Senator Cruz says the Internet did just fine until the previous Net Neutrality rules were adopted
Well, kinda. See, before 2014, ISPs were regulated under Title I. Then Verizon sued and had the courts rule they couldn't have Title I apply to them. So the FCC reregulated them under Title II in 2015. That's what was just undone.
So, the fact that before 2014 things were okay is really irrelevant.
I'm glad someone (even if it's the EU, not the US) caught on. Fines that can be paid as a standard part of doing business are an expense, not a deterrent.
I honestly don't know if this fine is significant enough to actually defer Google.
In fairness, people with a lifetime employment (and no opportunity for promotion) don't have the same worry about losing their job, their nice house, and other general loss aversion that GPs were talking about.
The average neighborhood can get fiber. This is for the country, where it's impractical to run fiber. The same low population density means lower competition.
has been stolen from Federal government systems three times now.
It's worth pointing out that the OPM breaches were on servers maintained by contractors and other breaches were from other companies that the government outsourced background checks to.
(the main reason I never started using Hulu et al - too many stories of episodes disappearing
In fairness, that's because Hulu is trying to feel like TV. Episodes only live for like 5 weeks after being published and get published every week. Which makes sense because its owned by the major TV networks. Can you imagne what would happen if they
I actually think the lottery is a classic case of lawmarker's lack of imagination. It's probably hard for them to imagine a few dollars being something someone cannot afford to lose, or that people would do more than buy the occasional scratcher.
Also, lotteries and casinos are clearly bad investments. A lot of the investments that require an accredited investor are much harder to value the risk on.
Now, that said, I imagine the reason the law passed was a coalition of those points of view and other people who wanted to just screw have-nots. Which is why it passed. Those two coalitions are each like 45% of the government.
You seem to have misread GP. He didn't say that it was risky to make a lot of money (that's a requirement of being an accredited investor). He said investments that require you to be an accredited investor are often risky. Which they are. Which makes sense, because the point behind the accredited investor rule is exactly to prevent people from gambling with money they cannot afford to lose.
From time to time I look at the news and just say, "Man, if I had only invested when I first heard about bitcoin, I'd be rich." Except, I know I wouldn't. Cause I would have sold out long ago (unless I forgot I had bought any).
my point was that Comcast and AT&T manage to blow the enormous perceptual advantage they have as private companies
Yes, but my point is that although that perceptual advantage is true in abstract, I'm not aware of it often applying in real life. And I challenged you to show me data proving it applies.
As for the Heritage Foundation, my point is that the CEO's won't give a shit. Because it won't affect their take home pay. They'll take the extra profits until the regulations catch back up and keep it.
Do you know how fucking hard it is for a business to be LESS POPULAR THAN THE GOVERNMENT?
I have no idea. I get that it's hard for the concept of "government services" in the abstract to beat out "private services", but I'm not sure if that holds in any given specific instance. It seems like individual programs can be quite popular as long as they aren't tagged "government", e.g. the famous "keep your government hands odd my medicare" quote or the people wanting to repeal Obamacare but keep their ACA-based coverage. Similarly, while there is a lot of respect for the abstract private company, there are plenty of unpopular ones once you ask about specifics.
Do you have any data? Because, from my understanding, government run ISPs commonly have a pretty high approval rating.
f I were running the Heritage foundation or whatever hyper-capitalist think tank bribe machine, I would be taking the CEOs of AT&T and Charter out into the desert, and having a sincere talk with them about getting their goddamn shit together before they blow this for everyone.
And why would they care? How would it maximize their take home pay not to "blow this for everyone?" Ideally, back it up with a case where something actually happened, as opposed to conjecture based on first principles.
So, your solution to "there are too many ads on pages, and loading too slowly" is... what? Because they'll still make something from the ad (cause that's what the price will be set at.) They may need to load even more ads to make up for it.
Also, there's no way they'll know what "external domain traffic" is unless they can read my data streams. Since I use https, all they'll see is a bunch of requests to various servers from me.
Much of Pai's reasoning seems to be "the market will take care of it", but the problem is that there is no real market pressure on ISPs.
While that's one issue, the bigger one is that one of the requirements for a market to function well is free flowing price information. Without that, how do actors make rational decisions? Even if we had 12 ISPs in every market, this is exactly the kind of step that makes it almost impossible for a customer to make a good choice.
It depends. It's a great problem to have, but it's still a problem. Imagine being subject to a class-action by people who you've been unable to deliver to. Imagine the stock price dropping because production cannot scale.
Or, just think of this. It would be great to design an app that was getting a million downloads a day. It's better than most apps will ever do, and by orders of magnitude, every day. Yet, if it requires server resources, it's entirely possible that your app will implode because the server keeps failing. See also: slashdot effect. And if the code needed to be rewritten from scratch, the fad may be over before you can upgrade the server to scale.
Taking all the batteries and still slipping on production schedule actually aligns with painting Tesla a flop. That would be the limiting factor, and even with the world's supply of batteries they cannot produce what they've taken the cash to produce.
Only if you store your bitcoin in the exchanges' wallets. Which seems to mean there's a chance yours will be among the next $61M loss. I doubt the Winklevoss twins leave their money so exposed.
And besides, if I understand correctly, the dollar-bitcoin transactions do require a record - otherwise how does the purchaser acquire the bitcoin?
And all my mod points are already gone. That is a constructive plan that takes the lesson far beyond copyright.
I particularly like the question: why are you more willing to break a federal law than a school rule (which probably doesn't even rise to the level of a crime)?
You could encourage him to choose books from authors who don't publish with DRM
In fairness, it's the publishers, not the authors, who decide on DRM. I'm sure not many new authors have enough publishers competing over their work to pick and choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, kinda. See, before 2014, ISPs were regulated under Title I. Then Verizon sued and had the courts rule they couldn't have Title I apply to them. So the FCC reregulated them under Title II in 2015. That's what was just undone.
So, the fact that before 2014 things were okay is really irrelevant.
Ah, you're right. I apologize for misreading your comment. It was perfectly clear.
If you mouse over the link in TFS, you'll see it refer to cnet/uk. Granted, I'd prefer a tag, but it was actually noticeable this time.
I'm glad someone (even if it's the EU, not the US) caught on. Fines that can be paid as a standard part of doing business are an expense, not a deterrent.
I honestly don't know if this fine is significant enough to actually defer Google.
I love when people say that the facts don't agree with the theory, so therefore the facts are wrong.
In fairness, people with a lifetime employment (and no opportunity for promotion) don't have the same worry about losing their job, their nice house, and other general loss aversion that GPs were talking about.
Is that like how most of Florida didn't have an issue once the hurricane passed?
The average neighborhood can get fiber. This is for the country, where it's impractical to run fiber. The same low population density means lower competition.
It's worth pointing out that the OPM breaches were on servers maintained by contractors and other breaches were from other companies that the government outsourced background checks to.
In fairness, that's because Hulu is trying to feel like TV. Episodes only live for like 5 weeks after being published and get published every week. Which makes sense because its owned by the major TV networks. Can you imagne what would happen if they
I actually think the lottery is a classic case of lawmarker's lack of imagination. It's probably hard for them to imagine a few dollars being something someone cannot afford to lose, or that people would do more than buy the occasional scratcher.
Also, lotteries and casinos are clearly bad investments. A lot of the investments that require an accredited investor are much harder to value the risk on.
Now, that said, I imagine the reason the law passed was a coalition of those points of view and other people who wanted to just screw have-nots. Which is why it passed. Those two coalitions are each like 45% of the government.
You seem to have misread GP. He didn't say that it was risky to make a lot of money (that's a requirement of being an accredited investor). He said investments that require you to be an accredited investor are often risky. Which they are. Which makes sense, because the point behind the accredited investor rule is exactly to prevent people from gambling with money they cannot afford to lose.
Would you mind explaining how bitcoin isn't also fiat currency.
From time to time I look at the news and just say, "Man, if I had only invested when I first heard about bitcoin, I'd be rich." Except, I know I wouldn't. Cause I would have sold out long ago (unless I forgot I had bought any).
Yes, but my point is that although that perceptual advantage is true in abstract, I'm not aware of it often applying in real life. And I challenged you to show me data proving it applies.
As for the Heritage Foundation, my point is that the CEO's won't give a shit. Because it won't affect their take home pay. They'll take the extra profits until the regulations catch back up and keep it.
I have no idea. I get that it's hard for the concept of "government services" in the abstract to beat out "private services", but I'm not sure if that holds in any given specific instance. It seems like individual programs can be quite popular as long as they aren't tagged "government", e.g. the famous "keep your government hands odd my medicare" quote or the people wanting to repeal Obamacare but keep their ACA-based coverage. Similarly, while there is a lot of respect for the abstract private company, there are plenty of unpopular ones once you ask about specifics.
Do you have any data? Because, from my understanding, government run ISPs commonly have a pretty high approval rating.
And why would they care? How would it maximize their take home pay not to "blow this for everyone?" Ideally, back it up with a case where something actually happened, as opposed to conjecture based on first principles.
So, your solution to "there are too many ads on pages, and loading too slowly" is... what? Because they'll still make something from the ad (cause that's what the price will be set at.) They may need to load even more ads to make up for it.
Also, there's no way they'll know what "external domain traffic" is unless they can read my data streams. Since I use https, all they'll see is a bunch of requests to various servers from me.
While that's one issue, the bigger one is that one of the requirements for a market to function well is free flowing price information. Without that, how do actors make rational decisions? Even if we had 12 ISPs in every market, this is exactly the kind of step that makes it almost impossible for a customer to make a good choice.
It depends. It's a great problem to have, but it's still a problem. Imagine being subject to a class-action by people who you've been unable to deliver to. Imagine the stock price dropping because production cannot scale.
Or, just think of this. It would be great to design an app that was getting a million downloads a day. It's better than most apps will ever do, and by orders of magnitude, every day. Yet, if it requires server resources, it's entirely possible that your app will implode because the server keeps failing. See also: slashdot effect. And if the code needed to be rewritten from scratch, the fad may be over before you can upgrade the server to scale.
Taking all the batteries and still slipping on production schedule actually aligns with painting Tesla a flop. That would be the limiting factor, and even with the world's supply of batteries they cannot produce what they've taken the cash to produce.
Chinese hackers. Chinese miners control enough of the horsepower that they can completely manipulate the blockchain.
Only if you store your bitcoin in the exchanges' wallets. Which seems to mean there's a chance yours will be among the next $61M loss. I doubt the Winklevoss twins leave their money so exposed.
And besides, if I understand correctly, the dollar-bitcoin transactions do require a record - otherwise how does the purchaser acquire the bitcoin?
And all my mod points are already gone. That is a constructive plan that takes the lesson far beyond copyright.
I particularly like the question: why are you more willing to break a federal law than a school rule (which probably doesn't even rise to the level of a crime)?
In fairness, it's the publishers, not the authors, who decide on DRM. I'm sure not many new authors have enough publishers competing over their work to pick and choose.
When did DDG start even keeping search histories?