I was just thinking about this earlier today. If the market is really full of people who would be offended by the practices of Verizon et. al. why doesn't someone start a company? This company would provide unfiltered net neutral internet access. Let the market decide what we're going to put up with from these big companies. The problem I see is there's quite a barrier to entry into the ISP business and you have to get your links from somewhere. What guarantees those links will be neutral or uninfluenced by the big players? The reality is the majority of people are so enamored with Facebook, Netflix, etc that they'll pay whatever it costs. So everyone will be screwed and we'll all complain, but not enough people will vote with their wallets to make a difference. The problem isn't the free market it's the people comprising the market. They're willing to accept what they ought to reject, and even government regulation doesn't fix that problem.
The technology we do have is not net-zero impact either. It takes energy to make electric cars and the batteries to run them, solar panels, wind mills, etc. The batteries weigh a lot, they're expensive to produce, and environmentally hazardous to dispose of. Wind mills... huge cost to build. They rarely produce energy when it's actually needed. You can't base load with them. If it weren't for tax payer subsidies they'd be DOA. When they break down they're an eye sore, and they're also expensive to maintain. Ever see the ones in CA with oil streaming down the sides? Bet that's great for the environment. Solar panels are a little better, but even then they degrade over time, also cost a lot to produce and maintain, and have a substantial environmental impact on the disposal side. So yeah, they certainly have an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving the environment. Economic starvation is one possible explanation. However, I'm inclined to believe they'd just like to keep receiving funding to solve a problem that doesn't exist. An attempt to create an industry off of bogus assumptions. Plus what better cause to get behind for a politician than one that never existed in the first place? You get a blank check to solve a problem and you spend it however you see fit. Decades down the road when there's no problem you can be the hero.
Anyone with a brain immediately labeled it fake news. CNN was your first clue. Visual climate change was the second. How do you create a video depicting something that even scientists agree we don't fully understand?
Ah, but this is a union shop. So what they'll do is grovel and beg people to work at time and a half. Which is what they are doing and they're close to filling the gap.
I'm not sure millennials are to blame. Driving this breakneck pace of software development is corporations looking to make a quick buck with little thought or care given to security or quality. It's crank it out or we'll get someone who can. So they inspire this sort of crapfest.
You've disproven your own point. You get 20+ emails. And if you'll notice the stuff that's serious gets fixed pretty quickly. Conversely with some other companies you never hear about the bug until it's been exploited or patched. So you don't know about the 2000+ vulnerabilities that you're exposed to that have been hanging out for years because closed source company has decided they're too expensive to fix. But don't worry. The CIA knows about them. Of course so do the bad guys. Ignorance is bliss right?
This is where if a corporation is people then the executive officers and the board should be the ones on the hook for something like this. This wasn't a unilateral decision it was corporate practice. And the only way you stop things like this from becoming a recurring theme is to hold them accountable.
Think about how fast pass works at all of the theme parks. You pay more to get to the front of the line. You can't possibly hit all the rides in one day if you don't purchase a fast pass so more and more people do it because to them it's the greatest value. But the grandmother who is poor and saves all year to take her grandkids can't afford a fast pass. So she and her kids spend most of the day standing in line watching the wealthy go to the front of the line. That is essentially what the result of net neutrality will be.
I noticed how you dismiss all of his arguments though. Including the one about the FCC chairman, you know the one who's supposedly going to benefit from this? I also don't see how he benefits. I don't want net neutrality to go away, and it's very possible that corporate interests are taking precedence over public interests. But spouting nonsense doesn't fix that issue. Let's get to the bottom of who's really behind the push and why and talk about that. From what I can tell Verizon is the one pushing it. Protesting in their stores isn't very effective. However, a boycott would hurt them greatly if it were long term. Don't renew your contract and go with a different provider if you feel strongly about net neutrality. Hit em where it hurts.
When you go the doctor you are taking your chances. They prescribe medications that "may help", or "may not". They perform surgeries that may or may not help. All based on what they think essentially. Granted their experience and training makes that an educated guess, but they're still wrong sometimes. It's also not infrequent. The one certainty is that those medications will have side effects, and you will still receive a bill for services rendered. All the time the FDA approves things that are later determined to be harmful. How is it that they think they should be the ultimate arbiters of what a person can and can't do on their own? Unless it's not about protecting the public, but rather protecting an industry. I think if you're dying anyway what does it hurt? Especially if you're electing to do it to yourself? How is it that the federal government can mandate what's best for an individual when they themselves are full of corruption, inadequacy, and incompetence? Not a fan.
It gives the biggest companies an unfair advantage squeezing out the little guy. It will ultimately stifle competition which is never good for the public at large.
That's easy for him to say, but those norms will change with coordinated effort. If all the telecoms start charging what's everyone going to do? They're going to pay. Because to not pay means you don't get your content and no one is going to accept that (or at least not enough that it will make a difference). Choice doesn't matter when all the choices suck. We'll all piss and moan about it, but we'll never collectively hit them in the wallet where it would really matter.
I can't see how that would be beneficial. There's little difference between union heads and CEOs. They both eye the worker like a piece of meat waiting to be devoured. If the deal is that bad work for a gig that's not? How can they maintain a multi billion dollar company with no people to deliver? Change what the market will bear. The only reason things like this persist is because people accept it. And if you're one of the people using that service then you're part of the problem.
I have a hard time understanding why Japan is going after GE as though they had no involvement in the process. They had their own scientists, and government regulatory body examining the design. They didn't just leave everything up to GE. They looked over that design and gave it their blessing. Were they unaware that tsunamis are common in Japan? Or that pumps require a working generator to run (preferably above sea level). How many decades has that plant been generating without incident? It seems pretty dishonest to now lay all the responsibility at the feet of GE.
I would agree that society should be better educated. But it's kind of hard with the level of bias and distortion of facts. It used to be that if you wanted to be educated you had to want it. Work for the money to buy your own books and spend long evenings pouring over them and trying to understand. Now days information is relatively free flowing. With the click of the mouse you can "learn" just about anything. Turn on the TV and it will tell you everything that's going on in the world (from the perspective of the teller). What details are emphasized, left out, embellished, manipulated, etc. creates public perspective. Kind of like going after Roy Moore while downplaying Harvey Weinstein. Not saying one is any better than the other, but there are definitely teams where sides have been chosen and there are different standards for friends than there are for enemies. This is true for all sides. So where do you get that education? That is purely based on unbiased facts? Even science is very polluted by predetermined outcomes bought and paid for by the research grant. Whether it's governments or corporations the money is the common denominator in shaping the outcome. Where even science, data, and observation are dependent on what is included and excluded to arrive at a predefined conclusion. What do you know about "climate change" other than what you've been told by the scientists you trust? Have you done your own research? Did you have all the data required to reach your conclusion? Was that data pure? I'm not trying to push a particular agenda other than attempting to point out that even science is largely dependent on faith. Your perception is made up of what you choose to accept, and what you choose to reject.
Guess I should have read the articles first. My comment was based on the summary. After reading what he wrote I agree with him on principle. Kill on sight is a bad approach that's going to break things and make them non-functional. That doesn't make you many friends. The problem is issuing a warning calls attention to the flaws and could show where an attack would be successful. It's a delicate balance to be sure.
I love Linux. It's an awesome OS. I like Linus a lot too. He's contributed a great deal to computing. However, calling people names doesn't really fix anything. On this particular issue I feel that he's wrong in his assessment as well. There is a distinct difference between a bug that causes a failure in functionality as opposed to a bug that exposes a system from a security standpoint. He's right in that both are bugs, but the consequences are much higher when it is security related, and that's why we treat them differently. That being said there is also a well established divide between security analysts, and developers. As a developer we just want stuff to work, and often times security makes that difficult. As a security analyst we want to keep the system secure (in some cases need to - think compliance), and often times developers make that difficult. I wear both hats in my position so I see it all the time. Ultimately it's in everyone's interest to work together to create code that both works, and is secure. Engaging in a pissing match does nothing useful.
Get back to me when 15,000 scientists agree on what the problem is with concrete evidence as opposed to this is what we think. Then we can start arguing about what the solution should be. This is how real science is supposed to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously a long long time ago.
I was just thinking about this earlier today. If the market is really full of people who would be offended by the practices of Verizon et. al. why doesn't someone start a company? This company would provide unfiltered net neutral internet access. Let the market decide what we're going to put up with from these big companies. The problem I see is there's quite a barrier to entry into the ISP business and you have to get your links from somewhere. What guarantees those links will be neutral or uninfluenced by the big players? The reality is the majority of people are so enamored with Facebook, Netflix, etc that they'll pay whatever it costs. So everyone will be screwed and we'll all complain, but not enough people will vote with their wallets to make a difference. The problem isn't the free market it's the people comprising the market. They're willing to accept what they ought to reject, and even government regulation doesn't fix that problem.
Most of what's out there isn't even worth pirating. Why would I waste my bandwidth or storage space?
And what shall we do with said battery when it has outlived its usefulness?
The technology we do have is not net-zero impact either. It takes energy to make electric cars and the batteries to run them, solar panels, wind mills, etc. The batteries weigh a lot, they're expensive to produce, and environmentally hazardous to dispose of. Wind mills... huge cost to build. They rarely produce energy when it's actually needed. You can't base load with them. If it weren't for tax payer subsidies they'd be DOA. When they break down they're an eye sore, and they're also expensive to maintain. Ever see the ones in CA with oil streaming down the sides? Bet that's great for the environment. Solar panels are a little better, but even then they degrade over time, also cost a lot to produce and maintain, and have a substantial environmental impact on the disposal side. So yeah, they certainly have an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving the environment. Economic starvation is one possible explanation. However, I'm inclined to believe they'd just like to keep receiving funding to solve a problem that doesn't exist. An attempt to create an industry off of bogus assumptions. Plus what better cause to get behind for a politician than one that never existed in the first place? You get a blank check to solve a problem and you spend it however you see fit. Decades down the road when there's no problem you can be the hero.
Anyone with a brain immediately labeled it fake news. CNN was your first clue. Visual climate change was the second. How do you create a video depicting something that even scientists agree we don't fully understand?
Yes. Finding it is the challenge.
And neither of them are producing anything approaching a fraction of that value.
Ah, but this is a union shop. So what they'll do is grovel and beg people to work at time and a half. Which is what they are doing and they're close to filling the gap.
I'm not sure millennials are to blame. Driving this breakneck pace of software development is corporations looking to make a quick buck with little thought or care given to security or quality. It's crank it out or we'll get someone who can. So they inspire this sort of crapfest.
You've disproven your own point. You get 20+ emails. And if you'll notice the stuff that's serious gets fixed pretty quickly. Conversely with some other companies you never hear about the bug until it's been exploited or patched. So you don't know about the 2000+ vulnerabilities that you're exposed to that have been hanging out for years because closed source company has decided they're too expensive to fix. But don't worry. The CIA knows about them. Of course so do the bad guys. Ignorance is bliss right?
This is where if a corporation is people then the executive officers and the board should be the ones on the hook for something like this. This wasn't a unilateral decision it was corporate practice. And the only way you stop things like this from becoming a recurring theme is to hold them accountable.
Sorry that should have been "That will essentially be the result of net neutrality going away."
Think about how fast pass works at all of the theme parks. You pay more to get to the front of the line. You can't possibly hit all the rides in one day if you don't purchase a fast pass so more and more people do it because to them it's the greatest value. But the grandmother who is poor and saves all year to take her grandkids can't afford a fast pass. So she and her kids spend most of the day standing in line watching the wealthy go to the front of the line. That is essentially what the result of net neutrality will be.
I noticed how you dismiss all of his arguments though. Including the one about the FCC chairman, you know the one who's supposedly going to benefit from this? I also don't see how he benefits. I don't want net neutrality to go away, and it's very possible that corporate interests are taking precedence over public interests. But spouting nonsense doesn't fix that issue. Let's get to the bottom of who's really behind the push and why and talk about that. From what I can tell Verizon is the one pushing it. Protesting in their stores isn't very effective. However, a boycott would hurt them greatly if it were long term. Don't renew your contract and go with a different provider if you feel strongly about net neutrality. Hit em where it hurts.
When you go the doctor you are taking your chances. They prescribe medications that "may help", or "may not". They perform surgeries that may or may not help. All based on what they think essentially. Granted their experience and training makes that an educated guess, but they're still wrong sometimes. It's also not infrequent. The one certainty is that those medications will have side effects, and you will still receive a bill for services rendered. All the time the FDA approves things that are later determined to be harmful. How is it that they think they should be the ultimate arbiters of what a person can and can't do on their own? Unless it's not about protecting the public, but rather protecting an industry. I think if you're dying anyway what does it hurt? Especially if you're electing to do it to yourself? How is it that the federal government can mandate what's best for an individual when they themselves are full of corruption, inadequacy, and incompetence? Not a fan.
It gives the biggest companies an unfair advantage squeezing out the little guy. It will ultimately stifle competition which is never good for the public at large.
I disagree. I'm not even close to a liberal, and I think the end of net neutrality would be a very bad deal for the general consumer.
That's easy for him to say, but those norms will change with coordinated effort. If all the telecoms start charging what's everyone going to do? They're going to pay. Because to not pay means you don't get your content and no one is going to accept that (or at least not enough that it will make a difference). Choice doesn't matter when all the choices suck. We'll all piss and moan about it, but we'll never collectively hit them in the wallet where it would really matter.
I can't see how that would be beneficial. There's little difference between union heads and CEOs. They both eye the worker like a piece of meat waiting to be devoured. If the deal is that bad work for a gig that's not? How can they maintain a multi billion dollar company with no people to deliver? Change what the market will bear. The only reason things like this persist is because people accept it. And if you're one of the people using that service then you're part of the problem.
I have a hard time understanding why Japan is going after GE as though they had no involvement in the process. They had their own scientists, and government regulatory body examining the design. They didn't just leave everything up to GE. They looked over that design and gave it their blessing. Were they unaware that tsunamis are common in Japan? Or that pumps require a working generator to run (preferably above sea level). How many decades has that plant been generating without incident? It seems pretty dishonest to now lay all the responsibility at the feet of GE.
I would agree that society should be better educated. But it's kind of hard with the level of bias and distortion of facts. It used to be that if you wanted to be educated you had to want it. Work for the money to buy your own books and spend long evenings pouring over them and trying to understand. Now days information is relatively free flowing. With the click of the mouse you can "learn" just about anything. Turn on the TV and it will tell you everything that's going on in the world (from the perspective of the teller). What details are emphasized, left out, embellished, manipulated, etc. creates public perspective. Kind of like going after Roy Moore while downplaying Harvey Weinstein. Not saying one is any better than the other, but there are definitely teams where sides have been chosen and there are different standards for friends than there are for enemies. This is true for all sides. So where do you get that education? That is purely based on unbiased facts? Even science is very polluted by predetermined outcomes bought and paid for by the research grant. Whether it's governments or corporations the money is the common denominator in shaping the outcome. Where even science, data, and observation are dependent on what is included and excluded to arrive at a predefined conclusion. What do you know about "climate change" other than what you've been told by the scientists you trust? Have you done your own research? Did you have all the data required to reach your conclusion? Was that data pure? I'm not trying to push a particular agenda other than attempting to point out that even science is largely dependent on faith. Your perception is made up of what you choose to accept, and what you choose to reject.
Guess I should have read the articles first. My comment was based on the summary. After reading what he wrote I agree with him on principle. Kill on sight is a bad approach that's going to break things and make them non-functional. That doesn't make you many friends. The problem is issuing a warning calls attention to the flaws and could show where an attack would be successful. It's a delicate balance to be sure.
I love Linux. It's an awesome OS. I like Linus a lot too. He's contributed a great deal to computing. However, calling people names doesn't really fix anything. On this particular issue I feel that he's wrong in his assessment as well. There is a distinct difference between a bug that causes a failure in functionality as opposed to a bug that exposes a system from a security standpoint. He's right in that both are bugs, but the consequences are much higher when it is security related, and that's why we treat them differently. That being said there is also a well established divide between security analysts, and developers. As a developer we just want stuff to work, and often times security makes that difficult. As a security analyst we want to keep the system secure (in some cases need to - think compliance), and often times developers make that difficult. I wear both hats in my position so I see it all the time. Ultimately it's in everyone's interest to work together to create code that both works, and is secure. Engaging in a pissing match does nothing useful.
Get back to me when 15,000 scientists agree on what the problem is with concrete evidence as opposed to this is what we think. Then we can start arguing about what the solution should be. This is how real science is supposed to work.