They don't want a warrant though. A warrant doesn't apply in this case as there's nothing to search. They needed a special court order to compel Apple to assist them because no precedent for it within normal legal channels.
Actually the majority of people seemed to be against Apple here, at least at the start. A lot of political candidates were trying to make points by painting Apple as helping ISIS. When other big tech companies came out in support of Apple it caused a lot of people to rethink their positions. Sort of easy to accuse Apple of being part of the cultural wars, gay CEO, hipster products, hiding tax money overseas, etc. But it's harder to do that when boring old Microsoft says the same thing.
It was an older phone model though. My guess is that they cloned the phone. Possibly someone in Apple could have done this, if the FBI thought to ask for this instead of demanding to get a legal precedent instead.
However AT&T is giving no guarantees, there will be no oversight, and the cost to the consumer will be very high. Later on they will lobby that because of all this money spent that 10/1 should count as "broadband".
Though I agree that 10/1 is good enough even for streaming, assuming you only stream one program at a time (and in rural areas it is indeed possible to teach children to limit the amount of tv they get, get their chores done, and even eat lima beans).
Wi-Fi is not the only wireless method, thankfully because it's one of the worst. But it's the most common if you don't want to deal with something that's not off the Best-Buy shelf. People sometimes have good medium range results using the pringle's can as a directional antenna. Won't be great but you'll have a signal. Or get 900mhz range equipment.
You don't need fiber to the home. Even major California cities don't have that. But for example consider the mountain regions in California. They get good electricity, they even have decent mobile phone coverage from AT&T. So they really only need copper from the mobile phone backhaul to the houses. It won't be as good as a fat cable but 10Mbps down is a helluva lot better than dialup, assuming AT&T will give decent non-gouging rates.
My mother didn't have good phone service growing up in the Sierra foothills, it was all shared party line to the nearest operator. Direct dial didn't come until the sometime in the forties or fifties, and it most likely came grudgingly.
Rural California is even more sparse in places than rural Finland (maybe not as much as Lapland though). On the other hand a lot of "rural" California is not sparse at all, there are many unincorporated tiny towns that find it difficult to even get reliable water and electricity.
Right now I get 12Mbps VDSL, which presumably needed to have fiber to my neighborhood before they would even consider it (yes, I can increase this to 48Mbps if I wanted to spend the caps). My mother only gets 1Mbps as that is the best AT&T could offer. So how are they getting 10Mbps with normal DSL to rural areas which presumably are not close to the telephone switches?
I agree though, if they are digging new lines then they should be putting in fiber.
I thought it was for things like U-verse in that you have a theoretical data cap on your U-verse internet but U-verse television does not count towards that cap. In other words, there's no third party involved (it may be the case that AT&T does not actually check your usage since you can't ever get the data about how much you use from AT&T itself). A similar thing would happen for cable companies if their television and internet shared the same bandwidth.
Public infrastructure often waits until something is broken before it's fixed. So the pain of dealing with $1000 thyristors comes all at once instead of being spread out over several decades.
No one made smart phones in 2000 either. You don't end up with a worse product by sticking with something that's tried and true, but you also don't end up with a better product. Usually people don't want to change how they do things because things are already sort of working with a few bumps and scrapes on occasion.
There are very often tangible benefits only they're not readily seen or they benefits do not outweight the manufacturing costs, and ultimately it's not worth it unless everyone else decided to switch over also. Basically no one wants to be first.
The reason the common track widths are they way they are is because they closely match the width of a horse's back side; seriously, that dictates the widths of chariots, carts, carriages, which create ruts in the road so that everyone after uses the same widths, and so forth. Basically a couple thousand years of not changing how wide to put the wheels. Getting a more sensible width (used for automobiles for example) means having some point in time where you are no longer following the convention and have to retool all the parts anyway.
In general they break even. The 1 in 10 will make 10 times what they spent. It is extremely rare to get the 20x or 100x. They would do so much better if they properly vetted the companies first to weed out the obvious failures.
But we haven't normally been funding poeple with shitty business ideas for millions of dollars until recent times. Sort of. Actually... We did do things like funding Columbus who had an idea about going all the way to China the long way around to save money, totally stupid idea that everyone knew was stupid except for the VC firm of Isabella and Ferdinand (not to mention the well funded voyages that no one ever heard from again).
That's perhaps an anomaly, often there were business interests willing to fund an idea if the idea was demonstrated first, merchants willing to fund a an explorer finding a shorter overland route to Asia, and other things that at least were conceivable or which did not hurt too badly financially when they failed. There was a period when we spent good money on scientific discovery, if something valuable was discovered then that was a great but if not at least there was some science done.
What we have today though is a lot like Columbus and Isabella. Everyone already knows that yet another dating site is a dumb idea but there's one investor out there who doesn't know any better. Eventually people give up on funding yet another voyage to find the northern passage or funding yet another dating site.
Although generally you want to pick an artist that actually stands a chance, there is already some music that seems good for example. You don't just pick a random person off the street, spend years on musical training, then hope you have a hit. The investment for the artist really is not that much so you can afford some failures.
For startups it's only vaguely similar. First there is often no evidence that the startup is able to succeed even as a moderately successful long term company, there is no technology to show off, little to no technical expertise in the founders except may someone is good at making a web page, no plan of what to do or how to do it (some of these startups completely change direction overnight, sometimes at the urging of panicked investors). Second, the investment is huge. The investors are being asked to fund a group of people for several years, buy equipment, and basically be life support from 5 people up to 100 or more before getting any return. It's a massive risk given the minimal information to work with.
Almost everyone knows most startups are crap anyway. Especially in Silicon Valley anyone with any experience is wary of working at one as the risk is so high that you'll be out of work soon and will have made less money than if you had taken a steady job with less stress. Whenever I hear a job recruiter pushing names of VC investors, levels of funding, bios of the founders, then I know the company is more hype than substance.
Religious practices define what deity is worshipped? Compare Pentecostal snake handlers to Egyption Copts - both Christian, same god, same basic religious texts, but extremely different religious practices. Islam includes much of the new testament of the Bible as holy scriptures, they refer to the God of Abraham as their own, they accept Jesus as a major prophet who just doesn't happen to be the last prophet. They're really not much further away from Judaism and Christianity as Mormonism is.
As I mentioned somewhere else, the word "corruption" is not about money. It's just what modern people tend to think of first. Corruption is something changed from its original form, generally in a negative way. Rot, decay, etc. Political corruption means you're not the same person the voters elected, perhaps ending up beholden to special interests (every interest is a special interest though), selling out your ideals, being more concerned about being reelected than doing the best that they can in their job, using the office to increase their wealth, etc.
Hard to say if Trump is corrupted since he's always been this sleazy. Trump is always trying to get more money, he will never believe that he has enough. He's not even funding his own campaign despite claiming that he is. Bernie isn't really a democrat but he ran as once in order to get elected. He has also made a lot of compromises and backroom deals. And some people (I disagree with themn) think that any compromise or pragmatism is evidence of corruption.
Basically, I stand by my statement in a sense ; until proof beyond a reasonable doubt, assume a politician is corrupt. Hillary is not off the deep end here with corruption, she's very average.
And the same God is worshiped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. We're also not living in ancient Israel where the rule of law was weak and administered by kings or self appointed judges.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a public range available. You just need the radio maker to have FCC seal of approval.
Except that The Neverending Story book eventually ended.
They don't want a warrant though. A warrant doesn't apply in this case as there's nothing to search. They needed a special court order to compel Apple to assist them because no precedent for it within normal legal channels.
Actually the majority of people seemed to be against Apple here, at least at the start. A lot of political candidates were trying to make points by painting Apple as helping ISIS. When other big tech companies came out in support of Apple it caused a lot of people to rethink their positions. Sort of easy to accuse Apple of being part of the cultural wars, gay CEO, hipster products, hiding tax money overseas, etc. But it's harder to do that when boring old Microsoft says the same thing.
Yes, Santa Claus said I should trust them. I saw him in a black helicopter helping the easter bunny lay eggs.
It was an older phone model though. My guess is that they cloned the phone. Possibly someone in Apple could have done this, if the FBI thought to ask for this instead of demanding to get a legal precedent instead.
Even parts of Silicon Valley don't get broadband.
However AT&T is giving no guarantees, there will be no oversight, and the cost to the consumer will be very high. Later on they will lobby that because of all this money spent that 10/1 should count as "broadband".
Though I agree that 10/1 is good enough even for streaming, assuming you only stream one program at a time (and in rural areas it is indeed possible to teach children to limit the amount of tv they get, get their chores done, and even eat lima beans).
Wi-Fi is not the only wireless method, thankfully because it's one of the worst. But it's the most common if you don't want to deal with something that's not off the Best-Buy shelf. People sometimes have good medium range results using the pringle's can as a directional antenna. Won't be great but you'll have a signal. Or get 900mhz range equipment.
You don't need fiber to the home. Even major California cities don't have that. But for example consider the mountain regions in California. They get good electricity, they even have decent mobile phone coverage from AT&T. So they really only need copper from the mobile phone backhaul to the houses. It won't be as good as a fat cable but 10Mbps down is a helluva lot better than dialup, assuming AT&T will give decent non-gouging rates.
My mother didn't have good phone service growing up in the Sierra foothills, it was all shared party line to the nearest operator. Direct dial didn't come until the sometime in the forties or fifties, and it most likely came grudgingly.
Rural California is even more sparse in places than rural Finland (maybe not as much as Lapland though). On the other hand a lot of "rural" California is not sparse at all, there are many unincorporated tiny towns that find it difficult to even get reliable water and electricity.
Right now I get 12Mbps VDSL, which presumably needed to have fiber to my neighborhood before they would even consider it (yes, I can increase this to 48Mbps if I wanted to spend the caps). My mother only gets 1Mbps as that is the best AT&T could offer. So how are they getting 10Mbps with normal DSL to rural areas which presumably are not close to the telephone switches?
I agree though, if they are digging new lines then they should be putting in fiber.
Since taxes are on my mind right now... If we give AT&T this $100 million, do we get a deduction for this act of charity?
I thought it was for things like U-verse in that you have a theoretical data cap on your U-verse internet but U-verse television does not count towards that cap. In other words, there's no third party involved (it may be the case that AT&T does not actually check your usage since you can't ever get the data about how much you use from AT&T itself). A similar thing would happen for cable companies if their television and internet shared the same bandwidth.
Public infrastructure often waits until something is broken before it's fixed. So the pain of dealing with $1000 thyristors comes all at once instead of being spread out over several decades.
No one made smart phones in 2000 either. You don't end up with a worse product by sticking with something that's tried and true, but you also don't end up with a better product. Usually people don't want to change how they do things because things are already sort of working with a few bumps and scrapes on occasion.
There are very often tangible benefits only they're not readily seen or they benefits do not outweight the manufacturing costs, and ultimately it's not worth it unless everyone else decided to switch over also. Basically no one wants to be first.
The reason the common track widths are they way they are is because they closely match the width of a horse's back side; seriously, that dictates the widths of chariots, carts, carriages, which create ruts in the road so that everyone after uses the same widths, and so forth. Basically a couple thousand years of not changing how wide to put the wheels. Getting a more sensible width (used for automobiles for example) means having some point in time where you are no longer following the convention and have to retool all the parts anyway.
In general they break even. The 1 in 10 will make 10 times what they spent. It is extremely rare to get the 20x or 100x. They would do so much better if they properly vetted the companies first to weed out the obvious failures.
But we haven't normally been funding poeple with shitty business ideas for millions of dollars until recent times. Sort of. Actually... We did do things like funding Columbus who had an idea about going all the way to China the long way around to save money, totally stupid idea that everyone knew was stupid except for the VC firm of Isabella and Ferdinand (not to mention the well funded voyages that no one ever heard from again).
That's perhaps an anomaly, often there were business interests willing to fund an idea if the idea was demonstrated first, merchants willing to fund a an explorer finding a shorter overland route to Asia, and other things that at least were conceivable or which did not hurt too badly financially when they failed. There was a period when we spent good money on scientific discovery, if something valuable was discovered then that was a great but if not at least there was some science done.
What we have today though is a lot like Columbus and Isabella. Everyone already knows that yet another dating site is a dumb idea but there's one investor out there who doesn't know any better. Eventually people give up on funding yet another voyage to find the northern passage or funding yet another dating site.
Although generally you want to pick an artist that actually stands a chance, there is already some music that seems good for example. You don't just pick a random person off the street, spend years on musical training, then hope you have a hit. The investment for the artist really is not that much so you can afford some failures.
For startups it's only vaguely similar. First there is often no evidence that the startup is able to succeed even as a moderately successful long term company, there is no technology to show off, little to no technical expertise in the founders except may someone is good at making a web page, no plan of what to do or how to do it (some of these startups completely change direction overnight, sometimes at the urging of panicked investors). Second, the investment is huge. The investors are being asked to fund a group of people for several years, buy equipment, and basically be life support from 5 people up to 100 or more before getting any return. It's a massive risk given the minimal information to work with.
Right, and buying lottery tickets is still a better way to invest your money.
Almost everyone knows most startups are crap anyway. Especially in Silicon Valley anyone with any experience is wary of working at one as the risk is so high that you'll be out of work soon and will have made less money than if you had taken a steady job with less stress. Whenever I hear a job recruiter pushing names of VC investors, levels of funding, bios of the founders, then I know the company is more hype than substance.
Religious practices define what deity is worshipped? Compare Pentecostal snake handlers to Egyption Copts - both Christian, same god, same basic religious texts, but extremely different religious practices. Islam includes much of the new testament of the Bible as holy scriptures, they refer to the God of Abraham as their own, they accept Jesus as a major prophet who just doesn't happen to be the last prophet. They're really not much further away from Judaism and Christianity as Mormonism is.
As I mentioned somewhere else, the word "corruption" is not about money. It's just what modern people tend to think of first. Corruption is something changed from its original form, generally in a negative way. Rot, decay, etc. Political corruption means you're not the same person the voters elected, perhaps ending up beholden to special interests (every interest is a special interest though), selling out your ideals, being more concerned about being reelected than doing the best that they can in their job, using the office to increase their wealth, etc.
Hard to say if Trump is corrupted since he's always been this sleazy. Trump is always trying to get more money, he will never believe that he has enough. He's not even funding his own campaign despite claiming that he is. Bernie isn't really a democrat but he ran as once in order to get elected. He has also made a lot of compromises and backroom deals. And some people (I disagree with themn) think that any compromise or pragmatism is evidence of corruption.
Basically, I stand by my statement in a sense ; until proof beyond a reasonable doubt, assume a politician is corrupt. Hillary is not off the deep end here with corruption, she's very average.
And the same God is worshiped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. We're also not living in ancient Israel where the rule of law was weak and administered by kings or self appointed judges.
Everyone should be armed with petitions and pens!