Net Neutrality is a problem of the "last mile", the inability of the customer to SHOP for the service / price / quality of the products and services we wish to purchase
I agree.
You are wrong. Net neutrality has nothing to do with how much you pay for the pipe into your home, or who sells it to you. Net neutrality means that when you use that pipe the service provider does not differentiate unnecessarily based on the source of the data you access.
That means that an ISP that is also a content provider does not artificially limit your access to content from other providers in preference to its own. It does not mean that the ISP cannot allow unmetered access to some content based on certain criteria (like data rate) except if the criteria include monetary benefit to the ISP (like "you buy content from us, we won't charge you for the data...").
This law is correctly named, and it is very simple to understand. The FCC would be prohibited from regulating rates for broadband. That's what the title says. Net neutrality is not involved.
This game is over. You quoted that ruling as if it were relevant, and it is a non-sequitor for the reason I specified. Your statement that the government can change the rules does not deny the fact that people have a right to EXPECT honesty, which is what I said. That makes you responding with yet another non-sequitor.
Your opinion that people who have paid into a system for their entire lives based on a promise of security later in life are "lazy losers" is ridiculous, because they've done the work, given up the money, and deserve the return. But you clearly don't care if you are a heartless bastard, so goodbye.
A 1950's Supreme Court ruling stated that Social Security is a government program and no one has a right to claim benefits.
Another non-sequitor. I said "right to expect". You said they have no "right to claim". Someone who has lived their lives with a promise from their government, a promise that was used to justify confiscation of income, has every right to expect the government to follow through on that promise. "I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today", when you get the hamburger today and refuse to pay is called "breach of contract" at best; fraud at worst, and the person who gave you the hamburger has every right to expect payment.
You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to realize that the specific promise of social security is probably going to be invalid, but that is hardly the only promise being made that you may not be so ready to discount as invalid.
If you are lucky, someday you are going to be one. I bet that you will be just as adamant then that the promises that were made to you while you were working and having money extracted from your paycheck based on those promises be honored, as you are adamant now that senior citizens who have had their money taken with the promise of benefits when they get old are "lazy losers".
Your reply to the OP is a non-sequitor. People paid into social security their whole life and they have a right to expect the benefits from that. That those benefits will be coming from current taxpayers is irrelevant to that statement.
Why not? Dish, I think it is, is busy calling the cable subscribers they want to woo "settlers" and portraying them as ignorant and simple.
The goal is to make people realize that they don't want to be "ghetto dwellers" or "settlers" or whatever, and that they can solve all their social and technological problems by simply buying the service or product being advertised. That's called "advertising."
Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case.
Only if the ISPs TOS specified what color socks you were allowed to wear. Most of them prohibit illegal use of the service. Since the ISP is not a police agency, they don't have to follow the "presumed innocent" concept -- not that many police agencies do that anymore.
If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their own equipment too.
I doubt that any of them are worried about that. "Obeying federal law" is a pretty good counter-argument to "you aren't serving the public". And, of course, since all it would take to be "forced" to allow competition is for a competitor to enter into a franchise agreement with the locality, what "force" would the locality have to start with? They cannot force a competitor to come into town, the competition has to want to be there.
Total darkness implies the Li of the Lidar was turned off.
No. It implies that "total darkness" is a term applied to human visual acuity. Near infrared is still considered light, even though human visual sensitivity to it is nil.
You don't say that the pitch black night where you cannot see your hand in front of your face is actually brightly lit, do you? After all, there is all kinds of EM radiation all over the place, so your "total darkness" exists only because you cannot see it, not because it was turned off.
but the sales lady on the phone went out of his way to let me know all of this (she read it off a script)
You know, I find it really annoying when people go out of their way to use the female pronoun when referring to a person of undetermined gender. I.e., "the teacher... she...". I have to admit, I find it just as annoying when someone uses the masculine pronoun for someone we have been told is female.
And while they are at it, they need to prohibit exclusive contracts that suppress competition.
But even places without exclusive cable franchises don't have competition in the cable market. It can't be the franchise that prevents it, it has to be something else.
Me, too. I'm particularly fond of the fact that the system keeps logging me out almost every time I try to post anything, and tells me I should try again by proving I'm a human -- on a page that has absolutely no way to submit or preview. Yes, I like that alot.
It goes so far as when I get logged out I cannot go back to the page I was logged in on and click "reply" again, I have to go back to the main page and back into the article. Even doing that, about half the time the article comes up without me logged in.
The best I've been able to do is NEVER preview, just hit "submit", and that has about a 50% working rate.
Yes, love the changes, and love the tagging to tell me that every article on April 1 is a joke.
Yep, clicking "submit" for this one logged me out, and it took three tries to get the reload of the article to propagate my logged in status into the article itself. Cool. Now I just have to wait to get past the "you clicked reply just 30 seconds ago" that prevents me from cutting my original comments and pasting them into the reply.
No, the collectors of the data will simply buy a 0.5% share in the previous "third party" companies, turning them into second party data recipients! No need to ask you anything, you whiner.
The bill only requires provision to cancel the account online if you can sign up online.
Why can't businesses sign up online? The fact that you chose to have a personal presentation doesn't mean everybody else has to do it that way, and that none of them could use the online signup system.
Since YOU could have signed up online, this bill applies to you. You CAN, but you chose not to.
I'm not sure why you're arguing about this so vociferously. The TSA policy clearly makes more money for airport shops,
Because the claim wasn't that airport shops make a profit from TSA policy, it was that the airlines profit. They don't.
And you don't have to pay anything for water, there are sources where can get it for free. You just have to bring your own bottle. Big deal. Water bottles seem to be standard gear for a lot of people. Sheesh, if you just poured the water out of one before going through the TSA line then fill it up when you get past that point. It's not rocket science, and it isn't a nefarious plot by the airlines to increase sales of water or cola on board.
Probably true, though every time they sell one of their $7+ mini bottles, most of which probably contain less than $1 of hard liquor,
The discussion was about water and colas. Of course they sell bottles of liquor on board at a huge profit, but that's not because people are busy dumping their Johnny Walker Red out before passing through TSA. It is a safety issue. If you drink a bottle of gin while flying and there is an accident, you may be an impediment to others trying to exit the plane, and you may not make it yourself. If they serve you, they control how much you get.
but TSA's liquid policy is nonetheless a pain
And stupid. When did I say otherwise?
and does actually require a lot of consumers to fork out money if they want to drink more than water past the security gates.
Yes, "more than water" while waiting on the ground costs money. It costs at the 7-11, too. Is Coke free where you live? It is when you're on board the airplane -- so where's the enormous profit that the airlines are making from selling it to you?
Why not? Because containers of liquid are limited to 3oz at security checkpoints.
Emphasis mine. AT SECURITY CHECKPOINTS. You asked about walking up to the gate and carrying something on. You can't carry a bottle of this mythical Three Buck Chuck through security, but you certainly can walk up to the gate and get on a plane with one. In fact, if you buy your Three Buck Chuck at a duty-free store, they'll DELIVER it to you on the plane, or at the gate, so you can carry it on.
Also Chuck is Charles Shaw, a cheap wine sold at Trader Joes.
That's nice. So no, you cannot carry that specific brand of alcohol onto the plane because you won't find a Trader Joe's at the airport, but that doesn't stop you from carrying on any other bottle of wine you happen to purchase there.
I guess your question boils down to "can I carry a bottle of some specific brand of something that isn't sold at the airport onto a plane" which is a really disingenuous question when talking about airline beverage carts being profit centers for airlines. You also won't be able to BUY that Three Buck Chuck onboard, so there is no huge profit margin that the airlines will make from selling it.
No, in the study that distinction is completely ignored. They asked the people if they noticed the typos and mistakes, so the result is that people who notice such things are assholes.
What are the people who notice crappy science and object to that?
The mockup demo has so long a history that it qualifies as both "traditional" and "completely normal and expected".
I remember the first time I saw a Macintosh computer. It was on a table at the mall in front of the computer store running a word processing demo. See how nice it prints? See how nice the font looks? See how you cannot type anything in on the keyboard? What a useful computer!
I've seen many airports that have free filtered water sources so you can refill your own water bottle at no cost. Those are the ones with special taps with enough clearance to hold a bottle under. There are always water fountains you can fill from. Even so, I see $2.50 bottles of water, but not as high as you say.
but I think almost all are bought in the airport and not on the plane.
I have yet to find an airline that charges anyone for water. And I don't recall ever having to pay for soda there. I think there is a requirement that they provide fluids to help prevent dehydration or thrombosis issues in passengers, but it may just be a self-defense mechanism.
Where are you getting the beverages that you are carrying on to the airplane
At any of the several shops inside the secure area of the airport.
Paid for at the airport? how were the prices?
Of course paid for. And at the airport. And the prices are usually a lot higher than off-airport. So what? Those shops aren't run by the airlines, and are thus also not a profit center for them.
Free beverages on the airplane, or carry on what you want. Airline beverage carts are not a profit center for any airline, and thus TSA confiscation of liquids is not a plot to increase airline profits.
The airborne beverage cart is hardly a profit center for airlines. I've never had to pay for any beverage, and nobody ever stopped me from carrying one on.
Because they got connected to a network and nobody thought about how the data was getting to them. The admins made it easy to connect, using DHCP to grant them addresses and not being in tight control of every attached device. Notice that most of the targets (all?) were universities.
Except some places. Here, for example, the admin blocks access to known printers at the router.
But this was not "hacking a printer". It was using a publicly available printer for the purpose it was designed to do. It took no intelligence to do this, no modification to the printers, only a brute force scan of the net for addresses with an open port 9100. Yawn. Very impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality is a problem of the "last mile", the inability of the customer to SHOP for the service / price / quality of the products and services we wish to purchase
I agree.
You are wrong. Net neutrality has nothing to do with how much you pay for the pipe into your home, or who sells it to you. Net neutrality means that when you use that pipe the service provider does not differentiate unnecessarily based on the source of the data you access.
That means that an ISP that is also a content provider does not artificially limit your access to content from other providers in preference to its own. It does not mean that the ISP cannot allow unmetered access to some content based on certain criteria (like data rate) except if the criteria include monetary benefit to the ISP (like "you buy content from us, we won't charge you for the data...").
This law is correctly named, and it is very simple to understand. The FCC would be prohibited from regulating rates for broadband. That's what the title says. Net neutrality is not involved.
No, that was from the Supreme Court ruling.
This game is over. You quoted that ruling as if it were relevant, and it is a non-sequitor for the reason I specified. Your statement that the government can change the rules does not deny the fact that people have a right to EXPECT honesty, which is what I said. That makes you responding with yet another non-sequitor.
Your opinion that people who have paid into a system for their entire lives based on a promise of security later in life are "lazy losers" is ridiculous, because they've done the work, given up the money, and deserve the return. But you clearly don't care if you are a heartless bastard, so goodbye.
A 1950's Supreme Court ruling stated that Social Security is a government program and no one has a right to claim benefits.
Another non-sequitor. I said "right to expect". You said they have no "right to claim". Someone who has lived their lives with a promise from their government, a promise that was used to justify confiscation of income, has every right to expect the government to follow through on that promise. "I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today", when you get the hamburger today and refuse to pay is called "breach of contract" at best; fraud at worst, and the person who gave you the hamburger has every right to expect payment.
You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to realize that the specific promise of social security is probably going to be invalid, but that is hardly the only promise being made that you may not be so ready to discount as invalid.
I have the same feeling about senior citizens.
If you are lucky, someday you are going to be one. I bet that you will be just as adamant then that the promises that were made to you while you were working and having money extracted from your paycheck based on those promises be honored, as you are adamant now that senior citizens who have had their money taken with the promise of benefits when they get old are "lazy losers".
Your reply to the OP is a non-sequitor. People paid into social security their whole life and they have a right to expect the benefits from that. That those benefits will be coming from current taxpayers is irrelevant to that statement.
The goal is to make people realize that they don't want to be "ghetto dwellers" or "settlers" or whatever, and that they can solve all their social and technological problems by simply buying the service or product being advertised. That's called "advertising."
Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case.
Only if the ISPs TOS specified what color socks you were allowed to wear. Most of them prohibit illegal use of the service. Since the ISP is not a police agency, they don't have to follow the "presumed innocent" concept -- not that many police agencies do that anymore.
If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their own equipment too.
I doubt that any of them are worried about that. "Obeying federal law" is a pretty good counter-argument to "you aren't serving the public". And, of course, since all it would take to be "forced" to allow competition is for a competitor to enter into a franchise agreement with the locality, what "force" would the locality have to start with? They cannot force a competitor to come into town, the competition has to want to be there.
Total darkness implies the Li of the Lidar was turned off.
No. It implies that "total darkness" is a term applied to human visual acuity. Near infrared is still considered light, even though human visual sensitivity to it is nil.
You don't say that the pitch black night where you cannot see your hand in front of your face is actually brightly lit, do you? After all, there is all kinds of EM radiation all over the place, so your "total darkness" exists only because you cannot see it, not because it was turned off.
He.
but the sales lady on the phone went out of his way to let me know all of this (she read it off a script)
You know, I find it really annoying when people go out of their way to use the female pronoun when referring to a person of undetermined gender. I.e., "the teacher ... she ...". I have to admit, I find it just as annoying when someone uses the masculine pronoun for someone we have been told is female.
And while they are at it, they need to prohibit exclusive contracts that suppress competition.
But even places without exclusive cable franchises don't have competition in the cable market. It can't be the franchise that prevents it, it has to be something else.
I've emailed feedback@slashdot.org and it has resulted in nothing. If anything, the problem is getting worse, not better.
It goes so far as when I get logged out I cannot go back to the page I was logged in on and click "reply" again, I have to go back to the main page and back into the article. Even doing that, about half the time the article comes up without me logged in.
The best I've been able to do is NEVER preview, just hit "submit", and that has about a 50% working rate.
Yes, love the changes, and love the tagging to tell me that every article on April 1 is a joke.
Yep, clicking "submit" for this one logged me out, and it took three tries to get the reload of the article to propagate my logged in status into the article itself. Cool. Now I just have to wait to get past the "you clicked reply just 30 seconds ago" that prevents me from cutting my original comments and pasting them into the reply.
No, the collectors of the data will simply buy a 0.5% share in the previous "third party" companies, turning them into second party data recipients! No need to ask you anything, you whiner.
The bill only requires provision to cancel the account online if you can sign up online.
Why can't businesses sign up online? The fact that you chose to have a personal presentation doesn't mean everybody else has to do it that way, and that none of them could use the online signup system.
Since YOU could have signed up online, this bill applies to you. You CAN, but you chose not to.
I'm not sure why you're arguing about this so vociferously. The TSA policy clearly makes more money for airport shops,
Because the claim wasn't that airport shops make a profit from TSA policy, it was that the airlines profit. They don't.
And you don't have to pay anything for water, there are sources where can get it for free. You just have to bring your own bottle. Big deal. Water bottles seem to be standard gear for a lot of people. Sheesh, if you just poured the water out of one before going through the TSA line then fill it up when you get past that point. It's not rocket science, and it isn't a nefarious plot by the airlines to increase sales of water or cola on board.
Probably true, though every time they sell one of their $7+ mini bottles, most of which probably contain less than $1 of hard liquor,
The discussion was about water and colas. Of course they sell bottles of liquor on board at a huge profit, but that's not because people are busy dumping their Johnny Walker Red out before passing through TSA. It is a safety issue. If you drink a bottle of gin while flying and there is an accident, you may be an impediment to others trying to exit the plane, and you may not make it yourself. If they serve you, they control how much you get.
but TSA's liquid policy is nonetheless a pain
And stupid. When did I say otherwise?
and does actually require a lot of consumers to fork out money if they want to drink more than water past the security gates.
Yes, "more than water" while waiting on the ground costs money. It costs at the 7-11, too. Is Coke free where you live? It is when you're on board the airplane -- so where's the enormous profit that the airlines are making from selling it to you?
Why not? Because containers of liquid are limited to 3oz at security checkpoints.
Emphasis mine. AT SECURITY CHECKPOINTS. You asked about walking up to the gate and carrying something on. You can't carry a bottle of this mythical Three Buck Chuck through security, but you certainly can walk up to the gate and get on a plane with one. In fact, if you buy your Three Buck Chuck at a duty-free store, they'll DELIVER it to you on the plane, or at the gate, so you can carry it on.
Also Chuck is Charles Shaw, a cheap wine sold at Trader Joes.
That's nice. So no, you cannot carry that specific brand of alcohol onto the plane because you won't find a Trader Joe's at the airport, but that doesn't stop you from carrying on any other bottle of wine you happen to purchase there.
I guess your question boils down to "can I carry a bottle of some specific brand of something that isn't sold at the airport onto a plane" which is a really disingenuous question when talking about airline beverage carts being profit centers for airlines. You also won't be able to BUY that Three Buck Chuck onboard, so there is no huge profit margin that the airlines will make from selling it.
Not sure that distinction is well made.
No, in the study that distinction is completely ignored. They asked the people if they noticed the typos and mistakes, so the result is that people who notice such things are assholes.
What are the people who notice crappy science and object to that?
The mockup demo has so long a history that it qualifies as both "traditional" and "completely normal and expected".
I remember the first time I saw a Macintosh computer. It was on a table at the mall in front of the computer store running a word processing demo. See how nice it prints? See how nice the font looks? See how you cannot type anything in on the keyboard? What a useful computer!
Water/Soda bottles are now at least $3.5-$4 each,
I've seen many airports that have free filtered water sources so you can refill your own water bottle at no cost. Those are the ones with special taps with enough clearance to hold a bottle under. There are always water fountains you can fill from. Even so, I see $2.50 bottles of water, but not as high as you say.
but I think almost all are bought in the airport and not on the plane.
I have yet to find an airline that charges anyone for water. And I don't recall ever having to pay for soda there. I think there is a requirement that they provide fluids to help prevent dehydration or thrombosis issues in passengers, but it may just be a self-defense mechanism.
Where are you getting the beverages that you are carrying on to the airplane
At any of the several shops inside the secure area of the airport.
Paid for at the airport? how were the prices?
Of course paid for. And at the airport. And the prices are usually a lot higher than off-airport. So what? Those shops aren't run by the airlines, and are thus also not a profit center for them.
Free beverages on the airplane, or carry on what you want. Airline beverage carts are not a profit center for any airline, and thus TSA confiscation of liquids is not a plot to increase airline profits.
Why not? I've carried on lots of beverages. I've never heard of "Chuck", but Mountain Dew is no problem. Or water. Or even large cups of hot coffee.
The airborne beverage cart is hardly a profit center for airlines. I've never had to pay for any beverage, and nobody ever stopped me from carrying one on.
Except some places. Here, for example, the admin blocks access to known printers at the router.
But this was not "hacking a printer". It was using a publicly available printer for the purpose it was designed to do. It took no intelligence to do this, no modification to the printers, only a brute force scan of the net for addresses with an open port 9100. Yawn. Very impressive.
3) Point at North Korea (or Russia or whatever middle-eastern or African country or ..)
Well, the summary did say it was a spy satellite produced with the assistance of NSA. Of course North Korea or Russia would do something about it.
What? NASA? Sneaky three-letter agencies, using four letters!
I'm sorry, I come from the US. Can you put that in terms of drams per fortnight, please?