We already have better security than WPA2, which existed before WPA2 was invented.
Wired networks are not necessarily more secure than wireless networks. The only thing wired networks provides is a minor physical hurdle. We have plenty of rs232 cables connecting vital infrastructure which is vastly less secure than many wireless devices.
We already have an "internet of things", for many years now. Computers are things. Mobile phones are things. The difference is now smaller things are networked (not necessarily on the "internet" though), and things not typically networked. Ie, smart meters, remote monitoring devices and sensors, televisions. There are the things that are only extremely loosely considered to be networked, attachment via bluetooth.
Many of those internet of things devices won't ever be addressable by the general public, and there won't be any "cloud". This stuff is not just about phones or social media. And many of the devices have quality security designed with a paranoia mindset rather than devices with an attitude to sell advertising.
Some devices use those, or smartcards. However some devices don't; they're too small, or are owned by utilities who don't want someone else messing with them, etc. A MicroSD is not necessarily secure either, how do you know if one has been removed and replaced with a fake? On-board flash with write protected blocks is a lot safer, though at some point someone highly determined will break in (desolder things, etc).
At an earlier job, the company I was at outsourced a small project to an Indian company. That company turned out to be two cousins. One cousin spoke good English but did not seem understand technology (a manager/marketing type). The other cousin was a programmer but did not speak English. So communicating technical concepts was a disaster.
They're not worse. But they are also NOT better. I have seen H1B workers who have such a poor grasp of things that I wonder how they even managed to fill out their visa applications. Most of the imported workers that companies want are not highly skilled workers, instead they want IT workers. They don't want workers to design new products, they want workers who will support products. Entry and junior level positions.
The thing is, the "hole" is not about being wireless, that's just stupid fear mongering. The hole is in not having security in the first place. You can indeed have highly secure wireless networking. The trick is in getting the customers to demand security instead of thinking of it as an inconvenient hassle.
Ah but here's the snag. The current federal administration is Democrat. This means that the Republican politicians must naturally oppose everything they do. So this means that the FCC is the enemy of the Republican politicians. If the FCC says they're thinking about municipal broadband, well then standard political logic says that Republicans will oppose it.
And besides the current crop of Republicans are opposed to government doing anything at any level, even at the municipal level, even if it was democratically voted on. Especially if it invoves the word "tax".
The math isn't hard:
Tax goes to government, which goes to small ISP, which gives good service: bad.
Fees goes to big ISP, most of which goes to profits, which leads to neglected service: good.
Subsidy? The USPS is a part of the government, why should they pay taxes? Do they pay the tax to themself? And yet they are self funding, which I would think is some that normally people opposed to government waste would support. Except that it embarrasses the people trying to push the story that all government is inept and incompetent.
Sure it may not be a level playing field with UPS or Fedex, but so what? If we could force those commercial players to lower their rates to USPS rates and to provide universal service, then I'd be more inclined to follow your line of reasoning. When it comes to internet providers the corporations have clearly shown that they have no interest whatsoever in providing universal or reasonable service, which is why municipalities feel the need to have their own service.
City hall doesn't have their own army. Mayors get voted out of office every election, some go to jail, they absolutely do not have the dictatorial powers you seem to imply. And the municipalities will get private corporations to run the networks, it's just that these won't be Comcast. If you hate elected politicians so much then why are you so quick to believe what the state level party mouthpieces are saying?
Municipal utilities have been tested and they do work out well. Guess what the PUC does in California, it's best friends with PG&E and other big utilities. That's not the entity you look towards to fix up corruption.
Your argument can be read as both in favor of the ban on municipal broadband as well as opposed to the ban on municipal broadband. It depends on who you think the "government granted monopolies" are, the ones dominating most of the state where no free market exists or the one at the municipal level brought in as a balance of power.
Municipalities should absolutely have the right to do this. This is the local citizen standing up to the status quo of monopolies. The republicans should be the ones backing this since they often are the ones claiming to support individual freedoms and local control rather than a distant out of touch government.
There are municipal run power and water utilities which very often are cheaper than the big boy competitors and much more reponsive to local needs. The same should be true of municipal cable and broadband. It's either that or a country with no choice but Comcast.
It's about "state's rights". We used to think it was about local control, the small state versus the big federal government. Now we learn it's about removing all control from things smaller than the state as well. State's rights means they don't want a government with power higher up on the food chain than they are, and no government with power lower on the food chain either.
No, Dice and Beta was about putting changes on the end users. This is about a squabble between the high up elite and the higher up elite. The actual users of wikipedia will probably lose no matter who wins.
No, utopia is where I walk away from the meeting with no action items, legitimate or not. Agile is a way to force a steady load of work on people with no regards to those who are productive in cycles.
I'd actually like to see a summary of the issue that's not written by someone who is obviously biased. "As if.. weren't enough", "flush with cash", "trying to force", and so on. It's just bad political writing, the sort that makes college newspapers seem level headed. Maybe the admins have a valid point but the hysterical tone makes me inclined to dismiss it and definitely stopped me cold from bother to follow the links.
Big business does push for libertarian ideas, such as the idea that government stay off their back. Big business wants a small weak government in general, a government where they can control the regulations. The only time you see big business backing a bigger government is in areas where they prefer the workers to pay the bill or where they can take advantage of government as a customer (such as big military for big profits).
Oh come on, breakfast at the hotel for free, lunch in the cafeteria, and dinner at a cheap restaurant or back at the hotel. Even in Europe I didn't spend that much to eat.
I only backed one, for more than the cost of a normal game, and it's due to be out this year and looks good. I almost backed another but it was funded already so I figured I could just wait rather than get caught up in an impulse buy.
A lot of the extras I think are pointless for these. I don't want a "making of" video, I don't want early access to a steam-only beta, I don't want a special forum title. However sometimes I do like the stretch goals, a lot. Like the stretch goal to make the game DRM free or to make a Linux and Mac version.
A lot of these kickstarted projects aren't from "startup" companies. Some are companies with products behind them already, they just want a different funding source, not be dependent upon some big name publisher calling the shots, and make a game that's their own with their name up front.
He'll know where your cube is. Projects don't wait to get handed off until you leave the company. Most of these problem arise when a prima donna does a first pass at a half assed job then moves on to the next cool thing and lets the junior grunts clean up after it. Then when the grunts try to clean up the mess they're told that they can't change any of the API or behavior except for the specific reported bugs, so they slap on a bandaid. Next time a bug shows up a different set of junior grunts now have to fix it plus the bandaid. Ten years laid you've got so many bandaids that the original mess is no longer visible. That's when you need to start dodging bullets.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have better security than WPA2, which existed before WPA2 was invented.
Wired networks are not necessarily more secure than wireless networks. The only thing wired networks provides is a minor physical hurdle. We have plenty of rs232 cables connecting vital infrastructure which is vastly less secure than many wireless devices.
We already have an "internet of things", for many years now. Computers are things. Mobile phones are things. The difference is now smaller things are networked (not necessarily on the "internet" though), and things not typically networked. Ie, smart meters, remote monitoring devices and sensors, televisions. There are the things that are only extremely loosely considered to be networked, attachment via bluetooth.
Many of those internet of things devices won't ever be addressable by the general public, and there won't be any "cloud". This stuff is not just about phones or social media. And many of the devices have quality security designed with a paranoia mindset rather than devices with an attitude to sell advertising.
Some devices use those, or smartcards. However some devices don't; they're too small, or are owned by utilities who don't want someone else messing with them, etc. A MicroSD is not necessarily secure either, how do you know if one has been removed and replaced with a fake? On-board flash with write protected blocks is a lot safer, though at some point someone highly determined will break in (desolder things, etc).
So theoretically, if someone finds a Windows program that's worth running, this could be useful?
At an earlier job, the company I was at outsourced a small project to an Indian company. That company turned out to be two cousins. One cousin spoke good English but did not seem understand technology (a manager/marketing type). The other cousin was a programmer but did not speak English. So communicating technical concepts was a disaster.
They're not worse. But they are also NOT better. I have seen H1B workers who have such a poor grasp of things that I wonder how they even managed to fill out their visa applications. Most of the imported workers that companies want are not highly skilled workers, instead they want IT workers. They don't want workers to design new products, they want workers who will support products. Entry and junior level positions.
The thing is, the "hole" is not about being wireless, that's just stupid fear mongering. The hole is in not having security in the first place. You can indeed have highly secure wireless networking. The trick is in getting the customers to demand security instead of thinking of it as an inconvenient hassle.
Haggis is the ultimate deterrent.
I don't think these politicians are asking for state control either, they want to relinquish everything to existing companies.
I blame that raging socialist Eisenhower for the freeways!
Actually there are some idiots who do call it socialism...
Ah but here's the snag. The current federal administration is Democrat. This means that the Republican politicians must naturally oppose everything they do. So this means that the FCC is the enemy of the Republican politicians. If the FCC says they're thinking about municipal broadband, well then standard political logic says that Republicans will oppose it.
And besides the current crop of Republicans are opposed to government doing anything at any level, even at the municipal level, even if it was democratically voted on. Especially if it invoves the word "tax".
The math isn't hard:
Tax goes to government, which goes to small ISP, which gives good service: bad.
Fees goes to big ISP, most of which goes to profits, which leads to neglected service: good.
Talk like your could hurt profits.
Subsidy? The USPS is a part of the government, why should they pay taxes? Do they pay the tax to themself? And yet they are self funding, which I would think is some that normally people opposed to government waste would support. Except that it embarrasses the people trying to push the story that all government is inept and incompetent.
Sure it may not be a level playing field with UPS or Fedex, but so what? If we could force those commercial players to lower their rates to USPS rates and to provide universal service, then I'd be more inclined to follow your line of reasoning. When it comes to internet providers the corporations have clearly shown that they have no interest whatsoever in providing universal or reasonable service, which is why municipalities feel the need to have their own service.
City hall doesn't have their own army. Mayors get voted out of office every election, some go to jail, they absolutely do not have the dictatorial powers you seem to imply. And the municipalities will get private corporations to run the networks, it's just that these won't be Comcast. If you hate elected politicians so much then why are you so quick to believe what the state level party mouthpieces are saying?
Municipal utilities have been tested and they do work out well. Guess what the PUC does in California, it's best friends with PG&E and other big utilities. That's not the entity you look towards to fix up corruption.
Your argument can be read as both in favor of the ban on municipal broadband as well as opposed to the ban on municipal broadband. It depends on who you think the "government granted monopolies" are, the ones dominating most of the state where no free market exists or the one at the municipal level brought in as a balance of power.
Municipalities should absolutely have the right to do this. This is the local citizen standing up to the status quo of monopolies. The republicans should be the ones backing this since they often are the ones claiming to support individual freedoms and local control rather than a distant out of touch government.
There are municipal run power and water utilities which very often are cheaper than the big boy competitors and much more reponsive to local needs. The same should be true of municipal cable and broadband. It's either that or a country with no choice but Comcast.
It's about "state's rights". We used to think it was about local control, the small state versus the big federal government. Now we learn it's about removing all control from things smaller than the state as well. State's rights means they don't want a government with power higher up on the food chain than they are, and no government with power lower on the food chain either.
No, Dice and Beta was about putting changes on the end users. This is about a squabble between the high up elite and the higher up elite. The actual users of wikipedia will probably lose no matter who wins.
No, utopia is where I walk away from the meeting with no action items, legitimate or not. Agile is a way to force a steady load of work on people with no regards to those who are productive in cycles.
I'd actually like to see a summary of the issue that's not written by someone who is obviously biased. .. weren't enough", "flush with cash", "trying to force", and so on. It's just bad political writing, the sort that makes college newspapers seem level headed.
"As if
Maybe the admins have a valid point but the hysterical tone makes me inclined to dismiss it and definitely stopped me cold from bother to follow the links.
Big business does push for libertarian ideas, such as the idea that government stay off their back. Big business wants a small weak government in general, a government where they can control the regulations. The only time you see big business backing a bigger government is in areas where they prefer the workers to pay the bill or where they can take advantage of government as a customer (such as big military for big profits).
Oh come on, breakfast at the hotel for free, lunch in the cafeteria, and dinner at a cheap restaurant or back at the hotel. Even in Europe I didn't spend that much to eat.
I only backed one, for more than the cost of a normal game, and it's due to be out this year and looks good. I almost backed another but it was funded already so I figured I could just wait rather than get caught up in an impulse buy.
A lot of the extras I think are pointless for these. I don't want a "making of" video, I don't want early access to a steam-only beta, I don't want a special forum title. However sometimes I do like the stretch goals, a lot. Like the stretch goal to make the game DRM free or to make a Linux and Mac version.
A lot of these kickstarted projects aren't from "startup" companies. Some are companies with products behind them already, they just want a different funding source, not be dependent upon some big name publisher calling the shots, and make a game that's their own with their name up front.
He'll know where your cube is. Projects don't wait to get handed off until you leave the company. Most of these problem arise when a prima donna does a first pass at a half assed job then moves on to the next cool thing and lets the junior grunts clean up after it. Then when the grunts try to clean up the mess they're told that they can't change any of the API or behavior except for the specific reported bugs, so they slap on a bandaid. Next time a bug shows up a different set of junior grunts now have to fix it plus the bandaid. Ten years laid you've got so many bandaids that the original mess is no longer visible. That's when you need to start dodging bullets.