The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced. You have the right to speak, but that doesn't mean that anyone must listen to what you have to say.
I've got a Synology box running Plex server and fire TVs running the Plex client on every TV in the house.
My wife and kids have adapted to watching whatever they want, whenever they want - on any device they please.
The networks, cable companies, and set-top box providers are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. By the time my kids become teenagers the boat will already have sunk.
Good riddance to all of the middlemen. The internet should link content creators directly to the consumers.
He developed some self-driving technology and Elon offered him a job with a bonus if they developed technology independent of MobileEye. Elon has wanted to part ways with them for a while.
The accident gives him the excuse he needs.
Elon likes to do as much as possible in-house. You see that in both Tesla and SpaceX.
As a libertarian, I refuse to put the cost of those suicides on everyone else.
If a person wants to end their life, it is their life to do as they please. Gun-owners are not responsible for the actions of suicidal folks any more than they are responsible for the slow suicide that is smoking, drinking, and eating to excess.
A friend recently showed me 20 acres of land in Texas for $8000.00. Sure there are no utilities and it is in the middle of nowhere, but it's cheap.
Through your own sweat, you could build a little house and live off the grid and off of the land.
I realize that the cost of that "freedom" from my corporate bosses would require lots of sweat equity.
My corporate job provides me with benefits, paid time off, and a relatively stable life. I willingly trade some freedom for those benefits - absolutely no one is forcing me to take that deal.
Where the brainwashing has occured is on the Democratic side. Every year Democrats convince more people that more things are "rights" and therefore the people are entitled to those goods and services - without having earned them.
The people forced to provide those goods and services for those that haven't earned them are the real slaves.
These backbone providers transit data across their networks to other networks. It is not possible for them to know the security status of the devices sending or receiving that data.
To enable such detection, the entire structure of the internet would need to be redesigned to support that detection.
Could a backbone provider simply block encrypted data that government can't decrypt? Possibly, but that requires that the internet provider decrypt that data in real time and block any other encrypted data.
The biggest problem with all of these strategies is that you can simply nest your encrypted data inside a government approved data packet. You can decrypt the outer container only to find the contents are still encrypted and beyond your reach.
Outlawing encryption entirely is like asking math to become undiscovered. It simply isn't possible to control.
"Locked down" devices are hacked to allow unauthorized software all the time. But for argument's sake - lets assume a hardware provider does succeed in making unhackable hardware.
A law prohibiting internet connectivity would require that criminals obey the law - let me give away the ending to that story: Criminals will break the law.
Forcing such a prohibition via technical means would require re-engineering the entire internet - all the way down the OSI stack to the physical layer. Re-engineering internet, being the global network of networks that it is, would require the cooperation of every single government and every single network operator on the planet.
That is an unlikely set of circumstances for sure.
John Chen is a bit like gun prohibitionists. It doesn't matter if government requires manufacturers to install back doors. Eventually someone will develop encryption software without a back door - and government will still not have a key.
Outlawing guns or encryption guarantees that only outlaws will possess those things.
Apple is smart enough to realize this. They understand that throwing their users under the bus now will not make us safer later.
If you are truly a free human being - it is your right to consume any substances you like. If someone wants to be an addict and they hurt no one else in the process, what right does anyone have to force that person into rehab or treatment?
It's a slippery slope - first we force addicts to become clean - next we force fat people to go to the gym.
It is far better to leave people, who are not harming others, alone.
Our remote users already have some sort of remote connectivity - hence the term "remote" user.
If your organization is bigger than one location, it doesn't really matter where your applications and data are hosted. Someone isn't going to be in the same building as your server farm and will need to access those applications and data remotely.
Does Gartner only consider a computer running windows a PC?
Our company is increasingly getting work done in the cloud. A web browser is all most of our employees really need. The nature of office work is changing - and is increasingly less-reliant on windows to get that work done.
Bad test results were already causing Theranos's partners to head for the door. This was a fraud that would not have continued even without government intervention.
Eventually Theranos would have had no customers for their defective product.
Markets work just fine. Doctors started to figure out pretty early on that Theranos's test results were not aligning with standard testing and practice.
As far as investors that lost their shirts - that's part of the risk of speculation. No government can take away investment risk. Just ask anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff.
Two months ago we decided to put service on our daughter's old iPhone. Verizon wouldn't simply let me add a $15/month line to our shared pool of data - they said my plan was "too old". Instead they wanted me to switch to a new plan, which would have raised my monthly total cost by $35/month.
Instead I moved my mom, wife, sister and daughter all to TMobile. We are spending $30/month less with an added phone and more data to boot. Binge-on is also nice since daughter and wife use youtube and Pandora quite a lot.
The coverage isn't quite as good as Verizon - but it is good enough.
Monopolies can exist with and without government. The land leading to your house is a limited resource. There can only be so many roads, pipes, and wires leading to your house.
Those physical limitations lead to "natural" monopolies. Part of Government's role is to limit the damage that can be cause by natural monopolies.
For example, roads are mostly owned and operated by governments, yet many governments bid contracts in the free market to construct and maintain those roads.
Our "collective arrangement" exists solely to protect individual liberty.
The founders of this country wrote the constitution to establish a government that protects us from other nations and each other - and that's all government should do.
Individuals should be free to do as they please, so long as they do not cause harm to others.
Release early and often simply does not work in the real world with physical goods that have warranties and other assorted legal obligations.
I salute the software industry for writing EULAs that absolve the manufacturers of any responsibility for defects - that was an amazing coup - and resulted in software products sucking terribly.
Applying these types of practices to stuff like cars is going to get these companies sued - as Tesla is now figuring out.
That said, I am not canceling my Model 3 reservation. I'm a tech guy and I'm willing to live with bugs to get something really interesting. Time will tell if the general public is willing to make such accommodations.
Essentially, we gave $200 Billion to the telecoms in exchange for fiber connectivity to every residence and business in America. The telecoms took the $200 Billion and gave us - nothing.
Guess who signed the Telecommunications Act? Yep, Hillary's husband - Bill Clinton.
Why should we believe that Clinton 45 will be any better at tech policy than Clinton 42?
The fact that we IT professionals have not come up with a universal replacement for passwords is the IT industry's biggest failure in my lifetime.
Security professionals cannot simply demand that business stops when security policies are not met. IT security and policies should support the mission of the organization - not the other way around.
Tax deductions or "offsets" as you call them are written into law by lawmakers - just as the initial taxes are.
Your definition of "acceptable fee" must also include those deductions.
We as a society through our representatives have decided that those tax deductions encourage certain behaviors - that is the reason for their existence.
Why should we penalize those with a drug-test for taking lawful tax deductions? Those people taking those deductions have already fulfilled their obligations by performing certain qualifying activities and paying the balance of their tax bill.
These types of policies very much come from "liberal" mindsets - "Sticking it to the man" as such. I hear very few conservatives or libertarians advocating for more wealth distribution - and I certainly know of none calling for drug tests on people that take mortgage and investment deductions.
Generally people with property support conservatives and libertarians, people with less property generally support liberals.
I understand liberal philosophy very well - and I do not agree with much of it.
Slashdot Mirror
you have no right to compel anyone to listen.
The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced. You have the right to speak, but that doesn't mean that anyone must listen to what you have to say.
I've got a Synology box running Plex server and fire TVs running the Plex client on every TV in the house.
My wife and kids have adapted to watching whatever they want, whenever they want - on any device they please.
The networks, cable companies, and set-top box providers are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. By the time my kids become teenagers the boat will already have sunk.
Good riddance to all of the middlemen. The internet should link content creators directly to the consumers.
Remember George Hotz?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6...
He developed some self-driving technology and Elon offered him a job with a bonus if they developed technology independent of MobileEye. Elon has wanted to part ways with them for a while.
The accident gives him the excuse he needs.
Elon likes to do as much as possible in-house. You see that in both Tesla and SpaceX.
About half of all our gun deaths are suicides.
As a libertarian, I refuse to put the cost of those suicides on everyone else.
If a person wants to end their life, it is their life to do as they please. Gun-owners are not responsible for the actions of suicidal folks any more than they are responsible for the slow suicide that is smoking, drinking, and eating to excess.
Per capita statistics are almost entirely bullshit. Germany is lots smaller than the US and has far less diversity.
Put lots more people of differing socio economic backgrounds together and you will get "friction".
Pull out our top 10 most violent cities and we fall way down the list on gun violence.
Take a look at this video if you doubt me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A friend recently showed me 20 acres of land in Texas for $8000.00. Sure there are no utilities and it is in the middle of nowhere, but it's cheap.
Through your own sweat, you could build a little house and live off the grid and off of the land.
I realize that the cost of that "freedom" from my corporate bosses would require lots of sweat equity.
My corporate job provides me with benefits, paid time off, and a relatively stable life. I willingly trade some freedom for those benefits - absolutely no one is forcing me to take that deal.
Where the brainwashing has occured is on the Democratic side. Every year Democrats convince more people that more things are "rights" and therefore the people are entitled to those goods and services - without having earned them.
The people forced to provide those goods and services for those that haven't earned them are the real slaves.
These backbone providers transit data across their networks to other networks. It is not possible for them to know the security status of the devices sending or receiving that data.
To enable such detection, the entire structure of the internet would need to be redesigned to support that detection.
Could a backbone provider simply block encrypted data that government can't decrypt? Possibly, but that requires that the internet provider decrypt that data in real time and block any other encrypted data.
The biggest problem with all of these strategies is that you can simply nest your encrypted data inside a government approved data packet. You can decrypt the outer container only to find the contents are still encrypted and beyond your reach.
Outlawing encryption entirely is like asking math to become undiscovered. It simply isn't possible to control.
"Locked down" devices are hacked to allow unauthorized software all the time. But for argument's sake - lets assume a hardware provider does succeed in making unhackable hardware.
A law prohibiting internet connectivity would require that criminals obey the law - let me give away the ending to that story: Criminals will break the law.
Forcing such a prohibition via technical means would require re-engineering the entire internet - all the way down the OSI stack to the physical layer. Re-engineering internet, being the global network of networks that it is, would require the cooperation of every single government and every single network operator on the planet.
That is an unlikely set of circumstances for sure.
John Chen is a bit like gun prohibitionists. It doesn't matter if government requires manufacturers to install back doors. Eventually someone will develop encryption software without a back door - and government will still not have a key.
Outlawing guns or encryption guarantees that only outlaws will possess those things.
Apple is smart enough to realize this. They understand that throwing their users under the bus now will not make us safer later.
But there aren't many old, fat guys.
If you are truly a free human being - it is your right to consume any substances you like. If someone wants to be an addict and they hurt no one else in the process, what right does anyone have to force that person into rehab or treatment?
It's a slippery slope - first we force addicts to become clean - next we force fat people to go to the gym.
It is far better to leave people, who are not harming others, alone.
Our remote users already have some sort of remote connectivity - hence the term "remote" user.
If your organization is bigger than one location, it doesn't really matter where your applications and data are hosted. Someone isn't going to be in the same building as your server farm and will need to access those applications and data remotely.
"The estimates differ because Gartner does not count Chromebooks as part of its figures"
Does Gartner only consider a computer running windows a PC?
Our company is increasingly getting work done in the cloud. A web browser is all most of our employees really need. The nature of office work is changing - and is increasingly less-reliant on windows to get that work done.
Bad test results were already causing Theranos's partners to head for the door. This was a fraud that would not have continued even without government intervention.
Eventually Theranos would have had no customers for their defective product.
Markets work just fine. Doctors started to figure out pretty early on that Theranos's test results were not aligning with standard testing and practice.
As far as investors that lost their shirts - that's part of the risk of speculation. No government can take away investment risk. Just ask anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff.
Two months ago we decided to put service on our daughter's old iPhone. Verizon wouldn't simply let me add a $15/month line to our shared pool of data - they said my plan was "too old". Instead they wanted me to switch to a new plan, which would have raised my monthly total cost by $35/month.
Instead I moved my mom, wife, sister and daughter all to TMobile. We are spending $30/month less with an added phone and more data to boot. Binge-on is also nice since daughter and wife use youtube and Pandora quite a lot.
The coverage isn't quite as good as Verizon - but it is good enough.
Monopolies can exist with and without government. The land leading to your house is a limited resource. There can only be so many roads, pipes, and wires leading to your house.
Those physical limitations lead to "natural" monopolies. Part of Government's role is to limit the damage that can be cause by natural monopolies.
For example, roads are mostly owned and operated by governments, yet many governments bid contracts in the free market to construct and maintain those roads.
It's an imperfect system for an imperfect world.
You don't have the right to be a slob when those actions impose a cost on your neighbor.
Government protecting us from each other squares with libertarianism just fine.
Our "collective arrangement" exists solely to protect individual liberty.
The founders of this country wrote the constitution to establish a government that protects us from other nations and each other - and that's all government should do.
Individuals should be free to do as they please, so long as they do not cause harm to others.
Release early and often simply does not work in the real world with physical goods that have warranties and other assorted legal obligations.
I salute the software industry for writing EULAs that absolve the manufacturers of any responsibility for defects - that was an amazing coup - and resulted in software products sucking terribly.
Applying these types of practices to stuff like cars is going to get these companies sued - as Tesla is now figuring out.
That said, I am not canceling my Model 3 reservation. I'm a tech guy and I'm willing to live with bugs to get something really interesting. Time will tell if the general public is willing to make such accommodations.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 enabled the biggest telecom theft of public dollars in history:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu...
Essentially, we gave $200 Billion to the telecoms in exchange for fiber connectivity to every residence and business in America. The telecoms took the $200 Billion and gave us - nothing.
Guess who signed the Telecommunications Act? Yep, Hillary's husband - Bill Clinton.
Why should we believe that Clinton 45 will be any better at tech policy than Clinton 42?
The fact that we IT professionals have not come up with a universal replacement for passwords is the IT industry's biggest failure in my lifetime.
Security professionals cannot simply demand that business stops when security policies are not met. IT security and policies should support the mission of the organization - not the other way around.
I was a Network Manager for a small community bank. You should NEVER give any entity the authority to perform ACH withdrawals from your bank accounts.
It is far better to setup all your bill pay payees as "push" rather than "pull". This gives you control over every dime that leaves your account.
The job market is exactly that - a market that sets wages.
Rare, highly sought skills command high salaries. Driving a car is not one of those skills.
No one should expect a person driving people around in a car to make $100k a year. That's crazy.
If people willingly want to work for Uber at those wages - what's the issue?
Tax deductions or "offsets" as you call them are written into law by lawmakers - just as the initial taxes are.
Your definition of "acceptable fee" must also include those deductions.
We as a society through our representatives have decided that those tax deductions encourage certain behaviors - that is the reason for their existence.
Why should we penalize those with a drug-test for taking lawful tax deductions? Those people taking those deductions have already fulfilled their obligations by performing certain qualifying activities and paying the balance of their tax bill.
These types of policies very much come from "liberal" mindsets - "Sticking it to the man" as such. I hear very few conservatives or libertarians advocating for more wealth distribution - and I certainly know of none calling for drug tests on people that take mortgage and investment deductions.
Generally people with property support conservatives and libertarians, people with less property generally support liberals.
I understand liberal philosophy very well - and I do not agree with much of it.