What if such cyber attacks are a form of misdirection or rather click-bait? Here's the scenario: launch a cyber attack on a bank but you're really not interested in any data you might get or rather the attack makes the target think that you're after data. The target then tells its customers to change their passwords. It's only then that the attacker gets what their after i.e. account holders' NEW passwords.
IMHO, this isn't the same as residential electricity because you either have it or you don't. Okay, sure there are the few residential exceptions that might need three-phase or something like that. The watts used for one device will work just fine for another device. Most houses have a 200 amp service and that's all most people are ever going to need. That 200-amp service has been the same 200-amp service for 50 years. And if I use 10,000 watts all day, that doesn't mean my neighbors won't be able to run their fridge.
My point is that eventually, a few people will want to get full-blown 4k video through their connection to multiple TVs in their house and that's going to take major infrastructure upgrades. Most people aren't going to need all that so do you think they'd be willing to subsidize a few high-bandwidth users? Do you expect the ISPs to just eat the cost of keeping up with bandwidth demand? One thing is for sure, government regulation rarely precisely targets the entity in private sector it's intended to. Take a look at your utility bills and see how many regulatory fees are being passed on to you even when you don't use the service.
I understand the user community's desire to have all content be treated the same. But let's assume for a moment that tomorrow, net neutrality is passed and ISPs are no longer able to charge some customers (provider or consumer) more for priority routing/transmission. What incentive do they have to continue to invest in the infrastructure when they have a near-monopoly over the end-users? Consider television distribution. Pretty much everyone has a choice between one cable provider and two satellite providers whose feature set is virtually identical these days. Those companies have little incentive to do things that end-users want e.g. a la carte channel lineups. Maybe eventually it will happen but it might take years and the possible threat from internet content distribution to get them to do anything. So back to the ISPs. End users have a choice between their local cable company and their local phone company. Net neutrality takes away a potential revenue stream. Why then would they continue to either invest in upgrading their technology or continue to keep everyone's rates low or both? Why wouldn't they jack up the prices of the service level necessary to serve up Netflix or whatever for everyone regardless of whether or not the customer uses those types of services?
The lawyers are going to make a yacht-load of money off of this. Will the actual plaintiffs get anything or will they get coupons for discounts on cellphone cases?
Yes, there are places in the country where a text message can get through but a phone call can't so for search & rescue, this makes sense. All benefit aside though, you can bet that you will see yet another fee on your cellphone bill.
Anyone notice that MyWi data rates are practically unusable now while Apple's regular mail and Safari apps have no trouble at all? Is it possible that Verizon can tell when you're trying to use your data plan through MyWi?
Perhaps not but all other factors far outweigh a supposedly green alternative. By being able to drive the entire day without recharging, you make up for the fact that it may take the entire night to recharge it. A 700 mile range would be better.
Well, yeah. With all the limitations of electric vehicles, you're going to have to make them insanely great to get people to buy them over traditional ones. Today's offerings are a joke.
Actually, I did. Point being that you could fill the tank very quickly (and still can) and that tank can be filled anywhere even in BFE with a spare gas can. Oh, and if you don't use it for a few months to a several years, the tank is still full. Try to remember that most people don't use their cars to commute 15 minutes to work and back home every day. Try to remember that most people don't live within 5 miles of everything they need to get to. Try to remember that most people don't want to live in a huge city packed in like cattle.
Wake me when it has a 500 mile range, can be fully charged in 5 minutes, and will last more than 5 years. Oh, and it has to work in a non-streamlined vehicle like a loaded F-150 pickup.
A) Why didn't Bose sue Beats BEFORE Apple bought them? That makes this case sound much more about targeting a cash hoard than anything else. 2) Why didn't Apple buy Bose? Aside from the obvious answer that Apple bought branding instead of technology, Bose surely must have something Apple would want. If not, then the Beats acquisition is only about image which doesn't make much sense given that Apple has been pretty good at creating their own image over the last 10+ years.
So let's assume the premise of these proposed observations and let's assume that we actually find a planet with a high pollution content and let's further assume that we're only able to detect the type of pollution that can never be created from some naturally occurring process e.g. don't look at Venus and assume that it was once a beautiful place until acid rain formed. Such a planet will be quite a few light years away, perhaps hundreds. So what we would be looking at is the pollution from a hundred years ago. If this civilized planet is smart enough to fix it, they are more advanced than we are. But we may never know. The EPA was created 44 years ago and many people think this planet is more polluted than ever. We might have to stare at said distant polluted planet for more than 50 years to find out if they fixed it. Then again, if the atmosphere clears up in a year or two, then they either are even more advanced than we are or they destroyed themselves and their planet healed itself. Or maybe the indigenous population actually exists because it's polluted by human standards. Or this whole thing may mean nothing.
Not exactly a valid assumption. Government users tend to use IE primarily because they have to access other government sites that were built by the lowest bidder who often only work on Windows and only works on IE. Hell, while most of the world uses Acrobat for forms, the feds contracted with IBM to build some IT stuff and they're using this goofy holdover from their acquisition of Lotus.
Serious question: What's the best way to handle video on the web given a few requirements? First, the content needs to be hosted on the same site as the website. Why? Because sites like Youtube and Vimeo have control over it. They can unilaterally decide to take something down. They will also present related video. For someone trying to market product, you shouldn't make it easy for a prospective customer to find your competitors. Second, the video has to work on both Macs and PCs. Third, the video has to work on Internet Explorer as early as v.8 because too many users don't know any better.
Slashdot Mirror
What if such cyber attacks are a form of misdirection or rather click-bait? Here's the scenario: launch a cyber attack on a bank but you're really not interested in any data you might get or rather the attack makes the target think that you're after data. The target then tells its customers to change their passwords. It's only then that the attacker gets what their after i.e. account holders' NEW passwords.
IMHO, this isn't the same as residential electricity because you either have it or you don't. Okay, sure there are the few residential exceptions that might need three-phase or something like that. The watts used for one device will work just fine for another device. Most houses have a 200 amp service and that's all most people are ever going to need. That 200-amp service has been the same 200-amp service for 50 years. And if I use 10,000 watts all day, that doesn't mean my neighbors won't be able to run their fridge.
My point is that eventually, a few people will want to get full-blown 4k video through their connection to multiple TVs in their house and that's going to take major infrastructure upgrades. Most people aren't going to need all that so do you think they'd be willing to subsidize a few high-bandwidth users? Do you expect the ISPs to just eat the cost of keeping up with bandwidth demand? One thing is for sure, government regulation rarely precisely targets the entity in private sector it's intended to. Take a look at your utility bills and see how many regulatory fees are being passed on to you even when you don't use the service.
All frozen...
I understand the user community's desire to have all content be treated the same. But let's assume for a moment that tomorrow, net neutrality is passed and ISPs are no longer able to charge some customers (provider or consumer) more for priority routing/transmission. What incentive do they have to continue to invest in the infrastructure when they have a near-monopoly over the end-users? Consider television distribution. Pretty much everyone has a choice between one cable provider and two satellite providers whose feature set is virtually identical these days. Those companies have little incentive to do things that end-users want e.g. a la carte channel lineups. Maybe eventually it will happen but it might take years and the possible threat from internet content distribution to get them to do anything. So back to the ISPs. End users have a choice between their local cable company and their local phone company. Net neutrality takes away a potential revenue stream. Why then would they continue to either invest in upgrading their technology or continue to keep everyone's rates low or both? Why wouldn't they jack up the prices of the service level necessary to serve up Netflix or whatever for everyone regardless of whether or not the customer uses those types of services?
And every annoying "Name a word without the letter F. Bet you can't" post.
Please turn out the lights. Oh, wait...
Pretty much every comment on this story is troll-worthy flamebait. Shouldn't the story itself be modded down accordingly?
Why don't we capture this supposed ozone-depleting chemical and spray it all over urban centers that are now showing rising levels of ozone?
Consumption be done about it? Of cough, of cough.
It's not the cough that carries you off. It's the coffin they carry you off in.
Thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
This has been going on for 20 years. Perhaps more if you include Usenet news groups.
The lawyers are going to make a yacht-load of money off of this. Will the actual plaintiffs get anything or will they get coupons for discounts on cellphone cases?
Yes, there are places in the country where a text message can get through but a phone call can't so for search & rescue, this makes sense. All benefit aside though, you can bet that you will see yet another fee on your cellphone bill.
Taste's like chicken, obviously.
Anyone notice that MyWi data rates are practically unusable now while Apple's regular mail and Safari apps have no trouble at all? Is it possible that Verizon can tell when you're trying to use your data plan through MyWi?
Perhaps not but all other factors far outweigh a supposedly green alternative. By being able to drive the entire day without recharging, you make up for the fact that it may take the entire night to recharge it. A 700 mile range would be better.
Well, yeah. With all the limitations of electric vehicles, you're going to have to make them insanely great to get people to buy them over traditional ones. Today's offerings are a joke.
Actually, I did. Point being that you could fill the tank very quickly (and still can) and that tank can be filled anywhere even in BFE with a spare gas can. Oh, and if you don't use it for a few months to a several years, the tank is still full. Try to remember that most people don't use their cars to commute 15 minutes to work and back home every day. Try to remember that most people don't live within 5 miles of everything they need to get to. Try to remember that most people don't want to live in a huge city packed in like cattle.
15+ million trucks is hardly a corner case.
Wake me when it has a 500 mile range, can be fully charged in 5 minutes, and will last more than 5 years. Oh, and it has to work in a non-streamlined vehicle like a loaded F-150 pickup.
A) Why didn't Bose sue Beats BEFORE Apple bought them? That makes this case sound much more about targeting a cash hoard than anything else.
2) Why didn't Apple buy Bose? Aside from the obvious answer that Apple bought branding instead of technology, Bose surely must have something Apple would want. If not, then the Beats acquisition is only about image which doesn't make much sense given that Apple has been pretty good at creating their own image over the last 10+ years.
So let's assume the premise of these proposed observations and let's assume that we actually find a planet with a high pollution content and let's further assume that we're only able to detect the type of pollution that can never be created from some naturally occurring process e.g. don't look at Venus and assume that it was once a beautiful place until acid rain formed. Such a planet will be quite a few light years away, perhaps hundreds. So what we would be looking at is the pollution from a hundred years ago. If this civilized planet is smart enough to fix it, they are more advanced than we are. But we may never know. The EPA was created 44 years ago and many people think this planet is more polluted than ever. We might have to stare at said distant polluted planet for more than 50 years to find out if they fixed it. Then again, if the atmosphere clears up in a year or two, then they either are even more advanced than we are or they destroyed themselves and their planet healed itself. Or maybe the indigenous population actually exists because it's polluted by human standards. Or this whole thing may mean nothing.
Not exactly a valid assumption. Government users tend to use IE primarily because they have to access other government sites that were built by the lowest bidder who often only work on Windows and only works on IE. Hell, while most of the world uses Acrobat for forms, the feds contracted with IBM to build some IT stuff and they're using this goofy holdover from their acquisition of Lotus.
Serious question: What's the best way to handle video on the web given a few requirements? First, the content needs to be hosted on the same site as the website. Why? Because sites like Youtube and Vimeo have control over it. They can unilaterally decide to take something down. They will also present related video. For someone trying to market product, you shouldn't make it easy for a prospective customer to find your competitors. Second, the video has to work on both Macs and PCs. Third, the video has to work on Internet Explorer as early as v.8 because too many users don't know any better.
This ranks right up there with the dedicated chicken nuggets button on some ovens.
This is my shocked face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...