Coding isn't a high paying job, and isn't what the country needs. A community college course that teaches how to code in a particular language, rather than teaching systems development, pays about the same as flipping burgers and produces systems like TJ Maxx, Target, Home Depot, and healthcare.gov.
Teaching millions of people computer code is like teaching everyone medical codes - it doesn't do them any good, and it doesn't do the country any good.
Thanks for that quote. It doesn't surprise me that they have a lot of customers now, at $70/month. At $350 or $300 each month, that's a much tougher sell
TFS could be slightly misleading. DreamWorks, Industrial Light and Magic, and other major studios have been using Linux for a long time, along side MacMac and some Windows. It's not that they don't use Windows, they are multiplatform, where the person doing hair on a character may use a completely different software stack from the person doing the mouth.
>. You can have a crappy 1Mbit connection with mandatory anal rape from your friendly nice multinational corporation.
I've told you a few times now, we get gigabit for $70 / month. Most providers aren't Comcast. I'm not sure if you're the densest person to ever visit Slashdot, or if you're the contractor making millions on the muni deal. Or maybe you just ate too many mushrooms while reading your communist propaganda and now your brain is utterly fried.
You _could_ be sued for a car accident and they _could_ come after your personal assets, but I do believe that's rather rare if you have sufficient insurance. Where "sufficient" partly means "enough that your insurance company will have their lawyer spend time defending the claim".
> or at least a different password on each site you care about. For some sites is really doesn't matter if it gets hacked or not. The Gawker breach a few years back for example.. who would really give a stuff about having their Gawker password compromised.
Yeah, it's a very good idea to have your bank password be different from your reddit password. Also, most places let you reset your password by using your email address, so the email password is something of a "master key", it should be good.
A good password isn't a pass word, it's a pass phrase. Length matters above all else.
> Attackers can use precomputed tables made up of all sorts of phrases, letters, numbers etc > which will get a handle on even very secure passwords.
An eight-character password will be found using a rainbow table, if the service didn't salt their passwords. A twelve-character password won't be cracked. (Assuming the site didn't use DES, thereby truncating it to eight characters).
A rainbow table for 8-character passwords is about a terabyte. 9 character, about 64 TB. 10 character, about 4096 TB. 11 character about 262,144 TB 12 character, about 16,777,216 TB
So for the 12-character table, the bad guy will need MILLIONS of hard drives to store the rainbow table.
You can do that, if you're willing to lose everything when your momentary lapse of attention results in (or is claimed to result in) serious injury.
Aide form the whole "I don't want to lose everything I've saved", having at least collision insurance means that you don't have to fight with the other person's insurance company, and that has value. No matter who is at fault, you're not going to have to pay, so the other insurance company can't try to bully you or ignore your claim. Instead, your insurance company and theirs will typically take a few minutes to decide between professionals which one will pay the claims.
> I'm not aware of any municipality where ONLY the government is PERMITTED to run an ISP.
I can't name one off the top of my head that currently still has that law. I can say that when Chatanooga was charging $350 / month for their government run service, they had a strong incentive to keep out competitors offering a similar service for $100.
> if the politicians tried to make it difficult for them (and why would they? they can't legally profit from it)
Here are three reasons:
City council members spend much of their time dealing with the city budget. Anything which threatens a revenue stream makes their job much harder. Ie, any customers who get service from Frontier are not sending that money through Council's hands, where they can direct it according to their wishes.
If a politician, whom we shall call Bob, campaigns on the promise of delivering municipal internet, they spend gobs of your taxpayer money, then the project completely fails because nobody signs up (due to the $350/month price), that's very bad for Bob politically.
The way a politician avoids getting fired is by getting re-elected. They get re-elected largely based on campaign funding. Therefore, a primary concern is campaign funding. The guy they put in charge of the muni network contributes to their campaign, the contractors who operate the network contribute to their campaign - anybody who benefits from the politician's ISP project is probably contributing to their campaign. If the ISP project goes away, those campaign contributions go away. it would be illegal if the politician explicitly stated ahead of time "if you contribute to my campaign, I'll nominate you to run the ISP". Sometimes that happens. More often, politician puts his friend in charge of the enterprise, then later that same friend donates $5,000 to his campaign. Nothing illegal about that.
It may also be that the cultural reinforces the biological . Gay guys often ADOPT the higher pitched, softer voice which is characteristic of women and biologically feminine men ((who, like women, have high luteinizing hormone) in the same way that thugs adopt the thug way of speaking, as part of that culture.
I'd love to see that link, because the documentation I've seen says they had 34 subscribers at $350 each. That's $11,900/month in revenue, or $143,000 per year. I'm not sure how you pay off $250,000,000 in debt using $143,000 in revenue. The interest alone was more than their revenue.
I _think_ what you may be remembering is they calculated that y dropping it to $70/month, they projected that could get 30% of the market, which would allow them to keep up with their interest payments rather than continuing to be a drain on the taxpayer. I think that's the distinction - planning to keep up with the interest vs having the whole debt paid off.
This might be possible if Android were frozen in time, so Tizen could catch up. Unfortunately for Samsung, while they're developing something like Google Now, Google will be developing the next generation. It will be very hard to catch up while Android continues to move forward.
On the other hand, Samsung has huge market share. Of there is anything keeping people on Samsung, some hardware trick or something that only Samsung can offer, they might get enough Tizen users not because people want Tizen but because they want Samsung.
We agree there, many ad campaigns are rather scummy. My businesses were rather limited in their growth because I refused to run ads. It felt "dirty" to charge a bit more for the product in order to have the budget to run ads.
On the other hand, some of my customers pointed something out to me. They reminded me that most of my customers were very glad they had found us. Our product saves them money and aggravation. Therefore, it would be kind of scummy to keep it a secret. Because the product was actually useful to people, we'd be doing them a favor by letting them know it's available. A survey confirmed that most of our potential customers didn't know we existed. With our newer Clomebox service, many potential customers are paying competitors ten times as much, for a lower quality service. They'd save a lot of money if they saw a Clonebox ad. I kind of makes a knot in my stomach to even say that, but I know it's true.
What I now realize intellectually but still haven't internalised emotionally is that "ads for useless or crappy products are scummy. Ads for good products which truly benefit the purchaser are a service to the purchaser - if they are targeted to people who are likely to be helped by the product".
I suspect you may at first want to disagree with that last statement. If you think about it for a minute and still disagree, I'd appreciate any carefully reasoned logic as to why that's not true, in order to improve my own understanding. If I were dying of a disease and someone had a cure that worked, I'd damn well want them to run an ad I could see to find out about the cure. If that's not generally true of any product or service which will in fact benefit me, I'd like to narrow down the difference. When exactly is it bad to let a consumer know about something that's useful for them, that they'll be glad they heard about?
>.
The municipality had NO CHOICE but to give Comcast a franchise in exchange for network upgrade. I read the minutes in archives.
Can you by chance grab that link from your history? It seems odd that the council had NO CHOICE but to have Comcast pay them. You understand Comcast pays them for the privilege. It would also mark the first time I know of that Comcast was willing to pay for a territory that Frontier, CenturyLink, etc wouldn't build out for free.
>. . I have NO OBJECTION at all to multiple ISPs providing a competitive high-class service. It's great when they are available. Yet in most parts
Then I'm not sure why you jumped in this thread arguing vehemently against my request to know which major cities ban competitors. I'm also not sure why you remained after I carefully explained to you three times that I have no probl em with a city trying it, if that's what residents want, and if they don't ban good companies from competing with the city.
In Chattanooga, for example, the municipality originally charged $350 / month. When asked how they determined that rate, the chairman replied "because we can". No market studies, no break-even analysis, just screw over the citizens "because we can". That attitude combined with a ban on reasonably priced competitors isn't good for the citizen.
You're factually mistaken about "in most parts". The fact is, by far the majority of Americans live in areas with franchise laws barring competition, by a large margin. The areas where competition is allowed are a small minority. Some parts of metro Austin represent one of the few areas where competition is allowed, and there you have up to five companies to choose from, resulting in gigabit service for $70.
I'm not sure why you're struggling so hard to convince yourself you have to choose between the crap you have now and the kind of crap decisions we could expect from your lovely city council. Is gigabit for $70 really that bad that you have to fight so hard arguing against it? If you can't provide that link and it turns out you completely made up the bit about Frontier not being interested that's just something I can't understand. There is a way that works, really well, today. People in other cities don't have to put up with Comcast, or with a city network that's been contracted out Time Warner. Why you refuse to acknowledge that I just don't understand. Seems masochistic to me.
I'm not sure what undertakers have to with it, but I see I did understand you correctly. The CITY decided to force you to use Comcast, so you've decided the CITY is a bunch of geniuses who will do everything right, and you want the CITY to borrow money in your name so that the CITY can contract for a network to be built, just like they contracted for Comcast to provide service. You do realize the city doesn't make fiber optic cables, or routers, or even know how to terminate a fiber, right? They'll contract everything out to the campaign contributor^H^H^H^H^HH^H^H^H^H lowest bidder just like the contract they did with Comcast.
You STILL haven't explained to me why you think it should be illegal for a company with low prices and high customer satisfaction ratings to come give you the same great service my neighbors and I enjoy. We like our internet. Why should it be illegal for you to get the same great service we get? It's really not a complicated question.
I see you hate the fourth amendment, so you must be the one person on Slashdot who is loving the NSA right now. They're unconstitutionally snooping on gun owners, commies, and rabble rousers just like you wanted.
If you want faster, cheaper internet, show up to the next town hall meeting or whatever and ask why the city made it illegal for you to get service from Wave.
Wave offers much better service, and has good customer satisfaction ratings. Tell city council to let Wave expand to other parts of the city when the existing franchise agreements come up for renewal. Here's a map of the neighborhoods each is currently allowed to serve:
BTW, factoring in your position, as I currently understand it, here's what Oakland has now:
Unlike ie metro Austin, with five companies competing, the City of Oakland council decided to grant Comcast a monopoly, in exchange for Comcast paying them.
Comcast sucks, really bad.
You, an Oakland resident, are unhappy with the situation.
I know! Let's put the same people who CAUSED the problem (the city) in charge of building a new $200 million network, with money they take from you by force! That'll solve it for sure!
Within the city limits of Oakland, it is effectively illegal to compete with Comcast, because the city council granted Comcast a franchise. This city document discusses the fees that Comcast pays for exclusivity protection. http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet...
Outside the city limits, the Almeda County Franchise Authority sets the rules, negotiating fees (and campaign contributions) for exclusive franchises. Grande Communications isn't there building a state-of-the-art fiber network because they aren't allowed to. Do you think that's a good thing? Are you glad that Comcast is your only choice?
* in some areas, it's illegal for anyone but Comcast to run fiber or coax, but not technically illegal to offer internet service, if you can do it without running any fiber.
That's a method you're suggesting to get to some goal, a means to some end. You'd like to replace Democrats and Republicans with Communists and Green party candidates in order to __________. Fill in the blank.
Do you have a link to whatever source you're interpreting in that way? Their latest annual financial statement shows them as being $200 million in the hole, and that's after the Obama administration gave them $200 million in tax apayer money collected from other states.
Slashdot Mirror
Coding isn't a high paying job, and isn't what the country needs. A community college course that teaches how to code in a particular language, rather than teaching systems development, pays about the same as flipping burgers and produces systems like TJ Maxx, Target, Home Depot, and healthcare.gov.
Teaching millions of people computer code is like teaching everyone medical codes - it doesn't do them any good, and it doesn't do the country any good.
Fighter planes are designated F-xx ...
FM- means fighter, multi place
So Fighter, Ultralight must be
Thanks for that quote. It doesn't surprise me that they have a lot of customers now, at $70/month. At $350 or $300 each month, that's a much tougher sell
That should say:
It's not that they don't use LINUX, it's that they are multiplatform.
TFS could be slightly misleading. DreamWorks, Industrial Light and Magic, and other major studios have been using Linux for a long time, along side MacMac and some Windows. It's not that they don't use Windows, they are multiplatform, where the person doing hair on a character may use a completely different software stack from the person doing the mouth.
>. You can have a crappy 1Mbit connection with mandatory anal rape from your friendly nice multinational corporation.
I've told you a few times now, we get gigabit for $70 / month. Most providers aren't Comcast. I'm not sure if you're the densest person to ever visit Slashdot, or if you're the contractor making millions on the muni deal. Or maybe you just ate too many mushrooms while reading your communist propaganda and now your brain is utterly fried.
You _could_ be sued for a car accident and they _could_ come after your personal assets, but I do believe that's rather rare if you have sufficient insurance. Where "sufficient" partly means "enough that your insurance company will have their lawyer spend time defending the claim".
> or at least a different password on each site you care about. For some sites is really doesn't matter if it gets hacked or not. The Gawker breach a few years back for example.. who would really give a stuff about having their Gawker password compromised.
Yeah, it's a very good idea to have your bank password be different from your reddit password. Also, most places let you reset your password by using your email address, so the email password is something of a "master key", it should be good.
A good password isn't a pass word, it's a pass phrase. Length matters above all else.
> Attackers can use precomputed tables made up of all sorts of phrases, letters, numbers etc
> which will get a handle on even very secure passwords.
An eight-character password will be found using a rainbow table, if the service didn't salt their passwords. A twelve-character password won't be cracked. (Assuming the site didn't use DES, thereby truncating it to eight characters).
A rainbow table for 8-character passwords is about a terabyte.
9 character, about 64 TB.
10 character, about 4096 TB.
11 character about 262,144 TB
12 character, about 16,777,216 TB
So for the 12-character table, the bad guy will need MILLIONS of hard drives to store the rainbow table.
> 2) There are no data in the article regarding how frequently these passwords are used.
There are 448,232 passwords in my corpus right now. The top ones today are:
password frequency
| bobb17 | 5 |
| iceman69 | 5 |
| demon133 | 5 |
| robert8 | 5 |
| saintt9 | 5 |
| alpha123 | 5 |
| jordan | 3 |
| pass | 3 |
| 1234 | 3 |
$35,000 in the MINIMUM. You're still on the hook for ay amount above that the jury decides on.
You can do that, if you're willing to lose everything when your momentary lapse of attention results in (or is claimed to result in) serious injury.
Aide form the whole "I don't want to lose everything I've saved", having at least collision insurance means that you don't have to fight with the other person's insurance company, and that has value. No matter who is at fault, you're not going to have to pay, so the other insurance company can't try to bully you or ignore your claim. Instead, your insurance company and theirs will typically take a few minutes to decide between professionals which one will pay the claims.
> I'm not aware of any municipality where ONLY the government is PERMITTED to run an ISP.
I can't name one off the top of my head that currently still has that law. I can say that when Chatanooga was charging $350 / month for their government run service, they had a strong incentive to keep out competitors offering a similar service for $100.
> if the politicians tried to make it difficult for them (and why would they? they can't legally profit from it)
Here are three reasons:
City council members spend much of their time dealing with the city budget. Anything which threatens a revenue stream makes their job much harder. Ie, any customers who get service from Frontier are not sending that money through Council's hands, where they can direct it according to their wishes.
If a politician, whom we shall call Bob, campaigns on the promise of delivering municipal internet, they spend gobs of your taxpayer money, then the project completely fails because nobody signs up (due to the $350/month price), that's very bad for Bob politically.
The way a politician avoids getting fired is by getting re-elected. They get re-elected largely based on campaign funding. Therefore, a primary concern is campaign funding. The guy they put in charge of the muni network contributes to their campaign, the contractors who operate the network contribute to their campaign - anybody who benefits from the politician's ISP project is probably contributing to their campaign. If the ISP project goes away, those campaign contributions go away. it would be illegal if the politician explicitly stated ahead of time "if you contribute to my campaign, I'll nominate you to run the ISP". Sometimes that happens. More often, politician puts his friend in charge of the enterprise, then later that same friend donates $5,000 to his campaign. Nothing illegal about that.
That's an interesting chart, thanks.
It may also be that the cultural reinforces the biological . Gay guys often ADOPT the higher pitched, softer voice which is characteristic of women and biologically feminine men ((who, like women, have high luteinizing hormone) in the same way that thugs adopt the thug way of speaking, as part of that culture.
I'd love to see that link, because the documentation I've seen says they had 34 subscribers at $350 each. That's $11,900/month in revenue, or $143,000 per year. I'm not sure how you pay off $250,000,000 in debt using $143,000 in revenue. The interest alone was more than their revenue.
I _think_ what you may be remembering is they calculated that y dropping it to $70/month, they projected that could get 30% of the market, which would allow them to keep up with their interest payments rather than continuing to be a drain on the taxpayer. I think that's the distinction - planning to keep up with the interest vs having the whole debt paid off.
This might be possible if Android were frozen in time, so Tizen could catch up. Unfortunately for Samsung, while they're developing something like Google Now, Google will be developing the next generation. It will be very hard to catch up while Android continues to move forward.
On the other hand, Samsung has huge market share. Of there is anything keeping people on Samsung, some hardware trick or something that only Samsung can offer, they might get enough Tizen users not because people want Tizen but because they want Samsung.
We agree there, many ad campaigns are rather scummy. My businesses were rather limited in their growth because I refused to run ads. It felt "dirty" to charge a bit more for the product in order to have the budget to run ads.
On the other hand, some of my customers pointed something out to me. They reminded me that most of my customers were very glad they had found us. Our product saves them money and aggravation. Therefore, it would be kind of scummy to keep it a secret. Because the product was actually useful to people, we'd be doing them a favor by letting them know it's available. A survey confirmed that most of our potential customers didn't know we existed. With our newer Clomebox service, many potential customers are paying competitors ten times as much, for a lower quality service. They'd save a lot of money if they saw a Clonebox ad. I kind of makes a knot in my stomach to even say that, but I know it's true.
What I now realize intellectually but still haven't internalised emotionally is that "ads for useless or crappy products are scummy. Ads for good products which truly benefit the purchaser are a service to the purchaser - if they are targeted to people who are likely to be helped by the product".
I suspect you may at first want to disagree with that last statement. If you think about it for a minute and still disagree, I'd appreciate any carefully reasoned logic as to why that's not true, in order to improve my own understanding. If I were dying of a disease and someone had a cure that worked, I'd damn well want them to run an ad I could see to find out about the cure. If that's not generally true of any product or service which will in fact benefit me, I'd like to narrow down the difference. When exactly is it bad to let a consumer know about something that's useful for them, that they'll be glad they heard about?
>.
The municipality had NO CHOICE but to give Comcast a franchise in exchange for network upgrade. I read the minutes in archives.
Can you by chance grab that link from your history? It seems odd that the council had NO CHOICE but to have Comcast pay them. You understand Comcast pays them for the privilege. It would also mark the first time I know of that Comcast was willing to pay for a territory that Frontier, CenturyLink, etc wouldn't build out for free.
>. . I have NO OBJECTION at all to multiple ISPs providing a competitive high-class service. It's great when they are available. Yet in most parts
Then I'm not sure why you jumped in this thread arguing vehemently against my request to know which major cities ban competitors. I'm also not sure why you remained after I carefully explained to you three times that I have no probl em with a city trying it, if that's what residents want, and if they don't ban good companies from competing with the city.
In Chattanooga, for example, the municipality originally charged $350 / month. When asked how they determined that rate, the chairman replied "because we can". No market studies, no break-even analysis, just screw over the citizens "because we can". That attitude combined with a ban on reasonably priced competitors isn't good for the citizen.
You're factually mistaken about "in most parts". The fact is, by far the majority of Americans live in areas with franchise laws barring competition, by a large margin. The areas where competition is allowed are a small minority. Some parts of metro Austin represent one of the few areas where competition is allowed, and there you have up to five companies to choose from, resulting in gigabit service for $70.
I'm not sure why you're struggling so hard to convince yourself you have to choose between the crap you have now and the kind of crap decisions we could expect from your lovely city council. Is gigabit for $70 really that bad that you have to fight so hard arguing against it? If you can't provide that link and it turns out you completely made up the bit about Frontier not being interested that's just something I can't understand. There is a way that works, really well, today. People in other cities don't have to put up with Comcast, or with a city network that's been contracted out Time Warner. Why you refuse to acknowledge that I just don't understand. Seems masochistic to me.
I'm not sure what undertakers have to with it, but I see I did understand you correctly. The CITY decided to force you to use Comcast, so you've decided the CITY is a bunch of geniuses who will do everything right, and you want the CITY to borrow money in your name so that the CITY can contract for a network to be built, just like they contracted for Comcast to provide service. You do realize the city doesn't make fiber optic cables, or routers, or even know how to terminate a fiber, right? They'll contract everything out to the campaign contributor^H^H^H^H^HH^H^H^H^H lowest bidder just like the contract they did with Comcast.
You STILL haven't explained to me why you think it should be illegal for a company with low prices and high customer satisfaction ratings to come give you the same great service my neighbors and I enjoy. We like our internet. Why should it be illegal for you to get the same great service we get? It's really not a complicated question.
I see you hate the fourth amendment, so you must be the one person on Slashdot who is loving the NSA right now. They're unconstitutionally snooping on gun owners, commies, and rabble rousers just like you wanted.
Typo.
Voters like you making NOISE.
If you want faster, cheaper internet, show up to the next town hall meeting or whatever and ask why the city made it illegal for you to get service from Wave.
Wave offers much better service, and has good customer satisfaction ratings. Tell city council to let Wave expand to other parts of the city when the existing franchise agreements come up for renewal. Here's a map of the neighborhoods each is currently allowed to serve:
http://www.seattle.gov/cable/f...
Three things can change that map:
Wave paying more to the city coffers.
Wave making campaign contributions.
Voters like you making news.
If I were you I'd be posting all over my councilperson's Facebook page about a year before the current franchises expire.
BTW, factoring in your position, as I currently understand it, here's what Oakland has now:
Unlike ie metro Austin, with five companies competing, the City of Oakland council decided to grant Comcast a monopoly, in exchange for Comcast paying them.
Comcast sucks, really bad.
You, an Oakland resident, are unhappy with the situation.
I know! Let's put the same people who CAUSED the problem (the city) in charge of building a new $200 million network, with money they take from you by force! That'll solve it for sure!
Within the city limits of Oakland, it is effectively illegal to compete with Comcast, because the city council granted Comcast a franchise. This city document discusses the fees that Comcast pays for exclusivity protection.
http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet...
Outside the city limits, the Almeda County Franchise Authority sets the rules, negotiating fees (and campaign contributions) for exclusive franchises. Grande Communications isn't there building a state-of-the-art fiber network because they aren't allowed to. Do you think that's a good thing? Are you glad that Comcast is your only choice?
* in some areas, it's illegal for anyone but Comcast to run fiber or coax, but not technically illegal to offer internet service, if you can do it without running any fiber.
That's a method you're suggesting to get to some goal, a means to some end. You'd like to replace Democrats and Republicans with Communists and Green party candidates in order to __________. Fill in the blank.
Do you have a link to whatever source you're interpreting in that way? Their latest annual financial statement shows them as being $200 million in the hole, and that's after the Obama administration gave them $200 million in tax apayer money collected from other states.