(for instance, how many can practically get new certification during one year? )
For a lot of people it is a paperwork exercise. And for many of those, it is a paperwork exercise that gives them an immediate temporary certificate.
So, the answer to your question is: a lot.
This story is months old by now. The "clean and signed" Part 107 document that is linked to in the summary went out in June, IIRC. The linked copy still says "60 days from publishing in the federal register" instead of an actual date, even.
how would inevitable calls for tighter regulations be handled?
Probably the same way calls for tighter regulations for manned aircraft pilots are handled.
Someone might make such an argument if they did not realize that there are a very different set of laws when it comes to injuring or killing people than there are for property damage. Fortunately, folks here are smarter than that.
Are they smart enough to see the words "used to support" an argument and not assume it means "fully justify in the eyes of the law?" And the words "for any reason" allude to situations much less serious than someone breaking into your house or threatening you with a weapon ("I was afraid for my life"), such as "a five year old girl standing next to your mailbox at the end of your driveway 200 feet away from you."
Because inherent in your claim is that the people who do go and register have interest and are better informed.
Wrong. I said nothing at all about people who are interested enough in voting enough register. The fact that a registered voter is or is not informed has nothing to do with the people who don't care about voting at all. You are applying a logical fallacy that "A isn't B" must mean "Not A is B". "Uninterested voters are not informed" does not imply that "Interested voters are informed."
That is generally not the case.
That is irrelevant to the discussion about why you don't just send ballots to everyone who is a citizen. It would be an argument for a poll test, but that's not legal.
So does my wife. She shouldn't need to register to do so.
Why not? Why should she be mailed a ballot if she's just going to throw it away? If she's not interested enough in voting to register, why bother? Why should YOU even get close to a ballot that you can simply fill out and send in on her behalf when she isn't interested enough to even register?
As a non citizen (of the US) I've not noticed anyone offering me such a reward for voting illegally in a US election.
Oh, please. People don't need someone to walk up to them with a gilt-edged invitation to know that illegal voting can be beneficial to them. You think illegal aliens need someone to tell them that it would be in their best interests were a politician who will not enforce immigration law be elected to the highest office in the land? (As if local political activists aren't already telling them that, too.)
That case is the corruption of the voting system by the administrators of the voting system, not the voters.
Who do you think walks in the door asking for ballot for a dead person, or is bused around the city to different voting places so they can vote? The voter. The election officials turn a blind eye, and then try denying that there is any fraud, but there are people casting those ballots.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote.
Really? "If I vote for someone who promises to give me free stuff, I might get free stuff." Or "if I vote against someone who wants to enforce the laws that would deport me, maybe I won't be deported." Doesn't sound like zero incentive to me.
Why bother taking the risk?
With half the people in the country denying that it does or could take place, the risk is minimal. And when the person you helped elect takes charge. the risk goes away completely.
This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Except in Chicago where it is a running joke. And of course, few waste time collecting data on something that they actively deny ever happens.
Apparently mild sarcasm as an attempt at humour doesn't work on slash dot. Duly noted.
When you make the same argument as sarcasm that other people make seriously every time this topic comes up, expect it not to be treated as sarcasm. Duly noted.
Further, this argument that claims that it was the fault of the drone pilot for being "on private property" can be used to support the shooting death of any person who happens to wander onto your private property, for any reason. "If only they hadn't been there, my discharge of a lethal weapon wouldn't have killed them..."
... they are violating FAA minimum altitude regulations... (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA
Were there any FAA routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for that location? No? Then they aren't violating the FAA minimum altitude restrictions.
It's cute you this makes them less informed than the average voter.
Logical fallacy. I said nothing about the 'average voter'. I said that they would be uninformed because they have no interest in the process. It's not cute, it's the truth.
Why do you seem to have a problem with letting people who have no interest in voting remain unregistered to vote?
No offense, but when you've promoted "Second Amendment solutions" to prevent a president from appointing judges, and you're promoting a civilian "Deportation Force", and you're ginning up the notion that if you lose the election, it's because it was "rigged", what the fuck do you think he's talking about? You can't be that stupid.
So no, you are intending offense, and you have no actual quote or citation that shows him calling for "armed observers to act menacing". You're making it up.
As for your fear of "second amendment solutions", what was actually said what that "second amendment people" know how to deal with the political process of infringement of their second amendment rights. It's amazing to me, ten minutes before he made that comment every anti-Trump person on the planet knew all about how much political influence the NRA has (and blames it on bribes and not just having a lot of people as members), but five minutes after he referred to "second amendment people" every one of those anti-Trump people forgot all about the NRA and jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that Trump must be calling for an armed overthrow of the government. An armed overthrow that the "second amendment people" have never resorted to, so to believe that Trump was saying that they had experience in doing that would be ridiculous.
The New Black Panther party was two guys standing outside of a Philadelphia polling place.
Check. Voter intimidation is ok as long as it isn't too much. And we ignore all the other reports of similar things.
And they were not responding to a public call for a show of force by candidate Barack Obama.
And neither did Donald Trump make any call for a show of force.
So, you dumb fuck, the "worse" part is that it's Donald Fucking Trump who's the one asking for thugs to stand in front of polling places.
Citation required. Oh, you've already admitted you have none.
Jesus wept. It wasn't "local fraud" that caused 2000 to be seen as a crooked election.
It was fraud alleged in various counties in the state of Florida. At least, that's where all the court cases were being filed. You can't get any more "local" than the county level when it's the county elections departments who run the elections.
It was the fact that it was decided by the Supreme Court along partisan lines.
No offense, but you are lying. The fact is that the election was decided by the legal process as it was designed and implemented prior to the election, by the legislature of the State of Florida, who is tasked with deciding that process for the electors in the State of Florida. The Supreme Court correctly decided that it was the State of Florida legislature that had that authority and that they acted appropriately.
No, auto-register them but they still must come to the polling stations to get a ballot.
What's a "polling station"? Here in Oregon we have nothing like that.
The current setup has virtually no voter fraud
Sure. We know this because? How does someone who didn't vote know that he voted so he can report the fraudlent vote? And what was all that complaining about Florida a few years ago? And how many dead people have to vote in Chicago before it's fraud?
as they don't know who is registered to vote or not
You don't know that voter registration lists are available to the public, do you? That's how the parties know who they should be calling to "get out the vote" and who they shouldn't, for example.
ID laws as they serve a huge purpose in turning away voters.
They turn away people who want to vote but aren't supposed to. That's fine with me.
Another AC:
because one of the political parties in the US really doesn't want everyone to vote
That's correct. One of the political parties wants only those people who are legally authorized to vote to do so. The other party wants everyone to vote, even those who aren't authorized, especially those who are beneficiaries of government largesse.
One side is already making this argument, and is recruiting an army of armed "observers" to stand around polling places and act menacing.
Citation required. No, neither of your links talks about armed observers, and nothing about acting "menacing".
And you'll have to explain why asking people to keep an eye on the process is worse than the New Black Panther party "keeping an eye on the process" by acting menacing and shouting racial slurs at potential voters.
As for the second link claiming there is no fraud and no fraud could possibly change the result of a "national election". It's interesting that they then list a bunch of voting fraud at the end of the article, admitting the notorious "cemetary voting" in Chicago. And they're politically ignorant for calling the election of the President a "national" election. It's an election held on the same day in all fifty states, resulting in state-by-state winners that are later tallied in the Electoral College.
If no local fraud could swing the results of a national election, then what all the crying about the state of Florida results when Bush was elected over Gore?
Please stop this nonsense and autoregister everyone who is allowed to vote.
So you send ballots to everyone, even those who have no desire to vote, and have not bothered to study any of the issues at all because of that. Why should they be voting if they really care so little about the process?
Voter registration is so easy that it is a barrier only to those who really don't care to vote, and I think that not handing them a ballot is a good answer to the question "why should I register to vote when I don't want to?"
how can throttling P2P still be considered a violation since it was the primary motivator of the movement?
First, just saying "P2P" doesn't say what the service was. Throttling P2P video from outside sources while allowing ISP video services unlimited throughput is an example of a violation.
But it wasn't P2P that was "the primary motivator". It was throttling (and in some cases just congestion due to border gateway issues) that was the primary motivator. That awful Comcast, for example, that allowed congestion at the border gateway to limit people's access to NetFlix, even though Comcast video services are on a different delivery mechanism so it wasn't a true case of net neutrality.
What you described would allow them to throttle P2P however they like as long as they didn't use the protocols themselves.
Not the protocol, the SERVICE.
There is a huge difference between protocols handling data differently as part of their design (ie. UDP doesn't guarantee delivery, TCP does) and ISP's throttling specific content.
Yes, there is. That's why the specific content (i.e., the SOURCE of the data) is a critical element in determining "net neutrality", and not just "this data isn't treated exactly the same as that data". It's not just the difference between UDP and TCP that means some data is treated differently, it is the design of TCP that allows this.
Everything at layer 7 should be considered off limits for ISP's to fuck with.
That's a nice opinion, but it has nothing to do with net neutrality. The Internet was designed with the ability to handle some data differently that other data. It's part of the protocol. It's the SOURCE of the data that is what determines neutrality. Is the ISP treating this kind of data from an outside server differently than the same kind of data (not "same protocol", same kind of data) from its own servers. THAT is net neutrality. Having your FTP session run at a lower priority than a Skype call has nothing to do with neutrality; your Skype call at a lower priority than the ISPs VoIP service IS.
The term arose when ISP's were throttling P2P traffic and is about treating all DATA equally
SOURCES. As in, not prioritizing or preferencing ISP services over external services.
The Internet was DESIGNED with the ability to handle different types of data differently. It's part of the protocol. There's a reason -- a very good reason -- to be able to do that. And as long as the source of the data isn't what differentiates the processing, it meets the definition of and reason for net neutrality.
Networks slowing competitors is just an example of the degenerate behavior that could happen without neutrality to all data.
Net neutrality does not now and has never applied to "all data", and slowing competitors down is the very reason why net neutrality is an issue. It is not just "an" example of the problem, it is THE example of the problem.
Network neutrality is about transporting all data the same regardless of what content it is or where it came from,
No, it is not. Net neutrality is about NOT differentiating transport based on source. As in, not prioritizing the ISP's own video service over another vendor's. As in not charging more for an outside vendor's video streams than the ISP's own service. It is about the ISP not getting an advantage in the commercial marketplace of ideas by hindering outsider competition for services.
It has NOTHING to do with prohibiting differences in transport for different kinds of data. The Internet was designed with the capability to transport different kinds of data differently.
Even if we go down your rabbit hole,
It's not a "rabbit hole", it's a fact.
they are only throttling certain protocols/codecs that they can detect so lots of less popular protocols/codecs are not throttled and any hot new protocols/codecs wouldn't be either.
All sources are being treated the same. That's the heart of net neutrality.
As for "hot new protocols", that falls under the wonderful concept that development of new protocols will be unhindered and new services are free to develop new things. That's also part of the reason for "net neutrality" -- to foster development of new things.
Hell, any site that wants to avoid the throttling could just encrypt it to bypass the content detection system.
Yes, they could. And since the source isn't determining how the traffic is handled, it meets all the requirements for net neutrality.
If they treat the content differently because of what it is, then that's not neutral, is it?
In terms of "net neutrality", it is. Nothing says that certain kinds of content cannot be treated certain ways, only that it has to apply to all sources.
This probably varies by country or state, but I think in many places in the US, residential houses' addresses are determined by which road the driveway enters from. I lived in a house like that
I think you are creating generalities from your specific situation. There are many places where the "driveway" enters from an alleyway in the back.
Um, the default? Almost everything is WGS-84 AFAIK.
AFAYK. But it's not that way in real life. There is no "default". You have to know. For example, I'm looking at the USGS topo map for a nearby area and it is NAD27. The map lists an almost 100m difference between it and NAD83 for east/west measurements.
According to the Wikipedia article for WGS-84, it is the datum used by the GPS system itself,
That's funny, because I can get my location in any number of datums using GPS. Wikipedia isn't always right.
I've seen this system mentioned before. It is yet another example of "we'll teach everyone in the world a new system so that we can make programming AVs easier." A side-effect is that you make use of a computer mandatory to encode and decode locations into something usable, like lat/lon.
Your computer doesn't tell you the right answer, but this will solve the location identification issue for everyone else?
Your "location services" almost certainly works in lat/lon from GPS (when it actually works), or some other standard GIS coordinate system, so you still have the issue of different datums leading to different three word phrases.
Ahh, this same stupid, arrogant, insulting response when problems are mentioned.
So, pray tell, what exactly is the solution to the problem of someone giving a Google AV a coordinate in NAD27 when Google expects WGS-84? How does Google differentiate? Do these over-smart all-knowing Google engineers think they'll teach everyone about datums and to always always use WGS-84?
If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?
Wildly different than what?
I live on a corner. My "address" is on one street, but if I walk out the side door I'm on the wrong street from what my address says. And I've seen buildings that are ells, having faces on two streets with addresses that wouldn't logically be contiguous.
How do you fix that? Isn't this a situation where "address" is NOT the same as "location", and AV need to know "location" instead of "address"? Coordinates, right?
How do you fix the "coordinate" problem of having ten different coordinate systems in use just in one place? I'm looking at a GPS app on my phone (where I might get coordinates to tell someone where I am) and I see half a dozen applicable datums. Which one does my phone use when I call 911? I think WGS-84 but don't know for sure. Will people know which one they should use? Were you aware that there is a separate datum for Cape Canaveral?
I know about this problem because I deal with search and rescue, and I've seen the result of telling someone a coordinate for something and they wind up in the wrong place. I've had people tell me that there is a "target" at certain coordinates and there isn't anything there -- but there is when I change the datum on my GPS to what they are using.
It's easy to say "just fix it", but actually fixing it isn't that simple, and it may break other things. (Here's one I really love. I order something online and the vendor tells me that my address doesn't exist. I've lived here for 20 years, I get mail and packages here all the time. Unfortunately, the shipping program he's using has "fixed" my address and it doesn't appear in his database, so my address doesn't exist.)
Often the way that humans do things is completely arbitrary and prone to errors. That doesn't translate well to a machine.
Yep. I understand that.
The more logical choice is in fact to reduce errors and make the things we do less arbitrary.
Nope. The logical choice is to remember that humans do things the human way and will continue to do so even after a perfect engineering-based solution is created. Building a system that depends on humans doing things the machine way is building a system designed to fail.
Let's face it, a major reason why people want autonomous cars is because the way that humans do things doesn't always work that well.
There are two major reasons. The biggest, as far as I can determine, is that "I hate to drive". Period. The other one is an unfounded and as-yet unsupported belief that autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic deaths and accidents. Lots of unicorns and pixie dust from AV proponents, but not much factual proof. "Under well-controlled circumstances... for a limited amount of time... with human engineers supervising" isn't proof. Changing the way the world works based on pie in the sky pipe dreams is silly.
It would be kind of pointless to try to program the machines to act just like us.
I didn't say we should do that. I said they need to understand how humans do things. In the context of addresses, for example, they need to understand that "123 Main Street" won't always be right across the street from "124 Main Street", nor will "125 Main Street" always be the building right next to "123" -- but "129" might be.
It's not nonsense to change the way that we do things in order to make it easier for the machines, and us, to perform better.
It is not nonsense to want to do that, but it is nonsense to expect that it will actually happen. Remember, these changes aren't like learning how to use a smart phone in the way the smart phone designers want you to because it was easier to program them that way -- that's a voluntary activity. To change the entire world to work the way AVs need them to work to make that system safe and functional requires a huge number of involuntary participants changing how they do things.
Let's face it. Many, if not most, of those involuntary participants will see no benefit to changing. For example, I see no benefit to using my ZIP+4 when telling people my address. You see, I understand that the mail I get is delivered to the local post office based on the five digit ZIP, and then is sorted by a human who looks at the street address. Those extra four digits? Useless. Nice idea but not worth the effort because it wasn't implemented fully. The "last mile" doesn't make use of those digits, and the "last mile" is what they represent.
You can't just change the way people who "drive" an AV do things, you need to change how everyone else does things, too. That's what makes changing the world to make AV easier to program a nonsensical thing.
Slashdot Mirror
This is totally gonna screw Amazons drone-delivery plans.
Amazon will not be operating under the Part 107 rules. There are other paths to compliance.
(for instance, how many can practically get new certification during one year? )
For a lot of people it is a paperwork exercise. And for many of those, it is a paperwork exercise that gives them an immediate temporary certificate.
So, the answer to your question is: a lot.
This story is months old by now. The "clean and signed" Part 107 document that is linked to in the summary went out in June, IIRC. The linked copy still says "60 days from publishing in the federal register" instead of an actual date, even.
how would inevitable calls for tighter regulations be handled?
Probably the same way calls for tighter regulations for manned aircraft pilots are handled.
If you want to be more productive, keep your phone but delete the Slashdot app.
FTFY.
Someone might make such an argument if they did not realize that there are a very different set of laws when it comes to injuring or killing people than there are for property damage. Fortunately, folks here are smarter than that.
Are they smart enough to see the words "used to support" an argument and not assume it means "fully justify in the eyes of the law?" And the words "for any reason" allude to situations much less serious than someone breaking into your house or threatening you with a weapon ("I was afraid for my life"), such as "a five year old girl standing next to your mailbox at the end of your driveway 200 feet away from you."
Because inherent in your claim is that the people who do go and register have interest and are better informed.
Wrong. I said nothing at all about people who are interested enough in voting enough register. The fact that a registered voter is or is not informed has nothing to do with the people who don't care about voting at all. You are applying a logical fallacy that "A isn't B" must mean "Not A is B". "Uninterested voters are not informed" does not imply that "Interested voters are informed."
That is generally not the case.
That is irrelevant to the discussion about why you don't just send ballots to everyone who is a citizen. It would be an argument for a poll test, but that's not legal.
So does my wife. She shouldn't need to register to do so.
Why not? Why should she be mailed a ballot if she's just going to throw it away? If she's not interested enough in voting to register, why bother? Why should YOU even get close to a ballot that you can simply fill out and send in on her behalf when she isn't interested enough to even register?
As a non citizen (of the US) I've not noticed anyone offering me such a reward for voting illegally in a US election.
Oh, please. People don't need someone to walk up to them with a gilt-edged invitation to know that illegal voting can be beneficial to them. You think illegal aliens need someone to tell them that it would be in their best interests were a politician who will not enforce immigration law be elected to the highest office in the land? (As if local political activists aren't already telling them that, too.)
That case is the corruption of the voting system by the administrators of the voting system, not the voters.
Who do you think walks in the door asking for ballot for a dead person, or is bused around the city to different voting places so they can vote? The voter. The election officials turn a blind eye, and then try denying that there is any fraud, but there are people casting those ballots.
If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote.
Go in where? I get my ballots by mail.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote.
Really? "If I vote for someone who promises to give me free stuff, I might get free stuff." Or "if I vote against someone who wants to enforce the laws that would deport me, maybe I won't be deported." Doesn't sound like zero incentive to me.
Why bother taking the risk?
With half the people in the country denying that it does or could take place, the risk is minimal. And when the person you helped elect takes charge. the risk goes away completely.
This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Except in Chicago where it is a running joke. And of course, few waste time collecting data on something that they actively deny ever happens.
Apparently mild sarcasm as an attempt at humour doesn't work on slash dot. Duly noted.
When you make the same argument as sarcasm that other people make seriously every time this topic comes up, expect it not to be treated as sarcasm. Duly noted.
Further, this argument that claims that it was the fault of the drone pilot for being "on private property" can be used to support the shooting death of any person who happens to wander onto your private property, for any reason. "If only they hadn't been there, my discharge of a lethal weapon wouldn't have killed them ..."
... they are violating FAA minimum altitude regulations ... (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA
Were there any FAA routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for that location? No? Then they aren't violating the FAA minimum altitude restrictions.
It's cute you this makes them less informed than the average voter.
Logical fallacy. I said nothing about the 'average voter'. I said that they would be uninformed because they have no interest in the process. It's not cute, it's the truth.
Why do you seem to have a problem with letting people who have no interest in voting remain unregistered to vote?
No offense, but when you've promoted "Second Amendment solutions" to prevent a president from appointing judges, and you're promoting a civilian "Deportation Force", and you're ginning up the notion that if you lose the election, it's because it was "rigged", what the fuck do you think he's talking about? You can't be that stupid.
So no, you are intending offense, and you have no actual quote or citation that shows him calling for "armed observers to act menacing". You're making it up.
As for your fear of "second amendment solutions", what was actually said what that "second amendment people" know how to deal with the political process of infringement of their second amendment rights. It's amazing to me, ten minutes before he made that comment every anti-Trump person on the planet knew all about how much political influence the NRA has (and blames it on bribes and not just having a lot of people as members), but five minutes after he referred to "second amendment people" every one of those anti-Trump people forgot all about the NRA and jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that Trump must be calling for an armed overthrow of the government. An armed overthrow that the "second amendment people" have never resorted to, so to believe that Trump was saying that they had experience in doing that would be ridiculous.
The New Black Panther party was two guys standing outside of a Philadelphia polling place.
Check. Voter intimidation is ok as long as it isn't too much. And we ignore all the other reports of similar things.
And they were not responding to a public call for a show of force by candidate Barack Obama.
And neither did Donald Trump make any call for a show of force.
So, you dumb fuck, the "worse" part is that it's Donald Fucking Trump who's the one asking for thugs to stand in front of polling places.
Citation required. Oh, you've already admitted you have none.
Jesus wept. It wasn't "local fraud" that caused 2000 to be seen as a crooked election.
It was fraud alleged in various counties in the state of Florida. At least, that's where all the court cases were being filed. You can't get any more "local" than the county level when it's the county elections departments who run the elections.
It was the fact that it was decided by the Supreme Court along partisan lines.
No offense, but you are lying. The fact is that the election was decided by the legal process as it was designed and implemented prior to the election, by the legislature of the State of Florida, who is tasked with deciding that process for the electors in the State of Florida. The Supreme Court correctly decided that it was the State of Florida legislature that had that authority and that they acted appropriately.
No, auto-register them but they still must come to the polling stations to get a ballot.
What's a "polling station"? Here in Oregon we have nothing like that.
The current setup has virtually no voter fraud
Sure. We know this because? How does someone who didn't vote know that he voted so he can report the fraudlent vote? And what was all that complaining about Florida a few years ago? And how many dead people have to vote in Chicago before it's fraud?
as they don't know who is registered to vote or not
You don't know that voter registration lists are available to the public, do you? That's how the parties know who they should be calling to "get out the vote" and who they shouldn't, for example.
ID laws as they serve a huge purpose in turning away voters.
They turn away people who want to vote but aren't supposed to. That's fine with me.
Another AC:
because one of the political parties in the US really doesn't want everyone to vote
That's correct. One of the political parties wants only those people who are legally authorized to vote to do so. The other party wants everyone to vote, even those who aren't authorized, especially those who are beneficiaries of government largesse.
One side is already making this argument, and is recruiting an army of armed "observers" to stand around polling places and act menacing.
Citation required. No, neither of your links talks about armed observers, and nothing about acting "menacing".
And you'll have to explain why asking people to keep an eye on the process is worse than the New Black Panther party "keeping an eye on the process" by acting menacing and shouting racial slurs at potential voters.
As for the second link claiming there is no fraud and no fraud could possibly change the result of a "national election". It's interesting that they then list a bunch of voting fraud at the end of the article, admitting the notorious "cemetary voting" in Chicago. And they're politically ignorant for calling the election of the President a "national" election. It's an election held on the same day in all fifty states, resulting in state-by-state winners that are later tallied in the Electoral College.
If no local fraud could swing the results of a national election, then what all the crying about the state of Florida results when Bush was elected over Gore?
Please stop this nonsense and autoregister everyone who is allowed to vote.
So you send ballots to everyone, even those who have no desire to vote, and have not bothered to study any of the issues at all because of that. Why should they be voting if they really care so little about the process?
Voter registration is so easy that it is a barrier only to those who really don't care to vote, and I think that not handing them a ballot is a good answer to the question "why should I register to vote when I don't want to?"
Defense: 1) get rid of padlock on bicycles so anyone can take them.
1) Get rid of registration and let everyone vote.
Yeah. Right. That will help remove fraud from the election process.
how can throttling P2P still be considered a violation since it was the primary motivator of the movement?
First, just saying "P2P" doesn't say what the service was. Throttling P2P video from outside sources while allowing ISP video services unlimited throughput is an example of a violation.
But it wasn't P2P that was "the primary motivator". It was throttling (and in some cases just congestion due to border gateway issues) that was the primary motivator. That awful Comcast, for example, that allowed congestion at the border gateway to limit people's access to NetFlix, even though Comcast video services are on a different delivery mechanism so it wasn't a true case of net neutrality.
What you described would allow them to throttle P2P however they like as long as they didn't use the protocols themselves.
Not the protocol, the SERVICE.
There is a huge difference between protocols handling data differently as part of their design (ie. UDP doesn't guarantee delivery, TCP does) and ISP's throttling specific content.
Yes, there is. That's why the specific content (i.e., the SOURCE of the data) is a critical element in determining "net neutrality", and not just "this data isn't treated exactly the same as that data". It's not just the difference between UDP and TCP that means some data is treated differently, it is the design of TCP that allows this.
Everything at layer 7 should be considered off limits for ISP's to fuck with.
That's a nice opinion, but it has nothing to do with net neutrality. The Internet was designed with the ability to handle some data differently that other data. It's part of the protocol. It's the SOURCE of the data that is what determines neutrality. Is the ISP treating this kind of data from an outside server differently than the same kind of data (not "same protocol", same kind of data) from its own servers. THAT is net neutrality. Having your FTP session run at a lower priority than a Skype call has nothing to do with neutrality; your Skype call at a lower priority than the ISPs VoIP service IS.
The term arose when ISP's were throttling P2P traffic and is about treating all DATA equally
SOURCES. As in, not prioritizing or preferencing ISP services over external services.
The Internet was DESIGNED with the ability to handle different types of data differently. It's part of the protocol. There's a reason -- a very good reason -- to be able to do that. And as long as the source of the data isn't what differentiates the processing, it meets the definition of and reason for net neutrality.
Networks slowing competitors is just an example of the degenerate behavior that could happen without neutrality to all data.
Net neutrality does not now and has never applied to "all data", and slowing competitors down is the very reason why net neutrality is an issue. It is not just "an" example of the problem, it is THE example of the problem.
Network neutrality is about transporting all data the same regardless of what content it is or where it came from,
No, it is not. Net neutrality is about NOT differentiating transport based on source. As in, not prioritizing the ISP's own video service over another vendor's. As in not charging more for an outside vendor's video streams than the ISP's own service. It is about the ISP not getting an advantage in the commercial marketplace of ideas by hindering outsider competition for services.
It has NOTHING to do with prohibiting differences in transport for different kinds of data. The Internet was designed with the capability to transport different kinds of data differently.
Even if we go down your rabbit hole,
It's not a "rabbit hole", it's a fact.
they are only throttling certain protocols/codecs that they can detect so lots of less popular protocols/codecs are not throttled and any hot new protocols/codecs wouldn't be either.
All sources are being treated the same. That's the heart of net neutrality.
As for "hot new protocols", that falls under the wonderful concept that development of new protocols will be unhindered and new services are free to develop new things. That's also part of the reason for "net neutrality" -- to foster development of new things.
Hell, any site that wants to avoid the throttling could just encrypt it to bypass the content detection system.
Yes, they could. And since the source isn't determining how the traffic is handled, it meets all the requirements for net neutrality.
If they treat the content differently because of what it is, then that's not neutral, is it?
In terms of "net neutrality", it is. Nothing says that certain kinds of content cannot be treated certain ways, only that it has to apply to all sources.
This probably varies by country or state, but I think in many places in the US, residential houses' addresses are determined by which road the driveway enters from. I lived in a house like that
I think you are creating generalities from your specific situation. There are many places where the "driveway" enters from an alleyway in the back.
Um, the default? Almost everything is WGS-84 AFAIK.
AFAYK. But it's not that way in real life. There is no "default". You have to know. For example, I'm looking at the USGS topo map for a nearby area and it is NAD27. The map lists an almost 100m difference between it and NAD83 for east/west measurements.
According to the Wikipedia article for WGS-84, it is the datum used by the GPS system itself,
That's funny, because I can get my location in any number of datums using GPS. Wikipedia isn't always right.
Your computer doesn't tell you the right answer, but this will solve the location identification issue for everyone else?
Your "location services" almost certainly works in lat/lon from GPS (when it actually works), or some other standard GIS coordinate system, so you still have the issue of different datums leading to different three word phrases.
So, pray tell, what exactly is the solution to the problem of someone giving a Google AV a coordinate in NAD27 when Google expects WGS-84? How does Google differentiate? Do these over-smart all-knowing Google engineers think they'll teach everyone about datums and to always always use WGS-84?
If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?
Wildly different than what?
I live on a corner. My "address" is on one street, but if I walk out the side door I'm on the wrong street from what my address says. And I've seen buildings that are ells, having faces on two streets with addresses that wouldn't logically be contiguous.
How do you fix that? Isn't this a situation where "address" is NOT the same as "location", and AV need to know "location" instead of "address"? Coordinates, right?
How do you fix the "coordinate" problem of having ten different coordinate systems in use just in one place? I'm looking at a GPS app on my phone (where I might get coordinates to tell someone where I am) and I see half a dozen applicable datums. Which one does my phone use when I call 911? I think WGS-84 but don't know for sure. Will people know which one they should use? Were you aware that there is a separate datum for Cape Canaveral?
I know about this problem because I deal with search and rescue, and I've seen the result of telling someone a coordinate for something and they wind up in the wrong place. I've had people tell me that there is a "target" at certain coordinates and there isn't anything there -- but there is when I change the datum on my GPS to what they are using.
It's easy to say "just fix it", but actually fixing it isn't that simple, and it may break other things. (Here's one I really love. I order something online and the vendor tells me that my address doesn't exist. I've lived here for 20 years, I get mail and packages here all the time. Unfortunately, the shipping program he's using has "fixed" my address and it doesn't appear in his database, so my address doesn't exist.)
Often the way that humans do things is completely arbitrary and prone to errors. That doesn't translate well to a machine.
Yep. I understand that.
The more logical choice is in fact to reduce errors and make the things we do less arbitrary.
Nope. The logical choice is to remember that humans do things the human way and will continue to do so even after a perfect engineering-based solution is created. Building a system that depends on humans doing things the machine way is building a system designed to fail.
Let's face it, a major reason why people want autonomous cars is because the way that humans do things doesn't always work that well.
There are two major reasons. The biggest, as far as I can determine, is that "I hate to drive". Period. The other one is an unfounded and as-yet unsupported belief that autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic deaths and accidents. Lots of unicorns and pixie dust from AV proponents, but not much factual proof. "Under well-controlled circumstances ... for a limited amount of time ... with human engineers supervising" isn't proof. Changing the way the world works based on pie in the sky pipe dreams is silly.
It would be kind of pointless to try to program the machines to act just like us.
I didn't say we should do that. I said they need to understand how humans do things. In the context of addresses, for example, they need to understand that "123 Main Street" won't always be right across the street from "124 Main Street", nor will "125 Main Street" always be the building right next to "123" -- but "129" might be.
It's not nonsense to change the way that we do things in order to make it easier for the machines, and us, to perform better.
It is not nonsense to want to do that, but it is nonsense to expect that it will actually happen. Remember, these changes aren't like learning how to use a smart phone in the way the smart phone designers want you to because it was easier to program them that way -- that's a voluntary activity. To change the entire world to work the way AVs need them to work to make that system safe and functional requires a huge number of involuntary participants changing how they do things.
Let's face it. Many, if not most, of those involuntary participants will see no benefit to changing. For example, I see no benefit to using my ZIP+4 when telling people my address. You see, I understand that the mail I get is delivered to the local post office based on the five digit ZIP, and then is sorted by a human who looks at the street address. Those extra four digits? Useless. Nice idea but not worth the effort because it wasn't implemented fully. The "last mile" doesn't make use of those digits, and the "last mile" is what they represent.
You can't just change the way people who "drive" an AV do things, you need to change how everyone else does things, too. That's what makes changing the world to make AV easier to program a nonsensical thing.