Nobody's claiming streaming to be an inalienable right. They're just seeking to prevent ISPs from leveraging a monopoly into multiple monopolies.
Consider, what happens when the ISP sets the cap too low to make video streaming practical UNLESS it is their video streaming, which doesn't count towards the cap.
Not really, no. Dead batteries happen. If there is no mechanical lock, you're smashing the window if you EVER want to start the car again. With a mechanical lock, you have to have at least 2 things go wrong (3 if you're smart enough to make a copy of the door key and leave it at home or with a friend) before you must resort to smashing the window.
It will allow you to open the door so you can get to the hood latch you have to pull so you can open the hood so you can jumpstart the car or replace the battery.
It might also allow you to get to the phone you locked in the glovebox so you can call for assistance.
Or if we want the most extreme form, to allow you to get to the insulin in the car so you can live long enough to even care that the battery is dead.
When you let marketing make engineering decisions, people die.
How's that supposed to work? Even if they have 60 buildings in need of a boiler every 60 years, they won't likely have built them in 1 year increments.
In a properly configured network, this wouldn't be a problem. The cat hentai guy could spend his commit on videos and the business could choose to prioritize THEIR OWN VOIP packets so they spend their commit on business calls. Both would go through just fine.
There is no "Bob's train parts" out there that carries replacement trucks. The tools don't change with the gauge of the track and the shops are not set up such that the standard gauge fits but 6 inches wider will not.
If the prosecution is fabricating evidence or concealing exculpatory evidence, then the system has already been violated. In the case at hand, the prosecutor DID have the exculpatory evidence.
Meanwhile, the judge is supposed to make sure the jury understands the standard of proof required and if he isn't convinced that they do, he has the power to vacate a guilty finding.
Note that I'm not saying the defendant SHOULDN'T offer a defense, just that they're not supposed to have to. But if he does not and ends up wrongly convicted, it is the court's failure, not the defendant's.
I find it telling that many prosecutors lament the "CSI effect" where many (but apparently not enough) potential jurors have come to expect actual solid evidence in order to convict.
This. If the schools put money away every year, sooner or later some politician will notice they have money in the bank and will cut their budget. It will be cut not just enough to eliminate the "surplus" that they were putting away, but so much that they then have to spend what was already saved just to keep running. When that is gone, they will have a terrible time getting their budget expanded again.
The drivers are also a safety factor so the train doesn't start moving when the doors close with (for example) a child on a leash is on one side and the mom on the other.
Keep in mind that the current system is beyond it's design lifetime AND it's design capacity. The decisions made at the beginning might have been the correct ones given conditions then.
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean we sorta-kinda think he's guilty. It doesn't mean "he must be guilty or they wouldn't have arrested him". It is the prosecutor's job to PROVE guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not SUPPOSE his guilt.
Consider the stock market. Being a single rack closer to the exchange systems costs millions and can return billions in benefits. If your system isn't in the same room, you might as well go home.
Introduce a random delay of 1-5 seconds and suddenly it becomes all about making good decisions again. A server in the broom closet in Seattle has just as much chance of executing a good trade as one sitting one rack over from the exchange. Move to a 5 minute quantum system and a sharp human at a terminal stands a chance against HFT.
It's bad enough that the stock market is subject to flash crashes, do we really want to expand that to all banking?
The impact on actual productive economic activity would be zero but the overhead would plummet.
Keep in mind, I'm talking about delays on the order of seconds. I doubt human customers would even notice. The objective would be to prevent the shenanigans of high speed trading from spreading.
Slashdot Mirror
Since it IS beyond the design life, you would need evidence that the design decision has been a problem before the design life was exceeded.
Nobody's claiming streaming to be an inalienable right. They're just seeking to prevent ISPs from leveraging a monopoly into multiple monopolies.
Consider, what happens when the ISP sets the cap too low to make video streaming practical UNLESS it is their video streaming, which doesn't count towards the cap.
Not really, no. Dead batteries happen. If there is no mechanical lock, you're smashing the window if you EVER want to start the car again. With a mechanical lock, you have to have at least 2 things go wrong (3 if you're smart enough to make a copy of the door key and leave it at home or with a friend) before you must resort to smashing the window.
They still sound pretty necessary if you hope to recover from the dead battery without a cutting torch.
Geniuses, the lot of them!
At the rate we're going, the stories of people starving to death while trapped in their car can't be far away.
I'm thinking selling diet pills to fat wolves may be a newly viable business...
It will allow you to open the door so you can get to the hood latch you have to pull so you can open the hood so you can jumpstart the car or replace the battery.
It might also allow you to get to the phone you locked in the glovebox so you can call for assistance.
Or if we want the most extreme form, to allow you to get to the insulin in the car so you can live long enough to even care that the battery is dead.
When you let marketing make engineering decisions, people die.
How's that supposed to work? Even if they have 60 buildings in need of a boiler every 60 years, they won't likely have built them in 1 year increments.
Sure, that would be a fine place to put it.
Why should you disagree? Or do you want the ISPs to prop up their other lines of business that otherwise can't compete toe-to-toe?
Yes, in other words, the market is sufficiently unhealthy that the "invisible hand" cannot do it's job.
It is very much the government's job (in the public interest) to cure the disease or at least contain it.
More like you should pay the same per KW/h for your air conditioner no matter what brand it is.
They can get their upstream bandwidth for pennies/Mbps. If they're tier 1, it literally costs the same as internal bandwidth.
In a properly configured network, this wouldn't be a problem. The cat hentai guy could spend his commit on videos and the business could choose to prioritize THEIR OWN VOIP packets so they spend their commit on business calls. Both would go through just fine.
Getting rid of metering and caps is not free.
It's not free, but it's also nowhere near as expensive as the prices carriers charge.
Or even more to the point, Imagine if you can watch your DirecTV DVR from your AT&T phone for "free" but not a Dish DVR.
There is no "Bob's train parts" out there that carries replacement trucks. The tools don't change with the gauge of the track and the shops are not set up such that the standard gauge fits but 6 inches wider will not.
If the prosecution is fabricating evidence or concealing exculpatory evidence, then the system has already been violated. In the case at hand, the prosecutor DID have the exculpatory evidence.
Meanwhile, the judge is supposed to make sure the jury understands the standard of proof required and if he isn't convinced that they do, he has the power to vacate a guilty finding.
Note that I'm not saying the defendant SHOULDN'T offer a defense, just that they're not supposed to have to. But if he does not and ends up wrongly convicted, it is the court's failure, not the defendant's.
I find it telling that many prosecutors lament the "CSI effect" where many (but apparently not enough) potential jurors have come to expect actual solid evidence in order to convict.
This. If the schools put money away every year, sooner or later some politician will notice they have money in the bank and will cut their budget. It will be cut not just enough to eliminate the "surplus" that they were putting away, but so much that they then have to spend what was already saved just to keep running. When that is gone, they will have a terrible time getting their budget expanded again.
The drivers are also a safety factor so the train doesn't start moving when the doors close with (for example) a child on a leash is on one side and the mom on the other.
The gauge isn't likely the issue you think it is. The cars are not mass manufactured, every one is made to order anyway.
Keep in mind that the current system is beyond it's design lifetime AND it's design capacity. The decisions made at the beginning might have been the correct ones given conditions then.
They used to teach civics in high school.
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean we sorta-kinda think he's guilty. It doesn't mean "he must be guilty or they wouldn't have arrested him". It is the prosecutor's job to PROVE guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not SUPPOSE his guilt.
Consider the stock market. Being a single rack closer to the exchange systems costs millions and can return billions in benefits. If your system isn't in the same room, you might as well go home.
Introduce a random delay of 1-5 seconds and suddenly it becomes all about making good decisions again. A server in the broom closet in Seattle has just as much chance of executing a good trade as one sitting one rack over from the exchange. Move to a 5 minute quantum system and a sharp human at a terminal stands a chance against HFT.
It's bad enough that the stock market is subject to flash crashes, do we really want to expand that to all banking?
The impact on actual productive economic activity would be zero but the overhead would plummet.
Keep in mind, I'm talking about delays on the order of seconds. I doubt human customers would even notice. The objective would be to prevent the shenanigans of high speed trading from spreading.