Yeah, yeah, yeah. 14 CFR 91.3. Going by your logic, ATC has no job. Obviously, ATC's job is to safely operate the National Airspace System. 91.3 isn't going to get an airliner into a busy terminal through a layer of weather. When a pilot observes a conflict between an ATC clearance or regulation and the safety of flight, however, the pilot has the authority to deviate.
I don't think you get the idea behind 14 CFR 91.3.
Pilot makes mistake, pilot dies. Controller makes mistake, pilot dies. Pilot is the ultimate authority and thus has the ultimate responsibility over any flight. But he'll gladly take any help he can get.
I'm a big fan of ATC. I like flying in Bravo airspace. I like flight following when in Echo airspace. It helps me stay safe. But in the end, when I'm flying, I am flying.
It's using information to garner a public lynching response
which, in this particular case, was the best thing he could have done.
His only three alternatives were, in order of saneability:
- do nothing;
- go to a local police station and see the complaint archived in a desk;
- do what I probably have done and get a shotgun out to protect his little girl from threats of sexual assault and worse;
This guy is the best dad this girl could have right now.
The systems I'm buying now will be obsolete by the time SSD can even think about touching hard drives in terms of capacity per $. Typically, the ONLY reason to go full SSD now for large storage capacities is because you absolutely need the performance and are willing to pay essentially "whatever it costs" (at least 8x+ the price) because it's that important to get the IOPS. Maybe by the end of next year we'll get it down to "only" 4x the price (not counting that though because price per GB for large capacity hard drives still continutes to fall, balancing out a part of the cost reduction in SSDs).
You're right, but also somewhat wrong.
"Raw capacity" is indeed quite expensive. However, the increased speeds of flash have made it possible to provide in-line data reduction services. Data reduction is a widely used term for two techniques: de-duplication and compression. This works on a block level. When the host writes a block, the system will look in its table to see if that block has already been written. If so, it will simply write a pointer. If not, it will be forwarded to the compression engine and stored. In the storage industry, a data reduction ratio of 1:6 is accepted as generally achievable, with higher rates possible on large virtualization clusters. This means that the effect cost per GB is reduced dramatically and even reaches the price of high-end disks. So your 80TB raw capacity array will store ~300TB of data, depending on the data reduction ratio.
On top of that, since flash performs so well, other features such as continuous data protection by (a)synchronous replication are possible with very little performance degradation.
If you still doubt this technology, go have a look at the technological advances in hard drives, versus the technological advances of flash in the last 5 years. Hard drive vendors have very little to innovate while flash/rram are at the lower end of a hockey stick figure when it comes to innovation and price reduction. Within the next 5 years, flash/rram will replace disk, both in the enterprise as well as the consumer market.
I'd love to see your all-disk array do 2M IOPS, something that all flash arrays are capable of today. Again, at the price that (with dedupe and compression) comes darn close to your disks. Even legacy storage vendors are increasingly investing in solid state technology. Investing in disk is equal to investing in Greek government bonds.
Could the baseband access or change data on the Android partitions or the efs data? I'm not sure, but the articles suggest to me that they could.
I'm not sure either but if so then I sure hope that the developers of the Blackphone took precautions against that. I do agree with you that it could be a potential exploitable hole: very bad indeed!
Oh look here are some SSD optimised file systems already. Incidentally they apply to these drives rather well.
Why not just go full SSD? Spinning disks are an aging and soon-to-be obsolete technology. Especially with 3D NAND and RRAM coming up, and SSD prices coming down.
It looks like that what you're quoting concerns spyware on the SIM card, not the underlying OS on the phone/tablet.
In this discussion, the software running on the SIM card would be similar to the firmware on your cable modem. It no longer matters that your neighbors can see your traffic as long as everything you transmit is properly secured and encrypted.
Doesn't matter. The SIM card works on the network level. The data (voice or data) is encrypted prior to transmission onto the network layer so a compromised SIM card is no problem.
The problem is the voters have elected representatives that agreed to and enforced local monopolies to encourage investment in enabling infrastructure. Without the offer of a monopoly on the local market, how would the local government be able to ensure everyone has access to the services offered, not just those most likely to subscribe to the services offered? How many competitors would enter a market and invest in a parallel infrastructure to fight over a defined number of customers?
Very fair points.
I think what we need to do is to create a public last-mile infrastructure, and let the rest up to the market. This works great in Europe, why wouldn't it work fine in the U.S.?
Instead there should be a single last-mile network that is heavily regulated (including net neutrality) and then let the companies compete on everything else
Yes. Totally agree there. And that shouldn't be a problem either: on the last mile there is no oversubscription or other type of bandwidth issue.
In some European countries, this is happening. The incumbent telcos have to allow competitor ISPs to colocate DSLAMs in their street cabinets against reasonable fees. The small ISP will then be able to use the copper wire connecting the CPE equipment directly to their own DSLAM.
I wish this was possible in my community here. I'd be the first one to start an ISP.
Your switching stations on YOUR property are yours to do with as you please but only if 100% of the money spent on that equipment was yours and only if the property itself was a 100% capitalist sale and not gained from a court order. The other 99.99whatever% of the distance is not YOURS. It wasn't built on your land or even paid for by your company in many cases.
How a network was a acquired, is irrelevant. If I own a network, it is mine to do whatever I choose to do with it. If I want to throw everything on a big pile and burn it, that is my right (well, apart from the environmental consequences).
My network, my rules. And if you don't agree, don't get on my network.
Having that said, you should read my comment again. The whole point of my comment is that the FCC should make it easier for YOU to make that choice. YOU should be able to have a choice to switch to a competitor of mine who has rules that favor you instead of another company. The FCC is making it extremely difficult for me to start an ISP. I would love to quit my job and start an ISP that focuses on providing the best customer experience for a reasonable price, but it is virtually impossible to do so.
Net Neutrality rules are nothing more than forcing you to go to McDonalds every day, but at least they tell McDonalds that they can't take payment from Pepsico to make it impossible for you to have a Coke Zero with your meal.
Sure the government gives you the structure of corporations to protect you and sure the government provides you a legal structure for you to even have contracts with your customers,
I don't need the government for any of that.
but oh boy you get whiny if the government doesn't give you everything else too.
You have a very distorted sense of reality. I don't need anything from the government. I am saying that the government should stop taking something away, that is the right of me choosing in whatever way I wish to operate my own goddamn network. The government has no business in telling me what to do on my network.
FCC isn't stating how anyone can operate their networks. Net neutrality is about saying that corporations cannot screw customers at will.
Oh really? I believe that Net Neutrality rules specifically tell an operator how to configure their networks. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain QoS configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain policing/metering configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use influence the routing of traffic within their network.
The government has no business telling me how to run my network.
You must be Republican.
I am not. I am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization and against religious influences on the government. But I am an expert in the field of networking.
But, when you sell *Internet* access, you have a responsibility to provide *Internet* access
They provide internet access. The fact that it isn't fast enough for you doesn't mean they don't.
The whole point of my argument is that the FCC should not be regulating an operator's network operations, but to enable a competitive playing field so that YOU can vote with your money and take your business elsewhere. That is what the FCC should do.
Net neutrality is nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound.
So-called "Net Neutrality" is a nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound, for two main reasons.
First of all, most internet users in the US of A have little choice between carriers. It's either cable, dsl or satellite. The cable market will be given to company A, and if lucky, company B for dsl. It is virtually impossible to start a new ISP under current regulations. This means that there is little to no incentive for incumbent operators to upgrade their networks.
In an ideal world, networks and subscriber access have sufficient bandwidth to accommodate all users. Yes, consumer cable/DSL will be oversubscribed a bit, but that will leave plenty of bandwidth for regular services, assuming a decent operator network. This is the real problem of the U.S. internet access market.
The second reason why I'm strongly against these regulations is that the government should keep its busy nose out of private companies' networks. If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to. If a subscriber does not like the way I operate my network, they are (should be) free to go elsewhere. Which is the part that is broken in the U.S.
So, what the FCC should really focus on is not so much the whining of Netflix regarding available ports on public peering exchanges, but to open up the broadband market to more competition. Works in Europe, works in Asia, works in Canada. Does not work in Mother Russia, for obvious reasons (in Russia, KGB^H^H^H internet connects to you).
In short, because the FCC is so defunct that they're unable to regulate a healthy competitive market, they force their big fat butt on the seat of the CEOs of current companies and tell them how to operate their networks.
So crabbing is irrelevant. RPM and weight are irrelevant.
No, not entirely. At some point you'll have to land the aircraft. And if the operator fails, the aircraft will land itself. Potentially on my head. Potentially with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM. Crabbing is relevant, and so are RPM and weight.
So you used it as an unrelated example of their ability to to control the device, rather than complaining about the actual problem, people who can't control their devices.
Yes. My point is that people who just go out and buy a drone without any form of training have no clue about the aerodynamics of flight, and thus are not qualified to fly an aircraft. The only difference between someone remotely piloting an aircraft and someone behind the controls of an aircraft is that if the first one fucks up, he doesn't die, but someone else may.
That doesn't mean that I agree with the FAA's proposal to have people earn a real pilot's certificate. Some instruction like this would probably be sufficient. But at least something.
When I search on my iPad and go to a site, more and more of them have their own apps. Why in the World would I install an app to look at their content?
CrappySite App requires the following permissions:
- your address
- all your friends addresses
- all information in your contact book
- the name and SSN of all your children
- all your credit card details
- the date you last went to the dentist
How does crabbing for a landing affect their ability to fly above you? Or is this just an unrelated skill you are demanding as an example? If they are at 100'+ over your property and headed past (not circling), their complete ignorance of aerodynamics will have no effect on you.
Very simple, they will not be able to properly control the vehicle. And let me give you an example.
I recently bought a small quadcopter with a camera (Hubsan x4). I flew it around my neighborhood a bit and one of my neighbors liked it and bought one as well. He crashed it on the first day, simply because he could not understand that the wind was blowing his precious helicopter away and he had to adjust for the wind direction. His lack of a basic understanding of aerodynamics and the forces of nature in flight, made it impossible for him to control the aircraft.
With many drones disabling the GPS receiver is either [a] difficult or [b] strongly ill-advised (as it's used to make station-keeping in a breeze much easier and automatic as opposed to a constant fight against air current).
You don't know yet, but your comment is much more to the point than one might think.
One of the biggest issues that the FAA now faces is that hordes of untrained "pilots", people flying a larger-than-toy aircraft remotely, without having a basic understanding of the aerodynamics. What if the flight crew of your JFK-SFO flight solely relied on GPS to maintain control of the aircraft? I'm sure you would not be happy. Well, neither am I, with a 6 pound piece of metal with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM right above my head, controlled by someone who doesn't have the single clue of how to crab for a cross-wind landing.
This is one of the reasons why the FAA is considering to mandate actual pilot certificates before handing out a License to Drone.
The ISP gets to bill the government. This means it costs them money to fuck with the net. This sets up a reason for them to not to want to block something. This could help limit grey area cases where the government might decide its not worth their time. I trust money and lazy over the good intentions of the government any day.
No, because the same slippery slope will include a law including a "maximum" amount the ISP can bill, followed by subsequent decreases of that amount.
We've seen that in order EU countries when it came to lawful intercept. They started out as being billable against reguler engineering hours (a technician had to go in the system, poke around etc), and in the end they said "we're paying EUR 5 per tap and that's it.". Under the threat of weapons of course.
They seen a company had the same name (he didn't have a website) and bought it. They said because it had a popular "key word", which is the loop hole they use to get away with it. This way they can say its not their intentions even though it is. Then they used a shell company to send him emails to try to get his company to buy it where they "the register" is not connected. No other company on all of the inernet is named the same as his (very unique name) which makes it 100% clear they targeted them.
I have something similar happen to me, when I started the trademark process for a company that I founded. Within a week after filing, I was contacted by several "representatives" for obscure TLDs primarily in Asia, who informed me that someone had tried to register $companyname.asia and other TLDs. Being the rightful owner, I was allowed to supersede that registration. For a fee, of course. The initial mail was:
Dear Sir,
We are the department of Asian Domain Registration Service in China. I have something to confirm with you. We formally received an application on April 11, 2014 that a company which self-styled "Paest Investment Co. Ltd". were applying to register some Asian countries top-level domain names.
Now we are handling this registration, and after our initial checking, we found the name were similar to your company's, so we need to check with you whether your company has authorized that company to register these names. If you authorized this, we will finish the registration at once. If you did not authorize, please let us know within 7 workdays, so that we will handle this issue better.
easy solution, stop filing taxes. The government gets all that information anyway.
Not true. First of all, you may have accounts outside of the country, which you will need to report. Second, you may have rental income that is not automatically reported. And those are only the first two things I thought of when I read your post.
Oh, and those are Federal only. An example of state taxes that are not automatically reported is the use tax that you have to pay if your state uses it, like California does.
The IRS also doesn't necessarily need to know about your deductions, unless you want your doctor to inform the IRS every time you visit the office, and perhaps you'd like your kid's preschool to inform the IRS that you prefer the Catholic Baptist Imams Kiddie Academy instead of your local preschool. And let's not forget deductions like home office or certain business expenses.
I'm pretty sure that in order to have everything go automagically, the entire tax system would need to be overhauled.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, yeah, yeah. 14 CFR 91.3. Going by your logic, ATC has no job. Obviously, ATC's job is to safely operate the National Airspace System. 91.3 isn't going to get an airliner into a busy terminal through a layer of weather. When a pilot observes a conflict between an ATC clearance or regulation and the safety of flight, however, the pilot has the authority to deviate.
I don't think you get the idea behind 14 CFR 91.3.
Pilot makes mistake, pilot dies. Controller makes mistake, pilot dies. Pilot is the ultimate authority and thus has the ultimate responsibility over any flight. But he'll gladly take any help he can get.
I'm a big fan of ATC. I like flying in Bravo airspace. I like flight following when in Echo airspace. It helps me stay safe. But in the end, when I'm flying, I am flying.
Getting everyone on the ground safely is the pilots' job. Keeping planes in the air safely is ATC's job.
Nope. Once an aircraft is moving on the ground under its own power, the flight has started and the pilot in command has the ultimate responsibility and authority over the safety of the flight. A pilot in command can deviate from any rule, clearance or law to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.
It's using information to garner a public lynching response
which, in this particular case, was the best thing he could have done.
His only three alternatives were, in order of saneability:
- do nothing;
- go to a local police station and see the complaint archived in a desk;
- do what I probably have done and get a shotgun out to protect his little girl from threats of sexual assault and worse;
This guy is the best dad this girl could have right now.
The systems I'm buying now will be obsolete by the time SSD can even think about touching hard drives in terms of capacity per $. Typically, the ONLY reason to go full SSD now for large storage capacities is because you absolutely need the performance and are willing to pay essentially "whatever it costs" (at least 8x+ the price) because it's that important to get the IOPS. Maybe by the end of next year we'll get it down to "only" 4x the price (not counting that though because price per GB for large capacity hard drives still continutes to fall, balancing out a part of the cost reduction in SSDs).
You're right, but also somewhat wrong.
"Raw capacity" is indeed quite expensive. However, the increased speeds of flash have made it possible to provide in-line data reduction services. Data reduction is a widely used term for two techniques: de-duplication and compression. This works on a block level. When the host writes a block, the system will look in its table to see if that block has already been written. If so, it will simply write a pointer. If not, it will be forwarded to the compression engine and stored. In the storage industry, a data reduction ratio of 1:6 is accepted as generally achievable, with higher rates possible on large virtualization clusters. This means that the effect cost per GB is reduced dramatically and even reaches the price of high-end disks. So your 80TB raw capacity array will store ~300TB of data, depending on the data reduction ratio.
On top of that, since flash performs so well, other features such as continuous data protection by (a)synchronous replication are possible with very little performance degradation.
If you still doubt this technology, go have a look at the technological advances in hard drives, versus the technological advances of flash in the last 5 years. Hard drive vendors have very little to innovate while flash/rram are at the lower end of a hockey stick figure when it comes to innovation and price reduction. Within the next 5 years, flash/rram will replace disk, both in the enterprise as well as the consumer market.
I'd love to see your all-disk array do 2M IOPS, something that all flash arrays are capable of today. Again, at the price that (with dedupe and compression) comes darn close to your disks. Even legacy storage vendors are increasingly investing in solid state technology. Investing in disk is equal to investing in Greek government bonds.
Could the baseband access or change data on the Android partitions or the efs data? I'm not sure, but the articles suggest to me that they could.
I'm not sure either but if so then I sure hope that the developers of the Blackphone took precautions against that. I do agree with you that it could be a potential exploitable hole: very bad indeed!
Oh look here are some SSD optimised file systems already. Incidentally they apply to these drives rather well.
Why not just go full SSD? Spinning disks are an aging and soon-to-be obsolete technology. Especially with 3D NAND and RRAM coming up, and SSD prices coming down.
So apparently it does matter.
It looks like that what you're quoting concerns spyware on the SIM card, not the underlying OS on the phone/tablet.
In this discussion, the software running on the SIM card would be similar to the firmware on your cable modem. It no longer matters that your neighbors can see your traffic as long as everything you transmit is properly secured and encrypted.
Gemalto SIM card?
Doesn't matter. The SIM card works on the network level. The data (voice or data) is encrypted prior to transmission onto the network layer so a compromised SIM card is no problem.
What is Coogle+?
Facebook for Google employees :)
The problem is the voters have elected representatives that agreed to and enforced local monopolies to encourage investment in enabling infrastructure. Without the offer of a monopoly on the local market, how would the local government be able to ensure everyone has access to the services offered, not just those most likely to subscribe to the services offered? How many competitors would enter a market and invest in a parallel infrastructure to fight over a defined number of customers?
Very fair points.
I think what we need to do is to create a public last-mile infrastructure, and let the rest up to the market. This works great in Europe, why wouldn't it work fine in the U.S.?
Instead there should be a single last-mile network that is heavily regulated (including net neutrality) and then let the companies compete on everything else
Yes. Totally agree there. And that shouldn't be a problem either: on the last mile there is no oversubscription or other type of bandwidth issue.
In some European countries, this is happening. The incumbent telcos have to allow competitor ISPs to colocate DSLAMs in their street cabinets against reasonable fees. The small ISP will then be able to use the copper wire connecting the CPE equipment directly to their own DSLAM.
I wish this was possible in my community here. I'd be the first one to start an ISP.
Your switching stations on YOUR property are yours to do with as you please but only if 100% of the money spent on that equipment was yours and only if the property itself was a 100% capitalist sale and not gained from a court order. The other 99.99whatever% of the distance is not YOURS. It wasn't built on your land or even paid for by your company in many cases.
How a network was a acquired, is irrelevant. If I own a network, it is mine to do whatever I choose to do with it. If I want to throw everything on a big pile and burn it, that is my right (well, apart from the environmental consequences).
My network, my rules. And if you don't agree, don't get on my network.
Having that said, you should read my comment again. The whole point of my comment is that the FCC should make it easier for YOU to make that choice. YOU should be able to have a choice to switch to a competitor of mine who has rules that favor you instead of another company. The FCC is making it extremely difficult for me to start an ISP. I would love to quit my job and start an ISP that focuses on providing the best customer experience for a reasonable price, but it is virtually impossible to do so.
Net Neutrality rules are nothing more than forcing you to go to McDonalds every day, but at least they tell McDonalds that they can't take payment from Pepsico to make it impossible for you to have a Coke Zero with your meal.
Sure the government gives you the structure of corporations to protect you and sure the government provides you a legal structure for you to even have contracts with your customers,
I don't need the government for any of that.
but oh boy you get whiny if the government doesn't give you everything else too.
You have a very distorted sense of reality. I don't need anything from the government. I am saying that the government should stop taking something away, that is the right of me choosing in whatever way I wish to operate my own goddamn network. The government has no business in telling me what to do on my network.
FCC isn't stating how anyone can operate their networks. Net neutrality is about saying that corporations cannot screw customers at will.
Oh really? I believe that Net Neutrality rules specifically tell an operator how to configure their networks. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain QoS configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain policing/metering configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use influence the routing of traffic within their network.
The government has no business telling me how to run my network.
You must be Republican.
I am not. I am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization and against religious influences on the government. But I am an expert in the field of networking.
But, when you sell *Internet* access, you have a responsibility to provide *Internet* access
They provide internet access. The fact that it isn't fast enough for you doesn't mean they don't.
The whole point of my argument is that the FCC should not be regulating an operator's network operations, but to enable a competitive playing field so that YOU can vote with your money and take your business elsewhere. That is what the FCC should do.
Net neutrality is nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound.
Verizon is the only option in my town.
This is the real problem.
So-called "Net Neutrality" is a nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound, for two main reasons.
First of all, most internet users in the US of A have little choice between carriers. It's either cable, dsl or satellite. The cable market will be given to company A, and if lucky, company B for dsl. It is virtually impossible to start a new ISP under current regulations. This means that there is little to no incentive for incumbent operators to upgrade their networks.
In an ideal world, networks and subscriber access have sufficient bandwidth to accommodate all users. Yes, consumer cable/DSL will be oversubscribed a bit, but that will leave plenty of bandwidth for regular services, assuming a decent operator network. This is the real problem of the U.S. internet access market.
The second reason why I'm strongly against these regulations is that the government should keep its busy nose out of private companies' networks. If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to. If a subscriber does not like the way I operate my network, they are (should be) free to go elsewhere. Which is the part that is broken in the U.S.
So, what the FCC should really focus on is not so much the whining of Netflix regarding available ports on public peering exchanges, but to open up the broadband market to more competition. Works in Europe, works in Asia, works in Canada. Does not work in Mother Russia, for obvious reasons (in Russia, KGB^H^H^H internet connects to you).
In short, because the FCC is so defunct that they're unable to regulate a healthy competitive market, they force their big fat butt on the seat of the CEOs of current companies and tell them how to operate their networks.
So crabbing is irrelevant. RPM and weight are irrelevant.
No, not entirely. At some point you'll have to land the aircraft. And if the operator fails, the aircraft will land itself. Potentially on my head. Potentially with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM. Crabbing is relevant, and so are RPM and weight.
So you used it as an unrelated example of their ability to to control the device, rather than complaining about the actual problem, people who can't control their devices.
Yes. My point is that people who just go out and buy a drone without any form of training have no clue about the aerodynamics of flight, and thus are not qualified to fly an aircraft. The only difference between someone remotely piloting an aircraft and someone behind the controls of an aircraft is that if the first one fucks up, he doesn't die, but someone else may.
That doesn't mean that I agree with the FAA's proposal to have people earn a real pilot's certificate. Some instruction like this would probably be sufficient. But at least something.
When I search on my iPad and go to a site, more and more of them have their own apps. Why in the World would I install an app to look at their content?
CrappySite App requires the following permissions:
- your address
- all your friends addresses
- all information in your contact book
- the name and SSN of all your children
- all your credit card details
- the date you last went to the dentist
Get it?
How does crabbing for a landing affect their ability to fly above you? Or is this just an unrelated skill you are demanding as an example? If they are at 100'+ over your property and headed past (not circling), their complete ignorance of aerodynamics will have no effect on you.
Very simple, they will not be able to properly control the vehicle. And let me give you an example.
I recently bought a small quadcopter with a camera (Hubsan x4). I flew it around my neighborhood a bit and one of my neighbors liked it and bought one as well. He crashed it on the first day, simply because he could not understand that the wind was blowing his precious helicopter away and he had to adjust for the wind direction. His lack of a basic understanding of aerodynamics and the forces of nature in flight, made it impossible for him to control the aircraft.
With many drones disabling the GPS receiver is either [a] difficult or [b] strongly ill-advised (as it's used to make station-keeping in a breeze much easier and automatic as opposed to a constant fight against air current).
You don't know yet, but your comment is much more to the point than one might think.
One of the biggest issues that the FAA now faces is that hordes of untrained "pilots", people flying a larger-than-toy aircraft remotely, without having a basic understanding of the aerodynamics. What if the flight crew of your JFK-SFO flight solely relied on GPS to maintain control of the aircraft? I'm sure you would not be happy. Well, neither am I, with a 6 pound piece of metal with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM right above my head, controlled by someone who doesn't have the single clue of how to crab for a cross-wind landing.
This is one of the reasons why the FAA is considering to mandate actual pilot certificates before handing out a License to Drone.
The ISP gets to bill the government. This means it costs them money to fuck with the net. This sets up a reason for them to not to want to block something. This could help limit grey area cases where the government might decide its not worth their time. I trust money and lazy over the good intentions of the government any day.
No, because the same slippery slope will include a law including a "maximum" amount the ISP can bill, followed by subsequent decreases of that amount.
We've seen that in order EU countries when it came to lawful intercept. They started out as being billable against reguler engineering hours (a technician had to go in the system, poke around etc), and in the end they said "we're paying EUR 5 per tap and that's it.". Under the threat of weapons of course.
They seen a company had the same name (he didn't have a website) and bought it. They said because it had a popular "key word", which is the loop hole they use to get away with it. This way they can say its not their intentions even though it is. Then they used a shell company to send him emails to try to get his company to buy it where they "the register" is not connected. No other company on all of the inernet is named the same as his (very unique name) which makes it 100% clear they targeted them.
I have something similar happen to me, when I started the trademark process for a company that I founded. Within a week after filing, I was contacted by several "representatives" for obscure TLDs primarily in Asia, who informed me that someone had tried to register $companyname.asia and other TLDs. Being the rightful owner, I was allowed to supersede that registration. For a fee, of course. The initial mail was:
Dear Sir,
We are the department of Asian Domain Registration Service in China. I have something to confirm with you. We formally received an application on April 11, 2014 that a company which self-styled "Paest Investment Co. Ltd". were applying to register some Asian countries top-level domain names.
Now we are handling this registration, and after our initial checking, we found the name were similar to your company's, so we need to check with you whether your company has authorized that company to register these names. If you authorized this, we will finish the registration at once. If you did not authorize, please let us know within 7 workdays, so that we will handle this issue better.
easy solution, stop filing taxes. The government gets all that information anyway.
Not true. First of all, you may have accounts outside of the country, which you will need to report. Second, you may have rental income that is not automatically reported. And those are only the first two things I thought of when I read your post.
Oh, and those are Federal only. An example of state taxes that are not automatically reported is the use tax that you have to pay if your state uses it, like California does.
The IRS also doesn't necessarily need to know about your deductions, unless you want your doctor to inform the IRS every time you visit the office, and perhaps you'd like your kid's preschool to inform the IRS that you prefer the Catholic Baptist Imams Kiddie Academy instead of your local preschool. And let's not forget deductions like home office or certain business expenses.
I'm pretty sure that in order to have everything go automagically, the entire tax system would need to be overhauled.
TDAP vaccine effectiveness diminishes significantly with time:
Yes, which is why me and the misses got a TDAP booster halfway through her pregnancy.
I don't feel very autistic yet.