Coincidentally, there are 116M housing units in the US, median size say 4-5 rooms. If you had one person per room in every house, we could house everyone easily--318 million people in the US vs. 464M rooms. But the market isn't doing that.
Teachers' unions have been under brutal attack for over 30 years now and there are today very few teachers with "strong" union protection left. Cf Wisconsin. Some - although not a large percentage - of K-12 school districts have a concept called 'tenure' which is often confused with elite university tenure but in the K-12 world generally means "can't be fired without the firing party following HR procedures and going through an appeal process". Which doesn't mean much in the end either.
sPh
Isn't it the difference between at-will firing and for-cause firing, plus a few extras on the union side (e.g. an appeals process). The former incentivizes much more doing-what-the-boss-wants. The latter provides better job security, because the transaction costs of firing you (including risk of a lawsuit) go way up.
Russia works longer hours. Of course, that may have started during WW2 and just never entirely gotten back to normal. They amazingly shipped whole factories along the rail system to keep them away from the German advance, and they tied worker output directly to the food supply...
It is generally true that donations to rich schools are bad donations, because their endowments are amazingly high. But there aren't a lot of schools really like that--it's basically the ones that have gone need-blind internationally. Usually it makes sense to donate $1/year to keep alumni participation numbers high to sustain the value of your degree from a reputational standpoint, but that's it.
But if you know the right programs to give to, sometimes it's worth it. The public interest community at Georgetown Law is amazing, for example, and do more good in their lifetimes than you can imagine. If I had a good bit of money to donate, I would contact the students a few years out and see what they've learned from direct service work and where the money could best be spent.
The other good option that comes to mind is legal aid, dental, and medical clinics and the like--contact your local legal aid office or other group that does pro bono direct service on important issues and ask about their funding and do they take donations. You can make a huge difference in the community if you help keep a clinic afloat that deals with ten thousand aching teeth.
So of course an anonymous comment is no reason to believe someone is a pedophile, unless corroborated by further evidence.
But still, when I hear of defamation lawsuits like this, I always think back to Oscar Wilde.
He sued for defamation when someone outed him as homosexual. He lost and legal fees bankrupted him. And because sodomy was a crime, he was thrown in jail.
They are actually limiting your adwords selection too, so that you can't advertise using a combination of keywords that is too unpopular. It's crazy, but it means that if you can pick a niche search in the long tail that your product works for, you can't advertise to those people directly.
There has been a major push to get basically every security camera in downtown DC networked into the government systems. It's sold as a why-wouldn't-you-want-this measure, and IIRC almost everyone has signed on.
Thoreau is not the villain here. He was a trustafarian who openly indulged in a short-term experiment in simplified living. By residing within a short walk of town, he was able to retain normal social contacts while writing up his experience. In all, a life nothing like the angry Unabomber wannabees who act in his name.
IIRC, he was actually squatting on land owned by Emerson.
Similarly, when he spent his one night in jail for not paying the highway tax and wrote the essay which inspired Gandi and Martin Luther King toward civil disobedience, Emerson came and bailed him out in the morning.
When you have secret laws which say "give us this or else", WTF difference does 'voluntary' matter?
Lawyers.
If it is involuntary, the company pays intelligent lawyers to use the law to (1) hold the government to the law, even if secret and even if it's less protective than it should be. This in turn (2) makes the government less likely to make absurd requests and (3) costs the government resources, which provides at least some limitation on what they do.
It's not enough, of course--we really need more robust protections on the secret side by cleared personnel with automatic publication a decade or two down the line as a good first step--but it's a lot better than nothing.
I've never understood who is *still* buying obviously stolen copper pipe and especially infrastructure-grade wire seemingly without repercussion. Seems like it would be pretty easy to sting the shit out of the buyers that are solely keeping this thieving viable.
Scrapyards.
IIRC, some states have rules about recording the buyers and they check out suspicious purchases. But I don't know how common they are, and until they're pretty much everywhere their primary impact will be to drive sellers over the border.
The buyers have no incentive to turn them in, remember. The only incentive for capture is from the people who get stolen from.
Yeah, a lot of people go into crime for money. Human Traffickers make a great return on investment in slaves, for example, and get much less risk of being caught than if you're trafficking guns. It's seriously messed up, but how fast do you think the police would shut down an AK-47 market on the corner as opposed to your neighborhood's center for prostitution?
Bank robbery also pays, but tends not to pay very well. (Not nearly as well as a good engineering job, IIRC, and more likelihood of your bugs getting detected).
Wow, that didn't long for the irrelevant anti-US swipe, just 5 posts. This has jack-squat to do with the US, you know. Isn't this brown-skinned people oppressing other brown-skinned people? Can't deal with that truth though, so let's make an obligatory mention of the "evil" US.. And if you'd care to look at real statistics, cops don't routinely kill "innocent" people; incidents have occurred, yes, but it's certainly not a matter of policy or even general practice. The media might have you think otherwise, but they promote the hell out of sensational dirt, it's good for their bottom line, which is all they really care about.
0. Concur OP was kinda ridiculous. 1. The US has brown-skinned people too. 2. Concur that killing innocent people isn't a matter of policy, but it is much less clear how routine or common it may be. A part of that is statistics (routine across a lots of cops each day, so not routine for individual cops) and a part is obscured by the playbook (a culture which hates a cop who doesn't back up another cop, unions which care more about defending their members than about whether their members are murderers, and the press double-standard of releasing the record of praising or defending the cop while condemning the dead and noting all of the dead's criminal history. 3. Fundamental problem is the lack of good whistleblower channels and protections. Those are missing in the United States the same way they are missing in India.
If bandwidth is contended, then you should just use fair queuing. If you have N customers, everyone gets at least 1/N of the total, what's left over is shared equally, repeat until it's all used.
You shouldn't get to decide that one customer's usage is more "important" than another's. If the customer thinks their usage is more important, they should upgrade their plan.
Remember: the internet is based around IP, which doesn't have "ports". TCP and UDP only exist if you're an endpoint, otherwise everything past the IP header is just "payload".
I disagree. I think a system like what you describe is mostly appropriate *after* you provide a certain base level of service to everyone. The person with very-low-bandwidth need should rarely if ever have to wait for the person with the very-high-bandwidth-need, because otherwise you have two people paying the same absolute amount for a service but the one who is using it more is being prioritized. If I pay $20 for as many bagels a week as I want and you pay $20 for as many bagels a week as you want, and I take one bagel a day and you take five hundred, the store should make sure I get my one before you get your five hundredth.
"Assume you have more demand for bandwidth than you have bandwidth."
Translation; Company horribly oversold the bandwidth and is too cheap to buy a bigger pipe.
Not necessarily. TCP/IP is designed to do congestion control and bandwidth between providers is expensive. You size your pipes to meet your need, but also so that you're not paying for unused bandwidth all the time. The result is that at peak usage your pipes are full, and how much of the time they're full off-peak depends on how you decided to allocate money. It doesn't necessarily make you cheap, but it does mean yeah, money matters to you.
To me it seems like the author is just impatient; if I were to expand on that, I'd also suggest they think they're better than the T1 and as such deserve better treatment.
Impatience does not imply you are better than the person who is wasting your time. It just implies that they're wasting your time.
Make sure you get a receipt! It's no fun getting billed for gear you've returned!
And make sure if you buy your own gear that you get a receipt, both the one for your gear and from the ISP for whatever gear you turn in/don't get. I once had Comcast try to bill me for not returning a modem I had never rented.
Also, even if true, US-Americans are not really allowed to cry about it because "US Claims Right To Wiretap Globally".
1. Criticism is not "crying" about it, unless you are in preschool. 2. An action by a government does not invalidate criticism by its citizens of a foreign jurisdiction's actions, even if those actions are in some way similar to that government's actions. 3. Even if it did, signals intelligence and censorship are two radically different actions. 4. Intelligence-based Wiretapping is formally not used in civil and most criminal matters. The right to be forgotten can be used in civil matters (i.e. lawsuits). Big difference.
"U.S. officials privately said China was behind it."
Which officials, and why won't they speak on-record?
An on-the-record statement is a much bigger diplomatic statement. We don't usually speak on-the-record about the hostile or criminal acts of a foreign power unless we have a very good diplomatic reason to. We know that Putin backs Kaderov, a thuggish head of state who personally tortures people on exercise equipment and disappears reporters critical of his regime, but it would be unusual to have the White House announce that Putin was doing that. It would also require us to be prepared for the inevitable PR backlash based on US torture at Guantanamo Bay, for example. If we make a public announcement, China is more likely to engage in more severe public criticism of us.
International relations turn out to be more complex than "let's call the other guys on their shit."
He's probably referring to the amount of bandwidth used to move the data. Honestly someone should have been watching for mass uploads or downloads.
The breach occurred in December, was detected IIRC in April. Plenty of time to move data slowly and prioritize what you take, making you less likely to show a bandwidth spike.
I kind of wonder how some of the early games we played as kids stack up against educational software today. I remember doing alegbra, fractions, logic, etc... back on a PCJr probably around age 7 and having fun with it.
Women tend to gravitate towards meaningful projects. Women are also implicitly discriminated against by the traditional "boys only club" mentality that predominates the technology and science cultures.
Provide meaningful projects in gender-neutral environments and women may very well gravitate towards them. So will plenty of other people of any gender.
Why was this modded down? It's what research has shown. I know that when I did CS undergrad, the department had discovered that women were *much* more likely than men to take Computer Science for *practical reasons*, so that it could help them as they pursued careers in Chemistry or Bio or other fields. Men were much more likely to be interested in Computer Science for its own sake.
They also found that women were *much* more likely to go on and take more computer science courses if at least one of their intro profs was a woman. I wouldn't quite call it a "boys only club" mentality because that hearkens back to the days of explicit discrimination against women rather than systemic gender biased flaws in a program which make it less accessible or interesting to women.
So it's okay to violate the law by listening on telephone calls as long as you don't do it too much, because back in the day it wouldn't have been possible to do it too much? So then it's okay if I rob a bank and only steal a thousand dollars, because back in the day (because of inflation) that's all the teller's drawers would have had?
Differences of degree matter to everyone except idiots and those spouting religious dogma.
That intrusion into the individual sphere of liberty that is only slightly concerning when so extremely limited by impracticality that it cannot be employed in practice becomes much more concerning when it is done to everyone all the time.
The scope of an intrusion matters. Listening to one phone call at a time isn't good, but listening to all of them at the same time is a fundamental threat to society.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say it was a plan--I said the market wasn't doing that.
The banks already own literally multiple homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in the USA
Interesting figure. Where'd you get it?
It looks like Amnesty International: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Coincidentally, there are 116M housing units in the US, median size say 4-5 rooms. If you had one person per room in every house, we could house everyone easily--318 million people in the US vs. 464M rooms. But the market isn't doing that.
http://www.infoplease.com/us/c...
It can, however, be used to go over a community and note which houses have water sitting on the roof...
Teachers' unions have been under brutal attack for over 30 years now and there are today very few teachers with "strong" union protection left. Cf Wisconsin. Some - although not a large percentage - of K-12 school districts have a concept called 'tenure' which is often confused with elite university tenure but in the K-12 world generally means "can't be fired without the firing party following HR procedures and going through an appeal process". Which doesn't mean much in the end either.
sPh
Isn't it the difference between at-will firing and for-cause firing, plus a few extras on the union side (e.g. an appeals process). The former incentivizes much more doing-what-the-boss-wants. The latter provides better job security, because the transaction costs of firing you (including risk of a lawsuit) go way up.
Russia works longer hours. Of course, that may have started during WW2 and just never entirely gotten back to normal. They amazingly shipped whole factories along the rail system to keep them away from the German advance, and they tied worker output directly to the food supply...
It is generally true that donations to rich schools are bad donations, because their endowments are amazingly high. But there aren't a lot of schools really like that--it's basically the ones that have gone need-blind internationally. Usually it makes sense to donate $1/year to keep alumni participation numbers high to sustain the value of your degree from a reputational standpoint, but that's it.
But if you know the right programs to give to, sometimes it's worth it. The public interest community at Georgetown Law is amazing, for example, and do more good in their lifetimes than you can imagine. If I had a good bit of money to donate, I would contact the students a few years out and see what they've learned from direct service work and where the money could best be spent.
The other good option that comes to mind is legal aid, dental, and medical clinics and the like--contact your local legal aid office or other group that does pro bono direct service on important issues and ask about their funding and do they take donations. You can make a huge difference in the community if you help keep a clinic afloat that deals with ten thousand aching teeth.
So of course an anonymous comment is no reason to believe someone is a pedophile, unless corroborated by further evidence.
But still, when I hear of defamation lawsuits like this, I always think back to Oscar Wilde.
He sued for defamation when someone outed him as homosexual. He lost and legal fees bankrupted him. And because sodomy was a crime, he was thrown in jail.
They are actually limiting your adwords selection too, so that you can't advertise using a combination of keywords that is too unpopular. It's crazy, but it means that if you can pick a niche search in the long tail that your product works for, you can't advertise to those people directly.
There has been a major push to get basically every security camera in downtown DC networked into the government systems. It's sold as a why-wouldn't-you-want-this measure, and IIRC almost everyone has signed on.
Thoreau is not the villain here. He was a trustafarian who openly indulged in a short-term experiment in simplified living. By residing within a short walk of town, he was able to retain normal social contacts while writing up his experience. In all, a life nothing like the angry Unabomber wannabees who act in his name.
IIRC, he was actually squatting on land owned by Emerson.
Similarly, when he spent his one night in jail for not paying the highway tax and wrote the essay which inspired Gandi and Martin Luther King toward civil disobedience, Emerson came and bailed him out in the morning.
When you have secret laws which say "give us this or else", WTF difference does 'voluntary' matter?
Lawyers.
If it is involuntary, the company pays intelligent lawyers to use the law to (1) hold the government to the law, even if secret and even if it's less protective than it should be. This in turn (2) makes the government less likely to make absurd requests and (3) costs the government resources, which provides at least some limitation on what they do.
It's not enough, of course--we really need more robust protections on the secret side by cleared personnel with automatic publication a decade or two down the line as a good first step--but it's a lot better than nothing.
I've never understood who is *still* buying obviously stolen copper pipe and especially infrastructure-grade wire seemingly without repercussion. Seems like it would be pretty easy to sting the shit out of the buyers that are solely keeping this thieving viable.
Scrapyards.
IIRC, some states have rules about recording the buyers and they check out suspicious purchases. But I don't know how common they are, and until they're pretty much everywhere their primary impact will be to drive sellers over the border.
The buyers have no incentive to turn them in, remember. The only incentive for capture is from the people who get stolen from.
Yeah, a lot of people go into crime for money. Human Traffickers make a great return on investment in slaves, for example, and get much less risk of being caught than if you're trafficking guns. It's seriously messed up, but how fast do you think the police would shut down an AK-47 market on the corner as opposed to your neighborhood's center for prostitution?
Bank robbery also pays, but tends not to pay very well. (Not nearly as well as a good engineering job, IIRC, and more likelihood of your bugs getting detected).
Wow, that didn't long for the irrelevant anti-US swipe, just 5 posts. This has jack-squat to do with the US, you know. Isn't this brown-skinned people oppressing other brown-skinned people? Can't deal with that truth though, so let's make an obligatory mention of the "evil" US.. And if you'd care to look at real statistics, cops don't routinely kill "innocent" people; incidents have occurred, yes, but it's certainly not a matter of policy or even general practice. The media might have you think otherwise, but they promote the hell out of sensational dirt, it's good for their bottom line, which is all they really care about.
0. Concur OP was kinda ridiculous.
1. The US has brown-skinned people too.
2. Concur that killing innocent people isn't a matter of policy, but it is much less clear how routine or common it may be. A part of that is statistics (routine across a lots of cops each day, so not routine for individual cops) and a part is obscured by the playbook (a culture which hates a cop who doesn't back up another cop, unions which care more about defending their members than about whether their members are murderers, and the press double-standard of releasing the record of praising or defending the cop while condemning the dead and noting all of the dead's criminal history.
3. Fundamental problem is the lack of good whistleblower channels and protections. Those are missing in the United States the same way they are missing in India.
Um... no.
If bandwidth is contended, then you should just use fair queuing. If you have N customers, everyone gets at least 1/N of the total, what's left over is shared equally, repeat until it's all used.
You shouldn't get to decide that one customer's usage is more "important" than another's. If the customer thinks their usage is more important, they should upgrade their plan.
Remember: the internet is based around IP, which doesn't have "ports". TCP and UDP only exist if you're an endpoint, otherwise everything past the IP header is just "payload".
I disagree. I think a system like what you describe is mostly appropriate *after* you provide a certain base level of service to everyone. The person with very-low-bandwidth need should rarely if ever have to wait for the person with the very-high-bandwidth-need, because otherwise you have two people paying the same absolute amount for a service but the one who is using it more is being prioritized. If I pay $20 for as many bagels a week as I want and you pay $20 for as many bagels a week as you want, and I take one bagel a day and you take five hundred, the store should make sure I get my one before you get your five hundredth.
"Assume you have more demand for bandwidth than you have bandwidth."
Translation; Company horribly oversold the bandwidth and is too cheap to buy a bigger pipe.
Not necessarily. TCP/IP is designed to do congestion control and bandwidth between providers is expensive. You size your pipes to meet your need, but also so that you're not paying for unused bandwidth all the time. The result is that at peak usage your pipes are full, and how much of the time they're full off-peak depends on how you decided to allocate money. It doesn't necessarily make you cheap, but it does mean yeah, money matters to you.
Why would you be throttling ports? There's nothing illegal about using torrents.
Sounds like these people are simply using the service they paid for.
Assume you have more demand for bandwidth than you have bandwidth.
Now assume person A is trying to look up the calendar at the local courthouse and person B is downloading an iso.
Person A should be prioritized over person B both on a theoretical shortest-job-first basis and on a human court-is-more-important-than-porn level.
To me it seems like the author is just impatient; if I were to expand on that, I'd also suggest they think they're better than the T1 and as such deserve better treatment.
Impatience does not imply you are better than the person who is wasting your time. It just implies that they're wasting your time.
Make sure you get a receipt! It's no fun getting billed for gear you've returned!
And make sure if you buy your own gear that you get a receipt, both the one for your gear and from the ISP for whatever gear you turn in/don't get. I once had Comcast try to bill me for not returning a modem I had never rented.
Also, even if true, US-Americans are not really allowed to cry about it because "US Claims Right To Wiretap Globally".
1. Criticism is not "crying" about it, unless you are in preschool.
2. An action by a government does not invalidate criticism by its citizens of a foreign jurisdiction's actions, even if those actions are in some way similar to that government's actions.
3. Even if it did, signals intelligence and censorship are two radically different actions.
4. Intelligence-based Wiretapping is formally not used in civil and most criminal matters. The right to be forgotten can be used in civil matters (i.e. lawsuits). Big difference.
"U.S. officials privately said China was behind it."
Which officials, and why won't they speak on-record?
An on-the-record statement is a much bigger diplomatic statement. We don't usually speak on-the-record about the hostile or criminal acts of a foreign power unless we have a very good diplomatic reason to. We know that Putin backs Kaderov, a thuggish head of state who personally tortures people on exercise equipment and disappears reporters critical of his regime, but it would be unusual to have the White House announce that Putin was doing that. It would also require us to be prepared for the inevitable PR backlash based on US torture at Guantanamo Bay, for example. If we make a public announcement, China is more likely to engage in more severe public criticism of us.
International relations turn out to be more complex than "let's call the other guys on their shit."
He's probably referring to the amount of bandwidth used to move the data. Honestly someone should have been watching for mass uploads or downloads.
The breach occurred in December, was detected IIRC in April. Plenty of time to move data slowly and prioritize what you take, making you less likely to show a bandwidth spike.
Rocky's Boots was great at teaching logic.
I kind of wonder how some of the early games we played as kids stack up against educational software today. I remember doing alegbra, fractions, logic, etc... back on a PCJr probably around age 7 and having fun with it.
Women tend to gravitate towards meaningful projects. Women are also implicitly discriminated against by the traditional "boys only club" mentality that predominates the technology and science cultures.
Provide meaningful projects in gender-neutral environments and women may very well gravitate towards them. So will plenty of other people of any gender.
Why was this modded down? It's what research has shown. I know that when I did CS undergrad, the department had discovered that women were *much* more likely than men to take Computer Science for *practical reasons*, so that it could help them as they pursued careers in Chemistry or Bio or other fields. Men were much more likely to be interested in Computer Science for its own sake.
They also found that women were *much* more likely to go on and take more computer science courses if at least one of their intro profs was a woman. I wouldn't quite call it a "boys only club" mentality because that hearkens back to the days of explicit discrimination against women rather than systemic gender biased flaws in a program which make it less accessible or interesting to women.
So it's okay to violate the law by listening on telephone calls as long as you don't do it too much, because back in the day it wouldn't have been possible to do it too much? So then it's okay if I rob a bank and only steal a thousand dollars, because back in the day (because of inflation) that's all the teller's drawers would have had?
Differences of degree matter to everyone except idiots and those spouting religious dogma.
That intrusion into the individual sphere of liberty that is only slightly concerning when so extremely limited by impracticality that it cannot be employed in practice becomes much more concerning when it is done to everyone all the time.
The scope of an intrusion matters. Listening to one phone call at a time isn't good, but listening to all of them at the same time is a fundamental threat to society.