Verizon is phasing out DSL and Wired Phoned Service
I have been receiving constant mail from Verizon telling me that they are phasing out copper wired services (DSL,Phone). Their latest deadline is May 2017. They want their customers to upgrade to FIOS, problem is FIOS is not cheap and it is extremely invasive as far as installation. The utility companies have to be involved, they have to break up the sidewalk to run a cable into the foundation of a building, certain electrical requirements must be present, and then they only give 1yr at their current price, so what happens after the first year?, prices go up to probably more than $100 per month. Verizon can stick their FIOS where the sun doesn't shine.
totally agree with the laziness assertions. people who don't really want to work but want all the credit and reward for having done it.
[another matter: it's time to give some thanks around here. thanks to the russians for showing us we have traitors in government and in business. thanks to the traitors for showing us the wisdom of the founding fathers (and mothers). thanks to the founding fathers and mothers for giving us a nation with the resilience that can withstand even this treachery.]
As has been demonstrated recently in the U.K., total surveillance does not prevent attacks, even when the person who carried it out was known to the security services. Indeed total surveillance is counterproductive at two levels, it increases the risk of individuals taking violent action, and it overloads the security service with false leads, taking their eyes of of known risks.
The first risk is due to the isolating effect of a surveillance state, people who are dissatisfied with the state think that, and with some justification, talking about their dissatisfaction and trying to organize change is liable to get them into trouble. This drives some people into seeking out those organization that will help them to take violent action, or simply claiming affiliation to magnify the effect of the action that they take.
People need a degree of privacy, and need to feel that they can talk about their dissatisfaction with governments without being promptly targeted as a potential terrorist.
"...never been about encryption... It has always been about power.."
Yup. Our politicians insist that they ("government") have an inherent “right to know” about all the private matters of the entire American citizenry. They do not say that openly, but it is obvious from their daily actions ("collect it all"). Obstacles like citizen 'encryption' MUST be neutralized across the board... to secure the government's perceived "right to know"!
But politicians/judges/bureaucrats have no "rights" whatsoever-- only very limited authorities granted by the citizenry in legal form (Constitution). There is no general "right to know" for government, even in the courts.
There NO exceptions to the 4th Amendment for national security, law enforcement, or border searches. Politicians sitting on the US Supreme Court blatantly ignores that fact.
Despite this fundamental truth, our self-imagined rulers arrogantly demand that Americans acquiesce to massive invasions of privacy... due to whatever the latest political crusade happens to be for these rulers --- yet they insist on strictly maintaining their own state secrets privilege from the very people who hired them (citizenry).
U.S. government obvious desire to closely watch & control the American populace is self-evidently an extreme dangerous to liberty.
I know a few people who are stuck with cable simply because they have access to broadband. But services like PlayStation Vue and Sling have made it easy for even sports lovers to cut the cord.
6 months out of the year, when there are sports broadcasts worth watching, I pay a little more for my streaming entertainment, but it never approaches the money I coughed up for Comcast TV. What this article fails to note is that many cable subscribers also subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. My neighbor is an example -- and I'm sure his total entertainment bill is at least $150 a month more than mine.
Let's not fool ourselves. The angst and fear tsunami from LEO is not about anything other than low hanging fruit convictions. What is evident to me, as wrong or right as it may be, is that LEO wants easy work. Well, I'd like that too, but hey, it's just not happening.
No more than the average person, I don't want to die in an attack. But on the flip side, I don't want to give up privacy.
Many say that if you're not breaking the law, then why are you so concerned about being monitored? On the surface, and without thinking about it, that's a pretty strong argument for a total surveillance state. Afterall, if it's illegal, then why should someone expect their "doin's" to be private?
The reason, for those that don't see it, is that not everything the state thinks is wrong is a crime. At one point, dating someone of a race other than your own was criminal. Smoking pot is illegal according to Federal law, but is legal in many state laws.
What is reprehensible is that if one dares to raise the issue of Jury Nullification, that is a felony in many states.
the transmission or storage medium has never been the weakest point. It has only ever been the penetration point easiest to automate.
Which is to say the feds beef isn't that it can't investigate. It's beef is that it can't snuffle everybody's traffic at will and then use parallel construction to selectively persecute whomever it wants.
Which really seams to be driven by Comey himself rather than the FBI as an institution. Where this guy gets off thinking the FBI is a tool for his god appointed role as a king maker, I will never know.
Re: Re: Everything is easy and cheap when you don't have to do it
That filtering model on keywords would be an incredibly bad idea. I thought we all learned about the "Scunthorpe" problem by now. Blind word-list filtering results in stupidity like requiring the real location and then banning people for giving it as "Fort Gay". It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now.
Not to mention that meanings aren't always clear just by the words used. Under the type of filtering logic you want we'd see British content flagged as hardcore gay child pornography because someone asked if they could "bum a couple of fags for the boys".
Part of that would probably be addressed by his claim to have been the person who created Bitcoin in the first place, and thus the person who invented these things, and therefore the one who would have been entitled to patent them anyway.
Even leaving that aside, it's an unfortunate apparent fact that some patent offices (including, apparently, USPTO) look for prior art only in existing patents or patent applications - not in things that no one has tried to patent. This means that if you invent something and don't try to patent it, someone else can come in later and apply for a patent on it, and the patent examiners won't notice that your invention is already out there - no matter how famous your invention may by that point be.
The closest thing I see at a glance is the "Copyright by Leigh Beadon" in the left-hand column - but that's not a declaration that the article is copyrighted, it's an indication that the article is filed under the category of articles on the subject of "Copyright".
I can't find it just offhand, and I need to leave for work fairly soon so I can't spare the time to dig deeper, but it's been repeatedly pointed out in the past that the articles on this site are - as a general rule - either available under a highly permissive Creative Commons licence (CC0?), or outright disclaimed into the public domain.
Expected counterargument: "That's because the free market hasn't developed enough for there to be actual competition in your area, because there's so much regulation preventing it from developing. Get rid of the regulations that are getting in the way, and you'll see competitors become available, so that you have choices in the free market."
It's not entirely clear which regulations are supposed to be getting in the way, there; the closest thing to a specific example I remember having seen argued for is the wireless-spectrum allocation and noninterference rules, which forbid anyone from using spectrum without permission from whoever it's been allocated to - and of course, without that rule, as soon as two people start trying to provide service in the same frequenceis you get so much interference that neither of them actually provides useful service.
Exactly what the analogous obstaculatory (neologism!) regulations on the wired-service side of the fence are supposed to be I'm not clear about.
Do you know you can live that luxurious life you want? We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be used to withdraw money from ATM machines without having money in the bank,We sell this cards to all our customers and interested buyers worldwide please beware of scams selling counterfeit cards and spoiling the image of this company, the card has a daily withdrawal limit of $ 5000 on ATM machines. for inquiry email us at Blankcarddistributors@gmail.com. Order for yours now and it shall be delivered to you wherever you are within 48hrs.'"