Old: -- Where there are clear indications from the carrie's report or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, without response to the complainant. In all other cases, the Commission will contact the complainant --
New: -- Where there are clear indications from the carrier's response or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed. In all other cases, the Commission will notify the complainant --
Looks to me the word was changed from "contact the complainant" to "notify the complainant".
> for carriers the best practice will be to ignore all complaints or to fail to respond
I would say the opposite. It's easy to fix the 0.1% of issues that are reported to the FCC. If complaints regulators know about are ignored, that's when regulators start taking a closer look at the company. They don't follow up on each complaint individually, they do take note of companies that have thousands of unresolved complaints.
At 2300 degrees, steel becomes liquid. At 1500 degrees, structural steel is about the consistency (and strength) of plastic. You can try it yourself. You can get a 1/4 steel rod and propane torch at home depot. Get it the steel glowing bright red (1500) and you'll find you can easily bend it with finger pressure.
Doesn't really matter if a bunch of fake "yes, do it!" comments are submitted anyway. It's not American Idol - nobody is counting votes.
There IS an effective way to use the system, and what people did with bots regarding net neutrality isn't it. I've used it more than once to improve draft regulations. As a recall, with the USC 2257 regulations we went through three drafts, each time coming closer to what would work best for us.
Let's use NN as an example, looking at when the regulations were drafted in 2014, before going into effect 2015-2016. One concern that came up afterward was the NN rules basically made it illegal to have a small niche internet service for a particular purpose. Rules written for monopoly / duopoly providers applied to ANYONE who wanted to offer any kind of internet service. THAT is the type of issue that the comment period is good for. One could submit a comment suggesting that the NN rules should apply to companies that have more than 25% of a given market. In an area already served by Comcast and Time Warner, someone else should be able to offer a $5/month plan that allows kids to do homework and stuff, and doesn't support streaming HD Netflix 24/7. Local community mesh networks shouldn't have the exact same rules that Comcast has, perhaps. You're supposed to submit suggestions for how to improve the rules, or point out scenarios the author of the rule may not have thought about, or offer alternatives procedures to achieve the goal. "Omg you're Hitler" isn't what the comment process is for, so that stuff is ignored anyway.
Here's a concrete example of a rule change made based on comments submitted by me and people I know. A certain rule required that businesses keep certain records ad always have them available for government inspectors during business hours, at the principal place of business. The address of the principal office had to be posted on your web site. I, and many people I worked with, worked for home. We couldn't guarantee that we'd always be there 8-5 as required by the rule, and didn't love the idea of paying our home address in our web sites. During the comment period, we suggested that the rules allow the records to be held at our lawyer's office or somewhere else where regulators could inspect them any time. Also, our vendors *already had* the records. We'd just be keeping an extra copy of the records we got from the vendor. Could we instead post the address of the vendor who already had the records anyway? That way we didn't have to be always be home 8-5, and didn't have to post our home address. Our proposed change made it into the final draft. The regulators got what they wanted that way - they have the ability to inspect the records, and know where to find them. We got what we wanted. That's what the comments period of the rule-making process is for, not an American Idol vote.
Btw, the idea for the net neutrality rules applying to big companies with at least 25% market share in a particular city, while allowing small players to offer specialty services, came from Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was just nominated to the Supreme Court. He wrote that NN laws should distinguish between monopoly / duopoly companies like Comcast (who could be heavily regulated) vs small operations who should be allowed to offer specialty services to people who want something different, maybe an connection for their alarm system that is separate from the main home internet, or a co-op mesh network.
Section IV of the Rule defines affected providers as:
"establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies."
The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the carrierâ(TM)s report or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, without response to the complainant. In all other cases, the Commission will contact the complainant regarding its review and disposition of the matters raised. If the complainant is not satisfied by the carrierâ(TM)s response and the Commissionâ(TM)s disposition, it may file a formal complaint in accordance with  1.721 of this part.
A quick summary of the old/existing process: The FCC informs the company of the complaint. If they don't resolve it, the consumer can file a formal complaint ($255)
In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database and acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies.
And the new version:
1.717 Procedure.
The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation and may set a due date for the carrier to provide a written response to the informal complaint to the Commission, with a copy to the complainant. The response will advise the Commission of the carrierâ(TM)s satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the carrierâ(TM)s response or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed. In all other cases, the Commission will notify the complainant that if the complainant is not satisfied by the carrierâ(TM)s response, or if the carrier has failed to submit a response by the due date, the complainant may file a formal complaint in accordance with  1.721 of this part.
A quick summary of the proposed process: The FCC informs the company of the complaint. If they don't resolve it, the consumer can file a formal complaint ($255)
In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database and acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies.
Yeah ISPs here offer those too, they are client-side filters. Mom may or may not realize it only affects the computer she installs it on, not the tablet or anything else. Kids laugh at that software, while showing mom how to reboot the router.
Anyway, Kavanaugh figures it should be legal for you to get some kind of specialized internet service if you want to, if the provider isn't a major player. (Comcast etc can be subject to more regulation, he says).
Something is missing in this story. Care to show me a link to one?
-Works in MY rig/environment Means we need to know exactly which environment it doesn't work in (along with what "doesn't work" means).
-RTFM (I already did, this isn't in there) Often means the person didn't know which word they were looking for in the manual, and therefore didn't see it without reading *carefully".
Seriously, if you're frequently not getting good responses, it's very likely the way you habitually handle / report things is missing some important element that you don't realize you need to include.
Either something you don't realize you need to include, or an aggressive, off-putting attitude. I seriously did read ESR's semi-serious piece at least three times, so I don't forget.
Years ago it was sold as "business records" - the government could demand records from businesses without a warrant or any other standard, just demand records for no reason because they are getting it from a "big bad corporation". Nobody cared, nobody objected because corporations (groups of people) are bad, m'kay.
That established the principle that "business records" don't have the same protection. The phone company's "business records" include records of which calls they completed, for whom. Records from cell phone carriers about which customers were connected to which towers have been classified as "business records". It's okay because they are getting data from those big bad corporations, not from individuals, the theory goes.
He wrote that you have a right to buy or sell a kid-safe internet service, or whatever kind of service you want, UNLESS the ISP in question is a major player in a particular market.
If there are one or two or three big ISPs in a city, the government has sufficient interest in regulating those more strictly than a start-up alternative. He wrote that the rules would have passed first amendment muster if they had applied to ISPs with significant market share, say 25%. "Market power", he wrote, the ability to make decisions that customers don't like, but there isn't much that customers can do about it. If customers can't easily choose a different service, then government can step in, he thought.
Under the NN rules, if you live in a city with Comcast and CenturyLink, it would be illegal for you to offer a kid-safe internet service. Kavanaugh said that went to far. The NN requirements are only justified for ISPs with market power , the monopolies and duopolies, unless the government shows some reason it should be illegal for a small company to offer a $5 educational internet plan that doesn't stream HD video.
That sounds like a response I would expect if I sent "this is crap".
I've read and re-read this semi-humorous article to make sure I remember the serious points it includes: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/s...
The gist of it is, if I want something done, I do as much of it as I can, sometimes that's describing the problem in as much detail as possible, including describing what I expected to see happen instead. For a feature request, that means identifying the use case - who would use this new feature, fot what? Other times I send a pull request - I do fix the problem. Normally I only do a pull request (fix) for very simple problems. For more complex ones I send a message describing what I plan to fix first, asking for feedback.
I can't think of any animosity, no. Of course I've never sent utter crap to Linus. That gets a fun response.
One module owner was "picky" about following all the guidelines exactly, and really thinking through how to do things. That got frustrating at times. It resulted in high-quality software, though. Once when we could couldn't agree on approach A or approach B I suggested we try talking on the phone, thinking just *maybe* a different mode of communication would make a difference. It definitely did make a difference. Halfway through the conversation he thought of approach C, which sounded really good to both of us.
People sometimes have different ideas, or disagree, but I listen carefully to understand their thoughts and concerns and we find an approach that works for both of us. Recently I sent a pull request for a module which is a simple wrapper around a more complex module. I wanted to add an option. He thought the change should instead be made in the more complex, embedded module. I explained why I thought that wasn't the right way to go. He didn't want to make XML::Simple more complex by adding options, so instead we decided to change the default behavior of XML::Simple and not make it an option.
That's along the lines of what Judge Kavanaugh said in his dissent. He wrote that the rules would have been okay if the applied to ISPs with significant market share in a particular area. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating a monopoly or duopoly or monopoly, sufficient to override the rights of businesses and customers to decide they want a "kid friendly" Internet service or whatever. As written, the rules applied to ALL ISPs, no matter what market power they had, so it was illegal to operate a kid friendly service. Fixing that would have saved the Net Neutrality rules from a 1st amendment challenge, he thought.
The other issue he pointed out is that Congress, who has the sole power to write laws, gave the FCC authority to implement a specific law covering the phone company. The FCC was to handle the details of enforcing the law that Congress wrote. Nowhere did Congress give the FCC authority to unilaterally create net neutrality.
According to Kavanaugh, here's how the Constitution provides for laws, including those related to net neutrality, to be passed:
Congress passes a law saying which principles of net neutrality should be legally required.
Congress identifies which agency they are empowering to enforce that law (FTC? FCC?).
Laws and regulations balance your rights with government interests. More burdensome regulations can be applied to ISPs with over 25% of given market or whatever. This balances your first amendment right to provide a low-cost service designed for text rather than video, or a kid-safe service, or whatever with the government's interest in regulating businesses that aren't effectively regulated by the free market.
Certainly SCOTUS needs to look at the words on the page, not what they think SHOULD have been in Constitution.
That said, the following exchange just happened at my house:
Person1: You need to eat. Person2: You need to yourself.
What would an appropriate response be? "You need to eat yourself" could have two meanings, but we know what the person meant when they said it. The intended meaning guides our interpretation.
When we read the newspaper headline "Children make nutritious snacks", we know the author means children are cooking, not that they are snacks. We interpret it bases on what the writer meant.
Unfortunately, the authors of the Constitution occasionally uses words that mean something different today than they did 200 years ago, words that aren't 100 crystal clear, and in at least one case, words that seem to contradict each other. What meaning should be ascribed to those words? Fortunately, the founders also wrote hundreds of pages telling us exactly what they meant by those words, and why they said what they said. It seems clear to me that is something to consider to selecting which meaning to use - the meaning the writer intended.
Possibly bad guys would rather add trojans to iPhone and Android apps, which may stay in the store for months without detection. You can't tell what changes have been made to compiled apps you download on iPhone, Android, or Windows.
I think it's a perfect example of the difference between "bugs don't exist" and "the bug is shallow - to someone". Lots. Of people looked into it deeply and couldn't figure out a good way to fix it. Weimer immediately saw what needed to be done - it was shallow to him, with enough eyeballs "the fix will be obvious to someone".
Compare Intel's Meltdown patches. They release a patch and say everyone should use it. Then two or three weeks later "oh shit, don't install our patch! We'll make a new patch soon.". How many Meltdown patches has Intel released and then retracted? They are missing the set of eyeballs that would see the simple solution to the core problem.
This is an entirely separate issue from avoiding bugs in the first place. Both are important. However, bugs that all the script kiddies have exploits for are much more dangerous than bugs nobody knows about. Therefore, fixing known issues quickly and correctly is a big deal for security.
Your experiences remind me of something I learned about open source development. I now start by posting about what I intend to do. I've received these responses:
John is working on that and expects to release it next week.
No need to do all that, just use setting Xyx and skip the last part.
That seemed like a good idea, but when we looked into it we noticed this trap.
We decided we want Betaflight to focus on LOS. Your idea fits better with the iNav fork, which already does most of that.
Hey that's a good idea. Can you also allow multiples? That would be useful for me. I can help test.
In the case of Heartbleed, it became public on April 7th. The fix was available on April 5th. Meaning it was patched, and some people protected, before users even knew there was a problem.
Compare some IE bugs which were publicly acknowledged for seven YEARS before being fixed.
Exactly. ESR summed up Linus's thoughts as ".. all bugs are shallow", not "all bugs don't exist".
Linus's exact words were: "Somebody finds the problem, and somebody else *understands* it."
I'll share two examples from my own experience. Somebody found the shell shock bug and suggested a fix. Over the next few hours, hundreds of people looked at it. Some saw that the suggested fix wouldn't quite cover this variation or that variation, so they tweaked it. Florian Weimer, from Red Hat, said those tweaks would never cover all the variations, and suggested an entirely different fix, one that went to crux of the problem. Over the next few days, there was a lot of discussion. Eventually it became clear that Florian had been right. When he looked at the problem, he immediately understood it deeply. Well, it looked deep to us. To him, it was shallow.
There was no need to release a patch to fix the patch for the patch as we often see from Microsoft, or as we've seen from Intel lately. With hundreds of people looking at it, somebody saw the right solution, easily.
It's very clear that being published does NOT make it reliable. Publication is generally a prerequisite to citing a source simply because others need to be able to refer to the source and see it for themselves. For example, I once heard Mikhail Gorbachev say something interesting, in person. I can't cite that as a source because you can't tell if he actually said what I claim. I could have heard him wrong, or I could completely make up the whole incident. To cite it, I'd need to find video available of his remarks or something.
Where publication is key is determining NOTABILITY. If several large publications carry stories about something, it's notable (almost by definition, since people noticed it). That goes to the notability of the *topic*, not anything specifically the sources say about it. For example, the '57 Chevy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article as evidenced by the many articles and even books written about it, plus songs, paintings, etc. The new product I thought up this morning does not yet have any evidence of notability because nobody besides me has eve heard of it. The fact that lots of people write (and even sing) about the '57 Chevy makes it notable - quite apart from any claims they make about the Chevy. Eric Clapton and Don McLean aren't reliable sources of information about the Chevy, they are evidence that the culture took notice of it. These are two separate things.
Aside from that, Wikipedia authors are supposed to cite reliable sources in the articles. Why? Because Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source, it's only roughly as reliable as the sources it cites (or doesn't).
That said, on most topics it ends up being pretty good.
Yes, the end user can hide the icon, on any platform. That's not what this is about. It's about you can't buy or sell a new phone with the app store installed unless it also has other apps installed.
Google requires that any phones shipped with its app store also ship with several of Google's apps, and icons for a few more, which aren't actually installed.
Apple requires any phone using its app store to come with 37 Apple apps pre-installed.
> You wanna use our app store, you gotta install our search. > Apple doesn't do that.
Actually if you want to use Apple's app store, you DO have to have their search. Also their voice assistant, their messaging app, their camera app, their email app, their news app, their hardware...
You can't get a phone with Apple's app store installed unless it also has 36 other Apple apps bundled too.
Google says "our app store is part of our bundle of five or six apps". Apple bundles 37 apps with its app store. So Apple does the same thing, times six.
APK said something interesting, but it sure would be easier to read of this paragraph was broken into sentences:
See subject: Many disassemblers/hackers of code (for GOOD or BAD purposes) have issues w/ Delphi VCL statically built-in design (separating data from instructions for 1 thing) & it's DEFAULT is statically built programs vs. MARSHALLING (ole type load via GUID) libs external to the program (ala.DLL or.OCX for example) OR std. DLL loads (non-OLE type/oldschool/traditional) & w/ a MSVC++ program, it's interface @ THE VERY LEAST is run by MSVC*#Version.DLL libs (easy to identify) & Delphi's is built as a I said (statically compiled in source libs for all things by default on std..exe file).
Even better, easier to read and understand, would be no more than one parenthetical per sentence. Maybe I'll give a try: --
Many disassemblers/hackers have issues w/ Delphi VCL's statically built-in design. For one thing, separating data from instructions is an issue. Also, by default, it statically links, building the library into the executable. Compare Microsoft MSVC, which by default loads an external DLL file. --
Slashdot Mirror
Old:
--
Where there are clear indications from the carrie's report or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, without response to the complainant. In all other cases, the Commission will contact the complainant
--
New:
--
Where there are clear indications from the carrier's response or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed. In all other cases, the Commission will notify the complainant
--
Looks to me the word was changed from "contact the complainant" to "notify the complainant".
> for carriers the best practice will be to ignore all complaints or to fail to respond
I would say the opposite. It's easy to fix the 0.1% of issues that are reported to the FCC. If complaints regulators know about are ignored, that's when regulators start taking a closer look at the company. They don't follow up on each complaint individually, they do take note of companies that have thousands of unresolved complaints.
At 2300 degrees, steel becomes liquid. At 1500 degrees, structural steel is about the consistency (and strength) of plastic. You can try it yourself. You can get a 1/4 steel rod and propane torch at home depot. Get it the steel glowing bright red (1500) and you'll find you can easily bend it with finger pressure.
https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
Doesn't really matter if a bunch of fake "yes, do it!" comments are submitted anyway. It's not American Idol - nobody is counting votes.
There IS an effective way to use the system, and what people did with bots regarding net neutrality isn't it. I've used it more than once to improve draft regulations. As a recall, with the USC 2257 regulations we went through three drafts, each time coming closer to what would work best for us.
Let's use NN as an example, looking at when the regulations were drafted in 2014, before going into effect 2015-2016. One concern that came up afterward was the NN rules basically made it illegal to have a small niche internet service for a particular purpose. Rules written for monopoly / duopoly providers applied to ANYONE who wanted to offer any kind of internet service. THAT is the type of issue that the comment period is good for. One could submit a comment suggesting that the NN rules should apply to companies that have more than 25% of a given market. In an area already served by Comcast and Time Warner, someone else should be able to offer a $5/month plan that allows kids to do homework and stuff, and doesn't support streaming HD Netflix 24/7. Local community mesh networks shouldn't have the exact same rules that Comcast has, perhaps. You're supposed to submit suggestions for how to improve the rules, or point out scenarios the author of the rule may not have thought about, or offer alternatives procedures to achieve the goal. "Omg you're Hitler" isn't what the comment process is for, so that stuff is ignored anyway.
Here's a concrete example of a rule change made based on comments submitted by me and people I know. A certain rule required that businesses keep certain records ad always have them available for government inspectors during business hours, at the principal place of business. The address of the principal office had to be posted on your web site. I, and many people I worked with, worked for home. We couldn't guarantee that we'd always be there 8-5 as required by the rule, and didn't love the idea of paying our home address in our web sites. During the comment period, we suggested that the rules allow the records to be held at our lawyer's office or somewhere else where regulators could inspect them any time. Also, our vendors *already had* the records. We'd just be keeping an extra copy of the records we got from the vendor. Could we instead post the address of the vendor who already had the records anyway? That way we didn't have to be always be home 8-5, and didn't have to post our home address.
Our proposed change made it into the final draft. The regulators got what they wanted that way - they have the ability to inspect the records, and know where to find them. We got what we wanted. That's what the comments period of the rule-making process is for, not an American Idol vote.
Btw, the idea for the net neutrality rules applying to big companies with at least 25% market share in a particular city, while allowing small players to offer specialty services, came from Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was just nominated to the Supreme Court. He wrote that NN laws should distinguish between monopoly / duopoly companies like Comcast (who could be heavily regulated) vs small operations who should be allowed to offer specialty services to people who want something different, maybe an connection for their alarm system that is separate from the main home internet, or a co-op mesh network.
You're entitled to your own opinion. Not to your facts.
Here are 87 FCC enforcement actions from the last six months.
https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/...
Section IV of the Rule defines affected providers as:
"establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data,
text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a
single technology or a combination of technologies."
https://www.npr.org/sections/t...
Where do you see a "don't called it 'the internet'" clause in the Rule?
Here's the old / existing version:
 1.717 Procedure.
The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the carrierâ(TM)s report or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, without response to the complainant. In all other cases, the Commission will contact the complainant regarding its review and disposition of the matters raised. If the complainant is not satisfied by the carrierâ(TM)s response and the Commissionâ(TM)s disposition, it may file a formal complaint in accordance with  1.721 of this part.
A quick summary of the old/existing process:
The FCC informs the company of the complaint. If they don't resolve it, the consumer can file a formal complaint ($255)
In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database and acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies.
And the new version:
1.717 Procedure.
The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation and may set a due date for the carrier to provide a written response to the informal complaint to the Commission, with a copy to the complainant. The response will advise the Commission of the carrierâ(TM)s satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the carrierâ(TM)s response or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed. In all other cases, the Commission will notify the complainant that if the complainant is not satisfied by the carrierâ(TM)s response, or if the carrier has failed to submit a response by the due date, the complainant may file a formal complaint in accordance with  1.721 of this part.
A quick summary of the proposed process:
The FCC informs the company of the complaint. If they don't resolve it, the consumer can file a formal complaint ($255)
In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database and acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies.
Yeah ISPs here offer those too, they are client-side filters. Mom may or may not realize it only affects the computer she installs it on, not the tablet or anything else. Kids laugh at that software, while showing mom how to reboot the router.
Anyway, Kavanaugh figures it should be legal for you to get some kind of specialized internet service if you want to, if the provider isn't a major player. (Comcast etc can be subject to more regulation, he says).
Something is missing in this story. Care to show me a link to one?
-Works in MY rig/environment
Means we need to know exactly which environment it doesn't work in (along with what "doesn't work" means).
-RTFM (I already did, this isn't in there)
Often means the person didn't know which word they were looking for in the manual, and therefore didn't see it without reading *carefully".
Seriously, if you're frequently not getting good responses, it's very likely the way you habitually handle / report things is missing some important element that you don't realize you need to include.
Either something you don't realize you need to include, or an aggressive, off-putting attitude. I seriously did read ESR's semi-serious piece at least three times, so I don't forget.
It's interesting how we got to this point.
Years ago it was sold as "business records" - the government could demand records from businesses without a warrant or any other standard, just demand records for no reason because they are getting it from a "big bad corporation". Nobody cared, nobody objected because corporations (groups of people) are bad, m'kay.
That established the principle that "business records" don't have the same protection. The phone company's "business records" include records of which calls they completed, for whom. Records from cell phone carriers about which customers were connected to which towers have been classified as "business records". It's okay because they are getting data from those big bad corporations, not from individuals, the theory goes.
He wrote that you have a right to buy or sell a kid-safe internet service, or whatever kind of service you want, UNLESS the ISP in question is a major player in a particular market.
If there are one or two or three big ISPs in a city, the government has sufficient interest in regulating those more strictly than a start-up alternative. He wrote that the rules would have passed first amendment muster if they had applied to ISPs with significant market share, say 25%. "Market power", he wrote, the ability to make decisions that customers don't like, but there isn't much that customers can do about it. If customers can't easily choose a different service, then government can step in, he thought.
Under the NN rules, if you live in a city with Comcast and CenturyLink, it would be illegal for you to offer a kid-safe internet service. Kavanaugh said that went to far. The NN requirements are only justified for ISPs with market power , the monopolies and duopolies, unless the government shows some reason it should be illegal for a small company to offer a $5 educational internet plan that doesn't stream HD video.
That sounds like a response I would expect if I sent "this is crap".
I've read and re-read this semi-humorous article to make sure I remember the serious points it includes:
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/s...
The gist of it is, if I want something done, I do as much of it as I can, sometimes that's describing the problem in as much detail as possible, including describing what I expected to see happen instead. For a feature request, that means identifying the use case - who would use this new feature, fot what? Other times I send a pull request - I do fix the problem. Normally I only do a pull request (fix) for very simple problems. For more complex ones I send a message describing what I plan to fix first, asking for feedback.
I can't think of any animosity, no. Of course I've never sent utter crap to Linus. That gets a fun response.
One module owner was "picky" about following all the guidelines exactly, and really thinking through how to do things. That got frustrating at times. It resulted in high-quality software, though. Once when we could couldn't agree on approach A or approach B I suggested we try talking on the phone, thinking just *maybe* a different mode of communication would make a difference. It definitely did make a difference. Halfway through the conversation he thought of approach C, which sounded really good to both of us.
People sometimes have different ideas, or disagree, but I listen carefully to understand their thoughts and concerns and we find an approach that works for both of us. Recently I sent a pull request for a module which is a simple wrapper around a more complex module. I wanted to add an option. He thought the change should instead be made in the more complex, embedded module. I explained why I thought that wasn't the right way to go. He didn't want to make XML::Simple more complex by adding options, so instead we decided to change the default behavior of XML::Simple and not make it an option.
That's along the lines of what Judge Kavanaugh said in his dissent. He wrote that the rules would have been okay if the applied to ISPs with significant market share in a particular area. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating a monopoly or duopoly or monopoly, sufficient to override the rights of businesses and customers to decide they want a "kid friendly" Internet service or whatever. As written, the rules applied to ALL ISPs, no matter what market power they had, so it was illegal to operate a kid friendly service. Fixing that would have saved the Net Neutrality rules from a 1st amendment challenge, he thought.
The other issue he pointed out is that Congress, who has the sole power to write laws, gave the FCC authority to implement a specific law covering the phone company. The FCC was to handle the details of enforcing the law that Congress wrote. Nowhere did Congress give the FCC authority to unilaterally create net neutrality.
According to Kavanaugh, here's how the Constitution provides for laws, including those related to net neutrality, to be passed:
Congress passes a law saying which principles of net neutrality should be legally required.
Congress identifies which agency they are empowering to enforce that law (FTC? FCC?).
Laws and regulations balance your rights with government interests. More burdensome regulations can be applied to ISPs with over 25% of given market or whatever.
This balances your first amendment right to provide a low-cost service designed for text rather than video, or a kid-safe service, or whatever with the government's interest in regulating businesses that aren't effectively regulated by the free market.
Certainly SCOTUS needs to look at the words on the page, not what they think SHOULD have been in Constitution.
That said, the following exchange just happened at my house:
Person1: You need to eat.
Person2: You need to yourself.
What would an appropriate response be? "You need to eat yourself" could have two meanings, but we know what the person meant when they said it. The intended meaning guides our interpretation.
When we read the newspaper headline "Children make nutritious snacks", we know the author means children are cooking, not that they are snacks. We interpret it bases on what the writer meant.
Unfortunately, the authors of the Constitution occasionally uses words that mean something different today than they did 200 years ago, words that aren't 100 crystal clear, and in at least one case, words that seem to contradict each other. What meaning should be ascribed to those words? Fortunately, the founders also wrote hundreds of pages telling us exactly what they meant by those words, and why they said what they said. It seems clear to me that is something to consider to selecting which meaning to use - the meaning the writer intended.
He was caught within a few hours, because all changes all public:
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit...
Possibly bad guys would rather add trojans to iPhone and Android apps, which may stay in the store for months without detection. You can't tell what changes have been made to compiled apps you download on iPhone, Android, or Windows.
I think it's a perfect example of the difference between "bugs don't exist" and "the bug is shallow - to someone". Lots. Of people looked into it deeply and couldn't figure out a good way to fix it. Weimer immediately saw what needed to be done - it was shallow to him, with enough eyeballs "the fix will be obvious to someone".
Compare Intel's Meltdown patches. They release a patch and say everyone should use it. Then two or three weeks later "oh shit, don't install our patch! We'll make a new patch soon.". How many Meltdown patches has Intel released and then retracted? They are missing the set of eyeballs that would see the simple solution to the core problem.
This is an entirely separate issue from avoiding bugs in the first place. Both are important. However, bugs that all the script kiddies have exploits for are much more dangerous than bugs nobody knows about. Therefore, fixing known issues quickly and correctly is a big deal for security.
Your experiences remind me of something I learned about open source development. I now start by posting about what I intend to do. I've received these responses:
John is working on that and expects to release it next week.
No need to do all that, just use setting Xyx and skip the last part.
That seemed like a good idea, but when we looked into it we noticed this trap.
We decided we want Betaflight to focus on LOS. Your idea fits better with the iNav fork, which already does most of that.
Hey that's a good idea. Can you also allow multiples? That would be useful for me. I can help test.
It says "... bugs are shallow", not "bugs don't exist".
See:
https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
You misunderstand what the quote is about.
It says "... bugs are shallow", not "bugs don't exist".
See:
https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
In the case of Heartbleed, it became public on April 7th.
The fix was available on April 5th. Meaning it was patched, and some people protected, before users even knew there was a problem.
Compare some IE bugs which were publicly acknowledged for seven YEARS before being fixed.
Exactly. ESR summed up Linus's thoughts as ".. all bugs are shallow", not "all bugs don't exist".
Linus's exact words were:
"Somebody finds the problem, and somebody else *understands* it."
I'll share two examples from my own experience. Somebody found the shell shock bug and suggested a fix. Over the next few hours, hundreds of people looked at it. Some saw that the suggested fix wouldn't quite cover this variation or that variation, so they tweaked it. Florian Weimer, from Red Hat, said those tweaks would never cover all the variations, and suggested an entirely different fix, one that went to crux of the problem. Over the next few days, there was a lot of discussion. Eventually it became clear that Florian had been right. When he looked at the problem, he immediately understood it deeply. Well, it looked deep to us. To him, it was shallow.
""Somebody finds the problem, and somebody else *understands* it", Linus said. Stéphane Chazelas found shellshock, Florian understood it, fully, immediately.
There was no need to release a patch to fix the patch for the patch as we often see from Microsoft, or as we've seen from Intel lately. With hundreds of people looking at it, somebody saw the right solution, easily.
Here's another example from my personal experience with the Linux storage stack:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Here are the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
It's very clear that being published does NOT make it reliable. Publication is generally a prerequisite to citing a source simply because others need to be able to refer to the source and see it for themselves. For example, I once heard Mikhail Gorbachev say something interesting, in person. I can't cite that as a source because you can't tell if he actually said what I claim. I could have heard him wrong, or I could completely make up the whole incident. To cite it, I'd need to find video available of his remarks or something.
Where publication is key is determining NOTABILITY. If several large publications carry stories about something, it's notable (almost by definition, since people noticed it). That goes to the notability of the *topic*, not anything specifically the sources say about it. For example, the '57 Chevy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article as evidenced by the many articles and even books written about it, plus songs, paintings, etc. The new product I thought up this morning does not yet have any evidence of notability because nobody besides me has eve heard of it. The fact that lots of people write (and even sing) about the '57 Chevy makes it notable - quite apart from any claims they make about the Chevy. Eric Clapton and Don McLean aren't reliable sources of information about the Chevy, they are evidence that the culture took notice of it. These are two separate things.
Aside from that, Wikipedia authors are supposed to cite reliable sources in the articles. Why? Because Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source, it's only roughly as reliable as the sources it cites (or doesn't).
That said, on most topics it ends up being pretty good.
Yes, the end user can hide the icon, on any platform.
That's not what this is about. It's about you can't buy or sell a new phone with the app store installed unless it also has other apps installed.
Google requires that any phones shipped with its app store also ship with several of Google's apps, and icons for a few more, which aren't actually installed.
Apple requires any phone using its app store to come with 37 Apple apps pre-installed.
> You wanna use our app store, you gotta install our search.
> Apple doesn't do that.
Actually if you want to use Apple's app store, you DO have to have their search. Also their voice assistant, their messaging app, their camera app, their email app, their news app, their hardware ...
You can't get a phone with Apple's app store installed unless it also has 36 other Apple apps bundled too.
Google says "our app store is part of our bundle of five or six apps". Apple bundles 37 apps with its app store. So Apple does the same thing, times six.
APK said something interesting, but it sure would be easier to read of this paragraph was broken into sentences:
See subject: Many disassemblers/hackers of code (for GOOD or BAD purposes) have issues w/ Delphi VCL statically built-in design (separating data from instructions for 1 thing) & it's DEFAULT is statically built programs vs. MARSHALLING (ole type load via GUID) libs external to the program (ala .DLL or .OCX for example) OR std. DLL loads (non-OLE type/oldschool/traditional) & w/ a MSVC++ program, it's interface @ THE VERY LEAST is run by MSVC*#Version.DLL libs (easy to identify) & Delphi's is built as a I said (statically compiled in source libs for all things by default on std. .exe file).
Even better, easier to read and understand, would be no more than one parenthetical per sentence. Maybe I'll give a try:
--
Many disassemblers/hackers have issues w/ Delphi VCL's statically built-in design. For one thing, separating data from instructions is an issue. Also, by default, it statically links, building the library into the executable. Compare Microsoft MSVC, which by default loads an external DLL file.
--