If true, that would be informative, but I'm a little skeptical of a web site called "martinlutherking.org" that seems to be devoted to besmirching MLK.
Not to be obtuse, but there are plenty of citations to choose from. It is indeed Hollywood accounting, but they're still (in some cases) getting the $700k vehicles for the price of some paperwork.
I take public transportation for my commute for two reasons: I hate urban driving, and parking costs are somewhere in the neighborhood of "your left kidney."
I do, however, sympathize with GP. Public transportation does not go directly from my origin to my destination. And every transfer incurs an additional time cost not only because the route is sub-optimal but also because you have to stand around at the transfer point wasting time.
I love free WiFi but I'm cynical, and I think some muni's are doing bad things; I wouldn't be surprised if some are doing automated MITM attacks.
I'm wondering (Can/. tell me?) whether some bad actor can just set up a hotspot with the same SSID as the NYC pylons and MITM any unencrypted traffic for anyone who walks by who has their devices set up to connect to that SSID.
Having worked in the CRM world, I agree. And their own article does, too, but only for one sentence:
While it sounds uniquely sinister coming from an oil company, this software is likely not too far removed from, say, the sort that the Obama team used to identify probable voters or Rite Aid deploys to pigeonhole shoppers.
Then, it's back to the oil bashing. Which is fine is one sense: If you don't like oil, you're free to bash it. But this is a stupid thing to bash them about.
It was a little trickier than usual because there are now several bills called "USA FREEDOM" in various permutations (H.R. 3361 as well as the S. 1599 that you found). The backronyms vary a bit.
I agree wholeheartedly with (at least) your first point as a refutation of GP, but I'm curious about your take on the low-density rural America areas. (These places that Uncle Sam paid "broadband" to build out to, who took the money without doing the development.) What about those? Possibilities include:
Do you think some enterprising company will run cable to the sticks because they think it's going to be worthwhile?
If not, should taxpayers subsidise development of those areas somehow?
If not, should we just let them stay disconnected?
If not,... something else?
My expectation is that companies choosing to develop rural areas is probably going to be sporadic at best. Subsidies, if offered anywhere, are going to be demanded everywhere and then abused. But I think access to the internet is a Public Good and it leads to overall nationwide benefits.
I swear I'm not trolling. I don't have the answer. What do you think?
"These days!?" My coworker was just talking about the amount of gun violence in old Looney Toons, particularly some episode that ends in a double-suicide. Same for Tom & Jerry.
I assert that people who decry the violence of media for children "these days" are white-washing old media. It goes back at least as far as fairy tales, and I expect further.
This reminds me of the villains from Terry Pratchett novel "Going Postal." The "clacks**" barons can parade around claiming a new system upgrade without actually expecting to deploy it. AT&T just managed to find a convenient excuse to drop the upgrade. Even if the reclassification hadn't been mooted, I had no expectations for reasonable service at reasonable rates.
** Terry Pratchett invented (or stole?) a plausible idea for a medieval telecoms network.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes this faith involves an old white man with a beard.
Darwin? <ducks>
If true, that would be informative, but I'm a little skeptical of a web site called "martinlutherking.org" that seems to be devoted to besmirching MLK.
Secret, informal non-competes are still illegal.
Obligatory
Play Crawl for a couch co-op on PC. (I have no stake in people buying it. I just think it's hilarious.)
Bullshite.
Not to be obtuse, but there are plenty of citations to choose from. It is indeed Hollywood accounting, but they're still (in some cases) getting the $700k vehicles for the price of some paperwork.
I for one welcome our newly armoured paramecium strike forces.
That definition makes it impossible to provide toll-free broadband, then.
Congratulations. You have just hit upon the dilemma that the article was written about. It took you a while, but you got there.
Whoosh.
I take public transportation for my commute for two reasons: I hate urban driving, and parking costs are somewhere in the neighborhood of "your left kidney."
I do, however, sympathize with GP. Public transportation does not go directly from my origin to my destination. And every transfer incurs an additional time cost not only because the route is sub-optimal but also because you have to stand around at the transfer point wasting time.
Portal?
Google desperately needs a "yes, just like I typed it" button.
Use double quotes around words or phrases you want "as typed."
Agreed.
I love free WiFi but I'm cynical, and I think some muni's are doing bad things; I wouldn't be surprised if some are doing automated MITM attacks.
I'm wondering (Can /. tell me?) whether some bad actor can just set up a hotspot with the same SSID as the NYC pylons and MITM any unencrypted traffic for anyone who walks by who has their devices set up to connect to that SSID.
And the guy with the dog was on his cellphone.
Amusingly, the FBI building actually does have a moat on the sides away from Pennsylvania Avenue. I had forgotten about it until reading your comment.
Is this what Poe's Law looks like?
While it sounds uniquely sinister coming from an oil company, this software is likely not too far removed from, say, the sort that the Obama team used to identify probable voters or Rite Aid deploys to pigeonhole shoppers.
Then, it's back to the oil bashing. Which is fine is one sense: If you don't like oil, you're free to bash it. But this is a stupid thing to bash them about.
I believe the bill in question is S. 2685, as found at Congress.gov or GovTrack.us.
It was a little trickier than usual because there are now several bills called "USA FREEDOM" in various permutations (H.R. 3361 as well as the S. 1599 that you found). The backronyms vary a bit.
I agree wholeheartedly with (at least) your first point as a refutation of GP, but I'm curious about your take on the low-density rural America areas. (These places that Uncle Sam paid "broadband" to build out to, who took the money without doing the development.) What about those? Possibilities include:
... something else?
Do you think some enterprising company will run cable to the sticks because they think it's going to be worthwhile?
If not, should taxpayers subsidise development of those areas somehow?
If not, should we just let them stay disconnected?
If not,
My expectation is that companies choosing to develop rural areas is probably going to be sporadic at best. Subsidies, if offered anywhere, are going to be demanded everywhere and then abused. But I think access to the internet is a Public Good and it leads to overall nationwide benefits.
I swear I'm not trolling. I don't have the answer. What do you think?
"These days!?" My coworker was just talking about the amount of gun violence in old Looney Toons, particularly some episode that ends in a double-suicide. Same for Tom & Jerry.
I assert that people who decry the violence of media for children "these days" are white-washing old media. It goes back at least as far as fairy tales, and I expect further.
This reminds me of the villains from Terry Pratchett novel "Going Postal." The "clacks**" barons can parade around claiming a new system upgrade without actually expecting to deploy it. AT&T just managed to find a convenient excuse to drop the upgrade. Even if the reclassification hadn't been mooted, I had no expectations for reasonable service at reasonable rates.
** Terry Pratchett invented (or stole?) a plausible idea for a medieval telecoms network.
Mod -1 Inflamebait.
2 ^ 16, but I still don't understand where the 16 came from.