...claims the terms of the contract are non-negotiable, and undervalue the music of these labels in comparison to Spotify, Rdio, Deezer and other subscription streaming services.
other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.
OK, so "there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks".
Am I the only one thinking things might have been much worse if no terrorist leaders had been taken out at all?
How would things be worse? Keep in mind, our actions in the middle east over the past decade have killed hundreds of thousands of people directly... and probably many more indirectly. How many innocent foreigners are you willing to sacrifice to save 1 US citizen? 3000 people died in 9/11 and we've killed at least 100x that to prevent another attack. It seems just a tad over board to me.
It's cheating, whether it's in the form of software, or a cash bribe to the refs. I think cheating is worth very little in terms of free speech value.
Lucky for us, you don't get to decide what is free speech. I hate cheating, and blizzard should definitely do something about it. But trying to control what other people do? No... this is a game. It's not worth harming my constitutional freedoms just so you can be less annoyed.
Blizzard should handle this in the code. It's not that hard. 10 years ago I remember hearing at a conference about on-line gaming "If their client has the data, they have the data. You cannot trust the client, ever." It's as true now as it was then.
If, while I was busy trying to figure out the latest package dependency hell I was in, I also wanted some asshole yelling "YOUR A FUCKING MORON! WHEN YOU GROW 2 BRAIN CELLS MAYBE YOU COULD FIGURE THIS OUT" over and over again, I think I could find someone cheaper than Linus Torvalds.
1. The president wont endorse you in the next election. 2. The president will veto all your bills 3. The president will blame future terrorist attacks on you. 4. The president will move future defense contracts out of your state. 5. The president wont invite you to the whitehouse for photo ops. 6. The president will show up in your home town next time you're supposed to give a speech before an election, stealing the show and making all your voters forget about you. 7. Maybe you'd like to see YOUR NSA file Mr Congressman?
I could go on, but I'm tired of typing. He's the most powerful man in the world. He could literally ruin the careers of most congressmen, especially democrats, on a whim. The more powerful members of the House and Senate maybe not, but the rank and file? It'd be a joke.
It's the presidents job to do this. I don't blame him for that. I do, however, blame him for being wrong.
Right, that's the first thing I thought of. This is an incredibly stupid way to stop a high speed vehicle. They're going to have to replace those things every run.
Many moons ago I worked for a bicycle company building bikes for the Olympics down-hill racing team that year. (yes, I've had every weird job you can think f if you follow my posts at all.) Those breaks and wheels had to be replaced after 2 runs, and cost $800 per set.
I suspect whats happening here is some sort of endorsement. Their putting their driver at risk in exchange for investment. Hopefully they have a backup chute in case these silly brakes fail.
That doesn't address the problem of starting an ISP. I don't have an interest in buying an existing ISP, I have an interest in starting a new one.
Ok, so you don't understand how Franchise agreements work. That's fine, I'll explain.
You can start an ISP. You'll need a lot of money though. The easiest way is to go wireless. Though that will limit your footprint. At best you could do a downtown area. You'd not need any special permits, but your equipment will need to be licensed by the FCC so you're not using spectrum another ISP in the areas on. People have already done this, it's already ended up in court and the Franchise holder (ISP) lost. You can totally do it. It's not profitable though so good luck getting your loan.
Now, I suspect you mean that you want to run your own fiber. You can do that to, but it's a LOT more expensive. The skill level of the people laying the fiber is an order of magnitude higher than your standard copper plant techs. They're in very, very high demand. You can make well over $100k a year laying fiber. So much so, those guys work as contractors and move from ISP to ISP to follow whomever has the highest wage this week.
Then there's the issue of the franchise agreement. The ISP may or may not own the cable in the ground. It depends on the locality you're in. There are plenty of places that the city actually owns that plant. An ISP signs an agreement with the local government to maintain that plant. The point to the agreement is the ISP then becomes the fist stop for customers in the area. Customers can usually go elsewhere if they want, you're required to allow other companies to use the plant for a modest fee. But people are lazy and usually go with you. Also, it's just not that profitable. Other ISPs dont want to do it because customers aren't willing to pay what it costs to provide them service. But those Franchise agreements have a time limit just like any contract. So when that contract is up, it's open to bids. They can and do change hands regularly, it likely wouldn't even cost you that much. Promise them fiber and you're almost assured to get the contract. You'll likely be bankrupt within the year, but good luck!
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None.
There are thousands of ISPs in this country. There are the big ones like Comcast, but there are far far more smaller co-ops and such. Some apartment complexes even lease their own trunks and provide internet service for free to their residents. The majority of US citizens do not get their internet from a major ISP unless you count cellphones... I can't give you any exact numbers because there is no government body for "ISPs" It's the layer 1 network the government regulates. If I had to give you a rough estimate of the number of ISPs larger than my apartment complex example I'd say it's between 5000 and 10000 ISPs. But that's just and educated guess.
As far as business lines go, again, you have no idea what you're talking about. A business line is an entirely different product. A business line has a guaranteed speed and up-time. That's why its expensive. Get a T1 and you're getting 1.5mb/s 24/7. It'll have a guaranteed up-time stipulated in a contract and if that's missed you get money back. But it'll cost you $300/month/ Residential lines are cheap because they are not guaranteed. If you want the guaranteed speeds (and it seems that you do) you're welcome to get a business line.
As far as your ludicrous statement about your ISP raising rates and you having no other options... give me a break. What you call a "monopoly" is NOT a monopoly. In the industry they are called "Franchise agreements" and what they mean is the ISP maintains the network. Another ISP can not run their own plant. But the ISP is required by law to allow other ISPs to operate on that network for a fee set by the PSC. Residential rates have fallen so far that providing service inside someone elses Franchise is no longer profitable. But business lines haven't. So no, if your ISP raised rates you could switch to just about any major provider in the country within a week. The majority of business customers actually have multiple ISPs for redundancy purposes and most major ISPs have agreements with each other so they can sell packaged deals. You get 2 T1s, one from Sprint, one from AT&T (or whomever) and equipment that load balances the 2 lines and switches over should one ISP start having problems.
Yea, but you still have to charge it. There's still a cord. The summary of both the article and the summary are basically an outright lie. The energy density is still less than that of a battery, and the tensile strength is ok... but not that great. Your device wont weigh any less, it just might be a bit smaller or have more room for other features because the battery is the case or components.
A more honest headline would have been: "Electronic devices may soon be smaller and charge faster!" There's nothing in this technology that will eliminate the need for a cord.
I can't open my own ISP. If I do (let's say I want to run a fiber-based ISP), I will face many legal hurdles simply because that's the nature of the business; one may need to rent space on towers or get right-of-way permits from the town and the whole mess will be overseen by the public utilities commissioner of the state I'm in.
That's all normal ISP business stuff, but the giants have so much power that they are guaranteed to put me out of business through lawsuits. They shroud anything that they don't like in a giant neon sheet of "UNFAIR COMPETITION" and bury the little guy in legal red tape and paperwork. Little guys cannot win the battles of attrition in our legal system against gigantic corporations as it is, but these bastards have managed to lobby so hard that the law is heavily on their side as well. If I get financial assistance from a local government to build my ISP, I'll get shut down because of "unfair competition" since there are laws in many states now making municipal broadband de facto illegal to run and the funding could be construed as attempting to skirt those laws.
There is no competition in broadband services today because the largest companies have slanted the laws so hard in their favor that all competition is legally shut out.
You know nothing of the industry. There are hundreds of ISPs for sale in the United States RIGHT NOW. Go buy one. It'll cost you a few million for a small one. A business loan for that amount isn't unreasonable at all. All the franchise agreements are already in place and ready to go. No legal issues other than the fact that when businesses are for sale like this, you have to sign non disclosure agreements to see whats for sale and make offers. There's no "Craigslist" of businesses for sale. Generally you hire a company that specializes in this sort of thing and they investigate whats out there based on criteria you give them.
The question you need to ask yourself is: If being an ISP means you have no competition, can overcharge your customer and they have no recourse, you never have to upgrade your network and you just rake in all this free cash... why aren't the big ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T buying up all these ISPs? It's just free money right?
His political contributors are indeed interesting, telecoms, casinos, and indian tribes. Presumably the tribe thing also has something to do with casinos. I don't quite get what casinos have to do with the NSA and the constitution though.
The maplight site is really interesting. I looked up my congressman, Greg Walden, to see what light Maplight would shed on his corrupting influences. Most of his money comes from cable companies. No wonder he is opposed to net neutrality.
Thanks for pointing out Maplight.
You need to take contributions with a grain of salt. Most big industries decided the best course of action is to pretty much donate to EVERY campaign where the opponent isn't outright opposed to what you do for business. If you go look at what the cable industry as a whole donates, you'll see its well over 90% of politicians.
The real bribery is what they do for the candidate after he leaves office. While in office, it's a race to the bottom to see who can garner enough favors in industry to get the big lucrative post-carer "Thank you" gigs. Presidents, for example, become millionaires after they leave office just from speaking engagements at major industry junkets. They aren't paying $300k for an hour with Bill Clinton because they like to hear him talk. Businesses don't work like that. They got something in return for that speaking engagement and it sure as hell wasn't advice.
...and California, much as it likes to think it's a country unto itself, has NO jurisdiction over the NSA, over their methods, even over their agents (when acting in an official capacity and all those other qualifiers)
If it makes the CA legislature feel good about themselves to do this, great! But it means about as much as the lot of them threatening to hold their breath till the NSA stops spying...
So... you didn't even read the summary before you got on your soap box?
It would require a warrant to be issued by a Judge before the state's law enforcement and other departments can assist federal agencies in obtaining these records.
It seems to me they have all the jurisdiction in the world over what the bill covers.
Your entire premise is wrong. And now you're posting it again.
This will be a legal issue, not an issue solved by the "roboticists" whatever that is...
In a legal sense, taking an action that kills 1 person to save another puts you in jeopardy of being liable. Swerving or taking other actions that lead to someones death makes YOU responsible. If someone runs out in the road, you apply the breaks firmly and appropriately, then that is not your fault. It's the person who ran out into the road. So in cases where the computers unsure what to do, it will follow the first commandment "STOP THE CAR" and it will let things play out as they will. Any other choice opens up a can of worms... how old are the other occupants? If 1 car has a 90yr old in it and the other has a baby, which do you hit? What if ones the mayor? The problems increase exponentially as soon as you get away from "STOP THE CAR" so just stop the dang car and be done with it.
With regards to your comment about Scifi... you're reading pretty terrible SciFi. Most of the stuff I read is written by actual scientists so... yea...
Go ahead and choose your walled garden, I won't stop you.
But from where I sit, it looks like everything that connects to the home is going to walled gardens, and open as an option is fading away.
Serious proposal: Allow a "fast lane" by any/all ISPs. They've got such a hard-on for a fast lane that they're going to keep buying legislators until they get one. Then place a limit on it. The fast lane can only be X times faster than the "neutral net lane", and NO traffic shaping or limits are allowed on that lane, other than being 1/X the speed of the fast lane. Plus X needs to be a legally asserted and testable value.
Congrats on joining the chorus of uninformed on the net neutrality topic. That's not what they are proposing and not what will happen. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a terrible idea for other reasons... but the ISPs can't simply use it to block content. They could try but they'd end up in court so fast their heads would snap back.
Traffic shaping will give some content priority. This will increase latency to content that doesn't pay. As you likely already know, for a normal website like slashdot, the latency would have to be ridiculously high before you noticed it. But for streaming content like netflix, they pretty much will be required to pay it. Now that fee will be based on the amount of traffic they are sending across the network. This will give netflix its first financial incentive to reduce the amount of bandwidth they are using. Up until now they have been completely irresponsible in that regard.
A much better solution would be to regulate content providers. Netflix is responsible for over 34% of peak traffic. There is no reason they shouldn't be regulated like any other content provider. CBS can't just start broadcasting on 20 separate channels without the FCC's approval ruining everyones ability to get other content... why can netflix? For some reason people expect ISPs to spend billions to upgrade their networks, but neither netflix nor the customers want to pay for it. They expect their prices to remain the same, and the ISPs to just take a hit. Well surprise surprise, they didn't want to pay either.
1. good... Our law enforcement is far to militarized as it is. Fewer MRAPs and Assault Rifles would do the police some good. Maybe they should have more patience and be a little less willing to start throwing stun grenades and spraying the room with lead if they couldn't afford vests.
2. The driver should receive the ticket. People will be modding their cars just like they do their phone. Give the driver the ticket, who will then call the car manufacturer for reimbursement if it was the manufactures fault. Blaming the manufacturer will lead the manufacturers to lock down the OS and lobby the feds to man modding it yourself. Which will be bad for innovation.
3. People wont own these cars. By the time this becomes "A thing" you'll just punch something up in your cellphone saying where you want to go and when, and a car will come pick you up at the appointed time. Once you're not driving, don't have to worry about the car being there when you need it, and can get a ride anywhere in the country you want to go, there will be very little reason to own a car anymore. I can easily imagine placing orders for the things you need from the grocery store, home depot, etc... and having it all delivered.
All this shows is GM is behind the times with regards to email. Most corporations changed their email policies after a court ruled a while back that they must keep email for a certain period of time so it could be used in litigation against them. As a result, most places installed chat programs to get general employee chatter off of email and then setup archiving and aged deletion rules to stop new emails being created off of years old threads keeping data around in-perpetuity.
It's about choice. I can understand that we should always have choice. But the idea that we shouldn't be able to "choose" a walled garden if we want one seems ass-backward to me. Do you remember CompuServe, AOL and prodigy? There were plenty of others as well... some of them were Awesome. I loved CompuServe. I wouldn't go back now... but if some people want to, why shouldn't they have the choice to do so? Googles pretty darned open compared to most other modern tech companies. If they want to offer some services that aren't as open, because it will make some people who don't care about openness have a better experience, why not? Let me know when "open" isn't a choice I can make. Then I'll get out my picket sign.
This. They are asking for $200k. If that's all that is needed to make a difference they could easily get that funding if their ideas were even remotely sound. It's quite telling that people will find the ITER to the tune of $13bn but won't give these guys the left over pennies from the bottom of the jar.
They're funded by NASA.
I suspect this is more for the publicity than the money.
They didn't have much credibility to start with, and turning to crowdfunding only makes it worse.
It is not a mass market product with quick deliverables, it is an industrial solution. So the natural financing source would be venture capital, rather than crowdfunding. If they have to turn to indiegogo, it can only mean they failed to convince anyone relevant and are desperately trying to ride the "fusion is cool" fans, and disappoint them in the process.
As much as I would love to see fusion plants soon, it looks like this is not the company that will deliver them.
They only need $200k for a proof concept to get investors excited. NASA is already one of their sponsors, so it's not like this is pie in the sky. You likely haven't been paying attention but Fusion research has really taken off recently. There are several Fusion reactors around the world that now produce more energy than they consume. It's a very exciting time. I suspect we'll have real commercial fusion reactors very soon. They're safe enough they could even be used by the public... so yes, I foresee having a fusion reactor in my house within my lifetime. Sadly, I think the main change to my life will be my idiotic neighbors putting up even MORE Christmas lights and leaving them up until July.
Because they cost a fortune and coal is a hell of a lot more profitable. Experimental technologies that are not profitable, require huge startup costs and are only "Good" in the sense that they help mankind as a whole are the domain of governments. No sane business person would invest in this.
Seems with applications related to feeding people undergoing chemo, this "food" will become medicine very quickly. That premium you speak of will be "premium" alright...at about a 10,000% markup.
I don't know how "willing" people will be to pay for that. Guess it depends on the price.
They don't have to eat lettuce. If they want to eat lettuce, they need fancy lab grown lettuce that costs a lot.
Not that I think Snowden is completely pulling stuff out of his ass, but..how do we know Snowden is NOT pulling stuff out of his ass?
I'm asking in the spirit of diabloa advocatus. Snowden should get the same scrutiny as any other source. If he is as genuine as I think he is, he shouldn't be offended by this questioning of the source.
Well, you could start by reading the article:
The NSA refused to comment on the program, but said in a statement that “the implication that NSA’s foreign intelligence collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false.” The agency also insisted that it follows procedures to “protect the privacy of U.S. persons” whose communications are “incidentally collected.”
The second Snowden releases something untrue, the NSA will be all over it. CNN will be playing their "Snowden is a liar and a traitor" power point on repeat for weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
...claims the terms of the contract are non-negotiable, and undervalue the music of these labels in comparison to Spotify, Rdio, Deezer and other subscription streaming services.
other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.
OK, so "there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks".
Am I the only one thinking things might have been much worse if no terrorist leaders had been taken out at all?
How would things be worse? Keep in mind, our actions in the middle east over the past decade have killed hundreds of thousands of people directly... and probably many more indirectly. How many innocent foreigners are you willing to sacrifice to save 1 US citizen? 3000 people died in 9/11 and we've killed at least 100x that to prevent another attack. It seems just a tad over board to me.
It's cheating, whether it's in the form of software, or a cash bribe to the refs. I think cheating is worth very little in terms of free speech value.
Lucky for us, you don't get to decide what is free speech. I hate cheating, and blizzard should definitely do something about it. But trying to control what other people do? No... this is a game. It's not worth harming my constitutional freedoms just so you can be less annoyed.
Blizzard should handle this in the code. It's not that hard. 10 years ago I remember hearing at a conference about on-line gaming "If their client has the data, they have the data. You cannot trust the client, ever." It's as true now as it was then.
At least with Linus you can be sure he'll have some clue to what he's talking about. That's not something you can be sure of at a university.
If, while I was busy trying to figure out the latest package dependency hell I was in, I also wanted some asshole yelling "YOUR A FUCKING MORON! WHEN YOU GROW 2 BRAIN CELLS MAYBE YOU COULD FIGURE THIS OUT" over and over again, I think I could find someone cheaper than Linus Torvalds.
1. The president wont endorse you in the next election.
2. The president will veto all your bills
3. The president will blame future terrorist attacks on you.
4. The president will move future defense contracts out of your state.
5. The president wont invite you to the whitehouse for photo ops.
6. The president will show up in your home town next time you're supposed to give a speech before an election, stealing the show and making all your voters forget about you.
7. Maybe you'd like to see YOUR NSA file Mr Congressman?
I could go on, but I'm tired of typing. He's the most powerful man in the world. He could literally ruin the careers of most congressmen, especially democrats, on a whim. The more powerful members of the House and Senate maybe not, but the rank and file? It'd be a joke.
It's the presidents job to do this. I don't blame him for that. I do, however, blame him for being wrong.
6. He was lying
Right, that's the first thing I thought of. This is an incredibly stupid way to stop a high speed vehicle. They're going to have to replace those things every run.
Many moons ago I worked for a bicycle company building bikes for the Olympics down-hill racing team that year. (yes, I've had every weird job you can think f if you follow my posts at all.) Those breaks and wheels had to be replaced after 2 runs, and cost $800 per set.
I suspect whats happening here is some sort of endorsement. Their putting their driver at risk in exchange for investment. Hopefully they have a backup chute in case these silly brakes fail.
That doesn't address the problem of starting an ISP. I don't have an interest in buying an existing ISP, I have an interest in starting a new one.
Ok, so you don't understand how Franchise agreements work. That's fine, I'll explain.
You can start an ISP. You'll need a lot of money though. The easiest way is to go wireless. Though that will limit your footprint. At best you could do a downtown area. You'd not need any special permits, but your equipment will need to be licensed by the FCC so you're not using spectrum another ISP in the areas on. People have already done this, it's already ended up in court and the Franchise holder (ISP) lost. You can totally do it. It's not profitable though so good luck getting your loan.
Now, I suspect you mean that you want to run your own fiber. You can do that to, but it's a LOT more expensive. The skill level of the people laying the fiber is an order of magnitude higher than your standard copper plant techs. They're in very, very high demand. You can make well over $100k a year laying fiber. So much so, those guys work as contractors and move from ISP to ISP to follow whomever has the highest wage this week.
Then there's the issue of the franchise agreement. The ISP may or may not own the cable in the ground. It depends on the locality you're in. There are plenty of places that the city actually owns that plant. An ISP signs an agreement with the local government to maintain that plant. The point to the agreement is the ISP then becomes the fist stop for customers in the area. Customers can usually go elsewhere if they want, you're required to allow other companies to use the plant for a modest fee. But people are lazy and usually go with you. Also, it's just not that profitable. Other ISPs dont want to do it because customers aren't willing to pay what it costs to provide them service. But those Franchise agreements have a time limit just like any contract. So when that contract is up, it's open to bids. They can and do change hands regularly, it likely wouldn't even cost you that much. Promise them fiber and you're almost assured to get the contract. You'll likely be bankrupt within the year, but good luck!
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None.
There are thousands of ISPs in this country. There are the big ones like Comcast, but there are far far more smaller co-ops and such. Some apartment complexes even lease their own trunks and provide internet service for free to their residents. The majority of US citizens do not get their internet from a major ISP unless you count cellphones... I can't give you any exact numbers because there is no government body for "ISPs" It's the layer 1 network the government regulates. If I had to give you a rough estimate of the number of ISPs larger than my apartment complex example I'd say it's between 5000 and 10000 ISPs. But that's just and educated guess.
As far as business lines go, again, you have no idea what you're talking about. A business line is an entirely different product. A business line has a guaranteed speed and up-time. That's why its expensive. Get a T1 and you're getting 1.5mb/s 24/7. It'll have a guaranteed up-time stipulated in a contract and if that's missed you get money back. But it'll cost you $300/month/ Residential lines are cheap because they are not guaranteed. If you want the guaranteed speeds (and it seems that you do) you're welcome to get a business line.
As far as your ludicrous statement about your ISP raising rates and you having no other options... give me a break. What you call a "monopoly" is NOT a monopoly. In the industry they are called "Franchise agreements" and what they mean is the ISP maintains the network. Another ISP can not run their own plant. But the ISP is required by law to allow other ISPs to operate on that network for a fee set by the PSC. Residential rates have fallen so far that providing service inside someone elses Franchise is no longer profitable. But business lines haven't. So no, if your ISP raised rates you could switch to just about any major provider in the country within a week. The majority of business customers actually have multiple ISPs for redundancy purposes and most major ISPs have agreements with each other so they can sell packaged deals. You get 2 T1s, one from Sprint, one from AT&T (or whomever) and equipment that load balances the 2 lines and switches over should one ISP start having problems.
Yea, but you still have to charge it. There's still a cord. The summary of both the article and the summary are basically an outright lie. The energy density is still less than that of a battery, and the tensile strength is ok... but not that great. Your device wont weigh any less, it just might be a bit smaller or have more room for other features because the battery is the case or components.
A more honest headline would have been: "Electronic devices may soon be smaller and charge faster!"
There's nothing in this technology that will eliminate the need for a cord.
I can't open my own ISP. If I do (let's say I want to run a fiber-based ISP), I will face many legal hurdles simply because that's the nature of the business; one may need to rent space on towers or get right-of-way permits from the town and the whole mess will be overseen by the public utilities commissioner of the state I'm in.
That's all normal ISP business stuff, but the giants have so much power that they are guaranteed to put me out of business through lawsuits. They shroud anything that they don't like in a giant neon sheet of "UNFAIR COMPETITION" and bury the little guy in legal red tape and paperwork. Little guys cannot win the battles of attrition in our legal system against gigantic corporations as it is, but these bastards have managed to lobby so hard that the law is heavily on their side as well. If I get financial assistance from a local government to build my ISP, I'll get shut down because of "unfair competition" since there are laws in many states now making municipal broadband de facto illegal to run and the funding could be construed as attempting to skirt those laws.
There is no competition in broadband services today because the largest companies have slanted the laws so hard in their favor that all competition is legally shut out.
You know nothing of the industry. There are hundreds of ISPs for sale in the United States RIGHT NOW. Go buy one. It'll cost you a few million for a small one. A business loan for that amount isn't unreasonable at all. All the franchise agreements are already in place and ready to go. No legal issues other than the fact that when businesses are for sale like this, you have to sign non disclosure agreements to see whats for sale and make offers. There's no "Craigslist" of businesses for sale. Generally you hire a company that specializes in this sort of thing and they investigate whats out there based on criteria you give them.
The question you need to ask yourself is: If being an ISP means you have no competition, can overcharge your customer and they have no recourse, you never have to upgrade your network and you just rake in all this free cash... why aren't the big ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T buying up all these ISPs? It's just free money right?
His political contributors are indeed interesting, telecoms, casinos, and indian tribes. Presumably the tribe thing also has something to do with casinos. I don't quite get what casinos have to do with the NSA and the constitution though.
The maplight site is really interesting. I looked up my congressman, Greg Walden, to see what light Maplight would shed on his corrupting influences. Most of his money comes from cable companies. No wonder he is opposed to net neutrality.
Thanks for pointing out Maplight.
You need to take contributions with a grain of salt. Most big industries decided the best course of action is to pretty much donate to EVERY campaign where the opponent isn't outright opposed to what you do for business. If you go look at what the cable industry as a whole donates, you'll see its well over 90% of politicians.
The real bribery is what they do for the candidate after he leaves office. While in office, it's a race to the bottom to see who can garner enough favors in industry to get the big lucrative post-carer "Thank you" gigs. Presidents, for example, become millionaires after they leave office just from speaking engagements at major industry junkets. They aren't paying $300k for an hour with Bill Clinton because they like to hear him talk. Businesses don't work like that. They got something in return for that speaking engagement and it sure as hell wasn't advice.
This is the guy according to the vote log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
I'm emailing him now.
Here's videos of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/result...
Have fun commenting.
His political contributers:
http://maplight.org/california...
...and California, much as it likes to think it's a country unto itself, has NO jurisdiction over the NSA, over their methods, even over their agents (when acting in an official capacity and all those other qualifiers)
If it makes the CA legislature feel good about themselves to do this, great! But it means about as much as the lot of them threatening to hold their breath till the NSA stops spying...
So... you didn't even read the summary before you got on your soap box?
It would require a warrant to be issued by a Judge before the state's law enforcement and other departments can assist federal agencies in obtaining these records.
It seems to me they have all the jurisdiction in the world over what the bill covers.
Your entire premise is wrong. And now you're posting it again.
This will be a legal issue, not an issue solved by the "roboticists" whatever that is...
In a legal sense, taking an action that kills 1 person to save another puts you in jeopardy of being liable. Swerving or taking other actions that lead to someones death makes YOU responsible. If someone runs out in the road, you apply the breaks firmly and appropriately, then that is not your fault. It's the person who ran out into the road. So in cases where the computers unsure what to do, it will follow the first commandment "STOP THE CAR" and it will let things play out as they will. Any other choice opens up a can of worms... how old are the other occupants? If 1 car has a 90yr old in it and the other has a baby, which do you hit? What if ones the mayor? The problems increase exponentially as soon as you get away from "STOP THE CAR" so just stop the dang car and be done with it.
With regards to your comment about Scifi... you're reading pretty terrible SciFi. Most of the stuff I read is written by actual scientists so... yea...
Go ahead and choose your walled garden, I won't stop you.
But from where I sit, it looks like everything that connects to the home is going to walled gardens, and open as an option is fading away.
Serious proposal: Allow a "fast lane" by any/all ISPs. They've got such a hard-on for a fast lane that they're going to keep buying legislators until they get one. Then place a limit on it. The fast lane can only be X times faster than the "neutral net lane", and NO traffic shaping or limits are allowed on that lane, other than being 1/X the speed of the fast lane. Plus X needs to be a legally asserted and testable value.
Congrats on joining the chorus of uninformed on the net neutrality topic. That's not what they are proposing and not what will happen. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a terrible idea for other reasons... but the ISPs can't simply use it to block content. They could try but they'd end up in court so fast their heads would snap back.
Traffic shaping will give some content priority. This will increase latency to content that doesn't pay. As you likely already know, for a normal website like slashdot, the latency would have to be ridiculously high before you noticed it. But for streaming content like netflix, they pretty much will be required to pay it. Now that fee will be based on the amount of traffic they are sending across the network. This will give netflix its first financial incentive to reduce the amount of bandwidth they are using. Up until now they have been completely irresponsible in that regard.
A much better solution would be to regulate content providers. Netflix is responsible for over 34% of peak traffic. There is no reason they shouldn't be regulated like any other content provider. CBS can't just start broadcasting on 20 separate channels without the FCC's approval ruining everyones ability to get other content... why can netflix? For some reason people expect ISPs to spend billions to upgrade their networks, but neither netflix nor the customers want to pay for it. They expect their prices to remain the same, and the ISPs to just take a hit. Well surprise surprise, they didn't want to pay either.
1. good... Our law enforcement is far to militarized as it is. Fewer MRAPs and Assault Rifles would do the police some good. Maybe they should have more patience and be a little less willing to start throwing stun grenades and spraying the room with lead if they couldn't afford vests.
2. The driver should receive the ticket. People will be modding their cars just like they do their phone. Give the driver the ticket, who will then call the car manufacturer for reimbursement if it was the manufactures fault. Blaming the manufacturer will lead the manufacturers to lock down the OS and lobby the feds to man modding it yourself. Which will be bad for innovation.
3. People wont own these cars. By the time this becomes "A thing" you'll just punch something up in your cellphone saying where you want to go and when, and a car will come pick you up at the appointed time. Once you're not driving, don't have to worry about the car being there when you need it, and can get a ride anywhere in the country you want to go, there will be very little reason to own a car anymore. I can easily imagine placing orders for the things you need from the grocery store, home depot, etc... and having it all delivered.
All this shows is GM is behind the times with regards to email. Most corporations changed their email policies after a court ruled a while back that they must keep email for a certain period of time so it could be used in litigation against them. As a result, most places installed chat programs to get general employee chatter off of email and then setup archiving and aged deletion rules to stop new emails being created off of years old threads keeping data around in-perpetuity.
It's about choice. I can understand that we should always have choice. But the idea that we shouldn't be able to "choose" a walled garden if we want one seems ass-backward to me. Do you remember CompuServe, AOL and prodigy? There were plenty of others as well... some of them were Awesome. I loved CompuServe. I wouldn't go back now... but if some people want to, why shouldn't they have the choice to do so? Googles pretty darned open compared to most other modern tech companies. If they want to offer some services that aren't as open, because it will make some people who don't care about openness have a better experience, why not? Let me know when "open" isn't a choice I can make. Then I'll get out my picket sign.
This. They are asking for $200k. If that's all that is needed to make a difference they could easily get that funding if their ideas were even remotely sound. It's quite telling that people will find the ITER to the tune of $13bn but won't give these guys the left over pennies from the bottom of the jar.
They're funded by NASA.
I suspect this is more for the publicity than the money.
They didn't have much credibility to start with, and turning to crowdfunding only makes it worse.
It is not a mass market product with quick deliverables, it is an industrial solution. So the natural financing source would be venture capital, rather than crowdfunding. If they have to turn to indiegogo, it can only mean they failed to convince anyone relevant and are desperately trying to ride the "fusion is cool" fans, and disappoint them in the process.
As much as I would love to see fusion plants soon, it looks like this is not the company that will deliver them.
They only need $200k for a proof concept to get investors excited. NASA is already one of their sponsors, so it's not like this is pie in the sky. You likely haven't been paying attention but Fusion research has really taken off recently. There are several Fusion reactors around the world that now produce more energy than they consume. It's a very exciting time. I suspect we'll have real commercial fusion reactors very soon. They're safe enough they could even be used by the public... so yes, I foresee having a fusion reactor in my house within my lifetime. Sadly, I think the main change to my life will be my idiotic neighbors putting up even MORE Christmas lights and leaving them up until July.
Because they cost a fortune and coal is a hell of a lot more profitable. Experimental technologies that are not profitable, require huge startup costs and are only "Good" in the sense that they help mankind as a whole are the domain of governments. No sane business person would invest in this.
Uh, "more willing"?
Seems with applications related to feeding people undergoing chemo, this "food" will become medicine very quickly. That premium you speak of will be "premium" alright...at about a 10,000% markup.
I don't know how "willing" people will be to pay for that. Guess it depends on the price.
They don't have to eat lettuce. If they want to eat lettuce, they need fancy lab grown lettuce that costs a lot.
Not that I think Snowden is completely pulling stuff out of his ass, but..how do we know Snowden is NOT pulling stuff out of his ass?
I'm asking in the spirit of diabloa advocatus. Snowden should get the same scrutiny as any other source. If he is as genuine as I think he is, he shouldn't be offended by this questioning of the source.
Well, you could start by reading the article:
The NSA refused to comment on the program, but said in a statement that “the implication that NSA’s foreign intelligence collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false.” The agency also insisted that it follows procedures to “protect the privacy of U.S. persons” whose communications are “incidentally collected.”
The second Snowden releases something untrue, the NSA will be all over it. CNN will be playing their "Snowden is a liar and a traitor" power point on repeat for weeks.