It seems like that only applies to DSL and phone lines though.
Correct. This is part of the benefit for Verizon in offering FiOS---the fiber service is not regulated the same way as copper.
Cable telecoms like Comcast were essentially unregulated by default, so fiber-to-premises brings the phone companies (ATT/Verizon) to parity. While I prefer fair competition, deregulation is not the answer for natural monopolies.
Assuming you're in the US how many ISPs can you choose from, including DSL, Cable, FIber and so on?
Typically, you have one or two choices for residential service. A few regions may have strong competition, but this is extremely uncommon.
I live in a somewhat typical situation: I am far enough away from a central office that DSL is terrible, fiber is not available from any provider, and cable service is overpriced. I mean overpriced in the most basic, reasonable sense here. I.e., I would have a much cheaper cable rate from the same provider if I lived in a region where they have effective competition.
The major telecoms generally do not expand into areas with multiple providers since it is difficult to recoup their capital investment. Fiber buildouts are still priced in dollars per foot---which gets expensive when you need to run miles of cable.
There are also satellite and cellular services, but they often have data caps, metering, higher prices, lower bandwidth, poor latency, or a combination thereof.
In the US, each telecom company owns the lines it built. This fundamental differences renders the remainder of your suggestions moot.
We could argue whether the British model is better or worse, but there is zero chance of the US consolidating ownership of the physical plant if we cannot even agree on basic regulation.
If you'll recall, a huge chunk of Americans have a massive hard-on for private property rights. Federal rules such as you suggest are simply not going to happen.
Net neutrality is mainly concerned with internet and transit providers. Endpoints like Twitter are not addressed. You would need a different set of rules for that---which is a terrible idea anyway.
that is a moot point. See bakers and other public accommodations
Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from interfering with speech. It does not regulate content providers like Twitter or Breitbart, who are always free to decide what is available on their servers.
When the POTUS uses a platform to address the country, that platform should be a neutral platform of ideas and conversation.
If the POTUS wants to use a platform, the government should either build it or contract its services in a way that satisfies the government's legal interests. Otherwise, the government can take whatever they offer. On Twitter, he's just another asshole user.
If you want a law that requires web sites to publish government content, then you'll need to debate that issue on its own. It has nothing to do with net neutrality.
I rather like it that my ISP blocks traffic from some Chinese-based IP addresses. I was getting hundreds of spam emails from one specific domain per day -- now I get none.
There are exceptions for standard network management activities. This includes anti-spam filtering. Under net neutrality rules, the ISPs would have to justify this behavior if it were ever challenged---and face fines if their justification is bullshit.
The rules published under Wheeler were actually quite good. The established net neutrality rules balance network operations and consumer protection very well. I was surprised when they were announced, given Wheeler's background.
If I could have custom-created workspaces (or Sets, whatever) spread across multiple virtual desktops, that would be great.
It needs keyboard navigation though. Since Ctrl+Tab, SHIFT+Tab, Alt+Tab, and Win+Tab are already taken, it will need some other easily accessible hotkey combo or it will be disappointing.
Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant.
No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.
Net neutrality deals with ISPs and other public network operators. It has no bearing on how you secure your own network boundary.
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Wrong. Net neutrality says that internet providers may not censor or discriminate. Endpoints, aka private companies and private customers, can filter whatever they want.
The problem started with government, removing that problem solves net neutrality at the source
This is a very naive viewpoint. Utilities need right of way to run their lines to each residence throughout the city. You can't have everyone digging everywhere or putting up poles wherever they feel like it. Likewise, you cannot have one homeowner blocking internet access to half the city.
There need to be reasonable rules. The ISP/power/water/waste lines need to be built and maintained---while minimizing disruption to private property owners and commuters. The the government must be involved at this level; there is simply no way around it.
With net neutrality, the FCC could guarantee an open internet regardless of how much competition is permitted at the state/municipal level. It protects the internet as a whole. That's the most important thing the federal government can do.
Honestly the biggest problem with private devices is cameras, and it would be appropriate to not allow them in rooms where classified material is of course.
OK, so we can be fairly confident that you do not work in an infosec capacity. Unmanaged devices are an unmitigated nightmare for a variety of reasons.
Possession of a personal device leads to a tendency to use it, and that includes conducting official business on it. Or discussing official matters in an unofficial context. Due to piss poor manufacturer support, consumer Android phones often run outdated, unpatched software. Let's not forget that both Apple and Google have pulled malicious software from their stores, and users can link up to all kinds of remote or cloud services on devices they own.
The biggest problem is the fact that a compromised phone can be running an open mic all the time. Unlike the camera, a mic is fully functional even when the device is stowed in a pocket---which is where most phones spend the majority of their time. Running the mic also has less of an impact on battery life than the camera, so the user is unlikely to notice a problem with the device.
They ought to have a monitored wifi connection for personal business, the monitoring being only for the presence of government information.
This is hopelessly naive. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to identify content on the fly? And what about encryption (almost everything uses it these days)? The kind of monitoring you suggest is bordering on the impossible.
Total bans encourage workarounds and workarounds yield security breaches every single time.
When the ban is backed up by immediate termination and possible criminal charges, it tends to be far more effective.
The only reason that "workarounds" are popular is because private companies rarely enforce their policies, especially against high-ranking personnel. Enforcing policies pretty much kills this habit, at least after the first couple of terminations.
People routinely do far more unpleasant things than locking up their phones for the day---when the business forces them to.
If the victim sides with the criminal, it is extremely difficult to enforce the law.
Just because something is difficult to do, it doesn't mean that it is practically or morally wrong to do it. I could name a lot of difficult things that are very good to do.
Right now, we're looking only at earnest, passionate hackers who are knowledgeable about biology. But if you let this become an unregulated market, you'll end up drowning in snake oil.
I believe the government should make it possible for individuals and small labs to offer legitimate services, but it definitely needs to watch for abuses. Few people make better targets than the desperate, and few people are more desperate than those facing permanent disability, chronic pain, or death.
Should the government be required to vaccinate all kids, regardless of parental wishes, and arrest parents who don't?
Yes. There is extensive evidence that vaccination saves lives. Fortunately, states are starting to require it.
Obviously, there are waivers for people who are sensitive to a particular vaccine. It's rare, but it's accounted for.
Whats the difference between Vaccine pushed by Big Pharma/Government complex onto unsuspecting children, without their or their parents consent, and someone bio-engineering a cure
Vaccines are rigorously tested before they are made available to the public, and they are generally sold publicly for a long time before becoming mandatory. Some vaccines aren't mandatory because there is no compelling public health benefit.
Compare this to your neighborhood Chemical Joe, whose treatment probably has zero testing. He could be scamming desperate people, but there's no way to check up on him if anyone can setup a biolab at home.
There is no "right" answer, and its one that the government has no business answering.
Most people are not qualified to assess the safety and efficacy of a medical treatment. Most people couldn't make sense of the statistical section of a published paper. So we have a rule that medical treatments must be reviewed for safety and effectiveness before they can be offered to the public.
This is a good starting point as far as a "right" answer is concerned. Maybe the FDA needs to adjust a few policies, but the overall approach is quite reasonable.
Not entirely accurate. Some people experience a brief disturbance during use, and there are some long-term risks.
There actually is evidence for a causal link between cannabis use and psychotic disorders, although the risk factor is not that high. I.e., much lower than the risk of lung cancer from smoking.
Of course, Anslinger wouldn't have had this evidence when he made his original, outlandish claims. That was legitimate bullshit; at best, the broken clock was right for a second.
Irrespective, licensure does not improve quality, it only limits supply.
Licensure improves average quality because it eliminates the lowest quality professionals from the labor pool.
Lawyers, doctors, psychologists, and engineers can lose their livelihood due to poor skills, inadequate knowledge, or unethical behavior. Hell, most of the problems we have with the police are because a few assholes aren't afraid of being thrown in jail or kicked out of the profession.
Sometimes the lack of a doctor will kill you. Sometimes a bad doctor will kill you. Licensing requirements, at their best, represent a balacing act for professions with an impact on public health and safety. You want an adequate labor supply without letting in the fuckups.
If my ass is on the line, I don't want some idiot who doesn't know the law, doesn't know to cut properly, or doesn't know how to calculate structural loads. I especially don't want that idiot working on my behalf when I have a limited capacity to oversee them.
Their OpenStack and cloud initiatives didn't really bring in a lot of new business.
HP hasn't been terribly innovative. People who were buying Cisco and other brand name servers are still doing it, and Amazon/Google/Microsoft are emerging as the major cloud providers.
The OpenStack philosophy essentially banks on hardware being interoperable and somewhat interchangeable, so competition is guaranteed. It replaces some proprietary software with FOS software. It's great that HP contributed, but there is no licensing revenue and no hardware lock-in. That puts some grit in the gears of corporate profiteering.
Then at the top, the huge enterprises like Google and Amazon have started using custom hardware. Others, like Facebook, are forcing commoditization of core infrastructure with Open Compute. Most of them are combining cheap x86 servers with custom hardware to some extent. Either way, the enterprise IT companies are forced to compete as components rather than drop-in "solutions" with support contracts, which is where the enormous profits have been.
I'm not sure what their strategy was. And regardless of what Whitman planned, HPE hasn't reestablished itself as the behemoth it once was.
Rules that even the Obama appointed FCC chairman said were overreaching and would stiffle Internet growth
Except for the part where Wheeler's rules included built-in exemptions for the parts he thought were too demanding or inappropriate for the internet.
What more do you want the guy to do? He fine-tuned the rules to exactly the level he wanted. Net neutrality advocates didn't get everything they wanted, but it was enough to prevent serious abuses.
But sure, take his words and rules completely out of context if that's what you need to be right.
Once this has all played out, why the flip should my browser send anything else to the server before I click another link?
Many web sites have dynamic content. It can be anything: a news feed, image gallery, navigation. All of those things can trigger a request for more data, some of them automatically.
Some servers send a small starter page and load more as you scroll. Why load 10+ MB of images if you will never see them? Those images can be loaded on the fly as you read the article. They just need to pick reasonable points to preload images, and most users will never notice the difference between dynamic and static delivery. This is actually beneficial to users on metered data plans. (Some countries even have metered residential connections, which is fairly terrible but still something that those users have to deal with.)
Most web apps are "live" in this respect as well. Do you want to lose an entire email or document because you refreshed your browser, accidentally clicked a link, or had a browser crash? What about losing a large form submission due to a misclick? Most people don't, so a lot of web apps will either stream or checkpoint your interactions.
Now we're starting to see the shady or illegitimate use of these browser features. Some people warned that it would happen, but a lot more people wanted those features on the browser side so they could deliver applications or content the way they want. The pendulum perpetually swings back and forth between functionality and security.
So, can I have a browser with reduced javascript functionality?
It will improve security, but a lot of things will break. Very few web sites are simple HTML that you can poke at in your text editor.
The best suggestion is to use a browser with Javascript disbaled for normal browsing, and to have a second browser with incognito/private mode for sites which are completely broken without Javascript. And even in this case, your "safe" browser can be exposed to any malware dropped via JS exploits.
Given the rampant snooping and exploitation, it is probably best to have a non-persistent VM with a web browser for sites with scripting, pervasive advertisement, or questionable content. Take a snapshot and be sure to reset it to its clean state after each site/session. This requires considerably more effort, although it is not particularly difficult now that Windows and Linux both offer virtualization features natively.
Intel AMT (which runs on the ME) predates multicore CPUs, and AMT has supported an IP stack since its original release.
Only offbrand and extremely obsolete hardware lacks this feature. AMD has a different but similar feature---Secure Processor, based on ARM TrustZone.
As suggested by AMD's implementation, ARM has the same capability, although it is up to the SoC designer to decide whether or not it's implemented. I will assume that Qualcom, Samsung, and Broadcom all use the feature until I hear otherwise.
He did a quarter mile test jump already, so the vehicle functions. At least marginally.
A mile-long rocket-boosted jump isn't that much of a difference from what he already achieved. I'm thinking there's a decent chance of success.
BUT
He also wants to go to space in the future. That is a huge leap in difficulty and risk. Plus, being a flat earther precludes him from having a full understanding of orbital dynamics. I don't understand how he could plan any kind of trajectory. What physics is he working with?
So, I expect death eventually---assuming the FAA doesn't put their foot down on his space ambitions.
But man, if they quash his space launch after a publicized atmospheric test, I can only imagine how much louder the flat earthers will howl about a conspiracy. Maybe that's the entire point.
I can't think of a legitimate use for this "feature".
It wasn't a feature per se. It was simply how things worked under the same-origin policy. The browser loads what it's told to load, and each cookie is accessible to its parent domain. Advertisers started abusing this default security posture.
Blocking third-party cookies and first-party isolation are responses to that abuse.
Both of those options are far simpler than fundamentally changing the same-origin policy. There would need to be a consensus on an alternative security model across the whole ecosystem: browsers, web servers, and web app developers. It's not worth the effort when a simple user option can accomplish the same thing.
People have started using terms like "own cloud" or "on-site cloud" to describe infrastructure services that are provisioned internally. Yes, this is stupid and pointless. Yet here we are.
Your typical internal cloud will have hardware, hypervisor, and management stack all provided and supported by a single vendor. Sometimes they will certify hardware and provide support for whatever you build.
They basically took the old mainframe business model, broke it out onto gobs of x86 servers, and repackaged it as something new. Now you run your applications on a VM or in a Docker container instead of an LPAR.
So, yes, local cloud is pure marketing bullshit. But it does refer to something different (and more secure) than regular cloud services.
Has the educational system in the US gotten so bad that people can't figure this out when deciding what they want to do for work....?
The public education system has been undermined for years by poor planning and poor oversight.
I learned how to balance books, budget, and file taxes from my parents---not from a school. If someone has stupid or absentee parents, I can see how an adult would end up lacking those skills.
Most of those skills can be self-taught, but there's a bit of a catch-22 in that you need to understand the value of those skills before you go out and learn them yourself. How do you grasp the value of something that you don't really understand? Plus, it is usually harder to self-teach so there will be less success.
A simple solution would be to institute a modern version of home economics and civics that focus on the day-to-day aspects of life. I don't see it happening, realistically, but I don't have a better idea.
Where was the outcry from farm workers when a steam engine could do the same work as a large number of farm hands? Or a steam shovel replacing dozens of guys with shovels?
Most of them could go to a factory. They could either produce machinery or work on assembly lines. All of those displaced, unskilled laborers had a place to go. And economic output went up because of it.
Automation today isn't opening up any new opportunities for most people though. Your typical automation is replacing 100 laborers with an engineer and a few process/maintenance techs.
Those unskilled laborers aren't getting new opportunities, regardless of how hard they're willing to work. Maybe the smartest ones can retrain and compete for jobs as techs, but what about the other 95%?
Machines are replacing the grunt work, so we have a choice:
1.Find new areas to use grunt work, or
2. Decide how to handle the workforce attrition systematically, fairly, and humanely
Since we already pay for grunt work when it is economically feasible, I'm guessing there is not much room for option #1. If it's profitable to have someone do that job at all, people are probably already paid to do it. So I expect it's time to start working on option #2.
If more young people, didn't have kids too soon before they can afford them
Wrong. The average age at which people have children is going up, and it has been for years. The trend has been toward older parents since at least the 1970s.
if they didn't always go out and buy the latest shiny $$$ smart phone, didn't eat out all the time, etc, etc.
Oh, teens and 20-somethings in the 70s didn't blow money on stupid shit? Give me a break.
They did marry earlier though, and it is much easier to save for a house when funneling two incomes into it.
If you don't make Pro Athlete or rock star money, then you should know you can't live even close to that lifestyle and spend money like that.
We are talking about people getting paid $1/hour. I doubt they aspire to a celebrity lifestyle. If anything, they aspire to be free from the ever-present fear of homelessness.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like that only applies to DSL and phone lines though.
Correct. This is part of the benefit for Verizon in offering FiOS---the fiber service is not regulated the same way as copper.
Cable telecoms like Comcast were essentially unregulated by default, so fiber-to-premises brings the phone companies (ATT/Verizon) to parity. While I prefer fair competition, deregulation is not the answer for natural monopolies.
Assuming you're in the US how many ISPs can you choose from, including DSL, Cable, FIber and so on?
Typically, you have one or two choices for residential service. A few regions may have strong competition, but this is extremely uncommon.
I live in a somewhat typical situation: I am far enough away from a central office that DSL is terrible, fiber is not available from any provider, and cable service is overpriced. I mean overpriced in the most basic, reasonable sense here. I.e., I would have a much cheaper cable rate from the same provider if I lived in a region where they have effective competition.
The major telecoms generally do not expand into areas with multiple providers since it is difficult to recoup their capital investment. Fiber buildouts are still priced in dollars per foot---which gets expensive when you need to run miles of cable.
There are also satellite and cellular services, but they often have data caps, metering, higher prices, lower bandwidth, poor latency, or a combination thereof.
In the UK BT owns the phone lines
In the US, each telecom company owns the lines it built. This fundamental differences renders the remainder of your suggestions moot.
We could argue whether the British model is better or worse, but there is zero chance of the US consolidating ownership of the physical plant if we cannot even agree on basic regulation.
If you'll recall, a huge chunk of Americans have a massive hard-on for private property rights. Federal rules such as you suggest are simply not going to happen.
a virtual network vs a physical network
Net neutrality is mainly concerned with internet and transit providers. Endpoints like Twitter are not addressed. You would need a different set of rules for that---which is a terrible idea anyway.
that is a moot point. See bakers and other public accommodations
Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from interfering with speech. It does not regulate content providers like Twitter or Breitbart, who are always free to decide what is available on their servers.
When the POTUS uses a platform to address the country, that platform should be a neutral platform of ideas and conversation.
If the POTUS wants to use a platform, the government should either build it or contract its services in a way that satisfies the government's legal interests. Otherwise, the government can take whatever they offer. On Twitter, he's just another asshole user.
If you want a law that requires web sites to publish government content, then you'll need to debate that issue on its own. It has nothing to do with net neutrality.
I rather like it that my ISP blocks traffic from some Chinese-based IP addresses. I was getting hundreds of spam emails from one specific domain per day -- now I get none.
There are exceptions for standard network management activities. This includes anti-spam filtering. Under net neutrality rules, the ISPs would have to justify this behavior if it were ever challenged---and face fines if their justification is bullshit.
The rules published under Wheeler were actually quite good. The established net neutrality rules balance network operations and consumer protection very well. I was surprised when they were announced, given Wheeler's background.
If I could have custom-created workspaces (or Sets, whatever) spread across multiple virtual desktops, that would be great.
It needs keyboard navigation though. Since Ctrl+Tab, SHIFT+Tab, Alt+Tab, and Win+Tab are already taken, it will need some other easily accessible hotkey combo or it will be disappointing.
once there's a call on call waiting and one on the line, 3rd caller gets a busy.
Multiple lines and a PBX are cheap these days. It's almost a rounding error among the other typical expenses.
You can even do VoIP with a virtual PBX to avoid an upfront capex.
Inconsistent reasoning is an epidemic among lobbyists, shills, and captured regulatory authorities.
Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant.
No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.
Net neutrality deals with ISPs and other public network operators. It has no bearing on how you secure your own network boundary.
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Wrong. Net neutrality says that internet providers may not censor or discriminate. Endpoints, aka private companies and private customers, can filter whatever they want.
The problem started with government, removing that problem solves net neutrality at the source
This is a very naive viewpoint. Utilities need right of way to run their lines to each residence throughout the city. You can't have everyone digging everywhere or putting up poles wherever they feel like it. Likewise, you cannot have one homeowner blocking internet access to half the city.
There need to be reasonable rules. The ISP/power/water/waste lines need to be built and maintained---while minimizing disruption to private property owners and commuters. The the government must be involved at this level; there is simply no way around it.
With net neutrality, the FCC could guarantee an open internet regardless of how much competition is permitted at the state/municipal level. It protects the internet as a whole. That's the most important thing the federal government can do.
Honestly the biggest problem with private devices is cameras, and it would be appropriate to not allow them in rooms where classified material is of course.
OK, so we can be fairly confident that you do not work in an infosec capacity. Unmanaged devices are an unmitigated nightmare for a variety of reasons.
Possession of a personal device leads to a tendency to use it, and that includes conducting official business on it. Or discussing official matters in an unofficial context. Due to piss poor manufacturer support, consumer Android phones often run outdated, unpatched software. Let's not forget that both Apple and Google have pulled malicious software from their stores, and users can link up to all kinds of remote or cloud services on devices they own.
The biggest problem is the fact that a compromised phone can be running an open mic all the time. Unlike the camera, a mic is fully functional even when the device is stowed in a pocket---which is where most phones spend the majority of their time. Running the mic also has less of an impact on battery life than the camera, so the user is unlikely to notice a problem with the device.
They ought to have a monitored wifi connection for personal business, the monitoring being only for the presence of government information.
This is hopelessly naive. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to identify content on the fly? And what about encryption (almost everything uses it these days)? The kind of monitoring you suggest is bordering on the impossible.
Total bans encourage workarounds and workarounds yield security breaches every single time.
When the ban is backed up by immediate termination and possible criminal charges, it tends to be far more effective.
The only reason that "workarounds" are popular is because private companies rarely enforce their policies, especially against high-ranking personnel. Enforcing policies pretty much kills this habit, at least after the first couple of terminations.
People routinely do far more unpleasant things than locking up their phones for the day---when the business forces them to.
If the victim sides with the criminal, it is extremely difficult to enforce the law.
Just because something is difficult to do, it doesn't mean that it is practically or morally wrong to do it. I could name a lot of difficult things that are very good to do.
Right now, we're looking only at earnest, passionate hackers who are knowledgeable about biology. But if you let this become an unregulated market, you'll end up drowning in snake oil.
I believe the government should make it possible for individuals and small labs to offer legitimate services, but it definitely needs to watch for abuses. Few people make better targets than the desperate, and few people are more desperate than those facing permanent disability, chronic pain, or death.
Should the government be required to vaccinate all kids, regardless of parental wishes, and arrest parents who don't?
Yes. There is extensive evidence that vaccination saves lives. Fortunately, states are starting to require it.
Obviously, there are waivers for people who are sensitive to a particular vaccine. It's rare, but it's accounted for.
Whats the difference between Vaccine pushed by Big Pharma/Government complex onto unsuspecting children, without their or their parents consent, and someone bio-engineering a cure
Vaccines are rigorously tested before they are made available to the public, and they are generally sold publicly for a long time before becoming mandatory. Some vaccines aren't mandatory because there is no compelling public health benefit.
Compare this to your neighborhood Chemical Joe, whose treatment probably has zero testing. He could be scamming desperate people, but there's no way to check up on him if anyone can setup a biolab at home.
There is no "right" answer, and its one that the government has no business answering.
Most people are not qualified to assess the safety and efficacy of a medical treatment. Most people couldn't make sense of the statistical section of a published paper. So we have a rule that medical treatments must be reviewed for safety and effectiveness before they can be offered to the public.
This is a good starting point as far as a "right" answer is concerned. Maybe the FDA needs to adjust a few policies, but the overall approach is quite reasonable.
Tesla decided to forego the holy trinity of camera/radar/lidar for their system---in contrast with all of the established automakers.
Maybe they do have better engineers. At least in this particular niche.
Cannabis doesn't cause insanity.
Not entirely accurate. Some people experience a brief disturbance during use, and there are some long-term risks.
There actually is evidence for a causal link between cannabis use and psychotic disorders, although the risk factor is not that high. I.e., much lower than the risk of lung cancer from smoking.
Of course, Anslinger wouldn't have had this evidence when he made his original, outlandish claims. That was legitimate bullshit; at best, the broken clock was right for a second.
Reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Irrespective, licensure does not improve quality, it only limits supply.
Licensure improves average quality because it eliminates the lowest quality professionals from the labor pool.
Lawyers, doctors, psychologists, and engineers can lose their livelihood due to poor skills, inadequate knowledge, or unethical behavior. Hell, most of the problems we have with the police are because a few assholes aren't afraid of being thrown in jail or kicked out of the profession.
Sometimes the lack of a doctor will kill you. Sometimes a bad doctor will kill you. Licensing requirements, at their best, represent a balacing act for professions with an impact on public health and safety. You want an adequate labor supply without letting in the fuckups.
If my ass is on the line, I don't want some idiot who doesn't know the law, doesn't know to cut properly, or doesn't know how to calculate structural loads. I especially don't want that idiot working on my behalf when I have a limited capacity to oversee them.
Their OpenStack and cloud initiatives didn't really bring in a lot of new business.
HP hasn't been terribly innovative. People who were buying Cisco and other brand name servers are still doing it, and Amazon/Google/Microsoft are emerging as the major cloud providers.
The OpenStack philosophy essentially banks on hardware being interoperable and somewhat interchangeable, so competition is guaranteed. It replaces some proprietary software with FOS software. It's great that HP contributed, but there is no licensing revenue and no hardware lock-in. That puts some grit in the gears of corporate profiteering.
Then at the top, the huge enterprises like Google and Amazon have started using custom hardware. Others, like Facebook, are forcing commoditization of core infrastructure with Open Compute. Most of them are combining cheap x86 servers with custom hardware to some extent. Either way, the enterprise IT companies are forced to compete as components rather than drop-in "solutions" with support contracts, which is where the enormous profits have been.
I'm not sure what their strategy was. And regardless of what Whitman planned, HPE hasn't reestablished itself as the behemoth it once was.
Rules that even the Obama appointed FCC chairman said were overreaching and would stiffle Internet growth
Except for the part where Wheeler's rules included built-in exemptions for the parts he thought were too demanding or inappropriate for the internet.
What more do you want the guy to do? He fine-tuned the rules to exactly the level he wanted. Net neutrality advocates didn't get everything they wanted, but it was enough to prevent serious abuses.
But sure, take his words and rules completely out of context if that's what you need to be right.
Once this has all played out, why the flip should my browser send anything else to the server before I click another link?
Many web sites have dynamic content. It can be anything: a news feed, image gallery, navigation. All of those things can trigger a request for more data, some of them automatically.
Some servers send a small starter page and load more as you scroll. Why load 10+ MB of images if you will never see them? Those images can be loaded on the fly as you read the article. They just need to pick reasonable points to preload images, and most users will never notice the difference between dynamic and static delivery. This is actually beneficial to users on metered data plans. (Some countries even have metered residential connections, which is fairly terrible but still something that those users have to deal with.)
Most web apps are "live" in this respect as well. Do you want to lose an entire email or document because you refreshed your browser, accidentally clicked a link, or had a browser crash? What about losing a large form submission due to a misclick? Most people don't, so a lot of web apps will either stream or checkpoint your interactions.
Now we're starting to see the shady or illegitimate use of these browser features. Some people warned that it would happen, but a lot more people wanted those features on the browser side so they could deliver applications or content the way they want. The pendulum perpetually swings back and forth between functionality and security.
So, can I have a browser with reduced javascript functionality?
It will improve security, but a lot of things will break. Very few web sites are simple HTML that you can poke at in your text editor.
The best suggestion is to use a browser with Javascript disbaled for normal browsing, and to have a second browser with incognito/private mode for sites which are completely broken without Javascript. And even in this case, your "safe" browser can be exposed to any malware dropped via JS exploits.
Given the rampant snooping and exploitation, it is probably best to have a non-persistent VM with a web browser for sites with scripting, pervasive advertisement, or questionable content. Take a snapshot and be sure to reset it to its clean state after each site/session. This requires considerably more effort, although it is not particularly difficult now that Windows and Linux both offer virtualization features natively.
Intel AMT (which runs on the ME) predates multicore CPUs, and AMT has supported an IP stack since its original release.
Only offbrand and extremely obsolete hardware lacks this feature. AMD has a different but similar feature---Secure Processor, based on ARM TrustZone.
As suggested by AMD's implementation, ARM has the same capability, although it is up to the SoC designer to decide whether or not it's implemented. I will assume that Qualcom, Samsung, and Broadcom all use the feature until I hear otherwise.
He did a quarter mile test jump already, so the vehicle functions. At least marginally.
A mile-long rocket-boosted jump isn't that much of a difference from what he already achieved. I'm thinking there's a decent chance of success.
BUT
He also wants to go to space in the future. That is a huge leap in difficulty and risk. Plus, being a flat earther precludes him from having a full understanding of orbital dynamics. I don't understand how he could plan any kind of trajectory. What physics is he working with?
So, I expect death eventually---assuming the FAA doesn't put their foot down on his space ambitions.
But man, if they quash his space launch after a publicized atmospheric test, I can only imagine how much louder the flat earthers will howl about a conspiracy. Maybe that's the entire point.
I can't think of a legitimate use for this "feature".
It wasn't a feature per se. It was simply how things worked under the same-origin policy. The browser loads what it's told to load, and each cookie is accessible to its parent domain. Advertisers started abusing this default security posture.
Blocking third-party cookies and first-party isolation are responses to that abuse.
Both of those options are far simpler than fundamentally changing the same-origin policy. There would need to be a consensus on an alternative security model across the whole ecosystem: browsers, web servers, and web app developers. It's not worth the effort when a simple user option can accomplish the same thing.
People have started using terms like "own cloud" or "on-site cloud" to describe infrastructure services that are provisioned internally. Yes, this is stupid and pointless. Yet here we are.
Your typical internal cloud will have hardware, hypervisor, and management stack all provided and supported by a single vendor. Sometimes they will certify hardware and provide support for whatever you build.
They basically took the old mainframe business model, broke it out onto gobs of x86 servers, and repackaged it as something new. Now you run your applications on a VM or in a Docker container instead of an LPAR.
So, yes, local cloud is pure marketing bullshit. But it does refer to something different (and more secure) than regular cloud services.
Has the educational system in the US gotten so bad that people can't figure this out when deciding what they want to do for work....?
The public education system has been undermined for years by poor planning and poor oversight.
I learned how to balance books, budget, and file taxes from my parents---not from a school. If someone has stupid or absentee parents, I can see how an adult would end up lacking those skills.
Most of those skills can be self-taught, but there's a bit of a catch-22 in that you need to understand the value of those skills before you go out and learn them yourself. How do you grasp the value of something that you don't really understand? Plus, it is usually harder to self-teach so there will be less success.
A simple solution would be to institute a modern version of home economics and civics that focus on the day-to-day aspects of life. I don't see it happening, realistically, but I don't have a better idea.
Where was the outcry from farm workers when a steam engine could do the same work as a large number of farm hands? Or a steam shovel replacing dozens of guys with shovels?
Most of them could go to a factory. They could either produce machinery or work on assembly lines. All of those displaced, unskilled laborers had a place to go. And economic output went up because of it.
Automation today isn't opening up any new opportunities for most people though. Your typical automation is replacing 100 laborers with an engineer and a few process/maintenance techs.
Those unskilled laborers aren't getting new opportunities, regardless of how hard they're willing to work. Maybe the smartest ones can retrain and compete for jobs as techs, but what about the other 95%?
Machines are replacing the grunt work, so we have a choice:
1.Find new areas to use grunt work, or
2. Decide how to handle the workforce attrition systematically, fairly, and humanely
Since we already pay for grunt work when it is economically feasible, I'm guessing there is not much room for option #1. If it's profitable to have someone do that job at all, people are probably already paid to do it. So I expect it's time to start working on option #2.
If more young people, didn't have kids too soon before they can afford them
Wrong. The average age at which people have children is going up, and it has been for years. The trend has been toward older parents since at least the 1970s.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressr...
if they didn't always go out and buy the latest shiny $$$ smart phone, didn't eat out all the time, etc, etc.
Oh, teens and 20-somethings in the 70s didn't blow money on stupid shit? Give me a break.
They did marry earlier though, and it is much easier to save for a house when funneling two incomes into it.
If you don't make Pro Athlete or rock star money, then you should know you can't live even close to that lifestyle and spend money like that.
We are talking about people getting paid $1/hour. I doubt they aspire to a celebrity lifestyle. If anything, they aspire to be free from the ever-present fear of homelessness.