The Uni I work at warns people about phishing, and has an address to forward phishing attempts to to report them. Here's the success stories:
1. Employees are required to fill out a timesheet once a month showing vacation, sick, etc days. This used to be paper. It is now a web form -- on a site external to the Uni but which requires a login using the Uni credentials. There are daily email reminders with a link to the site that start showing up on the first day of the month.
2. The Uni purchasing people don't like it when people order things to do their jobs, so they make it as hard as possible. They have created a purchasing system using an external website with login using Uni credentials. SUCCESS!
3. This purchasing system requires people who do manage to navigate the system and actually order something to "receipt" it after it arrives, and sends email reminders. The last reminders I got to do this began showing up at 9PM on Friday (long after I went home), and then again 9PM Sat., 9PM Sun,... These emails have a link to an external website that requires logging in with Uni credentials. SUCCESS!
I can't imagine that large corporations are doing better at this. Oh, wait, I know that some places are doing so much better. I am now getting regular email reminders from IEEE (you know, people who are supposed to understand computers and stuff) to log in to a website to agree to the new terms of service for IEEE web. It isn't an IEEE.org domain. These emails look SO much like spam that they are caught by the email appliance and automatically thrown in the spam folder (which it calls "RED" category).
How is that "unfortunate"? What is the benefit for building a Star Wars museum on public green space?
1. It wasn't 'green space'. It was a parking lot next to Soldier Field. Converting a parking lot into a museum is a huge benefit to the community.
1a. A huge side-effect benefit may be that it convinces more people to use public transit to get to Soldier Field and/or the new Museum, pumping money into the public transit system and reducing the use of fossil fuels.
2. The Tribune story refers to "4000 construction jobs". Four thousand construction jobs are a benefit to the community. These will be mostly well-paid union jobs in all of the trades. You don't build in Chicago without the unions getting involved.
3. The story also refers to 2000 permanent jobs. Two thousand probably-better-than minimum wage jobs are a huge benefit to a midwestern community, especially in a city like Chicago. These aren't high-tech jobs, they'd be the kinds of jobs that could be part-time or entry-level.
4. There are millions, if not billions, of Star Wars fans around the world, and a significant percentage of them would travel to visit the museum. They will be buying food and lodging and other things during their visit, and probably visiting other tourist attractions like the long-in-the-tooth Museum of Science and Industry or The Field Museum. This influx of tourist dollars is a huge benefit to the community.
5. Lucas was going to pay the $750 million out of his own pocket.
You ask "what is the benefit". What isn't the benefit?
Just so George Lucas can stroke his ego a bit more?
Why does it bother you that George Lucas has an ego, when the result of his ego is a huge boost to a big city economy? Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a virtue.
I am glad you guys aren't city planners.
I'm glad you don't live in my city. Mr. Ludd would approve of you.
Fuck me. Are you that fucking retarded? GOOGLE is doing it, GOOGLE is the one making the goddamn call.
Do you jump up and down and spew profanity that "AT&T is CALLING ME WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!!!" whenever someone who has an AT&T cell phone calls you? There's a program on the cell phone that tells the AT&T hardware to process a call to you. Did you CONSENT to AT&T calling you? Of course not. They don't need your consent. They didn't call you. Even if your phone number is on the DNC list, when someone uses an AT&T cell phone to call you AT&T is not violating the law -- because they aren't the one making the call, whether or not their hardware was involved at some point in the process.
I can only imagine your reaction if someone with Xfinity Voice called you. Now it's COMCAST cold-calling you seeking to extract information from you surreptitiously. Those BASTARDS!
Google is not calling you. It is the person who told his Google Assistant to call you. Google is not cold-calling people asking them random questions to gather data.
If I have Google Assistant available to call you on my behalf, then I'm already using an Android (Google) device, and Google already knows I'm calling you. Your number will be in at the very least my call log and more likely in my contact list too, and they'll know when the appointment I make is because it will be in my Google Calendar. Do I need YOUR consent to call you to make an appointment at your hair salon? Tell me yes and I'll go somewhere else, because I don't want nuts with razors anywhere close to me. Do I need your consent to put my appointment with you in my phone's calendar, or your phone number in my contact list? Too bad, because I'm not asking you for it.
Your profanity and insult don't make your point. They only weaken it. Ignoring the fact that telemarketers already have this kind of technology destroys your argument completely. Trying to claim it is "bronze age" only displays your ignorance.
This technology could easily be used for both parasitic purposes such as sales calls, and outright hostile purposes such as tying up phone lines with seemingly benign callers.
What an amazing planet you live on that doesn't already have telemarketers and other malefactors tying up phone lines with seemingly benign calls. This technology isn't new. Google isn't creating something new. No telemarketer is going to start using his Android phone with Google Assistant to start making his telemarketing calls, he's going to use his existing systems with his existing fat data pipe into the telephone system to keep making them.
> Thank you for calling Bill's Hair Salon, this is Mike.
That's all that's needed in a lot of cases to identify people in a small business environment.
Oh my. Someone calls a company and finds out Mike works there. I notice that the caller didn't need to say anything to get Mike to divulge that super-secret private information, so whether Google Assistant sounds human or not is irrelevant.
And, as I said, if this "Mike" is stupid enough to hand over personal information to a random caller, whether or not the voice he hears sounds human or not, then the problem is much deeper than Google Assistant having a human-sounding voice. If this "Mike" is not authorized to handle ordering and payments and I own the shop, if "Mike" hands out my credit card info in response to any request from a cold-caller for ANY reason he's fired, period, get your ass out of my shop. If "Mike" is the one who makes the payments and he hands out the card info just because someone asks for it, then once again, he's fired. Notice the common element here. Hand out private information to unknown callers, you're fired.
This has nothing to do with the type of voice - you missed the point entirely.
Of course it has to do with the type of voice. That's the HORRIFYING part of this whole process. Google's AI can insert "ums" and "uhhs" and stuff and make itself sound like it is a real human. THAT'S the horrifying "uncanny AI tech" being talked about.
It's that Google has gone one step further and is now contacting potentially non-Google users without their consent.
Google isn't contacting anyone. It's PEOPLE who use GOOGLE ASSISTANT to make the contacts. Google isn't cold calling anyone, and even if they were, then the point I made about stupid people handing out personal information to random callers still applies.
But it isn't GOOGLE that's doing this. It's Joe Smith telling his Google Assistant to make a call ON HIS BEHALF to someone that he does not need consent to call in the first place. I don't need "consent" from a barbershop to call them up to make an appointment. It's stupid to think you do.
You DO know what Google Assistant is, don't you? I guess not. It's not a Google program to randomly call people and collect data. It's that stupid, annoying piece of crap that keeps popping up when you long-press the middle (or only) button on your Android device in more recent versions of Android, offering to help you do stuff that most people can do better themselves. Mine is turned off, so instead of Google Assistant popping up directly, I get a notification that says "Your Google Assistant is ready to help you get things done. TURN ON". THAT'S what the "horrifying uncanny tech is. This Google Assistant thing is now going to be able to make phone calls that imitate a real person's mannerisms (not a specific real person, by the way). It will now be able to send emails that look like they were written by a human. That's HORRIFYING.
Yawn. If someone asks their digital assistant to do something, then it's the person who asks for it to be done that is responsible, not GOOGLE, and it is no more horrifying to have to deal with that than with a real person.
Telemarketers already have this technology. I get a lot of crap calls that start out with a perfect human voice asking if they are speaking to me, by name. Unless you typically answer "rutabaga" instead of "yes" or "no", you don't know it's automated right away. Or maybe answer "who is calling?". Once they get the initial answer they continue in a perfect human voice. It's not new. It's not even particularly horrifying. It's annoying, but it's really no worse than a recognizable robotic voice. They don't get anything more than they would otherwise.
You are working on the assumption that people in the area actually wanted the added traffic, pollution, destruction of a perhaps pleasant environment and so on.
You are working on the assumption that this one facility would add a lot of traffic, pollution, and destroy a pleasant environment. One building? Really? A datacenter? A datacenter that doesn't emit smoke or sludge into the water (ground or surface), doesn't need much in the way of parking or cargo shipments, and can use existing green energy sources?
It's funny to read this discussion. When someone points out that this facility would add jobs, all the opponents claim it would add almost none. But now you complain that all the non-existent jobs would create huge amounts of traffic. And destroy a "pleasant environment".
I would be interested what the local opinion is. Don't assume...
Well, the "local opinion" appears to be in favor of Apple since the local government granted approvals and only a couple of people are trying to hold this up by continued court appeals -- after losing at least once already.
But since you can assume facts to make your argument, how do you get to tell others they cannot do the same thing?
If someone was able to block it, through legal process, then by definition there was something they didn't comply with.
That is not true. Not even close. I think you're the one with the DeVry degree, here, since you make such a stupid statement.
All it takes to delay a project is to file a lawsuit. You don't have to win to get a delay. They haven't been able to block it completely, just delay it.
The FACT is that Apple got the appropriate approvals. The FACT is that Ireland's High Court ruled against the plaintiffs -- in other words, in the opinion of that court Apple HAD approval and did all it needed to do. So, in FACT, the courts have already contradicted your ridiculous claim of "by definition" a failure to comply.
If it was otherwise, the case would have failed.
The case did fail, but is being appealed to a higher court. I guess you couldn't bother to read the summary, huh? Maybe you and the Apple haters in Ireland should become besties and start Facetiming to plan your strategies better?
Of course if they wanted to build it next to your house you'd be completely happy with the idea.
I live in a residential area. They can't build it next to my house. They couldn't get approval to do that.
The difference is, Apple GOT approval, so they met all the zoning and environmental requirements.
If you live in a light industrial or commercially zoned area, then you are begging for your neighbor to be a light industry or commercial operation. Pretending that nobody can put a new building into such a zone because you live there is just patently stupid.
Yeah, there's no way ISP wanting to increase their profits are going to start charging businesses based upon their bandwidth.
Pssst, ISPs already charge businesses based upon their bandwidth. Did you REALLY think that getting a "gig speed" connection to Comcast Business costs the same as getting 100MBps? And do you REALLY think that Net Neutrality has anything to do with charging more for higher bandwidth connections?
And XFinity wont' sell me anything until I realize the value of their $200/month package.
Apparently you really do think that NN has something to do with the pricing of Internet service.
The unspoken goal: Keep users and those who don't know they're interacting with Google asking questions and sharing information with the company -- which can be complied and sold to governments, private companies, and other persons regardless of the desire to remain private.
If you are someone who gives out personal information to a random telephone caller just because they sound like they are a real human, you have worse problems than Google creating a system that sounds like a real human.
It should not matter if the "voice" on the other end of the phone says "please speak or enter your credit card number now, ending with the pound key" in a robotic voice or "hey, I need to process your order, ok. What are your digits?" in a realistic human voice.
It's about telling the ISPs that they can't route IP based on source or destination,
No, that is not what NN is about. The Internet MUST route based on destinations.
NN is about not giving preferential treatment to some kinds of data based on where it comes from. That's it. That isn't "routing", that's not "all data must be treated the same". It's pretty simple.
And the big players can see it's better not to break into someone else's turf
That statement makes no sense at all. Nobody is "breaking into someone else's turf".
The purpose behind Net Neutrality is not some sinister, monopolistic protection. It simply outlaws preferential treatment of data. All data must be treated with equal weight, priority, and bandwidth.
That is not what NN is about.
The reason for the lack of competition is that ISPs have local monopolies or duopolies
No, they do not. There is no limit on the number of ISPs that can serve an area. There never has been.
Companies like Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc. are given virtual monopolies at the city, township, or municipal levels.
Wireline telcos still have exclusive franchises. Comcast/Charter/etc are not wireline telcos and exclusive franchises are a violation of federal law.
The monopoly can be easily subverted by pooling resources together and building out a community-based wireless network.
A monopoly that is so easily "subverted" is not a government-backed monopoly. The fact is that it can be easily subverted by ANY company that wants to compete. I can call half a dozen ISPs just in this small town and get service. That's not a monopoly.
There is nothing in the terms of service that explicitly states that a broadband connection cannot be shared.
Sharing your broadband connection is irrelevant. Reselling it is against the terms of service (and contract) for residential service, and probably for business class service as well.
Here's a quote from the article, quoting Apple documentation:
In developer documentation, Apple says the new mode is meant to bolster security on the iPhone and iPad: "To improve security, for a locked iOS device to communicate with USB accessories you must connect an accessory via Lightning connector to the device while unlocked - or enter your device passcode while connected - at least once a week."
Emphasis mine. "At least once a week" is not the same as "sometime within the last week". Letting the phone sit on the shelf locked for a year and then entering the passcode to connect it to something is not "at least once a week".
Now, of course, the Apple docs could be wrong, and it seems likely they are. But, this would not be the first time that a company does something stupid that they actually document correctly (e.g. Android write-protecting SD cards after 4.4.) They do seem to say that it is permanent, however.
"Use their official authority to encourage or discourage the political activities of others".
He has no official authority over any of the attendees of the PAC he made the comment to, so there is no use of official authority involved. "Official authority" means that he can order people, either directly or through undue influence, to do something.
The Hatch Act was intended to keep managers of political agencies from ordering, or suggesting, that their employees support certain political causes, or using government money to pay for support for those causes. Government employees cannot be ordered to spend their time on a campaign. They cannot be "suggested" to do so. Yes, this was a problem, and that's why the Hatch Act exists.
If these comments had been made at a meeting of the FCC then there would be some grounds for concern. The comments were made in a forum where nobody had to pay any attention to them, there is no way for anyone to verify whether they did or not, AND there is no way for anyone to actually do what was mentioned.
If O'Reilly said to me, "unless you vote for Trump's reelection, your radio license renewals will all get special scrutiny and probably be denied", THAT would be using his official authority in violation of the Hatch Act. In that limited sense, an FCC commissioner has "official authority" over me. But no such threat was made so even that example is moot.
If you, me, and most other people are "unsure" he is in violation of some particular statute, there is a problem with the statute.
Not necessarily. It takes data to determine guilt, and most people don't have enough data to be sure.
Laws ought to be clear and obvious. Vague laws are subject to all sorts of problems,
The problem with laws that appear to violate the First Amendment (by infringing on free speech rights) for political purposes is that they will always be vague enough to cover what we know ought not to happen but not apply to things we approve of.
The problem with this accusation of guilt is that Trump is not campaigning for re-election, and is not an announced candidate. This the same loophole that allowed Obama to get scads of free publicity for his campaign for President when Oprah gave him free airtime. He hadn't announced yet, so of course he couldn't be campaigning, and thus the free airtime could not be a violation of any campaign finance laws. Everyone, including Oprah and Obama, knew he was going to run, but because he hadn't filed yet the laws covering campaign activities didn't apply.
Except that your new company would need to run cables to every house,
If they are a cable company, yes.
The current cable company has already recouped this cost, so they would be able to lower prices and drive the new cable company out of business.
How does this change the fact that there is no government granted monopoly in effect? The protection they get is economic -- the cost to a new entrant is very high. It is always higher than an incumbent's operating costs since it involves infrastructure, for any industry. You want to enter the auto manufacturing business? You need a factory to build your cars, but the existing companies already have them. You wouldn't claim that the existing auto makers have a government-granted monopoly because of that, would you? The limit isn't regulatory.
It's also kind of hard to claim that cable companies have a monopoly on video content delivery services, either. The only monopoly they have is on cable-delivery of services, but the medium is not the message.
The FCC can very, very easily write some ruling along the lines of "no service provider shall make exclusivity arrangements with local governments".
They don't have to. It has been part of federal law for more than twenty years. Exclusive franchises for cable telecommunications are prohibited. Black and white. Here is a link. Specifically:
SEC. 7. AWARD OF FRANCHISES; PROMOTION OF COMPETITION.
(a) ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE FRANCHISES.-
(1) AMENDMENT.-Section 621(aX1) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(aX1)) is amended by inserting before
the period at the end the following.
"except that a franchising
authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not
unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise
has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority
may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of
section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection".
That's 1992. Twenty-six years ago. ISPs don't need such a law since ISPs are not franchised to begin with.
And, just to be completely clear here, this means that you as the customer, will not notice any improvement in service from this change.
Other than higher bandwidth for your data, no, I guess you won't. Why do you think that getting 150Mbps instead of 60Mbps for the same price wouldn't be an improvement?
Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data,
No, it does not. Comcast cable TV is ATV encrypted. The Internet is a different system. "Regular TV" is broadcast -- it shows up at every house, and your STB or DTV adapter is told what it is authorized to decrypt. You use no additional bandwidth when you watch TV. You do use data bandwidth when you stream video.
If you have an ATV tuner you can see which "channels" the TV service is using, you just can't watch it.
Overbooking their network capacity was never something Comcast has shown any hesitation in doing.
"Overbooking"? You mean not provisioning at 100% at the gateways? Yes, this has been SOP forever, just as it is with every network provider, and the telephone company before that.
NOBODY has 100% provisioning. You wouldn't want to pay what that costs.
Comcast is, in areas where they have a monopoly, a government-granted monopoly.
Why keep spreading this misinformation? What area are you referring to, specifically?
All the local governments have to do is allow other cable companies to offer service in their areas.
Isn't it wonderful then that federal law preempts local government law, and federal law has prohibited exclusive franchise agreements for the last twenty years.
and have therefore been building up in these lakes for decades.
If they pre-date regulations, then they have not been building up for decades. They accumulated decades ago and are not building up through any human activity now.
In other words, since there is already regulation prohibiting them, this is not a current problem that we can enact more legislation to deal with. This is like someone coming across a thalidomide baby that is grown up, hearing about what happened, and yelling that we need to enact legislation to ban thalidomide. Or hearing about someone killing someone else and demanding that there be more laws prohibiting murder.
Is it news that when people are allowed to use lakes for recreation that they drop junk in the water? Has nobody gone to Shasta during spring break? The solution, of course, is to ban all recreational use of all waterways. Blaming the big evil corporations for people who toss the plastic can rings or other plastic garbage in the water is just nuts.
if you're asking for them by name, there's no option to buy the generic version of the same drug.
I don't know where you are getting that from. Your doctor can easily prescribe the generic even if you ask about a drug under its brand name.
You can demand "no generics", but that doesn't mean you can't buy a generic if you prefer.
And pharmacists here are generally quick to ask if you'd want a generic or the branded stuff
Yep. So you can ask your doctor about Floqueezy all you want, but that won't prevent you from buying the cheaper generic.
Slashdot Mirror
So... tell me your success stories.
The Uni I work at warns people about phishing, and has an address to forward phishing attempts to to report them. Here's the success stories:
1. Employees are required to fill out a timesheet once a month showing vacation, sick, etc days. This used to be paper. It is now a web form -- on a site external to the Uni but which requires a login using the Uni credentials. There are daily email reminders with a link to the site that start showing up on the first day of the month.
2. The Uni purchasing people don't like it when people order things to do their jobs, so they make it as hard as possible. They have created a purchasing system using an external website with login using Uni credentials. SUCCESS!
3. This purchasing system requires people who do manage to navigate the system and actually order something to "receipt" it after it arrives, and sends email reminders. The last reminders I got to do this began showing up at 9PM on Friday (long after I went home), and then again 9PM Sat., 9PM Sun, ... These emails have a link to an external website that requires logging in with Uni credentials. SUCCESS!
I can't imagine that large corporations are doing better at this. Oh, wait, I know that some places are doing so much better. I am now getting regular email reminders from IEEE (you know, people who are supposed to understand computers and stuff) to log in to a website to agree to the new terms of service for IEEE web. It isn't an IEEE.org domain. These emails look SO much like spam that they are caught by the email appliance and automatically thrown in the spam folder (which it calls "RED" category).
How is that "unfortunate"? What is the benefit for building a Star Wars museum on public green space?
1. It wasn't 'green space'. It was a parking lot next to Soldier Field. Converting a parking lot into a museum is a huge benefit to the community.
1a. A huge side-effect benefit may be that it convinces more people to use public transit to get to Soldier Field and/or the new Museum, pumping money into the public transit system and reducing the use of fossil fuels.
2. The Tribune story refers to "4000 construction jobs". Four thousand construction jobs are a benefit to the community. These will be mostly well-paid union jobs in all of the trades. You don't build in Chicago without the unions getting involved.
3. The story also refers to 2000 permanent jobs. Two thousand probably-better-than minimum wage jobs are a huge benefit to a midwestern community, especially in a city like Chicago. These aren't high-tech jobs, they'd be the kinds of jobs that could be part-time or entry-level.
4. There are millions, if not billions, of Star Wars fans around the world, and a significant percentage of them would travel to visit the museum. They will be buying food and lodging and other things during their visit, and probably visiting other tourist attractions like the long-in-the-tooth Museum of Science and Industry or The Field Museum. This influx of tourist dollars is a huge benefit to the community.
5. Lucas was going to pay the $750 million out of his own pocket.
You ask "what is the benefit". What isn't the benefit?
Just so George Lucas can stroke his ego a bit more?
Why does it bother you that George Lucas has an ego, when the result of his ego is a huge boost to a big city economy? Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a virtue.
I am glad you guys aren't city planners.
I'm glad you don't live in my city. Mr. Ludd would approve of you.
Fuck me. Are you that fucking retarded? GOOGLE is doing it, GOOGLE is the one making the goddamn call.
Do you jump up and down and spew profanity that "AT&T is CALLING ME WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!!!" whenever someone who has an AT&T cell phone calls you? There's a program on the cell phone that tells the AT&T hardware to process a call to you. Did you CONSENT to AT&T calling you? Of course not. They don't need your consent. They didn't call you. Even if your phone number is on the DNC list, when someone uses an AT&T cell phone to call you AT&T is not violating the law -- because they aren't the one making the call, whether or not their hardware was involved at some point in the process.
I can only imagine your reaction if someone with Xfinity Voice called you. Now it's COMCAST cold-calling you seeking to extract information from you surreptitiously. Those BASTARDS!
Google is not calling you. It is the person who told his Google Assistant to call you. Google is not cold-calling people asking them random questions to gather data.
If I have Google Assistant available to call you on my behalf, then I'm already using an Android (Google) device, and Google already knows I'm calling you. Your number will be in at the very least my call log and more likely in my contact list too, and they'll know when the appointment I make is because it will be in my Google Calendar. Do I need YOUR consent to call you to make an appointment at your hair salon? Tell me yes and I'll go somewhere else, because I don't want nuts with razors anywhere close to me. Do I need your consent to put my appointment with you in my phone's calendar, or your phone number in my contact list? Too bad, because I'm not asking you for it.
Your profanity and insult don't make your point. They only weaken it. Ignoring the fact that telemarketers already have this kind of technology destroys your argument completely. Trying to claim it is "bronze age" only displays your ignorance.
This technology could easily be used for both parasitic purposes such as sales calls, and outright hostile purposes such as tying up phone lines with seemingly benign callers.
What an amazing planet you live on that doesn't already have telemarketers and other malefactors tying up phone lines with seemingly benign calls. This technology isn't new. Google isn't creating something new. No telemarketer is going to start using his Android phone with Google Assistant to start making his telemarketing calls, he's going to use his existing systems with his existing fat data pipe into the telephone system to keep making them.
> Thank you for calling Bill's Hair Salon, this is Mike. That's all that's needed in a lot of cases to identify people in a small business environment.
Oh my. Someone calls a company and finds out Mike works there. I notice that the caller didn't need to say anything to get Mike to divulge that super-secret private information, so whether Google Assistant sounds human or not is irrelevant.
And, as I said, if this "Mike" is stupid enough to hand over personal information to a random caller, whether or not the voice he hears sounds human or not, then the problem is much deeper than Google Assistant having a human-sounding voice. If this "Mike" is not authorized to handle ordering and payments and I own the shop, if "Mike" hands out my credit card info in response to any request from a cold-caller for ANY reason he's fired, period, get your ass out of my shop. If "Mike" is the one who makes the payments and he hands out the card info just because someone asks for it, then once again, he's fired. Notice the common element here. Hand out private information to unknown callers, you're fired.
This has nothing to do with the type of voice - you missed the point entirely.
Of course it has to do with the type of voice. That's the HORRIFYING part of this whole process. Google's AI can insert "ums" and "uhhs" and stuff and make itself sound like it is a real human. THAT'S the horrifying "uncanny AI tech" being talked about.
It's that Google has gone one step further and is now contacting potentially non-Google users without their consent.
Google isn't contacting anyone. It's PEOPLE who use GOOGLE ASSISTANT to make the contacts. Google isn't cold calling anyone, and even if they were, then the point I made about stupid people handing out personal information to random callers still applies.
But it isn't GOOGLE that's doing this. It's Joe Smith telling his Google Assistant to make a call ON HIS BEHALF to someone that he does not need consent to call in the first place. I don't need "consent" from a barbershop to call them up to make an appointment. It's stupid to think you do.
You DO know what Google Assistant is, don't you? I guess not. It's not a Google program to randomly call people and collect data. It's that stupid, annoying piece of crap that keeps popping up when you long-press the middle (or only) button on your Android device in more recent versions of Android, offering to help you do stuff that most people can do better themselves. Mine is turned off, so instead of Google Assistant popping up directly, I get a notification that says "Your Google Assistant is ready to help you get things done. TURN ON". THAT'S what the "horrifying uncanny tech is. This Google Assistant thing is now going to be able to make phone calls that imitate a real person's mannerisms (not a specific real person, by the way). It will now be able to send emails that look like they were written by a human. That's HORRIFYING.
Yawn. If someone asks their digital assistant to do something, then it's the person who asks for it to be done that is responsible, not GOOGLE, and it is no more horrifying to have to deal with that than with a real person.
Telemarketers already have this technology. I get a lot of crap calls that start out with a perfect human voice asking if they are speaking to me, by name. Unless you typically answer "rutabaga" instead of "yes" or "no", you don't know it's automated right away. Or maybe answer "who is calling?". Once they get the initial answer they continue in a perfect human voice. It's not new. It's not even particularly horrifying. It's annoying, but it's really no worse than a recognizable robotic voice. They don't get anything more than they would otherwise.
You are working on the assumption that people in the area actually wanted the added traffic, pollution, destruction of a perhaps pleasant environment and so on.
You are working on the assumption that this one facility would add a lot of traffic, pollution, and destroy a pleasant environment. One building? Really? A datacenter? A datacenter that doesn't emit smoke or sludge into the water (ground or surface), doesn't need much in the way of parking or cargo shipments, and can use existing green energy sources?
It's funny to read this discussion. When someone points out that this facility would add jobs, all the opponents claim it would add almost none. But now you complain that all the non-existent jobs would create huge amounts of traffic. And destroy a "pleasant environment".
I would be interested what the local opinion is. Don't assume...
Well, the "local opinion" appears to be in favor of Apple since the local government granted approvals and only a couple of people are trying to hold this up by continued court appeals -- after losing at least once already.
But since you can assume facts to make your argument, how do you get to tell others they cannot do the same thing?
If someone was able to block it, through legal process, then by definition there was something they didn't comply with.
That is not true. Not even close. I think you're the one with the DeVry degree, here, since you make such a stupid statement. All it takes to delay a project is to file a lawsuit. You don't have to win to get a delay. They haven't been able to block it completely, just delay it.
The FACT is that Apple got the appropriate approvals. The FACT is that Ireland's High Court ruled against the plaintiffs -- in other words, in the opinion of that court Apple HAD approval and did all it needed to do. So, in FACT, the courts have already contradicted your ridiculous claim of "by definition" a failure to comply.
If it was otherwise, the case would have failed.
The case did fail, but is being appealed to a higher court. I guess you couldn't bother to read the summary, huh? Maybe you and the Apple haters in Ireland should become besties and start Facetiming to plan your strategies better?
Of course if they wanted to build it next to your house you'd be completely happy with the idea.
I live in a residential area. They can't build it next to my house. They couldn't get approval to do that.
The difference is, Apple GOT approval, so they met all the zoning and environmental requirements.
If you live in a light industrial or commercially zoned area, then you are begging for your neighbor to be a light industry or commercial operation. Pretending that nobody can put a new building into such a zone because you live there is just patently stupid.
Yeah, there's no way ISP wanting to increase their profits are going to start charging businesses based upon their bandwidth.
Pssst, ISPs already charge businesses based upon their bandwidth. Did you REALLY think that getting a "gig speed" connection to Comcast Business costs the same as getting 100MBps? And do you REALLY think that Net Neutrality has anything to do with charging more for higher bandwidth connections?
And XFinity wont' sell me anything until I realize the value of their $200/month package.
Apparently you really do think that NN has something to do with the pricing of Internet service.
The unspoken goal: Keep users and those who don't know they're interacting with Google asking questions and sharing information with the company -- which can be complied and sold to governments, private companies, and other persons regardless of the desire to remain private.
If you are someone who gives out personal information to a random telephone caller just because they sound like they are a real human, you have worse problems than Google creating a system that sounds like a real human.
It should not matter if the "voice" on the other end of the phone says "please speak or enter your credit card number now, ending with the pound key" in a robotic voice or "hey, I need to process your order, ok. What are your digits?" in a realistic human voice.
It's about telling the ISPs that they can't route IP based on source or destination,
No, that is not what NN is about. The Internet MUST route based on destinations.
NN is about not giving preferential treatment to some kinds of data based on where it comes from. That's it. That isn't "routing", that's not "all data must be treated the same". It's pretty simple.
And the big players can see it's better not to break into someone else's turf
That statement makes no sense at all. Nobody is "breaking into someone else's turf".
The purpose behind Net Neutrality is not some sinister, monopolistic protection. It simply outlaws preferential treatment of data. All data must be treated with equal weight, priority, and bandwidth.
That is not what NN is about.
The reason for the lack of competition is that ISPs have local monopolies or duopolies
No, they do not. There is no limit on the number of ISPs that can serve an area. There never has been.
Companies like Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc. are given virtual monopolies at the city, township, or municipal levels.
Wireline telcos still have exclusive franchises. Comcast/Charter/etc are not wireline telcos and exclusive franchises are a violation of federal law.
The monopoly can be easily subverted by pooling resources together and building out a community-based wireless network.
A monopoly that is so easily "subverted" is not a government-backed monopoly. The fact is that it can be easily subverted by ANY company that wants to compete. I can call half a dozen ISPs just in this small town and get service. That's not a monopoly.
There is nothing in the terms of service that explicitly states that a broadband connection cannot be shared.
Sharing your broadband connection is irrelevant. Reselling it is against the terms of service (and contract) for residential service, and probably for business class service as well.
It doesn't permanently disable USB, ...
Here's a quote from the article, quoting Apple documentation:
Emphasis mine. "At least once a week" is not the same as "sometime within the last week". Letting the phone sit on the shelf locked for a year and then entering the passcode to connect it to something is not "at least once a week".
Now, of course, the Apple docs could be wrong, and it seems likely they are. But, this would not be the first time that a company does something stupid that they actually document correctly (e.g. Android write-protecting SD cards after 4.4.) They do seem to say that it is permanent, however.
How many people voted for Trump because he would be different from previous presidents,
Nobody does that.
"Use their official authority to encourage or discourage the political activities of others".
He has no official authority over any of the attendees of the PAC he made the comment to, so there is no use of official authority involved. "Official authority" means that he can order people, either directly or through undue influence, to do something.
The Hatch Act was intended to keep managers of political agencies from ordering, or suggesting, that their employees support certain political causes, or using government money to pay for support for those causes. Government employees cannot be ordered to spend their time on a campaign. They cannot be "suggested" to do so. Yes, this was a problem, and that's why the Hatch Act exists.
If these comments had been made at a meeting of the FCC then there would be some grounds for concern. The comments were made in a forum where nobody had to pay any attention to them, there is no way for anyone to verify whether they did or not, AND there is no way for anyone to actually do what was mentioned.
If O'Reilly said to me, "unless you vote for Trump's reelection, your radio license renewals will all get special scrutiny and probably be denied", THAT would be using his official authority in violation of the Hatch Act. In that limited sense, an FCC commissioner has "official authority" over me. But no such threat was made so even that example is moot.
If you, me, and most other people are "unsure" he is in violation of some particular statute, there is a problem with the statute.
Not necessarily. It takes data to determine guilt, and most people don't have enough data to be sure.
Laws ought to be clear and obvious. Vague laws are subject to all sorts of problems,
The problem with laws that appear to violate the First Amendment (by infringing on free speech rights) for political purposes is that they will always be vague enough to cover what we know ought not to happen but not apply to things we approve of.
The problem with this accusation of guilt is that Trump is not campaigning for re-election, and is not an announced candidate. This the same loophole that allowed Obama to get scads of free publicity for his campaign for President when Oprah gave him free airtime. He hadn't announced yet, so of course he couldn't be campaigning, and thus the free airtime could not be a violation of any campaign finance laws. Everyone, including Oprah and Obama, knew he was going to run, but because he hadn't filed yet the laws covering campaign activities didn't apply.
Except that your new company would need to run cables to every house,
If they are a cable company, yes.
The current cable company has already recouped this cost, so they would be able to lower prices and drive the new cable company out of business.
How does this change the fact that there is no government granted monopoly in effect? The protection they get is economic -- the cost to a new entrant is very high. It is always higher than an incumbent's operating costs since it involves infrastructure, for any industry. You want to enter the auto manufacturing business? You need a factory to build your cars, but the existing companies already have them. You wouldn't claim that the existing auto makers have a government-granted monopoly because of that, would you? The limit isn't regulatory.
It's also kind of hard to claim that cable companies have a monopoly on video content delivery services, either. The only monopoly they have is on cable-delivery of services, but the medium is not the message.
Subscribing to certain bundles to get a speed increase does in fact increase your monthly bill.
You don't have to subscribe to anything more to get the speed increase, so no, it will in fact not increase your bill.
The FCC can very, very easily write some ruling along the lines of "no service provider shall make exclusivity arrangements with local governments".
They don't have to. It has been part of federal law for more than twenty years. Exclusive franchises for cable telecommunications are prohibited. Black and white. Here is a link. Specifically:
That's 1992. Twenty-six years ago. ISPs don't need such a law since ISPs are not franchised to begin with.
There you go.
And, just to be completely clear here, this means that you as the customer, will not notice any improvement in service from this change.
Other than higher bandwidth for your data, no, I guess you won't. Why do you think that getting 150Mbps instead of 60Mbps for the same price wouldn't be an improvement?
Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data,
No, it does not. Comcast cable TV is ATV encrypted. The Internet is a different system. "Regular TV" is broadcast -- it shows up at every house, and your STB or DTV adapter is told what it is authorized to decrypt. You use no additional bandwidth when you watch TV. You do use data bandwidth when you stream video.
If you have an ATV tuner you can see which "channels" the TV service is using, you just can't watch it.
Overbooking their network capacity was never something Comcast has shown any hesitation in doing.
"Overbooking"? You mean not provisioning at 100% at the gateways? Yes, this has been SOP forever, just as it is with every network provider, and the telephone company before that.
NOBODY has 100% provisioning. You wouldn't want to pay what that costs.
Comcast is, in areas where they have a monopoly, a government-granted monopoly.
Why keep spreading this misinformation? What area are you referring to, specifically?
All the local governments have to do is allow other cable companies to offer service in their areas.
Isn't it wonderful then that federal law preempts local government law, and federal law has prohibited exclusive franchise agreements for the last twenty years.
and have therefore been building up in these lakes for decades.
If they pre-date regulations, then they have not been building up for decades. They accumulated decades ago and are not building up through any human activity now.
In other words, since there is already regulation prohibiting them, this is not a current problem that we can enact more legislation to deal with. This is like someone coming across a thalidomide baby that is grown up, hearing about what happened, and yelling that we need to enact legislation to ban thalidomide. Or hearing about someone killing someone else and demanding that there be more laws prohibiting murder.
Is it news that when people are allowed to use lakes for recreation that they drop junk in the water? Has nobody gone to Shasta during spring break? The solution, of course, is to ban all recreational use of all waterways. Blaming the big evil corporations for people who toss the plastic can rings or other plastic garbage in the water is just nuts.
if you're asking for them by name, there's no option to buy the generic version of the same drug.
I don't know where you are getting that from. Your doctor can easily prescribe the generic even if you ask about a drug under its brand name. You can demand "no generics", but that doesn't mean you can't buy a generic if you prefer.
And pharmacists here are generally quick to ask if you'd want a generic or the branded stuff
Yep. So you can ask your doctor about Floqueezy all you want, but that won't prevent you from buying the cheaper generic.