rosser

71 ms·

631.
by rosser 9y ago
Pai has specifically claimed the FCC can pre-empt State-level Net Neutrality initiatives. AFAIK, however, that's up to an appellate court to decide, which hasn't happened yet. (Another comment in another thread cites the recent ca
632.
by rosser 9y ago
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
633.
by rosser 9y ago
California is most definitely within its rights to regulate businesses operating within the state. If an ISP wants to sell its service to CA residents, it can abide by CA laws.
634.
by rosser 9y ago
How is this comment not an ad hominem ? Many-to-most "blockchain experts" are hazy on where, exactly, the line between blockchain and not-blockchain falls (or, at least, there's enough ambiguity that drawing a sharp line is
635.
by rosser 9y ago
> You're fine with blocking but not with prioritization?! ...and you think I was mischaracterizing your comment? No-one I've ever seen on the Anti-NN side is talking about blocking either content or traffic. That would
636.
by rosser 9y ago
It's been many years since I studied logic (but, as a philosophy undergrad, it was required), so I may be wrong here, but ISTM that your construction is an "iff" — "if and only if ". But whatever. If I mistook your
637.
by rosser 9y ago
Yes. My comment was an existence proof against 'dataflow's assertion that "Port 25 is only blocked if you don't pay for the premium service of having it opened."
638.
by rosser 9y ago
My ISP (sonic.net) doesn't block anything, specifically including port 25, and I'm not paying them a premium to do so. I am paying the (very high per-mbit) premium of using them instead of, e.g., Comcast, but that's, at best,
639.
by rosser 9y ago
Apple Park is "for us" — that is, Apple employees, for values thereof that don't include parents. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/05/16/apple_s_new_... https://ww
640.
by rosser 9y ago
So it's only ok for Oracle to lie in their own benchmarks?
641.
by rosser 9y ago
We aren't using hosted postgres (much, yet). We provision EC2 instances and self-manage it. Failover is scripted, and manually invoked as needed. None of us trust any of the automated failover solutions enough to use them. We want huma
642.
by rosser 9y ago
"Your backups are only as good as their last successful restore."
643.
by rosser 9y ago
It's curious that you decry some kinds of "magic bullet" in favor of another. How about "there are no magic bullets, full stop "?
644.
by rosser 9y ago
Getting HA right is hard . DIY-ing it incurs risk, possibly deliberately, out of Not-Invented-Here-ism. Source: PostgreSQL DBA for over a decade; have built multiple HA environments; have seen many ways of "doing it wrong", and h
645.
by rosser 9y ago
Pai has specifically said he wants (and has the power) to Federally pre-empt state-level NN initiatives.
646.
by rosser 9y ago
Maybe at least partly because you had to engage your imagination a bit to make that stick into a gun, or whatever? Toy guns are obviously guns; point 'em and say "Pew! Pew!" — if they don't already make the noise for you
647.
by rosser 9y ago
Litigation holds are a thing in civil law. Evidentiary rules in criminal law are, AFAIK, a different beast.
648.
by rosser 9y ago
I'm not the one "fixated" on the mechanism of communication. I've consistently talked about the motivation for using a given mechanism, and, when specific mechanisms have been raised, whether those mechanisms satisfy
649.
by rosser 9y ago
If they were using an ephemeral messaging app to talk about the theft of trade secrets — a thing that is "black-letter" illegal — then the laws against destroying evidence of criminal behavior might be relevant?
650.
by rosser 9y ago
Phones have a record of the call having been made, and are subject to wiretapping. Ephemeral messaging services have neither.
651.
by rosser 9y ago
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the laws around tampering with/destroying evidence are crafted in such a way to make knowingly destroying evidence of a crime — even before that crime is under investigation — unambiguously illegal.
652.
by rosser 9y ago
It's not whether the logs exist, but whether the conversation was deliberately had using an ephemeral messaging service, in order to evade statutory data retention obligations. That's the criminality — the evasion, itself; not w
653.
by rosser 9y ago
> the judge would just order you to unlock your phone... Depending on which Federal circuit applies, and how you authenticate to your device, only if they already had proof that your messages were material to the case. Unlocking your d
654.
by rosser 9y ago
You, as an individual, have a right against self-incrimination, but you're simultaneously subject to laws against tampering with or destroying evidence. You don't have to hand over the incriminating evidence, or even tell the cops
655.
by rosser 9y ago
If that company is subject to data retention laws, yes.
656.
by rosser 9y ago
Other comments have suggested the FCC's site is running slowly. That might be load, or even deliberate "go away and stop trying to look at the man behind the curtain". Just because it doesn't load immediately, doesn&#x27
657.
by rosser 9y ago
The private prison system is, in many cases, state-sanctioned slavery. Prisoners are very definitely monetized — and not just by the $15/minute phone calls to their loved ones.
658.
by rosser 9y ago
Any is too many.
659.
by rosser 9y ago
Are you actually suggesting that because (nearly) everyone (in the first world) can buy a nice TV these days, we don't have structural inequality? I think that is a profoundly naïve narrative.
660.
by rosser 9y ago
If the tractor sells for more than you paid for it — or, in your specific example, the boat you traded it for is worth a larger number of dollars than you paid for the tractor, at the time of the trade — then yes ; that is the very definit

More ›