The gov't doesn't have to manage it any more than they manage the water or electric networks. You can totally pay a private company to run said network.
But there needs to be ONE network on which all providers provide the service. Just like water and electricity.
I know that's basically what you meant, just stating it explicitly for the trolls:)
uh, So it's still in effect. Verizon is now changing the deal. Are they going to lower the prices charged to these people since they are giving them less than originally offered?
Really? I don't ever remember a cell phone contract specifying an 'end' date. They sorta want you to keep paying them forever.
As far as assumptions, they are irrelevant. If a company signs a contract, they should have to honor it.
Specifically if they said 'unlimited' date.
I will of course be willing to trade unlimited cell contracts for the revocation of ISP's apparently 'unlimited' life franchise agreements. It's a 2 way street...
If a company signs a contract...they shouldn't be held to that contract?
They've presented zero evidence that the network is suffering reliability...their commercials seem to indicate it's rock solid. The 'best' even.
This isn't costing them a viable economic business....they are still raking in profits hand over fist.
This is nothing but a pure money grab by violating their own terms.
Nobody would argue with throttling on specific towers WHEN congestion arises. It's funny how that isn't their solution...it's ban the heavy users even when there are plenty of times the heavy use doesn't impact anyone.
Sadly you do have a facebook account at the very least. You have not 'activated' or 'acknowledged' it yet but it's there piling up data about you:)
There's going to be an interesting transition in society as people who grew up with 'always on/share everything' get smacked in the face with the stupid stuff that they (and I!) did 20 years ago. Until those same people are in upper management and making those decisions...it's going to make for a very lean candidate pool.
Except they do have exclusive rights to the broadcast of the tonight show which is what they uploaded.
But regardless, the problem is still that NBC violates the TOS and the actual owner gets their stuff taken down.
Jay Leno hears a musical bit and includes it in the Tonight Show broadcast (without obtaining the rights to do so).
NBC uploads the Tonight Show to YouTube's ContentID system to declare their right to the 'NBC' broadcast. Except of course it contains the musical bit from someone else. Yet NBC is now claiming ownership of something they most certainly don't
Automated process at YouTube takes down anything matching ContentID except the 'original' content.
Except NBC isn't the owner or the original content. They are just the 900 lb gorilla who gets to throw their weight around.
NOTHING about content online conveys whether it is legal. Clearly it can be legal in MULTIPLE places (though not in this case). If NBC had licensed this, how would ContentID or FB's concept differ between 2 valid instances?
The original artist is under no obligation to register anything with anyone. copyright is granted simply by creating it. yet this system would actively undermine their legal rights.
The reason streaming rates are so bad is because of the labels. Also because of the labels you have to pay the label owned organizations like ASCAP even if it's an indie band who isn't under label contract
Slashdot Mirror
You have zero proof of your claims.
But regardless of whether 'AGW' is real, the climate is most definitely warming.
So we still need to better understand the effects and predict when, where and scope of the coming changes.
That will continue to require significant research.
Unless your saying the climate isn't warming...
Yeah, the 'blue' states like GA, AL, MS, NC, LA, TX....FL takes it on the chin no matter how they vote
The snyde reference to Solyndra isn't quite you'd expect. That program made a profit https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
agreed, that was my point :)
Indeed, few places in this country match the massive income of those WV miners....
Same way they do national healthcare. careful what you wish for!
It's ENTIRELY relevant to risk mitigation.
An online connected system is much more at risk than one needing an inside manual hand. it's why air-gap networks exist.
Mission critical should be air-gapped so that the risks can be reduced.
Updates are only applied after scanning and deployment in test systems, period.
Are you going to stop everything? of course not, but you'll stop a damned lot more than with internet connected mission critical computers.
These computers are beyond mission critical. It is entirely possible to update from a local source.
Any even medium sized site will update via a designated update server so you aren't downloading the same update 500 times.
And since your mission critical Machines aren't connected they don't need Adobe updates etc.
Agile vs waterfall.
Musk is moving fast, failing quickly and then obviously moving fast again.
If you try to plan absolutely every thing you'll move far far more slowly.
Also, see how fast we got to the moon vs being limited to LEO for 40 years.
The gov't doesn't have to manage it any more than they manage the water or electric networks. You can totally pay a private company to run said network.
:)
But there needs to be ONE network on which all providers provide the service. Just like water and electricity.
I know that's basically what you meant, just stating it explicitly for the trolls
Oh I don't know. I think you can still see the cusp from the current location, but you might need to re-task Hubble.
Have you learned nothing about natural monopolies? also, how many water lines go into your home....
The government can subsidize the costs and offer service for well below the actual costs, which is unfair competition.
Except that the government has to pay those massively overpaid gov't workers who only work 3 days a week.
You can't have it both ways.
uh, So it's still in effect. Verizon is now changing the deal. Are they going to lower the prices charged to these people since they are giving them less than originally offered?
Really? I don't ever remember a cell phone contract specifying an 'end' date. They sorta want you to keep paying them forever.
As far as assumptions, they are irrelevant. If a company signs a contract, they should have to honor it.
Specifically if they said 'unlimited' date.
I will of course be willing to trade unlimited cell contracts for the revocation of ISP's apparently 'unlimited' life franchise agreements. It's a 2 way street...
If a company signs a contract...they shouldn't be held to that contract?
They've presented zero evidence that the network is suffering reliability...their commercials seem to indicate it's rock solid. The 'best' even.
This isn't costing them a viable economic business....they are still raking in profits hand over fist.
This is nothing but a pure money grab by violating their own terms.
Nobody would argue with throttling on specific towers WHEN congestion arises. It's funny how that isn't their solution...it's ban the heavy users even when there are plenty of times the heavy use doesn't impact anyone.
no no no. This a speculative correction 'of an internet something'
It's TOTALLY BRAND NEW!
HVAC stack. Bonus is closets and bathrooms tend to be grouped around it for less than public visibility of any access panels you might need
Suing NBC? good luck with that. see my 900 lb gorilla point.
Sadly you do have a facebook account at the very least. You have not 'activated' or 'acknowledged' it yet but it's there piling up data about you :)
There's going to be an interesting transition in society as people who grew up with 'always on/share everything' get smacked in the face with the stupid stuff that they (and I!) did 20 years ago. Until those same people are in upper management and making those decisions...it's going to make for a very lean candidate pool.
Maybe a couple thousand ;)
Except they do have exclusive rights to the broadcast of the tonight show which is what they uploaded. But regardless, the problem is still that NBC violates the TOS and the actual owner gets their stuff taken down.
Your friends have apps with access to their contacts among a multitude of other permissions. They Sold you out long ago
how will this stop copyfraud?
Jay Leno hears a musical bit and includes it in the Tonight Show broadcast (without obtaining the rights to do so).
NBC uploads the Tonight Show to YouTube's ContentID system to declare their right to the 'NBC' broadcast. Except of course it contains the musical bit from someone else. Yet NBC is now claiming ownership of something they most certainly don't
Automated process at YouTube takes down anything matching ContentID except the 'original' content.
Except NBC isn't the owner or the original content. They are just the 900 lb gorilla who gets to throw their weight around.
NOTHING about content online conveys whether it is legal. Clearly it can be legal in MULTIPLE places (though not in this case). If NBC had licensed this, how would ContentID or FB's concept differ between 2 valid instances?
The original artist is under no obligation to register anything with anyone. copyright is granted simply by creating it. yet this system would actively undermine their legal rights.
The reason streaming rates are so bad is because of the labels. Also because of the labels you have to pay the label owned organizations like ASCAP even if it's an indie band who isn't under label contract