I've got AT&T. They advertised that they were migrating to IPv6 several years back. The router didn't support it though as I remember at the time, and no firmware patches have come since. It's all vdsl though, with third party 2wire router/modem which is the only vdsl modem that will work with AT&T, and that's the point at which IPv6 tests fail; or it could be the other end of the point-to-point link.
There is no way in hell that Fedex or UPS is every going to change only $0.47 to deliver a letter. Even if the USPS is eliminated you can be sure they're going to gouge the customers.
The only way to achieve parity with PC is to remove all the crap the console makers do to lock you into their games or monetize you. Paid subscriptions in order to get updates to your games, exclusive access to one platform only, makes use of a nonsensical interface no one wants (kinect), connectivity to the back office so they can serve you ads and track you, etc. And that's before you make the games less dumb.
So the choice is sell your soul, or go out of business. If only the greedy distributors have the product then you either deal with them or you don't get access to their product. If Netflix stops dealing with greedy distributors then they end up with no profits and a massive loss because they'll having nothing to show except for their few home grown productions. It's like trying to make a television station without access to any programs or movies.
Agreed. Netflix is treated as an enemy by Hollywood and the cable industry. They don't even want their own services they just want people to stop cutting the cord, keep going to the movie theaters, stop watching movies at a time and place of your own choosing, and so forth.
Netflix has zero choice in the matter, they can not give you the content without permission of the content owners, and they won't get permission of the content owners without verifying your location. As the largest streaming service they're the ones that the MPAA is pointing their guns at; but they are going to put this pressure on everyone else soon enough. Since Netflix is not a pirate site they are required to give the MPAA a say. Netflix intentionally does a half-assed crackdown just to mollify the overlords, they would be extremely happy to accept all Canadians as paying members if they were allowed, as well as anyone anywhere including from other planets.
You'll punish Netflix by refusing to show you the latest Marvel movie without validating your location, yet go out and reward the MPAA by paying full price to see it in 3D at the theater. Voting with your wallet only works if you understand where your vote goes.
Netflix is probably neutral here. The content providers are the ones that are paranoid that only allowed content is showed in the proper regions. If Netflix let anyone watch anything then they'd start losing their access to the content.
Some of the infrastructure is there. However there are a lot of ISPs who don't support it fully yet, home routers or modems from ISPs that don't support it, etc. They've basically "solved" the problem for the short term with NAT and aren't under as much pressure to change. And this is a part of the infrastructure even though it's not the backbone.
It's religion. You can't fight that. The core dogma is that government of any size or shape is bad, and that any corporation is good and holy. If the government is wasteful then it's proof of how bad it is; if the government is efficient then it's clearly preventing private services from competing (and any one who thinks that FedEx is an example of a company being prevented from succeeding because of government competition is a moron).
ONLY the USPS has this extraordinary pension requirement. No other government body has to do this. In their holy fight to prove that government is wasteful the ultralibertarians have taken the fight to the one government body that makes a profit and is not being wasteful. The USPS can fund it's pensions, it just can't do 75 years worth of it in advance.
Basically these idiots felt that if they voted to eliminate the postal service that they'd be pilloried by the public (rightfully so). So instead they use this pension scheme which gets the unions on their side and confuses the public whose eyes glaze over when trying to figure out fiscal details.
The USPS makes a PROFIT if you discount the congressional restrictions, which means that plenty of customers do want this service. If you don't like this then you can put a permanent "return to sender" sign on your mailbox. Just don't screw it up for everyone else because you get bills by email.
The USPS is the only government entity that makes a profit, so naturally the free-market priests demand that it be destroyed lest mere citizens be fooled into thinking that something good can happen in government.
Even ignoring safety, the paving of the side roads is not intended for heavy use and will quickly lead to potholes and more money being spent on repairs.
A big problem is that there's not a lot of traffic enforcement so the speed limits are ignored by the outsiders and a once safe neighborhood becomes dangerous.
These people are using apps while driving. We could just let them become Darwinized, but as civilized people we tend to try to gently instruct them to not be self destructing asshats.
Because one side can keep ratcheting up costs as much as they like. Keep filing motions with the clerk of the court. Costs go up. Poor plaintiff loses due to back luck, and has to pay for all those court filings, plus attorney cost for the rich person (never mind if they were on the payroll anyway), travel costs for everyone involved, and so forth. If the plaintiff only makes about $30K a year and a Google map automobile drove over their mailbox are they really going to want to go to court to get Google to pay the $100 if they might end up on the hook for $2000 or more if they lose?
This is definitely why most people who think they have an open and shut case end up settling out of court because they can't afford to stay in it for the long haul.
These cases are not decided by perfectly programmed artificial intelligence.
Look at civil cases with intellectual property. Patent cases get filed in east Texas because those juries are known to be biased in favor of the litigants. The evidence does not sway them. Whitfield Diffie shows up to tell the jury that he was the co-inventor for the basics of modern cryptography, which does not sway the jury because Withfield Diffie just happens to look a little strange to an east Texas jury. The loser-pays would not have stopped these patent trolls at all because they had a good win rate and a very high payout and so could afford to lose some cases. Someone with lots of money is not going to be intimidated by a lose-pays-all system, but someone with not much money will give up quickly rather than take on the 900lb gorilla in an Armani suit.
Look at Oracle vs Google. Why would an appeals court reach a different decision than the original court? Same evidence, same sense of "I'm certain I'm right and you're wrong" on both sides, etc. If the appeals court can not agree with the original court that that proves there is uncertainty in the system.
Look at criminal cases. Did O.J. walk free because the prosecution was incredibly inept, or because the prosecution was less persuasive than the defense? The evidence was presented, the evidence was compelling to most people, but to that jury much of that evidence was downplayed. When a decision is made by a jury you are throwing the dice every time and the evidence and arguments only serve to sway the odds; even with a judge and no jury it is still unpredictable.
How can you know if the judge or jury is going to doubt you? What if your extremely compelling evidence is disallowed by the judge after the case has started? If people only went to court if there was 100% guarantee that they would win then the legal system would vanish, possibly replaced by something far far worse (abritration abuse, hiring thugs to make your point, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I've got AT&T. They advertised that they were migrating to IPv6 several years back. The router didn't support it though as I remember at the time, and no firmware patches have come since. It's all vdsl though, with third party 2wire router/modem which is the only vdsl modem that will work with AT&T, and that's the point at which IPv6 tests fail; or it could be the other end of the point-to-point link.
There is no way in hell that Fedex or UPS is every going to change only $0.47 to deliver a letter. Even if the USPS is eliminated you can be sure they're going to gouge the customers.
The only way to achieve parity with PC is to remove all the crap the console makers do to lock you into their games or monetize you. Paid subscriptions in order to get updates to your games, exclusive access to one platform only, makes use of a nonsensical interface no one wants (kinect), connectivity to the back office so they can serve you ads and track you, etc. And that's before you make the games less dumb.
The fact that you're playing a console oriented game on a PC is already a massive disadvantage even if it worked well.
So the choice is sell your soul, or go out of business. If only the greedy distributors have the product then you either deal with them or you don't get access to their product. If Netflix stops dealing with greedy distributors then they end up with no profits and a massive loss because they'll having nothing to show except for their few home grown productions. It's like trying to make a television station without access to any programs or movies.
Agreed. Netflix is treated as an enemy by Hollywood and the cable industry. They don't even want their own services they just want people to stop cutting the cord, keep going to the movie theaters, stop watching movies at a time and place of your own choosing, and so forth.
Netflix has zero choice in the matter, they can not give you the content without permission of the content owners, and they won't get permission of the content owners without verifying your location. As the largest streaming service they're the ones that the MPAA is pointing their guns at; but they are going to put this pressure on everyone else soon enough. Since Netflix is not a pirate site they are required to give the MPAA a say. Netflix intentionally does a half-assed crackdown just to mollify the overlords, they would be extremely happy to accept all Canadians as paying members if they were allowed, as well as anyone anywhere including from other planets.
You'll punish Netflix by refusing to show you the latest Marvel movie without validating your location, yet go out and reward the MPAA by paying full price to see it in 3D at the theater. Voting with your wallet only works if you understand where your vote goes.
Netflix is probably neutral here. The content providers are the ones that are paranoid that only allowed content is showed in the proper regions. If Netflix let anyone watch anything then they'd start losing their access to the content.
Some of the infrastructure is there. However there are a lot of ISPs who don't support it fully yet, home routers or modems from ISPs that don't support it, etc. They've basically "solved" the problem for the short term with NAT and aren't under as much pressure to change. And this is a part of the infrastructure even though it's not the backbone.
It's religion. You can't fight that. The core dogma is that government of any size or shape is bad, and that any corporation is good and holy. If the government is wasteful then it's proof of how bad it is; if the government is efficient then it's clearly preventing private services from competing (and any one who thinks that FedEx is an example of a company being prevented from succeeding because of government competition is a moron).
ONLY the USPS has this extraordinary pension requirement. No other government body has to do this. In their holy fight to prove that government is wasteful the ultralibertarians have taken the fight to the one government body that makes a profit and is not being wasteful. The USPS can fund it's pensions, it just can't do 75 years worth of it in advance.
Basically these idiots felt that if they voted to eliminate the postal service that they'd be pilloried by the public (rightfully so). So instead they use this pension scheme which gets the unions on their side and confuses the public whose eyes glaze over when trying to figure out fiscal details.
The USPS makes a PROFIT if you discount the congressional restrictions, which means that plenty of customers do want this service. If you don't like this then you can put a permanent "return to sender" sign on your mailbox. Just don't screw it up for everyone else because you get bills by email.
The USPS is the only government entity that makes a profit, so naturally the free-market priests demand that it be destroyed lest mere citizens be fooled into thinking that something good can happen in government.
I remember one digit ids, but by the time I got someone to look it had rolled over. Back then I didn't think slashdot would last the rest of the week.
Even ignoring safety, the paving of the side roads is not intended for heavy use and will quickly lead to potholes and more money being spent on repairs.
A big problem is that there's not a lot of traffic enforcement so the speed limits are ignored by the outsiders and a once safe neighborhood becomes dangerous.
People who live on the street tend to drive at or below the speed limit.
And if a toddler kicks a ball out onto the street, who has the right of way?
These people are using apps while driving. We could just let them become Darwinized, but as civilized people we tend to try to gently instruct them to not be self destructing asshats.
Other company's don't copy GE because GE has good technological ideas, but because GE has good ideas about how to screw the workforce.
Because one side can keep ratcheting up costs as much as they like. Keep filing motions with the clerk of the court. Costs go up. Poor plaintiff loses due to back luck, and has to pay for all those court filings, plus attorney cost for the rich person (never mind if they were on the payroll anyway), travel costs for everyone involved, and so forth. If the plaintiff only makes about $30K a year and a Google map automobile drove over their mailbox are they really going to want to go to court to get Google to pay the $100 if they might end up on the hook for $2000 or more if they lose?
This is definitely why most people who think they have an open and shut case end up settling out of court because they can't afford to stay in it for the long haul.
This isn't a geometry proof in a math class.
These cases are not decided by perfectly programmed artificial intelligence.
Look at civil cases with intellectual property. Patent cases get filed in east Texas because those juries are known to be biased in favor of the litigants. The evidence does not sway them. Whitfield Diffie shows up to tell the jury that he was the co-inventor for the basics of modern cryptography, which does not sway the jury because Withfield Diffie just happens to look a little strange to an east Texas jury. The loser-pays would not have stopped these patent trolls at all because they had a good win rate and a very high payout and so could afford to lose some cases. Someone with lots of money is not going to be intimidated by a lose-pays-all system, but someone with not much money will give up quickly rather than take on the 900lb gorilla in an Armani suit.
Look at Oracle vs Google. Why would an appeals court reach a different decision than the original court? Same evidence, same sense of "I'm certain I'm right and you're wrong" on both sides, etc. If the appeals court can not agree with the original court that that proves there is uncertainty in the system.
Look at criminal cases. Did O.J. walk free because the prosecution was incredibly inept, or because the prosecution was less persuasive than the defense? The evidence was presented, the evidence was compelling to most people, but to that jury much of that evidence was downplayed. When a decision is made by a jury you are throwing the dice every time and the evidence and arguments only serve to sway the odds; even with a judge and no jury it is still unpredictable.
momentally stupid.
We've all been there.
How can you know if the judge or jury is going to doubt you? What if your extremely compelling evidence is disallowed by the judge after the case has started? If people only went to court if there was 100% guarantee that they would win then the legal system would vanish, possibly replaced by something far far worse (abritration abuse, hiring thugs to make your point, etc).