Here's a simple answer for you. Congress delegated regulatory authority for a few things to the FCC.
The first and most important delegation is the wireless spectrum, they gave the authority to the FCC to regulate the use of the radio spectrum to prevent interference and maximize the value. This power is essentially unrestricted with regard to wireless transmissions under the conditions Congress placed on the regulation (the FCC can't regulate military communications for example).
The Second is congress delegated to the FCC the ability to regulate wire-line services declared to be "Title II", basically services deemed to be essential. This power also allows the FCC to decide if something is Title II or not. In the early days of telephone this was to allow the FCC to regulate interstate communication and was later expanded to allow them to regulate the POTS system for things like 911 etc, it later was expanded to cover Cable TV (which was then removed in the 90's with the exception of explicit content) The Title II regulations are the only authority under which the FCC can regulate wire-line services at this time. The last court case the FCC lost explicitly noted this. If it's not Title II, the FCC doesn't have ANY authority to regulate and that includes blocking state level regulation. Without Title II they can't do anything and they've been stomped in courts at least 3 times for trying to do so without the Title II decleration.
The FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, the Wheeler NN regulations prior to the ones that were just repealed were tossed by the federal courts for this very reason. If you classify it an unregulated data service the FCC is waiving all authority to regulate it. It's either Title II and subject to regulation or it's not Title II and the FCC has no authority to regulate. This is exactly what the verdict in the last case says and it's the reason Wheeler reclassified internet as Title II, so they had authority to regulate but then tried to do so with the lightest hand possible.
Ajit is going to lose this one in court the first case that comes up because he tossed the Title II designation. The court record is explicit, the FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, if it's not Title II they don't have the authority to do anything at all.
Only problem is the FCC can't preempt state laws without a title II classification.
They've already lost on this several times in court but every successive republican admin tries the same bloody thing to eliminate all regulations by unclassifying internet service but also preempt state rules and every time the court strikes down the attempt to regulate it (preempting state laws is a regulation) when it's unclassified.
Either it's regulated under Title II and the FCC can set whatever rules they want, or it's not and they can't set ANY rules. The court told the FCC this directly when they lost the initial unregulated NN regulations suit during the Obama years (it was before they reclassified as type II to give them the authority to do so just like the court verdict said). They've only got two choices, they don't get to claim it's an unregulated service and then bar state level action.
Ajit is just doing his duty as a good Telecom lawyer by trying to have his cake and eat it too by doing what the law doesn't allow him to do. He can't block state regulations on unclassified services. There's at least 3 court rulings on various attempts to get around this Title II problem and the last case was explicit, you can't regulate it unless it's a Title II service, you declare it's an unregulated data service and you can't then place restrictions on either the providers or the states. The FCC's only authority to regulate telecom is under Title II.
Meds Per Person: 22800000.0/2900.0 = 7862.07 Meds Per Person/Year: 7862.07/10.0 = 786.21 Meds Per Person/Day: 786.21/365 = 2.15
Now it is unlikely that the Town is all on these Meds and 2 of these meds a day is very high. I have family suffering from constant pain, and they only use these once a week, in case of extreme pain (And unlike the media, these meds do work), to bring the pain to a manageable level.
It always amazes me how many experts there are in how much pain people are in and how much they should be able to tolerate.
Nothing like a quote from the jack booted thugs in the DEA for how to ruin America.
You know how you actually ruin America? You put law enforcement in charge of a medical issue. Then they do things like threaten people with jail which cuts the pharmaceutical supplies of a drug with physical addiction issues so the users have to immediately turn to street drugs to reduce withdrawl side effects.
Then on top of that you stigmatize drug treatment so that seeking help makes you a looser, then add in a little random drug screening at employers so the person gets fired as well.
Our war on drugs is the most fucked up thing you could EVER do to this country.
Small towns like that are often 50% or more elderly. By my calculations that would offer 962 people in town a monthly supply of 180pills which is a fairly typical maintenance dose (2 pills 3 times a day). Given the size of the town and the likely high numbers of elderly I find nothing wrong with this other than rather obvious political scapegoating. The real political story in this number is the large number of people with chronic pain and/or cancer. Is this is town a cancer cluster?
Short acting opiates take 20 minutes to affect you, require an hour to reach full potency and gradually fall off till the 4 hour point where they begin to drop off steeply until about 6 hours. Anyone that's taking pain meds for chronic pain is going to be taking doses 3-4 times a day minimum. Typically these people are also at least partly opiod tolerant and will need to take 2 pills at a time.
This is why the network itself should be government owned but services offered via the network should be handled by private companies. Built on top of agnostic open protocol system it's perfectly possible to have a fully functional system and upgrades at the cheapest rate possible. Your state highway department likely does a fine job managing your road construction dollars and services even though it's so highly political that it can take years to do anything at all.
The quickest and cleanest solution sets up a board of trustees of either elected officials or an appointed (by the elected officials) commission that develops the infrastructure plan and upgrade paths yearly, often with a SIP type process where you designate a 5 or 10 year time frame for state wide infrastructure plans. Then you have a small bureaucracy to handle management bidding and payment etc on private contracts. Then you create contracts that public low bid the management, construction and maintenance on a periodic timeframe with contracts that have set timetables for response times and such.
Management is separate people from the strategic planning though it's possible to have small committees in the management that offer advice to the strategic commission, the broad strategic planning leaves the details to the management under some defined process. This is how 90% of the state DOTs manage roadways within the states.
As a claimed dyed in the wool lefty you exhibit a complete lack of understanding of how this is a solved problem. We've been doing this since the 50's in the transportation sector and it works. It would work just as well in the communication sector and you won't need anywhere near the kind of money you do to build a roadway. Don't buy into the propaganda that state run businesses are inefficient and bad, because that's just what it is, propaganda.
Spying will likely be less under a government run system. A private company can voluntarily (the only thing preventing them from doing so would be public backlash but Congress waived their requirement to tell you they'd shared the data and waived liability for doing so with the patriot act) hand your data over without a warrant, government run organizations can not.
You would actually be far safer with a government run network in that regard.
The biggest factor slowing down government isn't "being fair". It's red tape placed to document transactions so fraud and theft can be identified and tracked. 90% of red tape is solely their to either eliminate fraud or make it easier to locate and prosecute.
People that talk about cutting red tape are usually talking about making it easier to steal tax payer money and some of them don't even realize it.
More importantly than anything it segregates the infrastructure from the service. A government run infrastructure would sell access to telecommunication companies to handle the calls. You'd have dozens of choices of telecom providers with different service offerings.
Government run infrastructure in natural monopolies is always the best solution. In fact government owned with yearly bidding on maintaining and running the system would be even better with all costs rolled into the access fee's charged to telecom providers. We'd have 100% national coverage and multiple providers in every area instead of the current system where rural people get the choice of verizon or verizon.
Remote desktop was always going to happen on Wayland, the dev's just didn't want it baked right into the protocol where it would cause all the same problems it's caused on xorg over the last 20 years. There was a wicked misunderstanding between users and the devs and yes it was probably the dev's fault, but they always intended for their to be remote desktop capability, just not baked into the protocol where it doesn't belong.
No you can't. When you run Xorg on your modern computer you are using about 8% of the code base, all the rest of that codebase is still sitting there in the binary waiting for a security hole that NO ONE is looking for.
The people that developed Wayland are the same people that developed X86. They realized before they started the Wayland project that the x86 code base is such a nasty pile of hacks and shit that's not used anymore that it's simply impossible to move forward without a total rewrite because it would take 10 times longer to try to fix that pile of shit than rewrite it from scratch with a proper modern design.
Baloney, it's retaliation for the community not getting behind mir when everyone said wayland had everything mir wanted.
I should also point out the same people beyond Wayland are behind X86.org. At some point that 40 year old code based designed around a 386 when the software had to draw even the primitives just isn't going to cut it anymore.
They want to block individual states passing their own laws because federal law has priority over state law. When they removed the federal net neutrality rules and reclassified internet again the FCC removed their authority to block state level actions.
What ATT wants is a watered down NN that doesn't block "fast lanes" (masquerading as slow lanes for everyone that doesn't pay) and prevents state laws. In other words they want the federal NN gone because they were too strong but they still want federal rules, just really silly easy ones that they can ignore so the states can't pass their own rules.
Damn straight, we should absolutely allow unproven and experimental techniques to be used that will expose the patient to immense pain and immediate death.
Do you realize at all how experimental this stuff is? They haven't even done it on MICE yet. Crisper was developed like 3 years ago. They are still experimenting with bacteria. You think the appropriate action is to jump right to humans?
What you might not know is someone jumped to humans a decade ago without proper protocols, someone experimenting with viruses rewriting someone's DNA killed a 20 year old volunteer in the US. He spent an agonizing 24hrs in intensive care with total organ failure before he died.
The problem is we don't even understand the implications of using CRISPR on live people let alone live animals yet. You could immediately kill the person.
It says potential and there is no clear indication in either article that Meltdown applies to Power processors. Spectre applies to pretty much any processor that uses out of order execution which covers pretty much every modern CPU, but the Meltdown variant (Spectre Variant 3) has only been confirmed to be vulnerable on Intel processors because it's a BUG in the implementation of the scheduler and it's also trivial to use maliciously with working exploits available for 7+ months.
Show me a single link that says affirmatively that the power CPU's are vulnerable to Meltdown. Note it won't use the word POSSIBLE.
I read nothing in that link that says Power processors are vulnerable to Variant 3, commonly called Meltdown. The very article you link to says that Variant 3 is vulnerable on Intel processors.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between Meltdown and Spectre.
This is covered by other sources, you would know that you if you used google and bothered to look, you can go look at the bid prices yourself, they are posted publicly, Vox simply put the bids in a nice clean table. This was an open bid for construction to begin in months and included a storage option. These prices ARE the current prices, your allusion that this isn't true only indicates a complete lack of understanding. There is nothing more open than the current bid prices in an open competitive bid.
The stupid thing would be to compare this to prices from 5 or 10 years ago as some reflection on current pricing. Current pricing is the bids that were opened in January. The bid openings for the past 3 months have been this low, there have been several opening in Texas, Colorado and other places with very similar prices. This corresponds to pricing seen in other parts of the world.
The latest bid prices for wind and solar in the US included solar and were cheaper than old and already paid for power plant coal power. (approx 3 cents a kwh). These bids included storage.
Storage + renewable prices have already reached parity or cheaper than coal in most of the US. This paper indicates the remaining rest of the continental US will reach parity in a few years. Battery prices have fallen precipitously over the last 5 years and storage is competitive with generation.
I understand the difference, what you don't understand the law.
There is no limit on the number of copies of a book a library can purchase other than their own limited funds. The reason your local library only had so many copies of the book was a limit of their funding, not a legal limit. My library controls access to the digital publications through a rudimentary DRM system but I see no legal reason for them to do so. Books have special legal rules regarding copyright exhaustion after sale, these laws are very very old going right back to the first printing presses and publishers attempts to restrict resale.
The supreme court is not going to side with the writers, this is just another attempt to use "digital" as a reason to try to undo these hundreds of years old laws that the publishing world didn't like when they were passed.
I'd also like to add that you understanding of how Libraries work is absolutely wrong on almost all counts, again I suggest you spend some time and learn the history of libraries, particularly the legal trials that resulted and the laws that were passed as a result. You can find adequate summaries on Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a simple answer for you. Congress delegated regulatory authority for a few things to the FCC.
The first and most important delegation is the wireless spectrum, they gave the authority to the FCC to regulate the use of the radio spectrum to prevent interference and maximize the value. This power is essentially unrestricted with regard to wireless transmissions under the conditions Congress placed on the regulation (the FCC can't regulate military communications for example).
The Second is congress delegated to the FCC the ability to regulate wire-line services declared to be "Title II", basically services deemed to be essential. This power also allows the FCC to decide if something is Title II or not. In the early days of telephone this was to allow the FCC to regulate interstate communication and was later expanded to allow them to regulate the POTS system for things like 911 etc, it later was expanded to cover Cable TV (which was then removed in the 90's with the exception of explicit content) The Title II regulations are the only authority under which the FCC can regulate wire-line services at this time. The last court case the FCC lost explicitly noted this. If it's not Title II, the FCC doesn't have ANY authority to regulate and that includes blocking state level regulation. Without Title II they can't do anything and they've been stomped in courts at least 3 times for trying to do so without the Title II decleration.
The FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, the Wheeler NN regulations prior to the ones that were just repealed were tossed by the federal courts for this very reason. If you classify it an unregulated data service the FCC is waiving all authority to regulate it. It's either Title II and subject to regulation or it's not Title II and the FCC has no authority to regulate. This is exactly what the verdict in the last case says and it's the reason Wheeler reclassified internet as Title II, so they had authority to regulate but then tried to do so with the lightest hand possible.
Ajit is going to lose this one in court the first case that comes up because he tossed the Title II designation. The court record is explicit, the FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, if it's not Title II they don't have the authority to do anything at all.
Only problem is the FCC can't preempt state laws without a title II classification.
They've already lost on this several times in court but every successive republican admin tries the same bloody thing to eliminate all regulations by unclassifying internet service but also preempt state rules and every time the court strikes down the attempt to regulate it (preempting state laws is a regulation) when it's unclassified.
Either it's regulated under Title II and the FCC can set whatever rules they want, or it's not and they can't set ANY rules. The court told the FCC this directly when they lost the initial unregulated NN regulations suit during the Obama years (it was before they reclassified as type II to give them the authority to do so just like the court verdict said). They've only got two choices, they don't get to claim it's an unregulated service and then bar state level action.
Ajit is just doing his duty as a good Telecom lawyer by trying to have his cake and eat it too by doing what the law doesn't allow him to do. He can't block state regulations on unclassified services. There's at least 3 court rulings on various attempts to get around this Title II problem and the last case was explicit, you can't regulate it unless it's a Title II service, you declare it's an unregulated data service and you can't then place restrictions on either the providers or the states. The FCC's only authority to regulate telecom is under Title II.
Meds Per Person: 22800000.0/2900.0 = 7862.07
Meds Per Person/Year: 7862.07/10.0 = 786.21
Meds Per Person/Day: 786.21/365 = 2.15
Now it is unlikely that the Town is all on these Meds and 2 of these meds a day is very high. I have family suffering from constant pain, and they only use these once a week, in case of extreme pain (And unlike the media, these meds do work), to bring the pain to a manageable level.
It always amazes me how many experts there are in how much pain people are in and how much they should be able to tolerate.
You're wrong.
Nothing like a quote from the jack booted thugs in the DEA for how to ruin America.
You know how you actually ruin America? You put law enforcement in charge of a medical issue. Then they do things like threaten people with jail which cuts the pharmaceutical supplies of a drug with physical addiction issues so the users have to immediately turn to street drugs to reduce withdrawl side effects.
Then on top of that you stigmatize drug treatment so that seeking help makes you a looser, then add in a little random drug screening at employers so the person gets fired as well.
Our war on drugs is the most fucked up thing you could EVER do to this country.
Small towns like that are often 50% or more elderly. By my calculations that would offer 962 people in town a monthly supply of 180pills which is a fairly typical maintenance dose (2 pills 3 times a day). Given the size of the town and the likely high numbers of elderly I find nothing wrong with this other than rather obvious political scapegoating. The real political story in this number is the large number of people with chronic pain and/or cancer. Is this is town a cancer cluster?
Short acting opiates take 20 minutes to affect you, require an hour to reach full potency and gradually fall off till the 4 hour point where they begin to drop off steeply until about 6 hours. Anyone that's taking pain meds for chronic pain is going to be taking doses 3-4 times a day minimum. Typically these people are also at least partly opiod tolerant and will need to take 2 pills at a time.
I see nothing out of the ordinary here.
This is why the network itself should be government owned but services offered via the network should be handled by private companies. Built on top of agnostic open protocol system it's perfectly possible to have a fully functional system and upgrades at the cheapest rate possible. Your state highway department likely does a fine job managing your road construction dollars and services even though it's so highly political that it can take years to do anything at all.
The quickest and cleanest solution sets up a board of trustees of either elected officials or an appointed (by the elected officials) commission that develops the infrastructure plan and upgrade paths yearly, often with a SIP type process where you designate a 5 or 10 year time frame for state wide infrastructure plans. Then you have a small bureaucracy to handle management bidding and payment etc on private contracts. Then you create contracts that public low bid the management, construction and maintenance on a periodic timeframe with contracts that have set timetables for response times and such.
Management is separate people from the strategic planning though it's possible to have small committees in the management that offer advice to the strategic commission, the broad strategic planning leaves the details to the management under some defined process. This is how 90% of the state DOTs manage roadways within the states.
As a claimed dyed in the wool lefty you exhibit a complete lack of understanding of how this is a solved problem. We've been doing this since the 50's in the transportation sector and it works. It would work just as well in the communication sector and you won't need anywhere near the kind of money you do to build a roadway. Don't buy into the propaganda that state run businesses are inefficient and bad, because that's just what it is, propaganda.
Spying will likely be less under a government run system. A private company can voluntarily (the only thing preventing them from doing so would be public backlash but Congress waived their requirement to tell you they'd shared the data and waived liability for doing so with the patriot act) hand your data over without a warrant, government run organizations can not.
You would actually be far safer with a government run network in that regard.
The biggest factor slowing down government isn't "being fair". It's red tape placed to document transactions so fraud and theft can be identified and tracked. 90% of red tape is solely their to either eliminate fraud or make it easier to locate and prosecute.
People that talk about cutting red tape are usually talking about making it easier to steal tax payer money and some of them don't even realize it.
More importantly than anything it segregates the infrastructure from the service. A government run infrastructure would sell access to telecommunication companies to handle the calls. You'd have dozens of choices of telecom providers with different service offerings.
Government run infrastructure in natural monopolies is always the best solution. In fact government owned with yearly bidding on maintaining and running the system would be even better with all costs rolled into the access fee's charged to telecom providers. We'd have 100% national coverage and multiple providers in every area instead of the current system where rural people get the choice of verizon or verizon.
This is absolutely incorrect.
Remote desktop was always going to happen on Wayland, the dev's just didn't want it baked right into the protocol where it would cause all the same problems it's caused on xorg over the last 20 years. There was a wicked misunderstanding between users and the devs and yes it was probably the dev's fault, but they always intended for their to be remote desktop capability, just not baked into the protocol where it doesn't belong.
No you can't. When you run Xorg on your modern computer you are using about 8% of the code base, all the rest of that codebase is still sitting there in the binary waiting for a security hole that NO ONE is looking for.
The people that developed Wayland are the same people that developed X86. They realized before they started the Wayland project that the x86 code base is such a nasty pile of hacks and shit that's not used anymore that it's simply impossible to move forward without a total rewrite because it would take 10 times longer to try to fix that pile of shit than rewrite it from scratch with a proper modern design.
Mod parent up.
Baloney, it's retaliation for the community not getting behind mir when everyone said wayland had everything mir wanted.
I should also point out the same people beyond Wayland are behind X86.org. At some point that 40 year old code based designed around a 386 when the software had to draw even the primitives just isn't going to cut it anymore.
They want to block individual states passing their own laws because federal law has priority over state law. When they removed the federal net neutrality rules and reclassified internet again the FCC removed their authority to block state level actions.
What ATT wants is a watered down NN that doesn't block "fast lanes" (masquerading as slow lanes for everyone that doesn't pay) and prevents state laws. In other words they want the federal NN gone because they were too strong but they still want federal rules, just really silly easy ones that they can ignore so the states can't pass their own rules.
And shortly thereafter the new superhumans will attempt to overthrow the human government.
Kahnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
Damn straight, we should absolutely allow unproven and experimental techniques to be used that will expose the patient to immense pain and immediate death.
Do you realize at all how experimental this stuff is? They haven't even done it on MICE yet. Crisper was developed like 3 years ago. They are still experimenting with bacteria. You think the appropriate action is to jump right to humans?
What you might not know is someone jumped to humans a decade ago without proper protocols, someone experimenting with viruses rewriting someone's DNA killed a 20 year old volunteer in the US. He spent an agonizing 24hrs in intensive care with total organ failure before he died.
The problem is we don't even understand the implications of using CRISPR on live people let alone live animals yet. You could immediately kill the person.
It says potential and there is no clear indication in either article that Meltdown applies to Power processors. Spectre applies to pretty much any processor that uses out of order execution which covers pretty much every modern CPU, but the Meltdown variant (Spectre Variant 3) has only been confirmed to be vulnerable on Intel processors because it's a BUG in the implementation of the scheduler and it's also trivial to use maliciously with working exploits available for 7+ months.
Show me a single link that says affirmatively that the power CPU's are vulnerable to Meltdown. Note it won't use the word POSSIBLE.
I read nothing in that link that says Power processors are vulnerable to Variant 3, commonly called Meltdown. The very article you link to says that Variant 3 is vulnerable on Intel processors.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between Meltdown and Spectre.
This is covered by other sources, you would know that you if you used google and bothered to look, you can go look at the bid prices yourself, they are posted publicly, Vox simply put the bids in a nice clean table. This was an open bid for construction to begin in months and included a storage option. These prices ARE the current prices, your allusion that this isn't true only indicates a complete lack of understanding. There is nothing more open than the current bid prices in an open competitive bid.
The stupid thing would be to compare this to prices from 5 or 10 years ago as some reflection on current pricing. Current pricing is the bids that were opened in January. The bid openings for the past 3 months have been this low, there have been several opening in Texas, Colorado and other places with very similar prices. This corresponds to pricing seen in other parts of the world.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and...
I suggest you use news that isn't 20 years old. The most recent bids in Colorado for new solar are cheaper than old coal.
Everything is eventually going to run out of propulsion gas for maneuvering, no matter how big you make the tank.
The latest bid prices for wind and solar in the US included solar and were cheaper than old and already paid for power plant coal power. (approx 3 cents a kwh). These bids included storage.
Storage + renewable prices have already reached parity or cheaper than coal in most of the US. This paper indicates the remaining rest of the continental US will reach parity in a few years. Battery prices have fallen precipitously over the last 5 years and storage is competitive with generation.
Net metering is no giveaway, anyone that claims as such has no idea about the matter.
I understand the difference, what you don't understand the law.
There is no limit on the number of copies of a book a library can purchase other than their own limited funds. The reason your local library only had so many copies of the book was a limit of their funding, not a legal limit. My library controls access to the digital publications through a rudimentary DRM system but I see no legal reason for them to do so. Books have special legal rules regarding copyright exhaustion after sale, these laws are very very old going right back to the first printing presses and publishers attempts to restrict resale.
The supreme court is not going to side with the writers, this is just another attempt to use "digital" as a reason to try to undo these hundreds of years old laws that the publishing world didn't like when they were passed.
I'd also like to add that you understanding of how Libraries work is absolutely wrong on almost all counts, again I suggest you spend some time and learn the history of libraries, particularly the legal trials that resulted and the laws that were passed as a result. You can find adequate summaries on Wikipedia.