It wasn't that long ago when the common expectation was that you would graduate, then get a job you would be at until you retired. It wasn't that uncommon that jobs becoming obsolete would be vacated mostly through attrition or the workers would be retrained to fill another position at the same company. Many employers felt a duty to their loyal employees.
That was the social contract.
These days, it's not that uncommon to be laid off and end up doing the same job somewhere else.
As long as the world won't let me plow my yard for cropland and go hunting in the neighborhood, it does, in fact, owe me an alternative.
Am I just imagining the police that run them off because it's not really legal to be homeless? Have you SEEN the death rate among the homeless as compared to the general population?
Great, now the comments are duplicates too. Parent was shot down already. We certainly saw an article about how throttling threatened public safety recently and how Verizon belatedly backpedaled and sort of apologized for it./
You could start by RTFA. It pretty mush shows point by point how the lobbyist message is not so much a direct lie (that is Yes, google and facebook are a privacy problem), but a "creative omission" (telcos have been doing worse for years but you won't find mention of that in the lobbyist's message).
We're all on the putting green and the lobbyist points and exclaims "LOOK! it's the Goodyear blimp!" and then casually pushes the ball in the cup with his foot while everyone looks where he pointed. I have no idea why you want to believe so badly that you couldn't see that.
Rsync also works fine in Windows. It works on pretty much anything that provideas a file like API. Dropbox had the advantage that rsync already exists and is open for inspection.
The system calls surrounding file access REALLY haven't changed in a very long time. As much as things can change around in the kernel, breaking userspace is a cardinal sin that will expose you to a truly epic rant from Linus Torvalds.
Throw in the possibility that it is someone leeching the WiFi and you have less than a 50% chance of guessing right. And so, IP is not sufficient to identify a "pirate".
Except they don't. IP privacy, for example causes the host to choose rendon non-conflicting addresses in the prefix and changes them frequently. Also, it's easy to pick any IP you want within a prefix. For example, wait till the homeowner goes to work, then set your laptop to use the autoconfigured address of their laptop.
Others use NAT on v6 anyway, mostly because they really don't know how v6 is supposed to work and NAT is "secure".
As jeff4747 explained to you, those exclusive agreements have all expired and never covered internet in the first place. I'll enlarge for you. They were made in the first place because before that there were zero cable companies willing to serve the area due to high starting costs to recoup. So they were granted a temporary monopoly and regulations to go with it so they would have a sure way to recoup their costs. They have now done that a few times over.
The problem is that the same market forces that kept them out of the area before now keep everyone else out of the area now PLUS there's an incumbent provider to contend with. Without further government action, those forces will remain in place next year and for decades to follow.
Now, as for the FCC, I'm not so sure that 5 competitors is enough to make a healthy market, much less only 2. Having a "competitor" a half mile away is as good as not having one.
In the U.S., if you do that, telecomms companies, even ones that were asked and explicitly refused to serve an area come out of the woodwork and sue for any stupid excuse they can find.
At least around here, they're constantly promoting saving energy and schemes like interruptable power to air conditioning to lighten the load on their infrastructure. I must then presume that lightening the load on their infrastructure is a benefit to them.
We have stories of economic oppression in a free market dating back to biblical times. That includes 19th and early 20th century U.S.
Ever heard the song "16 tons"? It was a song about very real conditions for coal miners in a free market economy. In coal country,
coal mining was about the only job available. It paid in scrip spendable in the company store. Since the company store was the only store that could accept scrip, it took full advantage of monopoly pricing. Many also offered predatory lending with pay and prices set up such that workers could never quite get the debt paid off.
That is but one of uncountable instances of economic oppression in a free market. The free-er the market, the more oppression.
FDR implemented the New Deal in order to avoid a socialist worker's revolution that was brewing due to conditions created by the free market. Adam Smith warned that markets must be well regulated (you might have heard of him).
Go read "The Wealth of Nations" and a few history books, PLEASE.
How about only selling what you can actually supply. That's a pretty simple concept, isn't it? If you are a fruit vendor and you have a dozen apples, you sell one dozen apples. If you want to sell more than one dozen apples, you must either grow more apples or buy them from a wholesaler.
If you want to sell subscriptions to apples, you could do a fresh apple a day plan and make sure you have as many apples each day as you have subscribers. You could even sweeten the deal and say if there are apples left over at the end of the day, they're free to subscribers first come first served (since there's no point letting them go bad).
In the old days of networking we called that a committed rate on a burstable connection.
Another neutral way to handle things is fair queuing. Everyone connected to the local cell gets an equal slice of bandwidth.
But let's take that back a bit further. Do they even have a congestion problem? If they do, it's funny how they seem to have plenty available to zero-rate their own subsidiary's service. It's almost as if they have plenty and just want to gouge.
Slashdot Mirror
Labor mobility is the ability to move to another job. Being forced to move to another job is employment insecurity.
Kind of like the ease with which a person can end up on skid row is technically social mobility, calling it that is very much BS newspeak.
It wasn't that long ago when the common expectation was that you would graduate, then get a job you would be at until you retired. It wasn't that uncommon that jobs becoming obsolete would be vacated mostly through attrition or the workers would be retrained to fill another position at the same company. Many employers felt a duty to their loyal employees.
That was the social contract.
These days, it's not that uncommon to be laid off and end up doing the same job somewhere else.
As long as the world won't let me plow my yard for cropland and go hunting in the neighborhood, it does, in fact, owe me an alternative.
Am I just imagining the police that run them off because it's not really legal to be homeless? Have you SEEN the death rate among the homeless as compared to the general population?
Adding more corn doesn't make pooping on the dinner table any more attractive.
You apparently flunked reality. Must have job to live. Only job available is crappy gig economy job. So YES, forced to be an Uber driver.
When I see job insecurity called "labor mobility", my BS meter goes up. You pegged it and then smoke started coming out!
Great, now the comments are duplicates too. Parent was shot down already. We certainly saw an article about how throttling threatened public safety recently and how Verizon belatedly backpedaled and sort of apologized for it./
You could start by RTFA. It pretty mush shows point by point how the lobbyist message is not so much a direct lie (that is Yes, google and facebook are a privacy problem), but a "creative omission" (telcos have been doing worse for years but you won't find mention of that in the lobbyist's message).
We're all on the putting green and the lobbyist points and exclaims "LOOK! it's the Goodyear blimp!" and then casually pushes the ball in the cup with his foot while everyone looks where he pointed. I have no idea why you want to believe so badly that you couldn't see that.
Trump has been slang for a frt for a very long time. And the president is a living fart joke anyway.
Rsync also works fine in Windows. It works on pretty much anything that provideas a file like API. Dropbox had the advantage that rsync already exists and is open for inspection.
Yet the API is the same no matter the underlying filesystem that you're watching.
The system calls surrounding file access REALLY haven't changed in a very long time. As much as things can change around in the kernel, breaking userspace is a cardinal sin that will expose you to a truly epic rant from Linus Torvalds.
Throw in the possibility that it is someone leeching the WiFi and you have less than a 50% chance of guessing right. And so, IP is not sufficient to identify a "pirate".
Well, it DIDN't happen under the Democrats, it *IS* happening under the GOP. Newspeak, right here, right now.
Except they don't. IP privacy, for example causes the host to choose rendon non-conflicting addresses in the prefix and changes them frequently. Also, it's easy to pick any IP you want within a prefix. For example, wait till the homeowner goes to work, then set your laptop to use the autoconfigured address of their laptop.
Others use NAT on v6 anyway, mostly because they really don't know how v6 is supposed to work and NAT is "secure".
They would need to show that it is MORE likely you than someone else.
Note that there are now fairly easy ways to crack WPA2 passwords.
It might also be somebody else's kids.
Welcome to the new world where one choice is competitive. Newspeak brought to you by the GOP.
As jeff4747 explained to you, those exclusive agreements have all expired and never covered internet in the first place. I'll enlarge for you. They were made in the first place because before that there were zero cable companies willing to serve the area due to high starting costs to recoup. So they were granted a temporary monopoly and regulations to go with it so they would have a sure way to recoup their costs. They have now done that a few times over.
The problem is that the same market forces that kept them out of the area before now keep everyone else out of the area now PLUS there's an incumbent provider to contend with. Without further government action, those forces will remain in place next year and for decades to follow.
Now, as for the FCC, I'm not so sure that 5 competitors is enough to make a healthy market, much less only 2. Having a "competitor" a half mile away is as good as not having one.
In the U.S., if you do that, telecomms companies, even ones that were asked and explicitly refused to serve an area come out of the woodwork and sue for any stupid excuse they can find.
At least around here, they're constantly promoting saving energy and schemes like interruptable power to air conditioning to lighten the load on their infrastructure. I must then presume that lightening the load on their infrastructure is a benefit to them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We have stories of economic oppression in a free market dating back to biblical times. That includes 19th and early 20th century U.S.
Ever heard the song "16 tons"? It was a song about very real conditions for coal miners in a free market economy. In coal country, coal mining was about the only job available. It paid in scrip spendable in the company store. Since the company store was the only store that could accept scrip, it took full advantage of monopoly pricing. Many also offered predatory lending with pay and prices set up such that workers could never quite get the debt paid off.
That is but one of uncountable instances of economic oppression in a free market. The free-er the market, the more oppression.
FDR implemented the New Deal in order to avoid a socialist worker's revolution that was brewing due to conditions created by the free market. Adam Smith warned that markets must be well regulated (you might have heard of him).
Go read "The Wealth of Nations" and a few history books, PLEASE.
It'll take more than that to avoid feudalism unless you're willing to consider economic violence to be legitimately violence.
I know this sounds crazy, but perhaps you should sell 1Mbps burstable to 10!!! I know, crazy, huh? Selling what you have?!?
Now how about that fair queuing or if they even have an actual congestion problem?
How about only selling what you can actually supply. That's a pretty simple concept, isn't it? If you are a fruit vendor and you have a dozen apples, you sell one dozen apples. If you want to sell more than one dozen apples, you must either grow more apples or buy them from a wholesaler.
If you want to sell subscriptions to apples, you could do a fresh apple a day plan and make sure you have as many apples each day as you have subscribers. You could even sweeten the deal and say if there are apples left over at the end of the day, they're free to subscribers first come first served (since there's no point letting them go bad).
In the old days of networking we called that a committed rate on a burstable connection.
Another neutral way to handle things is fair queuing. Everyone connected to the local cell gets an equal slice of bandwidth.
But let's take that back a bit further. Do they even have a congestion problem? If they do, it's funny how they seem to have plenty available to zero-rate their own subsidiary's service. It's almost as if they have plenty and just want to gouge.