Contrary to the Huffington Post blogger hyperbole this is not "tantamount to giving up on net neutrality". It is deferring to Congress to define laws on net neutrality, rather than asserting wide regulatory powers by reclassifying broadband as a Title II telecommunication service. There are some good aspects to this approach.
While it is true that Title II includes sections non-discriminatory behavior, allowing some sort of net neutrality regulations, it goes far beyond that and also includes things like universal service, mandated rural subsidies, pricing structures and a whole bunch of reporting requirements. Even if you agree with applying these sorts of regulations to broadband, it should also be considered that they were written with the telephone/telegraph industries in mind, and many details of them may not be the best approach for broadband.
Finally, no aspect of cable has ever been classified as a Title II service, and you can bet there would be huge opposition by the cable companies. While a majority could be secured in congress to support a net neutrality law, when you throw in all the other baggage that Title II entails, I don't think there is as much support. If the FCC attempted this reclassification without congressional support, they could find new knee-jerk legislation heading their way.
I think the best approach is to work with congress to develop net neutrality laws.
Google's Android specific code is released under an Apache license which has no restriction on creating proprietary derivative works. Members of the OHA were not required to commit to releasing open handsets, and in fact some mobile companies are already planning on shipping versions of Android that will only run signed code purchased from their app store.
This is what happens when you don't demand reciprocal behavior in your contracts and licensing - the freedom you give to others will be used to restrict the freedom of end users and third parties.
We had this requirement rolled out at work a couple years ago, and it caused great knashing of teeth because the encryption software they chose wasn't great. I've used Linux full disk encryption, Mac OS X File Vault, TrueCrypt for USB drives and folders, GPG for encrypted files, and currently use a hardware-encrypted hard drive for day-to-day use. All of them were significantly faster than the software that our IT staff selected. All of them were easier to use, especially the mental model of what happens to encrypted files when they are copied, and how they interact with systems that don't have the software loaded.
From what I understand the main reason that it was picked, like many other enterprise purchasing decisions, was that it got the group policy / central management factor down, where-as the other options I mentioned are largely targeted for end users.
This is really no different from geeks saying you need anti-virus software installed, and then bitching about Symantic and McAfee bloatware.
Bah, they didn't review KOffice 2, even though it had been released at the time of writing. It will be included in the next version of all the distros, and ignoring it makes their roundup obsolete before they even published it.
No. CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and UPN/CW are all broadcast stations. The cable companies simply retransmit them from the broadcast (required by law, and does not require the cable company paying the broadcasters).
In music the composition, the lyrics and the recording are all covered by copyright. You are required to pay royalties for covers and adaptations regardless of whether you use the actual recording.
Not all junior politicians can keep up with the vast volume of shit generated by seasoned veterans. It is sad reality that many ambitious young people now turn to supplements to keep up in this highly competitive field.
Stuff that I want commercialized and brought to the public at large on the other hand needs to be kicked off to private industry ASAP.
What stuff? The Delta and Atlas are already commercialized, but practically no one wants to use them other than the government. Boeing and Lockheed have already stated that they are only willing to bring those rockets up to man-rated status if they are given a normal cost-plus contract to do so because they don't believe there is a business justification for it otherwise. They don't think that NASA or Bigelow are stable enough customers to risk any money for.
In other words, these companies that Obama is dumping money on have no interest in commercializing space. They just want to continue sucking the government's teat. The ones that do, like SpaceX aren't far enough along to serve NASA's launch needs right now.
As far as manned LEO is concerned NASA is in a no-win situation. They can sink a ton of money into their own design, they can sink a ton of money into ULA's design, or they can suspend LEO activities and rely on our international partners until entrepreneurs like SpaceX until they are ready. Frankly, I think LEO is a waste of time and money. The ISS was an international effort from the start and I see no shame in shifting responsibility away from the US once we meet our obligation to launch the existing modules, choosing to pursue more worthwhile ventures instead.
I was originally supportive of the Ares I, mostly because I saw it as a stepping stone to Ares V (more about that later), but now I am having some doubts. I see no point in man-rating a Delta rocket at this point though. In my mind it would just be a stop-gap while waiting for Space X. The gains of having our own LEO capabilities for that short window of time just isn't worth it, and I don't see any purpose in dumping money on companies that aren't going to commercialize.
NASA can now focus on stuff that the private sector can't do,
But the thing is, that requires launch capabilities that the market doesn't have or need. The market is only interested in launching small satellites into orbit, mostly LEO. Even if space tourism took off, that is still just medium payloads to LEO, with the added safety requirements.
Part of the reason that the market isn't interested in Atlas or Delta is because they were designed for larger goals than the market needs (although that doesn't justify all of their exorbitant launch costs), such as sending school-bus sized probes to Saturn. Furthermore, if we are going to do anything interesting with a manned space program at all we are going to need a heavy lift vehicle that currently does not exist and that the market has no interest in. So the market has no role in this discussion. The options are all some combination of government/contractor collaboration to produce a HLV for specific government needs.
I think the Ares V was a solid design. It used proven technologies (like the SRB) where they made sense, and improved based on NASA funded research over the years where it made sense (The J2X aerospike engine is just awesome). I seriously doubt that handing this job over to Boeing or Lockheed would save us any money or get us a rocket any sooner.
I agree, keep NASA focused doing what the market can't, which includes heavy lift capability.
Meh. If someone from NYC can't bothered to head down to the Smithsonian then that's their problem. These should be shared with the rest of the country.
You missed the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville Alabama. It is located near to the NASA Marshall Space Center, and is where Space Camp occurs. It is one of the main museums from the von Braun era including original V2, Redstone, Jupiter and Saturn 1B and V rockets. It currently holds the shuttle mass-mock-up Pathfinder, but it would be awesome to have an actual retired shuttle at Space Camp.
My choices would be: Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, Kennedy Space Center and US Space and Rocket Center, and with the requirement that Enterprise, Explorer and Pathfinder are passed on to other, smaller museums.
There was already fallout from cases like this when it was first discovered in the mid-nineties. I grew up more or less on the Navajo reservation, and remember sitting in on a PTO meeting as a high school student. There was a doctor there who was explaining the diabetes screening that was going to be taking place in the coming months.
She was a Navajo gal who had returned to the res after getting her degree (despite the fact that she could have got a much better job elsewhere), and had managed to secure a government grant to perform free diabetes screening of every native student in the district. I thought this was a great thing given the high rate of diabetes on the res, the low health care coverage, and the importance of detecting diabetes early.
However, one of the school board members, who also held a tribal government post, kept railing on her and accusing her of all kinds of crap, including asking why she hadn't gotten permission from her as a tribal officer first (in fact the doctor had, and even had papers signed by the board member with her). At first I thought it was just because she was a territorial bitch (she was). However, after later hearing about this case, I understood why she was so sensitive to this particular issue, and agreed that her concerns (although not her behavior) were absolutely justified.
Some services may be provided automatically without notice when you are online, and others may be available to you through SCE's online network or authorized channels. Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system.
What part of "automatically without notice" do you not understand? This isn't like the OtherOS update where you could choose not to upgrade (and loose access to network service). They are saying that they can update your system remotely whether you choose to allow them or not.
This has nothing to do with journals. The data was not available anywhere - not in a for-pay journal, not on a website, not on request. It was the researchers that refused to release the raw data - the publishers have no motivation to suppress these release, because it is the published paper that earns them money, not the raw data.
I use USENET legally and Google Groups and other free sources just don't provide what I want. Firstly, they dont cover binary groups and secondly they aren't nearly as easy/convenient to use.
Honest question here. I understand why people would prefer to use a real news reader as opposed to mailing lists or web forums, as they are much better tools for the job. But binary groups? That is like preferring to get binary files as shar email text rather than an attachment. It was a hacked in use and I never saw the appeal apart from piracy.
What features of USENET make it better for obtaining legitimate binaries compared to FTP or HTTP or Bittorrent?
Having "rich web content" implemented using a plugin is really convenient, as it is self-contained, separate from the rest of the site and easy to disable by default. Right now I can simply install flashblock and disable animated GIFs, and not have to deal with 95% of the obtrusive ads, while still supporting sites with reasonable ad policies.
As annoying ads move further towards using open standards like Javascript, DOM, CSS, SVG and Canvas I have no clue how I am going to selectively block it. It will be using the same tools as the legitimate portions of the website, and also opens the door to advertisements not being spatially segregated into a single area. You already see this with floating ads and it is only going to get worse. Given how many sites need things like Javascript for legitimate reasons, I can't turn it off indiscriminately. I have tried using noscript, and got sick of half the sites on the web not working. I got sick of having to fill out every form twice because I got to the end only to discover that it requires javascript to submit, and enabling javascript inevitably reinitialized (cleared) the form.
I have the feeling that it will become futile to try and block these ads, so my granularity will change to boycotting entire sites that include them.
Yeah, it's different and it's why I dropped out of grad school the first time. The expectation was merely to publish, but almost no-one has enough background at that level to publish something that is original. Instead the students that succeed were those that could bullshit the best and didn't mind publishing something that has been known for 30 years but wrapped in new buzzwords. If that was what I wanted to do I would have majored in liberal arts.
But most of the IT folks in the district are men, including Mike Perbix, who was heavily involved with the laptop spying program, as seen in this video he created
Wow, that is a whole lot of crazy in the AC's link.
I have never head the term sovereign individual used in that manner until today. I've always seen it used as a declaration that you choose to live your life by your own rules regardless of what the law says, and in conjunction with schemes like this one, that help enable that sort of lifestyle.
Do you know about any good studies on nicotine vaporizers? I have had a couple people ask me about them, but haven't been able to find any reliable info on them. The folks selling them of course claim that they are 100% harmless. The only info out of the FDA basically amounts to "we haven't studied these, and no one should be allowed to use anything we haven't approved". In addition to health affects I also haven't been able to find any credible information about the nicotine content of any second hand vapor.
I think the ALA is retarded for demanding that these be banned while cigarettes remain legal. But it would be nice to know how they compare to patches for people trying to quit, or to cigarettes for smokers that want to decrease their chances of lung cancer, or just get around indoor smoking bans.
It isn't hard to find chemical free cigarettes. Most of the convenience stores around here stock at least one variety, like this brand. They aren't really any healthier though. The health problems with cigarettes have far less to do with the chemicals, and more to do with partially combusted hydrocarbons (tar) sticking to the most sensitive parts of your lungs.
The chemicals are put into cigarettes for various reasons - some to make the smoke "smoother", some for flavor, some to make the cigarette burn faster, and others actually increase the combustion of the leaves, decreasing some of the more harmful naturally occurring components of tar.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to the Huffington Post blogger hyperbole this is not "tantamount to giving up on net neutrality". It is deferring to Congress to define laws on net neutrality, rather than asserting wide regulatory powers by reclassifying broadband as a Title II telecommunication service. There are some good aspects to this approach.
While it is true that Title II includes sections non-discriminatory behavior, allowing some sort of net neutrality regulations, it goes far beyond that and also includes things like universal service, mandated rural subsidies, pricing structures and a whole bunch of reporting requirements. Even if you agree with applying these sorts of regulations to broadband, it should also be considered that they were written with the telephone/telegraph industries in mind, and many details of them may not be the best approach for broadband.
Finally, no aspect of cable has ever been classified as a Title II service, and you can bet there would be huge opposition by the cable companies. While a majority could be secured in congress to support a net neutrality law, when you throw in all the other baggage that Title II entails, I don't think there is as much support. If the FCC attempted this reclassification without congressional support, they could find new knee-jerk legislation heading their way.
I think the best approach is to work with congress to develop net neutrality laws.
Google's Android specific code is released under an Apache license which has no restriction on creating proprietary derivative works. Members of the OHA were not required to commit to releasing open handsets, and in fact some mobile companies are already planning on shipping versions of Android that will only run signed code purchased from their app store.
This is what happens when you don't demand reciprocal behavior in your contracts and licensing - the freedom you give to others will be used to restrict the freedom of end users and third parties.
Your car is run by hamsters and your roof smells of pokeberries!
We had this requirement rolled out at work a couple years ago, and it caused great knashing of teeth because the encryption software they chose wasn't great. I've used Linux full disk encryption, Mac OS X File Vault, TrueCrypt for USB drives and folders, GPG for encrypted files, and currently use a hardware-encrypted hard drive for day-to-day use. All of them were significantly faster than the software that our IT staff selected. All of them were easier to use, especially the mental model of what happens to encrypted files when they are copied, and how they interact with systems that don't have the software loaded.
From what I understand the main reason that it was picked, like many other enterprise purchasing decisions, was that it got the group policy / central management factor down, where-as the other options I mentioned are largely targeted for end users.
This is really no different from geeks saying you need anti-virus software installed, and then bitching about Symantic and McAfee bloatware.
Bah, they didn't review KOffice 2, even though it had been released at the time of writing. It will be included in the next version of all the distros, and ignoring it makes their roundup obsolete before they even published it.
No. CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and UPN/CW are all broadcast stations. The cable companies simply retransmit them from the broadcast (required by law, and does not require the cable company paying the broadcasters).
In music the composition, the lyrics and the recording are all covered by copyright. You are required to pay royalties for covers and adaptations regardless of whether you use the actual recording.
This bill isn't in YOUR business unless you're in the business of selling R-rated materials to minors without parental consent.
Yes, it is my business. I now have to obtain a government ID to be granted the privilege to buy video games.
Not all junior politicians can keep up with the vast volume of shit generated by seasoned veterans. It is sad reality that many ambitious young people now turn to supplements to keep up in this highly competitive field.
Stuff that I want commercialized and brought to the public at large on the other hand needs to be kicked off to private industry ASAP.
What stuff? The Delta and Atlas are already commercialized, but practically no one wants to use them other than the government. Boeing and Lockheed have already stated that they are only willing to bring those rockets up to man-rated status if they are given a normal cost-plus contract to do so because they don't believe there is a business justification for it otherwise. They don't think that NASA or Bigelow are stable enough customers to risk any money for.
In other words, these companies that Obama is dumping money on have no interest in commercializing space. They just want to continue sucking the government's teat. The ones that do, like SpaceX aren't far enough along to serve NASA's launch needs right now.
As far as manned LEO is concerned NASA is in a no-win situation. They can sink a ton of money into their own design, they can sink a ton of money into ULA's design, or they can suspend LEO activities and rely on our international partners until entrepreneurs like SpaceX until they are ready. Frankly, I think LEO is a waste of time and money. The ISS was an international effort from the start and I see no shame in shifting responsibility away from the US once we meet our obligation to launch the existing modules, choosing to pursue more worthwhile ventures instead.
I was originally supportive of the Ares I, mostly because I saw it as a stepping stone to Ares V (more about that later), but now I am having some doubts. I see no point in man-rating a Delta rocket at this point though. In my mind it would just be a stop-gap while waiting for Space X. The gains of having our own LEO capabilities for that short window of time just isn't worth it, and I don't see any purpose in dumping money on companies that aren't going to commercialize.
NASA can now focus on stuff that the private sector can't do,
But the thing is, that requires launch capabilities that the market doesn't have or need. The market is only interested in launching small satellites into orbit, mostly LEO. Even if space tourism took off, that is still just medium payloads to LEO, with the added safety requirements.
Part of the reason that the market isn't interested in Atlas or Delta is because they were designed for larger goals than the market needs (although that doesn't justify all of their exorbitant launch costs), such as sending school-bus sized probes to Saturn. Furthermore, if we are going to do anything interesting with a manned space program at all we are going to need a heavy lift vehicle that currently does not exist and that the market has no interest in. So the market has no role in this discussion. The options are all some combination of government/contractor collaboration to produce a HLV for specific government needs.
I think the Ares V was a solid design. It used proven technologies (like the SRB) where they made sense, and improved based on NASA funded research over the years where it made sense (The J2X aerospike engine is just awesome). I seriously doubt that handing this job over to Boeing or Lockheed would save us any money or get us a rocket any sooner.
I agree, keep NASA focused doing what the market can't, which includes heavy lift capability.
Meh. If someone from NYC can't bothered to head down to the Smithsonian then that's their problem. These should be shared with the rest of the country.
You missed the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville Alabama. It is located near to the NASA Marshall Space Center, and is where Space Camp occurs. It is one of the main museums from the von Braun era including original V2, Redstone, Jupiter and Saturn 1B and V rockets. It currently holds the shuttle mass-mock-up Pathfinder, but it would be awesome to have an actual retired shuttle at Space Camp.
My choices would be: Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, Kennedy Space Center and US Space and Rocket Center, and with the requirement that Enterprise, Explorer and Pathfinder are passed on to other, smaller museums.
There was already fallout from cases like this when it was first discovered in the mid-nineties. I grew up more or less on the Navajo reservation, and remember sitting in on a PTO meeting as a high school student. There was a doctor there who was explaining the diabetes screening that was going to be taking place in the coming months.
She was a Navajo gal who had returned to the res after getting her degree (despite the fact that she could have got a much better job elsewhere), and had managed to secure a government grant to perform free diabetes screening of every native student in the district. I thought this was a great thing given the high rate of diabetes on the res, the low health care coverage, and the importance of detecting diabetes early.
However, one of the school board members, who also held a tribal government post, kept railing on her and accusing her of all kinds of crap, including asking why she hadn't gotten permission from her as a tribal officer first (in fact the doctor had, and even had papers signed by the board member with her). At first I thought it was just because she was a territorial bitch (she was). However, after later hearing about this case, I understood why she was so sensitive to this particular issue, and agreed that her concerns (although not her behavior) were absolutely justified.
Some services may be provided automatically without notice when you are online, and others may be available to you through SCE's online network or authorized channels. Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system.
What part of "automatically without notice" do you not understand? This isn't like the OtherOS update where you could choose not to upgrade (and loose access to network service). They are saying that they can update your system remotely whether you choose to allow them or not.
This has nothing to do with journals. The data was not available anywhere - not in a for-pay journal, not on a website, not on request. It was the researchers that refused to release the raw data - the publishers have no motivation to suppress these release, because it is the published paper that earns them money, not the raw data.
I use USENET legally and Google Groups and other free sources just don't provide what I want. Firstly, they dont cover binary groups and secondly they aren't nearly as easy/convenient to use.
Honest question here. I understand why people would prefer to use a real news reader as opposed to mailing lists or web forums, as they are much better tools for the job. But binary groups? That is like preferring to get binary files as shar email text rather than an attachment. It was a hacked in use and I never saw the appeal apart from piracy.
What features of USENET make it better for obtaining legitimate binaries compared to FTP or HTTP or Bittorrent?
No kidding. A thousand EVP enthusiasts just shat themselves in excitement.
Having "rich web content" implemented using a plugin is really convenient, as it is self-contained, separate from the rest of the site and easy to disable by default. Right now I can simply install flashblock and disable animated GIFs, and not have to deal with 95% of the obtrusive ads, while still supporting sites with reasonable ad policies.
As annoying ads move further towards using open standards like Javascript, DOM, CSS, SVG and Canvas I have no clue how I am going to selectively block it. It will be using the same tools as the legitimate portions of the website, and also opens the door to advertisements not being spatially segregated into a single area. You already see this with floating ads and it is only going to get worse. Given how many sites need things like Javascript for legitimate reasons, I can't turn it off indiscriminately. I have tried using noscript, and got sick of half the sites on the web not working. I got sick of having to fill out every form twice because I got to the end only to discover that it requires javascript to submit, and enabling javascript inevitably reinitialized (cleared) the form.
I have the feeling that it will become futile to try and block these ads, so my granularity will change to boycotting entire sites that include them.
Yeah, it's different and it's why I dropped out of grad school the first time. The expectation was merely to publish, but almost no-one has enough background at that level to publish something that is original. Instead the students that succeed were those that could bullshit the best and didn't mind publishing something that has been known for 30 years but wrapped in new buzzwords. If that was what I wanted to do I would have majored in liberal arts.
Except that neither party in the Bilski case is presenting a constitutional argument.
But most of the IT folks in the district are men, including Mike Perbix, who was heavily involved with the laptop spying program, as seen in this video he created
Wow, that is a whole lot of crazy in the AC's link.
I have never head the term sovereign individual used in that manner until today. I've always seen it used as a declaration that you choose to live your life by your own rules regardless of what the law says, and in conjunction with schemes like this one, that help enable that sort of lifestyle.
That belongs in a museum!
Do you know about any good studies on nicotine vaporizers? I have had a couple people ask me about them, but haven't been able to find any reliable info on them. The folks selling them of course claim that they are 100% harmless. The only info out of the FDA basically amounts to "we haven't studied these, and no one should be allowed to use anything we haven't approved". In addition to health affects I also haven't been able to find any credible information about the nicotine content of any second hand vapor.
I think the ALA is retarded for demanding that these be banned while cigarettes remain legal. But it would be nice to know how they compare to patches for people trying to quit, or to cigarettes for smokers that want to decrease their chances of lung cancer, or just get around indoor smoking bans.
It isn't hard to find chemical free cigarettes. Most of the convenience stores around here stock at least one variety, like this brand. They aren't really any healthier though. The health problems with cigarettes have far less to do with the chemicals, and more to do with partially combusted hydrocarbons (tar) sticking to the most sensitive parts of your lungs.
The chemicals are put into cigarettes for various reasons - some to make the smoke "smoother", some for flavor, some to make the cigarette burn faster, and others actually increase the combustion of the leaves, decreasing some of the more harmful naturally occurring components of tar.