Then Netflix will just start using UPS or Fedex. If it costs the same, why use USPS
Hehehe, have you tried to send a letter with UPS? At the current rate that prices are increasing on USPS postage (controlled by Congress), it would be centuries before a USPS letter is as expensive as UPS (I believe FedEx is similar).
I have to wonder if this law getting passed couldn't be traced back to Fed Ex and UPS wanting the business that USPS was doing so found a way to stick them with a bill that they could never pay while remaining able to compete.
USPS is also not allowed to raise prices beyond some (official/fudged) price index increase.
It lets them tie a boat anchor to USPS so that USPS ends up in a bind and either has to cut service or raise prices, both of which benefits UPS and Fed Ex.
UPS/FedEx constantly use USPS on "unprofitable" routes, because USPS is also required to keep prices relatively constant. So if the package is going to the middle of nowhere, UPS and FedEx will gladly outsource it to USPS which will deliver it at a loss. USPS cannot actually raise prices, but if they cut services, that may actually harm their competitors.
It is buckling under the massive stupidity of Congress.
Indeed -- aren't they prevented from raising prices more?
Also, aren't they subcontracted by UPS/FedEx on "unprofitable" routes because USPS has to serve every location at roughly the same price?
It is this ridiculous idea that you can run something like a public utility service and business at the same time, i.e. keep prices low, guarantee universal service and be self-sustaining or profitable. Something's gotta give.
How about un-funding the massive health fund payments that they were forced to make?
Yeah, I love the phrasing here:
'Converting delivery away from door delivery to either curb line or centralized delivery would enable the Postal Service to provide service to more customers in less time,'
So will de-funding the health fund payments. Also, throwing away all large packages (it's not like post office is responsible) would allow to provide service to more customers in less time.
You stand on a mat and it directs you to one of three different security lines, presumably to randomize the screeners incase you have one on your payroll.
Is there any evidence evidence that someone is trying to get through? (not to mention to recruit a screener)
Is there evidence that profiling passengers based on appearance and behavior is not more effective than randomized screening?
I would assume profiling passengers based on behavior would work. Alas, that requires workers with some real behavioral training and too few contractors would benefit from that (so we buy $250K useless scanning machines instead).
Not sure what the is the point of randomized screening? Keeping us 10% safe? Keeping terrorists 10% concerned?
Well duh, but seeing as how in many areas an 83% completion rate for a high school grade would be considered excellent, I can see why they consider it a positive sign.
I assume "completion of a high school grade" involves passing a number of required courses to do so
What would be the definition of completing a course? Not dropping it? Passing it?
If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car?
You're right!
And as soon as someone from TSA thinks about that, they'll start searching non-valet cars as well.
Wouldn't it be fun if locking the car in the airport becomes illegal just like locking the luggage is? Oooh, TSA-approved car locks.... sounds like fun.
So, basically, if TSA decides to start searching random people on the highway near the airports, your recommendation would be "Don't go to the highway, stay home"?
And what will you do when they start searching random homes (within 100 miles of the airport, for "security")?
I wonder when Paypal will stop processing donations to the EFF.
Heh, PayPal may stop processing donations (or, rather freeze donations - they'll still take the donations) just because they want the money. It's not like they are regulated.
A more interesting question is when will Mastercard/Visa start blocking EFF? I seem to recall that they did that once against Wikileaks after a few passionate speeches by senators.
How do you figure that part? There are certainly a number of more profitable things he could have done with this information instead, so he definitely acted selflessly (regardless of whether it was or was not legal and regardless whether you agree with his actions).
My reading on that is that *if* the new European Commission data privacy rules get passed, then Germany would expect US firms to abide by those rules *for citizens of the EU*. Seems quite reasonable, actually.
Isn't it? But it is difficult to understand for Americans.
Here in US, when companies are blatantly violating the law, they are retroactively shielded by Congress, instead of being punished and forced into compliance.
System works as intended, by placing the responsibility of defense on the accused.
I wonder how long it took for that person with vanity plates 33 to get his ticket annulled. He probably had to go to court and speak to a clerk or two.
I am surprised they do not yet send occasional random tickets to 2%-3% in the database. What do they have to lose? Either the person would pay the fine or they would spend hours of their life trying to avoid paying it -- maybe they will be browbeaten into paying a fraction instead.
Blanket orders from the secret surveillance court allow these communications to be collected without an individual warrant if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time.
51% Believe? How the hell do you measure that?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
The absence of information is interpreted against you (unknowns are assumed to be outside of US by default). So unless you find NSA's complaint department and come in there with a proof that you are, in fact, in US, they can assume you are not.
Re:Popularity of streaming content?
on
How DRM Won
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.
It's a use case regarding the "popularity" of streaming content. There are others -- I also tend to travel (watching things on a train is great). If these streaming clients had at least allowed a "local cache" option, they would be far more usable.
Re:The Battle Continues
on
How DRM Won
·
· Score: 1
There's hundreds of plug-ins, extensions, and rip programs to grab the content.
Indeed, but they all suck (ones I have tried anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Then Netflix will just start using UPS or Fedex. If it costs the same, why use USPS
Hehehe, have you tried to send a letter with UPS?
At the current rate that prices are increasing on USPS postage (controlled by Congress), it would be centuries before a USPS letter is as expensive as UPS (I believe FedEx is similar).
I have to wonder if this law getting passed couldn't be traced back to Fed Ex and UPS wanting the business that USPS was doing so found a way to stick them with a bill that they could never pay while remaining able to compete.
USPS is also not allowed to raise prices beyond some (official/fudged) price index increase.
It lets them tie a boat anchor to USPS so that USPS ends up in a bind and either has to cut service or raise prices, both of which benefits UPS and Fed Ex.
UPS/FedEx constantly use USPS on "unprofitable" routes, because USPS is also required to keep prices relatively constant. So if the package is going to the middle of nowhere, UPS and FedEx will gladly outsource it to USPS which will deliver it at a loss. USPS cannot actually raise prices, but if they cut services, that may actually harm their competitors.
This is completely insane, made by people who are also completely insane. This is calling burning bridges and not looking back,
Also, any country that is actually worried about US sanctions would already be too afraid to take Snowden.
What are they trying to achieve?
It is buckling under the massive stupidity of Congress.
Indeed -- aren't they prevented from raising prices more?
Also, aren't they subcontracted by UPS/FedEx on "unprofitable" routes because USPS has to serve every location at roughly the same price?
It is this ridiculous idea that you can run something like a public utility service and business at the same time, i.e. keep prices low, guarantee universal service and be self-sustaining or profitable. Something's gotta give.
How about un-funding the massive health fund payments that they were forced to make?
Yeah, I love the phrasing here:
'Converting delivery away from door delivery to either curb line or centralized delivery would enable the Postal Service to provide service to more customers in less time,'
So will de-funding the health fund payments.
Also, throwing away all large packages (it's not like post office is responsible) would allow to provide service to more customers in less time.
Department of Defense, has used the $1 trillion estimate to argue for an expansion of cybersecurity, including 13 new teams dedicated to cyberwarfare.
What exactly is this "cyberwarfare" that I keep hearing about?
Who are we fighting? What are the objectives? When will it end?
McAfee Exaggerated Cost of Hacking, Perhaps For Profit
... perhaps?
These films featured big stars, bigger explosions, and top-notch special effects
Maybe they'll start making... (gasp)... actual plots to accompany those stars/explosions/special effects?
Call my attorney.
In your opinion, how many people have an attorney on retainer?
You stand on a mat and it directs you to one of three different security lines, presumably to randomize the screeners incase you have one on your payroll.
Is there any evidence evidence that someone is trying to get through? (not to mention to recruit a screener)
Have they ever caught anyone?
Is there evidence that profiling passengers based on appearance and behavior is not more effective than randomized screening?
I would assume profiling passengers based on behavior would work. Alas, that requires workers with some real behavioral training and too few contractors would benefit from that (so we buy $250K useless scanning machines instead).
Not sure what the is the point of randomized screening? Keeping us 10% safe? Keeping terrorists 10% concerned?
Well duh, but seeing as how in many areas an 83% completion rate for a high school grade would be considered excellent, I can see why they consider it a positive sign.
I assume "completion of a high school grade" involves passing a number of required courses to do so
What would be the definition of completing a course? Not dropping it? Passing it?
In a somewhat more promising outcome, 83% of students completed the classes.
And 100% of students successfully signed up for the program.
If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car?
You're right!
And as soon as someone from TSA thinks about that, they'll start searching non-valet cars as well. Wouldn't it be fun if locking the car in the airport becomes illegal just like locking the luggage is? Oooh, TSA-approved car locks.... sounds like fun.
Don't take your car to the airport
So, basically, if TSA decides to start searching random people on the highway near the airports, your recommendation would be "Don't go to the highway, stay home"?
And what will you do when they start searching random homes (within 100 miles of the airport, for "security")?
I wonder when Paypal will stop processing donations to the EFF.
Heh, PayPal may stop processing donations (or, rather freeze donations - they'll still take the donations) just because they want the money. It's not like they are regulated.
A more interesting question is when will Mastercard/Visa start blocking EFF? I seem to recall that they did that once against Wikileaks after a few passionate speeches by senators.
If you can't prove that you were harmed by a secret program, you don't have standing to sue.
Well, if we have evidence that ALL (meta)calls are being monitored, then that seems like anyone should be able to prove they were harmed.
Scum bag. Yes
How do you figure that part? There are certainly a number of more profitable things he could have done with this information instead, so he definitely acted selflessly (regardless of whether it was or was not legal and regardless whether you agree with his actions).
My reading on that is that *if* the new European Commission data privacy rules get passed, then Germany would expect US firms to abide by those rules *for citizens of the EU*. Seems quite reasonable, actually.
Isn't it? But it is difficult to understand for Americans.
Here in US, when companies are blatantly violating the law, they are retroactively shielded by Congress, instead of being punished and forced into compliance.
Our system works, the database works.
System works as intended, by placing the responsibility of defense on the accused.
I wonder how long it took for that person with vanity plates 33 to get his ticket annulled. He probably had to go to court and speak to a clerk or two.
I am surprised they do not yet send occasional random tickets to 2%-3% in the database. What do they have to lose? Either the person would pay the fine or they would spend hours of their life trying to avoid paying it -- maybe they will be browbeaten into paying a fraction instead.
A LEO in the same position wouldn't need to explain why he was there,
Personally, I'd trust a Sagittarius a lot more than a Leo.
Why not just parse the existing NSA database?
Snowden hasn't yet confirmed that NSA trawls medical history. Maybe they don't (yet).
Blanket orders from the secret surveillance court allow these communications to be collected without an individual warrant if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time.
51% Believe? How the hell do you measure that?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
The absence of information is interpreted against you (unknowns are assumed to be outside of US by default). So unless you find NSA's complaint department and come in there with a proof that you are, in fact, in US, they can assume you are not.
Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.
It's a use case regarding the "popularity" of streaming content. There are others -- I also tend to travel (watching things on a train is great). If these streaming clients had at least allowed a "local cache" option, they would be far more usable.
There's hundreds of plug-ins, extensions, and rip programs to grab the content.
Indeed, but they all suck (ones I have tried anyway).