Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Definitions. (Score 4, Insightful) 457

And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?

Only if your intent was to mislead spectators of this debate. Since clearly these "militants" would actually be fighting _against_ the subset of "militants" that the U.S. forces were fighting against.

So for the purposes of this discussion, *NO*, the people in group B would not be called "militants" because at least superficially, they are specifically the kind of resident native that our government at least claims to be interested in protecting, not executing.

Or perhaps I'm too intoxicated to be trying to parse your sentence. But the general idea is that there are some "militants" in foreign countries whose goal is to slaughter as many civilian US citizens as possible. And there are some "militants" whose goal is stay in their home and raise their families, and wish to harm no US citizen blindly (now, they may have a personal beef with somebody, but they aren't out to kill citizens due to their specific citizenship). And from where I'm standing, it seems like your comment was meant to somehow confuse the two groups. Probably your just a semantic troll. But we are talking about killing people, via remote control, who bore the unfortune of having parents who fucked in a part of the world that decades later happened to become very dangerous for people that stubbornly just want to live in the land they were born in. And the more of those we kill, and literally propogandistically write off as "militants", the more dozens of people will fantasize about suicide missions killing the appeasing populace of the country that accidentally droned their family member to bits, for being the wrong gender, and age, and skin color, in the wrong geographic region that happened to be their homeland, at the wrong time. Or so it seems to me.

Comment be extremely skeptical (Score 1) 45

Former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has had since September 2012 to respond to my complaint about GoogleFiber joining the "any kind of server prohibited to residential ISP internet users". His administration at the FCC refused to give me in all this time, a single sentence explaining to me whether they agreed with any or all of my complaint that started as a sub-1000 character 2000F complaint, and evolved to a 53 page small font dead tree document delivered by the office of my state's Attorney General asking them to take the issue back over. That was back in 2012 as well. I still wait for a single sentence suggesting whether or not network neutrality can be thought of bidirectionally, in the naturally as-designed symmetric InternetProtocol(v6 in this case), as giving consumers a right to provide their own independent (of any mandated corporate or government service affiliation) service via servers connected to their "neutral" residential internet jack.

Comment Re:land of the free... (Score 1) 404

I currently have an outstanding 53 page complaint with the FCC about how GoogleFiber's ISP terms of services seem disturbingly like a network-neutrality-hypocrisy-of-the-first-order attempt to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to deploy home-hosted services that are functional competitors to gmail. But Dave Schroeder, the Navy Information Warfare Officer who posts here, is still naive enough to think that this issue isn't about taking citizens servers and the empowerment that they manifest away from them.

Comment Re:Xbox One designed by NSA to expand spying (Score 1) 404

XBone is full of spying gear .. don't buy one. Problem solved.

Not exactly. Every android and iOS phone is nearly as bad. People who are able to doublethink have remained aware of this for the past decade. I mean seriously, use the android tricorder app and look how sensitive those accelerometers are. The thing can measure my fucking pulserate as I read webpages. I only own one because I'm the type that is so far gone they've already written their all-american orwellian self published scifi novel.

You're glib answer to the "your papers please" question is historically equivalent to "don't like showing your papers? don't leave your own property".

These human rights violaters need to to be stopped. There should have been outrage when yahoo turned over email account information to China, a government known for massacring it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful demonstration for democracy (in '89, as the doubelethinking chinese know it). There should have been outrage, when Google boosted it's profits and entrenched its market share and destroyed it's competition by partnering with the Chinese government to filter their internet-worldview of any dangerous reference to "Tiananmen Square" that otherwise had statistically significant results via Google's pagerank algorithm.

You are right, the government is still scared shitless of us (not much different than any other time in history when radicals threatened the established dominance of the white-male of the species).

The problem is that the powers of persuasion that technology has enabled for the government are so horrifying, that we are beginning to finally see defectors like this. It gives me some hope.

Comment editors: afaict jahard did not write that (Score 1) 50

I think someone erred and the first line should read something like "Forbes journalists writes..." rather than "jahard writes". Unless of course user jahard is the same person as the Forbes reporter, in which case disregard. But being the penultimate Google "Hater", I figured I'd take the time to spill some of that deserved hate on /., if appropriate.

Comment Re:Could someone with privacy concerns please resp (Score 1) 205

In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?

agree, strongly. Thanks for the vocalizing of the issue which has been remarkably off the public debate radar for the last 10 years.

Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?

agree again.

I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues

Thanks in advance.

Well, I guess I addressed them by agreeing with them. And I think the emphasis of my remaining 'criticism' here (other than being a Google critic for network neutrality hypocrisy[1]), is that I find enlightening the recent lawsuits against android manufacturers that they patch or replace known insecure consumer mobile phones in operation. That issue, and at least what makes it a real issue even if you disagree with the prescribed solution, is a big deal. And Google Glass is just a little I/O attachment for mobile phones. Bluetooth headset +video in/out. Ok, whatever.


Comment Re:PSA:Evil-ToS:No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 1) 408

Ok, let's do this-

Look up Kansas City Startup Village. It is a small business park that has Google fiber. Kansas City and Google both brag about this. There are many businesses in there that host servers and Google does not care. Google is actively encouraging Internet start ups.

Google is only paying lip service to 'garage internet startups' -

This issue to me, is about what an average, er, *every* average joe should be able to expect from something sold as an "internet service". I believe it means the full use of the *symmetric* nature of the Internet Protocol (v6 as advertised here).

Comparing apples to oranges, but the "No Servers" in the ToS is similar to the Google Docs ToS requiring that you give them copyright permissions.

Uhh... right, yeah, both those things sound pretty insane and in need of sanity rewriting to me (as you described them).

The legalistic nature of the USA effectively makes ISPs put in a "No Server" clause, otherwise the ISP would have nothing to fall back on if someone was using the network is an obviously abusive manner.

This is the kind of line I might expect to hear from Google's defense lawyers. But it is stupid if you actually read it as something purporting to be a logical sentence. I.e. it is *precisely* the legalistic nature of the USA that gives everyone involved *countless* methods of fallback if someone is enganging in using the network in an obviously abusive manner. I've heard defenses that complain about making it easier to set up phishing fake sites. I.e. my own paypal website with the content copied to my own apache server and malicious code added. You know what laws that violates? Fraud. Logo/trademark. Copyright. And probably no less than a dozen others. It is purely insane to suggest that cutting off the power of hosting servers/services to the vast class of internet users known as residential users is the only way to deal with such things. Again, it is *precisely* the legalistic nature of the USA that makes such a "No Server" clause as the only claimed solution to those issues, INSANE!!!

I have a local ISP that has a ToS that explicitly states that they are net neutral. You cannot "host servers", but they also state that they will not watch your traffic for any reason other than requested by law or by the end user and they will not traffic shape or block any traffic. Well then, why put in a "No Server" clause in your ToS if you have no way of detecting? If you decide to host up a service and a competitor decides to DDoS your connection and the ISP goes, WTF is this 10Gb of traffic hitting our trunk?! Then they can fall-back to the ToS and say "You're running a server, stop it or get disconnected".

translation: protecting against DDoS on the internet is hard. real solution: by making the problem of DDoSd servers something that can happen to everyone interested in hosting a server, not only a minute fraction of people, more effective mitigation and prevention means will be engineered. Every existing server (and there are lots of them) suffer from this same threat, and their upstream ISPs have to deal with this. I genuinely don't believe that this is such an untractable problem of the day to day internet, that it's only solution is to cut off the empowering ability to host servers/services from the vast class of internet end points known as "residential users" Or again, regular people like you and me and the other 7 billion of us on the planet.

If the ISP has to drop traffic to your/my IP until the DDoS subsides because it is technically unable to do anything else, so be it. I'll use my time offline to contact the FBI and ask them what cybersecurity national resources they may have that might be interested in testing their abilities against my ongoing attackers. Hell, there might even be some google and microsoft engineers that are friends of friends of mine that might be looking for a network security challenge. So in other words, this is a non-issue if residential server hosters are willing to accept such a worst case scenario (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is about the same as the worst case scenario for any of the millions of server running 'business class' ISP customers out there right now?)

Without that clause, the ISP would have no way to protect itself legally in a case like that. There are probably other situations where hosting services in a certain manner can cause harm to the over-all network. Most situations probably won't cause any issues, but the ISP needs a legal safety-net.

This particular "legal safety net" (euphamism for "blatantly exagerated blanket prohibition of activity because a narrower prohibition would require some time and thought).... This particular "legal safety net" simply has TOO HIGH A COST against the productive opportunities that IPv6 presents to society. In my opinion.

Heck, this ISP even says "No Datacap" and "You get dedicated bandwidth". What legal recourse could this ISP have it it actively advertises that it does not block, throttle, cap, or monitor your connection while also claiming dedicated bandwidth? "No Servers".

I'm sorry, are you describing an ISP that is offering a service called "you get dedicated bandwidth", without actually having any technical ability to deliver that to the customer? And you want me to feel sorry for them? It's like, what would the world come to if internet service was instead of misadvertised, actually advertised as the "best effort" service it actually is, and was designed to be. I'm sorry, but, removing bullshit illusions from the masses that fraudulent advertisers have spent years deploying is something I remain unafraid to do.

Or another situation. Someone starts a business, and the ISP changes something on their network that affects the business's ability to host. If the ISP has a "no servers" clause, there is no question. Without the clause, the business may be able to go after the ISP for damages.

If an "internet service provider" changes something on their network (e.g. adds an unnecessary NAT or firewall) that breaks the "internet users" from being able to "use" the *symmetric nature* of the "internet protocol"(v6 as advertised here), then I consider it fraudulent of them to continue to claim that they are providing "internet service"). "Internet Service" has a meaning. It means a service using the "internet protocol". Which was designed to be fully symmetric, as far as allowing each and every endpoint on the global information superhighway the ability to connect to every other (willing) node. If you use the internet at work, and the IT staff has blocked certain flows of traffic with the wider internet, you have a "restricted internet access". I am fighting for the right of average joe users to have, *at least the opt-in option* of having the immensely empowering thing known as "unrestricted internet access" at their home. I believe such will allow newer more advanced, more privacy protecting, less advertising infused, services to become available to humanity. Please, don't regurgitate bullshit to me that the existing lazy ass, competition stagnating, ISPs have been selling you for the last decade. Join me in fighting for "The Right To Serve" (via IPv6 enabled residential 'true' internet access). Please.

Comment Re:PSA:Evil-ToS:No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 1) 408

You had me till

effectively makes ISPs put in a "No Server" clause, otherwise the ISP would have nothing to fall back on if someone was using the network is an obviously abusive manner.


Without that clause, the ISP would have no way to protect itself legally in a case like that

This is the logic that the ISP oligarchy would like to sell the masses on why things _have_(?!?) to be the way they are. These are obviously fallacious comments. Yes Google, if you defended yourself like this, I would simply call you god-damned liars.

There are many other legal methods of recourse an ISP (or *cough* the department of justice of the U.S.A.) has to deal with "obviously abusive" internet users, or DDoS attacks. Don't give me this bullshit about the only method of recourse being effectively shutting down the core _symmetric_ nature of the internet protocol to the vast swath of nodes known as "residential users". Which means "ordinary people, human beings like you and me, using the global information superhighway to communicate and conduct business with friends and neighbors across the globe".

That would be like outlawying knives as eating utensils, because it was the only way the authorities could fight the threat of stabbings.

And in this case, the reason the ISPs are trying to sell this line, is because they are entirely buddy buddy with the established form of the internet, and it's established moneymaking servers. And IPv6 and residentially hosted servers, are a very real, and I would say long awaited, threat to that established set of business models. You can call me delusional, insane, paranoid. But that is what I believe to be the real issue here.

Comment Re:PSA:Evil-ToS:No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 1) 408

I'm sure that once they offer business tier internet service, you'll be able to get that as part of the deal along with static IPs, same-day on-site service, separate tech-support line with technicians that understand networking, etc. By running a server, I suppose you want it to be available 24/7, right? You can't have that without an appropriate service contract. Otherwise you're just some guy running a server for nothing of any real consequence, and Google most likely won't care to enforce the no-server portion of the TOS for you and other residential customers.

First, they already offer business service, though not "transparently". I.e. you must "call them for details". I actually think this is a violation of network neutrality's "transparency" prong, and that all traffic rates should be well known and published "transparently". Next, no, I do not expect 24/7 or greater uptime than my other residential neighbors get. But there is a lot you can do with an internet connection with 95% uptime and a gigabit link. If residential users could expect such unblocked actual symmetric client/server internet (protocol, version 6) access from their ISP, then I do foresee servers of much consequence, even on mere 97% uptime links. Finally, your point about Google's selective enforcement, is the icing on the anti-competitive practice here. I see the term of service as their way to prevent residentially hosted servers that might ultimately adequately compete with their existing services (e.g.g squirrelmail open source webmail vs gmail).

Comment Re:PSA:Evil-ToS:No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 1) 408

what the person may have meant was that just as perhaps their linksys wrt54g running openwrt can be an interesting, if not slashdot-proof scale web server for some interesting amount of content, so too could pretty much everyone's firewall and router, if the source was available for aspiring FOSS coders to similarly enhance. Then, the way you get slashdot-proofness and no dependency on >95% uptime SLA and support from your non-business-class ISP contract, is by pooling and sharing your resources with countless other residential user's wall-warts/routers.

Comment PSA:Evil-ToS:No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 4, Interesting) 408

I really have no idea what sort of change a gigabit Internet connection will bring, but it's just as likely to open up all sorts of new services for consumers and opportunities for revenue for software developers and content providers that were unimaginable a few years ago.

This is what I was really hoping, but sadly discovered that their initial terms of service prohibited all residential customers from hosting any kind of server. While this is not exactly unexpected, I do consider it a violation of FCC-10-201/NetNeutrality's "blocking" prong. Though traditionally that is understood as residential ISPs blocking a residential client from a remote server, I also believe it applies to the symmetric use of IPv6, i.e. remote clients blocked from residential servers. My FCC 2000F complaint (ref#12-C000422224-1) is currently in "Enforcement review" after 7 months of getting bounced to the Kansas Attorney General who just bounced it back to the quite slow to respond FCC.

Anyway, until we can get some sort of residential internet users bill of rights for what they can expect from their bridge to the global information superhighway, I don't think we'll see remotely the advances in new services that we otherwise would.


Comment Re:GoogleFiber = Advertising (Score 1) 163

It's also 1Gbit symmetric .

If all you want out of your symmetry is to upload large videos to youtube and other established players, then yes, it is symmetric. If however you want to use your upstream bandwidth to, say, do the first thing that should come to most slashdot reader's minds- run a server providing your own alternate services to Google's cloud offerings, then you are *squarely* out of luck. Because GoogleFiber is same as the old boss- hosting any kind of server is prohibited. Using the service for business requires you contact them for non-transparent pricing 'details' (aka, their calculated level of 'tribute'). (as if trading your visual attention (reading GoogleAds) for advanced computing services (youtube/gmail/etc) is not 'business')

Comment Re:is it worth it? (Score 2) 128

Telecommuting, it can save more gas than any hybrid pretty much if you work in an office you can telecommute. Huge quality of life benefits from this when combined with flexible hours etc. The huge this is google is the only major thing since modems and ISDN that's symmetric it's a gig down and a gig up.

Public Service Announcement: Google Fiber requires you contact them for 'details' if you intend to use the service for a business. I believe this is in violation of FCC-10-201 'Network Neutrality' transparency. Of course I'm more concerned with their terms of service prohibitting hosting any server of any kind, as I consider that a violation of the blocking prong of the Network Neutrality rules (though the case of the residential client blocked from the remote server is the more common understanding of the blocking rule). In any event, for 7 and a half months now, I have had an outstanding NN(form 2000F) complaint with the FCC (ref#12-C000422224). It is currently in "enforcement review" after having been bounced once to the Kansas Attorney General who was not interested in pursuing the matter, though referred me back to the FCC for help. I think it is important to realize how google is participating in a widespread practice of disempowering residential internet users from the ability to provide traditionally unforseen and innovative services to the rest of the internet, in order to protect the established players (cough *them* cough) existing moneymaking servers from new competition, enabled by such advancements as the IPv6 solution to the scarce IP address problem. In fact, if you follow enough of my information warfare links here, you'll find that Google's CEO even agrees with me fairly strongly, but is apparently content to let the lawyers dictate the shape of Google's Gigabit residential internet of the near future. So be it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.