Category Archives: random

U.S. causes Splinternet, or the perfect example of a completely misleading news title

The way in which this fairly reasonably reported news item is titled is just ridiculous: U.S. domain deregulation could fragment World Wide Web into ‘Splinternet’.

Reading that title you would be forgiven for thinking that the U.S. had suddenly made it possible for restrictive regimes to better control the Internet in their countries. Read the actual article and you realize that the title bears absolutely no relation to the actual content. In fact, the actions of the U.S. government (in the case of ICANN) have absolutely nothing to do with other countries clamping down on speech and access. The ICANN issue was presented as an example of U.S. attempts to distance itself from the regulatory bodies that manage the web while other countries (like Turkey) are seeking to further control and regulate the Internet. Counties can regulate, monitor, and control the Internet regardless of who manages the wider network infrastructure (see China).

The sub-head is actually more closely matches the text and should have been made the actual title: “Some governments ponder decoupling from World Wide Web and create an intranet.”

I don’t know if this is a politically motivated title or just a cynical attempt at generating traffic. Probably both (the Times historically being a conservative-leaning rag). If nothing else the title just further pumps the volume in the anti-Obama echo chamber.

All that being said, I did find the actual article entertaining (if not particularly informative) thanks if nothing else than to this quote:

When Turkish communications minister Lutfi Elvan told daily newspaper Hurriyet last week that he was planning to “detach” Turkey from the global Internet, he quickly became a target of ridicule around the World Wide Web.

“The man is clearly an idiot,” Andrew Duff, a member of the European Parliament, tweeted in one derisive response.

Though I quested whether or not Duff meant to post that. I don’t know his politics, and he quickly followed up with the opposite sentiment.

Why Movie Streaming Sites So Fail to Satisfy – NYTimes.com

There have been plenty of explainers about this issue. What’s amazing is that it’s still the primary (and not going anywhere) issue that video streaming services have to deal with. It’s the main reason I decided to jump back on the DVD-by-mail bandwagon. I see no reason why the DVD/BlueRay market should be going anywhere. Well, except for the massive competition from online video (hat tip to YouTube).

New York Times: Why Movie Streaming Sites So Fail to Satisfy – NYTimes.com.

 

Link

Verbatim: What Is a Photocopier? – Video – NYTimes.com.

In 2012, on my Facebook feed, I stumbled across a hilarious excerpt from a legal transcript. In a deposition in Ohio, a lawyer became embroiled in an absurd argument about the definition of a photocopier.

D: When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?

PL: Let me be clear. The term “photocopying machine” is so ambiguous that you can’t picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?

This is so great. More please!

Link

And when you were finished handwriting a section of code – perhaps a full program, perhaps a subroutine – you’d gather these sheets together (carefully numbered in sequence, of course) and send them along to the folks in the data entry department.

They’d type it in.

And the next day you’d get a report to find out if it compiled or not.

via Getting Started, circa 1983

Link

Slate: Craig Ferguson is Leaving Late Late Show. That’s Bad News, Even if You Hate Late Night Television.

This is a good article about the end of Craig Ferguson’s term on the Late Late Show. I can’t say I watch late night TV too often (or any TV for that matter), but the times I have watched his show I’ve enjoyed it. I’m sad to see him go. This video that goes along with the article is a great exemplar of why he’s so good. He’s not just funny, he’s sincere and smart and honest and watching his show is like hanging out with a good friend.

Link

FCC will seek input on 'pay-for-priority' Net neutrality proposal | Networking – InfoWorld.

Digital rights groups Public Knowledge and Free Press objected to the plan to allow commercial traffic management agreements, sometimes referred to as peering agreements.

The term “peering agreement” doesn’t feel right to describe what’s going on here since it has traditionally been used to describe the interconnections between network providers. A practice that has made the interconnectedness of the Internet possible. Peering agreements can still come in to play with net neutrality, but don’t play quite as large a role as bandwidth discrimination.