It's not about less freedom. It's about regulating drones in a similar way as regular aircraft: they need to be registered. You can still legally fly your drone the same way today as you could yesterday.
Perhaps the people that can't afford food should move to Gilroy and save $1000 per month in rent (per bedroom).
Perhaps you should look at housing prices in Gilroy again. Nowadays you need to look at Hollister, Salinas or even Los Banos to find anything remotely affordable for the non-tech employed. A security guard that I talked to at my current job told me he leaves his home at 2:45AM to be at work at 6AM.
Can you imagine crossing that stinking 152 every day to get to your shitty job making slightly above minimum wage?
At my daughter's school in Morgan Hill, in a neighborhood where most single family homes go upward of a million dollars, there are a lot of kids from households that are less fortunate. In fact, the entire school is a 'Title 1" school, meaning that it gets extra federal funds to support the underserved children.
I see you failed to address my main point about water resistance. Why?
It's a non issue, at least on my iPhone 6. I replaced the battery on my 6 a month ago because it didn't last a day anymore. All I did was buy a $20 battery at one of those mall stands. The 6 and 6s are incredibly easy to open, and it took me more time to soften the glue with a hairdryer than open/close and everything.
As for the water resistance: if you don't mess with any of the other parts, you should be able to have the same resistance. Remember that water resistance is not water proof.
Telecom companies are natural monopolies due to physical cable infrastructure. How do you propose to change that?
Traditional phone companies are limited to physical cable infrastructure. Modern internet companies are not. In most civilized countries outside of the U.S., the last mile is a shared resource, allowing multiple operators to work on the same physical infrastructure.
The only way to stop the might of large internet corporations is to enable and support a healthy competitive market. Simply having the government dictate how private property can be configured, is not the solution.
Is "common carrier" status also a band-aid?
Common carrier status does not legally impact a network's ability to run differentiated services over the same infrastructure.
the primary reason net neutrality laws were introduced was to stop the major abuse being performed by ISPs trying to destroy the open Internet.
What makes you think there even is an open internet?
The internet is nothing more than a large number of private networks connected together while coordinating their IP addressing schemes through a centralized entity.
The government has no business regulating how I configure my networking equipment. If I want to block Netflix, I will block Netflix. My network, my rules. If you are my customer and you don't like it, don't buy my services.
And that's where the true issue lies: no competition in the broadband markets. The whole concept of Net Neutrality is nothing more than a band-aid to hide the lack of competition in broadband internet.
if somebody is sentenced to death for murder, it isn't based on having been able to measure the exact amount of harm that they have done. Indeed, at the sentencing there are likely to be numerous impacted persons who give a statement on the harm that the person's death caused them
Actually, you're wrong again. A conviction for murder requires the court of law to prove the amount of harm done, namely the end of the life of the murder victim. The victim impact statements are given by family and friends of the murder victim only because the murder victim cannot deliver them. When was the last time you've seen a third party give a victim statement in a robbery case?
Stop being a fucking moron, and start thinking with your brain instead of trying to think using your conclusions.
I would gladly hold that mirror on front of you. When it comes to criminal justice, a simple estimate is not sufficient. Expert testimony may help sway the jury based on an expert's opinion on likelihoods (like in the case of DNA evidence), but I simple let-me-put-my-finger-in-the-air-and-provide-an-estimate will not cut it.
It violated treaties that Ireland had voluntarily signed, and hence the Irish government actions were illegal.
I see that you have no idea how the legal concept of treaties work. Even if the Irish government would have signed away their rights to determine their tax legislation rights, then the EU still has no business dealing with Apple. Apple did not sign that treaty and Apple has a separate agreement with the Irish government. It is the Irish government that determines their taxation and not the EUSSR.
but this is just plain false. netflix arranged a more efficient method to get its traffic to comcast, a method that would have been cheaper per bit for both of them. there's no reason for comcast to require additional payment, it just saw that its network wasn't going to be capable to handling the additional bandwidth and wanted to pass the blame/cost onto someone else.
On the contrary, your assessment is faulty. Netflix started using Cogent as their transit provider, and this caused the links between Cogent and Comcast to become saturated. The solution was for Netflix and Comcast to setup private peering, which Comcast refused to do settlement free. Either way it would not have been "cheaper for both" to use Cogent. It would have been cheaper for Netflix.
When Comcast started charging Netflix for content to be delivered to Netflix customers who already pay both Comcast and Netflix to wat cg Netflix content.
Comcast did not start charging Netflix for content do be delivered. Netflix started transmitting so much traffic that it made sense for them to set up private peering. However, Comcast refused to do so unless Netflix paid Comcast for the cost.
That is exactly what Obama prevented. But morons don't seem to realize the difference between content providers and distribution
Net Neutrality rules would not prevent the same dispute to occur again, as Comcast was doing nothing to slow down Netflix's traffic.
And the only person with an extra chromosome here is you. You have no idea what you're talking about. Let the grownups discuss this, please.
Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground)
No they are not. Get your facts straight.
At this time, there is not a single permanent restriction on flying over any stadium in the U.S.Only Disneyland and Disneyworld have permanent restrictions.
Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are enacted by the FAA during events only. And even then, the TFRs are in some cases very conditional. Levi's Stadium for example, was somehow approved directly under the flight path for KSJC. Depending on the wind, arriving or departing traffic will have to overfly the stadium during normal operations. Depending on the type of TFR, even regular traffic (your friendly Cessna pilot) may get permission from ATC to fly through the TFR. Levi's stadium is within SJC's class C so you'd be talking to ATC anyway.
And here is a real world example: SJC itself would be within the TFR being within 3nm (2.1nm from the DME). I like to fly the Bay Tour every once in a while. Departing from Reid-Hillview (a small south San Jose airport), I have to fly directly over SJC airport. Typically, SJC ATC will instruct you to fly straight over the airport at 2500ft, so that would be within your beloved TFR. And guess what? That is no problem whatsoever.
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
One thing is having access to the source code and a completely different story is properly analysing it. When dealing with something as complex as (probabilistic!) DNA sequencing, it seems quite clear that the most sensible way to validate the program is actually using it. Set up a proper benchmark with a relevant number of samples and confirm whether this (+ any other) program works exactly as expected. This would also be an excellent way to objectively assess its accuracy.
Exactly this. My kingdom for modpoints.
You don't test software by looking at the code. You test the software by testing it. If it ain't broken, you're not testing hard enough.
While I'm very pro-OSS, I'm anti forcing private companies to disclose their source code. It is their work, their intellectual property. It's up to the judge to admit the closed-source evidence and up to the jury to weigh it.
Amsterdam Airport still has this. If the person you dropped off is flying an el-cheapo carrier who uses a bus terminal, you can still watch them board the plane. They even have a decommissioned airplane on the deck for kids to go play in.
NN is dead for now. If the Democrats win in 2020, it may come roaring back.
Unpopular opinion here, so beware. And yeah, disagreeing mods may downmod but that does not change the validity of my arguments.
First things first: my network, my rules. If you don't like it, don't go on my network. I operate a very small personal network where I provide services (free of charge) to family and friends. For that I have an AS number and some IP space, and I purchase transit from a Tier-1 ISP.
If I want to throttle something, that should be my right. I want to block something, that should be my right. I paid for the network gear. I pay for the rack space. I pay for the transit. It is not the Government's business to dictate me through their so-called "net neutrality" rules as to how I configure my network.
That principle applies to me, but also to the big jack-ass corporations. Yes, I'm a customer of the big ones to and I do not like it when they throttle stuff. But you know what? It is their network, so they get to choose. If I disagree with what they do, I have the right to stop buying their services.
And now course, people will come with the argument that it is not that simple because in the U.S. and many other jurisdictions worldwide there are not a lot of players in the market. And you know what: I totally agree with you. That sucks. That is a problem. Not only is that a problem, it is THE only problem.
Net Neutrality is bad because it fixes a symptom, it does not fix the problem. Demanding Net Neutrality rules is like taking an Advil because you have a brain tumor. The real fix is to increase competition is the residential and commercial broadband market.
I would love to start an ISP from scratch in my area, but I am unable to do so because there are many rules that prevent me to do so. Get rid of those stupid rules, allow more competition and customers will vote with their feet as to which rules to accept and not accept on an ISP's network.
That is the real problem here. Screw Net Neutrality. Open the market up for competition.
This was all about telling a foreign country to shove their court orders that try to tell Americans what they can and cannot do in the US.
The most important part of this ruling is this:
The judge granted EFF a default judgment, saying the Australian court's injunction was "repugnant" to the U. S. Constitution.
The term "repugnant" was not chosen arbitrarily. It's a legal term used when litigators attempt to "domesticate" a foreign judgement in the U.S. This is a process where a U.S. court will recognize a foreign court's judgement as equal to and enforceable in the U.S. California law says:
a court in California is not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply:
(3) The judgment of the cause of action or claim for relief upon which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of the State of California or the United States.
In other words: while this judgement was delivered by a federal judge, no California court will recognize any Australian's court award of monetary damages based on this verdict.
There is no evidence for that. All he ever did was say that he is "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children".
Now, I personally disagree with him on that (and many other things), but this statement is insufficient evidence to label him a pedophile. Even if he is, a pedophile is someone who loves children. A pedosexual predator is someone who targets children for their personal sexual gratification. And I don't think Richard Stallman is any of these.
And none of this dual citizen shit. If you become a US citizen, you have to renounce any existing citizenships.
Some countries do not permit you to do so, for example Morocco. And then there are the countries who penalize their (former) Citizens by charging them "expatriation" tax on everything they own if they wish to renounce their citizenship. Well, there is only one that does so. Oh shoot! It's the U.S.!
Slashdot Mirror
Yay for less freedom
It's not about less freedom. It's about regulating drones in a similar way as regular aircraft: they need to be registered. You can still legally fly your drone the same way today as you could yesterday.
Perhaps the people that can't afford food should move to Gilroy and save $1000 per month in rent (per bedroom).
Perhaps you should look at housing prices in Gilroy again. Nowadays you need to look at Hollister, Salinas or even Los Banos to find anything remotely affordable for the non-tech employed. A security guard that I talked to at my current job told me he leaves his home at 2:45AM to be at work at 6AM.
Can you imagine crossing that stinking 152 every day to get to your shitty job making slightly above minimum wage?
At my daughter's school in Morgan Hill, in a neighborhood where most single family homes go upward of a million dollars, there are a lot of kids from households that are less fortunate. In fact, the entire school is a 'Title 1" school, meaning that it gets extra federal funds to support the underserved children.
In Silicon Valley. Seriously?
I see you failed to address my main point about water resistance. Why?
It's a non issue, at least on my iPhone 6. I replaced the battery on my 6 a month ago because it didn't last a day anymore. All I did was buy a $20 battery at one of those mall stands. The 6 and 6s are incredibly easy to open, and it took me more time to soften the glue with a hairdryer than open/close and everything.
As for the water resistance: if you don't mess with any of the other parts, you should be able to have the same resistance. Remember that water resistance is not water proof.
If BeauHD is being a decent editor
Clearly not impartial. Look at this:
choosing between two companies that have both got shady behavior on their records, ... actively campaigning against net neutrality.
So, actively campaigning for something that you stand for is "shady behavior". Really?
I had good hopes that someone finally figured out the real problem here: the lack of competition.
Telecom companies are natural monopolies due to physical cable infrastructure. How do you propose to change that?
Traditional phone companies are limited to physical cable infrastructure. Modern internet companies are not. In most civilized countries outside of the U.S., the last mile is a shared resource, allowing multiple operators to work on the same physical infrastructure.
The only way to stop the might of large internet corporations is to enable and support a healthy competitive market. Simply having the government dictate how private property can be configured, is not the solution.
Is "common carrier" status also a band-aid?
Common carrier status does not legally impact a network's ability to run differentiated services over the same infrastructure.
the primary reason net neutrality laws were introduced was to stop the major abuse being performed by ISPs trying to destroy the open Internet.
What makes you think there even is an open internet?
The internet is nothing more than a large number of private networks connected together while coordinating their IP addressing schemes through a centralized entity.
The government has no business regulating how I configure my networking equipment. If I want to block Netflix, I will block Netflix. My network, my rules. If you are my customer and you don't like it, don't buy my services.
And that's where the true issue lies: no competition in the broadband markets. The whole concept of Net Neutrality is nothing more than a band-aid to hide the lack of competition in broadband internet.
you just didn't understand the literal meaning of the words I used.
Oh, I understand your words quite well. The literal meaning of the word 'moron', which you wrote, is an indication of groteske disrespect.
I guess I fell for the good ol' trap of arguing with someone who would drag me down to their level and beat me with experience.
I can't throw my MasterCard at you or my church offering plate or the IRS.
By all means, just write down the numbers on the front and back here and I'll show you how practical your Mastercard can be used.
if somebody is sentenced to death for murder, it isn't based on having been able to measure the exact amount of harm that they have done. Indeed, at the sentencing there are likely to be numerous impacted persons who give a statement on the harm that the person's death caused them
Actually, you're wrong again. A conviction for murder requires the court of law to prove the amount of harm done, namely the end of the life of the murder victim. The victim impact statements are given by family and friends of the murder victim only because the murder victim cannot deliver them. When was the last time you've seen a third party give a victim statement in a robbery case?
Stop being a fucking moron, and start thinking with your brain instead of trying to think using your conclusions.
I would gladly hold that mirror on front of you. When it comes to criminal justice, a simple estimate is not sufficient. Expert testimony may help sway the jury based on an expert's opinion on likelihoods (like in the case of DNA evidence), but I simple let-me-put-my-finger-in-the-air-and-provide-an-estimate will not cut it.
Luckily someone has done part of the work, however.
Right. And from your own link:
The researchers estimate
That's not a very scientific way to measure death, especially if you're trying to get a jury to recommend capital punishment.
It violated treaties that Ireland had voluntarily signed, and hence the Irish government actions were illegal.
I see that you have no idea how the legal concept of treaties work. Even if the Irish government would have signed away their rights to determine their tax legislation rights, then the EU still has no business dealing with Apple. Apple did not sign that treaty and Apple has a separate agreement with the Irish government. It is the Irish government that determines their taxation and not the EUSSR.
but this is just plain false. netflix arranged a more efficient method to get its traffic to comcast, a method that would have been cheaper per bit for both of them. there's no reason for comcast to require additional payment, it just saw that its network wasn't going to be capable to handling the additional bandwidth and wanted to pass the blame/cost onto someone else.
On the contrary, your assessment is faulty. Netflix started using Cogent as their transit provider, and this caused the links between Cogent and Comcast to become saturated. The solution was for Netflix and Comcast to setup private peering, which Comcast refused to do settlement free. Either way it would not have been "cheaper for both" to use Cogent. It would have been cheaper for Netflix.
When Comcast started charging Netflix for content to be delivered to Netflix customers who already pay both Comcast and Netflix to wat cg Netflix content.
Comcast did not start charging Netflix for content do be delivered. Netflix started transmitting so much traffic that it made sense for them to set up private peering. However, Comcast refused to do so unless Netflix paid Comcast for the cost.
That is exactly what Obama prevented. But morons don't seem to realize the difference between content providers and distribution
Net Neutrality rules would not prevent the same dispute to occur again, as Comcast was doing nothing to slow down Netflix's traffic.
And the only person with an extra chromosome here is you. You have no idea what you're talking about. Let the grownups discuss this, please.
Apple's sweetheart tax deal with Ireland was found to be illegal.
Not by any Irish court.
Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground)
No they are not. Get your facts straight.
At this time, there is not a single permanent restriction on flying over any stadium in the U.S.Only Disneyland and Disneyworld have permanent restrictions.
Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are enacted by the FAA during events only. And even then, the TFRs are in some cases very conditional. Levi's Stadium for example, was somehow approved directly under the flight path for KSJC. Depending on the wind, arriving or departing traffic will have to overfly the stadium during normal operations. Depending on the type of TFR, even regular traffic (your friendly Cessna pilot) may get permission from ATC to fly through the TFR. Levi's stadium is within SJC's class C so you'd be talking to ATC anyway.
And here is a real world example: SJC itself would be within the TFR being within 3nm (2.1nm from the DME). I like to fly the Bay Tour every once in a while. Departing from Reid-Hillview (a small south San Jose airport), I have to fly directly over SJC airport. Typically, SJC ATC will instruct you to fly straight over the airport at 2500ft, so that would be within your beloved TFR. And guess what? That is no problem whatsoever.
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
the link requires me to log in
Yesterday that was not necessary yet. So my guess is that Apple's Supreme Leader was embarrassed and order the thread locked down.
And here is the link to the actual support forum: https://forums.developer.apple...
/. needs to link to someone's personal blog for this.
I don't get why
One thing is having access to the source code and a completely different story is properly analysing it. When dealing with something as complex as (probabilistic!) DNA sequencing, it seems quite clear that the most sensible way to validate the program is actually using it. Set up a proper benchmark with a relevant number of samples and confirm whether this (+ any other) program works exactly as expected. This would also be an excellent way to objectively assess its accuracy.
Exactly this. My kingdom for modpoints.
You don't test software by looking at the code. You test the software by testing it. If it ain't broken, you're not testing hard enough.
While I'm very pro-OSS, I'm anti forcing private companies to disclose their source code. It is their work, their intellectual property. It's up to the judge to admit the closed-source evidence and up to the jury to weigh it.
My hometown airport had an observation deck
Amsterdam Airport still has this. If the person you dropped off is flying an el-cheapo carrier who uses a bus terminal, you can still watch them board the plane. They even have a decommissioned airplane on the deck for kids to go play in.
https://www.schiphol.nl/en/pag...
current versions of sshd don't allow root logons by default unless you install an ssh key.
Bullshit. That is a configurable option in /etc/ssh/sshd.conf
PermitRootLogin yes
or
PermitRootLogin without-password
Oh wait- I don't have any other ISPs to choose from.
And this is exactly my point. This should be fixed. Not "net neutrality".
NN is dead for now. If the Democrats win in 2020, it may come roaring back.
Unpopular opinion here, so beware. And yeah, disagreeing mods may downmod but that does not change the validity of my arguments.
First things first: my network, my rules. If you don't like it, don't go on my network. I operate a very small personal network where I provide services (free of charge) to family and friends. For that I have an AS number and some IP space, and I purchase transit from a Tier-1 ISP.
If I want to throttle something, that should be my right. I want to block something, that should be my right. I paid for the network gear. I pay for the rack space. I pay for the transit. It is not the Government's business to dictate me through their so-called "net neutrality" rules as to how I configure my network.
That principle applies to me, but also to the big jack-ass corporations. Yes, I'm a customer of the big ones to and I do not like it when they throttle stuff. But you know what? It is their network, so they get to choose. If I disagree with what they do, I have the right to stop buying their services.
And now course, people will come with the argument that it is not that simple because in the U.S. and many other jurisdictions worldwide there are not a lot of players in the market. And you know what: I totally agree with you. That sucks. That is a problem. Not only is that a problem, it is THE only problem.
Net Neutrality is bad because it fixes a symptom, it does not fix the problem. Demanding Net Neutrality rules is like taking an Advil because you have a brain tumor. The real fix is to increase competition is the residential and commercial broadband market.
I would love to start an ISP from scratch in my area, but I am unable to do so because there are many rules that prevent me to do so. Get rid of those stupid rules, allow more competition and customers will vote with their feet as to which rules to accept and not accept on an ISP's network.
That is the real problem here. Screw Net Neutrality. Open the market up for competition.
This was all about telling a foreign country to shove their court orders that try to tell Americans what they can and cannot do in the US.
The most important part of this ruling is this:
The judge granted EFF a default judgment, saying the Australian court's injunction was "repugnant" to the U. S. Constitution.
The term "repugnant" was not chosen arbitrarily. It's a legal term used when litigators attempt to "domesticate" a foreign judgement in the U.S. This is a process where a U.S. court will recognize a foreign court's judgement as equal to and enforceable in the U.S. California law says:
a court in California is not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply:
(3) The judgment of the cause of action or claim for relief upon which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of the State of California or the United States.
In other words: while this judgement was delivered by a federal judge, no California court will recognize any Australian's court award of monetary damages based on this verdict.
Richard Stallman is a pedophile
There is no evidence for that. All he ever did was say that he is "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children".
Now, I personally disagree with him on that (and many other things), but this statement is insufficient evidence to label him a pedophile. Even if he is, a pedophile is someone who loves children. A pedosexual predator is someone who targets children for their personal sexual gratification. And I don't think Richard Stallman is any of these.
And none of this dual citizen shit. If you become a US citizen, you have to renounce any existing citizenships.
Some countries do not permit you to do so, for example Morocco. And then there are the countries who penalize their (former) Citizens by charging them "expatriation" tax on everything they own if they wish to renounce their citizenship. Well, there is only one that does so. Oh shoot! It's the U.S.!