Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Exactly who wants critical thinking skills? (Score 1) 511

by fermion (#48225275) Attached to: Employers Worried About Critical Thinking Skills
Exactly. Employers want workers who can take direction. As an employee it is beneficial to be able to work around complex situations because this is what keeps us from being replaced by machines. It is not really a skill that the employers wants, or wants to pay for, but just a necessary skill for a worker who wants to keep their job.

This reminds me of writing. Employers have been complaining about writing for as long as I can remember, at least 30 years. Even in engineering school we were told that we had to learn to write. In high school we did have technical writing, but how much time was spent teaching accurate context free writing college? None, even though professors would tell us that employers were demanding the universities teach writing. Everyone says they want it, but not enough to pay for it. Those with critical thinking skills and writing skills will rise, and those that don't will muddle through and probably go into management.

Comment: This is really about controling the internet (Score 5, Informative) 546

by argoff (#48211713) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

This isn't about sexual harassment, but controlling the internet, and implicitly people in general. A lot of the powers that be have decided that, like other forms of media, they need to sanitize it in the name of control. (even with games, google gamergate) They want a name and an ID behind every post, they want to create "accountability". They gleefully ignore the fact that any woman, gay person, person of color, persecuted minority can take on an anon alias and argue their beliefs, do their work on merit alone. Seriously, how do we even know that Satoshi, the bitcoin creator, isn't a black lesbian? The internet frees productive people from race and gender in a way that before was never even remotely possible.

So maybe, just maybe, the people who want to make it an issue now, are the doing it not because of some high morality, but because they are discovering they can't compete on merit. But the issue is way deeper that that. In today's world, a lot of media and games are controlled via copyright, but copyrights by their very nature require centralized control by those who control them to work. Yet the internet is doing just the opposite, it is moving into the direction of decentralized control, threatening a lot of people, who happen to have a lot of money.

Comment: Re:Management only (Score 1) 47

by Curunir_wolf (#48208397) Attached to: Microsoft, Ask.com, Oracle Latest To Be Sued Over No-Poach Deal

The second page specifies "Sensitive Companies", which is a different agreement and does indeed cover a lot more than just executives and managers.

Actually, it covers LESS. It's just a "notification of recruitment" provision.

Executive Recruiting: Inform EMG of any Director level or above candidate who we have engaged and who is starting the interview process at Google Executive Recruiting: If we go to offer with a Director or above candidate, Staffing should inform EMG and EMG will designate a senior exec to place a courtesy call into the Sensitive company to let them know we have made an offer ...

General Recruiting: For any non-exec position, we should be aware the company is on the Sensitive Company list but there are no restrictions to our recruiting from these companies at junior levels.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48201391) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Agreed. As usual, the people don't matter in Washington. They ask for universal health care, they get Obamacare. They ask to hold the banks accountable, and the banks get a bailout. They ask for safety from terrorists, and they get the PATRIOT act and ubiquitous surveillance of their lives.

And that's my point.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48198917) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

I pointed out what the regulation says, with a verbatim quote, and you accused me of lying (editing it).

Yes, it's verbatim, but it's not the rule. You quoted an introduction to the rule. Here is the entire thing:

Based on the record,227 we propose a general rule prohibiting a broadband Internet access service provider from discriminating against, or in favor of, any content, application, or service, subject to reasonable network management. More specifically we propose the following new rule:

5. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48198523) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

That takes no "new" government regulation, just applying existing laws as intended. But since the government refuses to do so, people called for the government to make more regulations (on companies, not people or the Internet) to prevent damaging behavior.

Well that's how Hitler came to power.

BOOM! DONE! You can stop calling me names for pointing out what the regulations say now.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48196797) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Sorry you're so butt-hurt by the facts that you have to try to resort to offensive name-calling and wild speculation. Some people are such blind fools they just refuse to see the world as it is. The FCC have themselves stated that they would have different regulations that would not look like the POTS common-carrier rules. It's right there in the proposal. But I know you can't be bothered to read more than soundbites from UpVote, and can't understand more than 2 sentences strung together.

So I'll leave this excerpt from the FCC's proposed rules, for anyone else that may come along actually interested in something more than screaming and shouting down anyone pointing out inconvenient facts.

As explained above, rather than extending that common carrier standard to broadband Internet access services, we propose a general nondiscrimination rule subject to reasonable network management and specifically enumerated exceptions (including separate treatment of managed or specialized services). We believe that a bright-line rule against discrimination, subject to reasonable network management and enumerated exceptions, may better fit the unique characteristics of the Internet, which differs from other communications networks in that it was not initially designed to support just one application (like telephone and cable television networks), but rather to allow users at the edge of the network to decide toward which lawful uses to direct the network.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48192945) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK
Why did you leave out the "lawful" qualifier? Because it's in there, and it won't go away. What you're asking for, in fact, is government regulation of the Internet. And 107 pages of legalese is just the beginning of that. It's no strawman. You're ignoring the facts. You know the FCC is a former lobbyist for Comcast, don't you? Comcast is not just an ISP - they are also a content provider and copyright owner. You will comply with Comcast's terms and services if you are a customer, and I guarantee the FCC will allow them to do whatever they want, because they will just be "reasonable measures" to filter "unlawful transfers" and such.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48192583) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Net Neutrality is all about classifying the ISPs as what the other telecom and freight companies are: common-carriers.

They actually state in the rules that they will NOT be doing that. They want something different than the common-carriers rules, because it is "not like the phone system which used only one application." Here is a quote directly from the proposed rules:

As explained above, rather than extending that common carrier standard to broadband Internet access services, we propose a general nondiscrimination rule subject to reasonable network management and specifically enumerated exceptions (including separate treatment of managed or specialized services). We believe that a bright-line rule against discrimination, subject to reasonable network management and enumerated exceptions, may better fit the unique characteristics of the Internet, which differs from other communications networks in that it was not initially designed to support just one application (like telephone and cable television networks), but rather to allow users at the edge of the network to decide toward which lawful uses to direct the network. Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48192557) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Which rules are those? I've never seen "net neutrality" rules that would have the effect you state.

You haven't bothered to read them, then. Go have a gander at the full document. Since it's 107 pages long, and you're too lazy to read and try to understand it yourself, I'll provide a few excerpts. But first, let's check out the difference between "Lawful" and "Legal": There is a pretty good explanation here, but you should research it yourself. Basically, "unlawful" is MUCH broader than "illegal"

All emphasis from the FCC rules excerpts below is mine.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

The nondiscrimination principle would prohibit broadband Internet access service providers from favoring or disfavoring lawful content, applications, or services accessed by their subscribers, but would allow broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management.

Note in the above, we are now addressing not just whether content is lawful, but even services and applications being used or accessed.

The draft rules would not prohibit broadband Internet access service providers from taking reasonable action to prevent the transfer of unlawful content, such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.

Now a broader definition of copyright infringement is being implemented - not just "illegal" infringement, but any distribution not explicitly allowed is subject to "reasonable action" by ISPs.

The Commission determined that consumers are entitled to: access the lawful Internet content of their choice[;] . . . run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement[;] . . . connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network[; and] . . . competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Here, again, we see that what the FCC wants to ensure is that "consumers" can "access" content that they consider lawful. How far can we go? What if we need to ensure what content is "lawful" by ensuring that anyone, say, running a server, writing a blog, etc., has a valid license from the FCC to do so. Want a domain name from ICANN? What will you be using it for? Do you have a journalism license? Is your content lawful?

we propose that all the principles be subject to the needs of law enforcement, as well as public safety, and national and homeland security, by proposing separate draft rules on these topics. As explained in more detail below, we intend to leave sufficient flexibility in all our rules to allow broadband Internet access service providers to address law enforcement, public safety, and national and homeland security needs. Furthermore, we have no intention of protecting unlawful activities in these rules. Therefore, for additional precision, we add the word “lawful” to the proposed second rule to make clear that nothing here requires broadband Internet access service providers to allow users to engage in unlawful activities. The addition of the word “lawful” also harmonizes the second proposed rule with the first and third.

The emphasis above is from the original document.

As explained above, rather than extending that common carrier standard to broadband Internet access services, we propose a general nondiscrimination rule subject to reasonable network management and specifically enumerated exceptions (including separate treatment of managed or specialized services). We believe that a bright-line rule against discrimination, subject to reasonable network management and enumerated exceptions, may better fit the unique characteristics of the Internet, which differs from other communications networks in that it was not initially designed to support just one application (like telephone and cable television networks), but rather to allow users at the edge of the network to decide toward which lawful uses to direct the network.

Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.

I fail to see how ISPs would be doing this without actually examining content. It seems here that it would be required. And just what is meant by "unlawful transfer of content"? It has nothing to do with the content being lawful or not, but it can still be unlawfully transferred?? Do you really think all this stuff is copacetic?

Call me paranoid if you want, but I have reason to be paranoid.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48192433) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

And that's what Net Neutrality is all about.

That's what you would like it to be about - but it's a mistake to look to government (and the former Comcast lobbyist who is now head of the FCC) to look out for your interests. To them, it's about control. And if they can get you to support giving them the control they want, all the better.

Everybody keeps claiming that it will be like POTS voice regulation. But that was back in the 1930's. The FCC exercised much more control over television broadcasting, and they will implement even greater control over the Internet, if given half a chance.

Think for a minute about how Comcast, the FCC, most of Congress, etc., views you as an Internet user. You are a member of the "consumer" group, while the 5 media corporations are the "content owners". They have licenses, and you do not. They distribute lawful content, and your content will be subject to their terms and conditions.

Be careful what you ask for.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48189003) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.

I should also point out that there is a very clear difference between "illegal" and "unlawful". Basically, the difference comes down to control. "Illegal" means there is a law that forbids it. Assault, for instance, is illegal. By contrast, "lawful" means there is a law or rule that specifically allows it. I like to use jaywalking as the example. Except in very rare exceptions, it is not illegal to jaywalk. It is, however, unlawful, because the law only specifically allows crossing the street at a crosswalk.

That is why the proposed 'Net neutrality rules use the term "unlawful".

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48188927) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks.

That doesn't follow. Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.

It's very specific, in many sections, that the neutrality rules apply only to "lawful content". That phrase is all over the proposed rules, as well as the even more troubling phrase "lawful network traffic". So... how do you distinguish between what is "lawful" or not? You must inspect the content (or the protocol, in the case of "lawful network traffic"). The devil is always in the details.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 0) 472

by Curunir_wolf (#48188487) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

He should pay restitution to the victims, except that there are none. In the US, the Supreme Court overturned a similar, Clinton era, law on the basis that there are no proven victims.

But this is still "unlawful content". So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks. Because it's not "lawful content".

All constants are variables.

Working...