Once 5G starts widely rolling out, there may be surge again, but my guess is the carriers will charge / throttle 5G nearly out of existence so that may not be all that cool either.
No, there won't. 5G essentially requires near-line-of-sight. In a world (meaning the US) where companies won't even invest in consumer fiber deployment any longer, the idea of high density 5G cells providing NLOS connectivity is laughable. A 5G cell phone will have minimal advantages over an LTE cell phone with WiFi connectivity at the home and office (which also offers the advantage of not burning through the pitiful cell data allotment).
Not true. That money was from Terry McAuliffe the Virginia governor who got it from Hillary, and the part from Hillary was much less than a million dollars. According to Newsweek, and I save the article just to debunk these sort of claims, it was only $675,288. Not evidence that it influenced McCabe has ever been release much less proof that McCabe didn't fully investigate Hillary because of it.
Oh, well then, no harm, no foul if it was only a measly ~$700,000 from a DNC political apparatchik. Oh, and ~$300,000 from HRC. That's chump-change, not even worth mentioning! I mean, sure, you could probably hire a contract-killer for less, but human life is cheap! There's no way that tiny amount of pocket change could influence somebody being paid those luxurious government wages.
Strat
So your position is that money received indirectly from politically motivated persons by relatives of government employees is a corrupting influence?
Gotcha. I now completely understand how the fact that Trump has delegated "management" of his businesses to his sons, the fact that prices for memberships or services in those businesses have drastically inreased, and the fact that politically motivated persons are flocking to them, means that there is no way that those tiny amounts of pocket change could influence him.
Oh, and he also just happens to have retained ownership of those businesses... but it's OK because he's rich and therefore above being influenced by money.
I cannot think of a single lawful reason why someone would need to use a service like this
*eyeroll*
And those water pipes are for tobacco.
Set yourself up with a challenge like that and you'll get that sort of answer. It doesn't matter whether 99.9% use it for something else, you need only point to the lawful example.
It just shows that Slashdot is too small and meaningless to bother with shadowbans. Like it or not, Facebook/Twitter/Youtube are today's public square. Instead of being publicly owned, they are privately owned, and their owners are banning conservatives all over. This is why they need to be nationalized, for the protection of our country. We can't have a discussion when one side is silenced.
How very conservative of you... by which I mean how painfully plainly you seek to utterly overturn conservative principles in an attempt to advance conservatism. Slashdot is "too small" -- meaning that you want to nationalize an audience, not a unique and critical facility. They are "public squares," despite the fact that they are private entities that have always imposed rules of entry, and only a few states such as California have ever bought into the quasi-public square theory. They must be nationalized "for the protection of our country," from allegedly one-sided points of view (yet, oddly, that does not apply to Fox News or Sinclair Broadcasting).
One side has not been silenced -- it has it's own nationwide media outlets, broadcast stations, internet fora, and everything else. You're simply butthurt that people that you apparently sympathize with cannot push a message through every attractive outlet because some of those messages violate generally applicable rules. Fairness doctrine redux for YouTube and Facebook, but hell no for Fox News and 200+ television stations.
When Right wingers do not like how the community is managed, they build the alternative one. When Left wingers do not like how the community is managed, they expel everybody who disagrees with them and take measures to shut them up (1st amendment is a huge obstacle in this, but where it doesn't work - e.g. big private platforms like Facebook and Twitter - the Left routinely works the moderation mechanisms to silence conservatives and eject them from the platform completely, even though there are easy mechanisms to avoid reading offensive posts forever, and they are routinely successful).
Ah yes, "Right" wing sites are well known for being tolerant bastions of free speech for all comers... I mean, you never saw that behavior on/The_Donald and/pol.
Surely, the correct conclusion from this is that the Right is the group that has authoritarian tendencies.
You're the one talking about forced association, forced speech, and nationalization. So if you count yourself as an example fo the Right, the conclusion is pretty obvious. Yes.
If privately held businesses are going to operate under the assumption of acting as a common carrier, then that is exactly how they shall operate.
And if they don't (because they don't)? Edge services operate under a Communications Decency Act immunity -- not as a common carrier, which is a status that only applies to telecommunications providers under the Communications Act of 1934. Therefore they can operate precisely how they wish.
47 U.S.C. 230(c) Civil liability - No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
First amendment rights shall not be abdicated to the whims of silicon valley executives under the pretense of hosting an impartial platform.
You do realize that the First Amendment only states that Congress (and by extension through the 14th amendment, the States) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Edge providers are not the government.
Arbitrary enforcement of 'community standards', algorithm changes to suppress certain individuals but promote the approved messages of others, and squashing 'harmful' ideas is just another form of authoritarianism
Again, edge providers are not the government. Under your apparent definition, you are equally authoritarian -- you want to force privately held businesses to host and distribute messages that they do not want to carry because you, an authority, dictate so to them.
Rules for thee, not for me. Such are the excuses of an authoritarian.
Yet that is exactly what you advocate. You want to force privately held businesses to host and distribute messages that they do not want to carry.
Will you host and distribute messages that you do not want to carry? Because I guarantee that I can come up with a bunch of them and make you suffer for the offer.
When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Sessions. America most definitely has such a system.
They very fact that you could post this drivel here shows that we do not have such a system.
No meaningful space between corporate power and government power? Is Zuckerberg preventing you from posting everywhere? Can Zuckerberg jail you?
Well, we all know how to measure a straight line, but what about a curve? And what if that curve has curves? The crux of the problem comes down to geometry, and the fundamentally uneven nature of coastlines.
Everyone competent knows how to measure the lengths of curves, and curves that have curves. The issue is that based upon your use case and needs, different people pick what are essentially different resolutions for their mapping and length measurements, which means that you discard the lengths of features or "curves" that are approximately that size or smaller. If you measure the length from a map that has a 1 mile resolution, you'll get a substantially shorter length than from a map that has a 100 ft resolution, which will be a substantially shorter length than from a map with a 1 ft resolution, etc.
There isn't one right answer. There are a range of answers that are all approximations at scales that should be relevant to different types of users.
When were they supposed to load test their servers? They had to keep them up and running so that everyone who didn't procrastinate was able to pay their taxes.
Before January 29, 2018, when the fileable 2017 tax forms were finalized and released.
I love how some believe that it's unreasonable to expect the government to load test and reliably operate their servers, but reasonable to expect people to do their taxes before a deadline because the government might screw things up. Fortunately, they're not in charge, and there's actual grown-ups running the IRS.
I'm pretty sure the ToS on the IRS "Direct Pay" web page says, in so many boilerplate words, essentially the same thing and that 100% service up-time is not guaranteed.
This was designed as a convenience, not as a way to perform as a 'Hail Mary play', last-minute, guaranteed way to save yourself from your own irresponsibility, stupidity, and procrastination.
Yeah, we'll call it a "convenience," with a TOS designed to save the government from its own irresponsibility, stupidity, and procrastination.
Why are so many people so lazy about getting their taxes done?
Why do people think that completing work prior to a deadline, when there is no incentive or bonus to doing so, is laziness? If it's done before the deadline, it counts the same as the one done two months ago.
If they wait till the last minute out of laziness, well, technical difficulties forcing them to go outside their comfort zone and actually mail a check is the price they may just have to pay.
And the price for those in charge of the systems experiencing "technical difficulties" is?
It's quite common for web systems that work just fine under moderate load 364 days out of the year to fail under extreme loads that one day of the year when millions instead of thousands of people try to access it at the same time.
And there's no excuse for it, especially since the load on the 365th day in this case is entirely predictable, involves at least as many millions people as last year, and is on a critical (to the government) system that it expressly wants people to use instead of filing paper returns and paper payments.
April 15th falling on a Sunday means that returns can't be mailed and payments can't be postmarked, yet for some reason we merely delay the deadline until the next business day (in the District of Columbia no less) instead of spouting trite phrases like "that's the price they pay."
Valve pointed out that Steam will also receive a long, long, long-awaited "invisible" function for Steam's online-status toggle, which will allow players to actively communicate with Steam friends while hiding from the general public, and that it will also specifically let players hide both game ownership and gameplay time counts from friends. The company explained that Tuesday's changes came "directly from user feedback," which Steam Spy founder Sergey Galyonkin questioned via his site's Twitter feed: "They said it was by users feedback which makes me as a person born in the Soviet Union very suspicious:)"
It's utterly counterintuitive to think that Steam users would not want a complete inventory of what they owned and how much they played it available to all of their friends (nothing like advertising to your CS:GO friends that you've played Hentai Strip Poker 3 for 120 hours).
And surely everyone wants the entire Steam community to know that they're online playing Steam games.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Then you wrote poorly, because it is enough. Websites do not car about "secret US users." They care about known US users who kthe guy subject them to liability. Lose the known US users and there's no problem with US law.
Since US users can simply use VPN/proxies their legal requirements (if there are any) are not met. US users can still visit the websites.
Untrue. You have to have sufficient mens rea with respect to US users in order to even fit within the defined crime. Banning US users, prohibiting US users, and terminating any VPN users found to be US users pretty much ensures that that requirement won't be met. That's before you get into the "how do we extradite foreign nationals and foreign corporations" issue.
If you want to advocate for worldwide application of a country's standards for what is legal or nor legal to place on a website, be my guest, but be prepared for Turkey, Iran, and every other country in the world to dictate what every service on the planet can offer since their users can simply use VPN/proxies/TOR and still visit the websites.
10.8 feet is one second away at 7 mph. Too damn close -- company deserves a ticket.
7 mph is running speed, and it's a crosswalk. Walking speed is 2.5 seconds away. You're also assuming that the pedestrian is walking toward the vehicle when the article strongly implies that the pedestrian was walking away from the vehicle.
According to data collected by Cruise, the pedestrian was 10.8 feet away from the car when, while the car was in self-driving mode, it began to continue down Harrison at 14th St. Shortly after the car accelerated, the officer pulled it over.
11 feet way moving away from the car is far enough in any city that I've driven in.
I blogged yesterday about a mob trying to shut down Jordan B. Peterson and others at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, and wondered aloud, âoeWhere are there police?!â Well, turns out one of the SJWs was arrested after breaking the glass . .
Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon â" a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.â
Well, it' a right to bear arms, not merely a right to bear firearms. Now be a good little automaton and defend her rights under the second amendment as you're supposed to.
You do realise that your definition of "wrong software" is anything that runs potentially untrusted code that does not also contain spectre specific mitigation.
Yes, I'm sure that you carefully vet all of the code that is running on your personal computer to ensure that it cannot break out of its virtualization sandbox.
Conversely, I'm sure that you're allowing third parties to execute code on your personal computer all the time and not just in a web browser.
Because if it's the former, you're a liar, and if it's the latter, you have just about the most inefficient ad hoc datacenter operation of all time.
You mean like having your passwords, encryption keys, and who knows what else swiped via javascript thus making using a web browser on most sites (which require javascript to function thanks to AJAX and such) a huge security risk?
So it's your position that browser mitigations do not exist or are insufficient?
The argument that they don't have customers is not nearly as clear as they suggest -- what matters is what is in the contract, not how they actually provide services through affiliates.
Does it identify the corporate entity that is on the other side of the transaction? (hint: "In this agreement, we use the terms 'we,' 'us' or 'our' to mean CenturyLink.")
Does it mention any local or operating company? (hint: run a word search)
Does the notice section clarify any of this?
If you want to provide notice to us either because this agreement requires it or because you have a matter you want to bring to our attention, you should notify us at the customer service telephone number on your bill or write us at 1801 California Street, Suite 900, Denver, Colorado 80202, Attn: Legal Department.
Does the agreement contain an "integration clause" that says that all other information or representations are to be disregarded? (hint: section 8. H.)
So who is to say that the CenturyLink holding company is not a party to the subscriber agreement? Who might have drafted the agreements (which apparently are identical no matter which operating company serves the customer)?
If you look at the basic agreements, only the High-Speed Internet and Internet Access Services Residential Terms and Conditions (updated in fall 2017l) actually specifies that the agreement for that product is with a particular affiliate providing services. Both the digital phone and TV service agreements do not. Earlier versions of the internet agreements may not have as well...
This isn't going to get them a quick dismissal without judicial findings of fact...
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, don't believe that inlation since 2000 has been 100% (doubling the 74% post-adjusted increase as you have).
And I'm right. From 2000 to 2018 it was 44.5%.
I also don't believe your base rate, because there were a number of stories in 2016 reporting that the average had just crossed $100/mo.
And I'm right. In 2000 the average was reported to be about $40/mo.
That means that your numbers are indeed swampland-sales quality.
No, there won't. 5G essentially requires near-line-of-sight. In a world (meaning the US) where companies won't even invest in consumer fiber deployment any longer, the idea of high density 5G cells providing NLOS connectivity is laughable. A 5G cell phone will have minimal advantages over an LTE cell phone with WiFi connectivity at the home and office (which also offers the advantage of not burning through the pitiful cell data allotment).
So your position is that money received indirectly from politically motivated persons by relatives of government employees is a corrupting influence?
Gotcha. I now completely understand how the fact that Trump has delegated "management" of his businesses to his sons, the fact that prices for memberships or services in those businesses have drastically inreased, and the fact that politically motivated persons are flocking to them, means that there is no way that those tiny amounts of pocket change could influence him.
Oh, and he also just happens to have retained ownership of those businesses... but it's OK because he's rich and therefore above being influenced by money.
Set yourself up with a challenge like that and you'll get that sort of answer. It doesn't matter whether 99.9% use it for something else, you need only point to the lawful example.
How very conservative of you... by which I mean how painfully plainly you seek to utterly overturn conservative principles in an attempt to advance conservatism. Slashdot is "too small" -- meaning that you want to nationalize an audience, not a unique and critical facility. They are "public squares," despite the fact that they are private entities that have always imposed rules of entry, and only a few states such as California have ever bought into the quasi-public square theory. They must be nationalized "for the protection of our country," from allegedly one-sided points of view (yet, oddly, that does not apply to Fox News or Sinclair Broadcasting).
One side has not been silenced -- it has it's own nationwide media outlets, broadcast stations, internet fora, and everything else. You're simply butthurt that people that you apparently sympathize with cannot push a message through every attractive outlet because some of those messages violate generally applicable rules. Fairness doctrine redux for YouTube and Facebook, but hell no for Fox News and 200+ television stations.
Ah yes, "Right" wing sites are well known for being tolerant bastions of free speech for all comers... I mean, you never saw that behavior on /The_Donald and /pol.
You're the one talking about forced association, forced speech, and nationalization. So if you count yourself as an example fo the Right, the conclusion is pretty obvious. Yes.
And if they don't (because they don't)? Edge services operate under a Communications Decency Act immunity -- not as a common carrier, which is a status that only applies to telecommunications providers under the Communications Act of 1934. Therefore they can operate precisely how they wish.
47 U.S.C. 230(c)
Civil liability - No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
You do realize that the First Amendment only states that Congress (and by extension through the 14th amendment, the States) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Edge providers are not the government.
Again, edge providers are not the government. Under your apparent definition, you are equally authoritarian -- you want to force privately held businesses to host and distribute messages that they do not want to carry because you, an authority, dictate so to them.
Sorry, you're not even close to right on this.
Yet that is exactly what you advocate. You want to force privately held businesses to host and distribute messages that they do not want to carry.
Will you host and distribute messages that you do not want to carry? Because I guarantee that I can come up with a bunch of them and make you suffer for the offer.
They very fact that you could post this drivel here shows that we do not have such a system.
No meaningful space between corporate power and government power? Is Zuckerberg preventing you from posting everywhere? Can Zuckerberg jail you?
Not even close.
When you tell a man to get off your lawn, you only exert control over your lawn, and the man is free to say his piece elsewhere.
Everyone competent knows how to measure the lengths of curves, and curves that have curves. The issue is that based upon your use case and needs, different people pick what are essentially different resolutions for their mapping and length measurements, which means that you discard the lengths of features or "curves" that are approximately that size or smaller. If you measure the length from a map that has a 1 mile resolution, you'll get a substantially shorter length than from a map that has a 100 ft resolution, which will be a substantially shorter length than from a map with a 1 ft resolution, etc.
There isn't one right answer. There are a range of answers that are all approximations at scales that should be relevant to different types of users.
What he or she said. I am not alone, so perhaps you should reflect a bit more carefully.
I love how some people attempt to walk back poorly thought-out statements by claiming afterwards that they were only jokes.
Your computer lab story was hilarious. Your distain for procrastinators was hysterical. The intended humor really shines through.
Before January 29, 2018, when the fileable 2017 tax forms were finalized and released.
I love how some believe that it's unreasonable to expect the government to load test and reliably operate their servers, but reasonable to expect people to do their taxes before a deadline because the government might screw things up. Fortunately, they're not in charge, and there's actual grown-ups running the IRS.
Yeah, we'll call it a "convenience," with a TOS designed to save the government from its own irresponsibility, stupidity, and procrastination.
Now stop complaining, proles...
Why do people think that completing work prior to a deadline, when there is no incentive or bonus to doing so, is laziness? If it's done before the deadline, it counts the same as the one done two months ago.
And the price for those in charge of the systems experiencing "technical difficulties" is?
And there's no excuse for it, especially since the load on the 365th day in this case is entirely predictable, involves at least as many millions people as last year, and is on a critical (to the government) system that it expressly wants people to use instead of filing paper returns and paper payments.
April 15th falling on a Sunday means that returns can't be mailed and payments can't be postmarked, yet for some reason we merely delay the deadline until the next business day (in the District of Columbia no less) instead of spouting trite phrases like "that's the price they pay."
You doubt because you are ignorant.
Let me assure you that Virginians envisaged the existence of Delaware and Rhode Island..
It's utterly counterintuitive to think that Steam users would not want a complete inventory of what they owned and how much they played it available to all of their friends (nothing like advertising to your CS:GO friends that you've played Hentai Strip Poker 3 for 120 hours).
And surely everyone wants the entire Steam community to know that they're online playing Steam games.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Then you wrote poorly, because it is enough. Websites do not car about "secret US users." They care about known US users who kthe guy subject them to liability. Lose the known US users and there's no problem with US law.
Untrue. You have to have sufficient mens rea with respect to US users in order to even fit within the defined crime. Banning US users, prohibiting US users, and terminating any VPN users found to be US users pretty much ensures that that requirement won't be met. That's before you get into the "how do we extradite foreign nationals and foreign corporations" issue.
If you want to advocate for worldwide application of a country's standards for what is legal or nor legal to place on a website, be my guest, but be prepared for Turkey, Iran, and every other country in the world to dictate what every service on the planet can offer since their users can simply use VPN/proxies/TOR and still visit the websites.
7 mph is running speed, and it's a crosswalk. Walking speed is 2.5 seconds away. You're also assuming that the pedestrian is walking toward the vehicle when the article strongly implies that the pedestrian was walking away from the vehicle.
11 feet way moving away from the car is far enough in any city that I've driven in.
BTW, I fully recognize that this took place in Canada, but your philosophy is not geographically limited, now is it?
Well, it' a right to bear arms, not merely a right to bear firearms. Now be a good little automaton and defend her rights under the second amendment as you're supposed to.
Yes, I'm sure that you carefully vet all of the code that is running on your personal computer to ensure that it cannot break out of its virtualization sandbox.
Conversely, I'm sure that you're allowing third parties to execute code on your personal computer all the time and not just in a web browser.
Because if it's the former, you're a liar, and if it's the latter, you have just about the most inefficient ad hoc datacenter operation of all time.
So it's your position that browser mitigations do not exist or are insufficient?
The argument that they don't have customers is not nearly as clear as they suggest -- what matters is what is in the contract, not how they actually provide services through affiliates.
Read through, for example, the digial phone subscriber terms of service that contains the dispute resolution clause involved in those products.
Does it identify the corporate entity that is on the other side of the transaction? (hint: "In this agreement, we use the terms 'we,' 'us' or 'our' to mean CenturyLink.")
Does it mention any local or operating company? (hint: run a word search)
Does the notice section clarify any of this?
Does the agreement contain an "integration clause" that says that all other information or representations are to be disregarded? (hint: section 8. H.)
So who is to say that the CenturyLink holding company is not a party to the subscriber agreement? Who might have drafted the agreements (which apparently are identical no matter which operating company serves the customer)?
If you look at the basic agreements, only the High-Speed Internet and Internet Access Services Residential Terms and Conditions (updated in fall 2017l) actually specifies that the agreement for that product is with a particular affiliate providing services. Both the digital phone and TV service agreements do not. Earlier versions of the internet agreements may not have as well...
This isn't going to get them a quick dismissal without judicial findings of fact...