Slashdot Mirror


California City Converts Its Street Lights Into A High-Speed IoT Backbone (backchannel.com)

Harvard Law professor Susan Crawford describes how the city of Santa Monica installed its own high-speed IoT backbone on its street lights and traffic signals -- and why it's important. Neutral "micro" cell sites can make very high-capacity wireless transmissions available, competitively, to everyone (and every sensor) nearby. This can and should cause an explosion of options and new opportunities for economic growth, innovation, and human flourishing in general... Very few American cities have carried out this transmogrification, but every single one will need to. Santa Monica...is a city that will be able to control its future digital destiny, because it is taking a comprehensive, competition-forcing approach to the transmission of data...

Cities that get control of their streetlights and connect them to municipally overseen, reasonably priced dark fiber can chart their own Internet of Things futures, rather than leave their destinies in the hands of vendors whose priorities are driven (rationally) by the desire to control whole markets and keep share prices and dividends high rather than provide public benefits.

Santa Monica's CIO warns that now telecoms "are looking for exclusive rights to poles and saying they can't co-locate [with their competitors]. They're all hiring firms to lock up their permits and rights to as many poles as possible, as quickly as possible, before governments can organize."

61 comments

  1. Rational? by rockmuelle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can we stop saying that maximizing profits at all costs is the only rational approach to business?

    It's a rather new idea that's been pushed by the financial and legal worlds for the last 40 years (because, surprise surprise, it lets them maximize profits on their advisory services), but is by no means the only valid metric for measuring business success. Focusing solely on profits oversimplifies the role of business in complex markets. This single minded focus ultimately leads to monopolies providing expensive, crappy products (which is exactly what Santa Monica is trying to avoid here).

    1. Re:Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the reason the business exists. Of course it's rational. Are you suggesting it would somehow be in the interests of the business to minimize profits, or operate at a loss and go out of business? That's ridiculous. It's the most rational thing for the business, and the reason we have laws and regulations (to prevent behaviors that are of great benefit to the business but harm people or society).

    2. Re:Rational? by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but sometimes operating at less than maximal efficiency in order to allow other sections of the economy to flourish as well is the better LONG TERM option.

      Sadly, anything that isn't an increase in profits every single quarter means the world is ending.

      Nice strawman, though. Just remember that there are nuances between "Operate at a loss" and "Earn ALL THE MONIES!"

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting it would somehow be in the interests of the business to minimize profits

      You aren't very bright if you think that minimizing and maximizing are the only two options.
      There is a middle ground that often is a lot more sustainable.
      Usually maximizing profits requires illegal or criminal activity. Ideally it shouldn't be in the best interest of a business to engage in those.

    4. Re:Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making the most profits for this quarter is the in thing, ever since we got the group of MBAs from the '80s and '90s who didn't give a shit about stakeholders, but value shareholders. Shareholders have lost interest in long term investing (q.q.v the rise of HFT), so if a company is charging off some revenue for R&D, their stock value gets gutted and shareholders sue them.

      However, I know what will happen with Santa Monica, which happened to my hometown. The telcos will sue for exclusive access, and will pay for campaigns for people who will be next friendly. I wouldn't be surprised after the next election cycle that the city will reverse its decision and make some lucrative deals to one provider, who will then ensure nobody but them will be able to play ball with IoT devices, and the one provider that won will wind up charging exorbitant prices.

    5. Re:Rational? by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Most companies require a lot of debt, and have a cyclical sales, if they don't grab the money when they can they will likely go bankrupt

    6. Re:Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whose priorities are driven (rationally) by the desire to control whole markets and keep share prices and dividends high rather than provide public benefits.

      Also it is questionable if the "control the whole markets" leads to optimal ROI in an organized society. Stagnation of the society and inherent weakness should be the result of such control, as the realities and the environment change around it.

    7. Re:Rational? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Long term prospects and stability are also perfectly valid business goals.It may make sense for a short term investor if you double profiots now at the costy of flaming out next year, but it doesn't make sense for the business itself.

    8. Re: Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can criticize capitalism, or just see that a municipality is aptly managing public infrastructure they have legal stewardship over.

    9. Re:Rational? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      No, but sometimes operating at less than maximal efficiency in order to allow other sections of the economy to flourish as well is the better LONG TERM option.

      So that would be maximizing (long term) profits then. Hmmm how about that.

    10. Re:Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but sometimes operating at less than maximal efficiency in order to allow other sections of the economy to flourish as well is the better LONG TERM option.

      Sadly, anything that isn't an increase in profits every single quarter means the world is ending.

      Nice strawman, though. Just remember that there are nuances between "Operate at a loss" and "Earn ALL THE MONIES!"

      It's like the difference between an apple tree and a cancerous growth. The former lasts a lot longer and provides a useful product, but according to current economic dogma the latter is vastly superior. Go figure.

    11. Re:Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However, I know what will happen with Santa Monica, which happened to my hometown."

      Or what happened in my hometown. The Utility Poles were put in by PG&E starting in 1948 for a number of planned developments, (We were going from Rural to Suburban.), and "TPC" leased usage as normal. The Old Cable Company also struck a deal with PG&E... which meant neither The Phone Company nor the Old Cable Company had exclusive Pole rights. (More about This Later.) So a third Cable company, who searches out just these situations, went right to PG&E and got permission, and quietly started stringing Cable in 2011. Comcast which had acquired Old Cable Company, after a ping-pong match that went on for decades, screamed bloody murder. One Lawsuit is headed to the Supreme Court... after maybe another decade.
      Comcast Cable and AT&T DSL has been hemorrhaging customers to Astound around here ever since, but it's now a fait accompli. Astound is not only cheaper, but their gear is current; when I removed the old cable from the eaves, it was still painted green. The same green that the house was once painted, around 1959.

      The This Later: Our Old Cable Company was originally a Cooperative, run on a shoestring. High School Kids ran most of the cable, and manned the laughable Control Center on Signal Hill. (I did...) The CATV antennas on Signal Hill were hung off of a WWII Radio Beacon mast, and it and the land were purchased as War Surplus. (Power lines and dedicated phone lines for the Transmitter were included.) This is how a lot of the old CATV Cooperatives worked. PG&E's only condition was that the damn Kids kept their damn hands off of the damn Power Lines, which we (mostly...) did.
      The "City" was not involved or even mentioned in the original Contracts. In the early Seventies, a Privatization movement in City Government forced the sale of our Cooperative to Cablevision, with the City Government now Referee, with a Cable Commission and Everything, including a dedicated City Channel. Unfortunately for the City, they didn't bother going to the trouble of Eminent Domain. They really should have. They really should have had a good Lawyer go over the original Contracts.
      In 2008, after over three decades of rather bad City Management, a Progressive Slate was elected. (Yes, there may have been some Astound money spent here...) I, and I'm somewhat surprised at myself for saying this, am now actually involved with Politics. The New Government basically told Comcast and AT&T to go screw themselves; they were no longer interested in being Referees. And as rather a slap at Comcast, Astound now carries "Democracy Now!" and RT on one of the vacant City Channels. (I was worried when I first came across this, I sent a panicked email to the new Public Affairs Officer. I asked her to be gentle with the Kid. This was just a prank. The email that I got back was simply wonderful: "Yes, _We_ did it!")

      Looking at what I have written above, I have gone on too long, yet still managed to leave too much out. But there are basic Constitutional Issues here. (Another Later.) Just what is a Municipal Utility? How much power should Local Government have over Municipal Utilities, and what form of Local Government should be allowed to be concerned? Utilities don't live in isolation, under what circumstances does original Contract Law regarding Subsidiary Rights to Infrastructure trump, (Oh, how I now loathe that word because of that turd of a man...), later asserted Government Authority over said Infrastructure?

      The Last Later: In her first Term, President Clinton will have to fill three, at least, vacancies on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that in a decade or so from now will consider a Suit on Constitutional Grounds, and the Suit will change names because of Corporate mischief, but may for now be whimsically termed "Comcast and AT&T vs. The City Of Slusher's Gulch." (Yup, Slusher's Gulch. John Slusher ran whorehouses on either side of The Gulch, so that he could get customers whether they were Coming or Going.)
      I do hope that Clinton puts forth a proper Constitutional Scholar in the mix. I would nominate Akhil Amar, but he has been floated several times before, by those with more credentials than I could ever hope to have.

      Captcha: foresee

  2. What Can Go Wrong? by ELCouz · · Score: 2

    IoT...hacker's choice!

    1. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by shubus · · Score: 1

      This is gonna be fun, folks!. Imagine a hack of the entire city of Santa Monica having all it's iOT devices turned into a giant botnet.

    2. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Puts another, ahem, light on the old 'blinky' tag.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just push this back by 2000 years:

      Roads: what can go wrong?
      Horse carriages, the getaway vehicle choice!

      This is just infrastructure nothing more.

    4. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Better push it back a lot farther than that, mate.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by ELCouz · · Score: 1

      I am speaking security wise (IoT are known to be flawed) what does it has to do with progress?

      I fail to see a valid argument there...

    6. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by bjwest · · Score: 1

      This is just infrastructure nothing more.

      If you don't know how the IoT infrastructure differs from roads and horse carriages, you really have no business being on a tech site. This has the potential to do serious damage to the very infrastructure it's connected to, not to mention the privacy and security of anyone within range.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    7. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Don't know what Santa Monica is building, but "IoT infrastructure" is very different from "consumer IoT". We're not talking about Mom's baby camera here; we're talking about FedEx's truck tracking devices and the like. Businesses don't tend to be quite so careless.

      I hope.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    8. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Since when does infrastructure have anything to do with device security?

      Or were you trying to be funny? What can go wrong? Absolutely nothing.

    9. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This has the potential to do serious damage to the very infrastructure it's connected to

      A wise man once said (cherry picked): "If you don't know how the IoT infrastructure differs IoT, you really have no business being on a tech site."

      So what are you doing here?

      On a more serious note, no, no it doesn't. No more that the internet can't do damage to another internet. Please stop confusing individual devices with infrastructure.

    10. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to hackers causing city level gridlock by playing with light timing. Or just turning them all red forever.
      Not everything needs to be connected to a network.

    11. Re: What Can Go Wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dual greens?

    12. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is street lights, not traffic lights. We aren't gonna have the scene from hackers.

    13. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Uh-huh. How many warnings in the last 3 years have we had about machine controllers and PLC's being directly connected to the internet and how it's a really stupid thing to do that. Because they control everything from electrical grids to management of the water supply(including chemical treatment control) to sewer maintenance control.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:What Can Go Wrong? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This is more like the Formula One cars of the late 1960s. 300 HP engines and drum brakes on a set of wheels fit for a bicycle, attached to a flimsy steel-tube frame, what could possibly go wrong?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Human flourishing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human flourishing are not the words I would choose. Corporate flourishing on the backs of regular people, definitely. Would silicone valley please come up with an 'innovation' that doesn't paint them as evil incarnate? Pretty please? Legitimate public service is dead in America.

  4. Manager Alert!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Santa Monica...is a city that will be able to control its future digital destiny, because it is taking a comprehensive, competition-forcing approach to the transmission of data...

    Aren't they supposed to use the word synergy in there somewhere?

    1. Re:Manager Alert!! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Every time I hear "synergy" or have to sit through a bullshit bingo talk, I can't help but think of this.

      I have actually been to speeches that sound like someone just read those lyrics word by word.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Hack or springboard-to-abuse in ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

    1. Re: Hack or springboard-to-abuse in ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries, nearest street light is 1/2 mile away. No I don't live in the boonies.

  6. stehlin har prohfets by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    ATT haven't blocked this yet? They're losing their touch.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. IoT DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now we'll see even larger DDOS attacks.

  8. hyperbole by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    This can and should cause an explosion of options and new opportunities for economic growth, innovation, and human flourishing in general.

    Really?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just not thinking of the "future digital destiny" possibilities.

    2. Re:hyperbole by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes really. A city wide LoRa network creates a whole new world of options that previously had a high cost due to requiring dedicated infrastructure and often licensing of bandwidth.

      America is just behind the times, the Netherlands got covered early this year and there are people basically queuing up to use it for new applications.

    3. Re:hyperbole by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What is the Netherlands going to use it for?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:hyperbole by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I work in this area, and there is potential for a lot of new products once you have a widely available, low power network.

      For example, my company makes a device that can detect and then localize leaks in water pipes. When there is a leak, it communicates back to HQ over cellular networks, the same way a smartphone does. Those networks are expensive, coverage is patchy for IoT because a lot of it is under manhole covers or deep inside buildings, and the cellular modems really chew batteries. Deployment is expensive so you need big lithium (non-rechargable) cells to get a 5 year lifetime and even then it limits the number of transmissions and amount of monitoring you can do.

      Low power radio networks can potentially fix a lot of this. Two orders of magnitude lower power, very cheap to implement. As well as smaller, cheaper batteries it becomes feasible to use solar power or even RF energy harvesting. Currently it's mostly utilities using it for things like automated meter reading and fault detection, but there are lots of new applications that were not previously possible. Monitor every parking space in the city in real-time. Optimize services by having public bins (er... what do Americans call then, public trash cans or something?) report when they are getting full, have traffic lights sync up and coordinate better, allow utilities to do greater network monitoring and respond to faults faster, track air quality on a hyper local level, report occupancy levels at bus stops... I'm sure more imaginative people can come up with more.

      The main problem is that there are so many competing standards. The big three seem to be Sigfox, LORA and 4G M, but there are many others and different places are deploying different ones.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:hyperbole by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Going to? Already using you mean. Everything from environmental sensors measuring emissions especially around the Europoort area, depth sounding, managing waterways, the NS is connecting the old manual railway track changing thingies (i'm sure they have a technical name) back to their system. My company is investigating using these sensors to provide a third party continuous monitoring ability on critical infrastructure. A trial in Amsterdam has put noise sensors around the city so they can quickly determine the source of problems like a riot (naturally they first rolled this out next to the football stadium). Krone have announced they will trial LoRa for new elevators, which currently all have sim cards and mobile systems.

      IoT is everywhere. You just don't see it because slashdot always focuses on some shitty idea involving a toaster.

  9. Wifi Grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So - I'm envisioning a Wifi hot spot in every light bul b- forming its own mesh network? The future will be awesome!

    1. Re: Wifi Grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until someone hacks them all and creates the worlds biggest DDoS attacks

  10. Maybe your business, not mine. State Farm minimize by raymorris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > It's the reason the business exists.

    Speak for yourself. I've founded and owned several businesses over the last 30 years, and none have existed solely or primarily for the purpose of profit to the business. Maybe that's how YOU do business, but not the rest of us.

    My last business was *started* in order to solve a specific pair of problems for customers and the industry as a whole, because existing solutions weren't working and it was a pain in the butt for day job. Actually, it turned my day job into a night job - having to be up in the middle of the night dealing with servers overloaded by attacks. So basically it was started to prevent problems that made my day-to-day work painful. It was then spun off as a separate corporation for the purpose of providing continued employment to existing employees when the main business was sold. That is, to provide employment for a couple of years until another company could be launched around another product. Because it's first purpose as a corporation was to provide a steady paycheck for loyal employees, when one employee got depressed and stopped showing up to work we continued to pay her for six months - making sure people had a steady income was the purpose of that company existing, after all. Later I gave that company to another employee, most of it anyway.

    > Are you suggesting it would somehow be in the interests of the business to minimize profits, or operate at a loss and go out of business?

    Yes, companies such as State Farm and Nationwide insurance minimize profits. Any profit not required for new investment is refunded to customers. Their purpose is to provide the best possible insurance value to customers.
    Most, though not all, businesses have a continuing purpose, so indeed they try not to go out of business. Some have a limited-time purpose, but not most. So they try to avoid net long-term losses that would put them out of businesses. That's very different from maximizing profit. A great many strive for profit near zero other than paying off debt and a capital expenditures fund. I've been on the board of directors of such.

  11. Re:Maybe your business, not mine. State Farm minim by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Non profits minimize profit by paying their big cheeses all their profits. It's not the same as a for profit business, but more like them than different.

    'State Farm' is not a good example to use, they are as bad as insurance companies get in terms of fucking their customers every chance they get. Citing them is like citing 'The United Way' as an example of a good charity. Makes me think you're living in a different universe.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Best use of Eminent Domain by RealGene · · Score: 1

    It's really time to put a stop to the abuse of public infrastructure to benefit what were once highly regulated monopolies (i.e. Edison and Ma Bell).
    Municipalities should seize every telephone pole and lamppost for the public good.

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    1. Re:Best use of Eminent Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really time to put a stop to the abuse of public infrastructure to benefit what were once highly regulated monopolies (i.e. Edison and Ma Bell). Municipalities should seize every telephone pole and lamppost for the public good.

      In general I agree, but caution is required. First, you can't just let everyone install wires on poles. That will not work, so the question is who do you let install wires?

      I'd suggest that if they own the poles and such that they be responsible for periodic replacement and maintenance via property taxes, which is fine... They would also be responsible for the upgrades of infrastructure on the poles, be it power or communications. Those infrastructure upgrades could be bid out, hopefully with the best long term interests of the residents in mind.

      So electric would have two bills. One would be for local infrastructure, which again is maintained by the county, most likely by having contracts with companies that maintain such things. One the contract expires they would rebid it. Conditions might be in the contract where the contract can be voided early, such as poor performance or simply a yearly vote which favors changing the provider. The other bill would be far the upstream provider of service. This can work with electric.

      Communications would be the same. Maintain the local infrastructure. Let people choose their upstream provider.

      Most likely the first of the two bills would be combined so that you had local electric costs, local communications costs, and likely local water and sewer costs. Again, the actual providers might be voted on yearly, or over some span, possibly with a longer term contract linked that they would usually be able to keep. For instance, if a new provider agreed to pay for all new infrastructure, well even if you dumped them after a year, you would still owe them for the upgrades until it was paid off.

      In short there are ways for counties and cities to own key infrastructure, while allowing people best equipped to maintain it to maintain it. Some of the key choices such as expanding service in the surrounding part of counties and such could then be made by the actual voters. One thing I do think is required is for people in less densely populated areas to pay potentially more for some local infrastructure. It simply costs more to provide there.

  13. Right. by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

    So now add streetlights to the botnet of crappy DDOS things.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  14. Re:Maybe your business, not mine. State Farm minim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Non profits minimize profit by paying their big cheeses all their profits. It's not the same as a for profit business, but more like them than different.

    'State Farm' is not a good example to use, they are as bad as insurance companies get in terms of fucking their customers every chance they get. Citing them is like citing 'The United Way' as an example of a good charity. Makes me think you're living in a different universe.

    I shudder to think how bad the others really can be considering that State Farm has by far been the best one that I've had over the years.

  15. Re:Maybe your business, not mine. State Farm minim by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Never filed a claim? Otherwise you'd know better.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so nice that the beach bunnies are getting better Wi-Fi. How about they spend some money on helping the crowds of homeless people who roam the streets beset by mental illness? Santa Monica is a cyberpunk nightmare at this point.

  17. Great. Now streetlights are botnets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering how IoT devices have more holes in their security than a colander, this of course means streetlights are now going to become part of some cybercriminals' botnet used to attack whoever. Probably even make the lights go out when they want teams of thieves in an area to steal cars, rob houses, and kidnap people. Meanwhile the government will find some way to use this to even more thoroughly track and surveil the populace, and corporations will find a way to use this to collect more personal, private data on people.

    I don't see a need, or want, the 'Internet of Things', and I know I'm far from alone in that. A streetlight needs to just be a streetlight, not some over-engineered, over-complicated, wirelessly-connected thing. While white LEDs have made them better and more efficient streetlights, and dimmable, at full brightness only when someone passes by (which is brilliant, forgive the poor pun), I see no need for them to be wirelessly connected to the damned internet, not any more than my washer, dryer, refrigerator, teakettle, or toilet needs to be. How long until we're past this particular fad? I can't wait for it to go away.

    1. Re:Great. Now streetlights are botnets. by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      You're going to be waiting a long time. The name may change, but networked devices have been here for a long time, and they're not going anywhere.

      Someone in marketing just made a new buzzword, that's all.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  18. very interesting .Non-profit customer-owned is wor by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > 'State Farm' is not a good example to use, they are as bad as insurance companies get in terms of fucking their customers every chance they get.

    That's very interesting. The non-profit cooperative is much worse than all of the companies that have a profit motive to compete on service. Does recognizing that fact completely ruin your entire world view?

  19. Management Speak at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wish i had my bulls*** bingo card ready.

  20. Ahh, the Internet of Things! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AKA Cyberdyne Systems Model 0.1 Beta.....

  21. Funny how fast they can move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to fuck you.

  22. Council should know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... looking for exclusive rights to poles and saying they can't co-locate [with their competitors] ...

    Councils should know by now that communication is a basic service and unsuitable for a government-backed monopoly. Any Councillor who supports selling rights to a basic service should be sacked.

    1. Re:Council should know by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

      So says the advantaged... Technologies that become community services are best when run for the public good over private profit. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. Perhaps oversight with teeth is all that is needed to protect those with little to no voice, in this headlong rush to use up everything on the planet. Waste hurts us all. Not keeping up with providing basic resources is a real reason for sacking our officials, not the fact that somebody needs to find a new way of skimming their living off everyone else.

      --
      PlaynBass
  23. Re:Maybe your business, not mine. State Farm minim by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Both times I filed claims with State Farm the work was done within 6 days. One time vandalism on my car, the other when I was involved in a hit and run, and the entire ass end of my car was totaled(sadly it's hard to catch people with no plates). GP would have been better off using something like Green Shield which operates as a non-profit insurance company.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  24. So is it bot-net ready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, is it?
    Seeing how many of the recent ongoing DoS-attacks have been using these unprotected and un-updated IoT-devices...