I really liked M2. The folder view feature was a better previous than gmail labels, I thought. It even had SSL-client authentication, which we used at work. I still use the 1.0 standalone client for some throw-away email addresses.
That's pretty similar to what I do. Headphones are a great visual indicator for people to go somewhere else, so I wear a brightly colored set of ear buds if I really need to concentrate. (Sometimes I don't even turn the music on.) I shut off email when I need to limit my own self-interruptions.
I've been there a while, so part of my job is to tell people where the sharp corners and little-known areas are. I'd rather clear up a misconception early and avoid a bigger problem later on. And I never want to be the only person that knows something Yes, getting a lot of questions interrupts my day, but you can't plan out training for the rest of the company to eliminate all questions. (And we do do training.)
And what he implied is that it would make it a more interesting engineering problem... to him. With his rule change to limit the amount of gasoline he said the Prius would win over the current cars. That sounds like a solved engineering problem. At the very least it's a different engineering problem, with fuel efficiency rated much more than speed. It's not like there aren't fuel mileage races today, where the drivers and teams coax out the last bit of fuel so they don't have to pit one last time.
Hmm, looking at fuel efficiency in NASCAR vs. NASA, NASCAR wins hands down. Sending a rocket into space takes a whole lot more fuel than a 500 mile NASCAR race. NASCAR must be a more interesting event and engineering problem than a spacecraft launch, then. "But, they're different things!" Yup, and so are Prius and NASCAR races, Bill.
Agreed. In this case, the google answer is terrible because the answer for "what time is it?" is no longer the same. The other solutions stick a whole second at the time of departure, so the math is always consistent. With google's answer, 23:59:23 - 23:59:22 != 1 second. Ew.
I didn't see a single pro-net neutrality comment that talked about The Fine Article. Lots, though, that stated anyone who opposes net neutrality is in the KKK, demonized the right wing, complained about corporate personhood, and complained that corporations have purchased the votes of Congress. The article talked about how a specific bureaucracy received a petition from those it now regulates, and told them "We thought about it and decided we're right. Go away." Normal discussions about the article would talk about strategy, "This seems like just a first step in the ongoing litigation so the corporations can say they tried to play nice," or the underlying legal aspects "wow, this administrative law thing is kinda cool, I hope we can pull more from the regular court system and get everything we like tried by the administrative branch and not the judicial branch, at least until Evil Republicans get the White House back."
You're embarrassing your own side. Please keep it up.
I understand the bumper sticker version of net neutrality says that every packet is equal under they eyes of the regulator, and will be treated exactly the same. VOIP 911 emergency calls must be treated exactly the same as pornography.
The second part of your paragraph doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't want to take private ownership of the Tubes and give it to the government. And certainly not to then lease out to companies to charge prices set by regulators for particular rates. One, you can't know the fair price unless you have a free market, which obviously isn't in place in your proposed scenario. Two, with government owning the infrastructure, we've then pretty much abandoned innovation. Sure, if smart techies got to write and implement the regulations and the infrastructure we might get there, but there's no way that happens in this scenario. Remember, we're talking about the current failure of the existing regulation not being good enough. What magic wand is going to make it better?
No, I think the FCC limited entry into the phone system to prevent "wasteful duplication" and "needless competition." (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf). These are the same arguments against Uber. The regulation system encouraged a monopoly, and then we got one. AT&T had the strength to enforce phone rentals because the government regulations encouraged regional monopolies. Perhaps not on purpose, but that's why the primary measure of a law or regulation is not the intent behind it, but its effects.
You said that a free market "does not truly exist," but the current situation "keeps screwing the customer more and more." So the only way to fix the current awful regulation is better regulators? Good luck with that. Remember, the very first time a net neutrality regulator gives preference over one piece of traffic over another, net neutrality regulation is broken. The regulations are then the exact opposite of what you want. How long do you think that will take to happen?
Those laws were bad, so you and I agree. Can you see why some don't trust Congress to fix (or not pass) bad laws, or trust that agencies won't make bad regulations?
Why did you have to rent your phone? Because government regulations and laws enforced a monopoly. Your example is crappy regulation, not a free market system. Yes, after a few decades, the regulation got better. I wonder what we'd have had without those decades of awful regulation?
Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations, do you have any other suggestions?
Since you asked, yes. A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.
Good. Let's wait to pass net neutrality after you ban corporations like the New York Times, and people aren't allowed to spend money to advance their opinions.
The thing that net neutrality advocates fail to do is to describe the regulatory system they want to put in place.
That's horseshit. We have a very nice regulatory model to put in place. It's called, "common carrier".
You're advocating a model like taxis where the regulators are overtly hostile to innovation, such as Lyft and Uber. Or if you want to go the utility route, where electric companies are forced to use a certain percentage of their electricity from favored producers such as wind farms and solar and rates are set by a centralized board. Maybe a slogan like "Net Neutrality, it'll be run just like the FAA!" would catch on.
Ah, the exceptions. Once VOIP 911 calls are mandated to be prioritized over other data, then you'll get medical data prioritized, which makes sense, because we don't want to kill people, and then... the same big bad companies will lobby for their data, and net neutrality becomes the opposite of net neutrality. Whoops.
Good job inventing red herrings. "Net Neutrality is bad because bad people might do bad things in the future."
Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?
We should trust free markets with infrastructure because they built the infrastructure we're using to discuss this. It's working pretty well. If you prefer a historical example, compare the great northern railroad with the first transcontinental railroad. The first was privately built and quite successful, the second received massive government subsidies, had shoddy construction, and was designed to scam the investors out of their money. As for red herrings, the phrase you're looking for is "regulatory capture," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.... If net neutrality comes into being, I can absolutely guarantee you Cisco, Comcast, and Google will be sending their armies (figuratively) to capture the agency.
And changing it requires amending the Constitution, either with the normal Congressional and state ratification process, or a Constitutional convention. I suspect what you really want is national referendums, and net neutrality is just the way you're bringing it up today, since you didn't respond to anything about net neutrality, or even propose a solution to making it law or regulation that has any chance in the near future.
Put it on the ballot as a national referendum in 2016, you wanna see Big Pipes shit themselves.
Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations, do you have any other suggestions?
The thing that net neutrality advocates fail to do is to describe the regulatory system they want to put in place. Take the comic from The Oatmeal, for example (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality). "And I'm going to do that by being a super terrific A+ dude and explaining to you exactly how Net Neutrality works." There are lots of panels describing the goal, and none showing the way it would work. How is it run? How are complaints logged? How are ISPs monitored? What reporting mechanisms to ISPs have? What features will be mandated or forbidden in network devices? How is good versus bad traffic shaping to be defined? What are the penalties? What are the exceptions?
Ah, the exceptions. Once VOIP 911 calls are mandated to be prioritized over other data, then you'll get medical data prioritized, which makes sense, because we don't want to kill people, and then... the same big bad companies will lobby for their data, and net neutrality becomes the opposite of net neutrality. Whoops.
The XKCD comic is about what can be done right now; changing the password checking algorithms is a small cost in most places. The article is about the future -- how to change innumerable systems structurally to make a better password system. Heck, most systems today can't even do two-factor authentication, and the number that can do hardware authentication is smaller again. Even systems that can do software PKI is a tiny number.
The random-password tracking tools are great, and they work for a lot of people. But to be used universally, they have to work in 99% of cases, which they're unlikely to. Can you use your favorite one at a library computer? Without your laptop? In a place that forbids USB drives? Without Internet access? It's a similar problem set to why we aren't all using software PKI or GPG email. How do I get the dang keys around to where I am, securely? Here, it's how do I get my password list around to where I am, securely?
It's not the contract, it's the law. If the loser files the right kind of protest in the right amount of time, a stop work must be ordered. It's to avoid unscrupulous contracting officers from throwing a bid to their buddies. It's totally normal for US government contracting.
Google can't possibly give us fast peering with no fast (or slow) lanes without Net Neutrality. They're a company, not a government! I can't believe any of you believe this could happen without a large bureaucracy enforcing arcane rules, written and administered by people who've never been network engineers.
Most proponents of net neutrality can't describe what they think the regulatory regime will look like, besides some "everything is awesome" descriptions. The thought that the implementation would come out the opposite to what they wanted was unthinkable to them. In other words, they'd never seen government regulation.
Org mode is for keeping notes, maintaining TODO lists, planning projects, and authoring documents with a fast and effective plain-text system.
I've mostly used OneNote when taking online classes. It does a pretty good job of capturing web page text and graphics, and the search works fairly well. I've seen teachers use it to collaboratively edit lessons plans remotely and concurrently.
Dang, that may force developers to move to test first development, finding bugs before it goes over to test.:)
It would drive a few things. The development would likely take much longer, since if the cost for bugs comes out of my pocket, but first coding time comes out of yours, I'm going to spend your money. If you force me to release earlier than I say it's ready, I'll make you responsible for taking the code in the state it's in. And when bugs are found, I'm going to find a way to blame the architect or systems engineer for giving me a bad design, or you for inadequate requirements.
Oh, and feature creep is really going to cost you.
Excellent, excellent. We all agree taxes are a disincentive to investment. And unequal tax rates on goods that are substitutes will change the amounts of each good purchased. So, to make the market work most effectively, let's just set the tax rates equally on all industries, stop the industry subsidies, and people will get to select whether properly priced electric or gas-fueled cars better meet their needs.
Slashdot Mirror
I really liked M2. The folder view feature was a better previous than gmail labels, I thought. It even had SSL-client authentication, which we used at work. I still use the 1.0 standalone client for some throw-away email addresses.
That's pretty similar to what I do. Headphones are a great visual indicator for people to go somewhere else, so I wear a brightly colored set of ear buds if I really need to concentrate. (Sometimes I don't even turn the music on.) I shut off email when I need to limit my own self-interruptions.
I've been there a while, so part of my job is to tell people where the sharp corners and little-known areas are. I'd rather clear up a misconception early and avoid a bigger problem later on. And I never want to be the only person that knows something Yes, getting a lot of questions interrupts my day, but you can't plan out training for the rest of the company to eliminate all questions. (And we do do training.)
In other news, Chattanooga has discovered a way to expand infrastructure without paying for any labor or buying any materials.
And what he implied is that it would make it a more interesting engineering problem ... to him. With his rule change to limit the amount of gasoline he said the Prius would win over the current cars. That sounds like a solved engineering problem. At the very least it's a different engineering problem, with fuel efficiency rated much more than speed. It's not like there aren't fuel mileage races today, where the drivers and teams coax out the last bit of fuel so they don't have to pit one last time.
Hmm, looking at fuel efficiency in NASCAR vs. NASA, NASCAR wins hands down. Sending a rocket into space takes a whole lot more fuel than a 500 mile NASCAR race. NASCAR must be a more interesting event and engineering problem than a spacecraft launch, then. "But, they're different things!" Yup, and so are Prius and NASCAR races, Bill.
Agreed. In this case, the google answer is terrible because the answer for "what time is it?" is no longer the same. The other solutions stick a whole second at the time of departure, so the math is always consistent. With google's answer, 23:59:23 - 23:59:22 != 1 second. Ew.
I didn't see a single pro-net neutrality comment that talked about The Fine Article. Lots, though, that stated anyone who opposes net neutrality is in the KKK, demonized the right wing, complained about corporate personhood, and complained that corporations have purchased the votes of Congress. The article talked about how a specific bureaucracy received a petition from those it now regulates, and told them "We thought about it and decided we're right. Go away." Normal discussions about the article would talk about strategy, "This seems like just a first step in the ongoing litigation so the corporations can say they tried to play nice," or the underlying legal aspects "wow, this administrative law thing is kinda cool, I hope we can pull more from the regular court system and get everything we like tried by the administrative branch and not the judicial branch, at least until Evil Republicans get the White House back."
You're embarrassing your own side. Please keep it up.
I understand the bumper sticker version of net neutrality says that every packet is equal under they eyes of the regulator, and will be treated exactly the same. VOIP 911 emergency calls must be treated exactly the same as pornography.
The second part of your paragraph doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't want to take private ownership of the Tubes and give it to the government. And certainly not to then lease out to companies to charge prices set by regulators for particular rates. One, you can't know the fair price unless you have a free market, which obviously isn't in place in your proposed scenario. Two, with government owning the infrastructure, we've then pretty much abandoned innovation. Sure, if smart techies got to write and implement the regulations and the infrastructure we might get there, but there's no way that happens in this scenario. Remember, we're talking about the current failure of the existing regulation not being good enough. What magic wand is going to make it better?
No, I think the FCC limited entry into the phone system to prevent "wasteful duplication" and "needless competition." (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf). These are the same arguments against Uber. The regulation system encouraged a monopoly, and then we got one. AT&T had the strength to enforce phone rentals because the government regulations encouraged regional monopolies. Perhaps not on purpose, but that's why the primary measure of a law or regulation is not the intent behind it, but its effects.
You said that a free market "does not truly exist," but the current situation "keeps screwing the customer more and more." So the only way to fix the current awful regulation is better regulators? Good luck with that. Remember, the very first time a net neutrality regulator gives preference over one piece of traffic over another, net neutrality regulation is broken. The regulations are then the exact opposite of what you want. How long do you think that will take to happen?
Did any companies that backed net neutrality make campaign contributions? If so, are they corrupt?
Perhaps open roads are pretty democratizing, too. Should we ban toll roads, or high occupancy toll lanes?
Those laws were bad, so you and I agree. Can you see why some don't trust Congress to fix (or not pass) bad laws, or trust that agencies won't make bad regulations?
Why did you have to rent your phone? Because government regulations and laws enforced a monopoly. Your example is crappy regulation, not a free market system. Yes, after a few decades, the regulation got better. I wonder what we'd have had without those decades of awful regulation?
Since you asked, yes. A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.
Good. Let's wait to pass net neutrality after you ban corporations like the New York Times, and people aren't allowed to spend money to advance their opinions.
That's horseshit. We have a very nice regulatory model to put in place. It's called, "common carrier".
You're advocating a model like taxis where the regulators are overtly hostile to innovation, such as Lyft and Uber. Or if you want to go the utility route, where electric companies are forced to use a certain percentage of their electricity from favored producers such as wind farms and solar and rates are set by a centralized board. Maybe a slogan like "Net Neutrality, it'll be run just like the FAA!" would catch on.
Good job inventing red herrings. "Net Neutrality is bad because bad people might do bad things in the future."
Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?
We should trust free markets with infrastructure because they built the infrastructure we're using to discuss this. It's working pretty well. If you prefer a historical example, compare the great northern railroad with the first transcontinental railroad. The first was privately built and quite successful, the second received massive government subsidies, had shoddy construction, and was designed to scam the investors out of their money. As for red herrings, the phrase you're looking for is "regulatory capture," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.... If net neutrality comes into being, I can absolutely guarantee you Cisco, Comcast, and Google will be sending their armies (figuratively) to capture the agency.
We can change that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163...
And changing it requires amending the Constitution, either with the normal Congressional and state ratification process, or a Constitutional convention. I suspect what you really want is national referendums, and net neutrality is just the way you're bringing it up today, since you didn't respond to anything about net neutrality, or even propose a solution to making it law or regulation that has any chance in the near future.
Put it on the ballot as a national referendum in 2016, you wanna see Big Pipes shit themselves.
Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations, do you have any other suggestions?
The thing that net neutrality advocates fail to do is to describe the regulatory system they want to put in place. Take the comic from The Oatmeal, for example (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality). "And I'm going to do that by being a super terrific A+ dude and explaining to you exactly how Net Neutrality works." There are lots of panels describing the goal, and none showing the way it would work. How is it run? How are complaints logged? How are ISPs monitored? What reporting mechanisms to ISPs have? What features will be mandated or forbidden in network devices? How is good versus bad traffic shaping to be defined? What are the penalties? What are the exceptions?
Ah, the exceptions. Once VOIP 911 calls are mandated to be prioritized over other data, then you'll get medical data prioritized, which makes sense, because we don't want to kill people, and then ... the same big bad companies will lobby for their data, and net neutrality becomes the opposite of net neutrality. Whoops.
Denver tried that when they built DIA. It was a godawful mess and pretty well abandoned. http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_...
And, if you dual-boot with Windows, the release notes say to use ext4, not BtrFS. https://www.suse.com/releaseno....
The random-password tracking tools are great, and they work for a lot of people. But to be used universally, they have to work in 99% of cases, which they're unlikely to. Can you use your favorite one at a library computer? Without your laptop? In a place that forbids USB drives? Without Internet access? It's a similar problem set to why we aren't all using software PKI or GPG email. How do I get the dang keys around to where I am, securely? Here, it's how do I get my password list around to where I am, securely?
It's not the contract, it's the law. If the loser files the right kind of protest in the right amount of time, a stop work must be ordered. It's to avoid unscrupulous contracting officers from throwing a bid to their buddies. It's totally normal for US government contracting.
Google can't possibly give us fast peering with no fast (or slow) lanes without Net Neutrality. They're a company, not a government! I can't believe any of you believe this could happen without a large bureaucracy enforcing arcane rules, written and administered by people who've never been network engineers.
Most proponents of net neutrality can't describe what they think the regulatory regime will look like, besides some "everything is awesome" descriptions. The thought that the implementation would come out the opposite to what they wanted was unthinkable to them. In other words, they'd never seen government regulation.
I've mostly used OneNote when taking online classes. It does a pretty good job of capturing web page text and graphics, and the search works fairly well. I've seen teachers use it to collaboratively edit lessons plans remotely and concurrently.
It would drive a few things. The development would likely take much longer, since if the cost for bugs comes out of my pocket, but first coding time comes out of yours, I'm going to spend your money. If you force me to release earlier than I say it's ready, I'll make you responsible for taking the code in the state it's in. And when bugs are found, I'm going to find a way to blame the architect or systems engineer for giving me a bad design, or you for inadequate requirements.
Oh, and feature creep is really going to cost you.
Excellent, excellent. We all agree taxes are a disincentive to investment. And unequal tax rates on goods that are substitutes will change the amounts of each good purchased. So, to make the market work most effectively, let's just set the tax rates equally on all industries, stop the industry subsidies, and people will get to select whether properly priced electric or gas-fueled cars better meet their needs.