Yes, because certainly he has no vetting process for the people getting the money. Without such, giving money for school will result in just as many failures, since college doesn't actually prepare most people for a workplace environment (certainly not many business schools, which is where one would expect people who plan to exit their educational institution and immediately start a business).
This is basically a grant for people with the drive to jump into and work at succeeding in building a business, just like there are grants for people who display the drive and work ethic to succeed in education. There is no real difference, except the target market.
Student loans were a crushing burden to many people who didn't belong in college before the economy collapsed. Now that many people have no better option, it's going to get even worse.
Of all the people I know personally who have graduated from college in the last several years, only 2 have jobs in their field. The rest are either unemployed or working in the same service industry they worked through college in. At commercial schools (U. of Phoenix, etc), it's even worse. There are almost no scholarships or grants available for these schools, and their dropout rate is absolutely jaw-dropping.
Higher education is not a boon to many people, and the drive to universally educate those who have no drive to be educated is more harmful than it is helpful. The people who have drive to excel in their field will still rise to the top and take the jobs that they take now. Since more education rarely actually creates more jobs, those who have no drive and a new shiny degree are no better off. If they took out loans to get there, they are, in fact, much worse off than they otherwise would have been.
But then, people usually don't want to hear any of the above, because it frequently conflicts with either utopian ideals or how they view people in situations other than their own.
That's one of the only things, and was actually an impediment to simply arming the pilots. Given that an enormous number of commercial pilots are ex-military, the training would be relatively easy, and they're already entrusted with millions of dollars of equipment and the lives of hundreds of people. The fact that they have done everything they can to stonewall that particular initiative means that they've actively taken steps to ensure that there are fewer armed, trained personnel on flights than otherwise would have been possible.
So yes, that program made things safer, at the expense of making them safer still.
Fedora goes to they other extreme from CentOS. The update cycle is too short, which means you have increased worry about instability. Stuff just breaks sometimes, even though it's a good distro on the the whole for many purposes. I'd assume stability is a top priority for someone putting together a cluster.
That's about as useful, in my case, as saying 'That depends on the computer' or 'That depends on the password being randomly among those chosen within the lifetime of the people cracking it.' As of today, none of those things have a chance in hell of mattering unless national security were involved. In the latter case, there's a much higher likelihood of alternate methods being far more effective.
I'd doubt the data is available to do such an analysis, and until touchscreen entry becomes common to access centralized software services it's likely to continue to be unavailable. With passwords, it's much easier to do as a result of the high number of compromised accounts when a large service like Gizmodo gets hit.
That said, I'd be inclined to agree with your guess about certain swipe patterns likely accounting for a very large percentage of devices that use that particular method of unlocking. People, when taken as a large group, tend to follow incredibly predictable patterns in average behavior.
According to their stated keys/sec, it would take as much as 33,619,417.2 millenia to break my Blackberry password, since it's immune to dictionary attacks.
If every possible permutation exists simultaneously, there both is and is not a God, but where he is, he's irrelevant. Except when he's not. And he has an impeccable memory. Except when he doesn't.:)
Which is exactly why you try it first. Apparently you aren't aware of the Gizmodo password frequency analysis, which is surely repeated almost everywhere that doesn't absolutely require the use of strong passwords to enable service.
This entire thing has been blown out of proportion by the misconstruction of what one word meant. It is useful for a relatively small number of specific tasks, without saying a thing in regard to how widespread that small number of tasks is.
I didn't say the industries were insignificant or that the applications it is put to are insignificant, I said there were not a significant number of discrete applications in existence for the technology. Video, and to a much lesser extent audio, interconnects being the predominant other applications, and then primarily for transfer from the primary creation medium or to connect external DSP hardware. For any given person, even a professional in A/V, or aerospace, or industry X, FireWire is used in a relatively small number of tasks.
That it is widespread in those industries says no more than saying coffee is widespread. Coffee still has a very limited number of applications, despite nearly universal adoption. It, by itself and the industries it is used in, is significant. However, it is barely used for anything but drinking. While coffee is not apparently useful for much other than drinking, FireWire is, and my entire point was that it has not found traction there is disappointing to me.
The aerospace applications look interesting, though at least the military ones appear to still be predominantly related to video control and display interconnects for avionics.
I'm not asking for broad adoption because I know it's not going to happen, I'm just saying it's unfortunate that has been the result. It isn't a "win or lose" scenario. I also agree that it is here to stay unless/until something better replaces it. It'll still be sad if it never gains more traction in other applications, since the only barrier is a couple dollars additional cost for the hardware changes per unit of manufacture.
They can almost all be boiled down to "audio" or "video," regardless of the specific industrial use (aerospace use is still A/V). That makes 3 types of device which comprise the vast majority of all deployed devices. That's not really what I'd call "significant," at least not in terms of broad applications comprising a large overall share of interconnects. For most people, professional or otherwise, FireWire is simply not that useful in general, because the applications where it is implemented are very limited. Where it is implemented, it's likely one of the best options.
If there are other uses for the interconnect that exist in large numbers, I'm not aware of them. I'm always interested in learning more specifics, so feel free to list other types of devices that use FireWire. I love learning what technology is used in industries I'm not familiar with.
And being commercial, they're sure to be able to beat the social(ist) services hands down, without this kind of government regulation...
Not if the municipality subsidizes their service to a point below what it costs to run. Which is part of what this bill prohibits. It requires that municipalities, if they build networks, compete on the merits of the business, instead of being able to compete through an artificially low price. This is no different than requiring a private monopoly to subsidize a loss leader in another market with their monopoly profits in order to strong-arm competition out. The government is a monopoly, and should not be allowed to use their monopoly power of forcible taxation to support a loss leader in the market of ISPs.
I'm not saying all, or even most, municipalities would abuse their monopoly taxation power to support a municipal ISP with below-cost pricing. However, since the potential exists, it should be explicitly forbidden in the same way that any other monopoly is explicitly forbidden from doing so.
Well, ISPs have the barrier of requiring consent of the municipality to use public rights-of-way to serve an area. Then they have the barrier of actually having to raise private capital (that's where you don't get to legally point a gun at someone who doesn't pay, which is the root of government enforcement). Then they have to comply with the legal requirement that their actions be in the best interest of their shareholders. Then, if something goes wrong with their business, they have to accept losing everything and starting over from scratch.
So, I'll agree to your restrictions if you agree to allow private interests to use force to raise funds and to allow any lawsuit against governments for not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. THEN there'll be no unfair advantages. Didn't think so.
There are advantages and disadvantages unique to each approach. Saying one is unfair because they have different advantages ignores half the issue. Creating fairness is about balancing those advantages and disadvantages. At least from the description in the article, this doesn't create a major barrier to creating community ISPs, it simply prevents them from operating below their true cost or without the support of a majority of the taxpayers funding the initiative to create one.
Funny, the article says the municipalities that have systems in place are largely exempt.
Without the actual text of the law, it's hard to say which is the case.
Also, public services are not, by definition, better at pricing than private services. They are theoretically better. The actual practice is not necessarily better, since governments can more easily hide (if they even know) the true cost of the operation.
The amount of government funding that goes into the infrastructure support for air travel is pretty significant. The airline industry does not support itself entirely privately. Whether they would be more than a travel niche without taxpayer support is not a simple question to answer.
Interesting. There's never been a place I've lived that had the money to really keep up with road repairs. The current example for me would be Spokane, WA, where the only street repairs the city can afford are arterials. A decent (not even a good, mind you) gravel road is better than many of the streets in the neighborhood in which I live. Both directions on many are like driving on rumble strips, quite literally. Divots a fairly consistent 4 inches or so apart.
The road system in the US is decaying faster than it's being repaired. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ which is run by the American Society for Civil Engineers.
Infrastructure decay is an enormous problem, and the funding just barely covers the cost of doing work to gloss over the fact that the infrastructure is failing faster than it's being repaired on average.
I have to agree. I read it and thought it was exceptionally reasonable, which is unusual when I read about most new laws these days.
If these limits were set on any project that is mainly the purview of private interests, I'd have a lot less problem with government competition. Most problems come from things being taxpayer-subsidized when the taxpayers have effectively no voice in the matter. As municipalities, this is different because those taxed DO have a strong voice.
I think the only thing I would change would be that any levy to pay for the system be automatically time-limited, much like the US Constitutional requirement that military funding bills cannot ever exceed two years.
Caveat: I have not read the actual text of the bill, so all of the above is limited by the information contained in the article.
I had a friend who wrote a small BASIC script that simulated a FORMAT prompt, which would proceed regardless of what the user selected. It then returned a prompt with an empty disk, complete with a bunch of basic, apparently functional commands.
That was amusing when it was run on a couple of the lab computers.
You're right and wrong. There is a difference, but what is at issue here is an interstate tariff.
It is retailers who owe sales tax, not customers. That retailers choose to pass on sales taxes to customers doesn't change who is liable to pay the tax. A state cannot make an out-of-state retailer pay taxes to them.
Also, FireWire is useful for barely more than just disks.
I wish it weren't true, but it is. I'd love to replace every USB peripheral I have with FireWire, but it's simply not possible, because they don't exist.
No, not necessarily. I've run a lot of Windows boxes, and the ones that other people do not touch do not get infected. I've had to remove exactly one malware infestation on a machine that only I use, but plenty of them for friends, family, and work. This is distinct from servers, which are public, stationary targets.
And no, I'm not a Windows apologist. I dislike almost everything Microsoft stands for, but I dislike ignorant haters who decide to spout nonsense simply for the sake of seeing their words on a screen just as much.
Yeah, it's like metric. The US is one of the last holdouts on middle endian dates. Even the US military has converted.
In verbal use, it's usually based on context. There are lots of times when the day is important and the month relatively unimportant. People also usually use the actual name of the month in day-to-day usage.
It also causes confusion when DD/MM/YY or MM/DD/YY, since days 12 and below cause ambiguity about the actual date.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because certainly he has no vetting process for the people getting the money. Without such, giving money for school will result in just as many failures, since college doesn't actually prepare most people for a workplace environment (certainly not many business schools, which is where one would expect people who plan to exit their educational institution and immediately start a business).
This is basically a grant for people with the drive to jump into and work at succeeding in building a business, just like there are grants for people who display the drive and work ethic to succeed in education. There is no real difference, except the target market.
Student loans were a crushing burden to many people who didn't belong in college before the economy collapsed. Now that many people have no better option, it's going to get even worse.
Of all the people I know personally who have graduated from college in the last several years, only 2 have jobs in their field. The rest are either unemployed or working in the same service industry they worked through college in. At commercial schools (U. of Phoenix, etc), it's even worse. There are almost no scholarships or grants available for these schools, and their dropout rate is absolutely jaw-dropping.
Higher education is not a boon to many people, and the drive to universally educate those who have no drive to be educated is more harmful than it is helpful. The people who have drive to excel in their field will still rise to the top and take the jobs that they take now. Since more education rarely actually creates more jobs, those who have no drive and a new shiny degree are no better off. If they took out loans to get there, they are, in fact, much worse off than they otherwise would have been.
But then, people usually don't want to hear any of the above, because it frequently conflicts with either utopian ideals or how they view people in situations other than their own.
That's one of the only things, and was actually an impediment to simply arming the pilots. Given that an enormous number of commercial pilots are ex-military, the training would be relatively easy, and they're already entrusted with millions of dollars of equipment and the lives of hundreds of people. The fact that they have done everything they can to stonewall that particular initiative means that they've actively taken steps to ensure that there are fewer armed, trained personnel on flights than otherwise would have been possible.
So yes, that program made things safer, at the expense of making them safer still.
Fedora goes to they other extreme from CentOS. The update cycle is too short, which means you have increased worry about instability. Stuff just breaks sometimes, even though it's a good distro on the the whole for many purposes. I'd assume stability is a top priority for someone putting together a cluster.
That's about as useful, in my case, as saying 'That depends on the computer' or 'That depends on the password being randomly among those chosen within the lifetime of the people cracking it.' As of today, none of those things have a chance in hell of mattering unless national security were involved. In the latter case, there's a much higher likelihood of alternate methods being far more effective.
I'd doubt the data is available to do such an analysis, and until touchscreen entry becomes common to access centralized software services it's likely to continue to be unavailable. With passwords, it's much easier to do as a result of the high number of compromised accounts when a large service like Gizmodo gets hit.
That said, I'd be inclined to agree with your guess about certain swipe patterns likely accounting for a very large percentage of devices that use that particular method of unlocking. People, when taken as a large group, tend to follow incredibly predictable patterns in average behavior.
According to their stated keys/sec, it would take as much as 33,619,417.2 millenia to break my Blackberry password, since it's immune to dictionary attacks.
If every possible permutation exists simultaneously, there both is and is not a God, but where he is, he's irrelevant. Except when he's not. And he has an impeccable memory. Except when he doesn't. :)
Which is exactly why you try it first. Apparently you aren't aware of the Gizmodo password frequency analysis, which is surely repeated almost everywhere that doesn't absolutely require the use of strong passwords to enable service.
You can swipe unlock an iPhone, but it's even easier to break than a PIN, unless you're fastidious about cleaning your screen after every unlock.
No, it's not hard to believe both of these behaviours can occur with the same user. It's not hard to believe in the slightest.
This entire thing has been blown out of proportion by the misconstruction of what one word meant. It is useful for a relatively small number of specific tasks, without saying a thing in regard to how widespread that small number of tasks is.
I didn't say the industries were insignificant or that the applications it is put to are insignificant, I said there were not a significant number of discrete applications in existence for the technology. Video, and to a much lesser extent audio, interconnects being the predominant other applications, and then primarily for transfer from the primary creation medium or to connect external DSP hardware. For any given person, even a professional in A/V, or aerospace, or industry X, FireWire is used in a relatively small number of tasks.
That it is widespread in those industries says no more than saying coffee is widespread. Coffee still has a very limited number of applications, despite nearly universal adoption. It, by itself and the industries it is used in, is significant. However, it is barely used for anything but drinking. While coffee is not apparently useful for much other than drinking, FireWire is, and my entire point was that it has not found traction there is disappointing to me.
The aerospace applications look interesting, though at least the military ones appear to still be predominantly related to video control and display interconnects for avionics.
I'm not asking for broad adoption because I know it's not going to happen, I'm just saying it's unfortunate that has been the result. It isn't a "win or lose" scenario. I also agree that it is here to stay unless/until something better replaces it. It'll still be sad if it never gains more traction in other applications, since the only barrier is a couple dollars additional cost for the hardware changes per unit of manufacture.
They can almost all be boiled down to "audio" or "video," regardless of the specific industrial use (aerospace use is still A/V). That makes 3 types of device which comprise the vast majority of all deployed devices. That's not really what I'd call "significant," at least not in terms of broad applications comprising a large overall share of interconnects. For most people, professional or otherwise, FireWire is simply not that useful in general, because the applications where it is implemented are very limited. Where it is implemented, it's likely one of the best options.
If there are other uses for the interconnect that exist in large numbers, I'm not aware of them. I'm always interested in learning more specifics, so feel free to list other types of devices that use FireWire. I love learning what technology is used in industries I'm not familiar with.
And being commercial, they're sure to be able to beat the social(ist) services hands down, without this kind of government regulation...
Not if the municipality subsidizes their service to a point below what it costs to run. Which is part of what this bill prohibits. It requires that municipalities, if they build networks, compete on the merits of the business, instead of being able to compete through an artificially low price. This is no different than requiring a private monopoly to subsidize a loss leader in another market with their monopoly profits in order to strong-arm competition out. The government is a monopoly, and should not be allowed to use their monopoly power of forcible taxation to support a loss leader in the market of ISPs.
I'm not saying all, or even most, municipalities would abuse their monopoly taxation power to support a municipal ISP with below-cost pricing. However, since the potential exists, it should be explicitly forbidden in the same way that any other monopoly is explicitly forbidden from doing so.
Well, ISPs have the barrier of requiring consent of the municipality to use public rights-of-way to serve an area. Then they have the barrier of actually having to raise private capital (that's where you don't get to legally point a gun at someone who doesn't pay, which is the root of government enforcement). Then they have to comply with the legal requirement that their actions be in the best interest of their shareholders. Then, if something goes wrong with their business, they have to accept losing everything and starting over from scratch.
So, I'll agree to your restrictions if you agree to allow private interests to use force to raise funds and to allow any lawsuit against governments for not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. THEN there'll be no unfair advantages. Didn't think so.
There are advantages and disadvantages unique to each approach. Saying one is unfair because they have different advantages ignores half the issue. Creating fairness is about balancing those advantages and disadvantages. At least from the description in the article, this doesn't create a major barrier to creating community ISPs, it simply prevents them from operating below their true cost or without the support of a majority of the taxpayers funding the initiative to create one.
Funny, the article says the municipalities that have systems in place are largely exempt.
Without the actual text of the law, it's hard to say which is the case.
Also, public services are not, by definition, better at pricing than private services. They are theoretically better. The actual practice is not necessarily better, since governments can more easily hide (if they even know) the true cost of the operation.
The amount of government funding that goes into the infrastructure support for air travel is pretty significant. The airline industry does not support itself entirely privately. Whether they would be more than a travel niche without taxpayer support is not a simple question to answer.
Interesting. There's never been a place I've lived that had the money to really keep up with road repairs. The current example for me would be Spokane, WA, where the only street repairs the city can afford are arterials. A decent (not even a good, mind you) gravel road is better than many of the streets in the neighborhood in which I live. Both directions on many are like driving on rumble strips, quite literally. Divots a fairly consistent 4 inches or so apart.
The road system in the US is decaying faster than it's being repaired.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ which is run by the American Society for Civil Engineers.
Infrastructure decay is an enormous problem, and the funding just barely covers the cost of doing work to gloss over the fact that the infrastructure is failing faster than it's being repaired on average.
I have to agree. I read it and thought it was exceptionally reasonable, which is unusual when I read about most new laws these days.
If these limits were set on any project that is mainly the purview of private interests, I'd have a lot less problem with government competition. Most problems come from things being taxpayer-subsidized when the taxpayers have effectively no voice in the matter. As municipalities, this is different because those taxed DO have a strong voice.
I think the only thing I would change would be that any levy to pay for the system be automatically time-limited, much like the US Constitutional requirement that military funding bills cannot ever exceed two years.
Caveat: I have not read the actual text of the bill, so all of the above is limited by the information contained in the article.
I had a friend who wrote a small BASIC script that simulated a FORMAT prompt, which would proceed regardless of what the user selected. It then returned a prompt with an empty disk, complete with a bunch of basic, apparently functional commands.
That was amusing when it was run on a couple of the lab computers.
You're right and wrong. There is a difference, but what is at issue here is an interstate tariff.
It is retailers who owe sales tax, not customers. That retailers choose to pass on sales taxes to customers doesn't change who is liable to pay the tax. A state cannot make an out-of-state retailer pay taxes to them.
Also, FireWire is useful for barely more than just disks.
I wish it weren't true, but it is. I'd love to replace every USB peripheral I have with FireWire, but it's simply not possible, because they don't exist.
start spamming random websites to get them shut down
Only if those websites also happened to use the same shady credit card processors. Which is not likely.
No, not necessarily. I've run a lot of Windows boxes, and the ones that other people do not touch do not get infected. I've had to remove exactly one malware infestation on a machine that only I use, but plenty of them for friends, family, and work. This is distinct from servers, which are public, stationary targets.
And no, I'm not a Windows apologist. I dislike almost everything Microsoft stands for, but I dislike ignorant haters who decide to spout nonsense simply for the sake of seeing their words on a screen just as much.
Yeah, it's like metric. The US is one of the last holdouts on middle endian dates. Even the US military has converted.
In verbal use, it's usually based on context. There are lots of times when the day is important and the month relatively unimportant. People also usually use the actual name of the month in day-to-day usage.
It also causes confusion when DD/MM/YY or MM/DD/YY, since days 12 and below cause ambiguity about the actual date.