> it's easily detected + removed by processexplorer
IE is easily removed? I guess Microsoft was lying. What you don't seem to get is that IE is the exploitable process, and it's essential to the system. It's a readily exploitable process that can't be removed mainly because if you do remove it, the system stops working.
I'm afraid the author of that article got the facts grossly wrong, in a couple of different ways. DOE has a wealth of statistics in easily readable reports you can look at. Bottom line, by tripling the cost of electricity, Germany now gets about 3% of their energy from solar.
The author confused ENERGY with ELECTRICITY, and confused GOALS with RESULTS. Germany tried to reduce electric usage (via huge surcharges) and increase solar usage (via huge subsidies) so that solar would be a larger percentage of electricity. They could have just turned off all of the non-solar electric plants to get 100% solar electric (but a huge electricity shortage). That's essentially the same as what they did, but they were a little less extreme. Their goal was 25% of ELECTRICITY would be solar. To do that, you've got to dramatically reduce electric usage - no electric cars, for sure.
Yeah, covering thousands of square miles with solar panels would provide a significant amount of power - from 11AM to 2PM. For the other 21 hours per day, the choices are coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear.
You do far more harm to your cause than the good you're trying to do when you mistakenly or purposefully misrepresent its capabilities. Solar is a good way to supplement primary power sources, in some situations. In a few cases, like a cabin in the wilderness, it makes sense as a primary power source. If you sell solar on its actual capabilities, it can reduce fossil fuel use by 5%. That's significant. That's something to try to accomplish.
When you post bull about solar replacing natural gas, about powering cities primarily from solar, most readers know you're full of it and they see another example of either a solar loony or a solar scammer. BILLIONS have been lost to solar scams and Obama's "solar" slush fund. You guys have a SERIOUS credibility problem right now and the way to solve that is to pitch solar's benefits while frankly acknowledging its limitations. Blowing smoke, pretending those limitations don't exist, just puts solar in the same category as snake oil.
A) Konqueror is not the system shell. Explorer is.
Still, as I said "I'm glad Firefox is just a web browser...". Do you see the words Konqueror or KDE in that sentence? I'm comparing IE and Firefox. The fact that Konqueror does something else silly isn't really directly relevant.
B) As I said, Microsoft execs testified that IE is deeply intertwined with the Windows OS. I guess you're not aware that an OS is more than just a kernel, so you think Microsoft was committing perjury when they testified to those facts.
It's amazing how far delusional fanbois will go to defend Microsoft, "they didn't make a big security blunder, they all just systematically perjured themselves for several months". Even if you believe that, is perjury somehow better than screwing up?
A huge first step, which some world-famous environmentalists are now taking, is to clear up the political problem by cutting out the BS, deliberately misleading people. For decades, Greenpeace went around telling people how dangerous some nuclear waste is, as and how some of it lasts for thousands of years. Now the fouunder of Greenpeace explaining that the claim was a bunch of BS. More people need to follow his lead and start telling the truth.
For anyone unfamiliar with the Big Lie, radioactive materials radiate energy at different rates. Just like combustible materials, some go fast and some release energy very slowly. The lie about long-term waste is effectively the same as saying:
Some conmbustible materials shoot out large amounts of heat and burning pieces, so they are dangerous (see gunpowder). Some combustible materials burn for a long time (see candles).
The key fact they tried to oobscure is that the really dangerous stuff is dangerous BECAUSE it releases its energy quickly, just like burning gunpowder. Give it a few years to "burn up" (decay) and it becomes perfectly safe.
The stuff that lasts a long time, that releases energy slowly, is no danger - you'd need to sit next to it for 500 years for it to have time to release significant radiation. On top of that, the long-lived stuff tends to be alpha radiation. Alpha particles are stopped by air, paper, skin, and most other materials. As long as you don't swallow it, you're fine - your skin provides adequate protection.
There's really no comparison. Hydroelectric killed 280,000 people at Banquai. (Or was it 180,000?). Nuclear power has killed dozens of people in 50 years. Coal? Ever heard of Black Lung? Nuclear has proven to be orders of magnitude safer than any other option for bulk power.
Solar can provide about 5% of our energy needs, but for the vast majority of our power, we can choose between oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Of the options that can provide significant power, nuclear is by far the safest option, by a very large margin.
Also very interesting is WHY it can't removed. According to Microsoft's testimony, IE is "deeply integrated with the OS" and removing it would make the OS not longer work. If it's deeply integrated into the OS and it's full of huge security holes...
Quite apart from the number of bugs, I'm very glad that Firefox is just a web browser. All it does is display web pages. So Firefox bugs basically just affect web pages. Any problems with Firefox are not problems that go deep into the OS.
Yeah, you're right. Half in ten days is not 1/10th in one day, of course. It's about 1/20th, not 1/10th, on the first day. So I should have said "if 1/20th would do significant damage".
> But what comes out of a nuclear reactor ain't carrots and potatoes, or even bananas.
Indeed, long half-life waste is FAR safer. The main waste material with a long half-life is plutonium 239. Pu 239 radiates alpha particles. Alpha particles are stopped by tissue paper, by 10 cm of air, and by skin. It is strongly recommended that you keep some skin or air in between the plutonium and your vital organs - eating it is not recommended. (In my previous post I should have said "store it under your bed" rather than "eat it". A long as you don't eat it, it's safe to have around the house.
Note that's for plutonium - the stuff that lasts a long time. Uranium releases its radiation much faster, meaning you should stay away from it for a few years until it has decayed.
One of the first things to understand about radioactive materials is "half-life". Half-life is how long it takes for the material to radiate half of its energy. A short half-life material radiates significant energy in a short time. A long half-life means it takes a long time to radiate siginificantly.
Suppose a particular material has enough radioactive energy that 1/10th of the energy would do significant damage. If it has a half-life ten days and you swallowed it, you'd get sick after 10 days / 10 = 1 day. On the other hand, if it has a half-life of 5,000 years you'd get sick in 5,000 / 10 = 500 years after you swallowed it.
So the stuff with a 5,000 year half-life is actually safe to eat - you'll die of natural causes long before the radiation affects you. This is a very good thing, because carrots and potatoes are in this class.
The stuff with a 1 year half-life you wouldn't want to eat - it would make you sick in five weeks. On the other hand, since it expels half of its radiation every year, after just a few years the radiation is mostly gone.
Imagine a 9/11 style attack, or a "poison gas in the subway", but at the same time they take out both the cell phone network and the most important radio trunking system used by first responders. The next day, the bad guys trigger the New York blackout.
Or, think back to how the US won the cold war - slowly, gradually, by economically outperforming the Soviets. The US is already the target of sustained, large scale attacks. If those attacks improve to the point that it costs 1%-3% of GDP in defense or damages, over ten years SIGNIFICANTLY changes the international balance of power.
Buffer overflows are one important class of vulnerability. They are also fairly easy to prevent/detect in new code. Use strncpy, not strcpy, etc. Static analysis can flag the dangerous constructs 99.9% of the time.
Java and C# are vulnerable to other, less readily identified vulnerabilities because key parts of the operations are hidden in the libraries and programmers are not accustomed to thinking about them. Both can easily have vulnerablities from memory management problems, but they can be harder to positively identify, especially for the typical.net programmer who doesn't normally think about memory management at all.
I'm having trouble finding the right words to express the issue. Imagine cars had a automatic steering mode that worked 99.9% of the time - there was rarely any need to touch the wheel. We can picture young people who learn to drive in these cars would have their hands full while driving, saying "why shouldn't I be texting and eating, the car steers itself". Then that 0.1% would happen - every three years they'd crash into something because they don't even think about steering..Net memory management is just like that - it works well enough, often enough, that most.Net programmers don't bother to learn under what conditions it doesn't work automatically, and what their code needs to allow it to work as designed. Every so often, it causes.net programs to crash or corrupt data on accident. Beyond accidents, someone actively attacking memory management flaws in a.net application can easily cause damage, just as they can with errors in using the more direct memory management practices.
> As some liquid pulls out and follows the force of gravity; a suction is created, and water molecules that are adhering follow the flow this creates.
That fact that you can siphon a gas shows that "molecules adhering" has nothing to do with it. A fun way to see this for yourself is to put some dry ice in water, then siphon off the CO2. The cold CO2 isn't MUCH heavier than air, so the siphon doesn't flow very fast, but it does flow.
Gravity pulls the fluid out of the low side, creating low pressure in the tube. The higher atmospheric pressure then pushes fluid into that low-pressure tube from the upper reservoir.
> After pressure is reduced by 80%; the substance ceases to be a proper liquid -- in essence, it loses the properties of water.
Which doesn't matter. Try the dry ice CO2 experiment to see for yourself.
> Under standard conditions, you can get a column about 32 feet long
Where "standard conditions" means standard AIR PRESSURE and temperature. At standard pressure it works fine. If pressure is reduced by 80%, it stops working at all. See the article for details.
Have you read any of the bills, or are you just guessing? The bills are only 5-10 pages each , so you CAN read them and get a clue.
S215, for example, specifically requires ISPs to accept and process spam. Most spam comes from a fairly small number of sources, people who send out thousands of spam messages per minute. As they move around a little bit, competent admins block those sources. There's no reason to accept connections from these spam factories - they have gigabit connections pumping out spam and nothing but spam. Under S215, ISPs would have to accept that spam because it says spam filters must be per-recipient. It requires that the ISP accept the connections, process the email to see what the rcpt address is, look to see if the user exists (a one in a million chance for some spammers who generate random addresses like 74jdbk84hfdh6@domain.com), etc.
Others require that the ISP pass all legal content. If you're at all familiar with CAN-SPAM, you may know that's ridiculous - 90+% of spam is legal.
There's only space for one wire to come to your house? Weird. I have quite a few wires connecting to my house.
It's "inefficient" to have two wires to the same house - in EXACTLY the same way that it's inefficient to have two towers covering the same area. Yet, with that inefficiency comes choice and competition. I can, and have, told one cell company to screw off when they didn't provide the best service.
C> ) Allowing a non-profit to bypass all donation limits that are put on any single individual;
That's doubly false. First, individuals have GREATER freedom to donate. Individuals can donate as much as they want to a super PAC Corporations cannot donate to super PACS. They can _form_ a super PAC, but they can't donate any corporate money to it.
The drop in rates was a lot more than 10 to 4. Just a few years before it was 10, it was 43. That's about $2.12 / minute in today's money. That 43 ($2) rate was of course set by regulators. Immediately upon deregulation, the rates dropped to 10, a 75% decrease in rates. As you pointed out, it didn't take long to hit 4. That's a price cut of over 90%.
What's strange is that you point to the huge win for consumers when long distance was DEregulated, and hold that up as a reason to REGULATE isps. You're saying "removing regulation worked great, so let's add new regulation of a similar industry". You've shown why regulation of long distance was a huge mistake - it caused consumers to pay ten times as much as the unregulated rate. So why repeat the mistake with ISPs? You want to pay $500 / month for your internet service?
> If I belonged to a union, why should they? Should my Church speak/influence for me? And, frankly, it is the influence part that always comes into play.
That's an interesting point. Thanks. For me, I'm glad I and others can join together and support the EFF in speaking on our behalf on specific issues. You asked why. They can research the details of issues and write more effective, specific proposals, etc far better than each of us can do alone. I happen to think we're better off having subject matter experts negotiating these things, while we support the experts who represent our views. So that's one reason why. The major reason why is because the first amendment says so. It doesn't say "freedom of speech and of the press, unless two people write together. "
I'm all for network neutrality as a CONCEPT. As someone who has been running servers for decades I don't see how Washington can make a LAW requiring network neutrality that doesn't blow up in our faces.
An ISP gets hundreds of thousands of connection attempts from known email spammers every day. The volume of other attacks can be measured in how many hit you per minute. You absolutely MUST block and prioritize traffic based on its origin in order to have any hope of running a usable network. If Washington says you can't block or slow traffic based on the source and other attributes, email pretty much stops working. Worms will spread much faster. It becomes illegal to protect yourself or your customers from even the simplest of DOS attacks. In general, things would just get real nasty real fast. I'd need to see a proposal that looks like it might possibly work before I could support a law on the issue.
Though I know what some of the unintended consequences would be, there are always others that we don't foresee - every law causes some problem, so we should be careful about passing new federal laws.
Secondly, what is the motivation for this? We're afraid of something that COULD happen. We come up with hypothetical scenarios, but none of this is real - it hasn't happened. If it does happen, do we not already have laws about "unfair competition", "tortious interference", etc? Doesn't it make more sense to be alert, be watchful for any real problems, and see if our existing laws about unfair competition and such work as needed?
Why such a rush to pass laws that we know will cause problems, to stop a possible problem that doesn't yet exist?
Clearly you haven't followed ANY of the relevant discussion. We're not putting back 98% of the features that are being removed. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Security for BSD is more important than support for FIPS or HP. If you want HP support, use OpenSSL or gnuTLS. LibreSSL will be simple and clean - screw features.
A suggestion - get a clue what you're talking about before arguing about it. The discussion is on the list. Read it - or stfu when people who HAVE read it ate talking.
> I'm not sure that Dice and the ACLU work together.
I guess was was unclear. I was saying the ACLU (inc.) is people working together toward common goals, the FSF is people working together, Dice is a group of people working together.
> Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics. Dice, ACLU, GE, BSA, FSF, Labor union, trade union, etc. > . . .
> So, me, I want that whole group to go stone cold silent.
That's very interesting, refreshingly clear and intellectually honest. The old analogy is that it's unfair that some people can see and some people are blind, and the left's solution is to remove everyone's eyes. You're unusual in how clear and honest you are that you do in fact want to do essentially that. Thanks.
> People, no.
Just no GROUP protests, right? YOU can express your opinion and I can express mine, but if you and I get together and make video, that should be illegal. Interesting, truly.
I really appreciate your viewpoint, and how you state it clearly, boldly, without pretending that the implications are anything but what they are. That takes courage.
I agree quality code is important. I'm glad software architecture is now recognized as an engineering discipline, so you can choose to have a qualified Professional Engineer lead or review a software project.
All of which is largely a separate issue from the observation that with enough people looking at a problem, the solution will be shallow - obvious to someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Church Rock mine? Are you kidding?
Coal mining: 500,000 victims of black lung
Hydroelectric: 300,000+ killed
Church Rock and all other uranium mining: 0. Maybe a cow.
Yeah, the uranium sure as heck looks like the safest option to me.
> it's easily detected + removed by processexplorer
IE is easily removed? I guess Microsoft was lying.
What you don't seem to get is that IE is the exploitable process, and it's essential to the system. It's a readily exploitable process that can't be removed mainly because if you do remove it, the system stops working.
I'm afraid the author of that article got the facts grossly wrong, in a couple of different ways. DOE has a wealth of statistics in easily readable reports you can look at. Bottom line, by tripling the cost of electricity, Germany now gets about 3% of their energy from solar.
The author confused ENERGY with ELECTRICITY, and confused GOALS with RESULTS. Germany tried to reduce electric usage (via huge surcharges) and increase solar usage (via huge subsidies) so that solar would be a larger percentage of electricity. They could have just turned off all of the non-solar electric plants to get 100% solar electric (but a huge electricity shortage). That's essentially the same as what they did, but they were a little less extreme. Their goal was 25% of ELECTRICITY would be solar. To do that, you've got to dramatically reduce electric usage - no electric cars, for sure.
Yeah, covering thousands of square miles with solar panels would provide a significant amount of power - from 11AM to 2PM. For the other 21 hours per day, the choices are coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear.
You do far more harm to your cause than the good you're trying to do when you mistakenly or purposefully misrepresent its capabilities. Solar is a good way to supplement primary power sources, in some situations. In a few cases, like a cabin in the wilderness, it makes sense as a primary power source. If you sell solar on its actual capabilities, it can reduce fossil fuel use by 5%. That's significant. That's something to try to accomplish.
When you post bull about solar replacing natural gas, about powering cities primarily from solar, most readers know you're full of it and they see another example of either a solar loony or a solar scammer. BILLIONS have been lost to solar scams and Obama's "solar" slush fund. You guys have a SERIOUS credibility problem right now and the way to solve that is to pitch solar's benefits while frankly acknowledging its limitations. Blowing smoke, pretending those limitations don't exist, just puts solar in the same category as snake oil.
A) Konqueror is not the system shell. Explorer is.
Still, as I said "I'm glad Firefox is just a web browser ...". Do you see the words Konqueror or KDE in that sentence? I'm comparing IE and Firefox. The fact that Konqueror does something else silly isn't really directly relevant.
B) As I said, Microsoft execs testified that IE is deeply intertwined with the Windows OS. I guess you're not aware that an OS is more than just a kernel, so you think Microsoft was committing perjury when they testified to those facts.
It's amazing how far delusional fanbois will go to defend Microsoft, "they didn't make a big security blunder, they all just systematically perjured themselves for several months". Even if you believe that, is perjury somehow better than screwing up?
A huge first step, which some world-famous environmentalists are now taking, is to clear up the political problem by cutting out the BS, deliberately misleading people. For decades, Greenpeace went around telling people how dangerous some nuclear waste is, as and how some of it lasts for thousands of years. Now the fouunder of Greenpeace explaining that the claim was a bunch of BS. More people need to follow his lead and start telling the truth.
For anyone unfamiliar with the Big Lie, radioactive materials radiate energy at different rates. Just like combustible materials, some go fast and some release energy very slowly. The lie about long-term waste is effectively the same as saying:
Some conmbustible materials shoot out large amounts of heat and burning pieces, so they are dangerous (see gunpowder). Some combustible materials burn for a long time (see candles).
The key fact they tried to oobscure is that the really dangerous stuff is dangerous BECAUSE it releases its energy quickly, just like burning gunpowder. Give it a few years to "burn up" (decay) and it becomes perfectly safe.
The stuff that lasts a long time, that releases energy slowly, is no danger - you'd need to sit next to it for 500 years for it to have time to release significant radiation. On top of that, the long-lived stuff tends to be alpha radiation. Alpha particles are stopped by air, paper, skin, and most other materials. As long as you don't swallow it, you're fine - your skin provides adequate protection.
There's really no comparison. Hydroelectric killed 280,000 people at Banquai. (Or was it 180,000?). Nuclear power has killed dozens of people in 50 years. Coal? Ever heard of Black Lung? Nuclear has proven to be orders of magnitude safer than any other option for bulk power.
Solar can provide about 5% of our energy needs, but for the vast majority of our power, we can choose between oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Of the options that can provide significant power, nuclear is by far the safest option, by a very large margin.
Also very interesting is WHY it can't removed. According to Microsoft's testimony, IE is "deeply integrated with the OS" and removing it would make the OS not longer work. If it's deeply integrated into the OS and it's full of huge security holes ...
Quite apart from the number of bugs, I'm very glad that Firefox is just a web browser. All it does is display web pages. So Firefox bugs basically just affect web pages. Any problems with Firefox are not problems that go deep into the OS.
Yeah, you're right. Half in ten days is not 1/10th in one day, of course. It's about 1/20th, not 1/10th, on the first day. So I should have said "if 1/20th would do significant damage".
> But what comes out of a nuclear reactor ain't carrots and potatoes, or even bananas.
Indeed, long half-life waste is FAR safer. The main waste material with a long half-life is plutonium 239. Pu 239 radiates alpha particles. Alpha particles are stopped by tissue paper, by 10 cm of air, and by skin. It is strongly recommended that you keep some skin or air in between the plutonium and your vital organs - eating it is not recommended. (In my previous post I should have said "store it under your bed" rather than "eat it".
A long as you don't eat it, it's safe to have around the house.
Note that's for plutonium - the stuff that lasts a long time. Uranium releases its radiation much faster, meaning you should stay away from it for a few years until it has decayed.
One of the first things to understand about radioactive materials is "half-life". Half-life is how long it takes for the material to radiate half of its energy. A short half-life material radiates significant energy in a short time. A long half-life means it takes a long time to radiate siginificantly.
Suppose a particular material has enough radioactive energy that 1/10th of the energy would do significant damage. If it has a half-life ten days and you swallowed it, you'd get sick after 10 days / 10 = 1 day. On the other hand, if it has a half-life of 5,000 years you'd get sick in 5,000 / 10 = 500 years after you swallowed it.
So the stuff with a 5,000 year half-life is actually safe to eat - you'll die of natural causes long before the radiation affects you. This is a very good thing, because carrots and potatoes are in this class.
The stuff with a 1 year half-life you wouldn't want to eat - it would make you sick in five weeks. On the other hand, since it expels half of its radiation every year, after just a few years the radiation is mostly gone.
Imagine a 9/11 style attack, or a "poison gas in the subway", but at the same time they take out both the cell phone network and the most important radio trunking system used by first responders. The next day, the bad guys trigger the New York blackout.
Or, think back to how the US won the cold war - slowly, gradually, by economically outperforming the Soviets. The US is already the target of sustained, large scale attacks. If those attacks improve to the point that it costs 1%-3% of GDP in defense or damages, over ten years SIGNIFICANTLY changes the international balance of power.
Buffer overflows are one important class of vulnerability. They are also fairly easy to prevent /detect in new code. Use strncpy, not strcpy, etc. Static analysis can flag the dangerous constructs 99.9% of the time.
Java and C# are vulnerable to other, less readily identified vulnerabilities because key parts of the operations are hidden in the libraries and programmers are not accustomed to thinking about them. Both can easily have vulnerablities from memory management problems, but they can be harder to positively identify, especially for the typical .net programmer who doesn't normally think about memory management at all.
I'm having trouble finding the right words to express the issue. Imagine cars had a automatic steering mode that worked 99.9% of the time - there was rarely any need to touch the wheel. We can picture young people who learn to drive in these cars would have their hands full while driving, saying "why shouldn't I be texting and eating, the car steers itself". Then that 0.1% would happen - every three years they'd crash into something because they don't even think about steering. .Net memory management is just like that - it works well enough, often enough, that most .Net programmers don't bother to learn under what conditions it doesn't work automatically, and what their code needs to allow it to work as designed. Every so often, it causes .net programs to crash or corrupt data on accident. Beyond accidents, someone actively attacking memory management flaws in a .net application can easily cause damage, just as they can with errors in using the more direct memory management practices.
> As some liquid pulls out and follows the force of gravity; a suction is created, and water molecules that are adhering follow the flow this creates.
That fact that you can siphon a gas shows that "molecules adhering" has nothing to do with it. A fun way to see this for yourself is to put some dry ice in water, then siphon off the CO2. The cold CO2 isn't MUCH heavier than air, so the siphon doesn't flow very fast, but it does flow.
Gravity pulls the fluid out of the low side, creating low pressure in the tube. The higher atmospheric pressure then pushes fluid into that low-pressure tube from the upper reservoir.
> After pressure is reduced by 80%; the substance ceases to be a proper liquid -- in essence, it loses the properties of water.
Which doesn't matter. Try the dry ice CO2 experiment to see for yourself.
The post you quoted wanted to:
> routing uncompressed low-latency video signals throughout your home.
HDbaseT is the standard for routing uncompressed low-latency video signals throughout your home.
> Under standard conditions, you can get a column about 32 feet long
Where "standard conditions" means standard AIR PRESSURE and temperature. At standard pressure it works fine. If pressure is reduced by 80%, it stops working at all. See the article for details.
Have you read any of the bills, or are you just guessing? The bills are only 5-10 pages each , so you CAN read them and get a clue.
S215, for example, specifically requires ISPs to accept and process spam. Most spam comes from a fairly small number of sources, people who send out thousands of spam messages per minute. As they move around a little bit, competent admins block those sources. There's no reason to accept connections from these spam factories - they have gigabit connections pumping out spam and nothing but spam. Under S215, ISPs would have to accept that spam because it says spam filters must be per-recipient. It requires that the ISP accept the connections, process the email to see what the rcpt address is, look to see if the user exists (a one in a million chance for some spammers who generate random addresses like 74jdbk84hfdh6@domain.com), etc.
Others require that the ISP pass all legal content. If you're at all familiar with CAN-SPAM, you may know that's ridiculous - 90+% of spam is legal.
There's only space for one wire to come to your house? Weird. I have quite a few wires connecting to my house.
It's "inefficient" to have two wires to the same house - in EXACTLY the same way that it's inefficient to have two towers covering the same area. Yet, with that inefficiency comes choice and competition. I can, and have, told one cell company to screw off when they didn't provide the best service.
C> ) Allowing a non-profit to bypass all donation limits that are put on any single individual;
That's doubly false. First, individuals have GREATER freedom to donate. Individuals can donate as much as they want to a super PAC Corporations cannot donate to super PACS. They can _form_ a super PAC, but they can't donate any corporate money to it.
The drop in rates was a lot more than 10 to 4. Just a few years before it was 10, it was 43. That's about $2.12 / minute in today's money. That 43 ($2) rate was of course set by regulators. Immediately upon deregulation, the rates dropped to 10, a 75% decrease in rates. As you pointed out, it didn't take long to hit 4. That's a price cut of over 90%.
What's strange is that you point to the huge win for consumers when long distance was DEregulated, and hold that up as a reason to REGULATE isps. You're saying "removing regulation worked great, so let's add new regulation of a similar industry". You've shown why regulation of long distance was a huge mistake - it caused consumers to pay ten times as much as the unregulated rate. So why repeat the mistake with ISPs? You want to pay $500 / month for your internet service?
> If I belonged to a union, why should they? Should my Church speak /influence for me? And, frankly, it is the influence part that always comes into play.
That's an interesting point. Thanks. For me, I'm glad I and others can join together and support the EFF in speaking on our behalf on specific issues. You asked why. They can research the details of issues and write more effective, specific proposals, etc far better than each of us can do alone. I happen to think we're better off having subject matter experts negotiating these things, while we support the experts who represent our views. So that's one reason why. The major reason why is because the first amendment says so. It doesn't say "freedom of speech and of the press, unless two people write together. "
I'm all for network neutrality as a CONCEPT. As someone who has been running servers for decades I don't see how Washington can make a LAW requiring network neutrality that doesn't blow up in our faces.
An ISP gets hundreds of thousands of connection attempts from known email spammers every day. The volume of other attacks can be measured in how many hit you per minute. You absolutely MUST block and prioritize traffic based on its origin in order to have any hope of running a usable network. If Washington says you can't block or slow traffic based on the source and other attributes, email pretty much stops working. Worms will spread much faster. It becomes illegal to protect yourself or your customers from even the simplest of DOS attacks. In general, things would just get real nasty real fast. I'd need to see a proposal that looks like it might possibly work before I could support a law on the issue.
Though I know what some of the unintended consequences would be, there are always others that we don't foresee - every law causes some problem, so we should be careful about passing new federal laws.
Secondly, what is the motivation for this? We're afraid of something that COULD happen. We come up with hypothetical scenarios, but none of this is real - it hasn't happened. If it does happen, do we not already have laws about "unfair competition", "tortious interference", etc? Doesn't it make more sense to be alert, be watchful for any real problems, and see if our existing laws about unfair competition and such work as needed?
Why such a rush to pass laws that we know will cause problems, to stop a possible problem that doesn't yet exist?
Clearly you haven't followed ANY of the relevant discussion. We're not putting back 98% of the features that are being removed. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Security for BSD is more important than support for FIPS or HP. If you want HP support, use OpenSSL or gnuTLS. LibreSSL will be simple and clean - screw features.
A suggestion - get a clue what you're talking about before arguing about it. The discussion is on the list. Read it - or stfu when people who HAVE read it ate talking.
> I'm not sure that Dice and the ACLU work together.
I guess was was unclear. I was saying the ACLU (inc.) is people working together toward common goals, the FSF is people working together, Dice is a group of people working together.
> Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics. Dice, ACLU, GE, BSA, FSF, Labor union, trade union, etc.
> . . .
> So, me, I want that whole group to go stone cold silent.
That's very interesting, refreshingly clear and intellectually honest. The old analogy is that it's unfair that some people can see and some people are blind, and the left's solution is to remove everyone's eyes. You're unusual in how clear and honest you are that you do in fact want to do essentially that. Thanks.
> People, no.
Just no GROUP protests, right? YOU can express your opinion and I can express mine, but if you and I get together and make video, that should be illegal. Interesting, truly.
I really appreciate your viewpoint, and how you state it clearly, boldly, without pretending that the implications are anything but what they are. That takes courage.
I agree quality code is important. I'm glad software architecture is now recognized as an engineering discipline, so you can choose to have a qualified Professional Engineer lead or review a software project.
All of which is largely a separate issue from the observation that with enough people looking at a problem, the solution will be shallow - obvious to someone.