women and children so that if someone finds you and uses force to stop you from continuing your campaign of preplanned, systematic murder of innocents, that with any luck (for PR purposes) some of the innocent people in which you've embedded yourself will also be hurt of killed. That's being a coward.

Your fabrication of a phony moral distinction between killing a mass murderer in an airstrike and killing them by sending in a battalion of troops in armored vehicles for a protracted bloody firefight (guaranteed to impact more innocent people) is especially craven. What you're afraid to say is what you actually mean. You think that, for example, people trying to set up schools and aid for innocent women and children in areas like rural Afghanistan should in fact be open to uncontested slaughter by your preferred protagonists, Taliban murderers.

Comment Re:Might want to reconsider paying the fine... (Score 1) 212 212

Don't try to embellish, the guy was flying a quadrocopter not a Cessna. It is a toy and not an aircraft. So that law does not apply.

That's not what the FAA says. In fact, if that neighbor had been flying his toy quad for $15 to check someone's gutters for debris, the FAA says that he needs an actual pilots license, same as he'd need to fly a Cessna. And with respect to laws against shooting at a Cessna? The FAA has more than once pointed out that they apply just well to anything else someone puts up in the air - weather balloons, RC planes, you name it.

Comment Re:shooter should have talked to owner first (Score 1) 212 212

If the guy flying the quad knows he isn't doing anything wrong, then he's really not under any obligation to go door to door telling people that, just like they might see an airplane go over their house dozens of times a day, they might see a toy quadcopter flying one or two hundred feet up in the air. If he's down at below-tree-level to make some shot of the offended party's neighbor's house, and has to cut through the offended party's yard at 20' off the ground, then good manners says coordinate in advance. But that (low altitude cruising and loitering over pissed-off-guy's yard) doesn't sound like what happened here, at all.

Comment Re:Where is the drone video itself? (Score 1) 212 212

Then where did they get the telemetry data?

I have drones that log flight controller and sensor data to a completely separate onboard memory device. The camera's SD card isn't where that telemetry is stored. In other cases, there is good flight telemetry recorded on the ground during the flight. Depends on how the rig is built, and which hardware you're using.

Comment Re:The missing part of this story's coverage (Score 1) 212 212

That part of the story isn't missing. The police who were on the scene decided he wasn't a peeping tom, wasn't harassing anybody, and wasn't disturbing the peace. To the contrary, they decided that the guy letting loose with a firearm in a suburban setting - not the guy flying his toy copter - was a complete jackass.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 192 192

No, you're the one hand-waving and using vague or - on the face of it - ridiculous language because you think it's making a point. Which it's not. Now we're talking "across the world?" So, you're willing to lump police in, say, Denmark or the US with, say, the police in China? So, when the police in Iran, working for a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship, gun down democracy-minded protesters, you're willing to lump that in with your all-purpose ranting about US policy? Your use of words like "countless" shows how anxious you are to avoid ANY sort of context, specificity, or intellectual honesty when it comes to topic. Pretty much like you handle everything you've been stamping your feet about here - all shrill, no substance.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm pointing out that you're not even MAKING an argument, you're just whining with no context and no facts to back up your "regular basis" type BS remarks. And you don't like being called on it, so you just trot out another vague bit of whiny complaining designed to distract from the fact that you're unable to back up what you say.

Trying using precise words that actually mean something. The act of doing so will focus your mind on what's real and what's not, what's related and what's not, and what's persuasive and what's not. Right now, you're coming across like an unprepared junior high school debate team participant that makes the classic mistake of thinking that sounding sufficiently emotional will change people's minds on something that's complex and important and far more nuanced than you're grasping.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 192 192

Countless? Meaning, too many times to count? But we can count every traffic citation ever written (millions of them) or count untold thousands of demonstrations where thousands of people gather in the street - sometimes burning down people's homes and businesses - without police firing a single shot. But that would take all the fun out of your narrative about "countless" examples of something that's actually very rare. Yeah, that's no fun. Let's not spoil your fiction.

Comment Re: Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 192 192

So now it's not the people killing the innocent people who are responsible!!!!!!!!!

Right. Just like those innocent exclamation points you just dragged in aren't my fault.

When someone who is in the business of slaughtering other people sets up shop in a place deliberately chosen to make sure that a fight against him will cause people around him to be hurt, yes, that's his fault. You would obviously prefer that said slaughterer just be allowed to continue to slaughter because, well, at least that way nobody gets hurt, right? Yeah. Someone whose weekly activities include driving around Afghanistan dragging school teachers out in to the town square and shooting them in the head for the evil act of teaching girls to read ... we definitely don't want to interfere with that. If ten other people who choose to LIVE with that guy get killed when he dies, that's definitely much worse than ten school girls getting burned alive every week while he goes about his jihaddi business, no question. You've got it all figured out.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 192 192

Shut up you idiot.

Yeah, you're doing a fine job of coming across as lucid and credible. There's a reason people are reacting to your comments as if they were shrill and unhinged. Because that's how you communicate. That you think that's effective says plenty about your overall world view, and says all anyone needs to know about whether or not you're processing your low-information take on things in a rational way. You're not.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 192 192

So there are millions of police interacting with hundreds of millions of people in the country, and that's your definition of "regular basis?" But the many orders of magnitude higher number of times that they do no such thing isn't a "regular basis?" Do you even listen to yourself?

Comment Re: Obvious deflection. (Score 2) 192 192

so I stand by the points I made

You just stand by it without acknowledging that the targets in question deliberate drag innocents into their mess, routinely using them as human shields. Regardless, you're of course trotting out that line without citing any actual authoritative numbers. Nothing new there.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 192 192

One has to wonder. How would the public react if, say, the Mexican government used a drone to kill a global criminal in Los Angeles.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that foreign governments HAVE killed people in the US, many times, it's a bogus question. The difference between Los Angeles and rural Afghanistan is that there's actually a law enforcement system and courts available for the Mexican government to talk to ... which is why criminals can be extradited to Mexico. There's no such mechanism in place when dealing with a murderer who's deliberate hanging out in the Yemeni desert because he knows that the only way he'll get arrested is for a large group of armed men (with the attending logistics and supply chains) to physically come after him, and probably end up in a firefight in whatever village he's using as shelter. Talk about a scenario that gets innocents killed. Or, we can wack the car he's driving in, killing him and his posse, who choose to hang out with him.

Show me a scenario where the Mexican government wants to go after a person who's been (for example) putting people with bombs on airplanes headed into Mexico City ... and the person is in Los Angeles, and the US government is NOT helping to arrest that person. Then we can talk about how Americans would react if Mexico had to go to extremes to take the guy out. But that's exactly the point: the situations aren't the same, and that scenario won't happen.

A more sensible question would be: how would Americans react if the government of Pakistan stopped sheltering terrorists and instead helped deal with them, removing the need to deal with them by other means?

Comment Re:Interesting argument (Score 1) 112 112

stupid American spelling

Except you're in an exchange with stupid Americans talking about an stupid American issue and stupid American businesses and their being subject to a stupid American law. And you're doing so on a stupid American web site with a primarily stupid American audience. I get it, you think we're stupid. Why are you here?

No it does not apply to the magazine when it is printed and sent via a truck and then van and then motorbike.

Why not? Some small publication with a small audience has no way to invest in a custom delivery method, and has to rely on a slower, more regulated, less efficient common carrier. But a larger, more successful publisher sees the benefit of making special arrangements to make sure their audience gets a more timely, more efficient delivery of their printed product. The analogy is completely valid. Forcing people who run private networks to not strike deals with large operations in order to move their data with priority is like making it illegal to make special arrangements to deliver major newspapers because it's not fair to tiny publications that don't generate enough interest to produce the revenue needed to do the same.

Waaaah! It's not FAIR that my tiny web site or tiny print material audience isn't seen by the businesses I deal with to be the same as a hugely popular site or publication. Waaah! Too bad. Handling traffic from YouTube isn't the same as handling some pirated porn torrent site on somebody's laptop plugged into a campus network at a school in rural Latvia. And that's just fine. Why should that student in Latvia have ANY influence over how a private network run by a company in suburban Chicago chooses to prioritize its traffic as it serves its customers?

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.