The article lists places that prohibit cities from competing with Comcast. I asked for a list of places that prohibit ANYONE from competing with Comcast, because Wave and CenturyLink do a good job. I said it's silly to pretend that the choice is between Comcast or politicians. You and others started arguing with me. Maybe you forgot to read my post before arguing with it?,
Satellites aren't actually a new thing. NBC, CBS, and ABC have been using them for decades "to provide a commodity they already make money on... allowing them to use that commodity to make even more money."
You might also remember the big satellite TV dishes from the 1980s, and Dish Network, etc.
Suddenlink provides good service and has happy customers. Explain why it should be illegal for them to offer their better service to people who currently suffer Comcast. Take your time, I'll wait.
I didn't say it should be illegal for politicians to run ISPs. I said it's silly to think that ONLY politicians can run ISPs.
Suddenlink provides good service and has happy customers. Explain why it should be illegal to offer their better service to people who currently suffer Comcast.
I didn't say it should be illegal for politicians to run ISPs. I said it's silly to think that ONLY politicians can run ISPs.
As mentioned in the story you linked to, they had AAA in 2013. Two months after that story, they were downgraded due to the excessive debt load for the municipal fiber, which isn't fiscally sound.
>. . I see no reason that can't work for internet connections as well.
That is an interesting point. I'm not sure about all of the reasons one has often worked well and the hasn't. Perhaps having a board of volunteer citizens deploying a brand new $200 million technology project is different from having them oversee the maintaince of 100-year-old power lines in many ways. If a private company, such as the Edison Company, had already built a high-speed fiber network like they did the power network, and that network only needed to be maintained rather than constantly upgraded we might see more similar results .
I had a typo. When we CAN'T do a better job than the private companies we compete with, we partner with them.
If the entire model seems completely foreign, consider state colleges and universities, who compete with private colleges to attract students. We're the same. We're a government agency just like the University of California is, and we compete just like UC competes with private universities.
>. State governments ban local governments from creating broadband networks at the request of telecom monopolies and you stand on a pulpit and preach about government non-interference. They are interfering by granting these monopolies in the first place!
We're in agreement there, 100%. Governments shouldn't grant monopolies to their donors. Where we see things differently is that perhaps you've never heard of Suddenlink or any of the two hundred other cable companies that aren't Comcast and Time Warner. Suddenlink just upgraded everyone to 50-100Mbps at no additional charge. Suddenlink gave me their technical manager's cell phone number when the customer service agent realized I knew more than he did. There is no evidence that only the corrupt politicians can run an ISP. In fact, we see that Suddenlink does it quite well, and their customers are happy. Google fiber has many happy customers, some getting the service for free*. So to make it illegal for Suddenlink to come in and offer better service than Comcast, at a lower price, is stupid. Not stupid for the politicians - Comcast is paying for their campaigns. Stupid for voters who support such nonsense.
If a city wants to getting into the ISP business, fine. Chances are, it fails and they sell the fiber to Google, after the taxpayers lose their ass on it. That's fine if they want to try, though. What they shouldn't do is make it illegal for Suddenlink to offer better service than the cirlty, at half the price the city charges.
I work for a government agency that competes directly with private companies. We offer some of the best programs in the world, and have world-renowned staff because if we didn't do a damn good job the private companies who do would get our customers. When we can beat the private competition, we partner with them to offer services customized for the needs of of local citizens and our other customers. The "other customers" pay our bills, local citizens get our services for free - without even funding us through tax dollars.
That's true, my cable company, Suddenlink, is delivering high speeds with coax for the last mile. They are spending a billion dollars* or something to upgrade their network to make that happen. At the same time, a competitor can spend the same billion dollars to build fiber, or to build their own high-speed coax. The old, soggy coax that Comcast already has can't provide those speeds, so they have to do new build just like the new competitor does, partially erasing Comcast's advantage from being there first.
* I don't remember if it's a billion dollars, two billion, or $250 million. The point is, they have to put in NEW coax plant and that's expensive, they can't just use the old.
Yes this post is slightly simplistic, not going into fine details, but the point stands - over builders are doing much better lately by providing next-generation networks rather than matching the incumbents' investment in old networks.
I should mention that politicians are probably better at passing laws than ISPs are. Each type of organization has it's own structure and it's own specialty. The city council promotes fairness and deliberativeness by taking holding two public hearings and taking six months to weigh a decision. That's good since they are passing laws.
The company that builds new fiber networks makes decisions much quicker, and that's good because we want the whole city built out in a year or two, not ten or twenty years. So it's not that private companies are BETTER than political bodies, they're just designed to do different things. Here are some references. You can recognize easily find 80 more like them.
Memphis Networx was sold at a loss of over $27 million Burlington, Vermont lost $17 million in taxpayer dollars Mooresville and Davidson losing $8 million each year Utopia $200 million debt is four times their other municipal debt, for all other infrastructure Chattanooga lost their credit rating did to overwhelming debt from their government broadband attempt
Again, this isn't because government is BAD. It's because US government is designed to be fair, transparent, inclusive, and deliberative, not fast or efficient. To get a huge fiber network rolled out across an entire city in just a couple of years, and do it without spending $10,000 per customer, you need a fast and efficient organization. US governments aren't fast and efficient because they shouldn't be - they should be deliberative, transparent, and equitable.
I suspect that once you divide them into two categories, "high testerone" and "low testosterone", the individuals in those groups would exactly match "male" and "female". Depending on luck, you might have one Barbara Hudson who is closer to the middle, but still ends up in the same group anyway.
I mention it only because unlike studies, in real life we can recognize that Mike Tyson is probably going to have more exaggerated "male" characteristics than Chrisley. Still, I bet Hilary Clinton has more estrogen than most men, even though she has half as much as Katy Perry.
It seems to me the article addresses less than half the problem. In many cities and counties, one cable has been granted a legal franchise - effectively a government-enforced monopoly outlawing other companies providing better service to compete. Because right now providers are needing to build out fiber networks anyway, overbuilders who compete with incumbents have done quite well, where they are allowed to do so. That say this is because they are going into areas where Comcast or Time Warner has an existing COAX network. The new competitor builds a FIBER network. Comcast doesn't have a huge advantage since they also have to build their own fiber network to compete.
The article assumes without evidence that politicians would do a better job of running an ISP than processionals can. Looking at the actual results from city projects vs private over builders suggests the opposite - frequently after cities make a huge mess of the project hiring the mayor's brother-in-law to build it at 250% of the going rate, they end up selling the half-completed network to an experienced company who finishes the job and provides good service.
Can we get a list of states or major cities that allow private competition? I know some parts of the Austin metro area have four or five companies competing, and you can get good service at a great price.
I _think_ Barbara's point wasn't about the eating, but about which problem we address. Suppose a stereotypical woman accidentally eats the cake - she wasn't listening or whatever. It's discovered and you "confront" her. She'll address the problem - the fact that you're mad. That's the main problem that she sees, the offense caused. She'll apologize, offset it by doing something else nice, etc - never once thinking to go get a another piece of cake.
An hour later, she'll ask how you're feeling about the event. The man will reply "I feel hungry, because you ate my damn cake.".:)
The guy is more likely to identify the problem as the fact that the cake is now gone, and forget to address the offense he caused.
This might be a somewhat silly example. Where I think it has practical application is when a friend is telling you about a problem they are having. A woman most wants to vent, a friend should listen. Her male friend's first instinct may be to help her SOLVE the problem. She may you to listen to her problem and perhaps her feelings about it. When a male friend is telling you about a problem, it means they want to borrow your trailer, which will solve the problem.
Obviously this is a big generalization, but there is significant truth in it.
When there is a conflict, it's sometimes effective to first give someone with high estrogen a chance to understand both sides' viewpoints and work out a mutually agreeable solution. If that ddoesdoesn't work because the other side is being aggressive, it's often someone with more testerone who is best suited to put their foot down, to say "no, we're not doing that" and stay firm even if it hurts someone's feelings.
Once more, I'm speaking in terms of averages. There are also empathic men and coarse women. Vanzant could probably kick Chrisley's ass.
It could very well be that females average better during the group portion of tasks, the part that requires a lot of communication and empathy; then when everyone goes back to their desks men average better at _____. I know in my own life women tend to be more interested in having in-depth conversations and understanding each other, on average. Mean tend to be more interested in gadgets and how they work. Again, I'm speaking of averages - individuals vary considerably.
Physically, men tend to do better at tasks involving short bursts of strength like dead lifting, while women tend to have more stamina. It's not unlikely that females mind tend to be better at understanding another person's point of view, while men might be better at disregarding the feelings of a bill collector and hanging up on them or interrupting, not allowing the collector to go off an tangents not appropriate to the issue at hand. That seems to be true from my experience - women generally aren't as comfortable being "rude" . When there is a conflict, it's sometimes effective to first give someone with high estrogen a chance to understand bo
I see a company stepped up to do it. Google decided it wasn't what they wanted to spend their time on, but they were willing to accept it if someone else found it useful enough to do do it. Benjamin said his company will do it, so it should happen. https://code.google.com/p/chro...
>. They don't share with other agencies, just like it used to be. Whatever they know is untouchable by politicians, courts, anyone;
Definitely this is a good start. That's how it was before 9/11 and that was good. The NSA was only concerned about national security issues, and since they weren't allowed to send information to the FBI the data was only* used for national security. Yes, that made it harder to protect against something like 9/11, but it _helped_ protect privacy and freedom, so it was worth it.
* I'm sure they illegally shared information once or twice, but that's better than the FBI having wholesale access to citizens' data as we have now.
You make some good points, except I think you're confusing "rooting" a device which the OEM locked you out vs what an OEM would do to provide root access. Google DOES provide su, which is the file you use to provide root. OEMs could ship phone with su included. They could get it from the Google code URL below.
What's tricky and risky on some devices, but not others, is getting access to install su if the OEM has not provided it. In other words, su (root) is just like the hotspot feature or any other system-level feature. OEMs can include the standard code to allow it, or they can leave that out of their copy.
There is a video you might interesting called How a Bill Becomes a Law. Under the USUS Constitution, the chairman of the FCC doesn't write law, and the president doesn't write law. The Congress does that. The President's role is, in the words of his sworn oath, to "faithfully execute the law". Here "execute" doesn't mean kill, though you might get that impression from watching Obama.
That's an interesting thought. I imagine Google would have two responses to that. First, an Android user can install applications, set security policies such as requiring a PIN or pattern lock, encrypt the data storage - mostly the same things a Windows administrator can do. To say, completely wipe the disk and install a different OS, one does that via the bootloader, not in the OS. That can be done on many (most?) Android devices and is outside of Google's control anyway.
Secondly, contrary to your claims, device manufacturers could include sudo in their ROMs if they wanted to. Cyanogenmod AMD others include root; there's nothing stopping Samsung from doing the same with their mods. That's Samsung's decision.
Lastly, they could point out that for the relatively small percentage of users technically knowledgeable enough to modify the OS without breaking it, there are in fact simple ways for them to enable such access. For the majority of users, who don't knsow what "root" is, enabling it by default would reduce the security and reliability of the device. It would make it less good for the vast majority of consumers.
Other than the GUI, OS X is Darwin is open source
on
Why Run Linux On Macs?
·
· Score: 1
Most of OS X is open source, with the overall OS being called Darwin in the open source version. Quartz is not open source. Different people have different opinions on how they feel about that.
That's a good question. I don't think many of the tools and ROMs have been analyzed for security by qualified people. As someone else mentioned, http://forum.xda-developers.co... is the most popular source. You'd hope that if there were major issues with the tools used there someone would notice.
You can extract a rooted ROM and compare the contents to the stock ROM.
Might have done that, but OSX is Unix, runs FOSS s
on
Why Run Linux On Macs?
·
· Score: 1
Whenever I get new hardware I think about putting Linux on it. With my Macs, I found that OSX is already Unix (certified Unix TM). The bash shell is exactly the same and I can run all my favorite FOSS software on OSX, so for day-to-day use there's no significant advantage to Linux, at least not on my new hardware. I know the system-level stuff like snapshots better in Linux, but OSX comes with all that stuff working nicely out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
The article lists places that prohibit cities from competing with Comcast. I asked for a list of places that prohibit ANYONE from competing with Comcast, because Wave and CenturyLink do a good job. I said it's silly to pretend that the choice is between Comcast or politicians. You and others started arguing with me. Maybe you forgot to read my post before arguing with it?,
>. Seriously. The only thing Google really does is sell advertising; everything else they do can be seen as a means to that end,
Yep. Just like TV, which has been delivered via satellite since the 1980s. And radio. They make their money from ads.
Also like newspapers and magazines - subscriptions only pay for the paper they are printed on. The reporters, editors, etc are all paid for via ads.
Over 90% of all web sites too.
Enjoy your smoke signals.
Satellites aren't actually a new thing. NBC, CBS, and ABC have been using them for decades "to provide a commodity they already make money on ... allowing them to use that commodity to make even more money."
You might also remember the big satellite TV dishes from the 1980s, and Dish Network, etc.
Suddenlink provides good service and has happy customers. Explain why it should be illegal for them to offer their better service to people who currently suffer Comcast. Take your time, I'll wait.
I didn't say it should be illegal for politicians to run ISPs. I said it's silly to think that ONLY politicians can run ISPs.
Suddenlink provides good service and has happy customers. Explain why it should be illegal to offer their better service to people who currently suffer Comcast.
I didn't say it should be illegal for politicians to run ISPs. I said it's silly to think that ONLY politicians can run ISPs.
As mentioned in the story you linked to, they had AAA in 2013. Two months after that story, they were downgraded due to the excessive debt load for the municipal fiber, which isn't fiscally sound.
>. . I see no reason that can't work for internet connections as well.
That is an interesting point. I'm not sure about all of the reasons one has often worked well and the hasn't. Perhaps having a board of volunteer citizens deploying a brand new $200 million technology project is different from having them oversee the maintaince of 100-year-old power lines in many ways. If a private company, such as the Edison Company, had already built a high-speed fiber network like they did the power network, and that network only needed to be maintained rather than constantly upgraded we might see more similar results .
I had a typo. When we CAN'T do a better job than the private companies we compete with, we partner with them.
If the entire model seems completely foreign, consider state colleges and universities, who compete with private colleges to attract students. We're the same. We're a government agency just like the University of California is, and we compete just like UC competes with private universities.
>. State governments ban local governments from creating broadband networks at the request of telecom monopolies and you stand on a pulpit and preach about government non-interference. They are interfering by granting these monopolies in the first place!
We're in agreement there, 100%. Governments shouldn't grant monopolies to their donors. Where we see things differently is that perhaps you've never heard of Suddenlink or any of the two hundred other cable companies that aren't Comcast and Time Warner. Suddenlink just upgraded everyone to 50-100Mbps at no additional charge. Suddenlink gave me their technical manager's cell phone number when the customer service agent realized I knew more than he did. There is no evidence that only the corrupt politicians can run an ISP. In fact, we see that Suddenlink does it quite well, and their customers are happy. Google fiber has many happy customers, some getting the service for free*. So to make it illegal for Suddenlink to come in and offer better service than Comcast, at a lower price, is stupid. Not stupid for the politicians - Comcast is paying for their campaigns. Stupid for voters who support such nonsense.
If a city wants to getting into the ISP business, fine. Chances are, it fails and they sell the fiber to Google, after the taxpayers lose their ass on it. That's fine if they want to try, though. What they shouldn't do is make it illegal for Suddenlink to offer better service than the cirlty, at half the price the city charges.
I work for a government agency that competes directly with private companies. We offer some of the best programs in the world, and have world-renowned staff because if we didn't do a damn good job the private companies who do would get our customers. When we can beat the private competition, we partner with them to offer services customized for the needs of of local citizens and our other customers. The "other customers" pay our bills, local citizens get our services for free - without even funding us through tax dollars.
That's true, my cable company, Suddenlink, is delivering high speeds with coax for the last mile. They are spending a billion dollars* or something to upgrade their network to make that happen. At the same time, a competitor can spend the same billion dollars to build fiber, or to build their own high-speed coax. The old, soggy coax that Comcast already has can't provide those speeds, so they have to do new build just like the new competitor does, partially erasing Comcast's advantage from being there first.
* I don't remember if it's a billion dollars, two billion, or $250 million. The point is, they have to put in NEW coax plant and that's expensive, they can't just use the old.
Yes this post is slightly simplistic, not going into fine details, but the point stands - over builders are doing much better lately by providing next-generation networks rather than matching the incumbents' investment in old networks.
I should mention that politicians are probably better at passing laws than ISPs are. Each type of organization has it's own structure and it's own specialty. The city council promotes fairness and deliberativeness by taking holding two public hearings and taking six months to weigh a decision. That's good since they are passing laws.
The company that builds new fiber networks makes decisions much quicker, and that's good because we want the whole city built out in a year or two, not ten or twenty years. So it's not that private companies are BETTER than political bodies, they're just designed to do different things. Here are some references. You can recognize easily find 80 more like them.
Memphis Networx was sold at a loss of over $27 million
Burlington, Vermont lost $17 million in taxpayer dollars
Mooresville and Davidson losing $8 million each year
Utopia $200 million debt is four times their other municipal debt, for all other infrastructure
Chattanooga lost their credit rating did to overwhelming debt from their government broadband attempt
Again, this isn't because government is BAD. It's because US government is designed to be fair, transparent, inclusive, and deliberative, not fast or efficient. To get a huge fiber network rolled out across an entire city in just a couple of years, and do it without spending $10,000 per customer, you need a fast and efficient organization. US governments aren't fast and efficient because they shouldn't be - they should be deliberative, transparent, and equitable.
I suspect that once you divide them into two categories, "high testerone" and "low testosterone", the individuals in those groups would exactly match "male" and "female". Depending on luck, you might have one Barbara Hudson who is closer to the middle, but still ends up in the same group anyway.
I mention it only because unlike studies, in real life we can recognize that Mike Tyson is probably going to have more exaggerated "male" characteristics than Chrisley. Still, I bet Hilary Clinton has more estrogen than most men, even though she has half as much as Katy Perry.
Lol
It seems to me the article addresses less than half the problem. In many cities and counties, one cable has been granted a legal franchise - effectively a government-enforced monopoly outlawing other companies providing better service to compete. Because right now providers are needing to build out fiber networks anyway, overbuilders who compete with incumbents have done quite well, where they are allowed to do so. That say this is because they are going into areas where Comcast or Time Warner has an existing COAX network. The new competitor builds a FIBER network. Comcast doesn't have a huge advantage since they also have to build their own fiber network to compete.
The article assumes without evidence that politicians would do a better job of running an ISP than processionals can. Looking at the actual results from city projects vs private over builders suggests the opposite - frequently after cities make a huge mess of the project hiring the mayor's brother-in-law to build it at 250% of the going rate, they end up selling the half-completed network to an experienced company who finishes the job and provides good service.
Can we get a list of states or major cities that allow private competition? I know some parts of the Austin metro area have four or five companies competing, and you can get good service at a great price.
I _think_ Barbara's point wasn't about the eating, but about which problem we address. Suppose a stereotypical woman accidentally eats the cake - she wasn't listening or whatever. It's discovered and you "confront" her. She'll address the problem - the fact that you're mad. That's the main problem that she sees, the offense caused. She'll apologize, offset it by doing something else nice, etc - never once thinking to go get a another piece of cake.
An hour later, she'll ask how you're feeling about the event. The man will reply "I feel hungry, because you ate my damn cake.". :)
The guy is more likely to identify the problem as the fact that the cake is now gone, and forget to address the offense he caused.
This might be a somewhat silly example. Where I think it has practical application is when a friend is telling you about a problem they are having. A woman most wants to vent, a friend should listen. Her male friend's first instinct may be to help her SOLVE the problem. She may you to listen to her problem and perhaps her feelings about it. When a male friend is telling you about a problem, it means they want to borrow your trailer, which will solve the problem.
Obviously this is a big generalization, but there is significant truth in it.
When there is a conflict, it's sometimes effective to first give someone with high estrogen a chance to understand both sides' viewpoints and work out a mutually agreeable solution. If that ddoesdoesn't work because the other side is being aggressive, it's often someone with more testerone who is best suited to put their foot down, to say "no, we're not doing that" and stay firm even if it hurts someone's feelings.
Once more, I'm speaking in terms of averages. There are also empathic men and coarse women. Vanzant could probably kick Chrisley's ass.
It could very well be that females average better during the group portion of tasks, the part that requires a lot of communication and empathy; then when everyone goes back to their desks men average better at _____. I know in my own life women tend to be more interested in having in-depth conversations and understanding each other, on average. Mean tend to be more interested in gadgets and how they work. Again, I'm speaking of averages - individuals vary considerably.
Physically, men tend to do better at tasks involving short bursts of strength like dead lifting, while women tend to have more stamina. It's not unlikely that females mind tend to be better at understanding another person's point of view, while men might be better at disregarding the feelings of a bill collector and hanging up on them or interrupting, not allowing the collector to go off an tangents not appropriate to the issue at hand. That seems to be true from my experience - women generally aren't as comfortable being "rude" . When there is a conflict, it's sometimes effective to first give someone with high estrogen a chance to understand bo
I see a company stepped up to do it. Google decided it wasn't what they wanted to spend their time on, but they were willing to accept it if someone else found it useful enough to do do it. Benjamin said his company will do it, so it should happen.
https://code.google.com/p/chro...
>. They don't share with other agencies, just like it used to be. Whatever they know is untouchable by politicians, courts, anyone;
Definitely this is a good start. That's how it was before 9/11 and that was good. The NSA was only concerned about national security issues, and since they weren't allowed to send information to the FBI the data was only* used for national security. Yes, that made it harder to protect against something like 9/11, but it _helped_ protect privacy and freedom, so it was worth it.
* I'm sure they illegally shared information once or twice, but that's better than the FBI having wholesale access to citizens' data as we have now.
You make some good points, except I think you're confusing "rooting" a device which the OEM locked you out vs what an OEM would do to provide root access. Google DOES provide su, which is the file you use to provide root. OEMs could ship phone with su included. They could get it from the Google code URL below.
What's tricky and risky on some devices, but not others, is getting access to install su if the OEM has not provided it. In other words, su (root) is just like the hotspot feature or any other system-level feature. OEMs can include the standard code to allow it, or they can leave that out of their copy.
Here's su:
http://code.google.com/p/super...
There is a video you might interesting called How a Bill Becomes a Law. Under the USUS Constitution, the chairman of the FCC doesn't write law, and the president doesn't write law. The Congress does that. The President's role is, in the words of his sworn oath, to "faithfully execute the law". Here "execute" doesn't mean kill, though you might get that impression from watching Obama.
That's an interesting thought. I imagine Google would have two responses to that. First, an Android user can install applications, set security policies such as requiring a PIN or pattern lock, encrypt the data storage - mostly the same things a Windows administrator can do. To say, completely wipe the disk and install a different OS, one does that via the bootloader, not in the OS. That can be done on many (most?) Android devices and is outside of Google's control anyway.
Secondly, contrary to your claims, device manufacturers could include sudo in their ROMs if they wanted to. Cyanogenmod AMD others include root; there's nothing stopping Samsung from doing the same with their mods. That's Samsung's decision.
Lastly, they could point out that for the relatively small percentage of users technically knowledgeable enough to modify the OS without breaking it, there are in fact simple ways for them to enable such access. For the majority of users, who don't knsow what "root" is, enabling it by default would reduce the security and reliability of the device. It would make it less good for the vast majority of consumers.
Most of OS X is open source, with the overall OS being called Darwin in the open source version. Quartz is not open source. Different people have different opinions on how they feel about that.
That's a good question. I don't think many of the tools and ROMs have been analyzed for security by qualified people. As someone else mentioned, http://forum.xda-developers.co... is the most popular source. You'd hope that if there were major issues with the tools used there someone would notice.
You can extract a rooted ROM and compare the contents to the stock ROM.
Whenever I get new hardware I think about putting Linux on it. With my Macs, I found that OSX is already Unix (certified Unix TM). The bash shell is exactly the same and I can run all my favorite FOSS software on OSX, so for day-to-day use there's no significant advantage to Linux, at least not on my new hardware. I know the system-level stuff like snapshots better in Linux, but OSX comes with all that stuff working nicely out of the box.