The previous/. story explicitly included statements from several gov't official quoted by the New York Times saying it was likely nothing more than recommendation to ease budget approval process.
Buy you had to actually get beyond the click-baity headline screaming "Trump Administration bans words!" (That wasn't even supported by the brief excerpt provided) And read the summary.
You know, if someone actually drove for a company like Lyft in a stolen car for several months, this pretty much tells you how much you should trust companies like Uber and Lyft.
Great point, my mod-point quiver is empty, or" i'd up-mod this.
The insurance company likely settled long before the stolen car was recovered - I can't imagine leaving a car theft victim hanging for 4 months before settling. It's possible, but very, very unlikely - I suspect they pay for a loaner car for a week or two, then you get a check and sign over the car title to the insurance company. If you have a loan, the insurance company settles with the lender, and the lender gives you back whatever equity you have left.
"Not only did someone steal our car, they made money off it!"
Riiight. They should have stolen the car and donated it to a charity, that would have been better.
Imagine, being so selfish as to steal a car in hopes of turning a profit on the crime! Perhaps they should instead consider themselves as job creators, not crime victims. Personally I'm impressed the thief was that industrious, opting ot use the car rather than sell it to a chop shop.
We should be using terms like "forced birthers" because that describes what so-called "anti-abortionists" are supporting. Not saving a fetus, but forcing a woman to give birth without her consent.
Riiiight... because every abortion is because the woman was either raped or experiencing an immaculate conception, 'a la the virgin mary'. She didn't consent to having the man engage in all the requisite steps to impregnate her - it just 'happened', she's a victim of her own completely unpredictable fertility cycle and some innocent sexual activity...
This is nothing more than career bosses suggesting that staffers pepper their budget requests with political talking-points to increase their likelihood of securing greater funding levels from republicans.
There's this "shocking" alternative wording proposed:
According to the Post's article, "Instead of 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' the suggested phrase is 'CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes."
The difference between 'science-based' and 'bases it's recommendations on science' eludes me, and the added 'in consideration with community standards and wishes'? Seriously? That last bit gives CDC the ability to say things like 'everyone in this situation should have a blood transfusion, unless their religion instructs otherwise' or 'everyone should get inoculated unless they have strongly-held opinion not to'...
What s complete non-story!
The title should be "Career CDC leaders encourage staffers to use political talking-points in budget requests in hopes to secure higher funding levels in future budgets".
So I read the summary with a critical eye and this jumped out at me:
although "a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans."
That tells me the heads of CDC most likely came up with this set of "recommendations" because they think it will help them get a larger budget.
This doesn't read as the Trump Administration banning words, it sounds like career staff has an insulting view of the politicians that determine their funding level.
You mean like reaching out and trying to find common ground? How horrible!
Like when he had to be shamed into meeting with republicans to discuss healthcare? Or when, at the end of the POTUS/GOP healthcare summit in 2009 he dismisses every republican suggestion by saying 'if you want to implement your ideas, try winning some elections'?
Then the Republicans did just that, taking and holding the Congress since 2010, then taking and keeping the Senate in 2014, and then the whitehouse in 2016...
Comey stayed behind afterward to tell the president-elect about the controversial Steele dossier, however, and that private meeting may have been responsible for the animosity that would eventually lead to Trump firing the director of the FBI.
Perhaps, but maybe it's exactly because of the reason he stated - the botched investigation and public announcements involved with the Clinton email investigation, you know the reason countlessdemocrats were calling for his firing earlier that same year under Obama.
The problem they're trying to solve is that there is a lack of competition for last mile access networks. Without legally mandated network neutrality, competition is the only way to ensure that the internet doesn't deteriorate into a new version of cable TV.
No, the last mile isn't the issue - it's the carriers that bring the data up to the last mile.
Awesome, you are going to compete with carrier-grade infrastructure with a consumer-grade alternative, your going to expect people to buy, configure, and install them themselves, and then your going to charge them for the privilege of sharing a mesh network node with everyone else.
I'm sure Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner are all quaking in their boots at the thought of your "poking holes in the ISP stranglehold on the last mile."
As it is now, most people have at most 2 options and in many places just 1.
So, because there are a limited number of "wired" broadband ISPs in a community, we need to build a "wireless" ISP, ignoring all the wireless ISP that already serve the area?
The entire country is served by satellite service.
The vast majority of the country is served by multiple wireless providers.
And of course, as a practical matter the majority of communities are served by both a cable company and telco company, both of which typically offer some ISP services.
In most communities there is typically only one attractive provider, there are almost always alternatives, but they are not as appealing to consumers.
In theory, yes, but when everyone comes home after work and turns on Netflix or any other HD streaming service, performance will suffer - significantly.
Got a cost on these Wi-Max routers you expect/propose everyone buy?
As I recall, web services like google, Netflix, and akimai, and others will drop redundant mirror servers near ISPs regional connection point to provide improved access to their services, preventing a lot of streaming traffic from travelling across the backbone of the internet. That's a good thing.
If this group buys a raw data connection from, say, Hurricane Electric, they will not have access to a local caching server for Netflix, so all Netflix traffic for this "unthrottled" internet will have to travel from where? The nearest non-collocated Netflix server? won't that hurt performance over a co-located caching server?
So your plan is to litter the community with consumer-grade hardware?
And where will these backbone nodes be installed, on rooftops? You do know that landlords charge rent for installing equipment on their buildings, right?
On Telco poles? Think again, those aren't publicly-owned, your telco will want revenue if they deign to allow your hardware on their poles.
On your own poles/masts? Sounds great, you're gonna have a real fun time filling out the permit requests, sending surveyors out to map the facilities, buying the towers, leasing the ground, etc.
So I go to Hurricane Electric, hand them $1,500/month, and they give me (effectively) a Cat6 connection that provides me with an unfiltered, unthrottled, uncensored 10 Gb/sec connection. Great.
How do I get that out of HE's datacenter? Am I laying/renting a fiber connection from HE to the offices of Motherboard Vice? That costs something, but we'll consider that a manageable cost.
Now, I go up on the roof, and I install some Ubiquiti sector antennas, a whole bunch of them, three sectors per non-overlapping WiFi channel. Great. If we stick with 2.4 GHz that means three sets of three sector antennas, one 3 sector set for channels 1, 6, and 11. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate the equipment needed to similarly saturate the 5 GHz WiFi band,
So, now I've got a crusher WiFi signal blasting out on all usable 2.4 GHz WiFi channels - think that's gonna cause interference problems with other users? Won't they be "monopolizing" the public WiFi channels?
So anyway, we throw these sector antennas up on the roof of the building, and now our wonderful internet service only takes care of those users that happen to live in a certain, limited, geographic region - the area directly surrounding the Motherboard Vice HQ, users outside the direct link will be forced to access our connection via mesh functionality, so now we've created two service level tiers - one that gets premium, direct connections to our sector antennas, and those low-grade users that have their traffic filter through various mesh nodes to reach our sector antennas. So we are now discriminating between our customers, based on their location.
And why go through this effort? Because you're afraid ISPs will throttle certain websites and promote the traffic of other websites, in an effort to maximize their profits. Fine, but your response has the vast majority of your user community, those not enjoying premium, direct connections to your central location, suffering at mesh node speeds for ALL traffic, and even premium users will have their connections degrade as mesh network traffic flows through their router en route to the central location - all of this congestion on the WiFi channels and their limited bandwidth will cause you to have effectively throttled all customer traffic equally.
So, let's recap - you are "monopolizing" the public WiFi channels, discriminating between our customers, based on their location, and effectively throttled all customer traffic equally.
How many streaming Netflix boxes can this proposed 'mesh' or peer-to-peer Network support simultaneously?
These kids have their panties in a wad because they are afraid an ISP might choose to throttle a handful of websites, so their answer is to implement an alternative mesh/peer-to-peer Network that because of it's inherent design effectively throttles ALL traffic?
Brilliant! That will show them what's possible when the 'community' comes together.
You know, like the way the post office 'juices' it's customers by offering Priorty Mail service at a premium over standard first class mail...
"Faster, more dependable service at a premium price! The post office is stifling innovation and will throttle first and third class mail delivery to force people to choose Priorty Mail instead! They must be stopped, we need 'Postal Neutrality'!"
That's great, but how will people feel about going to Hurricane Electric's datacenter to use their $1.50/month 'unlimited' internet service?
Oh, I see, you are going to use magical infrastructure that never fails and has no acquisition costs or on-going maintenance costs, and will be delivered to each of your customers in a manner that doesn't limit their access speed or use any competing provider's infrastructure.
This is a brilliant idea, I can't imagine anything that might impact your well thought-out plan to up-end the internet marketplace./sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
Aside from getting those two facts 100% wrong, the only nugget of truth in the headline was that it involved the CDC.
The previous /. story explicitly included statements from several gov't official quoted by the New York Times saying it was likely nothing more than recommendation to ease budget approval process.
Buy you had to actually get beyond the click-baity headline screaming "Trump Administration bans words!" (That wasn't even supported by the brief excerpt provided) And read the summary.
You know, if someone actually drove for a company like Lyft in a stolen car for several months, this pretty much tells you how much you should trust companies like Uber and Lyft.
Great point, my mod-point quiver is empty, or" i'd up-mod this.
The insurance company likely settled long before the stolen car was recovered - I can't imagine leaving a car theft victim hanging for 4 months before settling. It's possible, but very, very unlikely - I suspect they pay for a loaner car for a week or two, then you get a check and sign over the car title to the insurance company. If you have a loan, the insurance company settles with the lender, and the lender gives you back whatever equity you have left.
"Not only did someone steal our car, they made money off it!"
Riiight. They should have stolen the car and donated it to a charity, that would have been better.
Imagine, being so selfish as to steal a car in hopes of turning a profit on the crime! Perhaps they should instead consider themselves as job creators, not crime victims. Personally I'm impressed the thief was that industrious, opting ot use the car rather than sell it to a chop shop.
So you consider women to be nothing more than meat-based 'hyper-visors'?
We should be using terms like "forced birthers" because that describes what so-called "anti-abortionists" are supporting. Not saving a fetus, but forcing a woman to give birth without her consent.
Riiiight... because every abortion is because the woman was either raped or experiencing an immaculate conception, 'a la the virgin mary'. She didn't consent to having the man engage in all the requisite steps to impregnate her - it just 'happened', she's a victim of her own completely unpredictable fertility cycle and some innocent sexual activity...
This is nothing more than career bosses suggesting that staffers pepper their budget requests with political talking-points to increase their likelihood of securing greater funding levels from republicans.
Agreed.
There's this "shocking" alternative wording proposed:
According to the Post's article, "Instead of 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' the suggested phrase is 'CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes."
The difference between 'science-based' and 'bases it's recommendations on science' eludes me, and the added 'in consideration with community standards and wishes'? Seriously? That last bit gives CDC the ability to say things like 'everyone in this situation should have a blood transfusion, unless their religion instructs otherwise' or 'everyone should get inoculated unless they have strongly-held opinion not to'...
What s complete non-story!
The title should be "Career CDC leaders encourage staffers to use political talking-points in budget requests in hopes to secure higher funding levels in future budgets".
So I read the summary with a critical eye and this jumped out at me:
although "a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans."
That tells me the heads of CDC most likely came up with this set of "recommendations" because they think it will help them get a larger budget.
This doesn't read as the Trump Administration banning words, it sounds like career staff has an insulting view of the politicians that determine their funding level.
his attitude toward the opposition
You mean like reaching out and trying to find common ground? How horrible!
Like when he had to be shamed into meeting with republicans to discuss healthcare? Or when, at the end of the POTUS/GOP healthcare summit in 2009 he dismisses every republican suggestion by saying 'if you want to implement your ideas, try winning some elections'?
Then the Republicans did just that, taking and holding the Congress since 2010, then taking and keeping the Senate in 2014, and then the whitehouse in 2016...
Comey stayed behind afterward to tell the president-elect about the controversial Steele dossier, however, and that private meeting may have been responsible for the animosity that would eventually lead to Trump firing the director of the FBI.
Perhaps, but maybe it's exactly because of the reason he stated - the botched investigation and public announcements involved with the Clinton email investigation, you know the reason countlessdemocrats were calling for his firing earlier that same year under Obama.
The problem they're trying to solve is that there is a lack of competition for last mile access networks. Without legally mandated network neutrality, competition is the only way to ensure that the internet doesn't deteriorate into a new version of cable TV.
No, the last mile isn't the issue - it's the carriers that bring the data up to the last mile.
Awesome, you are going to compete with carrier-grade infrastructure with a consumer-grade alternative, your going to expect people to buy, configure, and install them themselves, and then your going to charge them for the privilege of sharing a mesh network node with everyone else.
I'm sure Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner are all quaking in their boots at the thought of your "poking holes in the ISP stranglehold on the last mile."
As it is now, most people have at most 2 options and in many places just 1.
So, because there are a limited number of "wired" broadband ISPs in a community, we need to build a "wireless" ISP, ignoring all the wireless ISP that already serve the area?
The entire country is served by satellite service.
The vast majority of the country is served by multiple wireless providers.
And of course, as a practical matter the majority of communities are served by both a cable company and telco company, both of which typically offer some ISP services.
In most communities there is typically only one attractive provider, there are almost always alternatives, but they are not as appealing to consumers.
In theory, yes, but when everyone comes home after work and turns on Netflix or any other HD streaming service, performance will suffer - significantly.
Got a cost on these Wi-Max routers you expect/propose everyone buy?
As I recall, web services like google, Netflix, and akimai, and others will drop redundant mirror servers near ISPs regional connection point to provide improved access to their services, preventing a lot of streaming traffic from travelling across the backbone of the internet. That's a good thing.
If this group buys a raw data connection from, say, Hurricane Electric, they will not have access to a local caching server for Netflix, so all Netflix traffic for this "unthrottled" internet will have to travel from where? The nearest non-collocated Netflix server? won't that hurt performance over a co-located caching server?
So your plan is to litter the community with consumer-grade hardware?
And where will these backbone nodes be installed, on rooftops? You do know that landlords charge rent for installing equipment on their buildings, right?
On Telco poles? Think again, those aren't publicly-owned, your telco will want revenue if they deign to allow your hardware on their poles.
On your own poles/masts? Sounds great, you're gonna have a real fun time filling out the permit requests, sending surveyors out to map the facilities, buying the towers, leasing the ground, etc.
But hey, great plan...
I can't see it.
So I go to Hurricane Electric, hand them $1,500/month, and they give me (effectively) a Cat6 connection that provides me with an unfiltered, unthrottled, uncensored 10 Gb/sec connection. Great.
How do I get that out of HE's datacenter? Am I laying/renting a fiber connection from HE to the offices of Motherboard Vice? That costs something, but we'll consider that a manageable cost.
Now, I go up on the roof, and I install some Ubiquiti sector antennas, a whole bunch of them, three sectors per non-overlapping WiFi channel. Great. If we stick with 2.4 GHz that means three sets of three sector antennas, one 3 sector set for channels 1, 6, and 11. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate the equipment needed to similarly saturate the 5 GHz WiFi band,
So, now I've got a crusher WiFi signal blasting out on all usable 2.4 GHz WiFi channels - think that's gonna cause interference problems with other users? Won't they be "monopolizing" the public WiFi channels?
So anyway, we throw these sector antennas up on the roof of the building, and now our wonderful internet service only takes care of those users that happen to live in a certain, limited, geographic region - the area directly surrounding the Motherboard Vice HQ, users outside the direct link will be forced to access our connection via mesh functionality, so now we've created two service level tiers - one that gets premium, direct connections to our sector antennas, and those low-grade users that have their traffic filter through various mesh nodes to reach our sector antennas. So we are now discriminating between our customers, based on their location.
And why go through this effort? Because you're afraid ISPs will throttle certain websites and promote the traffic of other websites, in an effort to maximize their profits. Fine, but your response has the vast majority of your user community, those not enjoying premium, direct connections to your central location, suffering at mesh node speeds for ALL traffic, and even premium users will have their connections degrade as mesh network traffic flows through their router en route to the central location - all of this congestion on the WiFi channels and their limited bandwidth will cause you to have effectively throttled all customer traffic equally.
So, let's recap - you are "monopolizing" the public WiFi channels, discriminating between our customers, based on their location, and effectively throttled all customer traffic equally.
Remind me, what problems are you trying to solve?
How many streaming Netflix boxes can this proposed 'mesh' or peer-to-peer Network support simultaneously?
These kids have their panties in a wad because they are afraid an ISP might choose to throttle a handful of websites, so their answer is to implement an alternative mesh/peer-to-peer Network that because of it's inherent design effectively throttles ALL traffic?
Brilliant! That will show them what's possible when the 'community' comes together.
^^^ said the guy whose greatest technical achievement was 'hiding' the SSID on his linksys router.
It's great how you gloss over any and all difficulties in the so-called 'last mile'...
You know, like the way the post office 'juices' it's customers by offering Priorty Mail service at a premium over standard first class mail...
"Faster, more dependable service at a premium price! The post office is stifling innovation and will throttle first and third class mail delivery to force people to choose Priorty Mail instead! They must be stopped, we need 'Postal Neutrality'!"
That's great, but how will people feel about going to Hurricane Electric's datacenter to use their $1.50/month 'unlimited' internet service?
Oh, I see, you are going to use magical infrastructure that never fails and has no acquisition costs or on-going maintenance costs, and will be delivered to each of your customers in a manner that doesn't limit their access speed or use any competing provider's infrastructure.
This is a brilliant idea, I can't imagine anything that might impact your well thought-out plan to up-end the internet marketplace. /sarcasm
What's worse, in the state of Winnemac, there are six Jane Does with that same birthday
Do you have any idea how unlikely it is to have two people share not only the same name AND birthdate?
People sharing names OR sharing birthdates is quite common, sharing both is rare - not anywhere near impossible, but very, very unlikely.
How do you think search engines work?
Are you trying to claim that one-fourth of all traffic on the web is search engines crawling the network? Doesn't that seem like a lot of traffic?
That's like saying one-fourth of the cars on the road are "Google Cars" updating Google's Street View database.