Easy fix. The FCC could just require that providers upgrade their networks so that the USA doesn't fall even *further* behind the world.
458 publicly visible posts • joined 19 May 2010
This whole notion that forcing ISPs to play fair with traffic will cause even a hiccup in rolling out service is bull crap. Services will continue to be rolled out as long as ISPs see a profit in doing so. If the profit is in the line itself, as it should be, then they will continue putting lines in the ground.
What's really at stake from IBM and Cisco's perspective is selling additional kit to manage network traffic. They've invested quite a bit of money in being able to sell high end equipment to ISPs to allow them to perform traffic shaping. If the law makes that kit illegal then they've lost money.
I agree that a content provider should have the right to charge for displaying their content on 3rd party sites. That's a no brainer.
I also agree that google (or other 3rd party sites) have the option to decline paying and therefore decline showing the content.
What I find hilarious are those people who think that having their headlines shown on 3rd party sites (with links back to them) is anything but free advertising. I think the spanish companies got exactly what they deserved. As long as google continues to provide a way to opt out of displaying content - which has been around for a long long time - then people whose stuff shows up on google that do not opt out have nothing to complain about.
Re: But the elephant in the room...
>>But these medical bankruptcies are not incurred by the bottom 10%. They are fully covered by Medicaid, and receive their medical care at no cost.
All I can say is that you are woefully misinformed. The ACA actually made things worse for people at that level.
All my iDevices are protected by LifeProof cases. Each have been in swimming pools, dropped repeatedly on concrete, thrown down the stairs ( multiple times by the kids) and I've never had so much as a scratch on any of them.
Expensive case? Yep. But I've never had to replace a device because it was broken. I'm pretty sure the materials cost about $0.50. Seems like phone manufacturers could just include a free case.
I seriously hope this continues to go forward and the other lawsuits are successful against the other large offenders like Home Depot.
They don't need to store this info. It can travel from the pin pad device all the way to the clearing house in an encrypted format. Maybe, just maybe, a huge lawsuit like this will convince other companies to stop their bullshit "security" practices, fire the idiot programmers, and for once do something right. Even if they are forced to by being in fear of having their business go tits up.
Re: Zounds! I envisage a threat to public order!!
You forget that, unlike in England, one is protected from self-incrimination by simply pleading the Fifth Amendment (which explicitly protects against that). If a defendant refuses to answer that's one thing, but not even Congress has been able to get around someone answering, "I plea the Fifth."
I'm fairly certain that no one in congress would actually want to try and get around the 5th amendment. After all they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to distance themselves from any actual responsibility for their actions.
I'm not really surprised. Specs are crucial when attempting to price out a new system. However it requires really tight control by both parties to make sure the thing doesn't balloon up like a puffer fish.
I've been on many projects where the initial spec was pretty simple only to have costs radically go up as the customer decides to add all sorts of new things. Hell I've been on projects where the customer gave such conflicting specs that it was simply impossible to deliver while demanding the system meet all of them or be sued.
Meanwhile a consultant will happily accept spec changes as long as you're still paying the bills. I'm not saying IBM is blameless here, but if the Aussie government had bothered to competently manage the project then it would never have ballooned like this.
Re: The answer is still no.
>>Funny to me that the techie crowd doesn't like the fastest, most secure version of Windows ever.
Maybe because it's a techie nightmare. Simple things like user management are incredibly hard. Features that used to exist are simply gone or so buried it's nearly impossible to find. Or it might be simply that the user experience is good for a tablet but horrible for those of us that actually try to get real work done.
Win 7 is, by any real metric, a rock solid OS. It simply works. In other words there is NOTHING that 8/8.1 brought to the table that was necessary. Even the latest version of office didn't bring anything truly useful. Users simply didn't have a problem with the UI design of the OS. Numerous applications were garbage, but changing out the OS certainly didn't fix that.
Not only did Win 8 bring nothing new to the table, it was a giant step backwards because it forced everyone to relearn how to interact with their computer. 8.1 was a small step back to were it was. The screen shots I've seen of Win 10 appear to be a giant step that way.
As to performance, hardware has improved to the point that any real OS performance improvements were unnecessary.
A few weeks ago I noticed that browsing to https://google.com was being redirect to the non SSL site and a little message was showing up saying the network had turned off SSL search. As I'm the network guy I tried different browsers and different computers. Same problem.
So I called google and asked them what was going on. At first they said my company turned off that setting in the admin panel for google. I assured them the only person capable of doing that was me and that I had the admin panel up showing that ssl search was enabled.
Then they said time warner ( our ISP ) had turned it off. I hung up and called time warner. After asking why they would have ssl search turned off the csr put me on hold. He came back a few minutes later and insisted that they did no such thing. Interestingly, ssl search immediately started working again.
I don't know wtf is going on, but I've configured all of our desktops to point to encrypted.google.com.
All the more reason for google to hurry up with the driverless cars.
Here's a clue about the free market: no one is a slave to their employer. You are free to change jobs if you feel that the conditions and/or pay aren't what you want. If very few people are willing to work for the offered rate and conditions then the company will increase the pay or change the conditions to attract workers.
I truly don't understand those that complain about their job while staying in it. You can move. Heck if they can't afford housing they could *gasp* even move to a different state.
Re: Obama Plan for Internet?? - Nooooo!
Your first mistake is in thinking that ObamaCare was about making sure everyone had access to healthcare. It wasn't. Everyone already had access if you were willing to pay for it.
It also wasn't about making sure everyone had "affordable" healthcare coverage. I know many people in the lower income area that had to stop paying for any type of insurance because the rates skyrocketed AND they don't qualify for any type of assistance. I'm talking about people who make $35k or less a year.
Instead it was about making young, healthy people pay for the healthcare of older, unhealthy people. In other words it was entirely about redistribution of wealth. Which is why everyone's rates have gone up *on average* 40% since it was introduced.
In short, ObamaCare has done nothing but increase the costs of insurance while doing nothing about the costs of healthcare itself and certainly did NOTHING about fixing the problems. If they really wanted to fix things then insurance for everything but catastrophic would be banned outright and the market would self adjust.
I truly don't understand the FCCs problem of classifying them in the same way as phone lines. Nobody really gives a damn about these so called "services" that ISPs have. Just the lines thank you very much.
Hell I have FIOS and I'd be hard pressed to tell you what services, if any, Verizon has beyond getting the fibre to my house. I think they forced me to create an email address on their system, but I'm not entirely sure as it's been 5+ years since inven had to deal with them directly.
Also all that crap about how it's data being transferred instead of a voice is just dumb. To the ISP it should be no different. I pay them so I can have a conversation with google, Dropbox, Netflix or whatever. The contents of that conversation isn't their concern. If they can't support all these "conversations" going on at once then that's their problem to add capacity or to sell services at reduced rates.
I used to wonder if we (the US) would be better off if the internet companies were treated just like the water/electric utilities and highways.
Then I remembered deregulation in which several (many?) states started privatizing electric utilities because government service was spotty and pricing was crap. Then I also remembered that, at least in my state, there are several large highways that are converting (or have converted) over to Toll Roads owned by foreign agencies because the states can't figure out how to maintain them. - This stuff happens when taxes originally marked for highway construction/maintenance are funneled into other services.
I know that Internet service needs packet prioritization for proper functioning. However I also know that the US telcos are horribly opaque to the point that normal people consider ads with pricing to be outright lies; their "contracts" seem to say "we'll give you whatever service we want and will change it whenever we want, but if you leave then you will be ripped a new one."
The right answer would be that ISPs do what they can to ensure that traffic is properly delivered at the speeds they advertise. However that seems to be near impossible to legislate. So a better answer would be: force the bastards to compete with each other.
The fact that most areas of the US only have a single choice in ISP is problematic. The top action item should be for the FCC to come up with whatever rules are necessary to force competition. My business is paying around $500/month for 20Mb service. I pay $100/month for 100Mb service at my house. The difference? I have a choice of 3 providers at my home and there is only 1 provider at my business. If there was competition, I guarantee the pricing would change.
That's how I rate this current season: Meh.
The "story arc", if you want to call it that, wasn't exactly thrilling. During every single episode I was hoping they'd just go ahead and "regenerate" him. Capaldi and Coleman are good actors however I think the writing this season has been positively atrocious and I have very little expectations for the Christmas episode.
This season has simply meandered all over the place. Pulling book characters like Robin Hood and tying that to concepts of Heaven had the possibility of saying that this Dr has moved into some weird alternate universe timeline based on fairy tales... Kind of like the reveal around the crack in the universe and Amy. Yet, this hasn't materialized.
The draw to the Dr. Who reboot is that it is smart and funny along with presenting solid ethical dilemmas intelligently with the Dr leading the way. This entire season felt as if he was just a little raft on a big ocean being thrown about with little ability to direct things no matter how much running around he's done or pretty speeches he might give.
The Oswald character had a tremendous amount going for her. Although I really believe that she should have exited as soon as she stepped into the Dr.'s time stream. Everything that's happened since then just doesn't make any real sense. What could she have possibly wanted to tell Danny that was so important that she didn't want to tell him to his face? And, no, I don't buy that a woman would NOT want to see a man's face when she told him she was pregnant so it wasn't that.
All in all, this season of Who feels like the authors are trying to be smarter than they really are and are utterly failing in the process.
Internet Usage Tips
Pro Tip #1:
If you don't want naked pictures of yourself to end up on the internet, then don't take them. If someone else takes them without permission, make sure to sue them so that the rest of the world will be made aware of the indiscretion and search for them.
Pro Tip #2:
If you aren't sure if what you are saying is dumb or not, then by default it is dumb. Don't post it. Actually, most of what you say is dumb and of no merit to the wider world, so you're likely better off just keeping those thoughts to yourself. Abstinence - from the internet anyway - is likely the best policy for those too immature to understand the ramifications of their actions.
Pro Tip #3:
Whatever you say, type, upload a video/photo of doesn't magically go away after some amount of time. Someone, somewhere will have saved it only to reveal at the worst possible moment in your life. Even if Google does let you "be forgotten", you won't be. Those images, text and videos will still be out there just waiting for those in control of them to turn the spotlight back on.
Pro Tip #4:
There is no such thing as "anonymity" on the Internet. You can be identified and found by someone willing to spend the time to do the research. If hackers - the real ones, not the kiddies - are routinely found and arrested what chance do you think you have?
If the manufacturers want to "win" they need to get out of the mindset of selling to people that replace their phones every year and instead build some longevity into the offer.
I don't trust samsung, LG or any of the other manufacturers to keep updating my phone as security issues and bugs are found for 3 to 4 years. Apple? They do plain and simple.
My wife and I were walking through a store the other day and she saw a slick new washing machine. The claims on it sounded great, price seemed reasonable and she was just about to grab a salesperson when I said "honey, it's a samsung. That's the same company that made our TV and blueray player". Her response, "screw that. I don't need another problem."
Everything about these manufacturers is build it cheap, throw some gloss on it and completely forget about the customers that buy. The only thing droid has going for it is "cheap" but when you need to replace that phone every single year, well, it is far more expensive than the "good stuff"
Re: Easy Solution
The right to bear arms was put in place for a few reasons. First, it meant the new government could count on the populace to be able to repel invaders - a distinct possibility at the time. Second it meant that the government would be highly unlikely to engage its own citizens.
The latter part was important in order to gain the trust of the citizenry.
In other words, it was put in place as a safety check and deterrent; not to kill. This really isn't that much different from the US having enough nukes to take out the planet several times over. Sure, a nuke will kill a lo of people. However it's purpose is to deter others from direct assaults.
In today's world, I'd argue that the right to bear arms is just as necessary as before as a potential deterrent. The US government is proving on an almost daily basis that it no longer deserves the trust placed in it. As such I'm all for a person being able to own anything from a pistol right up to parking an M1 Abrams tank on their lawn. Now, if they decide to go shoot someone there had better be a pretty damn good reason for it or they should be put against a wall.
“I would feel that a company that attempted to pay me less based on this idea didn’t really value me. It implies that I am no more than a replaceable part in a machine, rather than being a unique fit to a role in the organisation"
That's...just funny. A business is a machine. A business has jobs which are made up of tasks that need to be performed. Very very few businesses can survive when built around a unique snowflake which might call in sick or decide it's changed it's mind and wants to go do something else or is simply no longer available. Therefore each person filling a job has to be a replaceable machine part. That's just the way it works.
This doesn't mean that your personal experience while fulfilling that role needs to be dreary. It can be fun, upbeat and exciting! However, just recognize that if you are no longer there that the Business will continue. Everyone in this capacity is ultimately replaceable from the CEO on down to the cleaning crew. They can each contribute their own spin to the position, but if they were to no longer be there someone else would fill those shoes.
Now there are certain businesses that are built around a special snowflake. They are called Artists, and if they don't produce something that someone else is willing to buy, well, they starve. Good luck with that.
I'm like several others here. There is literally nothing a theater offers that I don't have a better solution for at home. I don't need to see a movie the moment it comes out. Actually, I rather like te ability to watch 5 or 10 minutes of something and simply shut it off if I don't like it.
I value my time on this planet and there is just no point wasting it watching a poor movie or even a good movie ( rare, I know ) under poor conditions.
Re: for the more popular networks to subsidize the less popular channels
Of course it's going to cause some channels to die. That's the point, people are tired of paying for 99% crap just to get a show every so often that's worth the time.
A lot of these channels really should have just been a 1 year series. They simply don't have enough content to run 24x7. Others exist solely for reruns. In today's world there is just no reason to bother with that. Put it on amazon or netflix and if people want to see it then they'll hit play.
I see a bloodbath in the tv industry brewing that will make the newspaper consolidation look like a tea party.
Re: from stats, it's actually quite nippy
iOS 8 is not a"device", it's an operating system. Are you saying that an iphone 6 is faster or are you saying an iphone 5 running ios 8 is faster than an iphone 5 running an older ios?
Lack of detail doesn't help.
Personally, I haven't upgraded because I'm not sure why I even need to bother. Nevermind all those people that got burned with bricked devices...
First off, This is what Journalism is actuay about. The author took what was said, parsed out the nonsense and we are left with obvious truths. Good job.
Now, what I find increasingly hard to believe is that people are so dumb as to believe that whatever they post can't be absolutely tracked back to them. You'd think that by now everyone would realize that there is no such thing as being anonymous, especially on the internet.
Then again, probably the best comparison to make is to snake oil salesmen from 100 years ago. Medicine was a relatively new industry with little to no control or oversight. The difference here being that government has zero reason to put companies like whisper out of business for false claims and every reason to prop them up.
The current generation of kids won't fix this, but the next one might.
I hope the try to put a rail gun on that platform. Not because I think it will actually be used ( it won't ), rather id like to see a rather obscene amount of money put into two avenues of research: nuclear reactors and electro magnetics. If we can get reactor sizes down and safer then everyone benefits from decreased costs.
Nuke reactors are incredibly expensive right now. To put one in a tank, would mean it has to get cheaper and be very safe. Sure, we will spend $400m on a plane, but I no one would consider that amount of money for a single tank. As far as safety, we wouldn't want a shell to turn one into a mini sun, so they'd have to withstand battlefield conditions (be blown to hell) without going critical.
So, please make this. I'd like a mini-nuke powering my house or flying car.
So a company which purposefully used phrases like "infinite" has decided that customers who take them at their word are "abusing" the system. That's almost funny.
I wish we (the US) had some sort of real truth in advertising. When companies use terms like "unlimited" and sign contracts to that effect then they should absolutely be held to it.
I'm grandfathered in an "unlimited" data plan with my phone provider. Of course, to them, unlimited means up to 5GB of data transfer and if I go over then they purposefully slow me down.
My internet provider says I have a 1Gb/s always on connection to the internet. However, I can only reach that for a short amount of time before they start rate limiting it.
Yeah, companies that use terms like "unlimited", "infinite" etc need to be sued into oblivion.