ISPs

Sleep paralysis

– As someone who suffers from recurrent isolated sleep paralysis, I figured I’d try to draw what it feels like. I didn’t quite capture it entirely, though…it’s just so otherworldly. 

If you’d like to see more of my art, please follow trystharvest

An open letter to Tumblr about Net Neutrality

To Whom it May Concern (which is basically everybody),

As a regular Tumblr user, I was disappointed to see Tumblr’s open support of so-called “Net Neutrality.” I find it terribly ironic that a company which is able to exist solely because of the current state of internet freedom, supports regulation that would essentially hand over internet liberty to the federal government. “Save the Internet”? From what, exactly? Conditions that allowed your company to flourish? How…unselfish of you.

In the spirit of liberty, I celebrate everyone’s right to openly express any opinion, regardless of how much I might disagree with it. That being said, I’d like to exercise my right to free speech by pointing out that your support of “Net Neutrality” is either misguided or intentionally misleading. 

1.  Net Neutrality is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Supporters of so-called “Net Neutrality” will tell you that the government needs to have the power to regulate how ISPs prioritize their connection speeds to ensure that they don’t favor one internet user over another. But here’s what they never tell you: It’s a fictitious problem. It only exists theoretically. This, of course, is nothing new. The government is famous for concocting problems that it can only “solve” by assuming more control. Understand, I’m not suggesting that ISPs don’t prioritize connection speeds. They do. But often this is a good thing, not a bad thing. An internet company should be able to prioritize, say, Netflix over CrazyAndSillyCats.com. It only makes sense.

But here’s the rub: it is natural for the free to self-adjust, but history has shown that it is decidedly unnatural for the Federal Government to do so.  If CrazyAndSillyCats.com suddenly becomes an international success, and consumers suddenly demand faster access, they get to vote with their pocketbooks and only the service providers who adjust will succeed. Ten years ago, nobody could have imagined the success that a company like Netflix would have streaming HD movies on demand.  At first, the service was clunky and slow, but now that consumers have demanded the content, ISPs have adjusted and Netflix movies and shows can be streamed without interruption.  The Federal Government is not capable of that kind of rapid adjustment.

2.  Net Neutrality will ultimately lead to censorship.

The only developed countries in the world that do not a have free and open internet are countries where the government will simply not allow it to be free. The internet is censored in China. The internet is censored in Cuba. The internet is censored all over the Middle East. This is something that we in America have never had to fear because the government lacked the legal authority to censor, but by deeming the internet a “public utility,” that’s exactly what would happen. Why would we want to voluntarily give the power to censor to government?

Right now, internet content is free and open and controlled by no one (generally speaking). People can exchange information freely precisely because of the fact that the government doesn’t control it. Users aren’t required to have licenses to post things deemed controversial by those in power. I know, I know…you might think that it’s far fetched to suggest that the federal government would suddenly start blocking certain users from saying certain things online. That’s tinfoil hat stuff. but the truth is, it’s already happening. The FCC censors what can and can’t be said or shown on over-the-air television, radio and satellite mediums because these have been deemed “public utilities.” Why are we so confident that this won’t happen to the internet – with this administration or when a new one comes to power?

Furthermore, in the past, this hasn’t just applied to obscene content, it has applied to political speech as well:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced.

In other words, every political view shared by every broadcaster had to be monitored and approved by government. This isn’t liberty. On the contrary. Fortunately this terrible law that censored broadcasters has been repealed. Look, if you think the government won’t attempt to regulate political speech (or punish certain behavior or try to control certain behavior) on the internet by fines, selective licensing, or other coercive measures, you’re being short-sighted and utterly naive.

3.  Net Neutrality will usher in internet taxes.

There are some that claim that this isn’t true because taxes aren’t mandated in the FCC regulations, but read the fine print. By changing the classification of the internet, the federal government opens up the possibility of state and local utility taxes, which is, of course, another way of saying that local and state governments will tax the internet (because that’s what governments do. If they can tax it, they will). Here’s one analysis from the Progressive Policy Institute:

By regulating broadband service under Title II…broadband would likely become burdened with a host of new state and local taxes and fees, the kind we pay on our monthly home and/or wireless phone bills. These taxes and fees are normally passed on to consumers; when they rise, consumers end up paying more. Expect the same with broadband.
According to Litan and Singer, these new state and local fees will increase by $15 billion, impacting consumers to varying degrees. The average American household with a fixed broadband connection would pay in the range of an additional $51 to $83 per year, and those with one smartphone or other wireless broadband device (tablet) would pay $72 more annually.

But local taxes aren’t the only ones that will show up on the average consumer’s bill. The FCC has long required fees of all of the entities it regulates in order to support its so-called “Universal Service Fund.” Allow Wikipedia to explain:

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intended to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The fund reported a total of $8.33 billion in disbursements in 2013, divided among its four programs. The fund is supported by charging telecommunications companies a fee which is set quarterly. As of the fourth quarter of 2014, the rate is 16.1% of a telecom company’s interstate end-user revenues.

So they won’t tax you, per se. They’ll just charge you fees. Sound familiar?  That’s exactly what happened with Obamacare. They might not call it a “tax,” but make no mistake, getting several billion dollars into Uncle Sam’s pockets is one of the primary reasons for Net Neutrality, not fairness (however that’s defined). New taxes will come if the FCC’s plan comes to fruition. It’s not a question of if, but a question of when.

4. There is no reasonable argument for Net Neutrality.

I’ve seen memes. I’ve seen Facebook posts. I’ve read progressive articles. I’ve listened to progressive politicians. And when it comes to Net Neutrality, they all have the same argument: “We need to #SaveTheInternet from the evil cable companies.” It’s the same tactic that has been used to push through countless other liberty-killing bureaucracies, laws, taxes and regulations: a fear and hatred of corporations. But this is an argument based on emotion and personal bias rather than reason, history, principle or fact.

First of all, as has already been stated, there is no problem. Internet users in America have the ability to blog about whatever they’d like, watch Netflix almost immediately – even on their phones, listen to religious broadcasts, participate in things that some might find offensive, share controversial ideas, criticize government and, yes, even rail against evil corporations. No one is censored. No one is threatened (legally). No one has their rights violated. There is no problem. The government shouldn’t be going around solving problems that don’t exist.

Second, as anyone who is vaguely familiar with economics would surmise, even if a cable company did begin to throttle particular users and allocate resources for reasons other than traffic demand, they would begin losing customers to competitors and the problem would be immediately fixed. That’s how the free market works. It can adjust to market forces and demand instantaneously. The government? Not so much.

Third, not only is there no problem, but the competition in the free marketplace has been an undeniable success. In 1994, there were dial-up modems that supplied internet at a laughable (by today’s standards) 28.8 kbit/s. Now, gigabit connections are available in many communities nationwide. That means that our internet is 35,000 times faster now than it was just two decades ago. No government agency made that happen. The free market did.

Fourth, you may not like them, but corporations do not have the power that government does. Corporations can’t put you in jail. Corporations can’t coerce you. Corporations can’t tax you. Corporations can’t pass regulations that infringe upon your rights in any way. Government, however, can do all of these things. It has the monopoly on force.  If you think dealing with Comcast or ATT is bad, you should be petrified of dealing with the Federal Government.

5. Net Neutrality will create yet another way for corporations to get in bed with politicians.

Everyone claims to hate crony-capitalism, but when we have a real chance to curb corporate influence on government, we rarely take it. In fact, often laws, taxes, regulations and spending projects are initiated, not because they are needed, but because a corporation with powerful lobbyists pays off, bribes, or blackmails politicians to get them passed because they know it will benefit them in some way. And giving the government the power to grant (or not grant) internet licenses will likely cause this problem to increase exponentially.

You might slyly ask why many large ISP companies would be in favor of such a law if it truly will regulate them, raise taxes, take away liberty, usher in unprecedented amounts of red tape and raise the price of virtually everything related to the internet. The answer: The elimination of competition. Why is Amazon in favor of the proposed internet tax that they’ll have to pay? Is it because Amazon is so noble that it is just chomping at the bit to build more roads and bridges? Hardly. It’s because Amazon knows that its smaller competition couldn’t possibly afford to compete with its deep pockets and they would eventually go out of business. It’s not all cupcakes and rainbows when the government and corporations mix. I regularly hear people of all political stripes decry the cozy relationship that corporations have with politicians, and rightly so. So why would we want to encourage it?

6. Net Neutrality takes away liberty.

You may hate corporations. More specifically, you may hate cable companies and ISPs. That’s super. Good for you. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t (or shouldn’t) have the right to run their businesses as they see fit. Please understand, if they violate the Constitutional rights of someone, then they should face consequences. No question about it. But apart from that, they, like everyone else, should be allowed to conduct business without the thumb of government on them.

The vast majority of the time, people enter into contracts with ISPs for their internet service. These contracts generally outline the pricing structure, define the terms of service and often lock a user in for a limited time. But notice, the ISPs don’t come to anyone’s house, hold a gun to their head and force them to sign anything. These people enter into binding contracts of their own free will. And, a person who enters into a binding contract is obligated to abide by the terms of that contract, plain and simple. If they don’t have to abide by them, then what’s the point of the contract? And if the two entities agree that an ISP has the right to allocate bandwidth, then the ISP has the right to allocate bandwidth. No need for government intervention.

There are some who would argue that as long as communication companies receive special privileges, tax breaks and, in some cases, subsidies from the government, they need to be regulated. I could not agree more. This is why we need to eliminate these special considerations for all companies, regardless of the type of business they conduct. Just as all people should have exactly the same rights, companies should be treated exactly the same by all governing bodies.

Furthermore, I personally want my ISP to be able to be able to allocate bandwidth as it sees fit. I would expect that a large telecommunications company would know the most efficient way to serve its customers, including me. Think about it, supporters of these regulations are demanding that it be illegal for me to enter into a private contract with a company that might prioritize bandwidth. Even if I want to. Again, this isn’t liberty. It should never be illegal for two consenting entities to enter into contracts with one another. But it seems that it has become impossible for most people to separate the things they don’t like from the things that they believe should be illegal.

7.   Net Neutrality is nothing but a usurpation of power.

For some reason, there is a belief among millions of Americans that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, the federal government generally has the best interest of the American people at heart. I’m not sure how this belief system got started, but it is astounding how prevalent it is. But at best, the government is made up of imperfect people who want to get reelected. At worst (which is unfortunately the most common state) it is made of up of power-hungry bureaucrats hell-bent on gaining control of every aspect of our lives. Liberty (or even pragmatism) is rarely, if ever, the goal. Power is. And they’ll bribe, lie, get in bed with corporations, backstab and blackmail to get it. Whatever gets the job done.

Again, I ask you not to be naive. It kills the statists in Washington that the government doesn’t control our internet communication. After all, one of the planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is to centralize the means of communication in the hands of the state. That’s precisely what this is. No, I’m not suggesting that supporters of this law sleep with copies of Communist Manifesto under their pillows at night, but this belief that the government is good and that the private sector is bad is instinctual to statists. It’s something they all have in common, by definition. Perhaps every American politician until the end of time will be noble and honorable and Net Neutrality will never be used in a sinister way at all. But maybe it will. Why would we risk it?

8.  Net Neutrality should be abhorrent to Liberals and Conservatives (and everyone else too!)

Up to this point, most of the vocal opposition to Net Neutrality has come from conservatives and libertarians. However, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when anyone who called themselves a “liberal” would be automatically and unequivocally opposed to any proposal that might give government the power to regulate speech or any other form of communication. Those days are gone. Liberals, those who once supported liberty in all forms, especially in regards to speech, are now eager to grant virtually unlimited regulatory power to a small panel of unelected bureaucrats, all under the guise of keeping the internet “neutral” – a term that seems more closely to resemble the Newspeak of George Orwell’s 1984 than something heard in The United States of America.

Tumblr, I implore you to reexamine your views on Net Neutrality. Or, at least admit that there might be a few reasonable arguments against it. You have thousands and thousands of users with political views all over the map. Please don’t continue to alienate those with whom you disagree by publicly taking sides on such a controversial issue.

mic.com
Canada Just Took a Huge Leap Forward in Protecting Internet Privacy

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled on June 13 that police will now need a warrant before asking an Internet provider to give up information about its users. This is a bombshell decision: It will protect Canadian citizens against potentially undue searches by law enforcement, while allowing them to retain the anonymity — even online — that’s afforded to them by their constitution.

Read more | Follow micdotcom

2

Voy a decir qué haría yo con el sueldo de los funcionarios.

Los sueldos públicos se pagan con los impuestos aplicados al sector privado. Alguno podría decir “los funcionarios también pagan impuestos”, pero eso tiene trampa, los impuestos que pagan proceden de un sueldo público, que a su vez procede de los impuestos del sector privado. Por eso no tiene sentido mantener inalterables los salarios públicos si los privados no paran de fluctuar.

¿Qué haría yo? crearía un índice como el IPC, pero de salarios en el sector privado, se podría llamar ISP (índice de salario privado). Cogería unos marcadores (media de salario en distintos sectores, como industria, hostelería, etc…) y lo usaría para subir o bajar los sueldos públicos cada 6 meses o un año, como cuando te recalculan la hipoteca con el Euribor. Si los salarios privados bajan un 10%, se bajan los sueldos públicos en la misma medida. Así adaptas el gasto al ingreso, y de paso haces justicia, ya que no tiene sentido que el pagador (trabajador privado) viva penurias para llegar a fin de mes, y el funcionario esté en una especie de limbo salarial.

Lo mismo si sube, es decir, si la economía mejora, los sueldos públicos también. Aunque el sentido de la medida sería amortiguar las caídas de la economía, y que estas caídas no obliguen a subir los impuestos. Sí, estos impuestos subirían para todos (público y privado), pero sería un nuevo obstáculo para el sector que mueve la economía, ya que se comería la mayor parte del marrón. Baja la economía -> bajan los sueldos y encima suben los impuestos. A los funcionarios solo les suben los impuestos. Mejor repartir la bajada de sueldos y no subir los impuestos a nadie.

No resultaría muy popular por dos razones:

1) Los políticos son funcionarios empleados públicos… ejem.
2) A nadie le gusta perder derechos heredados. Es muy bonito que te vayan subiendo el sueldo conforme mejora la economía, pero que no te lo puedan bajar jamás.

Ya me lo pongo yo:

External image
Spaghetti Squash

Spaghetti is hard. All that cooking, draining, not burning… it’s too complicated for a poor college student. Not to mention all the carbs - living on ramen does little to improve one’s health. Luckily, there’s a healthier alternative: spaghetti squash! 

Easily the most delicious vegetable known to mankind, spaghetti squash allows you to enjoy the gourmet flavor of italian pasta along with the health benefits of a good salad. Spaghetti squash is actually one of the healthiest types of squash, with only 42 calories per cup. It’s also incredibly easy to prepare. It’s a bit expensive, but requires few ingredients, takes little time to make, and can feed one person for days.

Ingredients:

1 Spaghetti squash: about $4

Marinara sauce: $2.02

Broccoli: $1.44

Vegetable oil: $2.00

Total: $9.46

I forked out the insides of the spaghetti squash, and they came out stringy and wet. I rinsed the squash and set it aside in a bowl.

I then turned on the stove and, in a pan, poured out a tablespoon of vegetable oil, half the jar of marinara, and about ¼ of a head of broccoli, which I had broken into small florets. I stirred the ingredients for 2-3 minutes.

Then, I poured the spaghetti squash into the pan and mixed everything up, and my meal was ready!

Score: 10/10

This took me just 10 minutes to make, but it didn’t taste like I had just thrown it together. This recipe is also super easy - as long as you know how to use a fork and break apart broccoli, you have the skill-set to make a mean spaghetti squash. Plus, this is a great source of fiber; all the main ingredients are vegetables or vegetable-based! While any college student is averse to vegetables, spaghetti squash is a healthy, yet delicious, way to get the nutrients you need to stay healthy and energized in an environment which often induces the opposite condition.

6

Anamosa State Penitentiary is a maximum security prison for men, located in Anamosa, Jones County Iowa. First built in 1873, it is the second-oldest penitentiary in the state of Iowa, after Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), which opened in 1836, pre-dating Iowa statehood. Inmates were transferred from Iowa State Penitentiary (which was known as Fort Madison Prison at the time) to begin breaking rocks in the quarry and leveling the grounds for construction. Over the course of almost 25 years, the entire prison grounds and surrounding farms were built with prisoner labor. Today, Anamosa State Penitentiary operates 7 farms on 1,436 acres, which produce corn, oats and hay, and sustain livestock for dairy and beef production. It also houses a prison industries factory that produces metal furniture and stamping products, custom woodworks, signs, screen printing and cleaning products.

Notable inmates at Anamosa have included:

John Wesley Elkins - On a warm July night in 1889, 11 year old Wesley went into the bedroom of his mother and stepfather, armed with a rifle and a wooden club. He shot his stepfather in the head, killing him instantly. His mother, who was sleeping with Wesley’s infant half-sister in her arms, awoke to the sound of the rifle shot. Before she realized what was happening, Wesley beat her to death with the club. He then picked up his sister, who was spattered with her parents blood, cleaned and dressed her, and then hitched up the family buggy to a horse and took off down the road towards his Grandfather’s house. He stopped at a neighbor’s house on the way to tell them that an assassin had murdered his parents, and that he was fleeing to safety with his sister. The neighbors alerted the police, who went to the Elkins house and, after surveying the crime scene, were skeptical of Wesley’s story. When questioned by investigators, Wesley quickly broke down and admitted to killing his parents, although his reasoning for doing so left them with more questions than answers. He told the police that he was upset with his parents for making him care for his infant sister far more than he wanted to, and he resented the extra responsibility. He had run away from home several times, only to be brought back, and he saw no escape from his predicament other than to kill them both.

At his trial, Elkins pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison for the murders, and was sent to Anamosa penitentiary. At the time of his admission, he stood 4’8 tall and weighed 73 pounds. He spent 12 years at Anamosa, and devoted his time to working in the prison chapel and library, becoming skilled in reading and writing. In 1902, after a heated public debate which seemed to be evenly split in opinion as to whether he should be released or executed, he was granted parole by the governor. Following his release, he went to work for the railroads for many years, before marrying a woman from Honolulu and settling as a farmer in San Bernardino, California. To this day, many speculate that Wesley could not have committed the crimes, and was covering for someone, although he never admitted to it and no alternative suspect was ever named.

Lester Smith - Many years after Wesley Elkins was sentenced to life at Anamosa, Lester, then 10 years old, pled guilty to manslaughter for the murder of his brother and serious injury of his father after an argument. Upon arriving at the penitentiary, he stated that he quite enjoyed his new home, because he had plenty to eat and a bed of his own to sleep in, which was more than he had ever had. He spent 11 years at Anamosa and was pardoned with the agreement that he would be under guardianship of the president at Cornell College. He was given an education at Cornell and went on to work for an undisclosed newspaper in a large city in the midwest.

John Wayne Gacy - The serial killer and rapist spent 18 months of a ten-year sentence at Anamosa, for sodomy with a minor. Gacy reportedly was a “model prisoner” at Anamosa, and quickly rose to the rank of head cook. Twelve years later, he was convicted of 33 murders and was sentenced to death for 12 of them. He spent 14 years on death row before being executed at Stateville Prison in Illinois.

Robert Hansen - Known as “The Butcher Baker”, Hansen served 20 months of a three year sentence at Anamosa for burning down a school bus garage. After his release from prison, Hansen moved to Anchorage, Alaska, where he began abducting, raping and murdering women. He is known to have murdered at least 17 women, but his suspected body count is closer to 30. He was convicted in 1983 and sentenced to 461 years in prison without parole, and died in 2014 at the age of 75 due to undisclosed lingering health issues.

wired.com
Congress Is About To Give Away Your Online Privacy

by  Terrell McSweeny for Wired

CONGRESS IS POISED to roll back FCC privacy protections in a way that could seriously compromise our online lives. The protections require internet service providers to secure consumer data and obtain consumers’ consent before mining and selling it.

The resolution that could come to a Congressional vote this week aims to tackle differences in how the FCC rule treats ISPs compared with other internet companies. Your broadband provider has to offer you a choice about what information it shares about you, but ecommerce sites and search engines do not.

Advocates for repealing the current protections—the resolution is sponsored by Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ)—argue that Congress should void the FCC’s rule using the Congressional Review Act. They contend that in order to properly govern privacy and avoid confusing consumers, the FCC should maintain consistent rules across the internet ecosystem. But inconsistent standards pervade privacy and consumer law. Furthermore, consistent standards militate in favor of increasing protections for privacy, rather than unraveling them as the current proposal would do.

An alphabet soup of state and federal laws set the privacy requirements for everything from our financial information to data about our children. That’s largely because privacy is both essential to and sometimes in conflict with our most deeply held value, liberty. So, legislators have never been able to craft omnibus privacy protections. Instead, they’ve developed frameworks informed by prevailing norms, incentives, political economy, and ways the information might be used.

(excerpt - click the link for the complete article)

bbc.com
Row over US ISP customer data sales - BBC News
US politicians have voted to remove rules that demanded ISPs got permission from customers before selling their browsing histories.

The US Senate voted by a narrow majority to repeal the rules that were first approved in October 2016.

Politicians who called for the rules to be dropped said they were “harmful”.

The decision was called a “crushing loss” for privacy by digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The rules were drawn up when the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was overseen by a broadly democratic leadership. The requirements, which also covered the ways ISPs stopped data being stolen, were due to come into force by December 2017.

The Trump presidency led to changes at the top of the FCC and prompted scrutiny of some of its decisions - including the broadband privacy provisions.

Members of the US Senate who introduced the measure to overturn the FCC rules said they were “overreaching” and could “stifle” economic growth.

Following the decision by the Senate, the proposal now passes to the House of Representatives which has an overwhelming Republican majority and is likely to be approved.

If the rules are dropped, US ISPs would be allowed to gather data on customers, their browsing histories, viewing habits, location and app usage. This package of data can then be sold to advertisers or marketing firms without letting customers know who is getting it or how it was gathered.

WARNING

anonymous asked:

How seriously do you take the security of your devices?

Lots of stuff is encrypted and connected via different hosts and clients through encrypted connections, ssh and otherwise. Different passwords for most things and multistep authentication or token authentication for others. I have a system for that.

I’ve also gotten TOR so i can learn to use it cause i think it will come in handy in the future cause you never know. Even in my country there was a wire tapping (recording phone calls and stealing data) scandal not long ago. And you don’t know how deep the data gathering goes.

Also i do light penetration testing on networks. That’s also how i figured out the router my ISP gave me has a fucking idiotic vulnerability through an open port they use to auto-configure user settings. Fucking dumbasses using their own-made shitty router firmware from a shitty developer. I closed it though by flashing the routers original firmware.

I also should mention i use data instead of open networks. Though i use open networks to capture cookies. c:

Oh. One day i drove around the city and ran a script catching every AP in the busy parts of my city.. i saw many hidden AP’s around banks and institutions… People should learn to use ethernet cables for gods sake.

Random Playlist Meme

Load up whatever you use for music, random it and put the first ten then tag ten.

“Valentine” - Xandria

“A Theater of Dimensions” - Xandria

“Evil Roots (feat. Inga Scharf)” - Dark Sarah

“Enjoy the Silence” - Lacuna Coil

“Weight of the World” - Evanescence

“Céilí” - Xandria

“Soulcrusher” - Xandria

“Do What U Want (feat. R. Kelly)” - Lady Gaga

“Where The Heart is Home” - Xandria

“Haunted (Demo Version 1)” - Evanescence

Tagged by: @porcelain-and-blood

Taggin: @thecrimsonespada @dreadwyrm-trance @constantlylosingcontrol @nihil242 @spartanivwarsol12343 @pink-songstress and people that want to do and I didn’t marked cause I have a terrible memory.


And yes, my cellphone (had to use it since my ISP is shit to open Spotify) looks like there’s only Xandria. And for coincidence, most of the songs fits a lot with Lunya IC and some in OOC