Sadly, you find a lot of players online who think modding is cheating. They're so tied up into competitive gaming that they fail to see any nuances, even accusing people on single player games of cheating.
Actually having a password is relatively poor security for many IoT devices. You want an end-to-end security without a single point of user failure, such as trust established through certificates, disallow firmware changes that aren't trusted and signed, security on the link itself, and security on end to end transactions. No one does that for dumb consumer devices, or even consumer PCs and phones, but you need it for networks of sensor devices, SCADA systems, automation, etc.
Basically, the average home consumer has zero need for an IoT device, they don't need to know remotely if their toaster was left on, they're only buying these products to look cool to their gadget loving friends or as a display of conspicuous consumption.
He cited Noah's flood as an example of climate change that was not caused by man, he didn't use it as proof against man made climate change. Further, he got the message wrong here - the flood was because of man indirectly, to get rid of them and start over, and Noah was motivated to warn people about the upcoming climate change and he was laughed at by the congressman equivalent of the day.
The link here is in the strange bedfellows of American political parties. If you're hitching your wagon to one party such that you will back them no matter what, because they'll back your views that evolution is an evil plot, then you're also going to be very likely when the big oil folks ask you to contribute to the cause by also denying climate change. There's not a lot of room in political parties for nuance in America, there are only two major parties which split almost exactly down the center (if they don't then things shuffle around until they do again) so if you're a strong partisan you will accept lots of contradictory viewpoints all in the name of being loyal to the party.
When I was a senior and looking at colleges, long long ago, a DeVry salesman came and gave my parents the hard sell. It was "practically" guaranteed that all DeVry graduates got a job. And that's what my parents wanted. That's what a lot of parents want. And my parents tried really hard to get me to go there even though it did not teach the stuff I wanted to learn. I stood my ground but my brother went there. And a couple years later he quit and went to a real school instead because they were still teaching him remedial stuff that he already knew from high school (imaginary numbers). My father later said he felt lucky that I didn't give in and do what they wanted.
The point though, is that there is still a lot of fear out there about how the kids will do in their career. Parents want the guarantee if they're middle class and college sounds extremely expensive. Apple famously fed on this with their advertisement in the 80s showing the returning home after dropping out of school because he didn't own an Apple II.
Engineering. You don't learn that from a book then hope to get a job, period. Even programming (not coding, people who use the term "coding" need to remember that this was the term for people who transcribed code from the programmer onto the computer, so using that as your career title seems bizarre). You can get a book about learning FashionableLanguage in 21 days, but you will not learn much about programming that way, you won't learn the complexities, etc.
An important thing about universities that you don't get learning on your own is the hard stuff. Self taught people tend to skip a lot of the hard stuff, they'll skip whatever they think won't ever be used in the future, etc. So you get self taught people with extremely narrow focuses instead of a broader set of education, skills, and experience. This is NOT universal however, I know some very good self taught people, but they intentionally spend a lot of their time continually learning new stuff. But that's a minority of the self taught people I know.
Every single class I had in computer science I have used in my career. I have used my physics courses in my career, my math courses, my EE courses, my writing courses, etc. And my music courses can be good for discussions in the break room...
If your classes were a waste of time then either you're in a simple job or you never actually learned anything in them.
Changed too much then. My Univ. of California was the best deal I ever had. Worked part time jobs, got loans, a few grants but those tended to be small. The loan itself I paid off in a couple years. And yet if you don't have the degree, your career will suffer, you'll miss out on promotions, be stuck in phone support, grunt roles, etc.
And believe me, as an engineer working with software, I seriously wish more programmers understood simple theory but I am amazed at how many try to reinvent the wheel, design protocols without knowing the firs tthing about about queueing theory, try to optimize their code without understanding algorithms and complexity theory, and so on. Even EE people I see goofing up with basic EE concepts. And still you get the people whining "the hard classes aren't worth it, we'll never need to know this stuff, skip school and just read a book".
You don't see it like that at full respected universities. Yes the loans may be big but the rates are (or were?) reasonable and not unlike loan sharks.
Stop lumping all things that are on the internet with IoT paranoia. There are very good internet enabled things that have nothing to do with silly consumer gadgets, and they use high security as well (not the weak wifi stuff).
High tax rate but also high return on value to citizens. The US has a very low tax rate but also a very low return back to citizens. What pisses off people is when they pay taxes but get very little to show for it (except a gargantuan military).
For many things thrown away, no repair is even necessary. We're in a throw away culture, with perfectly good items tossed away just because it's not fashionable anymore. I think it's a good idea that at least one country has decided to try and make a change.
In theory this is true. Until one of them is elected to political office and becomes dependent upon campaign donations to keep his or her way of life intact.
For one counter example, the state government is absolutely prohibited from abridging the free speech of their citizens, which includes the rights of municipalities to speak out as well. The states are not given free reign to be despots, they are not autonomous nation states. We even fought a war over this point.
The federal government is granted the ability to override the state government with regards to interstate commerce. The federal constitution also forbids the states from denying certain rights to its citizens (though not clearly spelled out, this has two hundred years of precedence behind it).
However there's a federal constitution as well, which says that the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The state would be forbidden to prevent Comcast from doing business in the state for example. It would seem to follow that the state therefore can not forbid local entities from competing with the out of state companies.
Which is why the supporters of bans on local governments doing this is not based on interstate commerce but on "omg, government run services are communist tools!" It's true we don't normally want governments to compete in the economic arena as it's unfair. However we generally allow this for essential services (sewage, fire, police, schools). In this particular case however there is NO competition, the broadband companies are not providing this service at any price to this town. The municipalities are filling a void in other words. The reason big broadband companies don't want this is because it makes them look bad when it turns out they charge more and provide less service than a small town can can provide.
Except that the typical voter doesn't know this is happening or doesn't care. There's also a big notion in the south that the courts must not get involved in politics, while at the same time politics ensures that bad laws can never be overturned. US Congress could act here, as this is basically interstate commerce that's involved. But they're bought and paid for just as much as the South Carolina legislators.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, you find a lot of players online who think modding is cheating. They're so tied up into competitive gaming that they fail to see any nuances, even accusing people on single player games of cheating.
Actually having a password is relatively poor security for many IoT devices. You want an end-to-end security without a single point of user failure, such as trust established through certificates, disallow firmware changes that aren't trusted and signed, security on the link itself, and security on end to end transactions. No one does that for dumb consumer devices, or even consumer PCs and phones, but you need it for networks of sensor devices, SCADA systems, automation, etc.
Basically, the average home consumer has zero need for an IoT device, they don't need to know remotely if their toaster was left on, they're only buying these products to look cool to their gadget loving friends or as a display of conspicuous consumption.
If something thas no built in security, what sort of moron would connect it to the internet?
He cited Noah's flood as an example of climate change that was not caused by man, he didn't use it as proof against man made climate change. Further, he got the message wrong here - the flood was because of man indirectly, to get rid of them and start over, and Noah was motivated to warn people about the upcoming climate change and he was laughed at by the congressman equivalent of the day.
So the biggest climate change deniers in the US are Christian. So what theology claims that climate change can't happen, or what bible verses, or...?
The link here is in the strange bedfellows of American political parties. If you're hitching your wagon to one party such that you will back them no matter what, because they'll back your views that evolution is an evil plot, then you're also going to be very likely when the big oil folks ask you to contribute to the cause by also denying climate change. There's not a lot of room in political parties for nuance in America, there are only two major parties which split almost exactly down the center (if they don't then things shuffle around until they do again) so if you're a strong partisan you will accept lots of contradictory viewpoints all in the name of being loyal to the party.
There's nothing in climate change theory that gets in the way of any mainstream religious beliefs.
Remember, Gates and Zuckerberg actually went to school. They didn't drop out until they were making decent money on the side.
When I was a senior and looking at colleges, long long ago, a DeVry salesman came and gave my parents the hard sell. It was "practically" guaranteed that all DeVry graduates got a job. And that's what my parents wanted. That's what a lot of parents want. And my parents tried really hard to get me to go there even though it did not teach the stuff I wanted to learn. I stood my ground but my brother went there. And a couple years later he quit and went to a real school instead because they were still teaching him remedial stuff that he already knew from high school (imaginary numbers). My father later said he felt lucky that I didn't give in and do what they wanted.
The point though, is that there is still a lot of fear out there about how the kids will do in their career. Parents want the guarantee if they're middle class and college sounds extremely expensive. Apple famously fed on this with their advertisement in the 80s showing the returning home after dropping out of school because he didn't own an Apple II.
Engineering. You don't learn that from a book then hope to get a job, period. Even programming (not coding, people who use the term "coding" need to remember that this was the term for people who transcribed code from the programmer onto the computer, so using that as your career title seems bizarre). You can get a book about learning FashionableLanguage in 21 days, but you will not learn much about programming that way, you won't learn the complexities, etc.
An important thing about universities that you don't get learning on your own is the hard stuff. Self taught people tend to skip a lot of the hard stuff, they'll skip whatever they think won't ever be used in the future, etc. So you get self taught people with extremely narrow focuses instead of a broader set of education, skills, and experience. This is NOT universal however, I know some very good self taught people, but they intentionally spend a lot of their time continually learning new stuff. But that's a minority of the self taught people I know.
Every single class I had in computer science I have used in my career. I have used my physics courses in my career, my math courses, my EE courses, my writing courses, etc. And my music courses can be good for discussions in the break room...
If your classes were a waste of time then either you're in a simple job or you never actually learned anything in them.
Changed too much then. My Univ. of California was the best deal I ever had. Worked part time jobs, got loans, a few grants but those tended to be small. The loan itself I paid off in a couple years. And yet if you don't have the degree, your career will suffer, you'll miss out on promotions, be stuck in phone support, grunt roles, etc.
And believe me, as an engineer working with software, I seriously wish more programmers understood simple theory but I am amazed at how many try to reinvent the wheel, design protocols without knowing the firs tthing about about queueing theory, try to optimize their code without understanding algorithms and complexity theory, and so on. Even EE people I see goofing up with basic EE concepts. And still you get the people whining "the hard classes aren't worth it, we'll never need to know this stuff, skip school and just read a book".
You don't see it like that at full respected universities. Yes the loans may be big but the rates are (or were?) reasonable and not unlike loan sharks.
Stop lumping all things that are on the internet with IoT paranoia. There are very good internet enabled things that have nothing to do with silly consumer gadgets, and they use high security as well (not the weak wifi stuff).
High tax rate but also high return on value to citizens. The US has a very low tax rate but also a very low return back to citizens. What pisses off people is when they pay taxes but get very little to show for it (except a gargantuan military).
For many things thrown away, no repair is even necessary. We're in a throw away culture, with perfectly good items tossed away just because it's not fashionable anymore. I think it's a good idea that at least one country has decided to try and make a change.
It's interstate commerce because are out-of state broadband suppliers who are the competition here. This is how it works with telephone service.
Who's a good little horsey? You are! Here have an apple. Don't eat any more of that peanut butter it makes it look like your'e talking.
The Micheal Bay horse, it explodes when you get too close.
In theory this is true. Until one of them is elected to political office and becomes dependent upon campaign donations to keep his or her way of life intact.
For one counter example, the state government is absolutely prohibited from abridging the free speech of their citizens, which includes the rights of municipalities to speak out as well. The states are not given free reign to be despots, they are not autonomous nation states. We even fought a war over this point.
The federal government is granted the ability to override the state government with regards to interstate commerce. The federal constitution also forbids the states from denying certain rights to its citizens (though not clearly spelled out, this has two hundred years of precedence behind it).
However there's a federal constitution as well, which says that the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The state would be forbidden to prevent Comcast from doing business in the state for example. It would seem to follow that the state therefore can not forbid local entities from competing with the out of state companies.
Which is why the supporters of bans on local governments doing this is not based on interstate commerce but on "omg, government run services are communist tools!" It's true we don't normally want governments to compete in the economic arena as it's unfair. However we generally allow this for essential services (sewage, fire, police, schools). In this particular case however there is NO competition, the broadband companies are not providing this service at any price to this town. The municipalities are filling a void in other words. The reason big broadband companies don't want this is because it makes them look bad when it turns out they charge more and provide less service than a small town can can provide.
Except that the typical voter doesn't know this is happening or doesn't care. There's also a big notion in the south that the courts must not get involved in politics, while at the same time politics ensures that bad laws can never be overturned. US Congress could act here, as this is basically interstate commerce that's involved. But they're bought and paid for just as much as the South Carolina legislators.
Essentially you can not become a politician without also being a hypocrite, no matter what political party it is.