It's nothing that wasn't done 20 years ago, but done with greater difficulty (having to solder chips in to the ECU to allow remote control of air/fuel mixture, then putting in a second computer - sometimes a cockpit mounted laptop - to "remotely control" all that could be). The only difference now is that much more of the car is drive by wire. Brakes in Mercedes to most everything in cars with park assist.
Even if this allows servo control of steering, it's a simpler "hack" than what has been done 20 years ago.
Wow, you must hate comedians. Most of their stories are embellished or made up as well. And analogies are all lies as well, made up stories with a message, like those evil parables.
Must suck to go through life with such an odd moral compass.
The implication is that someone else could remotely control your car. The reality of plugging your computer into your car and controlling it real-time is so 2001 (Fast and Furious made it mainstream, showing the very-real ECU-in-a-laptop). Interfacing with your computer and issuing commands is something that's been done for years. It that's all this is, yawn. That's why the implication is "remote" means from outside the car, like the "no security" comment implies. After all, if someone has to be in the drivers seat to control the car, nobody would consider that "remote" even if they have a 3rd party chip in the ECU interfacing with a laptop controlled by the driver.
Parents are pissed off that they can't fire teachers. But they don't want to have to justify the reasons (often "protecting" their little monsters from a teacher who demands homework be turned in or something just as offensive). And I know plenty of teachers fired, yes, union members. These days, all it takes is a suggestion of impropriety with a student. And yes, the "zero tolerance" policies are out of hand, but it's the only tool the schools are allowed. Give the schools some freedom, and they might be able to compete. But restricting them then complaining they don't succeed when actively working to hinder them is about the stupidest thing ever.
If someone makes a billion dollars this year, they pay $0 or less in taxes. Their "company" made it, and they exercise the power and lifestyle from it, without having to pay taxes for it. When they do pay taxes on something, it's at a 15% rate for billionaires. As income will always be maneuvered to be a capital gain.
That and you presume that income or wealth correlates with charitable giving. If they had an extra half a billion dollars, what if they'd spend it all on cocaine and hookers?
a simple minded person that doesn't understand how competition can force public schools to step up their game.
Competition can't improve public schools. The public schools aren't allowed to compete, so they've never had a chance to try.
Name a single charter school that accepts *every* applicant. When that happens, then we can talk. The rules are not even close between public schools (not allowed to expel anyone, short of a conviction of a violent felony against a school employee), and a charter school (accepts only "qualified" students, and keeps numbers to a preset level by rejecting/expelling unwanted students).
It's intelligent to recommend parents take 10 years off working to educate their children? I personally think that working towards better schools and working (and saving for college and beyond for the children) is more important than micromanaging their education. A few hours every day can "fix" anything learned during the day. Even if school was free daycare, it's still better than quitting for 10 years.
I've used a modeling/simulation language that looked to be an Excel replacement. Fro Excel, you can emulate, say, traffic patterns with cars in, cars out, and such, generating a text-only input and text-only output. For roughly the same complexity, I could draw it out, and come to the same results, but in a manner that makes it much easier to explain to non-programmers and quicker to make small changes to inputs and equations and see the results.
Given that the visual manner doesn't do anything you can't do elsewhere and only makes it more visually interesting, it's shunned by they technical people in favor of the text-based methods.
Are you saying that if the EPA has overwhelming "evidence" of a problem, they shouldn't be able to regulate it if an industry shill can come up with a counter experiment? Smoking was suspected to be bad for you for a very long time, but it wasn't until '66 when the first warnings went on. And even in the '80s (or was it '90s) Big Tobacco went to congress and strongly implied that smoking was safe.
After all, no study has ever "proven" smoking causes cancer. There was only correlation.
The point of this regulation is clear, add in a hurdle against regulations. And the wording of the data requirement looks to also be aimed at causing debate able to be sidetracked to debate on Global Warming.
Where are the regulations that were based on absent studies and no data? There are none, and this is a useless bill that just bloats the government with more cost and fewer results? Yup, sounds like a Republican thing. Complain about the size of government while increasing it.
It's only use is as a gadget in CSI for the gang to figure out to determine it was the husband that sabotaged the wife's car and drove her off a cliff, after all, the husband would need physical access, and he'd have it, as he has a set of keys.
It's still a hack, but unless you can get to the port without popping the hood or accessing the interior, then the car is secure, and the comment "And right now there's no security implemented." is a lie.
So if they throttle the Netflix service (by port/protocol or however they do it), they are throttling a service, but if they throttle all Netflix IP addresses, it's not throttling a service? I disagree.
There should be a name for the logical fallacy where someone explains facts with the belief that "if the other guy only knew what I know, he'd obviously come to the same conclusion". I know everything you know, maybe more, and still disagree. You've said nothing that disagrees with the other guy, but spent so much time explaining background.
When I last dealt with buying or selling connections, you could buy "contended" service for about $1 per Mbps+line charge. Uncontended costs were about 10x that, often with the line charge being 10x as well, as when you get SLAs, the carriers preferred you move to T1/T3 connections, which can have SLAs that copper pairs can't. What ISP sells shit service? Every residential one. Are you seriously on here arguing that your commercial connection is better than a residential one, and that's why net neutrality is bad?
Net neutrality is ensuring that in congestion, the QoS implemented is not anti-competitive. If ISPs do as you say and run congestion-free, the net neutrality will never have any effect on them. They'll never throttle/buffer anything. AT&T will not look at congestion issues, no matter how many times you call them, or whatever data you provide them. Many people have no other choice. Your suggestions are as practical as recommending they buy a GEO slot for $1,000,000 (no, I haven't shopped slots recently) and pay Loral $500,000,000 and launch their own satellite for 4 Gbps Internet to their house, landed at any number of earth stations for more per month than the average person makes in a year. I've recommended before, when the backhaul providers were squeezing us. But funding wasn't available for it.
I bought a 100 Gbps port from Alcatel Lucent recently. I could have bought a car (small, but new) for the same price. And when you are done building that network, it'll sit 99% idle. What's the benefit in that?
Oh, we aren't talking about what one anonymous coward's fantasy is, but what appears in every serious submission for regulation for net neutrality. If they are committing fraud or false advertising, that's a different issue than net neutrality. Don't smear net neutrality with your inability to understand laws.
No. No proposal of net neutrality has even done that. Could you point to the version you are thinking of? The ones that are on congressional record (introduced and failed, or thoroughly discussed) all allow for oversubscription, QoS and throttling. It just can't be anti-competitive. If Netflix is throttled, but Verizon's video services aren't, that'd be illegal under net neutrality. But oversubscription, and the resulting slowdown would be legal, even if *all* video were slowed to improve HTTP in congested times (provided throttling all video doesn't give Verizon a competitive advantage).
And, I dare say, you will still have a lot of people who disapprove of net neutrality if you tell them that it would prohibit their ISP from giving their Netflix stream priority over someone else's web browsing.
No version of net neutrality mentioned or proposed in congress has ever had that restriction (or the reverse, if that is what you are implying). So why are you pushing for people to hate net neutrality for something it's never done?
Net neutrality would prevent Verizon from slowing Netlfix while keping it's own video services prioritized over everything else. But equitable slowing for the purpose of network integrity was allowed in every version of net neutrality proposed or discussed in congress (and every serious submission I've read outside it).
I still don't understand how that lie has propagated (not that you are lying, but that it's been repeated so much that many believe it to be true). It prevents anti-competitive behavior only. It does not constrain most "fair" behaviors (such as limiting P2P or slowing all traffic of a certain type, unless done for anti-competitive behavior).
The same thing that stops Chrysler from using substandard latches on minivans and ford from using substandard gas tank parts. Lawsuits over those issues got the practice stopped. No car maker will ever again deliberately kill people because they think the fix is 10% more costly than losing the lawsuit about it. The lawsuits got expensive enough that they fear the verdict enough to just do the recalls when the issues are pointed out. Unlike the oil industry, where the penalties are always below the costs of compliance.
With net neutrality, someone would document the increased latency of Netflix over Verizon's vodeo services, and Verizon would lose a lawsuit for 3 months revenue from all "affected" users. That wouldn't prevent it from happening the first time, but the resulting lawsuit will make sure nobody else does it again, ever.
My statement (elsewhere or earlier) was that "Internet access" isn't Internet access, if it is filtered and throttled. When you rent a car, would you be happy with it if you got on the highway and found it speed limited to 20 mph, and they didn't notify you of that before you paid for the rental? You'd consider that deceptive practices. Same as someone calling a service "Internet" and not delivering the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nothing that wasn't done 20 years ago, but done with greater difficulty (having to solder chips in to the ECU to allow remote control of air/fuel mixture, then putting in a second computer - sometimes a cockpit mounted laptop - to "remotely control" all that could be). The only difference now is that much more of the car is drive by wire. Brakes in Mercedes to most everything in cars with park assist.
Even if this allows servo control of steering, it's a simpler "hack" than what has been done 20 years ago.
Nope, the friend is genetically normal. It's people like George Burns that are genetically defective (yes, it's a "defect" even if beneficial).
Wow, you must hate comedians. Most of their stories are embellished or made up as well. And analogies are all lies as well, made up stories with a message, like those evil parables.
Must suck to go through life with such an odd moral compass.
The implication is that someone else could remotely control your car. The reality of plugging your computer into your car and controlling it real-time is so 2001 (Fast and Furious made it mainstream, showing the very-real ECU-in-a-laptop). Interfacing with your computer and issuing commands is something that's been done for years. It that's all this is, yawn. That's why the implication is "remote" means from outside the car, like the "no security" comment implies. After all, if someone has to be in the drivers seat to control the car, nobody would consider that "remote" even if they have a 3rd party chip in the ECU interfacing with a laptop controlled by the driver.
Parents are pissed off that they can't fire teachers. But they don't want to have to justify the reasons (often "protecting" their little monsters from a teacher who demands homework be turned in or something just as offensive). And I know plenty of teachers fired, yes, union members. These days, all it takes is a suggestion of impropriety with a student. And yes, the "zero tolerance" policies are out of hand, but it's the only tool the schools are allowed. Give the schools some freedom, and they might be able to compete. But restricting them then complaining they don't succeed when actively working to hinder them is about the stupidest thing ever.
If someone makes a billion dollars this year, they pay $0 or less in taxes. Their "company" made it, and they exercise the power and lifestyle from it, without having to pay taxes for it. When they do pay taxes on something, it's at a 15% rate for billionaires. As income will always be maneuvered to be a capital gain.
That and you presume that income or wealth correlates with charitable giving. If they had an extra half a billion dollars, what if they'd spend it all on cocaine and hookers?
a simple minded person that doesn't understand how competition can force public schools to step up their game.
Competition can't improve public schools. The public schools aren't allowed to compete, so they've never had a chance to try.
Name a single charter school that accepts *every* applicant. When that happens, then we can talk. The rules are not even close between public schools (not allowed to expel anyone, short of a conviction of a violent felony against a school employee), and a charter school (accepts only "qualified" students, and keeps numbers to a preset level by rejecting/expelling unwanted students).
It's intelligent to recommend parents take 10 years off working to educate their children? I personally think that working towards better schools and working (and saving for college and beyond for the children) is more important than micromanaging their education. A few hours every day can "fix" anything learned during the day. Even if school was free daycare, it's still better than quitting for 10 years.
Huh? I get accused of being anti-gun most of the time, so it's always odd when I'm then accused of being a gun nut.
I've used a modeling/simulation language that looked to be an Excel replacement. Fro Excel, you can emulate, say, traffic patterns with cars in, cars out, and such, generating a text-only input and text-only output. For roughly the same complexity, I could draw it out, and come to the same results, but in a manner that makes it much easier to explain to non-programmers and quicker to make small changes to inputs and equations and see the results.
Given that the visual manner doesn't do anything you can't do elsewhere and only makes it more visually interesting, it's shunned by they technical people in favor of the text-based methods.
Are you saying that if the EPA has overwhelming "evidence" of a problem, they shouldn't be able to regulate it if an industry shill can come up with a counter experiment? Smoking was suspected to be bad for you for a very long time, but it wasn't until '66 when the first warnings went on. And even in the '80s (or was it '90s) Big Tobacco went to congress and strongly implied that smoking was safe.
After all, no study has ever "proven" smoking causes cancer. There was only correlation.
The point of this regulation is clear, add in a hurdle against regulations. And the wording of the data requirement looks to also be aimed at causing debate able to be sidetracked to debate on Global Warming.
Where are the regulations that were based on absent studies and no data? There are none, and this is a useless bill that just bloats the government with more cost and fewer results? Yup, sounds like a Republican thing. Complain about the size of government while increasing it.
It's only use is as a gadget in CSI for the gang to figure out to determine it was the husband that sabotaged the wife's car and drove her off a cliff, after all, the husband would need physical access, and he'd have it, as he has a set of keys.
It's still a hack, but unless you can get to the port without popping the hood or accessing the interior, then the car is secure, and the comment "And right now there's no security implemented." is a lie.
So if they throttle the Netflix service (by port/protocol or however they do it), they are throttling a service, but if they throttle all Netflix IP addresses, it's not throttling a service? I disagree.
Net Neutrality can be forced on telecommunication services. But only if there's a law change, according to the most recent court case.
I've never had a filtered throttled access (and no, I don't consider contended "throttled").
It's been tried and failed. In addition to not understanding how residential ISPs operate, you also don't understand how the courts operate. Got it.
There should be a name for the logical fallacy where someone explains facts with the belief that "if the other guy only knew what I know, he'd obviously come to the same conclusion". I know everything you know, maybe more, and still disagree. You've said nothing that disagrees with the other guy, but spent so much time explaining background.
When I last dealt with buying or selling connections, you could buy "contended" service for about $1 per Mbps+line charge. Uncontended costs were about 10x that, often with the line charge being 10x as well, as when you get SLAs, the carriers preferred you move to T1/T3 connections, which can have SLAs that copper pairs can't. What ISP sells shit service? Every residential one. Are you seriously on here arguing that your commercial connection is better than a residential one, and that's why net neutrality is bad?
Net neutrality is ensuring that in congestion, the QoS implemented is not anti-competitive. If ISPs do as you say and run congestion-free, the net neutrality will never have any effect on them. They'll never throttle/buffer anything. AT&T will not look at congestion issues, no matter how many times you call them, or whatever data you provide them. Many people have no other choice. Your suggestions are as practical as recommending they buy a GEO slot for $1,000,000 (no, I haven't shopped slots recently) and pay Loral $500,000,000 and launch their own satellite for 4 Gbps Internet to their house, landed at any number of earth stations for more per month than the average person makes in a year. I've recommended before, when the backhaul providers were squeezing us. But funding wasn't available for it.
I bought a 100 Gbps port from Alcatel Lucent recently. I could have bought a car (small, but new) for the same price. And when you are done building that network, it'll sit 99% idle. What's the benefit in that?
Oh, we aren't talking about what one anonymous coward's fantasy is, but what appears in every serious submission for regulation for net neutrality. If they are committing fraud or false advertising, that's a different issue than net neutrality. Don't smear net neutrality with your inability to understand laws.
No. No proposal of net neutrality has even done that. Could you point to the version you are thinking of? The ones that are on congressional record (introduced and failed, or thoroughly discussed) all allow for oversubscription, QoS and throttling. It just can't be anti-competitive. If Netflix is throttled, but Verizon's video services aren't, that'd be illegal under net neutrality. But oversubscription, and the resulting slowdown would be legal, even if *all* video were slowed to improve HTTP in congested times (provided throttling all video doesn't give Verizon a competitive advantage).
And, I dare say, you will still have a lot of people who disapprove of net neutrality if you tell them that it would prohibit their ISP from giving their Netflix stream priority over someone else's web browsing.
No version of net neutrality mentioned or proposed in congress has ever had that restriction (or the reverse, if that is what you are implying). So why are you pushing for people to hate net neutrality for something it's never done?
Net neutrality would prevent Verizon from slowing Netlfix while keping it's own video services prioritized over everything else. But equitable slowing for the purpose of network integrity was allowed in every version of net neutrality proposed or discussed in congress (and every serious submission I've read outside it).
I still don't understand how that lie has propagated (not that you are lying, but that it's been repeated so much that many believe it to be true). It prevents anti-competitive behavior only. It does not constrain most "fair" behaviors (such as limiting P2P or slowing all traffic of a certain type, unless done for anti-competitive behavior).
The same thing that stops Chrysler from using substandard latches on minivans and ford from using substandard gas tank parts. Lawsuits over those issues got the practice stopped. No car maker will ever again deliberately kill people because they think the fix is 10% more costly than losing the lawsuit about it. The lawsuits got expensive enough that they fear the verdict enough to just do the recalls when the issues are pointed out. Unlike the oil industry, where the penalties are always below the costs of compliance.
With net neutrality, someone would document the increased latency of Netflix over Verizon's vodeo services, and Verizon would lose a lawsuit for 3 months revenue from all "affected" users. That wouldn't prevent it from happening the first time, but the resulting lawsuit will make sure nobody else does it again, ever.
My newsfeed doesn't carry it.
My statement (elsewhere or earlier) was that "Internet access" isn't Internet access, if it is filtered and throttled. When you rent a car, would you be happy with it if you got on the highway and found it speed limited to 20 mph, and they didn't notify you of that before you paid for the rental? You'd consider that deceptive practices. Same as someone calling a service "Internet" and not delivering the Internet.