Which is pretty much all they could do, unless his neighbors paid him to produce the report, in that case he would be "Practicing." One of the aspects of practicing a trade is that you must be paid for it (or at least doing it for someone else). If he lives in the neighborhood, it's no different than working on your own house, since Cox benefits directly from his efforts. Just like fixing your house might remove blight from the neighborhood, and benefit your neighbors indirectly. It gets a little dicey if the neighborhood association signed the papers, then the work may look like it was done on behalf of someone else.
But since when is Traffic Planning even an engineering discipline? Software, electronic and computer engineering have yet to be recognized as engineering (probably because they haven't been around 10,000 years).
I believe that's true, but I'm not sure it's the government's job in a capitalist society.
Here's the thing, what we're seeing is an artifact of the consolidation/diversification cycle. We're currently in the consolidation part of the cycle.
The internet started out as a set of distributed systems, interconnected so that they would forward on data to other nodes in the network, so that every node could reduce cost, and increase connectivity. It also had multiple routes to each destination by design, so that if the Soviet Union attacked, parts of the network might survive.
In and of itself, the internet was not put in place to guarantee freedom of speech. In fact in it's early days (prior to the Telecommunication's act of 1996 that also ruined children's programming on network television), the kind of communication on the ARPA/Internet was very limited, an no commercial activity was allowed.
Be that as it was, the constitution does not guarantee that any individual may use any privately owned resource to exercise his right to free speech. Rather the individual must provide the resource himself.
So it comes down to this. Who owns the internet? Certainly I do not, but I enjoy the use of it. Is free speech guaranteed? Probably not, no printed publication would allow any one to submit verbiage and print it, without reserving the right to edit or strike the text. So why should any web site, ftp archive, torrent, or any other such content source be forced to?
Net neutrality is not a free speech issue, it's a anti-competitive, double dip issue. Companies like Comcast want to diversify out their role as a data carrier, and it is partially spurred by the enormous amount of money made from pay-per-view television. They see companies like Google and Netflix as a threat to their revenue stream, and want to bill Google for traffic that originates from Google. They claim that Google is crowding out their network.
Here's the thing though, and what net neutrality will do: Data Carriers will be pegged to the transport market, and won't be able to use local monoply power to create a captive market. This takes away leverage that local carriers feel they can use to wedge into the provider market. In reality though, they have never created the content, and were resellers, selling the delivery of the product (Produced in Hollywood).
The sticking point with me, and why I think Comcast and other end point carriers argument against net neutrality is bunk: All of the traffic is already paid for. Google paid to get their access to the network, users paid to get their access to the network. Why should a carrier be concerned with what traffic flows over its lines? It's up to him to make sure the network is as close to capacity without causing outages, to maximize his transport power.
Imagine if Union Pacific Rail Road or Werner trucking wanted to charge Costco more, because most of the product going through their cars, vans and trucks was sold through Costco stores (because they wanted consumers to by from the UPRR Store)? They wouldn't they would give Costco a major discount, to try and increase volume even more.
Net-neutrality is an anti-competitive issue, not a free speech issue, and should be treated as such. The same issue affected Telephone communications in the 70's and the rail lines before that. The FCC has been regulating anti-competitive behavior in the telecommunications industry since it's inception and should continue to do so.
Complete and consequence free Net-neutrality is a must to ensure that carriers compete with carriers and content providers compete with content providers, and local monopolies can't pigeon hole customers.
The first thing though is to have internet connectivity declared a public utility, like electricity, gas and water. Which will be hard to do because there is competition in the market place.
But this competition is in a weak form of collusion and anti-competitive practice. I live in Omaha. Every cellular carrier is available, albeit TDMA reception is awful, so you're not happy if you're on T-Mobile or US Cellular. Also the market is saturated. The only new customers are those coming of age. Lost accounts are to carrier swap and death. Net-net is zero.
So basically you're stuck in anti-competition loop, because carriers don't actually want to port-in new customers, they want to keep the customers they have. That leaves handset offerings to differentiate, and to date the iPhone (possibly the Galaxy) is the only one, but that will go away with a Verizon model in the works, making the competition bar even lower.
Same goes for non-wireless internet connectivity. Choices: Cox and Quest. Quest offers both DSL and Tele-Choice Cable, Cox Cable only. Quest won't even let the DSL compete with their Cable offering, so you are stuck with one or the other depending if there's Quest Cable in your neighborhood. Both cost the same, and there's no pressure to move customers from one feed to another, that's a cost associated with both, so there's no downward pressure on price. Gaining new customers costs money. Keeping current ones is much cheaper. Plus you can have a sort of gentleman's agreement of sorts, via reported pricing in the paper. I think the carriers all pre-notify each other at some conference or publication or something.
Oh and by the way in the minds of the USDJ and FCC, wireless or wired connectivity is equivalent, so there's plenty of competition in Omaha. Just turns out that they everyone charges the same price, give or take a buck (Even Quest & Cox which also offer Wireless now).
So in a competitive environment [sic], how does the Government force downward pricing (either through lowering the actual price, or mandating higher bandwidth)? Deregulation guaranteed that this won't happen, there's no monopoly by definition, because it _created_ competition, sort of. The US isn't a communist republic after all...
But they have to want to make that investment. It is much easier to be complacent with the income-stream that is in place now. The best investment is the one that's already recouped its cost. They're still gun-shy from the events leading up to March 2001. Also, I believe that Level-3 Communications still has some dark fiber out there.
The other side of the coin is that many of the decision makers at the Telcos are about to retire. There's no need to make any plans for future investment for them, they're basically done and waiting for their gold watch. No sense in rocking the boat when you're a few feet off shore.
Why is it that the TSA isn't being fundamentally challenged under the 4th amendment. It is illegal for the government to x-ray bags, let alone use the full body scanners or even metal detectors at an airport. Both of these are illegal searches and seizures. The US Constitution under Amendment 4 requires that due process be followed, and that warrants be issued that indicate specific persons to be searched and articles to be seized, and that the Police only have the right to search persons in the situation where they have already observed illegal activity in plain sight. Currently, the whole process assumes that every individual is guilty and must be "authorized" by an agent of the United States Federal Government as innocent. In many states, dragnet style traffic stops have been ruled illegal, how is this any different.
In all reality the only solution to this problem is to have all gate security at airports performed by non-governmental agencies. So that means that they must be be employed by the airlines directly and not employed by the airports themselves, unless the airport is run as a for-profit organization that does not receive nor never has received any public money for construction or operation. In other words, the air ports hire the security agency. The US Government can provide guidelines, but cannot require that they be followed, nor can they compel any airport authority or air line to enforce the requirement in any particular manner, because that constitutes action by the government. Since air travel is private venture, the US Government has no say in it's operation under the commerce clause of the Constitution. In this case the security agents have the ability to perform any search they see fit, as long as they do not infringe upon an individuals civil liberty (for instance causing undue efforts to be made by some one in a protected class). But this is much better case, as it is and has always known to be easier to vote with one's wallet than at the ballot box, as a single dollar is worth more than any individual's vote.
So why hasn't the federal government been sued to abolish the TSA like so many other three-letter organizations formed the last socialist regime (I count Bush to be as much a socialist as our current president, as the current president has done nothing but extend Bush's policies).
So no I'm flagged. I for one welcome our fondling, pornographic overlords.
The "wide screen" monitors are cheaper to manufacture. A 4:3 screen has more total area that a 16:9 screen with the same diagonal measurement. Plus the 16:9 screen appears larger to the eye, because we (humans) think things appear larger when they are wide as opposed to when they are tall.
So the LCD manufactures get to make smaller screens, we think they are larger, everyone is happy.
Except those of us who really wanted more screen real estate to work with, and weren't concerned with watching movies on our computers, because we have televisions to do that.
I think a crack about objectivism vs. relativism. The relativist believes that reality is what ever experienced by the subject is "true" while the objectivist believes that "truth" can be determined outside the experience of a single subject. To follow up with the subset thing, the relativist believes just that that truth is a subset of reality, where as the objectivist believes that truth is an _equivalent_ subset of reality. So it could go something like this:
The relativistic journalist is told that the wizard boy creates software to subvert the "axis of evil." It is completely true, because the journalist has not experienced anything that would contradict this. He is unable to travel to Iran, and makes no attempt to determine otherwise, because no experience has led him to believe that the boy wizard is unreliable, he is a new encounter. In fact he must believe the word of the wizard, because the boy believes it to be true.
The objectivistic journalist is told that a young person has created software to subvert the "axis of evil." He then confirms the story by asking experts in the field unrelated to the young person or the technology, and even attempts to confirm with sources inside Iran.
It's boring to actually find out the objective truth, because you might either have to do a lot of work, or find out that something shiny is only plated instead of sterling.
Sr. Web Developer position. This position requires experienced as a Websphere Portal Developer. The successful candidate must have an experienced background (2+ years) in developing portlets and working with Websphere Portal in a medium to large scale environment. Total development experience should be extensive in JAVA (7-12 years) focused in Application Development to include the following: Web Services, Database interaction, MVC (Model View Controller) methods. Should know RAD6/RAD7, WAS 5.x/6.x, Oracle 8i/9i/10g , SOA. Helpful: ESB, dot net, ISAPI filters, Webfocus, STRUTS, Stress testing and Automated Testing tool experience.
It was from 2008 instead of 2006, but that means the good applicant must have had Java experience 1996.
I was actually provided a job description in 2006 requiring 12+ years of Java experience. I wish I still had it in front of me. It was ridiculous, and presumably tuned to ensure the promotion of an internal resource.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is pretty much all they could do, unless his neighbors paid him to produce the report, in that case he would be "Practicing." One of the aspects of practicing a trade is that you must be paid for it (or at least doing it for someone else). If he lives in the neighborhood, it's no different than working on your own house, since Cox benefits directly from his efforts. Just like fixing your house might remove blight from the neighborhood, and benefit your neighbors indirectly. It gets a little dicey if the neighborhood association signed the papers, then the work may look like it was done on behalf of someone else.
But since when is Traffic Planning even an engineering discipline? Software, electronic and computer engineering have yet to be recognized as engineering (probably because they haven't been around 10,000 years).
I believe that's true, but I'm not sure it's the government's job in a capitalist society.
Here's the thing, what we're seeing is an artifact of the consolidation/diversification cycle. We're currently in the consolidation part of the cycle.
The internet started out as a set of distributed systems, interconnected so that they would forward on data to other nodes in the network, so that every node could reduce cost, and increase connectivity. It also had multiple routes to each destination by design, so that if the Soviet Union attacked, parts of the network might survive.
In and of itself, the internet was not put in place to guarantee freedom of speech. In fact in it's early days (prior to the Telecommunication's act of 1996 that also ruined children's programming on network television), the kind of communication on the ARPA/Internet was very limited, an no commercial activity was allowed.
Be that as it was, the constitution does not guarantee that any individual may use any privately owned resource to exercise his right to free speech. Rather the individual must provide the resource himself.
So it comes down to this. Who owns the internet? Certainly I do not, but I enjoy the use of it. Is free speech guaranteed? Probably not, no printed publication would allow any one to submit verbiage and print it, without reserving the right to edit or strike the text. So why should any web site, ftp archive, torrent, or any other such content source be forced to?
Net neutrality is not a free speech issue, it's a anti-competitive, double dip issue. Companies like Comcast want to diversify out their role as a data carrier, and it is partially spurred by the enormous amount of money made from pay-per-view television. They see companies like Google and Netflix as a threat to their revenue stream, and want to bill Google for traffic that originates from Google. They claim that Google is crowding out their network.
Here's the thing though, and what net neutrality will do: Data Carriers will be pegged to the transport market, and won't be able to use local monoply power to create a captive market. This takes away leverage that local carriers feel they can use to wedge into the provider market. In reality though, they have never created the content, and were resellers, selling the delivery of the product (Produced in Hollywood).
The sticking point with me, and why I think Comcast and other end point carriers argument against net neutrality is bunk: All of the traffic is already paid for. Google paid to get their access to the network, users paid to get their access to the network. Why should a carrier be concerned with what traffic flows over its lines? It's up to him to make sure the network is as close to capacity without causing outages, to maximize his transport power.
Imagine if Union Pacific Rail Road or Werner trucking wanted to charge Costco more, because most of the product going through their cars, vans and trucks was sold through Costco stores (because they wanted consumers to by from the UPRR Store)? They wouldn't they would give Costco a major discount, to try and increase volume even more.
Net-neutrality is an anti-competitive issue, not a free speech issue, and should be treated as such. The same issue affected Telephone communications in the 70's and the rail lines before that. The FCC has been regulating anti-competitive behavior in the telecommunications industry since it's inception and should continue to do so.
Complete and consequence free Net-neutrality is a must to ensure that carriers compete with carriers and content providers compete with content providers, and local monopolies can't pigeon hole customers.
The first thing though is to have internet connectivity declared a public utility, like electricity, gas and water. Which will be hard to do because there is competition in the market place.
But this competition is in a weak form of collusion and anti-competitive practice. I live in Omaha. Every cellular carrier is available, albeit TDMA reception is awful, so you're not happy if you're on T-Mobile or US Cellular. Also the market is saturated. The only new customers are those coming of age. Lost accounts are to carrier swap and death. Net-net is zero.
So basically you're stuck in anti-competition loop, because carriers don't actually want to port-in new customers, they want to keep the customers they have. That leaves handset offerings to differentiate, and to date the iPhone (possibly the Galaxy) is the only one, but that will go away with a Verizon model in the works, making the competition bar even lower.
Same goes for non-wireless internet connectivity. Choices: Cox and Quest. Quest offers both DSL and Tele-Choice Cable, Cox Cable only. Quest won't even let the DSL compete with their Cable offering, so you are stuck with one or the other depending if there's Quest Cable in your neighborhood. Both cost the same, and there's no pressure to move customers from one feed to another, that's a cost associated with both, so there's no downward pressure on price. Gaining new customers costs money. Keeping current ones is much cheaper. Plus you can have a sort of gentleman's agreement of sorts, via reported pricing in the paper. I think the carriers all pre-notify each other at some conference or publication or something.
Oh and by the way in the minds of the USDJ and FCC, wireless or wired connectivity is equivalent, so there's plenty of competition in Omaha. Just turns out that they everyone charges the same price, give or take a buck (Even Quest & Cox which also offer Wireless now).
So in a competitive environment [sic], how does the Government force downward pricing (either through lowering the actual price, or mandating higher bandwidth)? Deregulation guaranteed that this won't happen, there's no monopoly by definition, because it _created_ competition, sort of. The US isn't a communist republic after all...
But they have to want to make that investment. It is much easier to be complacent with the income-stream that is in place now. The best investment is the one that's already recouped its cost. They're still gun-shy from the events leading up to March 2001. Also, I believe that Level-3 Communications still has some dark fiber out there.
The other side of the coin is that many of the decision makers at the Telcos are about to retire. There's no need to make any plans for future investment for them, they're basically done and waiting for their gold watch. No sense in rocking the boat when you're a few feet off shore.
Why is it that the TSA isn't being fundamentally challenged under the 4th amendment. It is illegal for the government to x-ray bags, let alone use the full body scanners or even metal detectors at an airport. Both of these are illegal searches and seizures. The US Constitution under Amendment 4 requires that due process be followed, and that warrants be issued that indicate specific persons to be searched and articles to be seized, and that the Police only have the right to search persons in the situation where they have already observed illegal activity in plain sight. Currently, the whole process assumes that every individual is guilty and must be "authorized" by an agent of the United States Federal Government as innocent. In many states, dragnet style traffic stops have been ruled illegal, how is this any different.
In all reality the only solution to this problem is to have all gate security at airports performed by non-governmental agencies. So that means that they must be be employed by the airlines directly and not employed by the airports themselves, unless the airport is run as a for-profit organization that does not receive nor never has received any public money for construction or operation. In other words, the air ports hire the security agency. The US Government can provide guidelines, but cannot require that they be followed, nor can they compel any airport authority or air line to enforce the requirement in any particular manner, because that constitutes action by the government. Since air travel is private venture, the US Government has no say in it's operation under the commerce clause of the Constitution. In this case the security agents have the ability to perform any search they see fit, as long as they do not infringe upon an individuals civil liberty (for instance causing undue efforts to be made by some one in a protected class). But this is much better case, as it is and has always known to be easier to vote with one's wallet than at the ballot box, as a single dollar is worth more than any individual's vote.
So why hasn't the federal government been sued to abolish the TSA like so many other three-letter organizations formed the last socialist regime (I count Bush to be as much a socialist as our current president, as the current president has done nothing but extend Bush's policies).
So no I'm flagged. I for one welcome our fondling, pornographic overlords.
The "wide screen" monitors are cheaper to manufacture. A 4:3 screen has more total area that a 16:9 screen with the same diagonal measurement. Plus the 16:9 screen appears larger to the eye, because we (humans) think things appear larger when they are wide as opposed to when they are tall.
So the LCD manufactures get to make smaller screens, we think they are larger, everyone is happy.
Except those of us who really wanted more screen real estate to work with, and weren't concerned with watching movies on our computers, because we have televisions to do that.
I think a crack about objectivism vs. relativism. The relativist believes that reality is what ever experienced by the subject is "true" while the objectivist believes that "truth" can be determined outside the experience of a single subject. To follow up with the subset thing, the relativist believes just that that truth is a subset of reality, where as the objectivist believes that truth is an _equivalent_ subset of reality. So it could go something like this:
The relativistic journalist is told that the wizard boy creates software to subvert the "axis of evil." It is completely true, because the journalist has not experienced anything that would contradict this. He is unable to travel to Iran, and makes no attempt to determine otherwise, because no experience has led him to believe that the boy wizard is unreliable, he is a new encounter. In fact he must believe the word of the wizard, because the boy believes it to be true.
The objectivistic journalist is told that a young person has created software to subvert the "axis of evil." He then confirms the story by asking experts in the field unrelated to the young person or the technology, and even attempts to confirm with sources inside Iran.
It's boring to actually find out the objective truth, because you might either have to do a lot of work, or find out that something shiny is only plated instead of sterling.
Ahh here it is.
Sr. Web Developer position. This position requires experienced as a Websphere Portal Developer. The successful candidate must have an experienced background (2+ years) in developing portlets and working with Websphere Portal in a medium to large scale environment. Total development experience should be extensive in JAVA (7-12 years) focused in Application Development to include the following: Web Services, Database interaction, MVC (Model View Controller) methods. Should know RAD6/RAD7, WAS 5.x/6.x, Oracle 8i/9i/10g , SOA. Helpful: ESB, dot net, ISAPI filters, Webfocus, STRUTS, Stress testing and Automated Testing tool experience.
It was from 2008 instead of 2006, but that means the good applicant must have had Java experience 1996.
I was actually provided a job description in 2006 requiring 12+ years of Java experience. I wish I still had it in front of me. It was ridiculous, and presumably tuned to ensure the promotion of an internal resource.
Didn't the guy offer to give the passwords to the Mayor but not to his boss, by his bosses (or department's) own policy?
"Than other forms of in car driver distraction."
Best way to end a commentary video ever.