There are MANY reasons to go over 15 gigabytes a month, that have absolutely nothing to do with consuming music or video created by someone else. MOST content on Youtube is created by independent creators who wouldn't be eligible to receive a dime from this fund; Content streamed on Netflix is Netflix's responsibility to license and pay for appropriately --- so what they "Don't want to share their numbers" --- if you think the compensation is unfair legally compel them to share their numbers.
Metering connections for copyright is ridiculously unfair treatment for technical users who download and seed Linux DVDs; or who continuously upload their security camera footage for offsite storage or use ccTVs with cloud monitoring; People who purchase digital downloads of software; People who download or share large buckets of random numbers or portions other multi-Terabyte datasets for security, medical, engineering, or scientific research purchases; People who are mirroring or archiving public FTP servers containing open source software or other content to their home computer or for offline storage for future use or reference without necessarily disseminating much of that content; Gamers who use Steam; People who use Cloud backup/storage solutions; Content creators who upload stuff they've created; People who run their own websites or discussion forums or immersive MMORPG or shared world systems, such as Minecraft server shared with friends from a broadband connection
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix.
Only because for the average consumer when you're downloading ANY bytes per month: you're likely streaming Spotify or watching Youtube videos or Netflix --- Spotify is not a huge bandwidth user, so you can be doing A HECK OF A LOT of streaming before hitting 15 GB.
The action house had no reasonable way of knowing and the item was as described
Nevertheless, the action house or seller would be responsible for any loss that happens to the item before the buyer takes possession of it. Bids in an auction aren't UNconditional: they're offers to buy based on the viewing of the item and representations made by the seller --- even if the seller agreed a certain bid one: if the item gets stolen by a robber running in and grabbing it from display or destroyed by a sudden natural disaster or other casualty before delivery is made to the buyer, then the buyer can say the item changed from what they agreed to buy, so they no longer agree to a sale --- and the seller or auction house best have some insurance policy to help repay them for the loss: which is whatever the lost sale is minus salvage value of what's left of the item (if anything).
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
If they turn out to be a rapist, then charge them. Once convicted, they will no longer be in office: regardless of which federal court they served on --- The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office..
My old PC consistently and repeatedly failed to correctly tell the time, despite using NTP to try and keep it accurate.
Some PCs have a broken or inaccurate Real-Time Clock, and if it was say a Linux server implementation, there is a good chance NTP was default configured to use the local RTC as one of its time sources; most systems have clocks that are a little bit fast or slow, and NTP If Correctly-configured attempts to discipline the local clock.
It's rare, but if the clock is just broken; it's going to eventually be off by long enough that a discrepancy will be apparent -- and the NTP service should just Panic out and shutdown the service after detecting the clock skew is too great, thus generating logging events that could be monitored and detected to show there's a fault.
I think he was implying something along the lines: If the police are not your friends (E.G. If you are a criminal), then the Tech companies that make your toys and gadgets you use won't be your friends, either. As in: they won't keep secret the information you disseminate through their cloud and 3rd party services in order to protect you from potential prosecution using your own information, And if the murderer had used the fitbit or other GPS device (Which was not actually what happened here), the GPS tracker could be used to show his presence near a scene of a crime at the time a crime occurred.
I think that's a given/tautology though: your data in 3rd party hands has long been exposed to law enforcement (It has been true since cases in the '90s and early 2000s that police can get customer info from 3rd parties without a warrant ---- Even your e-mail, depending on whether you have already opened the message or not). Don't knowingly commit crimes, and the data collected on you by your tech toys should help show your innocence, instead.
If the time happened to be wrong on one of the devices.... What are the chances that the times would still appear to line up with the time this guy came to visit, and the time he left?
By all means: they should study what the clock currently says on the video system AND the fitbit system and surveil over a period of time in their natural environment for any possible errors, But In the absence of any other possible suspect on the video surveillance over the days in question, this seems pretty damning.
there is a list of requirements and in that list is "Do A-Z with cost under what A-Z could reliably be done with, also do it all in a time scale that is either impossible or just unrealistic"
So he was almost right.... Require each of the project managers and supervisors who oversee the engineering, development, and maintenance, especially the budget, timelines, and requirements spec related to each product to spend one day a week manning the phones and doing 2nd tier support for the latest supported version of that product.
Anything labeled as a "bonus" is also taxed at a much higher rate.
There is no "bonus" tax; bonuses are subject to the same income tax as all other earned income, even the Social Security + Medicare taxes are the same (Unless the bonus just happens to be the payment that pushes an employee above the maximum tax base for SS that year).
Cities are shaking down carriers that put equipment on their streetlights, poles, etc. The FCC....
The point is that the control of these poles is the right of local government the FCC's role is to regulate radio, carriers, and telecom services: No authority to force local governments to make land, poles, and other facilities available for use by carriers at cheap economical rates. The FCC has absolutely zero authority to require a city to sign a lease or a contract or limit what can be negotiated and paid on a lease/contract to allow the use of some of their land or fixtures for small cells --- frankly, waiting until multiple carriers want to do small cells and auctioning choice locations to the highest bidder seems like it should benefit the cities most.
The FCC makes an extreme overreach trying to interfere with cities' property rights and the rights to charge whatever fees and taxes need to cover the related expenses, raise revenue, discourage waste of scarce public rights of way, and promote the aesthetics they want for their cities.
The FCC wants it to be $100 for applications and $270 per year. Some cities in Oregon charge $3,000.
Those applications will likely require more than $100 a piece just to review. That's what you call ridiculously one-sided against the public interest in favor of the carriers. How about $270/Year + 25% of the revenue generated by every subscriber connecting to that device.
$3000 to use a fixture in a crowded area is a reasonable price to pay in many cases; considering they are multi-billion$$$ carriers and will generate that much or more in revenue for using the location for a single month, just from the data plan fees cellular companies charge.
"[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders,"
The path of network traffic ought to be irrelevent. If you setup as a broadband provider Inside the state of California, then the transaction involving the purchase of Broadband service is between You and your customer who lives inside the state of California. The purchase of broadband services is an intrastate transaction, because you have to substantially exist within California to own or lease all the outside plant in California required to connect your customers.
Because this is an intrastate transaction: the state of California has the right to regulate the quality of the goods you are selling; regardless of any 3rd party interstate transactions required for you to supply the goods.
For example: The state can prohibit selling a product containing common additive X. This applies to all sellers with a presence in California selling goods to customers in California. As a Retailer or Service Provider it doesn't matter whether you buy the good from a local source or a wholesaler in-state --- you may be able to obtain the good through interstate commerce but be Disallowed from reselling the product in your local store: the interstate commerce transaction was separate, And the intrastate transaction must comply with the law.
The Intrastate transaction is a company owning or leasing the right to physical In-the-Ground Telecoms cabling or Wireless towers mounted on the ground in the state of California connecting to a local customer to Offer broadband service (A service that in order to deliver may require the provider have purchased a number of Wholesale products for re-sale from different providers In and Out-of-state, BUT the Advertising and Sale of Broadband service is still between a company operating in California and a Customer operating in California).
In the same way that California can charge a tax to UPS for originating the shipment of a package or prohibit UPS from discriminatorily refusing service to certain neighborhoods, despite the fact that UPS ships some packages out of state: If the Buyer of the service and UPS both have presence in the state, then there is an intrastate transaction subject to state authority involved.
It is true that network traffic may leave the state, and California's regulations are likely unable to make "End to End" guarantee across remote out-of-state suppliers of no throttling --- However, that was never what "Broadband Network Neutrality" promises. Broadband Network Neutrality is about regulation of that last mile: that connection between the Consumer and Internet peering: No unequal prioritization based on application or competing business interests to obstruct usage of the last mile network to which the provider has a monopoly, for example: by prioritizing a partner, blocking or throttling access to a competitor, competing service, or unliked application or website, for censorship, to solicit a payment, or artificially make one service have poorer quality from the network.
California can require that a company in their state build in-state broadband networks that do not throttle traffic while it is in that state and make all reasonable accommodation to ensure they deliver an ultimate product to the local consumer that has a certain quality (fairness)
It is nevertheless still a force, transmitted by (hypothetical) gravitons.
Um. In General Relativity: Gravity is not a force that acts upon object to affect its motion, and "gravitons" are not invoked. So long as you are working within this model: gravity is not a force.
"Gravitons" exist in a different theoretical model that tries to provide a QM explanation for gravity, but: QM has not been successfully integrated with other physical models that describe properties such as the motion --- the physics of small particles exists in its own silo, and has many concepts/terms that are different in implied meaning or don't exist in other models - for example, in QM you can talk about a "superposition" on the state of certain particles -- but that doesn't work for physical bodies such as a rock or a planet: every planet is in exactly one place -- you wouldn't say at any given time this planet is at both point A and point B simultaneously with a 50% chance of being observed at each.... but with some small particles you could say exactly that.
TDE has been disproven. I don't know why you think it worked in the 90's?
It hasn't been disproven, but.... it's fair to say that some aspects are overoptimistic.
No one is taxing corporations to death.... and imagines that taxes are far more of a burden than they are.
Actually... taxes are extremely burdensome on a huge segment of businesses: Small Businesses.
On the other hand, they are also unfairly applied.
Large corporations pay disproportionately less taxes --- and it isn't because the law says larger corporations pay less: It's because large corporations are more facile to apply strategic accounting and growth techniques to essentially reduce/eliminate much of their tax liability --- techniques such as Offshoring HQ to a low tax jurisdiction while still servicing customers and using resources in higher tax jurisdictions, techniques such as using IP Licensing and other arrangements to artificially transfer earnings to their branch in a country that pays little taxes, And the wealthy due it too..... having billions in the bank and little on paper. And the culminating result of all such trickery is that tax liability gets shifted onto smaller and less profitable taxpayers, such as small businesses and less-wealthy individuals that can't really see that they can afford the extra teams of accountants and other costs necessary to implement tax avoidance schemes.
The fortune cookie I got was: "The clothes have no emperor. -- C.A.R. Hoare, commenting on ADA."
The Dark Matter adherents are afraid of being left with no clothes; the idea that there is all this invisible unseeable matter taking up most of the universe cannot be tested, but QI and this light engine concept will either work or it won't, making it testable.
their attempt to explain existing unexplained phenomena by disproving existing proven physical laws will become a giant boondoggle
That's not how any of this works; and never should we be concerned about science that will challenge laws --- disproving or challenging physical laws are the mark of advancement in the basic science.... physical laws are very well known to work and ultimately won't be "destroyed" making a boondoggle, but the explanation of a physical law can change, and corrections can be required for some situations. For example, General Relativity fundamentally changed our view of what Gravity is (Curvature of space-time, not a force), and opened up a huge world we were missing before; technically by invalidating Newton's Laws of motion in the process.
But despite that, Newton's Laws are frequently used; work fine in the vast majority of situations, and we understand where they don't, and which physical model to use instead when they don't.
You are correct.... pseudoscience in this case is a pejorative --- they're calling it pseudo to try and make people think of it like Astrology or Tarot Reading pseudoscience, Not because it isn't science, not because it can't be tested --- not because those theorizing it don't intend for it to be tested, but simply because they're in the group of physicists who has some groupthink, satisfied in what their theories look like so far, and they think this relatively new theory must be wrong --- the physicists are proud of this thing they've contrived that would no longer be necessary.
Against claims that he is theorizing about pseudoscience, McCulloch argues that it is the physicists invoking dark matter who “have been on the slide into pseudoscience for decades” and that “the only reason the dark matterist haven’t noticed is they are all happily going down together, so self-correction has become impossible.” He points to 17 papers in which he uses QI to make accurate predictions without the need for constant adjustment that are often found in theories of dark matter.
This law will not stand even the simplest of court tests.
It might never get to that point... how many PUBLICLY Traded companies are actually incorporated in California, rather than a more favorable location? Probably not many....
Those that are already incorporated can simply move their state of incorporation if they want. Also, if their ByLaws and current organizational Charter specifying the numbers of people for their board, term, and election procedures, are compliant with the current law and shareholder choices; a new law cannot force them to go back and modify it, because not even a state can retroactively nullify or retroactively make illegal the existing contracts, agreements, etc.
But the male garbage collectors should get paid 10% more because they can lift heavier trash cans.
No... the men will report for annual strength measurements, and a series of handicaps (weights and encumberments they must wear at all times while on the job) will be installed designed to reduce their ability to lift to be the same as the average female.
You're being ridiculous there with the hair splitting. 1.3 Billion devices, more than 96% of which are iPads and iPhones, about 4% of which are Macs, almost all of which are affected by the outcome of the Safari deal with Google --- sure a couple million Chinese devices may be an exception.
So what.... 1.0 billion affected devices versus 1.3 billion.
Google's paying at most approximately $10 per user for a default setting that most users will probably use for the lifetime of the device.
On the other hand, Frankly: MANY of these users are Google users before they are Apple users, and they WANT and EXPECT the default search to be a Google search for effective search results, not a search on a substandard service such as Excite, Yahoo, Jeeves, InfoSeek, Bing, etc. Perhaps Google should be charging Apple a licensing fee of about $20 per device for the privilege of using their search engine with a built-in addressbar lookup feature on iOS.
An iPhone will stay in use for about 5 years
Wtf you smoking? I've been using my same iPhone for 8 years. Even when people are done with it, they may sell their old one used, and other people buy used.
so let's assume that half of those 216 million devices is still using Safari
Apple is not paying Google for NEW iPhones.... The charge is for essentially All iOS Users. Even if its only 216 million phones for 5 years; Your assumption leads to = 216 million phones/year X 5 years is still more than 1 Billion phones, and the number of new phones sold every year has been more than the number of old phones that are replaced or stop being used every year throughout the life of the product ----- the number of devices is already more than 1 Billion and not decreasing.
There are laws that require telecommunications companies to allow law enforcement wiretaps with a warrant
The law is CALEA, and it requires Telecom companies when requested to technically Facilitate wiretapping communications flowing through the Telecom by providing lawful intercept access.
If a messaging application provider such as Facebook is delivered a warrant for information, then they have to comply, BUT there's no law where Facebook can be ordered by a warrant to modify their systems to facilitate a wiretap ---- Facebook is not required to have or provide access to systems to technically facilitate a wiretap like a Telecom provider would be required to do: it would be totally legal for Facebook to have a non-wiretappable application and CALEA doesn't require them to modify it to help law enforcement.
I thought it was already understood that in 10-20 years it would likely be a Beowulf cluster of 100,000 Raspberry Pis Version 8 with this much processing power in an On-Board GPU?
The potential crooks and the people they might try to sell the stolen unit off to don't know that though. Finally; If nothing else, there's probably some scrap value for the electronic components.
Nifty Idea, and I see it as the future, but unless you have the ideal yard type, wouldn't really be useful.
I wonder how well it would work on a yard with terrain (bunch of sunken areas; some slanted areas; places with exposed roots of large trees; not flat) and MANY trees, bushes, and shrubs planted in the middle of the yard all over the place.... also, front yard, two side yards, and back yards, all of significant size with a bunch of garden beds, much larger than the yard you would find that comes with the average city home.
In the 21st century accute appendicitis is seen as a medical emergency to be addressed in 24 hours or less, and if it becomes ruptured there is a very high fatality rate --- even though you might survive, it's possible to easily die -- if the appendix ruptures. A colon cleanse takes time, and by the time substantial symptoms emerge --- it is probably already way too late to start a colon cleanse that takes days and have this be a "safe" treatment.
Perhaps how "early" the symptoms are detected is also a factor in whether Antibiotics are a suitable treatment --- severe pain = probably hospitalization is still required, and if the antibiotics don't start working very quickly, surgery will still be required.
Today doctors are against those therapies because they claim it can lead to a perforated colon.
Is there evidence that those therapies lead to a perforated colon or have higher risks or lower effectiveness, or is it really that those therapies are simpler and can be administered with less doctor involvement? Studies like this that surgical removal may be unnecessary in many cases make me wonder, yet it was practiced anyways, why?
Was it because surgery was seen as a faster, more technologically innovative solution with a better chance of working and fewer potential downsides and risks?
Can surgery still be logically justified over antibiotics in some way, because of some advantage; higher chance that the problem is solved once and for all, other issues if it's not removed?
In the past removal was justified saying the Appendix seemingly has no natural function, but what if we were wrong and the Appendix does serve a purpose important to health?
Slashdot Mirror
There are MANY reasons to go over 15 gigabytes a month, that have absolutely nothing to do with consuming music or video created by someone else. MOST content on Youtube is created by independent creators who wouldn't be eligible to receive a dime from this fund; Content streamed on Netflix is Netflix's responsibility to license and pay for appropriately --- so what they "Don't want to share their numbers" --- if you think the compensation is unfair legally compel them to share their numbers.
Metering connections for copyright is ridiculously unfair treatment for technical users who download and seed Linux DVDs; or who continuously upload their security camera footage for offsite storage or use ccTVs with cloud monitoring; People who purchase digital downloads of software; People who download or share large buckets of random numbers or portions other multi-Terabyte datasets for security, medical, engineering, or scientific research purchases; People who are mirroring or archiving public FTP servers containing open source software or other content to their home computer or for offline storage for future use or reference without necessarily disseminating much of that content; Gamers who use Steam; People who use Cloud backup/storage solutions; Content creators who upload stuff they've created; People who run their own websites or discussion forums or immersive MMORPG or shared world systems, such as Minecraft server shared with friends from a broadband connection
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix.
Only because for the average consumer when you're downloading ANY bytes per month: you're likely streaming Spotify or watching Youtube videos or Netflix --- Spotify is not a huge bandwidth user, so you can be doing A HECK OF A LOT of streaming before hitting 15 GB.
The action house had no reasonable way of knowing and the item was as described
Nevertheless, the action house or seller would be responsible for any loss that happens to the item before the buyer takes possession of it. Bids in an auction aren't UNconditional: they're offers to buy based on the viewing of the item and representations made by the seller --- even if the seller agreed a certain bid one: if the item gets stolen by a robber running in and grabbing it from display or destroyed by a sudden natural disaster or other casualty before delivery is made to the buyer, then the buyer can say the item changed from what they agreed to buy, so they no longer agree to a sale --- and the seller or auction house best have some insurance policy to help repay them for the loss: which is whatever the lost sale is minus salvage value of what's left of the item (if anything).
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
If they turn out to be a rapist, then charge them. Once convicted, they will no longer be in office: regardless of which
federal court they served on --- The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office..
My old PC consistently and repeatedly failed to correctly tell the time, despite using NTP to try and keep it accurate.
Some PCs have a broken or inaccurate Real-Time Clock, and if it was say a Linux server implementation, there is a good chance NTP was default configured to use the local RTC as one of its time sources; most systems have clocks that are a little bit fast or slow, and NTP If Correctly-configured attempts to discipline the local clock.
It's rare, but if the clock is just broken; it's going to eventually be off by long enough that a discrepancy will be apparent -- and the NTP service should just Panic out and shutdown the service after detecting the clock skew is too great, thus generating logging events that could be monitored and detected to show there's a fault.
I don't really see what the problem here is.
I think he was implying something along the lines: If the police are not your friends (E.G. If you are a criminal), then the Tech companies that make your toys and gadgets you use won't be your friends, either. As in: they won't keep secret the information you disseminate through their cloud and 3rd party services in order to protect you from potential prosecution using your own information, And if the murderer had used the fitbit or other GPS device (Which was not actually what happened here), the GPS tracker could be used to show his presence near a scene of a crime at the time a crime occurred.
I think that's a given/tautology though: your data in 3rd party hands has long been exposed to law enforcement (It has been true since cases in the '90s and early 2000s that police can get customer info from 3rd parties without a warrant ---- Even your e-mail, depending on whether you have already opened the message or not). Don't knowingly commit crimes, and the data collected on you by your tech toys should help show your innocence, instead.
If the time happened to be wrong on one of the devices.... What are the chances that the times would still appear to line up with the time this guy came to visit, and the time he left?
By all means: they should study what the clock currently says on the video system AND the fitbit system and surveil over a period of time in their natural environment for any possible errors, But In the absence of any other possible suspect on the video surveillance over the days in question, this seems pretty damning.
there is a list of requirements and in that list is "Do A-Z with cost under what A-Z could reliably be done with, also do it all in a time scale that is either impossible or just unrealistic"
So he was almost right.... Require each of the project managers and supervisors who oversee the engineering, development, and maintenance, especially the budget, timelines, and requirements spec related to each product to spend one day a week manning the phones and doing 2nd tier support for the latest supported version of that product.
Anything labeled as a "bonus" is also taxed at a much higher rate.
There is no "bonus" tax; bonuses are subject to the same income tax as all other earned income,
even the Social Security + Medicare taxes are the same (Unless the bonus just happens to be the payment that
pushes an employee above the maximum tax base for SS that year).
Cities are shaking down carriers that put equipment on their streetlights, poles, etc. The FCC ....
The point is that the control of these poles is the right of local government the FCC's role is to regulate radio, carriers, and telecom services: No authority to force local governments to make land, poles, and other facilities available for use by carriers at cheap economical rates. The FCC has absolutely zero authority to require a city to sign a lease or a contract or limit what can be negotiated and paid on a lease/contract to allow the use of some of their land or fixtures for small cells --- frankly, waiting until multiple carriers want to do small cells and auctioning choice locations to the highest bidder seems like it should benefit the cities most.
The FCC makes an extreme overreach trying to interfere with cities' property rights and the rights to charge whatever fees and taxes need to cover the related expenses, raise revenue, discourage waste of scarce public rights of way, and promote the aesthetics they want for their cities.
The FCC wants it to be $100 for applications and $270 per year. Some cities in Oregon charge $3,000.
Those applications will likely require more than $100 a piece just to review. That's what you call ridiculously one-sided against the public interest in favor of the carriers.
How about $270/Year + 25% of the revenue generated by every subscriber connecting to that device.
$3000 to use a fixture in a crowded area is a reasonable price to pay in many cases; considering they are multi-billion$$$ carriers and will generate that much or more in revenue for using the location for a single month, just from the data plan fees cellular companies charge.
"[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders,"
The path of network traffic ought to be irrelevent. If you setup as a broadband provider Inside the state of California, then
the transaction involving the purchase of Broadband service is between You and your customer who lives inside the state of California. The
purchase of broadband services is an intrastate transaction, because you have to substantially exist within California to own or lease all the
outside plant in California required to connect your customers.
Because this is an intrastate transaction: the state of California has the right to regulate the quality of the goods you are selling;
regardless of any 3rd party interstate transactions required for you to supply the goods.
For example: The state can prohibit selling a product containing common additive X.
This applies to all sellers with a presence in California selling goods to customers in California.
As a Retailer or Service Provider it doesn't matter whether you buy the good from a local source or a wholesaler in-state
--- you may be able to obtain the good through interstate commerce but be Disallowed from reselling the product in your local store:
the interstate commerce transaction was separate, And the intrastate transaction must comply with the law.
The Intrastate transaction is a company owning or leasing the right to physical In-the-Ground Telecoms cabling or Wireless towers
mounted on the ground in the state of California connecting to a local customer to Offer broadband service (A service that in order
to deliver may require the provider have purchased a number of Wholesale products for re-sale from different providers In and Out-of-state,
BUT the Advertising and Sale of Broadband service is still between a company operating in California and a Customer operating in California).
In the same way that California can charge a tax to UPS for originating the shipment of a package or prohibit UPS from discriminatorily refusing service to
certain neighborhoods, despite the fact that UPS ships some packages out of state: If the Buyer of the service and UPS both have presence in the state, then there is an intrastate transaction subject to state authority involved.
It is true that network traffic may leave the state, and California's regulations are likely unable to make "End to End" guarantee across remote out-of-state
suppliers of no throttling ---
However, that was never what "Broadband Network Neutrality" promises. Broadband Network Neutrality is about regulation of that last mile:
that connection between the Consumer and Internet peering: No unequal prioritization based on application or competing business interests to obstruct usage of the last mile network to which the provider has a monopoly, for example: by prioritizing a partner, blocking or throttling access to a competitor, competing service, or unliked application or website, for censorship, to solicit a payment, or artificially make one service have poorer quality from the network.
California can require that a company in their state build in-state broadband networks that do not throttle traffic while it is in that state and make all reasonable accommodation to ensure they deliver an ultimate product to the local consumer that has a certain quality (fairness)
It is nevertheless still a force, transmitted by (hypothetical) gravitons.
Um. In General Relativity: Gravity is not a force that acts upon object to affect its motion,
and "gravitons" are not invoked. So long as you are working within this model: gravity is
not a force.
"Gravitons" exist in a different theoretical model that tries to provide a QM explanation for gravity,
but: QM has not been successfully integrated with other physical models that describe
properties such as the motion --- the physics of small particles exists in its own silo,
and has many concepts/terms that are different in implied meaning or don't exist in other
models - for example, in QM you can talk about a "superposition" on the state of certain particles --
but that doesn't work for physical bodies such as a rock or a planet: every planet is in exactly one place --
you wouldn't say at any given time this planet is at both point A and point B simultaneously with a 50% chance of being observed at each....
but with some small particles you could say exactly that.
TDE has been disproven. I don't know why you think it worked in the 90's?
It hasn't been disproven, but.... it's fair to say that some aspects are overoptimistic.
No one is taxing corporations to death. ... and imagines that taxes are far more of a burden than they are.
Actually... taxes are extremely burdensome on a huge segment of businesses: Small Businesses.
On the other hand, they are also unfairly applied.
Large corporations pay disproportionately less taxes --- and it isn't because the law says larger corporations pay less: It's because
large corporations are more facile to apply strategic accounting and growth techniques to essentially reduce/eliminate much of their tax liability
--- techniques such as Offshoring HQ to a low tax jurisdiction while still servicing customers and using resources in higher tax jurisdictions,
techniques such as using IP Licensing and other arrangements to artificially transfer earnings to their branch in a country that pays little taxes,
And the wealthy due it too..... having billions in the bank and little on paper.
And the culminating result of all such trickery is that tax liability gets shifted onto smaller and less profitable taxpayers, such as small businesses and
less-wealthy individuals that can't really see that they can afford the extra teams of accountants and other costs necessary to implement tax avoidance schemes.
The fortune cookie I got was: "The clothes have no emperor. -- C.A.R. Hoare, commenting on ADA."
The Dark Matter adherents are afraid of being left with no clothes; the idea that there is all this invisible unseeable matter taking up most of the universe cannot be tested, but QI and this light engine concept will either work or it won't, making it testable.
their attempt to explain existing unexplained phenomena by disproving existing proven physical laws will become a giant boondoggle
That's not how any of this works; and never should we be concerned about science that will challenge laws ---
disproving or challenging physical laws are the mark of advancement in the basic science.... physical laws are very well known to work and ultimately won't be "destroyed"
making a boondoggle, but the explanation of a physical law can change, and corrections can be required
for some situations. For example, General Relativity fundamentally changed our view of what Gravity is
(Curvature of space-time, not a force), and opened up a
huge world we were missing before; technically by invalidating Newton's Laws of motion in the process.
But despite that, Newton's Laws are frequently used; work fine in the vast majority of situations, and we
understand where they don't, and which physical model to use instead when they don't.
You are correct.... pseudoscience in this case is a pejorative --- they're calling it pseudo to try and make people think of it like Astrology or Tarot Reading pseudoscience, Not because it isn't science, not because it can't be tested --- not because those theorizing it don't intend for it to be tested, but simply because they're in the group of physicists who has some groupthink, satisfied in what their theories look like so far, and they think this relatively new theory must be wrong --- the physicists are proud of this thing they've contrived that would no longer be necessary.
The article says it all:
This law will not stand even the simplest of court tests.
It might never get to that point... how many PUBLICLY Traded companies are actually incorporated in California,
rather than a more favorable location? Probably not many....
Those that are already incorporated can simply move their state of incorporation if they want.
Also, if their ByLaws and current organizational Charter specifying the numbers of people for their board,
term, and election procedures, are compliant with the current law and shareholder choices; a new law cannot force them to
go back and modify it, because not even a state can retroactively nullify or retroactively make illegal the existing contracts, agreements, etc.
But the male garbage collectors should get paid 10% more because they can lift heavier trash cans.
No... the men will report for annual strength measurements, and a series of handicaps (weights and encumberments they must wear at all times while on the job) will be installed designed to reduce their ability to lift to be the same as the average female.
active devices =\= iphones.
You're being ridiculous there with the hair splitting. 1.3 Billion devices, more than 96% of which are iPads and iPhones, about 4% of which are Macs, almost all of which are affected by the outcome of the Safari deal with Google --- sure a couple million Chinese devices may be an exception.
So what.... 1.0 billion affected devices versus 1.3 billion.
Google's paying at most approximately $10 per user for a default setting that most users will probably use for the lifetime of the device.
On the other hand, Frankly: MANY of these users are Google users before they are Apple users, and they WANT and EXPECT the default search to be a Google search for effective search results, not a search on a substandard service such as Excite, Yahoo, Jeeves, InfoSeek, Bing, etc.
Perhaps Google should be charging Apple a licensing fee of about $20 per device for the privilege of using their search engine with a built-in addressbar lookup feature on iOS.
An iPhone will stay in use for about 5 years
Wtf you smoking? I've been using my same iPhone for 8 years.
Even when people are done with it, they may sell their old one used, and other people buy used.
so let's assume that half of those 216 million devices is still using Safari
Apple is not paying Google for NEW iPhones.... The charge is for essentially All iOS Users. Even if its only 216 million phones for 5 years; Your assumption leads to = 216 million phones/year X 5 years is still more than 1 Billion phones, and the number of new phones sold every year has been more than the number of old phones that are replaced or stop being used every year throughout the life of the product ----- the number of devices is already more than 1 Billion and not decreasing.
There are laws that require telecommunications companies to allow law enforcement wiretaps with a warrant
The law is CALEA, and it requires Telecom companies when requested to technically Facilitate wiretapping communications flowing through the Telecom by providing lawful intercept access.
If a messaging application provider such as Facebook is delivered a warrant for information, then they have to comply, BUT there's no law where Facebook can be ordered by a warrant to modify their systems to facilitate a wiretap ---- Facebook is not required to have or provide access to systems to technically facilitate a wiretap like a Telecom provider would be required to do: it would be totally legal for Facebook to have a non-wiretappable application and CALEA doesn't require them to modify it to help law enforcement.
I thought it was already understood that in 10-20 years it would likely be a Beowulf cluster of 100,000 Raspberry Pis Version 8 with this much processing power in an On-Board GPU?
The potential crooks and the people they might try to sell the stolen unit off to don't know that though.
Finally; If nothing else, there's probably some scrap value for the electronic components.
Nifty Idea, and I see it as the future, but unless you have the ideal yard type, wouldn't really be useful.
I wonder how well it would work on a yard with terrain (bunch of sunken areas; some slanted areas; places with exposed roots of large trees; not flat) and MANY trees, bushes, and shrubs planted in the middle of the yard all over the place.... also, front yard, two side yards, and back yards, all of significant size with a bunch of garden beds, much larger than the yard you would find that comes with the average city home.
In the 21st century accute appendicitis is seen as a medical emergency to be addressed in 24 hours or less, and if it becomes ruptured there is a very high fatality rate --- even though you might survive, it's possible to easily die -- if the appendix ruptures. A colon cleanse takes time, and by the time substantial symptoms emerge --- it is probably already way too late to start a colon cleanse that takes days and have this be a "safe" treatment.
Perhaps how "early" the symptoms are detected is also a factor in whether Antibiotics are a suitable treatment --- severe pain = probably hospitalization is still required, and if the antibiotics don't start working very quickly, surgery will still be required.
Today doctors are against those therapies because they claim it can lead to a perforated colon.
Is there evidence that those therapies lead to a perforated colon or have higher risks or lower effectiveness, or is it really that those therapies are simpler and can be administered with less doctor involvement?
Studies like this that surgical removal may be unnecessary in many cases make me wonder, yet it was practiced anyways, why?
Was it because surgery was seen as a faster, more technologically innovative solution with
a better chance of working and fewer potential downsides and risks?
Can surgery still be logically justified over antibiotics in some way, because of some advantage; higher chance that the problem is solved once and for all, other issues if it's not removed?
In the past removal was justified saying the Appendix seemingly has no natural function, but what if we were wrong and the Appendix does serve a purpose important to health?