In other news today...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon said in In other news today...:
7/10 would ride
What are the tails about?
They're obviously supposed to be whorses.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Apparently it's some kind of feminist movement?
Just regular whores then. At least these ones weren't fat.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@kazitor said in In other news today...:
@MZH Reading it, especially the first footnote, that appears to be an intentional joke. Thank goodness.
Did this not give it away?
Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001).
Or how about this?
Yes, it did. Although I didn't see the image when I looked.
-
@sweaty_gammon @Tsaukpaetra People browse this site from work. Maybe link / spoiler that with a NSFW warning?
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon @Tsaukpaetra People browse this site from work. Maybe link / spoiler that with a NSFW warning?
Sure, but it's only more evidence of misogyny or whatever.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon @Tsaukpaetra People browse this site from work. Maybe link / spoiler that with a NSFW warning?
It wasn't NSFW. There was no nudity.
Also you should be working while at work.
-
@sweaty_gammon said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon @Tsaukpaetra People browse this site from work. Maybe link / spoiler that with a NSFW warning?
Also you should be working while at work.
YMBNH. Like...really new here.
-
@Benjamin-Hall If it was a close up of some ladies bum I would agree. But it was a public demonstration with no actual nudity that was posted on many news sites. It was also in no way pornographic.
-
Okay, I‘m starting to see some of the signs @pie_flavor mentioned.
-
@sweaty_gammon Don't forget it's a whole lot more puritanical in some parts of the world (i.e. in the US) than it is over there. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition would probably qualify as NSFW in some workplaces.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
Okay, I‘m starting to see some of the signs @pie_flavor mentioned.
?
-
Quoting 'The Lorax,' Court Pulls Permit For Pipeline Crossing Appalachian Trail
The federal judges noted "the Forest Service's serious environmental concerns that were suddenly, and mysteriously, assuaged in time to meet a private pipeline company's deadlines."
-
@sweaty_gammon I was taking about the working at work part. No comment on the other.
-
Police caught this slippery fellow after he got stuck ... in a grease vent.
Look: Suspect rescued from restaurant grease vent - UPI.com
Authorities in California said they rescued an attempted burglar who ended up trapped for two days in a shuttered restaurant's grease vent.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@PJH said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
I assume that’s the application for the visa waiver program
Yup.
But Mr Stevenson mistakenly answered a question on the Esta visa form, which asked if he was a terrorist, by declaring that he was one.
Apart from catching stupid (and old) people out, what's the exact purpose of those questions?
Have they stopped asking people whether they were part of the regime in Nazi Germany yet?
Are you planning on repatriating?
-
@sweaty_gammon said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon @Tsaukpaetra People browse this site from work. Maybe link / spoiler that with a NSFW warning?
It wasn't NSFW. There was no nudity.
Also you should be working while at work.
Compiling! C++ is good for something!
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon Don't forget it's a whole lot more puritanical in some parts of the world (i.e. in the US) than it is over there. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition would probably qualify as NSFW in some workplaces.
(emphasis mine)
Nowadays in the US? I'd say almost all!
-
@JBert I seem to remember an identical incident in older news. Not "grease vent" though, just "vent". You'd think these Mission Impossible copycats were either more common or less so.
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon Don't forget it's a whole lot more puritanical in some parts of the world (i.e. in the US) than it is over there. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition would probably qualify as NSFW in some workplaces.
(emphasis mine)
Nowadays in the US? I'd say almost all!Either that's because they're taking the intent of the picture creator into account, or because the US is heading towards burka territory.
-
-
How to infuriate your customers
CenturyLink blocked its customers’ Internet access in order to show an ad
Utah customers were booted offline until they acknowledged security software ad.
-
@TimeBandit As usual, TRWTF is Utah.
(1) (a) Upon request by a consumer, a service provider shall filter content to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer.
(2) (a) At the time of a consumer's subscription to a service provider's service, the service provider shall notify the consumer in a conspicuous manner that the consumer may request to have material harmful to minors blocked under Subsection (1)(a).
(b) (i) A service provider shall, before December 30, 2018, notify in a conspicuous manner all of the service provider's consumers with a Utah residential address that the consumer may request material harmful to minors be blocked under Subsection (1)(a).
Fucking Utah.
Faced with legislation forcing them to add "filter content... harmful to minors" to the list of services that they offer (or refer them to "a third party that provides a commercially reasonable method of filtering"), and send all customers a "conspicuous" ad for this service, I see absolutely no issue with them just redirecting customers to a landing page. Once they've seen it, they can proceed to the internet at large, having been duly informed of the State of Utah's mission to protect them from online smut.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
Faced with legislation forcing them to add "filter content... harmful to minors" to the list of services that they offer, and send all customers a "conspicuous" ad for this service, I see absolutely no issue with them just redirecting customers to a landing page. Once they've seen it, they can proceed to the internet at large, having been duly informed of the State of Utah's mission to protect them from online smut.
Minor of the house tries to access the internet, get redirected to the page, then click "proceed" and goes to PornHub.
I see absolutely no issue either
-
@TimeBandit Bonus points if minor of the house then announces "ok, the internet's fixed!" to adult of the house.
Realistically, it's not a very effective solution -- it's just the sort of solution that that law deserves.
-
By 2030 car emissions have to be reduced by another 37.5% compared to 2021 limits.
The only conclusion one can draw is that the EU still has a car industry and this is apparently totally unacceptable.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon Don't forget it's a whole lot more puritanical in some parts of the world (i.e. in the US) than it is over there. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition would probably qualify as NSFW in some workplaces.
Yes. Yes it would. You might not get fired for a single offense, but it's something you shouldn't be viewing at work.
-
@brie What, an email or letter wouldn't be able to do the trick?
Considering that fucking AT&T was able to do just that... sounds to me more like a case of: "Oh fuck, we forgot for over a year to notify our customers and tomorrow's the cutoff date!"
-
@Rhywden It's not just about complying with the law. It's about complying with the law in a way that is just as stupid as the law is, and makes sure that people understand that they are receiving this notice because their government Cares™ about them this much.
-
@brie You really think this will make people complain about their government, and not the ISP?
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden It's not just about complying with the law. It's about complying with the law in a way that is just as stupid as the law is, and makes sure that people understand that they are receiving this notice because their government Cares™ about them this much.
That does not make much sense. Especially when every other ISP managed to not piss off their customers.
Also, if the ISPs don't like that law they can work against it in the usual manner. You know, buying politicians outright and things like that. But sure, let a company take out their legal issues on their customers. I'm sure there are absolutely no problems with that, no.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
You really think this will make people complain about their government, and not the ISP?
No, because it's Utah. But it should.
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
That does not make much sense. Especially when every other ISP managed to not piss off their customers.
What does not make much sense is an ISP wasting very much money over stupid morality laws passed by the State of Utah.
Also, if the ISPs don't like that law they can work against it in the usual manner. You know, buying politicians outright and things like that.
Wouldn't work. It's Utah. They've already been bought by the Mormons.
-
@brie Yes, OH MY GOD! They were forced to inform their customers!
How completely onerous! That surely forced them to resort to whiny-toddler-methods and block their customers from the internet completely. How reasonable!
Geeze. I'm done with your level of stupid.
-
@brie I was about to ask if in brieland people do blame their government if the ISP is the primary actor for their grief. But some yellow-jacketed crowds tell me they do.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Yes, OH MY GOD! They were forced to inform their customers!
I'd put it more like, "the State of Utah has mandated that any ISP who wishes to do business in Utah must go out of its way to inform its customers that 'internet filters' are a thing, and that by putting a filter on their internet, they can be protected from the evils of Adult Entertainment a la Internet Pornography."
But sure, yes, they were forced to "inform their customers". That is another way to say it.
That surely forced them to resort to whiny-toddler-methods and block their customers from the internet completely.
Nobody was blocked from the internet completely. They were just redirected to a page so that their ISP could log their acceptance and check a box somewhere that proves compliance with the law.
And the law basically makes it illegal for an ISP to supply internet access in Utah without providing that notice, so "we'll just block their access until they acknowledge it" seems like a pretty reasonable step.
-
@PleegWat The really nice part is the injection/redirect - y'know, the kind of stuff we usually tell all kinds of people to look out for because it's used by scammers.
Plus, they didn't redirect only http/https, they blocked all ports.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
The really nice part is the injection/redirect - y'know, the kind of stuff we usually tell all kinds of people to look out for because it's used by scammers.
And virtually every hotel wi-fi I've ever used. "Click here to accept the terms of use" is a pretty common redirect page on open wi-fi access points.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Also, if the ISPs don't like that law they can work against it in the usual manner. You know, buying politicians outright and things like that.
It's Utah, so that's likely illegal.
Of course IANAL, YMMV, HAND, ETC.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
The really nice part is the injection/redirect - y'know, the kind of stuff we usually tell all kinds of people to look out for because it's used by scammers.
And virtually every hotel wi-fi I've ever used. "Click here to accept the terms of use" is a pretty common redirect page on open wi-fi access points.
I get it that you're being impressively stupid here but I for myself don't usually expect a captive portal at home.
Maybe a car analogy will help?
"So, this Porsche should not be filled with Diesel" - "Yeah, but a 40 ton truck does like Diesel!"
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
I for myself don't usually expect a captive portal at home.
If you expect the government to keep its moralistic meddling out of your home, you probably shouldn't ever move to Utah.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
I for myself don't usually expect a captive portal at home.
If you expect the government to keep its moralistic meddling out of your home, you probably shouldn't ever move to Utah.
But But! Separation of Church and State!
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit Bonus points if minor of the house then announces "ok, the internet's fixed!" to adult of the house.
Realistically, it's not a very effective solution -- it's just the sort of solution that that law deserves.
TRWTF is people who think "internet"=="HTTP". They could just as well have "conspicuously" printed the notice on the next invoice or sent an email to the address they presumably have of their customers instead of cutting off access for everything that's not an interactive browser.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@sweaty_gammon Don't forget it's a whole lot more puritanical in some parts of the world (i.e. in the US) than it is over there. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition would probably qualify as NSFW in some workplaces.
(emphasis mine)
Nowadays in the US? I'd say almost all!Either that's because they're taking the intent of the picture creator into account, or because the US is heading towards burka territory.
It's called a "hostile work environment." Basically, if any coworker might be offended, whether it's risque, or religious, or political, or racial, or whatever, it's NSFW.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
It's called a "hostile work environment."
I know.
Basically, if any coworker might be offended, whether it's risque, or religious, or political, or racial, or whatever, it's NSFW.
Yep. And that desperate desire to avoid doing anything that might constitute an offensive action leads to stuff being covered up just to demonstrate that it cannot possibly be offensive. Which is one of the alternatives I alluded to.
-
@LaoC said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit Bonus points if minor of the house then announces "ok, the internet's fixed!" to adult of the house.
Realistically, it's not a very effective solution -- it's just the sort of solution that that law deserves.
TRWTF is people who think "internet"=="HTTP". They could just as well have "conspicuously" printed the notice on the next invoice or sent an email to the address they presumably have of their customers instead of cutting off access for everything that's not an interactive browser.
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Plus, they didn't redirect only http/https, they blocked all ports.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
I see absolutely no issue with them just redirecting customers to a landing page.
-
They abused DNS to do this. "Oh, hai - you wanted google.com? Here - have our advert instead..."
-
It wasn't simply a notification (as 'required' by this law,) it was an advertisement.
-
If you're not using their DNS, your internet appears to stop working for no visible reason, since you won't be 'redirected' to their 'click here' page.
-
Devices that don't use browsers (Firesticks and the like) won't present such a landing page - they'll simply stop working.
-
Notification in this instance could have been served by email, with the next bill, text message....
-
-
@PJH said in In other news today...:
It wasn't simply a notification (as 'required' by this law,) it was an advertisement.
The law mandated that ISPs notify their customers of an optional filtering service, either provided by the ISP, through an established agreement between the ISP and a third party who provides it, or by referral to a third party which does:
A service provider may comply with Subsection (1)(a) by providing in-network filtering to prevent receipt of material harmful to minors, ... [or] by engaging a third party to provide or referring a consumer to a third party that provides a commercially reasonable method of filtering to block the receipt of material harmful to minors.
For that filtering service, the law also says that a "reasonable fee" may be charged:
A service provider may charge a consumer a commercially reasonable fee for providing filtering under this Subsection
Unless they graciously decide to provide internet filtering service for free, ISPs have no alternative but to notify customers that they can purchase internet filtering. Notifying customers of an extra, optional service which they can purchase is an advertisement, pretty much any way you try to parse it.
Even if it was free, if my ISP sent me a "notification" (whether by text, email, bill insert, HTTP redirect, or pretty much any other way), I'd call it an ad. They are trying to get me to sign up for an additional service, one for which I haven't chosen to subscribe.
As a customer, yes, I would be more pissed off if my ISP used HTTP redirects to send me ads, as opposed to sticking a flier in my bill or something... because ultimately, I expect my ISP to provide internet service, not to go out of its way to send me ads.
But the State of Utah has forced ISPs to send this ad to all their customers. The Utah state government is in your internets, and it's trying to help. All bets are off.
Oh, but it's for the children! We must shield their eyes!
I don't even have kids. Why should I have to be annoyed by ads for internet filtering for kids?
And, hell, surely there must be a better way for the Mormon church to convince parents in Utah to set up a filtering subscription for their home internet connection, rather than forcing ISPs to spam everyone with ads.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
And, hell, surely there must be a better way for the Mormon church to convince parents in Utah to set up a filtering subscription for their home internet connection, rather than forcing ISPs to spam everyone with ads.
Don't blame it on the church. Utah culture is its own special breed of weird, speaking as a Latter-day Saint myself. The church as a whole, while it opposes pornography, does not teach that government compulsion is the appropriate methods. This isn't a religious issue, it's a cultural and political issue. Just because members of the church do something, that does not mean that the church itself is responsible. Same goes for Islam, Scientology, and Catholicism. Plus everyone else.
Not to mention that even the city-owned ISP in Provo (the center of the Bubble, as it's called, and an area much more church-dominated than even SLC itself) didn't do it this way. From what I can tell, this particular method of compliance is a backhanded attempt by this particular ISP to blame someone else for their obnoxious behavior. Yes, the law is stupid. Yes, it's overbearing. But if they'd have put a single-sentence notice in the bill, no one would have cared. But they decided to go with the most obnoxious method (probably out of an attempt to protest the law or to push another product).
-
@brie chose to take issue with 20% of what I had to say in In other news today...:
But the State of Utah has forced ISPs to send this ad to all their customers.
No. It didn't.
73 76-10-1231. Data service providers -- Internet content harmful to minors.
74 (1) (a) Upon request by a consumer, a service provider shall filter content to prevent
75 the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer.
76 (b) A service provider complies with Subsection (1)(a) if[it uses a]the service
77 provider makes a good faith effort to apply a generally accepted and commercially reasonable
78 method of filtering.
79 (2) (a) At the time of a consumer's subscription to a service provider's service,[or atthe service provider shall notify the consumer in a
80 the time this section takes effect if the consumer subscribes to the service provider's service at
81 the time this section takes effect,]
82 conspicuous manner that the consumer may request to have material harmful to minors blocked
83 under Subsection (1)(a).
84 (b) (i) A service provider shall, before December 30, 2018, notify in a conspicuous
85 manner all of the service provider's consumers with a Utah residential address that the
86 consumer may request material harmful to minors be blocked under Subsection (1)(a).
87 (ii) A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i):
88 (A) by electronic communication;
89 (B) with a consumer's bill; or
90 (C) in another conspicuous manner.Nothing about how it's blocked, nothing about who does the blocking, nothing about advertising other companies or making money out of it.
i.e. This is not what they're required to do:
About 2 of those paragraphs should be enough.
Nevertheless, that isn't the main problem here.
The problem is how this particular ISP chose to go about doing it, which I pointed out in the other 80% of points I raised.
So the method they did use isn't mandated (nor contraindicated, which I suppose will be the next
) by the law under consideration.
-
@PJH said in In other news today...:
So the method they did use isn't mandated (nor contraindicated, which I suppose will be the next
) by the law under consideration.Yes, because the law obviously needs to explicitly state that you don't have to burn the information onto your customers with a branding iron.
"Hey, you need to inform your customers about this. Like, with an email, a letter, below the billing info you send anyway or something in that vein." - "Naw, that's too unobtrusive, let's send a goon squad which reads the text to them at gunpoint!"
That would obviously be a-okay with @brie
-
CenturyLink is an evil ISP. Enough said.
Utah Code Section 76-10-1231
x.com
