Interesting. Were your charges dropped ? As I understand they do not stick with you if so. It may be different if for a 19 year old vs under 18. But if the charges stay no matter what, then I agree that would overdoing it as a scare tactic.
Legally, the charges (and, maybe even the arrest record) might disappear (depends on the state) if dropped, but any details that were reported in the media will stick around. Similarly, the "seal" on juvenile records is only a legal matter, not a media matter.
If corporations are choosing to perpetrate something like payola and say its "because of net neutrality", that would be their rationalization for having broken the law, rather than evidence of a bad law.
Agreed.
The more interesting part is that the article seems to be saying that paying for special treatment is a good thing:
one of the best ways to route around a big firm's brand recognition is to buy special treatment in the form of promotions, product placement and the like (payola, after all, is how rock and roll circumvented major label contempt for the genre). That will almost certainly be forbidden under the FCC's version of neutrality
The problem, though, is that the big firms are the ones who have the money to pay for special treatment, so routing around them is a lot harder.
Everything from the hardware, to the permits, but especially the construction.
Local level lobbying also plays a big role.
My neighborhood is split between 2 cities: About 70% is in the first city and the other 30% is on the other. I live in the "other city". My neighborhood was originally wired by the cable company serving the "other city", Year later, another cable company comes along. The first city get completely wired - including its side of my neighborhood. The incremental cost to include my side of of the neighborhood would have been small at the time as all the needed crew, equipment and supplies were in the neighborhood. But the "other city" utilities board [1] caved to the original cable company's demand to not let the new company in - not even the quarter square mile section of my neighborhood that is in the "other city". Yes, everyone in my section of the neighborhood wrote both the utilities board and the city counsel asking that the new company be allowed to wire our part of the neighborhood. But we were just "a few dozen households" vs a huge corporate enterprise. (At the time, the new company had no plans involving other areas on the borders of the "other city", so the other residents didn't care.)
---
[1] Utilities board because they have control over the installation and use of the "utility poles" that carry power, phone and cable TV lines. In theory, the city counsel could have overruled, but that would have been unlikely even if the incumbent cable company wasn't also lobbying them.
There are social aspects to natural selection. In highschool and university, my female classmates (especially the tall ones) preferred taller males. Being significantly taller than average gave me a significant advantage in courting and retaining my girlfriend - despite me being a nerd.
How many of these protocols support adequate security?
Unfortunately, simply not supporting unsecure devices is likely to severely limit the market for a "secure IoT Hub". Manufacturers know this, so are very likely to to make "communicate with any device" the default setting..
The biggest problem I have seen with these connected devices is that many of them need to "call the mothership". While that does make it easier for the device vendors to support their products, it also means that could be used to determine when you are least likely to be home is being sent over the Internet.
I have 3, separate, wired networks in my house. One is for the home automation system, and has NO connection to the Internet.
The system does have IR receivers, so could be vulnerable to a phone or tablet app that sends IR signals using something like an IRED, so the IR receivers accept a very limited set of commands. BUT, the IR communications are one-way: Simple commands in, nothing out.
I've never resigned from a job, though been laid off twice. Once because the company went out of business and the other because the CFO (chief finance officer) panicked when one of the major customers had not issued an RFQ (request for quote) on an expected huge project. He persuaded the CEO to order a 35% reduction in staff. Because I was in the "hand off to manufacturing" phase of the project I was working one, I was one of "unlucky" people. Anyway, we were given 2 months notice and had full access until turning in our badges in on our last day (was after 8pm by the time I was finished and turned mine in). My tasks during the last 2 months were what I would have been doing anyway - finalizing project documentation and providing support to manufacturing engineers. When the bad news came, the VP of Engineering personally apologized to each of us, then on our last day, he hosted a "good bye" lunch and personally thanked each of us for all of great work. Months later, some of us, including me, received bonus checks as thank you for our work.
FWIW, a month after the bonus checks were sent, the customer finally issued the RFQ. But, I was not available to return to that company. (The return offer was not enough to justify resigning my new job, but was enough to "inspire" my new employer to raise my pay.)
AOL and similar services, like CompuServe, were founded while the Internet was still restricted to "non-commercial entities". They were giant, nation-wide bulletin board systems. They worked and were profitable. At the time they connected to the Internet, it was seen as a way to increase profit. But then came "big content". The major ISPs now perceive that forcing the major content providers to directly pay for access will increase their profits even more.
Will this really work? I don't know. But it will have the side effect of squeezing out the little content providers. The little ones will be dependent on the tolerance of the big ones to get their content seen.
It is not always quicker to do things in memory. Statement proved. QED.
Maybe
The disk-only code, although apparently writing to the disk excessively, is only triggering an actual write when operating system buffers are full.
The "disk-only" code is still writing to memory. If anything is proven, it's that the OS is doing its memory management better than the Java or Python run time environments.
Would be interesting to add another case to compare: Open an unnamed pipe, write to "write end" of the pipe in the loop, then read the final string from the "read end" of the pipe.
Xenon would be better. Above an inspired concentration of about 70%, it's a general anesthetic. Sleep first, perfect pain relief, then hypoxia, then death.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is also a general anesthetic. Is easy to manufacture. Xenon is a rare element.
As for plain nitrogen, I know, personally 2 people who almost died from hypoxia while using a rebreather while scuba diving. They were not checking their oxygen supply often enough and, in both cases, the low supply warning did not function. They simply lost consciousness. Fortunately, their dive partners noticed and were able to connect spare oxygen bottles in time.
If you're going to execute people and don't want the mess of a head shot, I'd say put em in a gas chamber-like room, and flood it with enough CO2 to displace all the oxygen
CO2 plus water forms an acid. That is way holding your breath becomes painful after some length of time.
A painless option would be to use a continuous nitrogen purge. Then the condemned runs out of oxygen without a build up of CO2.This is something that anyone who nearly died while using a rebreather device can confirm. If you don't check your oxygen supply often enough and the low supply warning fails, you don't feel the pain associated with CO2 because the rebreather is "scrubbing" the CO2 out of the air you exhale. And because the system is recycling the nitrogen, you also don't get the implicit warning from having to "suck air" when your air tank pressure gets low.
This is why Canadians working in the U.S. for part of the year have to be able to document the number of days they stayed there. If they're in the U.S. for more than 183 days, they're considered a U.S. resident and don't owe Canadian taxes.
My girlfriend is a Canadian citizen and pays Canadian (and US) income taxes despite being a full time US resident for greater than 20 years. Also, our daughter, having been born to a Canadian citizen and having not renounced Canadian citizenship also pays income taxes to both Canada and the US.
These regulations were necessary becasue the ISPs embarked on a new plan to squeeze content providers. They wanted to be paid both by the subscriber and by the content providers.
Actually, most of the content providers are subscribers. They pay their ISPs for access to the internet. Consumers of the content may be subscribers of different ISPs than the content they access. So content providers were providing content to subscribers on different ISPs. Initially, the ISPs saw this as increasing the potential market for their own subscribers, ISPs facilitated it by making "peering" arrangements with each other. These peering arrangements, at first, worked on the assumption that traffic between each pair was roughly equal in both directions. Then "super star" services came along, upsetting the balance of traffic. So, the providers on the receiving side of the "data deluge" decided they wanted to be paid for the imbalance.
Another issue is that the major ISPs, like Camcast and Time Warner, now own some of the major content providers. Naturally, each ISP wants to prioritize the content of the content providers it owns.
Net Neutrality certainly wasn't how the Internet was run from day 1: plenty of providers restricted what you could do on their networks, foremost DARPA itself.
The restrictions applied by DARPA applied to all internet users. Services like AOL and Compuserve, when they first offered connections to the internet, offered the internet service they were allowed to offer. They already had services beyond what was allowed on the internet. As the restrictions on internet usage were incrementally relaxed, it became possible for customers of one ISP to offer services to customers of other ISPs. As this increased the potential market for customers of the ISPs, ISPs facilitated it by making "peering" arrangements with each other. These peering arrangements, at first, worked on the assumption that traffic between each pair was roughly equal in both directions. Then "super star" services came along, upsetting the balance of traffic. So, the providers on the receiving side of the "data deluge" decided they wanted to be paid for the imbalance.
Second best solution is to join the Amish. At least you will get a nice quilt!
When I was a teen, I met and befriended some amish teens at a farmers' market near where I lived. Their parents allowed them to talk with us "English kids". They had other non-amish friends, too. Their village had phones - strictly for business and emergency use, but they were familiar with phones. Also calculators - which they were only allowed to use when helping at the farmers' market. I'm sure, these days, Amish kids are familiar with the internet despite whatever restrictions they live under.
(BTW, the Amish kids were just as horney as us. And they asked us to get them porn.)
So I disconnected it from the internet, and so it shall remain.
Are you sure it's really disconnected? If it has WiFi, it could auto-connect to any available, "open" access point.
I suppose one possibility would be to setup a "dummy" access point and configure the TV to connect to it. But, it's possible the TV, unable to "phone home", could auto-reconnect to any available, "open" access point.
We could have everyone working two days a week. Yes that would introduce extra overheads, but we have the excess manpower to manage them, so why not?
There are already companies that hire 3 or 4 people for every job, each person working between 10 and 15 hours per week. The companies like this because they don't have to provide any benefits to these workers. The workers don't like this because they still need another job or 2. This can be complicated by the use of dynamic scheduling, meaning workers are effectively on-call 12 or more hours per day, every day. The penalty for not accepting an offered "shift" is lowering the probability of being scheduled. So the worker looses not only the offered hours at that time, but also future hours. And since it is probabilistic, the only time blocks a worker will have clear for another job are what otherwise would be sleep time.
People still mess up naming schemes and will still blame "you" when they can't find their documents. Then, when you point out that they failed to follow the corporate document naming standard, they will blame you for the naming standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. Were your charges dropped ? As I understand they do not stick with you if so. It may be different if for a 19 year old vs under 18. But if the charges stay no matter what, then I agree that would overdoing it as a scare tactic.
Legally, the charges (and, maybe even the arrest record) might disappear (depends on the state) if dropped, but any details that were reported in the media will stick around. Similarly, the "seal" on juvenile records is only a legal matter, not a media matter.
They won't. The FCC doesn't have the power or the authority to wiretap or monitor anyone's Internet usage. Your argument is fallacious.
That first step on the slippery slope is perfectly safe!
Title II or not, Net Neutrality or not, other parts of the government are already tapping and monitoring.
If corporations are choosing to perpetrate something like payola and say its "because of net neutrality", that would be their rationalization for having broken the law, rather than evidence of a bad law.
Agreed.
The more interesting part is that the article seems to be saying that paying for special treatment is a good thing:
one of the best ways to route around a big firm's brand recognition is to buy special treatment in the form of promotions, product placement and the like (payola, after all, is how rock and roll circumvented major label contempt for the genre). That will almost certainly be forbidden under the FCC's version of neutrality
The problem, though, is that the big firms are the ones who have the money to pay for special treatment, so routing around them is a lot harder.
Actually, local governments offered tax abatements to the ISP to entice them to wire their cities and townships.
Everything from the hardware, to the permits, but especially the construction.
Local level lobbying also plays a big role.
My neighborhood is split between 2 cities: About 70% is in the first city and the other 30% is on the other. I live in the "other city". My neighborhood was originally wired by the cable company serving the "other city", Year later, another cable company comes along. The first city get completely wired - including its side of my neighborhood. The incremental cost to include my side of of the neighborhood would have been small at the time as all the needed crew, equipment and supplies were in the neighborhood. But the "other city" utilities board [1] caved to the original cable company's demand to not let the new company in - not even the quarter square mile section of my neighborhood that is in the "other city". Yes, everyone in my section of the neighborhood wrote both the utilities board and the city counsel asking that the new company be allowed to wire our part of the neighborhood. But we were just "a few dozen households" vs a huge corporate enterprise. (At the time, the new company had no plans involving other areas on the borders of the "other city", so the other residents didn't care.)
---
[1] Utilities board because they have control over the installation and use of the "utility poles" that carry power, phone and cable TV lines. In theory, the city counsel could have overruled, but that would have been unlikely even if the incumbent cable company wasn't also lobbying them.
Not under a specific "illegal to record the police" statute, but making bullshit use of other laws, e.g. "interfering with a crime scene".
I recall at least one case where the police called it "illegal wiretapping", charging the person with the camera under wiretap laws.
Since my father's great-grandparents came from northern Europe, I think this might be the case (I am significantly taller than average).
There are social aspects to natural selection. In highschool and university, my female classmates (especially the tall ones) preferred taller males. Being significantly taller than average gave me a significant advantage in courting and retaining my girlfriend - despite me being a nerd.
and compatible with many current IoT protocols
How many of these protocols support adequate security?
Unfortunately, simply not supporting unsecure devices is likely to severely limit the market for a "secure IoT Hub". Manufacturers know this, so are very likely to to make "communicate with any device" the default setting..
The biggest problem I have seen with these connected devices is that many of them need to "call the mothership". While that does make it easier for the device vendors to support their products, it also means that could be used to determine when you are least likely to be home is being sent over the Internet.
I have 3, separate, wired networks in my house. One is for the home automation system, and has NO connection to the Internet.
The system does have IR receivers, so could be vulnerable to a phone or tablet app that sends IR signals using something like an IRED, so the IR receivers accept a very limited set of commands. BUT, the IR communications are one-way: Simple commands in, nothing out.
I've never resigned from a job, though been laid off twice. Once because the company went out of business and the other because the CFO (chief finance officer) panicked when one of the major customers had not issued an RFQ (request for quote) on an expected huge project. He persuaded the CEO to order a 35% reduction in staff. Because I was in the "hand off to manufacturing" phase of the project I was working one, I was one of "unlucky" people. Anyway, we were given 2 months notice and had full access until turning in our badges in on our last day (was after 8pm by the time I was finished and turned mine in). My tasks during the last 2 months were what I would have been doing anyway - finalizing project documentation and providing support to manufacturing engineers. When the bad news came, the VP of Engineering personally apologized to each of us, then on our last day, he hosted a "good bye" lunch and personally thanked each of us for all of great work. Months later, some of us, including me, received bonus checks as thank you for our work.
FWIW, a month after the bonus checks were sent, the customer finally issued the RFQ. But, I was not available to return to that company. (The return offer was not enough to justify resigning my new job, but was enough to "inspire" my new employer to raise my pay.)
AOL and similar services, like CompuServe, were founded while the Internet was still restricted to "non-commercial entities". They were giant, nation-wide bulletin board systems. They worked and were profitable. At the time they connected to the Internet, it was seen as a way to increase profit. But then came "big content". The major ISPs now perceive that forcing the major content providers to directly pay for access will increase their profits even more.
Will this really work? I don't know. But it will have the side effect of squeezing out the little content providers. The little ones will be dependent on the tolerance of the big ones to get their content seen.
It is not always quicker to do things in memory. Statement proved. QED.
Maybe
The disk-only code, although apparently writing to the disk excessively, is only triggering an actual write when operating system buffers are full.
The "disk-only" code is still writing to memory. If anything is proven, it's that the OS is doing its memory management better than the Java or Python run time environments.
Would be interesting to add another case to compare: Open an unnamed pipe, write to "write end" of the pipe in the loop, then read the final string from the "read end" of the pipe.
The guillotine .. It's fast, relatively painless
That assumes the blade is sharp enough and travels correctly and swiftly down the track.
Xenon would be better. Above an inspired concentration of about 70%, it's a general anesthetic. Sleep first, perfect pain relief, then hypoxia, then death.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is also a general anesthetic. Is easy to manufacture. Xenon is a rare element.
As for plain nitrogen, I know, personally 2 people who almost died from hypoxia while using a rebreather while scuba diving. They were not checking their oxygen supply often enough and, in both cases, the low supply warning did not function. They simply lost consciousness. Fortunately, their dive partners noticed and were able to connect spare oxygen bottles in time.
If you're going to execute people and don't want the mess of a head shot, I'd say put em in a gas chamber-like room, and flood it with enough CO2 to displace all the oxygen
CO2 plus water forms an acid. That is way holding your breath becomes painful after some length of time.
A painless option would be to use a continuous nitrogen purge. Then the condemned runs out of oxygen without a build up of CO2.This is something that anyone who nearly died while using a rebreather device can confirm. If you don't check your oxygen supply often enough and the low supply warning fails, you don't feel the pain associated with CO2 because the rebreather is "scrubbing" the CO2 out of the air you exhale. And because the system is recycling the nitrogen, you also don't get the implicit warning from having to "suck air" when your air tank pressure gets low.
If I trust the suicide, I suppose the upside would be that the drive can be safely tossed without worrying about the data on it.
With the proper equipment, I'm sure the data can be recovered. Still best to thoroughly destroy the drive.
I will add that Fossil is a single executable. Just download the executable and copy to a convenient folder/directory. No installation needed.
This is why Canadians working in the U.S. for part of the year have to be able to document the number of days they stayed there. If they're in the U.S. for more than 183 days, they're considered a U.S. resident and don't owe Canadian taxes.
My girlfriend is a Canadian citizen and pays Canadian (and US) income taxes despite being a full time US resident for greater than 20 years. Also, our daughter, having been born to a Canadian citizen and having not renounced Canadian citizenship also pays income taxes to both Canada and the US.
These regulations were necessary becasue the ISPs embarked on a new plan to squeeze content providers. They wanted to be paid both by the subscriber and by the content providers.
Actually, most of the content providers are subscribers. They pay their ISPs for access to the internet. Consumers of the content may be subscribers of different ISPs than the content they access. So content providers were providing content to subscribers on different ISPs. Initially, the ISPs saw this as increasing the potential market for their own subscribers, ISPs facilitated it by making "peering" arrangements with each other. These peering arrangements, at first, worked on the assumption that traffic between each pair was roughly equal in both directions. Then "super star" services came along, upsetting the balance of traffic. So, the providers on the receiving side of the "data deluge" decided they wanted to be paid for the imbalance.
Another issue is that the major ISPs, like Camcast and Time Warner, now own some of the major content providers. Naturally, each ISP wants to prioritize the content of the content providers it owns.
Net Neutrality certainly wasn't how the Internet was run from day 1: plenty of providers restricted what you could do on their networks, foremost DARPA itself.
The restrictions applied by DARPA applied to all internet users. Services like AOL and Compuserve, when they first offered connections to the internet, offered the internet service they were allowed to offer. They already had services beyond what was allowed on the internet. As the restrictions on internet usage were incrementally relaxed, it became possible for customers of one ISP to offer services to customers of other ISPs. As this increased the potential market for customers of the ISPs, ISPs facilitated it by making "peering" arrangements with each other. These peering arrangements, at first, worked on the assumption that traffic between each pair was roughly equal in both directions. Then "super star" services came along, upsetting the balance of traffic. So, the providers on the receiving side of the "data deluge" decided they wanted to be paid for the imbalance.
Second best solution is to join the Amish. At least you will get a nice quilt!
When I was a teen, I met and befriended some amish teens at a farmers' market near where I lived. Their parents allowed them to talk with us "English kids". They had other non-amish friends, too. Their village had phones - strictly for business and emergency use, but they were familiar with phones. Also calculators - which they were only allowed to use when helping at the farmers' market. I'm sure, these days, Amish kids are familiar with the internet despite whatever restrictions they live under.
(BTW, the Amish kids were just as horney as us. And they asked us to get them porn.)
So I disconnected it from the internet, and so it shall remain.
Are you sure it's really disconnected? If it has WiFi, it could auto-connect to any available, "open" access point.
I suppose one possibility would be to setup a "dummy" access point and configure the TV to connect to it. But, it's possible the TV, unable to "phone home", could auto-reconnect to any available, "open" access point.
We could have everyone working two days a week. Yes that would introduce extra overheads, but we have the excess manpower to manage them, so why not?
There are already companies that hire 3 or 4 people for every job, each person working between 10 and 15 hours per week. The companies like this because they don't have to provide any benefits to these workers. The workers don't like this because they still need another job or 2. This can be complicated by the use of dynamic scheduling, meaning workers are effectively on-call 12 or more hours per day, every day. The penalty for not accepting an offered "shift" is lowering the probability of being scheduled. So the worker looses not only the offered hours at that time, but also future hours. And since it is probabilistic, the only time blocks a worker will have clear for another job are what otherwise would be sleep time.
People still mess up naming schemes and will still blame "you" when they can't find their documents. Then, when you point out that they failed to follow the corporate document naming standard, they will blame you for the naming standard.