And such zero-rating of traffic to affiliates is bad because...?
If I buy a data plan and get, say 2 Gigs of data a month on my device, how is making AT&T- related properties not count towards my data plan cap 'bad'? I lose nothing, I'm still entitled to the 2 gigs of data from any source I like, PLUS "all I can eat" from AT&T related properties.
I can't get free stuff because the existence of a free alternative hurts non-free competitors?
SB 822 will also ban ISPs from violating net neutrality by not counting the content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps. This kind of abusive and anti-competitive "zero rating", which leads to lower data caps for everyone, would be prohibited, while "zero-rating" plans that don't harm consumers are not banned.
How can you tell the difference between 'good' "zero-rating" and 'bad' "zero-rating"?
Right, because an air-gap between the computer and the internet can be bridged by the super-secret wifi/cellular data connections inside the CPU in your system./SMH
Explain to me how the NSA can get into a computer that is not on the internet without physically accessing (as in "laying hands on")the computer?
Uh, you understand the difference between in-band call routing and out-of-band call routing, right? SS7 is an out-of-band call routing system, sending tones over the voice network is an example of in-band signaling.
Uh, because routing and billing for phone calls is just a wee-bit different than serving up webpages...
Do you have any earthly idea what SS7 or Diameter actually do or did you just see the word "protocol" and say to yourself, "a protocol is a protocol, they are all interchangeable, so why not use HTTP?"
Computers somehow did useful work before Tim Berners-Lee "invented" HTTP and Linus Torvalds got frustrated with the software available to fully utilize his then-new 80386-based desktop computer and "invented" Linux, and every computing problem can't be solved by a heap of x86-based web servers.
In fact, if it weren't for the fairly extraordinary policy of "no GOP Senator is allowed to vote yes" it would have garnered quite a few GOP votes, it was afterall a GOP concept.
It was, after all, rejected GOP concept... kind of a significant aspect you skipped over.
Kinda like how the previous administration ran a small operation in partnership with Mexican official to trace illegal gun purchases into the Mexican cartels, but it was soon picked up the Obama administration and expanded considerably in scope and run without any involvement of the Mexican government in a program called Fast & Furious.
And then there is the Solyndra debacle - seen by analysts under the bush administration as a plan doomed to failure, they rejected the half-billion dollars in federally-guaranteed loans Solyndra sought. A few well-placed political contributions later, VP Biden personally oversaw the approval of the loan, and Solyndra wen't bankrupt on the exact month and year the Bush administration analysts predicted it would.
Democrats would do well to stop rifling through the dustbin of rejected GOP plans and programs and come up with their own ideas.
I have an email asking me to fill in a form and upload a picture of the credit card and a government issued photo id of the card holder. Great, let's wake up the CFO who happens to be the card holder. What if the card holder is on leave and is unreachable for three days?
Uh, I don't know - take a picture of each and save them on your phone, in case you need them?
You report everything was back up within 20 minutes once you submitted the requested information - that seems pretty good to me.
Now, about your decision to only run one instance of your mission critical application suite on exactly one cloud service...
The story here is you consider it someone else's fault for your failure to plan/prepare for an outage.
Abuse of power is all fun & games when you're in power, the problem is when you're on the receiving end.
Your memory is incredibly short - remember it is the Democrats that abused power, not Republicans.
Why is it so darn hard for the FBI to describe when and why they started their Trump Investigation?
Why did the FBI pay individuals to try and infiltrate/influence the Trump campaign?
Why were there so many "unmasking" requests from the US Ambassador to the UN in the final year of the Obama administration? (Her defense is that it wasn't her, it was her "staff"!)
If republicans successfully "Primary" Trump, they lose the Whitehouse, agreed, but then again Trump did beat a field of 16 opponents as an outsider. Consider that if he maintains his 50% support to the 2020 election, any third-party candidate (hello Bernie!) can siphon off enough votes from the Democrats to cost them the election - again. FOr better or worse, Trump will be running as the candidate asking the now-popular question: Look at your wallet, are better or worse off than you were before I was elected? While Democrats salivate over taking back those "crumbs" Trump handed out to working Americans, Team Trump will point to low unemployment (across all demographic groups) and bigger paychecks as they sail into the Whitehouse for another 4 years.
All of America (except for HRC) knew after the 2004 DNC convention that Sen. Obama was going to be the next President, we're just 2 years out from the next Presidential election - who is the front-runner? Who will your party's super-delegates pick for you to vote for in 2020? Seriously, there are about two dozen "contenders," who's the front-runner?
And what was Hillary's plan to "save" Social Security? To raise SS benefits and correspondingly raise SS taxes on "them" (not you, dear voter, "them"), and to tax other sources of income that "they" (not you, dear voter, but "them") presently don't pay SS taxes on - like dividends.
She left out any specifics, because specifics cost votes - vague references to "them" paying more plays well, because without specifics, the average voter can easily imagine that the "them" are the Scrooge McDuck characters sitting in their vault taking a money bath, not the two teachers in California that work summer jobs "to make ends meet".
According to the same report you cited, the Democrats accepted $46M in bribe(s) (or campaign contribution or lobby gift or whatever you want to call it) to the Republican's near $56M, a difference likely influenced more by the fact that Republicans controlled the House (thus had more seated party members than the Democrats) during the period considered (1989-2017) than anything else.
we all know Trump didn't *win* the Presidency; what he did was take it.
The Trump campaign ran an old-school campaign, campaigning everywhere while the HRC campaign tried to run a "smart" campaign, not wasting resources on regions where HRC's victory was "a given", until it wasn't.
If 5,919 Trump voters [switched their votes] in Michigan, 13,629 in Wisconsin, and 34,119 in Pennsylvania, Clinton would have won each of those states by the slimmest of margins (a vote or two).
Trump didn't "take" the Presidency, HRC gave it to him, trying out her new, un-proven "smart" campaign that cost her MI, WI, and PA in the general election - states she should have easily won, had she even bothered to campaign there during the General Election.
Do you seriously think that this is somehow going to end up with NK just giving up its nukes right after all the decades of effort and pain they went through to obtain them?
So you're against trying diplomacy first? We should just decide NK won't give up it's nukes and go straight to carpet bombing?
I love this logic - he must be on the payroll of 'big oil' to reach that conclusion, otherwise my long-held beliefs are wrong! it's right up there with 'the Russians threw the election, otherwise I have to admit that Hillary was a lousy candidate.
You think 'Big Oil' is a thing, like a group that holds meetings and makes decisions.
You imagine that judges decide what sources are used to defend a particular side in a court case - that is left to the attorneys.
I like how you lump 'software professionals' with scientists - I'm going to guess you wanted to be a scientist, but wound up a software professional, so you viewcthem as equivalent.
And what of the people that read those reports, but continue to drive 30 miles each way to work in their own car, burning fossil fuels and converting gasoline in to greenhouse gases - they are blameless?
The climate was impacted by millions, maybe billions, of people burning fossil fuel - the process of creating fossil fuels produces very little greenhouse gases by comparison.
Moving the employee to a new team should really be the first step in the process. Then, and only then can you determine whether the performance problem is primarily the employee's fault or the environment's fault (manager, coworkers, project, etc.).
No, such a first step presumes the employee is at fault, and must suffer a reassignment to establish they aren't at fault.
Offering an employee the option is entirely different - they can choose to escape a bad situation or work through it,
Slashdot Mirror
And such zero-rating of traffic to affiliates is bad because...?
If I buy a data plan and get, say 2 Gigs of data a month on my device, how is making AT&T- related properties not count towards my data plan cap 'bad'? I lose nothing, I'm still entitled to the 2 gigs of data from any source I like, PLUS "all I can eat" from AT&T related properties.
I can't get free stuff because the existence of a free alternative hurts non-free competitors?
SB 822 will also ban ISPs from violating net neutrality by not counting the content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps. This kind of abusive and anti-competitive "zero rating", which leads to lower data caps for everyone, would be prohibited, while "zero-rating" plans that don't harm consumers are not banned.
How can you tell the difference between 'good' "zero-rating" and 'bad' "zero-rating"?
Right, because an air-gap between the computer and the internet can be bridged by the super-secret wifi/cellular data connections inside the CPU in your system. /SMH
Explain to me how the NSA can get into a computer that is not on the internet without physically accessing (as in "laying hands on")the computer?
Uh, you understand the difference between in-band call routing and out-of-band call routing, right? SS7 is an out-of-band call routing system, sending tones over the voice network is an example of in-band signaling.
Uh, because routing and billing for phone calls is just a wee-bit different than serving up webpages...
Do you have any earthly idea what SS7 or Diameter actually do or did you just see the word "protocol" and say to yourself, "a protocol is a protocol, they are all interchangeable, so why not use HTTP?"
Computers somehow did useful work before Tim Berners-Lee "invented" HTTP and Linus Torvalds got frustrated with the software available to fully utilize his then-new 80386-based desktop computer and "invented" Linux, and every computing problem can't be solved by a heap of x86-based web servers.
Exactly. I love it when the summary refutes the /. headline, it lets me know the editors at /. are hard at work...
In fact, if it weren't for the fairly extraordinary policy of "no GOP Senator is allowed to vote yes" it would have garnered quite a few GOP votes, it was afterall a GOP concept.
It was, after all, rejected GOP concept... kind of a significant aspect you skipped over.
Kinda like how the previous administration ran a small operation in partnership with Mexican official to trace illegal gun purchases into the Mexican cartels, but it was soon picked up the Obama administration and expanded considerably in scope and run without any involvement of the Mexican government in a program called Fast & Furious.
And then there is the Solyndra debacle - seen by analysts under the bush administration as a plan doomed to failure, they rejected the half-billion dollars in federally-guaranteed loans Solyndra sought. A few well-placed political contributions later, VP Biden personally oversaw the approval of the loan, and Solyndra wen't bankrupt on the exact month and year the Bush administration analysts predicted it would.
Democrats would do well to stop rifling through the dustbin of rejected GOP plans and programs and come up with their own ideas.
I have an email asking me to fill in a form and upload a picture of the credit card and a government issued photo id of the card holder. Great, let's wake up the CFO who happens to be the card holder. What if the card holder is on leave and is unreachable for three days?
Uh, I don't know - take a picture of each and save them on your phone, in case you need them?
You report everything was back up within 20 minutes once you submitted the requested information - that seems pretty good to me.
Now, about your decision to only run one instance of your mission critical application suite on exactly one cloud service...
The story here is you consider it someone else's fault for your failure to plan/prepare for an outage.
Abuse of power is all fun & games when you're in power, the problem is when you're on the receiving end.
Your memory is incredibly short - remember it is the Democrats that abused power, not Republicans.
Why is it so darn hard for the FBI to describe when and why they started their Trump Investigation?
Why did the FBI pay individuals to try and infiltrate/influence the Trump campaign?
Why were there so many "unmasking" requests from the US Ambassador to the UN in the final year of the Obama administration? (Her defense is that it wasn't her, it was her "staff"!)
If republicans successfully "Primary" Trump, they lose the Whitehouse, agreed, but then again Trump did beat a field of 16 opponents as an outsider. Consider that if he maintains his 50% support to the 2020 election, any third-party candidate (hello Bernie!) can siphon off enough votes from the Democrats to cost them the election - again. FOr better or worse, Trump will be running as the candidate asking the now-popular question: Look at your wallet, are better or worse off than you were before I was elected? While Democrats salivate over taking back those "crumbs" Trump handed out to working Americans, Team Trump will point to low unemployment (across all demographic groups) and bigger paychecks as they sail into the Whitehouse for another 4 years.
Because the Democrats will run ..?
All of America (except for HRC) knew after the 2004 DNC convention that Sen. Obama was going to be the next President, we're just 2 years out from the next Presidential election - who is the front-runner? Who will your party's super-delegates pick for you to vote for in 2020? Seriously, there are about two dozen "contenders," who's the front-runner?
And what was Hillary's plan to "save" Social Security? To raise SS benefits and correspondingly raise SS taxes on "them" (not you, dear voter, "them"), and to tax other sources of income that "they" (not you, dear voter, but "them") presently don't pay SS taxes on - like dividends.
She left out any specifics, because specifics cost votes - vague references to "them" paying more plays well, because without specifics, the average voter can easily imagine that the "them" are the Scrooge McDuck characters sitting in their vault taking a money bath, not the two teachers in California that work summer jobs "to make ends meet".
According to the same report you cited, the Democrats accepted $46M in bribe(s) (or campaign contribution or lobby gift or whatever you want to call it) to the Republican's near $56M, a difference likely influenced more by the fact that Republicans controlled the House (thus had more seated party members than the Democrats) during the period considered (1989-2017) than anything else.
we all know Trump didn't *win* the Presidency; what he did was take it.
The Trump campaign ran an old-school campaign, campaigning everywhere while the HRC campaign tried to run a "smart" campaign, not wasting resources on regions where HRC's victory was "a given", until it wasn't.
If 5,919 Trump voters [switched their votes] in Michigan, 13,629 in Wisconsin, and 34,119 in Pennsylvania, Clinton would have won each of those states by the slimmest of margins (a vote or two).
Source
Trump didn't "take" the Presidency, HRC gave it to him, trying out her new, un-proven "smart" campaign that cost her MI, WI, and PA in the general election - states she should have easily won, had she even bothered to campaign there during the General Election.
Do you seriously think that this is somehow going to end up with NK just giving up its nukes right after all the decades of effort and pain they went through to obtain them?
So you're against trying diplomacy first? We should just decide NK won't give up it's nukes and go straight to carpet bombing?
You've never had net neutrality. Do you have equal up and down bandwidth? Can you host a public-facing server at home under your ISP's TOS?
That's not what net neutrality is, not even a little bit.
I didn't know Obama also had consistently low approval ratings compared to other recent presidents
You probably forgot just how wildly popular PPACA, A.K.A. ObamaCare really was at the time. /sarcasm
I love this logic - he must be on the payroll of 'big oil' to reach that conclusion, otherwise my long-held beliefs are wrong! it's right up there with 'the Russians threw the election, otherwise I have to admit that Hillary was a lousy candidate.
Your view of the world is 'interesting'.
You think 'Big Oil' is a thing, like a group that holds meetings and makes decisions.
You imagine that judges decide what sources are used to defend a particular side in a court case - that is left to the attorneys.
I like how you lump 'software professionals' with scientists - I'm going to guess you wanted to be a scientist, but wound up a software professional, so you viewcthem as equivalent.
No, cow flatulence is.
You can't pick on coal, China and the third-world rely on it, that would be racist.
And what of the people that read those reports, but continue to drive 30 miles each way to work in their own car, burning fossil fuels and converting gasoline in to greenhouse gases - they are blameless?
The climate was impacted by millions, maybe billions, of people burning fossil fuel - the process of creating fossil fuels produces very little greenhouse gases by comparison.
Unions fear workforce reductions at their employers, not individual employee losses.
Lose an electrician that will be replaced by another electrician, no net loss, no problem.
Go from 10 electricians to 9, the net loss will draw a larger response from the union.
Moving the employee to a new team should really be the first step in the process. Then, and only then can you determine whether the performance problem is primarily the employee's fault or the environment's fault (manager, coworkers, project, etc.).
No, such a first step presumes the employee is at fault, and must suffer a reassignment to establish they aren't at fault.
Offering an employee the option is entirely different - they can choose to escape a bad situation or work through it,
And the employee that loses the thunder dome match still can accept performance goals and keep their job.
Remember this guy from 7 years ago? "Noodles is a dictatorship"
Lord I miss the Occupy protests...