Just remember Apple is claiming to be eco-friendly [apple.com] while producing hundreds of millions of unnecessary, proprietary, and redundant connectors instead of using an industry standard USB-C cable that would accomplish exactly the same purpose AND waste less in the process.
And what would you have done bearing in mind, Apple released Lightning in products 2 years before USB-C was finalized as a spec. From this point, Lightning was necessary to move away from 30-pin. My estimation is that the energy required for time travel might be more than the waste you are complaining about.
You do understand that the court system is composed of different divisions with separate budgets and spending? A court that bought flat screens doesn’t have access to the money that PACER generated.
From what I remember I booked a special rate to London but I was really going to Dublin. Booking to Dublin would add $1,000 to the airfare each way as the sale didn’t include Dublin. You can get normal flights London to Dublin for under $100. From what I remember it was in the fine print of the special sales agreement. I wanted to spend time London anyway so on my return, I spent a few days in London.
I’ve done trip nesting also but with a slight variant. Sometimes it’s far cheaper to book a round trip with one airline then book a nested trip with another airline. I’ve done this when my booking round trip to my actual destination was ridiculously more expensive. Technically it’s against the terms of service if you don’t stay at least one night in the country. I make sure to stay one night.
Indeed, demonstrating how PACER's fees exceed their operating cost by citing the flat screen of courts that use PACER is like showing how my new flat screen is an example of how much my cable company is gouging consumers.
Except, in the court system, each party bears the costs of converting to PDFs in order to file in the first place
Citation needed. I can find no part of the civil procedure that requires this. Each party has the responsibility of filing their own documents. No part of the civil procedures says that the documents must be in PDF or who pays for the cost. The rules say that the document may be sent electronically which could be PDF or TIFF but not that it has to be in electronic format. The federal court system does handle many documents which were not electronic and must be scanned. There is an upfront cost to do so.
Even the worst I could find was $0.12 per GB of storage and $0.15 per GB of transfer out. The standard scanned image PDF is just under 75k per page, and the standard deflate filtered ASCII-85 encoded PDF averages 17k and a median of under 7k per page. That is over 13,300 scanned pages and 140,000 pages of text per GB. Even if they were paying those kinds of prices, PACER could stand to be much cheaper.
Does your cost estimate the cost of the storage server, the documentation software that is required to organize the documents, the application server if it is a separate server to the storage system? Then there is the web server if the government follows standard SOP regarding security. If you think you can deliver a solution cheaper than PACER while meeting all the requirements of PACER including an indeterminate date of retention, please let the court know.
Additionally, if you want to look at dead storage, according to the Internet Archive, the PV storage cost they run is $2 per GB, including personnel, disk space, electricity, etc. because those costs drop every year per unit storage. In fact, the present projections show that those costs may actually be too high an estimate in 10 years, as flash and other form of storage not relying on spinning rust have lower maintenance costs and are quickly closing the gap on raw cost. They also have the benefit of faster re-building times, as they are starting to run the risk of catastrophic loss during the rebuilding phase after losing a disk.
The problem is you are only thinking in terms of your use case and not the current use case. You are only thinking about the raw space required and not the structure required. PACER current allows the search of any record or case from the the federal court system that goes back decades. As of 2013 this amounted to 500 million documents. PACER must allow the retrieval of said documents easily. Every year the amount of records grow. For 2017 alone there 367,937 cases filed in Federal District Courts. The Court of Appeals recorded 58,951 cases in 2017. Each case has an indeterminate number of documents that could be filed.
It isn’t in the jurisdiction of the FTC to determine what is and isn’t “5G” cellular networks. If there is no official definition then the FTC cannot decide for or against AT&T. The Federal Communication Commission could decide what “5G” just like it decides what is “broadband”.
Again, I never said it should cost 0.10 per PDF page. I said a paper copy at 0.10 per page is reasonable and I didn’t know what the infrastructure would cost. Why don’t you spec out your solution and then present it to the judiciary as an alternative. Bear in mind that it has to do what at least what PACER does now.
I don’t understand what the complaint about flat screens is about. If you are buying a new TV these days, getting a CRT is difficult. Now if they paid tens of thousands per TV, that’s a legitimate complaint as a few hundred should be enough. I can only assume that courts replace their CRTs or finally got TVs and someone was outraged that they got flat screens because they personally can’t afford a new flat screen.
The issue is that the FTC decides whether false claim was made but it doesn’t necessarily have 100% say that the claim itself was false. How would the FTC know that AT&T’s network isn’t “5G”. Someone has to decide what “5G” is. That would be under the FCC. The FTC would have to defer to the FCC as to whether AT&T’s network is 5G. Otherwise AT&T can claim that it means 5th generation which it would be the 5th generation for them.
As an example, if a company sells used laptops that “with 802.11ac” WiFi and they only can use 802.11g that is fraudulent as WiFi specifications are clear. If they claim that they have the “latest WiFi” that is less clear. The used laptops might have had the latest WiFi at the time of their manufacture.
Nowhere did I say that it costs 10 cents per PDF page. What I did say is that the cost per PDF page doesn’t factor in infrastructure costs. Please tell me what it could cost to store, host, and distribute tens of thousands PDF pages indefinitely. How much would your charge especially if on average a page gets requested 3 times during the lifetime of the page.
In this case, I would think the FCC would also be involved. But guess who is head of the FCC? Ajit Pai. That gives you an answer why they are not involved.
I think the whole argument is overly simplistic. From what I can see the charge of $0.10 comes from the time when only paper copies existed. Even today, it is a reasonable charge for a paper copy. Today with the primary copies being electronic, the charge per page might be a bit high but what is the real cost?
While it costs way less to make, store, and maintain PDFs, the cost is not zero. Servers and infrastructure do have a cost. From what I remember at an old job there was a 3rd party contract to scan government documents into an electronic of form which was about $0.03 per page. But that doesn’t include the cost of the servers to distribute that copy.
The other factor is that the government is required to maintain the court records even if no one was interested in that record. For most court cases very few people outside the persons involved want the records. I would imagine that doing this would never be profitable or break even with charges.
In the case of Pai the courts have struck down many of his decisions not purely on political grounds but on procedural and legal ones. For example the last court decision regarding tribal Internet subsidies. The court struck them down for 2 main reasons:
Pai cited the benefits to Native Americans as a reason however failed to produce any evidence to the court (internal or external studies or analyses) that supported the decision. It was amounted to merely his belief.
The kind of decision that was made requires a mandatory public comment and review period according to the FCCs guidelines. The decision was made without one
[sarcasm] I demand that no testing of minor things like icons ever take place in a beta. Only things that are absolutely vital to your life must be tested. Why won't you think of the children? [/sarcasm]
I think people expect a level of accuracy that borders on premonition. From what I obeserve the forecast is generally accurate: "Cold front will arrive next Tuesday morning and lows will be in the teens and highs in the 30s by Thursday afternoon." So the cold front came in by Tuesday noontime and it was in the high teens. By Thursday the high was 28. So not 100% accurate but for most people it is accurate enough.
It would seem that if Foxconn's business is so tied to Apple maybe they should diversify. Building a display plant that doesn't rely on Apple would seem to be a good strategic move.
Is Apple their largest customer? Foxconn manufactures for practically every major player in the industry. Apple is their most visible customer. And Foxconn might be Apple's largest manufacturer.
No my argument is that if Apple is doing terrible right now in phones and that severely affects Foxconn in parts of their business that has nothing to do with Apple (displays), maybe Foxconn is terribly managed.
Well you can be forgiven for not getting the details right. The lawyer on the other hand should be flogged for filing a lawsuit about potentially being recorded.
From what I've seen noramlly these lawsuits are dismissed for "failure to state a claim." I don't know if "standing" applies as that the first part the court must recognize is that there is a claim.
Some of these lawsuits seem to be money grabs rather than to get compensation for wrongdoing. I remember a previous lawsuit against Appple over iTunes DRM that was almost thrown out a few years ago. Turns out the lead plaintiffs were not affected by the issue and the lawyers had to find another plaintiff after the court proceeding began that was affected.
Slashdot Mirror
Just remember Apple is claiming to be eco-friendly [apple.com] while producing hundreds of millions of unnecessary, proprietary, and redundant connectors instead of using an industry standard USB-C cable that would accomplish exactly the same purpose AND waste less in the process.
And what would you have done bearing in mind, Apple released Lightning in products 2 years before USB-C was finalized as a spec. From this point, Lightning was necessary to move away from 30-pin. My estimation is that the energy required for time travel might be more than the waste you are complaining about.
You do understand that the court system is composed of different divisions with separate budgets and spending? A court that bought flat screens doesn’t have access to the money that PACER generated.
From what I remember I booked a special rate to London but I was really going to Dublin. Booking to Dublin would add $1,000 to the airfare each way as the sale didn’t include Dublin. You can get normal flights London to Dublin for under $100. From what I remember it was in the fine print of the special sales agreement. I wanted to spend time London anyway so on my return, I spent a few days in London.
I’ve done trip nesting also but with a slight variant. Sometimes it’s far cheaper to book a round trip with one airline then book a nested trip with another airline. I’ve done this when my booking round trip to my actual destination was ridiculously more expensive. Technically it’s against the terms of service if you don’t stay at least one night in the country. I make sure to stay one night.
Indeed, demonstrating how PACER's fees exceed their operating cost by citing the flat screen of courts that use PACER is like showing how my new flat screen is an example of how much my cable company is gouging consumers.
Except, in the court system, each party bears the costs of converting to PDFs in order to file in the first place
Citation needed. I can find no part of the civil procedure that requires this. Each party has the responsibility of filing their own documents. No part of the civil procedures says that the documents must be in PDF or who pays for the cost. The rules say that the document may be sent electronically which could be PDF or TIFF but not that it has to be in electronic format. The federal court system does handle many documents which were not electronic and must be scanned. There is an upfront cost to do so.
Even the worst I could find was $0.12 per GB of storage and $0.15 per GB of transfer out. The standard scanned image PDF is just under 75k per page, and the standard deflate filtered ASCII-85 encoded PDF averages 17k and a median of under 7k per page. That is over 13,300 scanned pages and 140,000 pages of text per GB. Even if they were paying those kinds of prices, PACER could stand to be much cheaper.
Does your cost estimate the cost of the storage server, the documentation software that is required to organize the documents, the application server if it is a separate server to the storage system? Then there is the web server if the government follows standard SOP regarding security. If you think you can deliver a solution cheaper than PACER while meeting all the requirements of PACER including an indeterminate date of retention, please let the court know.
Additionally, if you want to look at dead storage, according to the Internet Archive, the PV storage cost they run is $2 per GB, including personnel, disk space, electricity, etc. because those costs drop every year per unit storage. In fact, the present projections show that those costs may actually be too high an estimate in 10 years, as flash and other form of storage not relying on spinning rust have lower maintenance costs and are quickly closing the gap on raw cost. They also have the benefit of faster re-building times, as they are starting to run the risk of catastrophic loss during the rebuilding phase after losing a disk.
The problem is you are only thinking in terms of your use case and not the current use case. You are only thinking about the raw space required and not the structure required. PACER current allows the search of any record or case from the the federal court system that goes back decades. As of 2013 this amounted to 500 million documents. PACER must allow the retrieval of said documents easily. Every year the amount of records grow. For 2017 alone there 367,937 cases filed in Federal District Courts. The Court of Appeals recorded 58,951 cases in 2017. Each case has an indeterminate number of documents that could be filed.
It isn’t in the jurisdiction of the FTC to determine what is and isn’t “5G” cellular networks. If there is no official definition then the FTC cannot decide for or against AT&T. The Federal Communication Commission could decide what “5G” just like it decides what is “broadband”.
Again, I never said it should cost 0.10 per PDF page. I said a paper copy at 0.10 per page is reasonable and I didn’t know what the infrastructure would cost. Why don’t you spec out your solution and then present it to the judiciary as an alternative. Bear in mind that it has to do what at least what PACER does now.
I don’t understand what the complaint about flat screens is about. If you are buying a new TV these days, getting a CRT is difficult. Now if they paid tens of thousands per TV, that’s a legitimate complaint as a few hundred should be enough. I can only assume that courts replace their CRTs or finally got TVs and someone was outraged that they got flat screens because they personally can’t afford a new flat screen.
The issue is that the FTC decides whether false claim was made but it doesn’t necessarily have 100% say that the claim itself was false. How would the FTC know that AT&T’s network isn’t “5G”. Someone has to decide what “5G” is. That would be under the FCC. The FTC would have to defer to the FCC as to whether AT&T’s network is 5G. Otherwise AT&T can claim that it means 5th generation which it would be the 5th generation for them.
As an example, if a company sells used laptops that “with 802.11ac” WiFi and they only can use 802.11g that is fraudulent as WiFi specifications are clear. If they claim that they have the “latest WiFi” that is less clear. The used laptops might have had the latest WiFi at the time of their manufacture.
Nowhere did I say that it costs 10 cents per PDF page. What I did say is that the cost per PDF page doesn’t factor in infrastructure costs. Please tell me what it could cost to store, host, and distribute tens of thousands PDF pages indefinitely. How much would your charge especially if on average a page gets requested 3 times during the lifetime of the page.
No one said that the courts don’t have time. The argument is whether the charge is too high.
In this case, I would think the FCC would also be involved. But guess who is head of the FCC? Ajit Pai. That gives you an answer why they are not involved.
I think the whole argument is overly simplistic. From what I can see the charge of $0.10 comes from the time when only paper copies existed. Even today, it is a reasonable charge for a paper copy. Today with the primary copies being electronic, the charge per page might be a bit high but what is the real cost?
While it costs way less to make, store, and maintain PDFs, the cost is not zero. Servers and infrastructure do have a cost. From what I remember at an old job there was a 3rd party contract to scan government documents into an electronic of form which was about $0.03 per page. But that doesn’t include the cost of the servers to distribute that copy.
The other factor is that the government is required to maintain the court records even if no one was interested in that record. For most court cases very few people outside the persons involved want the records. I would imagine that doing this would never be profitable or break even with charges.
This is a fabled unicorn. No amount of hardware is capable of adequately running Flash.
In the case of Pai the courts have struck down many of his decisions not purely on political grounds but on procedural and legal ones. For example the last court decision regarding tribal Internet subsidies. The court struck them down for 2 main reasons:
Also in the summary, it links to other articles where Samsung and LG phones will also have the "5G" icon. So it's not like this is breaking news.
[sarcasm] I demand that no testing of minor things like icons ever take place in a beta. Only things that are absolutely vital to your life must be tested. Why won't you think of the children? [/sarcasm]
I think people expect a level of accuracy that borders on premonition. From what I obeserve the forecast is generally accurate: "Cold front will arrive next Tuesday morning and lows will be in the teens and highs in the 30s by Thursday afternoon." So the cold front came in by Tuesday noontime and it was in the high teens. By Thursday the high was 28. So not 100% accurate but for most people it is accurate enough.
It would seem that if Foxconn's business is so tied to Apple maybe they should diversify. Building a display plant that doesn't rely on Apple would seem to be a good strategic move.
Is Apple their largest customer? Foxconn manufactures for practically every major player in the industry. Apple is their most visible customer. And Foxconn might be Apple's largest manufacturer.
No my argument is that if Apple is doing terrible right now in phones and that severely affects Foxconn in parts of their business that has nothing to do with Apple (displays), maybe Foxconn is terribly managed.
Well you can be forgiven for not getting the details right. The lawyer on the other hand should be flogged for filing a lawsuit about potentially being recorded.
From what I've seen noramlly these lawsuits are dismissed for "failure to state a claim." I don't know if "standing" applies as that the first part the court must recognize is that there is a claim.
Some of these lawsuits seem to be money grabs rather than to get compensation for wrongdoing. I remember a previous lawsuit against Appple over iTunes DRM that was almost thrown out a few years ago. Turns out the lead plaintiffs were not affected by the issue and the lawyers had to find another plaintiff after the court proceeding began that was affected.