A few days ago the FCC voted to start the rule making process concerning net neutrality. TechDirt reported: "NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways". Of particular concern is the heading: "The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes." (emphasis added) in the New York Times. So who gets to define the words "legal content" and the subsequent consequences?
Will the content producers be the ones defining what is legal and illegal? If so, it makes a mockery of the judicial process. Technically, if someone believes an action is illegal, they take it to court and present facts to obtain a judgment. I seriously doubt that the content industry wants to be contained by the relatively slow and cumbersome judicial process. Instead, they would probably wish to take immediate action with absurdly minimal proof against anyone they whimsically designate as an offender.
What about the rights of the supposed offender? If the content producers can unilaterally designate someone as an offender, what are their rights to refute those charges? Will there be penalties imposed on those making false claims of illegal activity? If not; that would allow the content producers to accuse and take punitive action against anyone without the fear of consequences. This would be a violation of due process. Basically, justice by intimidation.
Will the content producers be able to read your content? To assess whether content is "legal" or not, would appear to imply that the content producers would have an opportunity to conduct warrantless wiretapping on content. Reading a persons' content stream to assess whether they are being legal or illegal would be a violation of due process. Technically, to have a wiretap put into place one needs substantial verifiable suspicion that a crime is being committed.
Making the ISP providers the "police" to protect the content producers. This is actually quite repulsive. The basic responsibility of the ISPs is to deliver content. Not to interfere with the delivery of that content. The content producers should not be able to demand that the ISPs read content to protect them (the content producers) and/or to take any adverse action against the supposed offender. For example, if you believe that an illegal action is being taken in a nearby house, you can't simply walk up to a random third person and demand that they be the ones to break into that house to find and arrest any suspected burglar. That is supposed to the responsibility of the police and the judicial system.
Who would pay for the ISP "police". The answer unfortunately is quite obvious, the consumer through increased subscription fees. Forcing the ISPs to act as "police" places a resource burden on them. Consequently, it should be the content producers that should pay the ISPs "police" since the ISPs would be working for the direct and sole benefit of the content producers.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
Ukraine/Syria - US Foreign Policy Madness
Russia invades Crimea (located in the Ukraine) and attempts to destabilize the
Ukraine as an independent sovereign country, in clear violation of international law. The Obama
administration with great indignity and fanfare accuses Russia of interfering with
Ukrainian sovereignty. But wait!
The Obama administration is violating the sovereignty of Syria in clear violation of international law by arming supposed rebels in Syria. Washington Post article: "Syrian rebels who received first U.S. missiles of war see shipment as ‘an important first step’". Essentially both Putin and Obama are reading from the same foreign relations script. Both falsely justify the need to interfere in other countries based on fabricated trumped-up moral obligations. Putin to "protect" Russians, Obama to "protect" Syrian civilians from an evil tyrant.
Obama in denouncing Russia once again utterly demonstrates that his rhetoric is nothing more than meaningless hot-air. Obama, like Putin, does not feel constrained by any laws. Laws are simply something to be whimsically applied and/or ignored as needed for political purposes. For Putin, the persecution of the band Pussy Riot. For Obama to use the IRS to persecute the "Tea Party".
Russia needs to be denounced for violating the sovereignty of the Ukraine. With that in mind, the US has no business arming so-called rebels in Syria since it is a violation of Syrian sovereignty. Arming the so-called rebels is Syria keeps the war going and only prolongs the humanitarian tragedy in Syria. That is blatantly contrary to Obama's publicly disclosed assertions that he is not pursing regime change in Syria. Obama has once again demonstrated to the world that his flowery rhetoric is devoid of both value and substance, and that the rule-of-law does not apply to him. Obama cannot be trusted.
The Obama administration is violating the sovereignty of Syria in clear violation of international law by arming supposed rebels in Syria. Washington Post article: "Syrian rebels who received first U.S. missiles of war see shipment as ‘an important first step’". Essentially both Putin and Obama are reading from the same foreign relations script. Both falsely justify the need to interfere in other countries based on fabricated trumped-up moral obligations. Putin to "protect" Russians, Obama to "protect" Syrian civilians from an evil tyrant.
Obama in denouncing Russia once again utterly demonstrates that his rhetoric is nothing more than meaningless hot-air. Obama, like Putin, does not feel constrained by any laws. Laws are simply something to be whimsically applied and/or ignored as needed for political purposes. For Putin, the persecution of the band Pussy Riot. For Obama to use the IRS to persecute the "Tea Party".
Russia needs to be denounced for violating the sovereignty of the Ukraine. With that in mind, the US has no business arming so-called rebels in Syria since it is a violation of Syrian sovereignty. Arming the so-called rebels is Syria keeps the war going and only prolongs the humanitarian tragedy in Syria. That is blatantly contrary to Obama's publicly disclosed assertions that he is not pursing regime change in Syria. Obama has once again demonstrated to the world that his flowery rhetoric is devoid of both value and substance, and that the rule-of-law does not apply to him. Obama cannot be trusted.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Neel Kashkari - Blame Bush Resurrected?
Neel Kashkari, a Republican candidate for the Governorship of California, recently made an outstandingly idiotic comment on CNBC. The recent Republican fiscal stance has been been promoting spending control and reduction of the National debt. Joe Kernen asked Kashkari, given that California now has a budget surplus, if some of that money would be used to pay-down California's debt. The response by Kashkari was the unbelievable prostration that economic measures were needed to stimulate the California economy. A non-answer to Kernen's question. The "between the lines" take-away, another excuse not to address the debt issue.
Mr. Kashkari, is only one Republican and does not define the Republican party's fiscal policies. Nevertheless, his comments, may be a chilling harbinger of what might happen should the Republicans take control of the US government. Will the Republicans, like the Democrats, abandon fiscal responsibility in favor of continued deficit spending to "gift" their base "freebies"? Will the Republican, once elected, repeat the irresponsible tax policies of Blame Bush?
PS: I could not locate the actual video clip were this exchange took place. Here is one clip from that day. I would agree that high frequency trading should be regulated.
Mr. Kashkari, is only one Republican and does not define the Republican party's fiscal policies. Nevertheless, his comments, may be a chilling harbinger of what might happen should the Republicans take control of the US government. Will the Republicans, like the Democrats, abandon fiscal responsibility in favor of continued deficit spending to "gift" their base "freebies"? Will the Republican, once elected, repeat the irresponsible tax policies of Blame Bush?
PS: I could not locate the actual video clip were this exchange took place. Here is one clip from that day. I would agree that high frequency trading should be regulated.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Windows XP End-of-Life - The Linux Alternative
With Microsoft retiring support of Windows XP, the Internet has been awash with discussions concerning what to do next. The typical uninspired response is to migrate to a newer version of MS Windows. But there are other options to MS Windows, Linux for example.
Should you be wondering what to do with your Windows XP computer, look into Linux. Linux, for the vast majority of applications, is just as good as Windows and it is also free. One place to start would be LinuxQuestions.org. I would encourage you to investigate Linux to determine whether it would be a suitable replacement for MS Windows. You have nothing to loose and you may find Linux to be a superior operating system. Good-Luck.
PS: Leave a similar post on your blog to "crowd-source" Linux as a suitable replacement for MS Windows.
Should you be wondering what to do with your Windows XP computer, look into Linux. Linux, for the vast majority of applications, is just as good as Windows and it is also free. One place to start would be LinuxQuestions.org. I would encourage you to investigate Linux to determine whether it would be a suitable replacement for MS Windows. You have nothing to loose and you may find Linux to be a superior operating system. Good-Luck.
PS: Leave a similar post on your blog to "crowd-source" Linux as a suitable replacement for MS Windows.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Asus RT-N56U Modem and Simple Backup
Recently, I have seen posts concerning what to get in the way of a replacement modem. This post won't answer that question, but will provide some anecdotal thoughts on the topic. The Asus RT-N56U modem is now obsolete and has been replaced by the Asus Dual-Band Wireless-N750 Gigabit Router. Listing of Asus wireless routers.
One of main reasons for selecting the RT-N56U was that it came with two USB 2.0 ports. Since routers are never turned off, the USB ports could be used for backing up your computers. It is my belief that backups should always be done to a second disk drive. (Installed either on the computer itself or as an external device, in this case the router.) To accomplish that, I bought a 3TB Western Digital USB hard drive, which plugged into the router's USB port.
For the backup program, I used Simple Backup. This is an excellent back-up program. Though an excellent program, it proved to be quite finicky when it came to backing data onto the USB HD drive attached to the router's USB port. Periodically the back-ups would fail with permission/access error messages. Worked without issue when backing-up to a USB device that was directly attached to the computer.
I have Simple Backup working as expected with the RT-N46U router. The following tweaks may have resulted in getting Simple Backup to function correctly.
1. Mount the USB HD Drive. See the /etc/fstab entry below.
2. Change the format of the USB HD to EXT3.
Why EXT3? Turns out that the Asus RT-N56U does not recognize EXT4. The fact that the router does not recognize EXT4 is "hidden" in the manual. Had to actually read the manual to find that out. Grumble.
Check to see if your router supports EXT4.
Furthermore, The Western Digital USB HD, as purchased, came formated with Microsoft's NTFS. Under NTFS, I would receive periodic permission/access error messages when connected through the router's USB port. Since changing the file system to EXT3, these issues have disappeared.
With the tweaks identified above, Simple Backup is now operating reliably. These tweaks may also prove to be beneficial with other modems that offer USB ports where a USB hard drive can be attached.
One of main reasons for selecting the RT-N56U was that it came with two USB 2.0 ports. Since routers are never turned off, the USB ports could be used for backing up your computers. It is my belief that backups should always be done to a second disk drive. (Installed either on the computer itself or as an external device, in this case the router.) To accomplish that, I bought a 3TB Western Digital USB hard drive, which plugged into the router's USB port.
For the backup program, I used Simple Backup. This is an excellent back-up program. Though an excellent program, it proved to be quite finicky when it came to backing data onto the USB HD drive attached to the router's USB port. Periodically the back-ups would fail with permission/access error messages. Worked without issue when backing-up to a USB device that was directly attached to the computer.
I have Simple Backup working as expected with the RT-N46U router. The following tweaks may have resulted in getting Simple Backup to function correctly.
1. Mount the USB HD Drive. See the /etc/fstab entry below.
#Mount Western Digital Passport Drive On Router
//rt-n56u/sda1 /media/My_Passport cifs rw,sec=ntlm,guest,uid=1000,gid=34,iocharset=utf8,nofail 0 0
2. Change the format of the USB HD to EXT3.
Why EXT3? Turns out that the Asus RT-N56U does not recognize EXT4. The fact that the router does not recognize EXT4 is "hidden" in the manual. Had to actually read the manual to find that out. Grumble.
Check to see if your router supports EXT4.
Furthermore, The Western Digital USB HD, as purchased, came formated with Microsoft's NTFS. Under NTFS, I would receive periodic permission/access error messages when connected through the router's USB port. Since changing the file system to EXT3, these issues have disappeared.
With the tweaks identified above, Simple Backup is now operating reliably. These tweaks may also prove to be beneficial with other modems that offer USB ports where a USB hard drive can be attached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)