I just paid almost €10 for internet for the day in an airport. I'll be here for about 6 hours. My main plan was to watch and download YouTube videos and edit them for an ongoing video project.
If you saw this page for the paid wifi connection, you'd think YouTube would be a single click away:
[big giant image]
But nope! YouTube is blocked!
Sorry, but www.youtube.com is blocked on this network.
This site was categorized in: Video Sharing
This is either my fail or Kubi Wireless's fail. I don't like it either way. It's Sunday, and the internet is dead on a Sunday.
I'd click on "Frequently Asked Questions" to see if the first one on the list was "What the fuck is up with the bait and switch on your payment page?"
The FAQ mentioned that torrent and other large file sharing services might be throttled. That's fine. But to have YouTube on the start page for the service, and then block YouTube, is just dumb. In the end I was too tired to work anyway, after a transatlantic flight, and spent the time catching up with photos and blog reading I'd missed on my latest work trip.
All circumstantial evidence points to this bad code being inserted by the NSA. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the NSA had paid shills inserted into encryption standards bodies. Subverting Safari encryption security is exactly what they would want. And, according to files leaked by Snowden, the NSA "added" Apple to their program about a month after this went into effect. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'd very surprised if this was simple programmer error.
One thing that people should have learned from Snowden is that something sounding like a conspiracy theory isn't sufficient reason to dismiss it. EVERYTHING should be argued on its merits, not on how "kooky" it sounds.
All circumstantial evidence points to this bad code being inserted by the NSA. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the NSA had paid shills inserted into encryption standards bodies. Subverting Safari encryption security is exactly what they would want. And, according to files leaked by Snowden, the NSA "added" Apple to their program about a month after this went into effect. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'd very surprised if this was simple programmer error.
Umm, if you looked at the code, and know anything about coding in C, it almost certainly was not a case of NSA insertion. I've seen these kinds of bugs in code all the time -- usually as a result of either screwing up a code merge from multiple developers or a bad copy/paste job. The real issue is how come this escaped Apple QA/code reviews/etc.
Yes, the NSA did have paid shills inserted into encryption standards bodies. Yes, they paid RSA to sabotage their crypto. However, this isn't a case of clever sabotage or anything like that. It's a case of a "goto fail;" statement being duplicated across two simultaneous lines of code combined with a code formatting standard that makes it a bit more difficult to spot this sort of error when performing a visual inspection.
Could the NSA be behind this? Given all the Snowden revelations, it's certainly possible. However, given the specific nature of this bug, it's extremely unlikely.
A old friend from high school posted an essay on Facebook labeled "I support Arizona's 'Right to Discriminate' Law." The second sentence is "Is not America known for freedom?".
I'm starting to think that not America is a good place for freedom.
It's only discrimination when it happens to the other guys. You can very well bet that those folks would be screaming bloody hell if you refused to serve Christians due to your own religious beliefs.
Most of the Catholics I know are pretty reasonable - over a millenia of learning to ignore the scripture and all - it's really the Mormons whom you should be fucking with.
Most Mormons are also perfectly lovely people. In fact, I find that goes for most religions. "Most [insert religious identity] are perfectly lovely people. A handful of assholes and idiots fuck it up for everyone."
Most Mormons are also perfectly lovely people. In fact, I find that goes for most religions. "Most [insert religious identity] are perfectly lovely people. A handful of assholes and idiots fuck it up for everyone."
Most Mormons are also perfectly lovely people. In fact, I find that goes for most religions. "Most [insert religious identity] are perfectly lovely people. A handful of assholes and idiots fuck it up for everyone."
Yes, but the point is mostly to get taken to court. I choose Catholics just because they're the ones who differ from me the most theologically -- yes, including non-Christian religions, Catholics are the ones I differ with the most.
Most Mormons are also perfectly lovely people. In fact, I find that goes for most religions. "Most [insert religious identity] are perfectly lovely people. A handful of assholes and idiots fuck it up for everyone."
Yes, but the point is mostly to get taken to court. I choose Catholics just because they're the ones who differ from me the most theologically -- yes, including non-Christian religions, Catholics are the ones I differ with the most.
You'd probably be better off going after Evangelicals (especially those who believe in so-called "prosperity theology") then if you want to go to court with the ACLU while pandering to conservatives. Catholics aren't super popular among hard-core conservatives because they tend to be all about helping the poor and such.
I just paid almost €10 for internet for the day in an airport. I'll be here for about 6 hours. My main plan was to watch and download YouTube videos and edit them for an ongoing video project.
If you saw this page for the paid wifi connection, you'd think YouTube would be a single click away:
[big image]
But nope! YouTube is blocked!
Sorry, but www.youtube.com is blocked on this network.
This site was categorized in: Video Sharing
This is either my fail or Kubi Wireless's fail. I don't like it either way. It's Sunday, and the internet is dead on a Sunday. Erm, what happened when you clicked the Youtube button on the bottom right hand side? That was a button, right?
I'm trying to explain to someone who is presumably a functioning adult why wearing glass in a place where photos are not allowed is maybe not acceptable. This is not in and of itself a failure, but more the fact that somehow I'm failing to impart this incredibly simple concept that maybe you shouldn't wear a camera on your face to places that don't allow cameras you fucking twit.
Well, wearing glass is like having a cell phone. If photographs are disallowed, but having a camera phone isn't, then glass isn't really any different. There's a big difference between a "no cameras" and "no photography" policy. That nuance will be important in the near future as more people wear glass and glass-like things every day as a matter of course.
IBM used to ban camera phones in certain facilities. The day came when every cell phone had a camera. They then changed the policy to say no picture taking instead. This basically means something like glass is fine unless it's used to take a picture, just like with a camera phone.
I've worn Glass to the theater with zero trouble from anyone.
Well, wearing glass is like having a cell phone. If photographs are disallowed, but having a camera phone isn't, then glass isn't really any different.
In that case, nor is having a DSLR up and ready to shoot and a press of a button, as long as you're not shooting. And plus, nobody cares about your phone, because 99.99% of the time, it's in your pocket, where it can take all the photos you like, you're just going to get portraiture of pocket lint - but that will rapidly change if you look like you're taking a photo. Glass is on your face, ready to take a photo with a head movement and a short phrase, and one that could trivially go unnoticed in a venue like the one in question, unlike whipping out your phone or other camera and taking a photo that way.
Plus, we're not talking about a case about it being in public, in public is fine. The case is about a venue where it's no cameras except from mobiles, and no photos without permission, and this is not a secret rule, they're very clear about it. Glass is LIKE having a mobile phone, but it is not a mobile phone, it has a camera It's also in shooting position the whole time you're wearing it, unlike your phone. Therefore, either take if off, leave it at home, or don't go to the venue. As I said to the guy, glass does not exempt you from the rule by the virtue of being glass, it's not a ticket to the land of Do-as-you-please.
And really, let's face it the venue can enforce whatever rules and interpretations of those rules that they please providing they're not unlawful themselves, and if they decide no cameras means no glass on your face while you're in, then there's ZERO argument you can usefully make. Your options are take off your device(or leave it at home), or leave. If you don't like their glass policy, don't go. Or, I suppose, argue and get thrown out, but I don't really consider that to be an option rather than something to be avoided.
IBM used to ban camera phones in certain facilities. The day came when every cell phone had a camera. They then changed the policy to say no picture taking instead. This basically means something like glass is fine unless it's used to take a picture, just like with a camera phone.
IBM used to ban camera phones in certain facilities. The day came when every cell phone had a camera. They then changed the policy to say no picture taking instead. This basically means something like glass is fine unless it's used to take a picture, just like with a camera phone.
Banning camera phones, that's a cute restriction.
There was a time when few cell phones had cameras. ;^)
Oh, yeah, they're under no obligations. But I personally think this is going to be a huge point of contention in the long run. Anti-camera policies will have to be mostly abandoned when a good percentage of people have always-on cameras on them as a matter of course. The next decade will be interesting.
Personally, I basically don't go to any venue that doesn't allow cameras or glass except under very specific circumstances.
The most reasonable way to handle it, IMHO, is if you don't want photography taken at a venue, then require people to put their cameras/glass/etc. away in a pocket/case/bag/etc. while they are at the venue and have said venue's security monitor for people using those cameras.
There are fewer and fewer legitimate reasons for this sort of restriction, and as we're learning, these restrictions are abused in worse and worse ways.
Transparency up to and including the point of panopticon seems inevitable, and quite frankly, though we're not ready for it yet as a global society, I think it will be a positive thing. The sooner nobody has any privacy at all (and everyone can see everyone and be seen by everyone), the better. The concept of personal privacy is becoming more and more dated and the younger generations care less and less about it.
Having nothing to be ashamed of (and not being shamed for things that offer no objective reasons to be shamed over) is a healthy thing.
Ultimately, if the neighbors want to one day hop on a Google Everywhere feed and watch me have sex with my wife, who cares? If it's ubiquitous it won't matter.
Obviously, a whole lot of "nuisance" laws need to go away or at the very least be seriously reconsidered as a part of this transition to zero privacy. Everybody's guilty of something, and all that, but only stuff that matters should.. well.. matter.
What, did I kill the thread by talking about sweaty, fat, middle-aged sex on camera? *sigh*
OK here's a different fail:
So, some dude with a geek centric internet radio station with about 25,000 listeners approached us about having our Minds of Terminus podcast on his station.
The first hit on Google for his name is a long article on Encylcopaedia Dramatica about what a creepy misogynist homophobic and transphobic perv he is who runs some sort of enforcer group on Second Life, but, then, isn't that a troll site maintained by /b/? I don't even know.
He sort of gave me the creeps but maybe it's from reading that article. Anyway he hasn't gotten back to me in like a week, and his website honestly kinda looks like ass, the content of his channel is inconsistent, inexpertedly scheduled (heard the same song 3 times in 30 minutes), and honestly I can't vet his claimed listener totals, either.
So... I started thinking... what if I just create my own internet radio station. If I only play Creative Commons music and podcasts with author permission, it's super easy to pull off. BUT...
....
does anybody really even care about radio as a delivery medium anymore, internet or otherwise? I think most Sirius subscribers, for example, are older dudes like me. Ditto Live365, etc. Don't most of the "kids these days" mostly listen to either locally hosted mp3s and downloaded podcasts, or algorithmically programmed services like Pandora or Google Music? I dunno. I don't feel like the research is worth doing...
...but, maybe there's a market for 30+ year old dudes (and chicks) to listen to audio dramas and the occasional oddball geeky song. Is that a desirable advertising demographic? I'd guess it is... but how do I reach old farts who want to listen to old time radio remakes? And are there enough of them that making a streaming content channel with a variety of programming would be worthwhile over and above simply making and promoting my one podcast?
Dunno. I feel like this is just scope creep disguised as inspiration borne of disappointment.
Oh, yeah, they're under no obligations. But I personally think this is going to be a huge point of contention in the long run. Anti-camera policies will have to be mostly abandoned when a good percentage of people have always-on cameras on them as a matter of course. The next decade will be interesting.
Well, yeah. That's the way it goes when the social contract changes - there's always roughness at the edge where incidents like this happen.
Personally, I basically don't go to any venue that doesn't allow cameras or glass except under very specific circumstances.
On one hand, I don't avoid it, because I don't care that much. On the other, the kind of places I tend to go don't tend to have that restriction, so it's a moot point.
The most reasonable way to handle it, IMHO, is if you don't want photography taken at a venue, then require people to put their cameras/glass/etc. away in a pocket/case/bag/etc. while they are at the venue and have said venue's security monitor for people using those cameras.
That's how most clubs I've been to handle it. Your phone is fine - in your pocket. Your glass is fine - in your bag. Your giant HD RED camera is even fine, in it's carrying case. But pull it out to a shooting position, and people are going to start getting funny with you.
Though, there is one venue in my city that doesn't allow cameras, but does allow glass - what they do is put a Band-aid over the lens, with the non-sticky gauze pad over the lens bit. You can still use it, but you can't take photos. Hilariously, according to my mate that works there, the few people with glass who show up tend to just take it off or leave, because in the words of one customer, "I don't think so, I don't want my glass looking stupid with a band-aid on it."
What that says about the glass users who frequent this venue, I'll leave to you, but here's another tale from the trenches - more than once, they've gone to band-aid someone's Glass, and they've just gone "No don't worry about it, it's not glass" - turns out people are rocking up to this place wearing non-functional props made to look like Glass.
Comments
The FAQ mentioned that torrent and other large file sharing services might be throttled. That's fine. But to have YouTube on the start page for the service, and then block YouTube, is just dumb. In the end I was too tired to work anyway, after a transatlantic flight, and spent the time catching up with photos and blog reading I'd missed on my latest work trip.
It is truly amazing that this happens in big corporations. I get that there is probably millions of lines of code but this seems silly.
Yes, the NSA did have paid shills inserted into encryption standards bodies. Yes, they paid RSA to sabotage their crypto. However, this isn't a case of clever sabotage or anything like that. It's a case of a "goto fail;" statement being duplicated across two simultaneous lines of code combined with a code formatting standard that makes it a bit more difficult to spot this sort of error when performing a visual inspection.
Could the NSA be behind this? Given all the Snowden revelations, it's certainly possible. However, given the specific nature of this bug, it's extremely unlikely.
I'm starting to think that not America is a good place for freedom.
Also because it would be awesome to refuse those fascist sons of bitches, but that's secondary.
Erm, what happened when you clicked the Youtube button on the bottom right hand side? That was a button, right?
IBM used to ban camera phones in certain facilities. The day came when every cell phone had a camera. They then changed the policy to say no picture taking instead. This basically means something like glass is fine unless it's used to take a picture, just like with a camera phone.
I've worn Glass to the theater with zero trouble from anyone.
Plus, we're not talking about a case about it being in public, in public is fine. The case is about a venue where it's no cameras except from mobiles, and no photos without permission, and this is not a secret rule, they're very clear about it. Glass is LIKE having a mobile phone, but it is not a mobile phone, it has a camera It's also in shooting position the whole time you're wearing it, unlike your phone. Therefore, either take if off, leave it at home, or don't go to the venue. As I said to the guy, glass does not exempt you from the rule by the virtue of being glass, it's not a ticket to the land of Do-as-you-please.
And really, let's face it the venue can enforce whatever rules and interpretations of those rules that they please providing they're not unlawful themselves, and if they decide no cameras means no glass on your face while you're in, then there's ZERO argument you can usefully make. Your options are take off your device(or leave it at home), or leave. If you don't like their glass policy, don't go. Or, I suppose, argue and get thrown out, but I don't really consider that to be an option rather than something to be avoided.
Personally, I basically don't go to any venue that doesn't allow cameras or glass except under very specific circumstances.
Transparency up to and including the point of panopticon seems inevitable, and quite frankly, though we're not ready for it yet as a global society, I think it will be a positive thing. The sooner nobody has any privacy at all (and everyone can see everyone and be seen by everyone), the better. The concept of personal privacy is becoming more and more dated and the younger generations care less and less about it.
Having nothing to be ashamed of (and not being shamed for things that offer no objective reasons to be shamed over) is a healthy thing.
Ultimately, if the neighbors want to one day hop on a Google Everywhere feed and watch me have sex with my wife, who cares? If it's ubiquitous it won't matter.
Obviously, a whole lot of "nuisance" laws need to go away or at the very least be seriously reconsidered as a part of this transition to zero privacy. Everybody's guilty of something, and all that, but only stuff that matters should.. well.. matter.
OK here's a different fail:
So, some dude with a geek centric internet radio station with about 25,000 listeners approached us about having our Minds of Terminus podcast on his station.
The first hit on Google for his name is a long article on Encylcopaedia Dramatica about what a creepy misogynist homophobic and transphobic perv he is who runs some sort of enforcer group on Second Life, but, then, isn't that a troll site maintained by /b/? I don't even know.
He sort of gave me the creeps but maybe it's from reading that article. Anyway he hasn't gotten back to me in like a week, and his website honestly kinda looks like ass, the content of his channel is inconsistent, inexpertedly scheduled (heard the same song 3 times in 30 minutes), and honestly I can't vet his claimed listener totals, either.
So... I started thinking... what if I just create my own internet radio station. If I only play Creative Commons music and podcasts with author permission, it's super easy to pull off. BUT...
....
does anybody really even care about radio as a delivery medium anymore, internet or otherwise? I think most Sirius subscribers, for example, are older dudes like me. Ditto Live365, etc. Don't most of the "kids these days" mostly listen to either locally hosted mp3s and downloaded podcasts, or algorithmically programmed services like Pandora or Google Music? I dunno. I don't feel like the research is worth doing...
...but, maybe there's a market for 30+ year old dudes (and chicks) to listen to audio dramas and the occasional oddball geeky song. Is that a desirable advertising demographic? I'd guess it is... but how do I reach old farts who want to listen to old time radio remakes? And are there enough of them that making a streaming content channel with a variety of programming would be worthwhile over and above simply making and promoting my one podcast?
Dunno. I feel like this is just scope creep disguised as inspiration borne of disappointment.
Though, there is one venue in my city that doesn't allow cameras, but does allow glass - what they do is put a Band-aid over the lens, with the non-sticky gauze pad over the lens bit. You can still use it, but you can't take photos. Hilariously, according to my mate that works there, the few people with glass who show up tend to just take it off or leave, because in the words of one customer, "I don't think so, I don't want my glass looking stupid with a band-aid on it."
What that says about the glass users who frequent this venue, I'll leave to you, but here's another tale from the trenches - more than once, they've gone to band-aid someone's Glass, and they've just gone "No don't worry about it, it's not glass" - turns out people are rocking up to this place wearing non-functional props made to look like Glass.