So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?
There is no moral equivalence. The state, in removing that man from existence, isn't preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger with rape and murder in mind. That you find the two to be equivalent removes you from the pool of people who should ever weigh in on such subjects.
Actually, what I did was listen to the words that were spoken, and applied to them an understanding of the world and the specific people involved as anybody past the age of three would do. A little critical thinking goes a long way.
Some places may require hand pumping into trucks and tanks. Fortunately, we know how to do that.
Really. You're going to hand-pump fuel for hundreds of thousands of trucks, trains, and aircraft feeding hundreds of millions of people? That will effectively shut down transportation, at least at the pace it's needed to feed cities full of people who keep nothing beyond their next couple of meals' worth of food in stores, let alone in their own kitchens.
For some foods. not every food must be refrigerated.
Right. We only refrigerate meats, fruits, vegetables, dairy, bread, medicines, that sort of thing.
what lack? trucks and planes will continue to operate.
So you're saying that trucks and planes that have had ignition and control systems destroyed by an EMP can continue to operate? How does that work, exactly?
Evidence shows that in a disaster that only happens when the alternative is starving.
Which is what starts happening within short days of food shortages. Witness food/water drop-offs in New Orleans getting violently mobbed, with people throwing shots at helicopters.
IT's only fragile to maintain the high level of efficiency we know have.
And because the entire chain is rigged around JIT, the high level of efficiency is the only way it can work. It would take weeks or months to alter that, and that presumes that everything that goes into production behind the scenes can be ramped UP in the middle of a situation where logistics are compromised.
Most survivalist types are clueless in an actual emergency.
Only the ones you're cherry picking. Are "survivalist types" that bother to keep a couple weeks of food and water around more, or less clueless than their neighbors who do not?
That's an interesting narrative of events
Which is what - your lame way of wishing away the fact that it didn't happen? That thousands of people were wandering to places like the dome in NO without so much as a gallon of water for their kids? Is my "interesting narrative" interesting because it lines up with photos of lots full of school busses parked under water? What's your point?
transportation would be chaotic for a couple days, tops.
We're not talking about a passing snow storm, here. We're talking about weeks of no electricity and lots damaged infrastructure. Your couple of days estimate is ridiculous on the face of it.
For lack of available fuel? For lack of refrigeration in the warehouses that used to store the food they deliver? For lack of whole chunks of the supply chain upstream from their knife's-edge just-in-time delivery infrastructure? Because roads would be blocked or at least hosed up for lack of traffic control? Because people would be truck-jacking anything that looked valuable?
The entire infrastructure that brings food to people right before they actually need it is incredibly fragile. The trucks, needing fuel, communications, functioning computer-controlled drive trains, and managed roadways, are just one part of it.
The biggest risk is that all these ignorant survivalist cause people to panic becasue of all the FUD that have been spreading.
The numbre of survivalist-type people is completely, utterly eclipsed by the number of people who have no clue about (or interest in) being sensible in an emergency. Look at New Orleans, where people living below sea level had days of warning, and couldn't be bothered to fill up a few jugs of drinking water or move their fleet of school buses into a useful place. And they're used to big storms down there! Now imagine lower Manhattan suddenly without any power or comms or viable transportation for weeks or more. Or the suburbs around DC. Yeah.
The Soviet Union fell a long, long time ago you know.
Even more cute!
They other guy in the conversation was a KGB agent, has said publicly that he thinks the end of the Soviet Union was a huge tragedy, and is slowly but surely trying to build that empire back up again - and once again, using force.
That "phone in" show was completely scripted. You utterly embarrass yourself pretending otherwise. For you to go to that much trouble with the charade suggests that you're every bit the shill/puppet that Snowden was during that little bit of theater. You're not fooling anybody, so please stop trying.
By 'we' you mean the people puppeting the astroturfers who are trying to discredit snowden to support the govt line on the issue in forums such as these?
No, by "we" he means all of us who think that. Thinking that doling out the huge amount of information he stole, and then wandering his way through one totalitarian country before setting up shop in another is a bad thing and indicative of his muddled world view... that's not "the government line," that's being realistic. Snowden was and is being handled. His appearance on TV with Putin couldn't have looked more scripted, or more set up to allow Putin to answer in the dismissive, oily way that he did - all while sending the Useful Idiots that think Snowden is a clear-headed hero a nice little pat on the head.
Also, there's a high likelihood that anything from a link to Fox News doesn't contain much factual information.
So rather than address the issue linked to, you're just going to slip into typical lefty ad hominem in order to avoid the substance of the matter? Yup, that's what you did.
"The numbers turned out *much* higher than Fox News predicted
No, the numbers have turned out AT ALL. Because we haven't been given actual numbers. The numbers we got don't tell us who's paid (thus making time spent filling in an online form into an actual money-changes-hands transaction that actually insures somebody), and don't tell us how many people in that mix were the ones who had their insurance cancelled on them (roughly 6-million, so far).
So, actually, the numbers turned out pretty much right where critics said they would: abysmally low.
The US will catch up to the idea that every human has the right to health without concern for cost or it will fail.
I think you don't understand what the word "right" means.
Should people also have a right to housing, clothing, food, climate control, utilities, and the rest, without concern for cost? Does everyone have that right? Because if you don't have those things, you could die. Just like you could by not having a "right" to the services of a podiatrist when you have achy feet.
If everyone has a right to the labor of professional medical people, and everyone has a right to the medicines, supplies, facilities, and multi-million dollar test equipment... how does that work? We all have the right to assemble, the right to free speech, etc. The constitution protects us from government interference in such things. If we have a right to a little bit of the waking hours of a nutritionist, or the right to something that a bunch of people working in the pharma industry spent their week making, does that mean that everyone should get those things for free? Who pays? How can it be a "right" if you have to force your neighbor, on penalty of losing their wages or their home, to provide it to you? That's your idea of a right? Get a grip.
This only shows that UAV's should only be used by licensed people with certified/licenced UAV's... they fall under the same law's as RC planes/helicopters
Maybe we can apply the same thing to language, including - especially - the dangerous mis-use of apostrophes near crowds of people. Punctuation should only be used by licensed people certified in the language being used. We could avoid so many horrible, fatal collisions between plural and possessive traffic. Think of the children.
Those "flyaways" are grossly over-reported. Every noob who does something stupid with a machine that happens to have the very widely used Naza on board immediately throws their crash into that same causative bucket. It's ridiculous. Can't tell you how many "DJI Flyaway" videos I've watched that clearly show gross operator error, sloppy builds, GoPros with the WiFi turned on, uncalibrated compass modules, take-offs before the GPS head count is high enough, no home point set, landing gear caught in the grass, flight controller on a hexa set up for a quad ("OMG, it's the Naza flip of death!") and so on. To say nothing of smoked ESCs, never-maintained bearings, and flying right in front of the radome on a utility tower... if it weren't all so bad for the hobby and the industry in general, it would be funny. But it's not. Because of clowns like the guy in question here.
My personal bet: he outflew his probably badly maintained LiPo until it went over the volate cliff, and the rig dropped like a rock.
It's all wi-fi. Fancy wi-fi may more reliable than crap wi-fi, but it's still all wi-fi, and it all has a range which when you go past, you still lose control.
This is factually incorrect. If you're out of range, the bird falls back on another kind of control that you exerted before you even took off (a GPS-based return-to-home waypoint and associated climb/travel/descend procedures - all things the operator controls). Never mind that the pro-level RF gear one would use with a "real" bird for RCAP isn't WiFi at all, and doesn't resemble WiFi in any way that matters.
In the US the FAA would also probably be fining him.
Well, that's not entirely clear just this moment. In the now-headed-into-appeals area of Huerta v Pirker, it kinda looks like the FAA doesn't actually have any formal, properly constructed rules in place. Guidance only. Their distinction between recreational and commercial use of the very same RC machines used by the same people in the same place at the very same time is pretty ridiculous - and the administrative law judge handling round one of that case agreed. But the case is still baking.
So, if you dropped your camera drone on someone's head in the US right now, and weren't flying next to an airport or beyond line of site or over 400'... then the trouble you're in is roughly the same as if you'd hit the same person in the head with a lawn dart or a football. Good ol' fashioned reckless endangerment, having nothing to do with the FAA pe se.
I don't buy that excuse for a second. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that he's right. That means he was using cheeseball home entertainment mall kiosk grade equipment. Nobody doing for-real media coverage of a sporting event and intending to fly over people's heads is going to be using anything that could possibly be so easily "taken over." If nothing else, the drone should have a good enough flight controller to allow it to realize that something is swamping the RF control side, and have it climb to a previously identified altitude, and maneuver back over the spot from which it took off, then to make a nice gentle decent and landing. This is vanilla COTS stuff, now, with even inexpensive FCs. The good ones - which any pro should be using, and which cost more like $1k - are really good at high speed frequency hopping and only paying attention to the controller to which they're bound.
Basically, this clown sounds completely negligent.
There is no context in which that phrase can be used - earnestly, ironically, sarcastically, ignorantly, juvenilely, ham-fistedly, or otherwise - in which the person saying it can ever, ever tell someone else they've failed.
Understanding what happened could be worth a lot more than $50m, or twice that.
Major issue with the airframe, or propulsion? Very important to understand that. There are a lot more of them flying around.
A third party's influence and/or an attempt to steal the plane? Whether that ended in a crash or a successful theft, we need to know everything we can about who, what, why, to what end. If it was stolen and landed (extremely, very unlikely), gotta know where and why. If it went in the drink during an attempt, still have to understand what the game plan was.
Suicide? Hiding in regular traffic, then flying low and into the most remote, deepest water possible in the interests of never finding the plane - the better to make sure family collects on insurance money? Would be good to know, and will remind airlines to get harder about knowing their pilots and the pilots' current circumstances.
Regardless, the navy assets out looking are using the whole thing as an excellent training exercise. Lots of smart people have had to whip up new ways to think about what happened, using only traces of satellite/comms data.
... Look at the overweight+ people in Hawaii. And we live in the sun virtually year round!
If we can take their small sample and methodology as meaningful, and presume that you mean that Hawaiians all get up early and go right into the sun... then the point is that whatever lifestyle things make a lot of Hawaiians fat would be even worse if they all rolled out of the cot in their mom's basement and stayed there until lunchtime.
Because internet traffic is internet traffic is internet traffic. It doesn't matter if that traffic is Netflix, Bittorrent, email, youtube, World of Warcraft, etc.
But this particular kind of use of it absolutely dwarfs everything else. Streaming media is a huge payload.
And, come on now, tell the whole story. For AT&T to be able to deliver Netflix's data all the way to the home routers of their customers, they also have to maintain arrangements with other carriers to handle that data as it comes in from Netflix. Those peering arrangements are not free, just like maintaining that last mile to their end user customers isn't free.
Meanwhile, the guy who buys bandwidth and uses it for a less Netflix/YouTube-centric array of connections absolutely is going to be asked to contribute to his neighbor's entertainment costs if the GP has his way and AT&T raises their rates across the board to deal with the behavior of a subset of users and remote content sources.
It's simple, AT&T should increase their subscription costs to pull them more in line with actual costs for keeping the infrastructure running flawlessly, or decrease the advertised technical parameters of their end user connections, or both. Blaming it on Netflix doesn't seem fair.
How is that not fair? External networks like Netflix are hugely disproportionate users of ISP's infrastructure. Who should be "blamed" for that flood of traffic if not hte ? If those specific sources of traffic, on the other side of a peering relationship, weren't there, this wouldn't be an issue. A handful of traffic sources are burning up the lion's share of the bandwidth, and making money off of their customers while doing so. Why should an AT&T customer who doesn't drink from the Netflix firehose have to subsidize the people that do? Let Netflix and AT&T work out those costs, and let the people who actually consume the traffic pay the tab in the form of slightly higher prices for the entertainment they want from Netflix. Expecting their neighbors pay for it, instead, is pretty jerky.
as a practical matter actually finding the plane won't change much
Really? You don't think there's much of a difference between knowing it was a mechanical failure (or fire, etc) and knowing it was a deliberate criminal act? If the problem was related to payload or the aircraft's infrastructure or maintenance, you don't think it's vital for all of the other people flying on that same equipment to know what went wrong? If this was done by the pilot(s) at the behest of some organization or state, or otherwise in the service of some agenda, you don't think that's meaningful, in the context of trying to prevent it from happening again? Glad you're so relaxed about it. You probably don't do much business overseas, or ship expensive things that are central to your mission, or have relatives that fly on that equipment or in that part of the world, so that's probably why the death of hundreds and the loss of a huge, expensive aircraft is a yawner to you.
I'm still trying to figure out what the Trilateral Commission, the Rothschilds, the Masons, and George Soros hope to gain by tricking people into being so actively bad at understanding the difference between the plural and possessive uses of the apostrophe. There must be some money in it, somewhere.
True capitalism should require a level playing field when you start, and to really do that, when the final score is tallied, the slate should be wiped clean.
No, true capitalism involves you deciding, for yourself, what you want to do with the money you've made. That might very well include giving it to your wife or kids, as part of what you intended all along as you worked 100 hour weeks growing a business.
To follow your logic, a successful parent shouldn't be allowed to send their kid to a better engineering school (which because of staff and facilities, costs more), because that's not a "clean" slate for the college student compared to everyone else. But since plenty of parents are lazy wastes of oxygen, the only way to even the slate for you would be to make sure that no kid gets a better childhood or education than what the kid with the worst possible parents get. There! That way everything would be "fair" for you.
And typically they're not for you and me, it's for people over a certain threshold (say $1 mio + in assets)
Yeah, I can tell you've never had a single conversation in your life with a family farmer. Or someone who's launched a business that's modestly successful. You need to get out more. Oh, wait. That might make you more worldly than someone else's kid, and that wouldn't be fair.
No, you deliberately answered the wrong aspect of the question in order to avoid addressing the fact that you can't run a society that is plagued by a small but toxic fringe of awful people and groups without telling them everything you're doing to stop them, minute by minute. You know this, but you're pretending you're too dumb to grasp it. Why, I can't imagine. You're a transparency puritan troll, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?
There is no moral equivalence. The state, in removing that man from existence, isn't preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger with rape and murder in mind. That you find the two to be equivalent removes you from the pool of people who should ever weigh in on such subjects.
Actually, what I did was listen to the words that were spoken, and applied to them an understanding of the world and the specific people involved as anybody past the age of three would do. A little critical thinking goes a long way.
Some places may require hand pumping into trucks and tanks. Fortunately, we know how to do that.
Really. You're going to hand-pump fuel for hundreds of thousands of trucks, trains, and aircraft feeding hundreds of millions of people? That will effectively shut down transportation, at least at the pace it's needed to feed cities full of people who keep nothing beyond their next couple of meals' worth of food in stores, let alone in their own kitchens.
For some foods. not every food must be refrigerated.
Right. We only refrigerate meats, fruits, vegetables, dairy, bread, medicines, that sort of thing.
what lack? trucks and planes will continue to operate.
So you're saying that trucks and planes that have had ignition and control systems destroyed by an EMP can continue to operate? How does that work, exactly?
Evidence shows that in a disaster that only happens when the alternative is starving.
Which is what starts happening within short days of food shortages. Witness food/water drop-offs in New Orleans getting violently mobbed, with people throwing shots at helicopters.
IT's only fragile to maintain the high level of efficiency we know have.
And because the entire chain is rigged around JIT, the high level of efficiency is the only way it can work. It would take weeks or months to alter that, and that presumes that everything that goes into production behind the scenes can be ramped UP in the middle of a situation where logistics are compromised.
Most survivalist types are clueless in an actual emergency.
Only the ones you're cherry picking. Are "survivalist types" that bother to keep a couple weeks of food and water around more, or less clueless than their neighbors who do not?
That's an interesting narrative of events
Which is what - your lame way of wishing away the fact that it didn't happen? That thousands of people were wandering to places like the dome in NO without so much as a gallon of water for their kids? Is my "interesting narrative" interesting because it lines up with photos of lots full of school busses parked under water? What's your point?
transportation would be chaotic for a couple days, tops.
We're not talking about a passing snow storm, here. We're talking about weeks of no electricity and lots damaged infrastructure. Your couple of days estimate is ridiculous on the face of it.
Where else could he go and avoid extradition to the US?
He doesn't have to go anywhere. All he had to do was not break the law in the first place.
And why would trucks stop coming into the city?
For lack of available fuel? For lack of refrigeration in the warehouses that used to store the food they deliver? For lack of whole chunks of the supply chain upstream from their knife's-edge just-in-time delivery infrastructure? Because roads would be blocked or at least hosed up for lack of traffic control? Because people would be truck-jacking anything that looked valuable?
The entire infrastructure that brings food to people right before they actually need it is incredibly fragile. The trucks, needing fuel, communications, functioning computer-controlled drive trains, and managed roadways, are just one part of it.
The biggest risk is that all these ignorant survivalist cause people to panic becasue of all the FUD that have been spreading.
The numbre of survivalist-type people is completely, utterly eclipsed by the number of people who have no clue about (or interest in) being sensible in an emergency. Look at New Orleans, where people living below sea level had days of warning, and couldn't be bothered to fill up a few jugs of drinking water or move their fleet of school buses into a useful place. And they're used to big storms down there! Now imagine lower Manhattan suddenly without any power or comms or viable transportation for weeks or more. Or the suburbs around DC. Yeah.
And this drivel gets +5 insightful?
It was a live call-in show.
You're so cute, there.
The Soviet Union fell a long, long time ago you know.
Even more cute!
They other guy in the conversation was a KGB agent, has said publicly that he thinks the end of the Soviet Union was a huge tragedy, and is slowly but surely trying to build that empire back up again - and once again, using force.
That "phone in" show was completely scripted. You utterly embarrass yourself pretending otherwise. For you to go to that much trouble with the charade suggests that you're every bit the shill/puppet that Snowden was during that little bit of theater. You're not fooling anybody, so please stop trying.
By 'we' you mean the people puppeting the astroturfers who are trying to discredit snowden to support the govt line on the issue in forums such as these?
No, by "we" he means all of us who think that. Thinking that doling out the huge amount of information he stole, and then wandering his way through one totalitarian country before setting up shop in another is a bad thing and indicative of his muddled world view ... that's not "the government line," that's being realistic. Snowden was and is being handled. His appearance on TV with Putin couldn't have looked more scripted, or more set up to allow Putin to answer in the dismissive, oily way that he did - all while sending the Useful Idiots that think Snowden is a clear-headed hero a nice little pat on the head.
Also, there's a high likelihood that anything from a link to Fox News doesn't contain much factual information.
So rather than address the issue linked to, you're just going to slip into typical lefty ad hominem in order to avoid the substance of the matter? Yup, that's what you did.
"The numbers turned out *much* higher than Fox News predicted
No, the numbers have turned out AT ALL. Because we haven't been given actual numbers. The numbers we got don't tell us who's paid (thus making time spent filling in an online form into an actual money-changes-hands transaction that actually insures somebody), and don't tell us how many people in that mix were the ones who had their insurance cancelled on them (roughly 6-million, so far).
So, actually, the numbers turned out pretty much right where critics said they would: abysmally low.
The US will catch up to the idea that every human has the right to health without concern for cost or it will fail.
I think you don't understand what the word "right" means.
... how does that work? We all have the right to assemble, the right to free speech, etc. The constitution protects us from government interference in such things. If we have a right to a little bit of the waking hours of a nutritionist, or the right to something that a bunch of people working in the pharma industry spent their week making, does that mean that everyone should get those things for free? Who pays? How can it be a "right" if you have to force your neighbor, on penalty of losing their wages or their home, to provide it to you? That's your idea of a right? Get a grip.
Should people also have a right to housing, clothing, food, climate control, utilities, and the rest, without concern for cost? Does everyone have that right? Because if you don't have those things, you could die. Just like you could by not having a "right" to the services of a podiatrist when you have achy feet.
If everyone has a right to the labor of professional medical people, and everyone has a right to the medicines, supplies, facilities, and multi-million dollar test equipment
This only shows that UAV's should only be used by licensed people with certified/licenced UAV's ... they fall under the same law's as RC planes/helicopters
Maybe we can apply the same thing to language, including - especially - the dangerous mis-use of apostrophes near crowds of people. Punctuation should only be used by licensed people certified in the language being used. We could avoid so many horrible, fatal collisions between plural and possessive traffic. Think of the children.
Those "flyaways" are grossly over-reported. Every noob who does something stupid with a machine that happens to have the very widely used Naza on board immediately throws their crash into that same causative bucket. It's ridiculous. Can't tell you how many "DJI Flyaway" videos I've watched that clearly show gross operator error, sloppy builds, GoPros with the WiFi turned on, uncalibrated compass modules, take-offs before the GPS head count is high enough, no home point set, landing gear caught in the grass, flight controller on a hexa set up for a quad ("OMG, it's the Naza flip of death!") and so on. To say nothing of smoked ESCs, never-maintained bearings, and flying right in front of the radome on a utility tower ... if it weren't all so bad for the hobby and the industry in general, it would be funny. But it's not. Because of clowns like the guy in question here.
My personal bet: he outflew his probably badly maintained LiPo until it went over the volate cliff, and the rig dropped like a rock.
It's all wi-fi. Fancy wi-fi may more reliable than crap wi-fi, but it's still all wi-fi, and it all has a range which when you go past, you still lose control.
This is factually incorrect. If you're out of range, the bird falls back on another kind of control that you exerted before you even took off (a GPS-based return-to-home waypoint and associated climb/travel/descend procedures - all things the operator controls). Never mind that the pro-level RF gear one would use with a "real" bird for RCAP isn't WiFi at all, and doesn't resemble WiFi in any way that matters.
In the US the FAA would also probably be fining him.
Well, that's not entirely clear just this moment. In the now-headed-into-appeals area of Huerta v Pirker, it kinda looks like the FAA doesn't actually have any formal, properly constructed rules in place. Guidance only. Their distinction between recreational and commercial use of the very same RC machines used by the same people in the same place at the very same time is pretty ridiculous - and the administrative law judge handling round one of that case agreed. But the case is still baking.
... then the trouble you're in is roughly the same as if you'd hit the same person in the head with a lawn dart or a football. Good ol' fashioned reckless endangerment, having nothing to do with the FAA pe se.
So, if you dropped your camera drone on someone's head in the US right now, and weren't flying next to an airport or beyond line of site or over 400'
I don't buy that excuse for a second. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that he's right. That means he was using cheeseball home entertainment mall kiosk grade equipment. Nobody doing for-real media coverage of a sporting event and intending to fly over people's heads is going to be using anything that could possibly be so easily "taken over." If nothing else, the drone should have a good enough flight controller to allow it to realize that something is swamping the RF control side, and have it climb to a previously identified altitude, and maneuver back over the spot from which it took off, then to make a nice gentle decent and landing. This is vanilla COTS stuff, now, with even inexpensive FCs. The good ones - which any pro should be using, and which cost more like $1k - are really good at high speed frequency hopping and only paying attention to the controller to which they're bound.
Basically, this clown sounds completely negligent.
Way to fail, brah.
There is no context in which that phrase can be used - earnestly, ironically, sarcastically, ignorantly, juvenilely, ham-fistedly, or otherwise - in which the person saying it can ever, ever tell someone else they've failed.
Understanding what happened could be worth a lot more than $50m, or twice that.
Major issue with the airframe, or propulsion? Very important to understand that. There are a lot more of them flying around.
A third party's influence and/or an attempt to steal the plane? Whether that ended in a crash or a successful theft, we need to know everything we can about who, what, why, to what end. If it was stolen and landed (extremely, very unlikely), gotta know where and why. If it went in the drink during an attempt, still have to understand what the game plan was.
Suicide? Hiding in regular traffic, then flying low and into the most remote, deepest water possible in the interests of never finding the plane - the better to make sure family collects on insurance money? Would be good to know, and will remind airlines to get harder about knowing their pilots and the pilots' current circumstances.
Regardless, the navy assets out looking are using the whole thing as an excellent training exercise. Lots of smart people have had to whip up new ways to think about what happened, using only traces of satellite/comms data.
... Look at the overweight+ people in Hawaii. And we live in the sun virtually year round!
If we can take their small sample and methodology as meaningful, and presume that you mean that Hawaiians all get up early and go right into the sun... then the point is that whatever lifestyle things make a lot of Hawaiians fat would be even worse if they all rolled out of the cot in their mom's basement and stayed there until lunchtime.
.. these are not what will destroy the human race. Willful ignorance is what will, along with it's partners, superstition and religion.
No. It's mis-use of the apostrophe that will be our undoing.
If, that is, people who say "I could care less" don't cause the world to explode, first.
Because internet traffic is internet traffic is internet traffic. It doesn't matter if that traffic is Netflix, Bittorrent, email, youtube, World of Warcraft, etc.
But this particular kind of use of it absolutely dwarfs everything else. Streaming media is a huge payload.
And, come on now, tell the whole story. For AT&T to be able to deliver Netflix's data all the way to the home routers of their customers, they also have to maintain arrangements with other carriers to handle that data as it comes in from Netflix. Those peering arrangements are not free, just like maintaining that last mile to their end user customers isn't free.
Meanwhile, the guy who buys bandwidth and uses it for a less Netflix/YouTube-centric array of connections absolutely is going to be asked to contribute to his neighbor's entertainment costs if the GP has his way and AT&T raises their rates across the board to deal with the behavior of a subset of users and remote content sources.
It's simple, AT&T should increase their subscription costs to pull them more in line with actual costs for keeping the infrastructure running flawlessly, or decrease the advertised technical parameters of their end user connections, or both. Blaming it on Netflix doesn't seem fair.
How is that not fair? External networks like Netflix are hugely disproportionate users of ISP's infrastructure. Who should be "blamed" for that flood of traffic if not hte ? If those specific sources of traffic, on the other side of a peering relationship, weren't there, this wouldn't be an issue. A handful of traffic sources are burning up the lion's share of the bandwidth, and making money off of their customers while doing so. Why should an AT&T customer who doesn't drink from the Netflix firehose have to subsidize the people that do? Let Netflix and AT&T work out those costs, and let the people who actually consume the traffic pay the tab in the form of slightly higher prices for the entertainment they want from Netflix. Expecting their neighbors pay for it, instead, is pretty jerky.
as a practical matter actually finding the plane won't change much
Really? You don't think there's much of a difference between knowing it was a mechanical failure (or fire, etc) and knowing it was a deliberate criminal act? If the problem was related to payload or the aircraft's infrastructure or maintenance, you don't think it's vital for all of the other people flying on that same equipment to know what went wrong? If this was done by the pilot(s) at the behest of some organization or state, or otherwise in the service of some agenda, you don't think that's meaningful, in the context of trying to prevent it from happening again? Glad you're so relaxed about it. You probably don't do much business overseas, or ship expensive things that are central to your mission, or have relatives that fly on that equipment or in that part of the world, so that's probably why the death of hundreds and the loss of a huge, expensive aircraft is a yawner to you.
my thoughts on conspiracy's
I'm still trying to figure out what the Trilateral Commission, the Rothschilds, the Masons, and George Soros hope to gain by tricking people into being so actively bad at understanding the difference between the plural and possessive uses of the apostrophe. There must be some money in it, somewhere.
True capitalism should require a level playing field when you start, and to really do that, when the final score is tallied, the slate should be wiped clean.
No, true capitalism involves you deciding, for yourself, what you want to do with the money you've made. That might very well include giving it to your wife or kids, as part of what you intended all along as you worked 100 hour weeks growing a business.
To follow your logic, a successful parent shouldn't be allowed to send their kid to a better engineering school (which because of staff and facilities, costs more), because that's not a "clean" slate for the college student compared to everyone else. But since plenty of parents are lazy wastes of oxygen, the only way to even the slate for you would be to make sure that no kid gets a better childhood or education than what the kid with the worst possible parents get. There! That way everything would be "fair" for you.
And typically they're not for you and me, it's for people over a certain threshold (say $1 mio + in assets)
Yeah, I can tell you've never had a single conversation in your life with a family farmer. Or someone who's launched a business that's modestly successful. You need to get out more. Oh, wait. That might make you more worldly than someone else's kid, and that wouldn't be fair.
No, you deliberately answered the wrong aspect of the question in order to avoid addressing the fact that you can't run a society that is plagued by a small but toxic fringe of awful people and groups without telling them everything you're doing to stop them, minute by minute. You know this, but you're pretending you're too dumb to grasp it. Why, I can't imagine. You're a transparency puritan troll, I guess.