My guess is it will be 100% software, they'll agree on a standard which will only apply to those companies that slavishly do whatever ARM and Intel do, but which won't affect the majority of devices.
I could be wrong though. The biggest security feature missing right now on smaller chips (and big ones) is secure key storage. That means being able to do all your encryption/decryption without the key ever entering RAM. Even 5 years ago this was considered too much effort for too little value, or another way of saying security wasn't important. But there are several vendors now seriously moving forward to increase security (ie, SoC vendors).
Also important is to move away from "just barely acceptable" consumer oriented security standards, like pre-shared-keys with WiFi or Bluetooth based devices.
People wont' change much. They will vote against their own interests as long as they think their candidate is on their side. If their top concern is getting rid of abortion then they won't care if their candidate strips away other freedoms at the same time, and if their top concern is protecting their domestic job then they won't care if the economy suffers. The average voter doesn't like complexity and isn't thinking about complex trade-offs, so instead thinks in very simple terms such as "my guy versus their guy".
In the telecommunications act of 1996, possibly applicable here,
`(3) PRESERVATION OF STATE ACCESS REGULATIONS- In prescribing
and enforcing regulations to implement the requirements of this
section, the Commission shall not preclude the enforcement of
any regulation, order, or policy of a State commission that--
`(A) establishes access and interconnection obligations
of local exchange carriers;
`(B) is consistent with the requirements of this section;
and
`(C) does not substantially prevent implementation of the
requirements of this section and the purposes of this part.
Interstate commerce clause has been shown by the supreme court to apply to many things that don't explicitly cross state borders. Yes, it seems a bit extreme but the rationale is that some of these businesses make use of goods and services from other states, or could affect interstate commerce.
First time was related to a famer who grew extra wheat beyond federal limits on production, but the extra wheat was used for feed for his own animals (and thus was not "commerce" according to his reasoning); the Supreme Court disagreed here. Later the court held that the government could prohibit a segregated restaurant since th food used in the restaurant crossed state lines. Those decisions cracked open the doors wide on using the interstate commerce clause to grant extra congressional power over commerce even within a state.
So, a phone call over the internet is "information services", whereas using the telephone to get the current time is "telecommunications". Why is watching television over IP different than watching television over the cable line, especially when the same company is involved in both? Why is broadcast TV and cable TV both covered over FCC rules, when both are information services (ie, entertainment and news)?
Net neutrality here is not about mucking with packets and such, it's exactly the same thing as having a common carrier telecommunications. From the FCC website:
The Bureau develops and executes policies and procedures for fast, fair licensing of all wireless services, from fixed microwave links to amateur radio to mobile broadband services.
and
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
Both of which apply equally to the internet. But, you'll point to congressional legislation about the FCC duties. And in the 1996 act it has:
`(48) TELECOMMUNICATIONS- The term `telecommunications' means
the transmission, between or among points specified by the
user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in
the form or content of the information as sent and received. `(49) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER- The term
`telecommunications carrier' means any provider of
telecommunications services, except that such term does not
include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined
in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated
as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it
is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except
that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of
fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common
carriage.
So if networking doesn't apply because the data changes form, then this means that POTS telephones are also not telecommunications. I see nothing in these definitions that distinguish telephone companies from internet providers, or which distinguish the method of communication for telephones from the method of communcation for the internet. In fact, in all practical terms there is no difference at all between telephone and internet, except that one is a general purpose networking infrastructure and one is a networking infrastructure oriented towards audio.
Yes, there are portions of the 1996 act that limit regulation of the internet - however the wording is such that it seems to imply this is for regulation of internet services itself, rather than internet service providers or internet infrastructure.
This is not the job for the FTC precisely because the FTC does not do anything, it cannot enforce anything and never has, and is effectively toothless. Sending something to the FTC is equivalent to saying that you want there to be no regulation
And if the FCC thinks that the internet is not telecommunications, then it's packed full of incompetent idiots. You can use the internet for everything that classic telecommunications does. And the internet makes full use of all the stuff the FCC does claim to regulate, like RF bands, copper wire, satellites, etc.
We already have enough wackos on juries who assume anyone who gets arrested is automatically guilty otherwise the police wouldn't have wasted time on them. We really don't need a bunch of volunteer bozos showing up hoping to hang someone.
They used to send in absentee ballots, until some registrar in Florida suspected them all of being from illegal aliens. Never underestimate the intelligence of election officials.
Well, no true red blooded American would know that other countries even exist, so it's only detering those bleeding edge librals who are pretending to be in different countries.
Those are growser plugins, or do you get your headlines somewhere else and then use the links to go to a browser?
Ie, right now with RSS I can click the "slashdot" button that is on the bookmark bar, and then there's a drop down list of maybe 20 headlines, and within seconds I can open a new tab for the ones I care about. For BBC I get maybe 60 headlines in the drop down. It's a great feature, and I have never seen anything else similar.
That's how I use RSS. I have only ever used RSS with firefox, starting from when it had sample "BBC" news article drop-down button, and I later added Slashdot to this. I don't know or care if it's the right way to do this, but it's extremely convenient to get a list of headlines without going to a web page first.
I just hope that an add-on shows up soon before I learn to live without knowing what's happening in the world.
Except that many species don't have a simple binary XY pair, even other mammalian species.
Aslo, given the history of biology, it's far too premature to proclaim any dogma in this area. There are many species fish that will readily change gender as needed, and those are certainly complex organisms.
Well, we already have humans with XXY, XXX, XYY etc. The "perfect" XX+XY rule is readily broken in nature. We even have XX that appear as male. Also, not all X's behave the same and not all Y's behave the same. YY is the one that doesn't readily work because it misses far too many genes.
Also not all sex disphorphism genes necessarily have to be on X or Y only.
This is all vastly more complicated than what they teach in third grade.
We're may not actually be far from being able to reproduce without a woman as well. No one anywhere is talking about gettng rid of one or both genders.
Not just pretty close,but indistinguisable from XY men except with a test for chromosomes. Assuming only XX vs XY is mostly a 50s era concept. Most of what Y chromosome does is that it has some genes to turn off hormones at a critical fetal developmental stage.
But that's the end slope of the bell curve where the athletes are, the slope that you and I are not on. I am not comparing myself to Usain Bolt or Florence Griffith-Joyner. There is also so much deviation that's it's pointless to look at the minor diffference in the "average". I would bet that the vast majority of women in the US armed forces are stronger than you.
True, but also where are the most cattle raised? Not sure actually. A lot of cattle in third world countries are used to labor also, not just for food.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is it will be 100% software, they'll agree on a standard which will only apply to those companies that slavishly do whatever ARM and Intel do, but which won't affect the majority of devices.
I could be wrong though. The biggest security feature missing right now on smaller chips (and big ones) is secure key storage. That means being able to do all your encryption/decryption without the key ever entering RAM. Even 5 years ago this was considered too much effort for too little value, or another way of saying security wasn't important. But there are several vendors now seriously moving forward to increase security (ie, SoC vendors).
Also important is to move away from "just barely acceptable" consumer oriented security standards, like pre-shared-keys with WiFi or Bluetooth based devices.
People wont' change much. They will vote against their own interests as long as they think their candidate is on their side. If their top concern is getting rid of abortion then they won't care if their candidate strips away other freedoms at the same time, and if their top concern is protecting their domestic job then they won't care if the economy suffers. The average voter doesn't like complexity and isn't thinking about complex trade-offs, so instead thinks in very simple terms such as "my guy versus their guy".
Well, if they're using any of those apps, they're spending those bucks foolishly anyway.
In the telecommunications act of 1996, possibly applicable here,
`(3) PRESERVATION OF STATE ACCESS REGULATIONS- In prescribing
and enforcing regulations to implement the requirements of this
section, the Commission shall not preclude the enforcement of
any regulation, order, or policy of a State commission that--
`(A) establishes access and interconnection obligations
of local exchange carriers;
`(B) is consistent with the requirements of this section;
and
`(C) does not substantially prevent implementation of the
requirements of this section and the purposes of this part.
Interstate commerce clause has been shown by the supreme court to apply to many things that don't explicitly cross state borders. Yes, it seems a bit extreme but the rationale is that some of these businesses make use of goods and services from other states, or could affect interstate commerce.
First time was related to a famer who grew extra wheat beyond federal limits on production, but the extra wheat was used for feed for his own animals (and thus was not "commerce" according to his reasoning); the Supreme Court disagreed here. Later the court held that the government could prohibit a segregated restaurant since th food used in the restaurant crossed state lines. Those decisions cracked open the doors wide on using the interstate commerce clause to grant extra congressional power over commerce even within a state.
So, a phone call over the internet is "information services", whereas using the telephone to get the current time is "telecommunications". Why is watching television over IP different than watching television over the cable line, especially when the same company is involved in both? Why is broadcast TV and cable TV both covered over FCC rules, when both are information services (ie, entertainment and news)?
Net neutrality here is not about mucking with packets and such, it's exactly the same thing as having a common carrier telecommunications.
From the FCC website:
The Bureau develops and executes policies and procedures for fast, fair licensing of all wireless services, from fixed microwave links to amateur radio to mobile broadband services.
and
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
Both of which apply equally to the internet. But, you'll point to congressional legislation about the FCC duties. And in the 1996 act it has:
`(48) TELECOMMUNICATIONS- The term `telecommunications' means
the transmission, between or among points specified by the
user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in
the form or content of the information as sent and received.
`(49) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER- The term
`telecommunications carrier' means any provider of
telecommunications services, except that such term does not
include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined
in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated
as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it
is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except
that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of
fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common
carriage.
So if networking doesn't apply because the data changes form, then this means that POTS telephones are also not telecommunications. I see nothing in these definitions that distinguish telephone companies from internet providers, or which distinguish the method of communication for telephones from the method of communcation for the internet. In fact, in all practical terms there is no difference at all between telephone and internet, except that one is a general purpose networking infrastructure and one is a networking infrastructure oriented towards audio.
Yes, there are portions of the 1996 act that limit regulation of the internet - however the wording is such that it seems to imply this is for regulation of internet services itself, rather than internet service providers or internet infrastructure.
This is not the job for the FTC precisely because the FTC does not do anything, it cannot enforce anything and never has, and is effectively toothless. Sending something to the FTC is equivalent to saying that you want there to be no regulation
Yes, but then congress has to get involved. Congress however has forgotten how to be involved in legislation.
And if the FCC thinks that the internet is not telecommunications, then it's packed full of incompetent idiots. You can use the internet for everything that classic telecommunications does. And the internet makes full use of all the stuff the FCC does claim to regulate, like RF bands, copper wire, satellites, etc.
It's a good reason to not vote. I do remember that I used to vote for a candidate, but it's been so long that I can't remember who it was.
We already have enough wackos on juries who assume anyone who gets arrested is automatically guilty otherwise the police wouldn't have wasted time on them. We really don't need a bunch of volunteer bozos showing up hoping to hang someone.
They used to send in absentee ballots, until some registrar in Florida suspected them all of being from illegal aliens. Never underestimate the intelligence of election officials.
Well, no true red blooded American would know that other countries even exist, so it's only detering those bleeding edge librals who are pretending to be in different countries.
Those are growser plugins, or do you get your headlines somewhere else and then use the links to go to a browser?
Ie, right now with RSS I can click the "slashdot" button that is on the bookmark bar, and then there's a drop down list of maybe 20 headlines, and within seconds I can open a new tab for the ones I care about. For BBC I get maybe 60 headlines in the drop down. It's a great feature, and I have never seen anything else similar.
That's how I use RSS. I have only ever used RSS with firefox, starting from when it had sample "BBC" news article drop-down button, and I later added Slashdot to this. I don't know or care if it's the right way to do this, but it's extremely convenient to get a list of headlines without going to a web page first.
I just hope that an add-on shows up soon before I learn to live without knowing what's happening in the world.
I'm pretty sure none of this applies to mice and petri dishes.
People often only read the headline and then start their rant. Sometimes they misread the headline and still go on the rant.
Except that many species don't have a simple binary XY pair, even other mammalian species.
Aslo, given the history of biology, it's far too premature to proclaim any dogma in this area. There are many species fish that will readily change gender as needed, and those are certainly complex organisms.
Well, we already have humans with XXY, XXX, XYY etc. The "perfect" XX+XY rule is readily broken in nature. We even have XX that appear as male. Also, not all X's behave the same and not all Y's behave the same. YY is the one that doesn't readily work because it misses far too many genes.
Also not all sex disphorphism genes necessarily have to be on X or Y only.
This is all vastly more complicated than what they teach in third grade.
We're may not actually be far from being able to reproduce without a woman as well. No one anywhere is talking about gettng rid of one or both genders.
Not just pretty close,but indistinguisable from XY men except with a test for chromosomes. Assuming only XX vs XY is mostly a 50s era concept. Most of what Y chromosome does is that it has some genes to turn off hormones at a critical fetal developmental stage.
Science is SJW garbage? Did you even read the article?
Nonsense, our wives can fix our cars!
But that's the end slope of the bell curve where the athletes are, the slope that you and I are not on. I am not comparing myself to Usain Bolt or Florence Griffith-Joyner. There is also so much deviation that's it's pointless to look at the minor diffference in the "average". I would bet that the vast majority of women in the US armed forces are stronger than you.
This also improves sound quality.
True, but also where are the most cattle raised? Not sure actually. A lot of cattle in third world countries are used to labor also, not just for food.