If they screen people when they leave, how long before they start restricting citizens from leaving?
I can play that game, too. If they keep citizens from leaving, how long before they shoot you to death while standing in line? This is fun. Can we make up more fanciful stuff instead of talk about what is actually happening?
You probably don't realize, if the government really wanted to stop people from leaving they'd implement customs and immigration exit points like a lot of other countries already do. For example, when you exit Germany, you go through immigration where they stamp your passport and check you.
Government shouldn't be given this power.
Government already has the power and responsibility to control the borders. I would say "if you don't like it go to some other country", but those other countries are a lot stricter about such things than we are.
What does this "birthday paradox", which isn't actually a paradox but a function of probability, have to do with facial recognition? Even when there is a false positive, there is immediate backup to deal with it. You're holding a photo id and have a face, which a human can match if the computer failed to do it correctly.
You don't need permission to leave the country. You need permission to enter if you aren't a resident, and some people are avoiding that step. They're also avoiding leaving when their permission runs out.
No, you are hearing a reemphasis of the point that a city run utility is different than a privately run one, if in nothing more than this ability to track users and act upon it. I do not know if the OP was being sarcastic, but my comment supports that if it was.
Because of the nature of the reduced rates, it's perfectly acceptable for the city to provide requirements for people or industries to likewise be billed at the reduced rate, whether it is to provide jobs for the community or making a custom arrangement so that it doesn't disrupt others.
No, it is not acceptable. The city is operating a utility -- a government created and controlled monopoly -- and should not be putting requirements like "job creation" on the ability to buy power. They CAN have a rate structure to give a break to companies that will be creating a lot of jobs, but they didn't do that. They chose to make certain uses of electricity illegal. That's also not acceptable.
rather than those who constantly sink a discounted rate from the city grid.
Since the city operates the only grid available, it needs to do so without arbitrary or capricious limits on what the power you buy can be used to do.
I'm fascinated by the dichotomy that appears to be occurring here. The claim that the "cable company" is a "government-granted monopoly" (which is not true) is used to argue for all kinds of regulation on what they can and cannot do. Here we have a true government-granted monopoly and it can do whatever it wants, from social engineering to outright criminalizing certain actions.
thus have excess cheap power to sell back to the grid or use, bitcoin miners would move in and use up all excess while its cheap, leading to the permanent residents of a town getting no cost benefit to doing it.
Other than being able to buy the cheap electricity, right, the permanent residents get no benefit.
You might decide 'fine, let the market decide', so you are forced to build more electricity-producing plants to meet this rising demand and keep pushing costs down or face brownouts / blackouts in residential.
Costs will go up if you have to build more infrastructure, which should be represented in the rates you charge the customers, in a tiered manner.
The solution to not having sufficient capacity is to build more. The secondary, temporary solution is to raise prices to reduce demand. That means prices for all uses of electricity. The worst solution is to start banning legal uses, since that only leads to more bans as the demand from other users goes up. That electricity not being used by cryptominers can be used by others, and eventually it will be. What do you do then? Do you build more capacity or ban the latest high-volume uses?
But the miners move out whenever there's some other better opportunity elsewhere, leaving you with all this infrastructure your permanent residents payed for and are being taxed on...
This is a case of a city buying electricity from someplace else. They didn't need to build capacity, they need to negotiate a better contract with their provider. They also need to create a tiered rate structure so Gramma doesn't wind up paying for the cryptominer's electricity. When the cryptominer starts paying higher rates and decides to move out, the city is not stuck with unused production facilities, those facilities exist elsewhere and can be used to make electricity that the cryptominers buy from the place they moved to.
The only reason taxes are involved is because this is a municipal utility. Were it a real electric company (with their own production and not just a reseller) then there would be no tax implications. Since the city is a reseller and not a producer, there are still no taxes involved because the city isn't building production that may or may not become idle.
It's the kind of city that would also ban solar panels for the same reasons.
Solar panels that can be seen from off the property certainly would be banned unless they were part of the original structure in any historical district, and historical districts are filled with structures that were built a long time before solar panels existed.
There was a recent story locally about a property owner being fined because the window frames on his new, energy efficient windows in a historic building didn't look like they were made in 1850. It's hard to make progress anywhere that wants to stay rooted in the 19th century.
Why, you would need to track how much electricity every building in town uses.
It's a city-run electric company. They can track how much electricity EVERY customer uses. They can even correlate it with the time of day (if they use smart meters) and service level (60A, 100A, etc). If you use 100% during daylight but not at night, you're probably not cryptomining. If you use 100% at night but not during the day, you're probably a grow op. If you use 100% all the time, here's your search warrant, we're looking for a lot of computers.
What is this a response to? Because what? It's obvious there was enough electricity -- they were buying it and reselling it and charging everyone higher rates. There is nothing in that story about anyone running out of electricity. There was "that much" because they sold "that much" and the customers used "that much".
I meant a tiered rate,
Fine, but you said "overage charges", which is a fee applied when you go over a set limit. Different thing altogether.
Consider if this was the water service.
I already have, as I used water service as an example of a city utility making flushing a toilet at certain times illegal.
If an industry moves in, digs a well,
If there is municipal water service, digging wells is prohibited.
These cryptominers did have a noticeable effect on the electricity rates of all users, not just themselves.
They shouldn't have, and it should not have resulted in a ban on specific uses of electricity. Uses, I will point out again, that require intrusive measures to determine. (I.e., you can't stand outside a building and say "I can prove they are crytomining inside.") This is an example of poor management of a city utility which didn't result in a change to the rate structure but the creation of a law specifying what you can and cannot use electricity to do. A legal solution to an issue created by stupid management. It is telling you that you can use all the electricity you want, unless you want to use it for this purpose. Just like telling people they can use all the water they want as long as they don't use it to flush their toilet.
Sure, it should apply to internet.
Roger.
In this case, it wasn't a straight up tax break, but a steep discount on electricity (2c per KWh I think, compared to national average of 10c).
It was not a tax break because taxes weren't involved. It was a low rate for electricity for everyone, not just the evil industries. This is pretty clear from the fact that the issue is rising electric bills for residential users, too. If there were different rate structures involved, the rates for one kind of use would be independent of others.
Easy to catch you. It's called your electric meter. How do you think they catch the in-house pot farms?
The electric meter cannot catch you running a cryptomining operation. It can only tell the electric company that you are using a certain amount of electricity. They caught pot growers because a higher rate of electric use was used as justification for a search warrant, the execution of which is when they caught the people growing weed.
Isn't it wonderful, we now have a city where they can see a high electric usage and get a search warrant to look for cryptomining operations? What will be next on the prohibited uses for electricity? You're running a foundry or a true pot producing operation (with clay and a couple of kilns eating the electrons) -- that's now illegal because it uses electricity in a way we don't approve.
Either the townie crypto police or the DEA is going to come knocking based on the abnormal KWH used.
In both cases it will be the city police or county sheriff. Nobody gets credit for stopping the evil drug mongers if DEA does the raid, and politicians are all about getting credit. "Re-elect Bob for Sheriff, he's tough on drugs..."
Yes, it is a symptom of a larger disease, which is free market capitalism
Nonsense. It is a symptom of government control and the controllers being inept. This is a city utility where the overly-egalitarian management thought that charging everyone more when high-users pushed the costs up was a good idea.
Even a moment's thought would have shown why that is a bad idea. It shouldn't take Gramma getting a $400 electric bill to pay for a cryptominer's electricity to wake people up.
You might have missed -- this wasn't a free market operation to start with. The city negotiated an artificial limit on supply and a poor rate structure for reselling that supply. The fact that they have to beg the regulatory agencies for the ability to change their rate structure might also be a hint that free-market economics aren't relevant here.
If you exceed the high-water limit, then you will pay twice to three times as much
That's called a tiered rate structure, and it is standard practice in the utility business. At least it has been standard practice at every electric and water company I've been a customer of. Each electric bill lists so many kWH at so much per, then so many kWH at a bit more, etc. It's not a new concept. Except for these city idiots who thought charging everyone more when a few people used a lot was a good idea.
They should charge overage charges to the currency miners and charge them at a higher rate.
Why should there be a concept of "overage" on electricity? If you buy a 60A service from the electric company, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw 60A 24/7/365? Isn't it false advertising to put on artificial limits? (This is a perfect analogy for Internet use, btw.)
But of course, they should have a tiered rate structure with higher rates for higher tiers, IF the costs are actually higher as the quantity goes up. Do you feel the same way about Internet usage?
They should even have a case of doing this retroactively if the mining companies lied about their expected rate of electricty use.
Absolutely NOT. The customers were sold a service, the use was measured, and they paid the rates that were in effect at that time. There should be no retroactive modification of rates. And how is it lying when you order a 200A service from the electric company and then use 200A for a large amount of the time? You don't have to estimate how much electricity you're going to use next month, you use it and then get charged. That's why they have METERS, you know.
Now these cryptominers show and and show the flaws in this thinking as this industry
And do we have any information that shows that any of the cryptominers tried to get a economic development designation to get a lower tax rate, or did they just start renting an empty office (or use their own garage) to mine in? I know, it's a useful excuse to rant about municipal tax breaks that do bring companies into an area (like Target distribution centers) that do bring jobs, but cryptomining isn't an industry in that sense. It can be run from your garage or a standard office building and employs very few people. The days of manual calculations of bitchains and bitcoins is long over, it is ALL automated.
The city very rarely (or never) exceeded that allotment before,
The city didn't exceed its allotment, the people used more than normal. The city isn't the user.
It appears that this is a case of a municipal electric company that buys from a real electric company and the customers used more electricity than the city utility had planned and budgeted for. Instead of simply charging the highest users higher rates, or renegotiating the contract to remove the artificial supply limit, the response of the city is to put limits on what the customers, the residents and citizens of the city, can use the electricity they've paid for to do. They've paid for the electricity, but they cannot use it for otherwise legal purposes.
This is a new downside to a municipal utility that nobody seems to have considered before. The city is making certain uses of electricity illegal. Imagine them doing that with Internet. An ISP can put limits in their TOS, but the non-governmental ISP cannot enter your premises searching for uses that aren't approved, all they can do is cut off service based on what they see from the outside. The CITY, however, has police powers and can get a search warrant to look for illegal uses of electricity, or Internet. Not "illlegal", just against the TOS.
And, apparently, the city was so stupid that they didn't consider a progressive rate system to charge high-quantity users more and thought it was perfectly acceptable to charge everyone more when a few overused. Hmm, I see a direct ISP/Internet analogy here, too.
The cryptomining operations mostly seem okay with this,
Well, yeah, the existing operations are quite happy because they get to keep operating at a below-true-cost rate for electricity. New operations are screwed because they cannot use a product that they are paying for in the way they see fit. The remaining customers should be very wary of their wonderful government-run utility, since this is a precedent that isn't good.
Imagine a city-run water utility that bans flushing toilets during the Super Bowl because too many people try to flush all at the same time (during bad commercials or at halftime) and it overtaxes the supply. And they've got the power to enforce the law. You're not on the Group W bench for littering, you're there for flushing your toilet. Welcome to 1984.
Of course Facebook is going to have pages touting how successful messaging is on Facebook.
Why should you believe them,
Interesting, I just got through the part of "What Happened" where Hil was praising O for his use of social media.
In reality, how many times has Facebook, or anything you saw on Facebook, changed YOUR mind?
Social media is not for changing minds. It is for motivating those who already believe what you say into action. People who agree with you but don't care enough to vote will "change their minds" about the latter.
It should be easy to use "traceroute" to find the route between a Comcast customer IP address and Tutanota's servers.
With the growing number of carriers who block ICMP, while it SHOULD be easy to use traceroute to learn interesting things, in many cases it is worthless.
Here's a flash: is anyone going to sue Comcast for blocking outgoing access to port 25 as an anti-spam measure? It's blocking email. Was this "block" which nobody knows was actually a block but is good to bash Comcast anyway over a case of blocking an outgoing port for spam reasons?
it would be really awkward to receive a delivery of spark plugs while I'm trying to sell dildos to bored housewives.
Unless your store is just a money laundering front for the Russian mafia that never actually ever sells anything, your package of spark plugs will be just one more box in with all the replacement stock that comes in every day. It will have your and Amazon's name on it, so you don't even have to open it until you get it home, if you are that ashamed of buying sparkplugs.
Not just aliens. If anyone on planet Earth needs to see a picture of a human to go with an online encyclopedia entry. Turn the computer off and look at your reflection in the screen, or take a selfie.
I think my car insurance covers only $25k of property damage. And the minimum coverage for property damage in my state(CA) is $5k. So you might be in some serious financial trouble if you are at fault for causing a wildfire with your car.
Yes, if you buy the legal minimum and it is a pittance, you may be in trouble if you cause damage to anything larger than a bicycle.
Drones may be difficult to cover.
No. Join AMA (not medical) and it lists $25,000 liability insurance as one of the benefits.
But as far as I know they've never paid out an insurance claim in the many decades they've been around.
Would they send you a registered letter telling you that they've paid any claims that you weren't personally involved in? Then how would you know? Why would what you know be any better information than what they advertise?
Which is obviously what happened, note that doesn't say "verbal" or "contractual".
But it does say "agreement", which isn't necessary for this to have happened. Hilton doesn't need to agree with Marriott regarding their prices. Hilton can see occupancy rates, the convention calendar for Moscone, and come to its own conclusions regarding the price that the market will bear without any agreement with Marriott to do that.
You're trying to gin up a conspiracy between hotel chains when none is necessary to explain the results.
Slashdot Mirror
If they screen people when they leave, how long before they start restricting citizens from leaving?
I can play that game, too. If they keep citizens from leaving, how long before they shoot you to death while standing in line? This is fun. Can we make up more fanciful stuff instead of talk about what is actually happening?
You probably don't realize, if the government really wanted to stop people from leaving they'd implement customs and immigration exit points like a lot of other countries already do. For example, when you exit Germany, you go through immigration where they stamp your passport and check you.
Government shouldn't be given this power.
Government already has the power and responsibility to control the borders. I would say "if you don't like it go to some other country", but those other countries are a lot stricter about such things than we are.
The computer stores that photo forever in a searchable database. So... yeah... its completely different.
Your photo is already in a searchable database. Your travel data is already in a searchable database. It's not "completely different".
What does this "birthday paradox", which isn't actually a paradox but a function of probability, have to do with facial recognition? Even when there is a false positive, there is immediate backup to deal with it. You're holding a photo id and have a face, which a human can match if the computer failed to do it correctly.
This is an old story. We hashed this to death a couple of months ago.
where you needed permission to leave the country.
You don't need permission to leave the country. You need permission to enter if you aren't a resident, and some people are avoiding that step. They're also avoiding leaving when their permission runs out.
No, you are hearing a reemphasis of the point that a city run utility is different than a privately run one, if in nothing more than this ability to track users and act upon it. I do not know if the OP was being sarcastic, but my comment supports that if it was.
Because of the nature of the reduced rates, it's perfectly acceptable for the city to provide requirements for people or industries to likewise be billed at the reduced rate, whether it is to provide jobs for the community or making a custom arrangement so that it doesn't disrupt others.
No, it is not acceptable. The city is operating a utility -- a government created and controlled monopoly -- and should not be putting requirements like "job creation" on the ability to buy power. They CAN have a rate structure to give a break to companies that will be creating a lot of jobs, but they didn't do that. They chose to make certain uses of electricity illegal. That's also not acceptable.
rather than those who constantly sink a discounted rate from the city grid.
Since the city operates the only grid available, it needs to do so without arbitrary or capricious limits on what the power you buy can be used to do.
I'm fascinated by the dichotomy that appears to be occurring here. The claim that the "cable company" is a "government-granted monopoly" (which is not true) is used to argue for all kinds of regulation on what they can and cannot do. Here we have a true government-granted monopoly and it can do whatever it wants, from social engineering to outright criminalizing certain actions.
Or "The Orville".
thus have excess cheap power to sell back to the grid or use, bitcoin miners would move in and use up all excess while its cheap, leading to the permanent residents of a town getting no cost benefit to doing it.
Other than being able to buy the cheap electricity, right, the permanent residents get no benefit.
You might decide 'fine, let the market decide', so you are forced to build more electricity-producing plants to meet this rising demand and keep pushing costs down or face brownouts / blackouts in residential.
Costs will go up if you have to build more infrastructure, which should be represented in the rates you charge the customers, in a tiered manner.
The solution to not having sufficient capacity is to build more. The secondary, temporary solution is to raise prices to reduce demand. That means prices for all uses of electricity. The worst solution is to start banning legal uses, since that only leads to more bans as the demand from other users goes up. That electricity not being used by cryptominers can be used by others, and eventually it will be. What do you do then? Do you build more capacity or ban the latest high-volume uses?
But the miners move out whenever there's some other better opportunity elsewhere, leaving you with all this infrastructure your permanent residents payed for and are being taxed on...
This is a case of a city buying electricity from someplace else. They didn't need to build capacity, they need to negotiate a better contract with their provider. They also need to create a tiered rate structure so Gramma doesn't wind up paying for the cryptominer's electricity. When the cryptominer starts paying higher rates and decides to move out, the city is not stuck with unused production facilities, those facilities exist elsewhere and can be used to make electricity that the cryptominers buy from the place they moved to.
The only reason taxes are involved is because this is a municipal utility. Were it a real electric company (with their own production and not just a reseller) then there would be no tax implications. Since the city is a reseller and not a producer, there are still no taxes involved because the city isn't building production that may or may not become idle.
It's the kind of city that would also ban solar panels for the same reasons.
Solar panels that can be seen from off the property certainly would be banned unless they were part of the original structure in any historical district, and historical districts are filled with structures that were built a long time before solar panels existed.
There was a recent story locally about a property owner being fined because the window frames on his new, energy efficient windows in a historic building didn't look like they were made in 1850. It's hard to make progress anywhere that wants to stay rooted in the 19th century.
Why, you would need to track how much electricity every building in town uses.
It's a city-run electric company. They can track how much electricity EVERY customer uses. They can even correlate it with the time of day (if they use smart meters) and service level (60A, 100A, etc). If you use 100% during daylight but not at night, you're probably not cryptomining. If you use 100% at night but not during the day, you're probably a grow op. If you use 100% all the time, here's your search warrant, we're looking for a lot of computers.
Because there may not be that much electricity.
What is this a response to? Because what? It's obvious there was enough electricity -- they were buying it and reselling it and charging everyone higher rates. There is nothing in that story about anyone running out of electricity. There was "that much" because they sold "that much" and the customers used "that much".
I meant a tiered rate,
Fine, but you said "overage charges", which is a fee applied when you go over a set limit. Different thing altogether.
Consider if this was the water service.
I already have, as I used water service as an example of a city utility making flushing a toilet at certain times illegal.
If an industry moves in, digs a well,
If there is municipal water service, digging wells is prohibited.
These cryptominers did have a noticeable effect on the electricity rates of all users, not just themselves.
They shouldn't have, and it should not have resulted in a ban on specific uses of electricity. Uses, I will point out again, that require intrusive measures to determine. (I.e., you can't stand outside a building and say "I can prove they are crytomining inside.") This is an example of poor management of a city utility which didn't result in a change to the rate structure but the creation of a law specifying what you can and cannot use electricity to do. A legal solution to an issue created by stupid management. It is telling you that you can use all the electricity you want, unless you want to use it for this purpose. Just like telling people they can use all the water they want as long as they don't use it to flush their toilet.
Sure, it should apply to internet.
Roger.
In this case, it wasn't a straight up tax break, but a steep discount on electricity (2c per KWh I think, compared to national average of 10c).
It was not a tax break because taxes weren't involved. It was a low rate for electricity for everyone, not just the evil industries. This is pretty clear from the fact that the issue is rising electric bills for residential users, too. If there were different rate structures involved, the rates for one kind of use would be independent of others.
Easy to catch you. It's called your electric meter. How do you think they catch the in-house pot farms?
The electric meter cannot catch you running a cryptomining operation. It can only tell the electric company that you are using a certain amount of electricity. They caught pot growers because a higher rate of electric use was used as justification for a search warrant, the execution of which is when they caught the people growing weed.
Isn't it wonderful, we now have a city where they can see a high electric usage and get a search warrant to look for cryptomining operations? What will be next on the prohibited uses for electricity? You're running a foundry or a true pot producing operation (with clay and a couple of kilns eating the electrons) -- that's now illegal because it uses electricity in a way we don't approve.
Either the townie crypto police or the DEA is going to come knocking based on the abnormal KWH used.
In both cases it will be the city police or county sheriff. Nobody gets credit for stopping the evil drug mongers if DEA does the raid, and politicians are all about getting credit. "Re-elect Bob for Sheriff, he's tough on drugs..."
Yes, it is a symptom of a larger disease, which is free market capitalism
Nonsense. It is a symptom of government control and the controllers being inept. This is a city utility where the overly-egalitarian management thought that charging everyone more when high-users pushed the costs up was a good idea.
Even a moment's thought would have shown why that is a bad idea. It shouldn't take Gramma getting a $400 electric bill to pay for a cryptominer's electricity to wake people up.
You might have missed -- this wasn't a free market operation to start with. The city negotiated an artificial limit on supply and a poor rate structure for reselling that supply. The fact that they have to beg the regulatory agencies for the ability to change their rate structure might also be a hint that free-market economics aren't relevant here.
If you exceed the high-water limit, then you will pay twice to three times as much
That's called a tiered rate structure, and it is standard practice in the utility business. At least it has been standard practice at every electric and water company I've been a customer of. Each electric bill lists so many kWH at so much per, then so many kWH at a bit more, etc. It's not a new concept. Except for these city idiots who thought charging everyone more when a few people used a lot was a good idea.
They should charge overage charges to the currency miners and charge them at a higher rate.
Why should there be a concept of "overage" on electricity? If you buy a 60A service from the electric company, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw 60A 24/7/365? Isn't it false advertising to put on artificial limits? (This is a perfect analogy for Internet use, btw.)
But of course, they should have a tiered rate structure with higher rates for higher tiers, IF the costs are actually higher as the quantity goes up. Do you feel the same way about Internet usage?
They should even have a case of doing this retroactively if the mining companies lied about their expected rate of electricty use.
Absolutely NOT. The customers were sold a service, the use was measured, and they paid the rates that were in effect at that time. There should be no retroactive modification of rates. And how is it lying when you order a 200A service from the electric company and then use 200A for a large amount of the time? You don't have to estimate how much electricity you're going to use next month, you use it and then get charged. That's why they have METERS, you know.
Now these cryptominers show and and show the flaws in this thinking as this industry
And do we have any information that shows that any of the cryptominers tried to get a economic development designation to get a lower tax rate, or did they just start renting an empty office (or use their own garage) to mine in? I know, it's a useful excuse to rant about municipal tax breaks that do bring companies into an area (like Target distribution centers) that do bring jobs, but cryptomining isn't an industry in that sense. It can be run from your garage or a standard office building and employs very few people. The days of manual calculations of bitchains and bitcoins is long over, it is ALL automated.
The city very rarely (or never) exceeded that allotment before,
The city didn't exceed its allotment, the people used more than normal. The city isn't the user.
It appears that this is a case of a municipal electric company that buys from a real electric company and the customers used more electricity than the city utility had planned and budgeted for. Instead of simply charging the highest users higher rates, or renegotiating the contract to remove the artificial supply limit, the response of the city is to put limits on what the customers, the residents and citizens of the city, can use the electricity they've paid for to do. They've paid for the electricity, but they cannot use it for otherwise legal purposes.
This is a new downside to a municipal utility that nobody seems to have considered before. The city is making certain uses of electricity illegal. Imagine them doing that with Internet. An ISP can put limits in their TOS, but the non-governmental ISP cannot enter your premises searching for uses that aren't approved, all they can do is cut off service based on what they see from the outside. The CITY, however, has police powers and can get a search warrant to look for illegal uses of electricity, or Internet. Not "illlegal", just against the TOS.
And, apparently, the city was so stupid that they didn't consider a progressive rate system to charge high-quantity users more and thought it was perfectly acceptable to charge everyone more when a few overused. Hmm, I see a direct ISP/Internet analogy here, too.
The cryptomining operations mostly seem okay with this,
Well, yeah, the existing operations are quite happy because they get to keep operating at a below-true-cost rate for electricity. New operations are screwed because they cannot use a product that they are paying for in the way they see fit. The remaining customers should be very wary of their wonderful government-run utility, since this is a precedent that isn't good.
Imagine a city-run water utility that bans flushing toilets during the Super Bowl because too many people try to flush all at the same time (during bad commercials or at halftime) and it overtaxes the supply. And they've got the power to enforce the law. You're not on the Group W bench for littering, you're there for flushing your toilet. Welcome to 1984.
Of course Facebook is going to have pages touting how successful messaging is on Facebook. Why should you believe them,
Interesting, I just got through the part of "What Happened" where Hil was praising O for his use of social media.
In reality, how many times has Facebook, or anything you saw on Facebook, changed YOUR mind?
Social media is not for changing minds. It is for motivating those who already believe what you say into action. People who agree with you but don't care enough to vote will "change their minds" about the latter.
Then why wouldnâ(TM)t Comcast have just said that? The fact that they denied that anything happened shows that it couldnâ(TM)t be an accident.
They didn't deny that anything happened.
It should be easy to use "traceroute" to find the route between a Comcast customer IP address and Tutanota's servers.
With the growing number of carriers who block ICMP, while it SHOULD be easy to use traceroute to learn interesting things, in many cases it is worthless.
Here's a flash: is anyone going to sue Comcast for blocking outgoing access to port 25 as an anti-spam measure? It's blocking email. Was this "block" which nobody knows was actually a block but is good to bash Comcast anyway over a case of blocking an outgoing port for spam reasons?
it would be really awkward to receive a delivery of spark plugs while I'm trying to sell dildos to bored housewives.
Unless your store is just a money laundering front for the Russian mafia that never actually ever sells anything, your package of spark plugs will be just one more box in with all the replacement stock that comes in every day. It will have your and Amazon's name on it, so you don't even have to open it until you get it home, if you are that ashamed of buying sparkplugs.
"Hi, my name is Chris Hansen and you're on "To Catch An Alien...""
Not just aliens. If anyone on planet Earth needs to see a picture of a human to go with an online encyclopedia entry. Turn the computer off and look at your reflection in the screen, or take a selfie.
I think my car insurance covers only $25k of property damage. And the minimum coverage for property damage in my state(CA) is $5k. So you might be in some serious financial trouble if you are at fault for causing a wildfire with your car.
Yes, if you buy the legal minimum and it is a pittance, you may be in trouble if you cause damage to anything larger than a bicycle.
Drones may be difficult to cover.
No. Join AMA (not medical) and it lists $25,000 liability insurance as one of the benefits.
But as far as I know they've never paid out an insurance claim in the many decades they've been around.
Would they send you a registered letter telling you that they've paid any claims that you weren't personally involved in? Then how would you know? Why would what you know be any better information than what they advertise?
Which is obviously what happened, note that doesn't say "verbal" or "contractual".
But it does say "agreement", which isn't necessary for this to have happened. Hilton doesn't need to agree with Marriott regarding their prices. Hilton can see occupancy rates, the convention calendar for Moscone, and come to its own conclusions regarding the price that the market will bear without any agreement with Marriott to do that.
You're trying to gin up a conspiracy between hotel chains when none is necessary to explain the results.