The Chinese don't have quite the sophistication in bread and circuses technology that we do; but this deficiency does lead them to the salubrious habit of occasionally having an unpopular former occupant of an important position shot to appease public anger or for losing some political power struggle...
You'd also have to ensure that page elements don't load in any deterministic or controllable order, and that the number of requests the browser has going concurrently isn't predictable: If I can control the order in which your browser loads my page's elements, I can make useful inferences about the load time of a 3rd party resource, without any client javascript, by sandwiching its loading between the loading of two resources(at dynamically generated URLs, to ensure that you couldn't possibly have cached them) on servers I control. Not perfect, because various other factors could affect the time it takes your requests to hit my servers; but likely better than nothing.
It would also be a bit tricky because inferential attacks wouldn't necessarily have to ask politely for the state of the resource they are interested in, they could instead attempt something else(say a script operation that will fail in a particular way unless the 3rd party resource is available). Barring a solution much cleverer than I can think of, you'd be at considerable risk of having to break progressive loading of pages entirely(or at least into human-visible-and-annoying stuttery chunks) in order to keep prevent a combination of a page interrogating its own state on the client, and correlating with timestamps on requests to servers controlled by the attacker...
Architecturally, there isn't anything requiring a communist government to not pit multiple state-owned enterprises against one another in an attempt to make them more efficient(in fact, a communist government might actually be the shareholder most willing to do so; because it can maximize its effective 'value' by making the enterprises it owns more efficient, rather than by making them more effective rent-seekers, as an owner who can profit only by collecting rents and not by collecting taxes would have to...).
There is absolutely no assurance that they would actually be thus motivated, and, in practice, you'd probably see roughly the same level of monopolistic behavior and general rent-seeking obstructionism from a state-owned corporation as you would from an ostensibly-private 'regulated monopoly', like old-school Ma Bell; but there isn't any theoretical problem preventing it from happening...
Pitting individuals, departments, project development teams, etc. against each other in order to induce greater effort is hardly unknown among organizations that 'own' both sides of the competition they set up. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it is a terrible idea; but it is empirically undeniable that (if they think that the benefits of internal competition will be greater than the waste of internal duplication of effort) people will sometimes pit their assets against one another.
After all, if it were necessary that state-owned telcos be a monopoly, why would there be more than one?
We can hardly be blamed for not forseeing the problem, of course. None of our prior "let's train the local military notables to achieve our ends in the region" schemes turned into bloody, ethically grotesque, fiascos. Not at all. Definitely not so many of them that we had to rename the training institution just to avoid the PR fallout.
Completely different features; but not completely different datasets...
If I'm trying to infer where you've been, a nicely formatted(often with handy metadata, timestamps, etc.) history list sure is handy, if I can get access to it; but it's also an obviously juicy target, and something that browser designers are going to try to keep me away from.
Your cache is a lot messier; but it does provide grounds for inference about where you've been(and thus can retrieve from cache in essentially zero time) and where you haven't recently been(and thus have to burn a few tens to hundreds of milliseconds retrieving from a remote host)... Worse, unlike history(which is really just a convenience feature for the user, and can be totally frozen out of any remotely observable aspect of loading a page, those purple links aren't life or death...) the browser cache is an architectural feature that one cannot remove without sacrificing performance, and one cannot even easily obfuscate without sacrificing performance. It's a much lousier dataset than the history, since history is designed to document where you've been but cache only does that partially and incidentally; but it is one that is harder to get rid of without user-visible sacrifices and increases in network load...
I've never understood the argument that the fungibility of hatchetmen in some way makes them less guilty of being hatchetmen...
It is true that their fungibility prevents them from being able to halt their employer's agenda just by walking out; but it doesn't change the fact that, while many people could have done it, they did it. It is also true that, if you are playing whack-a-mole, number of moles whacked is not a terribly useful metric of actual progress toward solving the problem; but that is hardly the same thing as demonstrating that the moles don't deserve to be whacked in parallel with whoever is behind their continuing to pop up...
I suspect that transistor count means different things to different people.
The PR numbers provided for tech journalist previews and fan-wank benchmarks are pretty much just noise: If the number is big, you'll see a couple of sentences about "zOMG 2 Billion! motherfucker is a BEAST!". If the number is small, you'll see a couple of lines about how 'the foocorp design team was heavily focused on optimization for this generation'. The only thing the end customer will care about are the benchmarks at the end.
For people attempting to glean financially useful clues about a company's process strength or design prowess, or ability to hit some thermal target in the upcoming product cycle, transistor counts are likely much more relevant; but are also rather less likely to depend on PR numbers(actually reverse engineering a modern x86 chip would be Serious Business; but just paying somebody to crack the top off, get some die shots, and provide good ballpark numbers on transistor numbers and allocation between cache and various functional blocks should be relatively cheap compared to some of the moves you might make on the basis of such information...)
It seems bafflingly weird that PR would provide a number so grossly wrong, since the fanboys and the haters basically make no real use of the number and the people who really care should be able to easily detect a lie of that magnitude; but I'd be somewhat surprised if the original PR numbers meant all that much.
Stealth submarines, solar powered call communications networks, encrypted communications. They are equipped like a damn government.
Their founders, and a nontrivial number of their more serious members, aren't just equipped like a government...
Back in the late '90s, the Gulf cartel wanted to cull some of their more irritating competitors. Sensibly enough, they hired a number of Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales guys with counterinsurgency, communications, and assorted other handy special forces skills(a somewhat embarrassing number of whom were trained on Uncle Sam's dime at the School of the Americas, in an attempt to improve Mexico's anti-drug capabilities. Oops.)
They've suffered some rather violent togetherness issues with the Gulf cartel more recently and their founders suffered pretty dramatic attrition; but their enthusiasm for military specialists from various Latin American states, and putting their professional skills to flagrantly bloody use continues to the present...
Why would the government purchase Carrier IQ's software or services? As it stands, there would appear to be absolutely no effective barriers to their just getting the data from the carrier who installed it...
To go with an unfortunately appropriate analogy, CIQ is just a street-level heavy. Three of the largest telcomm corporations in the United States are Al Capone. The latter party is almost certainly the driving force behind the former party's crimes; but he's virtually untouchable and isn't exactly going to get his hands dirty to keep a lacky from getting thrown under the bus.
The carriers, while they almost certainly are up to their eyeballs in slime, have zillion-page 'contracts' with the people they are screwing, massive lobbying expertise, and quite possibly de facto or even de jure legal impunity when it comes to a little of the old wiretapping(just look at the, er, unimpressive consequences when their collaboration with the NSA was revealed...) CIQ, by contrast, is just a little coder shop somewhere, 6 years of history, not even the flimsiest of contracts with any phone users, and no obvious friends. Everybody who isn't their customers certainly has no reason not to want them gone, and even their customers would almost certainly rather switch spyware vendors(they've got plenty of options) than endure the PR hit of defending their present vendor...
Much as I'd love to watch CIQ's operations burned down with those responsible locked inside, I suspect that the focus on CIQ will drown out the (far more dire) fact that contemporary communications technology is running headlong into the dystopian future, and the world is crawling with upmarket spyware vendors who provide very similar products and services worldwide. CIQ was unlucky enough to land in hot water
Just a little while back, Etisalat was trojaning its blackberry customers with (poorly made) spyware from the wonderful people at SS8. Guess who suffered no consequences whatsoever and is still merrily peddling "Lawful intercept solutions"?
"Opt-out" is basically CYA bullshit. The notion that what amounts to 'consent through cluelessness' could possibly be valid makes a mockery of the idea of a contract. There's a reason why "opt-out" is so popular with various sorts of scumbags trying to avoid real control over their abuse of 'consumers'...
" "RIM does not pre-install the CarrierIQ app on BlackBerry smartphones or authorize its carrier partners to install the CarrierIQ app before sales or distribution," the company said in a statement. "RIM also did not develop or commission the development of the CarrierIQ application, and has no involvement in the testing, promotion, or distribution of the app," the statement said"
I know that that statement makes me fully confident... "CIQ is not installed on Blackberry smartphones." is short, punchy, and sounds nice. Who wants to guess why their spokesweasel went with the above, instead?
Next time you get to spend far too many hours with your bestest buddies at Experian and Equifax, trying to get a $50 cable bill erroneously delivered to your old address for an account that you canceled when you moved wiped off your credit report, just remember that people more important than you had trillions in loans kept secret to avoid "stigmatizing" them.
What baffles me about this whole situation is that we haven't erected a guillotine in front of the bronze bull and gotten down to business...
The one potentially tricky thing with that particular machine might be the graphics cards: PCIe x8, low profile, is not going to help your search for a high end GTX that will fit...
Unless he is heavily space constrained, he should probably take your advice on specs; but in 1 or 2U cases where getting a double-wide, full profile, PCIe x16 card installed will be easier.
The trouble with "Originalism" is that it really only addresses a fairly modest set of problems.
The Constitution itself is necessarily somewhat underdetermined. It simply isn't exhaustive enough to unambiguously define the correct outcomes for all potential questions that might arise when it was written, never mind those raised by technological and social changes unknown to the writers.
Effectively, "Originalism" boils down to operating on the assumption that the Constitution 'incorporates by reference' the broader writings of its various authors whenever it does not sufficiently address the problem in question. The problem is, even if one were to do all the legwork(ie, chase down the author/authors of each bit, incorporate from their other political writings to provide definitions for insufficiently defined terms, and so forth) the resulting document would also be necessarily somewhat underdetermined(if somewhat less so than the Constitution alone) and quite possibly internally inconsistent(it was, after all, the product of a somewhat contentious comittee, so some of the vaguer passages are vague in order to paper over significant disagreements, not vague because their meaning was deemed obvious...)
This doesn't make it a useless strategy, the hypothetical 'originalist expanded constitution' would provide resolution of a larger set of problems than the unexpanded version; but it doesn't save you from the fact that the supply of precisely determined Constitutional answers runs dry fairly quickly and throws you right back into the realm of making things up as you go along, by a variety of methods that are tolerated largely because we don't have any better ones...
We don't even need to do any 'making up'. The post-reconstruction South used pretty much exactly that tactic to keep their former chattel-class in its place, criminalizing all sorts of things, then renting the convicts out for labor. We can just dust off that body of law and get ready to go!
Unless the wording of the amendment is a hell of a lot narrower through the eyes of somebody who has been to law school, it would appear that it could be stretched to include basically everyone who doesn't turn a funny color when the phrase "pivot table" is used. The heaviest fire is reserved for IT minions; but, given the computerization of contemporary businesses, virtually anybody who earns enough to be mentioned in the amendment and operates a turing-complete system more sophisticated than the coffee machine would potentially be included...
If you think that:
Michael Bennet [D-CO]
Scott Brown [R-MA]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
John Isakson [R-GA]
Are in the pocket of big labor, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Now, in the broader sense of Nikolay Chernyshevsky's "The worse, the better" theory of what actually drives the poor to organize and/or unionize and/or devour the rich in an orgy of redistributive bloodletting, they may actually be more effective labor leaders than most actual labor leaders; but not in the direct sense...
I think my favorite Floridian aquatic insanity is the fact that the effective 'price' imposed on certain classes of commercial users is so vanishingly small that it is economically viable for a number of bottled-water bottling operations to feed on the state's bounteous freshwater reserves...
Odds are good that Virginia is overpumping, just because everybody is; but I didn't really have anybody in particular in mind.
Florida will probably fail to an utterly undeniable degree first, just because there is so little between it and becoming a saline wasteland; but there is plenty of competition in the middle and long term...
I have been following the AT&T merger bid for some time. Nothing in what has happened so far inclines me to believe that AT&T wanted this merger for anything other than improved margins, as opposed to spectrum concerns or those oh-so-precious-'people in the boonies who don't have 4G+++ yet!!' that everybody always invokes when they want something from the FCC.
AT&T's response, now, is basically a "How dare they call our mass of outrageous lies and mendacious fabrications a mass of outrageous lies and mendacious fabrications! Do they know who we are?" response, couched in the always-cloying language of injured innocence and shock, shock, that those mean meanies at the FCC could be so mean. I honestly can't decide whether nausea or contempt is winning in my reaction to it...
Aside from the issue that groundwater monitoring tends to be one of those things that produces results people hate to hear(yes, Virginia, you are overpumping, your predictions of longterm availability are optimism bordering on fraud, and we still don't know exactly who is releasing those curious new compounds...) measuring things like ion concentrations, charges, pH, and so forth is something you could do with a network of probes at comparatively modest expense...
Slashdot Mirror
The Chinese don't have quite the sophistication in bread and circuses technology that we do; but this deficiency does lead them to the salubrious habit of occasionally having an unpopular former occupant of an important position shot to appease public anger or for losing some political power struggle...
You'd also have to ensure that page elements don't load in any deterministic or controllable order, and that the number of requests the browser has going concurrently isn't predictable: If I can control the order in which your browser loads my page's elements, I can make useful inferences about the load time of a 3rd party resource, without any client javascript, by sandwiching its loading between the loading of two resources(at dynamically generated URLs, to ensure that you couldn't possibly have cached them) on servers I control. Not perfect, because various other factors could affect the time it takes your requests to hit my servers; but likely better than nothing.
It would also be a bit tricky because inferential attacks wouldn't necessarily have to ask politely for the state of the resource they are interested in, they could instead attempt something else(say a script operation that will fail in a particular way unless the 3rd party resource is available). Barring a solution much cleverer than I can think of, you'd be at considerable risk of having to break progressive loading of pages entirely(or at least into human-visible-and-annoying stuttery chunks) in order to keep prevent a combination of a page interrogating its own state on the client, and correlating with timestamps on requests to servers controlled by the attacker...
Architecturally, there isn't anything requiring a communist government to not pit multiple state-owned enterprises against one another in an attempt to make them more efficient(in fact, a communist government might actually be the shareholder most willing to do so; because it can maximize its effective 'value' by making the enterprises it owns more efficient, rather than by making them more effective rent-seekers, as an owner who can profit only by collecting rents and not by collecting taxes would have to...).
There is absolutely no assurance that they would actually be thus motivated, and, in practice, you'd probably see roughly the same level of monopolistic behavior and general rent-seeking obstructionism from a state-owned corporation as you would from an ostensibly-private 'regulated monopoly', like old-school Ma Bell; but there isn't any theoretical problem preventing it from happening...
Pitting individuals, departments, project development teams, etc. against each other in order to induce greater effort is hardly unknown among organizations that 'own' both sides of the competition they set up. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it is a terrible idea; but it is empirically undeniable that (if they think that the benefits of internal competition will be greater than the waste of internal duplication of effort) people will sometimes pit their assets against one another.
After all, if it were necessary that state-owned telcos be a monopoly, why would there be more than one?
We can hardly be blamed for not forseeing the problem, of course. None of our prior "let's train the local military notables to achieve our ends in the region" schemes turned into bloody, ethically grotesque, fiascos. Not at all. Definitely not so many of them that we had to rename the training institution just to avoid the PR fallout.
Completely different features; but not completely different datasets...
If I'm trying to infer where you've been, a nicely formatted(often with handy metadata, timestamps, etc.) history list sure is handy, if I can get access to it; but it's also an obviously juicy target, and something that browser designers are going to try to keep me away from.
Your cache is a lot messier; but it does provide grounds for inference about where you've been(and thus can retrieve from cache in essentially zero time) and where you haven't recently been(and thus have to burn a few tens to hundreds of milliseconds retrieving from a remote host)... Worse, unlike history(which is really just a convenience feature for the user, and can be totally frozen out of any remotely observable aspect of loading a page, those purple links aren't life or death...) the browser cache is an architectural feature that one cannot remove without sacrificing performance, and one cannot even easily obfuscate without sacrificing performance. It's a much lousier dataset than the history, since history is designed to document where you've been but cache only does that partially and incidentally; but it is one that is harder to get rid of without user-visible sacrifices and increases in network load...
I've never understood the argument that the fungibility of hatchetmen in some way makes them less guilty of being hatchetmen...
It is true that their fungibility prevents them from being able to halt their employer's agenda just by walking out; but it doesn't change the fact that, while many people could have done it, they did it. It is also true that, if you are playing whack-a-mole, number of moles whacked is not a terribly useful metric of actual progress toward solving the problem; but that is hardly the same thing as demonstrating that the moles don't deserve to be whacked in parallel with whoever is behind their continuing to pop up...
I suspect that transistor count means different things to different people.
The PR numbers provided for tech journalist previews and fan-wank benchmarks are pretty much just noise: If the number is big, you'll see a couple of sentences about "zOMG 2 Billion! motherfucker is a BEAST!". If the number is small, you'll see a couple of lines about how 'the foocorp design team was heavily focused on optimization for this generation'. The only thing the end customer will care about are the benchmarks at the end.
For people attempting to glean financially useful clues about a company's process strength or design prowess, or ability to hit some thermal target in the upcoming product cycle, transistor counts are likely much more relevant; but are also rather less likely to depend on PR numbers(actually reverse engineering a modern x86 chip would be Serious Business; but just paying somebody to crack the top off, get some die shots, and provide good ballpark numbers on transistor numbers and allocation between cache and various functional blocks should be relatively cheap compared to some of the moves you might make on the basis of such information...)
It seems bafflingly weird that PR would provide a number so grossly wrong, since the fanboys and the haters basically make no real use of the number and the people who really care should be able to easily detect a lie of that magnitude; but I'd be somewhat surprised if the original PR numbers meant all that much.
Stealth submarines, solar powered call communications networks, encrypted communications. They are equipped like a damn government.
Their founders, and a nontrivial number of their more serious members, aren't just equipped like a government...
Back in the late '90s, the Gulf cartel wanted to cull some of their more irritating competitors. Sensibly enough, they hired a number of Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales guys with counterinsurgency, communications, and assorted other handy special forces skills(a somewhat embarrassing number of whom were trained on Uncle Sam's dime at the School of the Americas, in an attempt to improve Mexico's anti-drug capabilities. Oops.)
They've suffered some rather violent togetherness issues with the Gulf cartel more recently and their founders suffered pretty dramatic attrition; but their enthusiasm for military specialists from various Latin American states, and putting their professional skills to flagrantly bloody use continues to the present...
Why would the government purchase Carrier IQ's software or services? As it stands, there would appear to be absolutely no effective barriers to their just getting the data from the carrier who installed it...
To go with an unfortunately appropriate analogy, CIQ is just a street-level heavy. Three of the largest telcomm corporations in the United States are Al Capone. The latter party is almost certainly the driving force behind the former party's crimes; but he's virtually untouchable and isn't exactly going to get his hands dirty to keep a lacky from getting thrown under the bus.
The carriers, while they almost certainly are up to their eyeballs in slime, have zillion-page 'contracts' with the people they are screwing, massive lobbying expertise, and quite possibly de facto or even de jure legal impunity when it comes to a little of the old wiretapping(just look at the, er, unimpressive consequences when their collaboration with the NSA was revealed...) CIQ, by contrast, is just a little coder shop somewhere, 6 years of history, not even the flimsiest of contracts with any phone users, and no obvious friends. Everybody who isn't their customers certainly has no reason not to want them gone, and even their customers would almost certainly rather switch spyware vendors(they've got plenty of options) than endure the PR hit of defending their present vendor...
Much as I'd love to watch CIQ's operations burned down with those responsible locked inside, I suspect that the focus on CIQ will drown out the (far more dire) fact that contemporary communications technology is running headlong into the dystopian future, and the world is crawling with upmarket spyware vendors who provide very similar products and services worldwide. CIQ was unlucky enough to land in hot water
Just a little while back, Etisalat was trojaning its blackberry customers with (poorly made) spyware from the wonderful people at SS8. Guess who suffered no consequences whatsoever and is still merrily peddling "Lawful intercept solutions"?
"Opt-out" is basically CYA bullshit. The notion that what amounts to 'consent through cluelessness' could possibly be valid makes a mockery of the idea of a contract. There's a reason why "opt-out" is so popular with various sorts of scumbags trying to avoid real control over their abuse of 'consumers'...
" "RIM does not pre-install the CarrierIQ app on BlackBerry smartphones or authorize its carrier partners to install the CarrierIQ app before sales or distribution," the company said in a statement. "RIM also did not develop or commission the development of the CarrierIQ application, and has no involvement in the testing, promotion, or distribution of the app," the statement said"
I know that that statement makes me fully confident... "CIQ is not installed on Blackberry smartphones." is short, punchy, and sounds nice. Who wants to guess why their spokesweasel went with the above, instead?
Next time you get to spend far too many hours with your bestest buddies at Experian and Equifax, trying to get a $50 cable bill erroneously delivered to your old address for an account that you canceled when you moved wiped off your credit report, just remember that people more important than you had trillions in loans kept secret to avoid "stigmatizing" them.
What baffles me about this whole situation is that we haven't erected a guillotine in front of the bronze bull and gotten down to business...
The one potentially tricky thing with that particular machine might be the graphics cards: PCIe x8, low profile, is not going to help your search for a high end GTX that will fit...
Unless he is heavily space constrained, he should probably take your advice on specs; but in 1 or 2U cases where getting a double-wide, full profile, PCIe x16 card installed will be easier.
The trouble with "Originalism" is that it really only addresses a fairly modest set of problems.
The Constitution itself is necessarily somewhat underdetermined. It simply isn't exhaustive enough to unambiguously define the correct outcomes for all potential questions that might arise when it was written, never mind those raised by technological and social changes unknown to the writers.
Effectively, "Originalism" boils down to operating on the assumption that the Constitution 'incorporates by reference' the broader writings of its various authors whenever it does not sufficiently address the problem in question. The problem is, even if one were to do all the legwork(ie, chase down the author/authors of each bit, incorporate from their other political writings to provide definitions for insufficiently defined terms, and so forth) the resulting document would also be necessarily somewhat underdetermined(if somewhat less so than the Constitution alone) and quite possibly internally inconsistent(it was, after all, the product of a somewhat contentious comittee, so some of the vaguer passages are vague in order to paper over significant disagreements, not vague because their meaning was deemed obvious...)
This doesn't make it a useless strategy, the hypothetical 'originalist expanded constitution' would provide resolution of a larger set of problems than the unexpanded version; but it doesn't save you from the fact that the supply of precisely determined Constitutional answers runs dry fairly quickly and throws you right back into the realm of making things up as you go along, by a variety of methods that are tolerated largely because we don't have any better ones...
Given that 3/4 of the sponsors are republicans, I'm guessing that this isn't a sneaky fundraising move by the DNC...
We don't even need to do any 'making up'. The post-reconstruction South used pretty much exactly that tactic to keep their former chattel-class in its place, criminalizing all sorts of things, then renting the convicts out for labor. We can just dust off that body of law and get ready to go!
Unless the wording of the amendment is a hell of a lot narrower through the eyes of somebody who has been to law school, it would appear that it could be stretched to include basically everyone who doesn't turn a funny color when the phrase "pivot table" is used. The heaviest fire is reserved for IT minions; but, given the computerization of contemporary businesses, virtually anybody who earns enough to be mentioned in the amendment and operates a turing-complete system more sophisticated than the coffee machine would potentially be included...
If you think that:
Michael Bennet [D-CO]
Scott Brown [R-MA]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
John Isakson [R-GA]
Are in the pocket of big labor, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Now, in the broader sense of Nikolay Chernyshevsky's "The worse, the better" theory of what actually drives the poor to organize and/or unionize and/or devour the rich in an orgy of redistributive bloodletting, they may actually be more effective labor leaders than most actual labor leaders; but not in the direct sense...
Of course not! It would be illegal to force people to work without pay.
Now, I think we all understand that, if hard choices have to be made, everybody likes a team player, yes?
I think my favorite Floridian aquatic insanity is the fact that the effective 'price' imposed on certain classes of commercial users is so vanishingly small that it is economically viable for a number of bottled-water bottling operations to feed on the state's bounteous freshwater reserves...
Figure of speech.
Odds are good that Virginia is overpumping, just because everybody is; but I didn't really have anybody in particular in mind.
Florida will probably fail to an utterly undeniable degree first, just because there is so little between it and becoming a saline wasteland; but there is plenty of competition in the middle and long term...
I have been following the AT&T merger bid for some time. Nothing in what has happened so far inclines me to believe that AT&T wanted this merger for anything other than improved margins, as opposed to spectrum concerns or those oh-so-precious-'people in the boonies who don't have 4G+++ yet!!' that everybody always invokes when they want something from the FCC.
AT&T's response, now, is basically a "How dare they call our mass of outrageous lies and mendacious fabrications a mass of outrageous lies and mendacious fabrications! Do they know who we are?" response, couched in the always-cloying language of injured innocence and shock, shock, that those mean meanies at the FCC could be so mean. I honestly can't decide whether nausea or contempt is winning in my reaction to it...
Aside from the issue that groundwater monitoring tends to be one of those things that produces results people hate to hear(yes, Virginia, you are overpumping, your predictions of longterm availability are optimism bordering on fraud, and we still don't know exactly who is releasing those curious new compounds...) measuring things like ion concentrations, charges, pH, and so forth is something you could do with a network of probes at comparatively modest expense...
The FCC has no comment regarding hatred, but wishes it to be known that, by authority duly granted by Congress, they be Regulatin' Word.