Technology Infrastructure has a lifespan of about 10 years, Max.
However, the pathways needed last forever. You can pull new fiber down existing conduit, provided you put the conduit in place when you pulled it the first time.
Give me a budget for a small town (mine would work) where I could build out a COLO facility, and put in conduit and fiber to every home, and I'll show you how well it would work. I'll bet that I could have most houses wanting High Speed Internet at a fraction of the cost of Cable. I'll bet I have 5 to 10 providers clambering for customers, offering specials and deals just to get them signed up. I'll even bet there develops new services/products that I can't even imagine now, developed to lure customers.
And I will even bet there is at least one "Unlimited, Net Neutral" carrier that tries to succeed but ultimately fails because its prices are too high because there aren't enough geeks whining about Net Neutrality that are also willing to pay for what they are whining for. And I suspect that is why they don't like my idea, because "There ought to be a law" is much easier solution .
Please explain to me, how more laws fixing problems caused by existing laws is going to make things better, and not actually cause more problems than they solve?
My solution is simple, and would be VERY easy to implement on a small scale to show what it could do. Your solution proposes fixes for problems cause by government in the first place, in a "one size fits all" model that I can assure you doesn't fit ANYONE.
as well as preventing companies who create and sell media be the ones to control the access to said media.
Think about what you just said. You want to control the work of others, completely, via Legislation. Are you REALLY comfortable with that? Are you willing to let others decide what you can do with the fruits of YOUR labor simply because they don't like how you use/sell them? Because, that is exactly what you are proposing on others.
On the other hand, you're probably voting for Bernie, because he promised you other people's things.
Actually the problem is the last mile, not at the Federal Level. Quite frankly, everything that follows is a result of that CONTINUING business model of Franchise Agreements at the local level.
The solution is local. We have no need for the Congress to be involved at all. And quite frankly, if you trust EITHER party to do what is right you just haven't been paying attention.
The first thing you need to realize is.... laying cable or fiber, required for internet, is a natural monopoly.
So are roads. My suggestion is to treat them like roads. We don't let FEDEX have a franchise agreement and build roads that only they can use.
Preferably, the municipalities would just bring fibre to everyone, and access to communications would be like getting a Plain old Telephone or Electricity, or other utilities; then you could pick your ISP of choice, just like you call whoever you want on the Telephone.
This is exactly what I am proposing.
Everything else is subject to real competition. I don't want, we don't need government restricting commerce because of some myopic view. I've had to deal with legislatively created monopolies that lived LONG past their usefulness simply because they were legislated into being. TelCo LATA lines (Geographic Boundaries) that separated people who lived across the street (literally), simply to divide the monopolies up in a "fair" way
The problem with Legislating is that when the technology surpasses are original grasp, we're left with that legacy for a very long time afterwards. AND That is often worse than the situation that precipitated the need for it in the first place.
They desoldered the chip, cloned it, and cracked it, using brute force. From how fast it took to actually crack it, it probably wasn't that difficult once the chip was cloned. And this would hardly be a "hack" of the phone. It would require specific skills and direct access to the phone.
Physical access to the hardware has always been a security concern from the origins of computing.
Like you I read the bill and wonder why on earth the President would threaten to veto a bill which ensures that the Government can not mandate the rate people pay for service.
Let me shorten this for you
The President wants to mandate what people pay for a service.
While not being explicit about his socialistic tendencies, he keeps making implicit ones, enough to leave a paper trail. Of course the Bernouts will complain he isn't socialistic enough.
Unfortunately your idea the the fix for Government created problems is more government created problems. It is this myopic view that is really the fault of "there ought to be a law" crowd, that cannot fathom anything other than legislative solutions to legislatively created problems.
The problem starts and ends with the Last Mile. Fix the customer's inability to buy service from ONLY one company, and you'll solve the Net Neutrality problem once and for all, without the need of more legislation.
But, for simpletons "there ought to be a law" is much easier.
Net Neutrality is about pedantic nerds who want unlimited supply of limited bandwidth, while limiting private companies the right to manage their own infrastructure.
It has NOTHING to do with bits or bandwidth.
I have proposed in the pas a full and complete solution that negates the need for federal regulations on internet. It is relatively simple and doesn't really change anyone's business model. It isn't glamorous "Net Neutrality" legislation, it is a simple change in how the economics function.
Net Neutrality is a problem of the "last mile", the inability of the customer (you, me us) to SHOP for the service / price / quality of the products and services we wish to purchase. I know I have ONE option for High Speed data. That is government granted franchise agreement to the Cable Company.Government rules and regulations caused this mess, and everyone's idea of how to fix it is MORE government solutions.
Fix the last mile, make it COMMON for all (like roads) and bring all those connections back to a COLO where Businesses compete for the last mile customer. Where I, the customer, can choose between Comcast, Netflix Only Streaming, Google, and AT&T. It would free the customer, create new and innovative products and services, and create the competition that will negate the need for LEGISLATIVE rules and regulations, the same that caused this mess in the first place.
The problem is, we are so hell bent on doing things the way we always have done them (last mile franchise agreements) and applying legislative fixes, that we no longer are being creative on our solutions that would solve the problem in a very simplistic way.
There are very few movies I am willing to sit in a crowded theater for. My biggest complaint is the formulaic nature of most films these days.
I was watching a movie (at home) and said to my daughter "hey, I haven't seen the cat in a while", and the very next scene? The cat. We both laughed. However it emphasizes my point that the movie was so predictable that it was laughable.
Save your money, and watch Episode IV instead. Basically the same movie, with new players (and some old ones) and a few minor tweaks.
I'll bite. Take a look here: 18 U.S.C. 1924. Her Email server was not authorized location for said material. Those locations are specified.
See also 18 U.S.C. 798. and 50 U.S.C. 421. I would argue that having information meeting these U.S.C codes on her server as "disclosed" (the violation part) being maintained by someone who had all the keys and didn't have the clearance to have access to it. In addition, her lawyers (thumb Drive copy of emails) etc etc etc.
I understand how the law works, I asked you to read the document, which you didn't do, obviously. Again, Negligence is all that is needed to prove guilt. She was negligent.
So any improvements in muscle gain is merely placebo effect?
No, you are misrepresenting his point. He said "not good for you", which doesn't mean "does not get the desired effect" in this case muscle gain.
Have you seen natural body builders vs chemically enhanced body builders? They are not even close to being the same. No judgement here, just that if you want REAL muscle gains, they top out (naturally), to go beyond is not natural. And there are real health risks associated with those additional gains.
And if that is how you really feel, you should just drink Soylent, it is all your body needs!
Agency heads are required to establish procedures for receiving classified information in a manner that precludes unauthorized access, provides for detection of tampering and confirmation of contents, and ensures the timely acknowledgment of the receipt
I'm willing to sit here and have you explain how Hillary's private Email system was set up to follow the procedures she set up, or was supposed to setup.
Specifically
Section 2001.48 prescribes measures to be taken in the event of loss, possible compromise, or unauthorized disclosure. It states: “Any person w ho has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”
The problem is, that should COULDN'T have known because she didn't take the precautions needed, which is all that is required to prove negligence.
But what do I know, I'm just spewing Talking Points delivered by who knows who.
Intent has nothing to do with it, having access to it has nothing to do with it. NOT properly handling the information (containment) is everything.
But then again, you pay attemtion to the bits you care about, and ignore the bits that actually pertain the question at hand.
YES, she had rights to see, view, have access to that information. That was never in dispute. The where, when, why and how is. But keep on those talking points, the Low Information voters love it.
Having it on a unauthorized server is, by definition "negligent", given the nature of some of the information. Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Ignorance is also not an excuse.
But go ahead, and keep repeating talking points handed out by HRC and the rest of the DNC crew
So...did Clinton knowingly and deliberately violate the law?
That is not the criteria for enforcement of relevant laws. "Ignorance is no excuse before the law"
BUT besides that, she singed a NDA document outlining her DUTIES and responsibilities and under that NDA, she failed. Suffice it to say, if she didn't know, that makes her unqualified to be Secretary of State, as well as President.
1) She was not a CIA "operative". 2) If that is the category of releasing "classified" information then Hillary is going to jail forever 3) Libby didn't go to jail for releasing the name, nobody in fact did. He went to jail for lying during the investigation. 4) She was well known in DC as working for the CIA, it wasn't much of a secret.
This is one of those really good examples of two sets of rules in DC, one for (D) and one for (R) (and visa versa) where the rules are selectively applied, to those people who are "disliked" and excused when "liked" by the powers to be.
Which is, IMHO, why so many people are so fucking upset with the beltway insiders, that we're even considering Sanders and Trump. But if you're a diehard (D) or (R), you only see the other side as being evil, when the reality is that there is only one side.
Nick Memphis: And what side are you on?
Senator Charles F. Meachum: There are no sides. There's no Sunnis and Shiites. There's no Democrats and Republicans. There's only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS.
it does matter. She signed a NDA explaining her duties (shirked) in regards to this information. Coffee makers don't matter, sending beyond Top Secret information from a insecure server that didn't have authorization is completely different, and is the case being built.
Slashdot Mirror
Geeks can band together and build their own "neutrality" based service
Exactly how my solutions solves that problem. Customers choose the service from ANY number of providers, as they see fit. Best fit solution.
Exactly. My solution is initially hard, as you have to build the infrastructure right. But once that is done, everything becomes MUCH easier.
The Infrastructure can be built with Bonds and paid by property taxes, or taxes on service (when purchased) or both.
Technology Infrastructure has a lifespan of about 10 years, Max.
However, the pathways needed last forever. You can pull new fiber down existing conduit, provided you put the conduit in place when you pulled it the first time.
Give me a budget for a small town (mine would work) where I could build out a COLO facility, and put in conduit and fiber to every home, and I'll show you how well it would work. I'll bet that I could have most houses wanting High Speed Internet at a fraction of the cost of Cable. I'll bet I have 5 to 10 providers clambering for customers, offering specials and deals just to get them signed up. I'll even bet there develops new services/products that I can't even imagine now, developed to lure customers.
And I will even bet there is at least one "Unlimited, Net Neutral" carrier that tries to succeed but ultimately fails because its prices are too high because there aren't enough geeks whining about Net Neutrality that are also willing to pay for what they are whining for. And I suspect that is why they don't like my idea, because "There ought to be a law" is much easier solution .
Please explain to me, how more laws fixing problems caused by existing laws is going to make things better, and not actually cause more problems than they solve?
My solution is simple, and would be VERY easy to implement on a small scale to show what it could do. Your solution proposes fixes for problems cause by government in the first place, in a "one size fits all" model that I can assure you doesn't fit ANYONE.
as well as preventing companies who create and sell media be the ones to control the access to said media.
Think about what you just said. You want to control the work of others, completely, via Legislation. Are you REALLY comfortable with that? Are you willing to let others decide what you can do with the fruits of YOUR labor simply because they don't like how you use/sell them? Because, that is exactly what you are proposing on others.
On the other hand, you're probably voting for Bernie, because he promised you other people's things.
Municipal owned last mile to a COLO where you can buy service from anyone. Of course, you didn't actually read what I posted.
But by all means, keep promoting more government regulations to fix the problems government regulations caused, and expecting different results.
Actually the problem is the last mile, not at the Federal Level. Quite frankly, everything that follows is a result of that CONTINUING business model of Franchise Agreements at the local level.
The solution is local. We have no need for the Congress to be involved at all. And quite frankly, if you trust EITHER party to do what is right you just haven't been paying attention.
The first thing you need to realize is.... laying cable or fiber, required for internet, is a natural monopoly.
So are roads. My suggestion is to treat them like roads. We don't let FEDEX have a franchise agreement and build roads that only they can use.
Preferably, the municipalities would just bring fibre to everyone, and access to communications would be like getting a Plain old Telephone or Electricity, or other utilities; then you could pick your ISP of choice, just like you call whoever you want on the Telephone.
This is exactly what I am proposing.
Everything else is subject to real competition. I don't want, we don't need government restricting commerce because of some myopic view. I've had to deal with legislatively created monopolies that lived LONG past their usefulness simply because they were legislated into being. TelCo LATA lines (Geographic Boundaries) that separated people who lived across the street (literally), simply to divide the monopolies up in a "fair" way
The problem with Legislating is that when the technology surpasses are original grasp, we're left with that legacy for a very long time afterwards. AND That is often worse than the situation that precipitated the need for it in the first place.
But But But .... Global Warming Deniers need to be prosecuted!
They desoldered the chip, cloned it, and cracked it, using brute force. From how fast it took to actually crack it, it probably wasn't that difficult once the chip was cloned. And this would hardly be a "hack" of the phone. It would require specific skills and direct access to the phone.
Physical access to the hardware has always been a security concern from the origins of computing.
I'll simplify. It is "Group Politics"
I like my groups, and hate yours. You love your groups, and hate mine. My (X) party is better than your (Y) party.
And people think we've evolved beyond simple tribalism.
Like you I read the bill and wonder why on earth the President would threaten to veto a bill which ensures that the Government can not mandate the rate people pay for service.
Let me shorten this for you
The President wants to mandate what people pay for a service.
While not being explicit about his socialistic tendencies, he keeps making implicit ones, enough to leave a paper trail. Of course the Bernouts will complain he isn't socialistic enough.
Unfortunately your idea the the fix for Government created problems is more government created problems. It is this myopic view that is really the fault of "there ought to be a law" crowd, that cannot fathom anything other than legislative solutions to legislatively created problems.
The problem starts and ends with the Last Mile. Fix the customer's inability to buy service from ONLY one company, and you'll solve the Net Neutrality problem once and for all, without the need of more legislation.
But, for simpletons "there ought to be a law" is much easier.
Net Neutrality is about pedantic nerds who want unlimited supply of limited bandwidth, while limiting private companies the right to manage their own infrastructure.
It has NOTHING to do with bits or bandwidth.
I have proposed in the pas a full and complete solution that negates the need for federal regulations on internet. It is relatively simple and doesn't really change anyone's business model. It isn't glamorous "Net Neutrality" legislation, it is a simple change in how the economics function.
Net Neutrality is a problem of the "last mile", the inability of the customer (you, me us) to SHOP for the service / price / quality of the products and services we wish to purchase. I know I have ONE option for High Speed data. That is government granted franchise agreement to the Cable Company.Government rules and regulations caused this mess, and everyone's idea of how to fix it is MORE government solutions.
Fix the last mile, make it COMMON for all (like roads) and bring all those connections back to a COLO where Businesses compete for the last mile customer. Where I, the customer, can choose between Comcast, Netflix Only Streaming, Google, and AT&T. It would free the customer, create new and innovative products and services, and create the competition that will negate the need for LEGISLATIVE rules and regulations, the same that caused this mess in the first place.
The problem is, we are so hell bent on doing things the way we always have done them (last mile franchise agreements) and applying legislative fixes, that we no longer are being creative on our solutions that would solve the problem in a very simplistic way.
There are very few movies I am willing to sit in a crowded theater for. My biggest complaint is the formulaic nature of most films these days.
I was watching a movie (at home) and said to my daughter "hey, I haven't seen the cat in a while", and the very next scene? The cat. We both laughed. However it emphasizes my point that the movie was so predictable that it was laughable.
Save your money, and watch Episode IV instead. Basically the same movie, with new players (and some old ones) and a few minor tweaks.
I'll bite. Take a look here: 18 U.S.C. 1924. Her Email server was not authorized location for said material. Those locations are specified.
See also 18 U.S.C. 798. and 50 U.S.C. 421. I would argue that having information meeting these U.S.C codes on her server as "disclosed" (the violation part) being maintained by someone who had all the keys and didn't have the clearance to have access to it. In addition, her lawyers (thumb Drive copy of emails) etc etc etc.
I understand how the law works, I asked you to read the document, which you didn't do, obviously. Again, Negligence is all that is needed to prove guilt. She was negligent.
Thanks
So any improvements in muscle gain is merely placebo effect?
No, you are misrepresenting his point. He said "not good for you", which doesn't mean "does not get the desired effect" in this case muscle gain.
Have you seen natural body builders vs chemically enhanced body builders? They are not even close to being the same. No judgement here, just that if you want REAL muscle gains, they top out (naturally), to go beyond is not natural. And there are real health risks associated with those additional gains.
And if that is how you really feel, you should just drink Soylent, it is all your body needs!
I was pointing to the NDA linked in my previous comment. Section 3, first sentence ..."negligent handling".
I suggest this as a good read: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/se...
See page #7 (10 in the PDF)
Agency heads are required to establish procedures for receiving classified information in a manner that precludes unauthorized access, provides for detection of tampering and confirmation of contents, and ensures the timely acknowledgment of the receipt
I'm willing to sit here and have you explain how Hillary's private Email system was set up to follow the procedures she set up, or was supposed to setup.
Specifically
Section 2001.48 prescribes measures to be taken in the event of loss, possible compromise, or
unauthorized disclosure. It states: “Any person w
ho has knowledge that classified information has
been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s)
shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”
The problem is, that should COULDN'T have known because she didn't take the precautions needed, which is all that is required to prove negligence.
But what do I know, I'm just spewing Talking Points delivered by who knows who.
"Negligent handling" Section 3, first sentence.
Intent has nothing to do with it, having access to it has nothing to do with it. NOT properly handling the information (containment) is everything.
But then again, you pay attemtion to the bits you care about, and ignore the bits that actually pertain the question at hand.
YES, she had rights to see, view, have access to that information. That was never in dispute. The where, when, why and how is. But keep on those talking points, the Low Information voters love it.
"negligent handling" (Section 3, first sentence)
Having it on a unauthorized server is, by definition "negligent", given the nature of some of the information. Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Ignorance is also not an excuse.
But go ahead, and keep repeating talking points handed out by HRC and the rest of the DNC crew
So...did Clinton knowingly and deliberately violate the law?
That is not the criteria for enforcement of relevant laws. "Ignorance is no excuse before the law"
BUT besides that, she singed a NDA document outlining her DUTIES and responsibilities and under that NDA, she failed. Suffice it to say, if she didn't know, that makes her unqualified to be Secretary of State, as well as President.
Here it is, for your viewing pleasure http://freebeacon.com/wp-conte...
1) She was not a CIA "operative".
2) If that is the category of releasing "classified" information then Hillary is going to jail forever
3) Libby didn't go to jail for releasing the name, nobody in fact did. He went to jail for lying during the investigation.
4) She was well known in DC as working for the CIA, it wasn't much of a secret.
This is one of those really good examples of two sets of rules in DC, one for (D) and one for (R) (and visa versa) where the rules are selectively applied, to those people who are "disliked" and excused when "liked" by the powers to be.
Which is, IMHO, why so many people are so fucking upset with the beltway insiders, that we're even considering Sanders and Trump. But if you're a diehard (D) or (R), you only see the other side as being evil, when the reality is that there is only one side.
Nick Memphis: And what side are you on?
Senator Charles F. Meachum: There are no sides. There's no Sunnis and Shiites. There's no Democrats and Republicans. There's only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS.
Does it matter? I think so
it does matter. She signed a NDA explaining her duties (shirked) in regards to this information. Coffee makers don't matter, sending beyond Top Secret information from a insecure server that didn't have authorization is completely different, and is the case being built.
To support the parent, here is the relevant document; the NDA Hillary signed ..
http://freebeacon.com/wp-conte...
Enjoy.