Because such a company has sufficient resources to actually fix the security holes identified by their security team.
This is completely absurd on its face. It doesn't take a billion dollars of revenue a year to do this.
The smaller company is usually restrained by the danger of lawsuits - they could actually destroy the business
What is the relationship between effect of lawsuits on company and sending people to jail for CIVIL liability?
You should probably learn a bit about the concept of Negligence before commenting.
Negligence is whatever you can convince a judge and or jury negligence is.
"We got hacked" isn't negligence.
You're a big company you get hacked you get fined and sued no matter what the facts of the situation is. You could be fully compliant with whatever security standards exist and it won't do you a lick of good.
Well, the fine executives over at ol' Equifax decided it was cheaper to just keep the security holes in place, and paid a pittance in civil liability.
Is this supposed to be some kind of justification for conversion of CIVIL liability into CRIMINAL liability? If public and lawmakers are unhappy about low fines they can change the laws to address the issue specifically. There is no need to pull stunts like this. It's especially egregious given the standards of proof are different for each category of crime. Linking them in this manner effectively bypasses important process protections.
If you are the Commanding Officer of a ship, then everything about that ship is ultimately your responsibility. Good or bad. If something stupid happens it's YOUR fault because there is likely something YOU could have done to prevent it. ( Be it better training for your crew, better judgement from your Officers, knowing everything about your ship inside and out, etc. etc. )
You don't get to blame it on a scapegoat. YOUR command, YOUR responsibility. Period. Your glory if you get it right, your shame if you don't.
Sounds great. Only problem it's demonstrably false.
Captain Kelly ran the Enterprise a nuclear powered aircraft carrier aground and was promoted a few months later.
Captain Larrobino was not charged when a sailor was having a bad day and panic tossed a lit magnesium flare into a weapons locker nearly destroying a different aircraft carrier while killing 44. After the cause was found (manufacturing defects in flares) everyone who had been slapped on the wrist or court-martialed was cleared.
The risk alone will deter all but the most serious candidates to even apply for the job. Hell, it may even ensure that CEO's take security seriously. ( for once )
The problem with this rhetoric is none of us have any idea what "take security seriously" means. Is it even possible to be exonerated of responsibility for a breach even if you had the best security in the world? Is there a system in existence where in hindsight you couldn't get someone to point out what shoulda coulda woulda? Has any corporation ever in history ever once been exonerated in a breach?
Do ends justify means?
Are commanders held liable by default for lost personal and equipment as a result of enemy action?
The CEO is responsible for what the company does, just like the captain of ship.
Nice tagline, what does it actually mean? Every Captain says they are responsible for their ship.
If a boat captain runs his ship aground, the Navy doesn't say,"gee, we know you didn't mean to run over the beach and boardwalk, so we'll let bygones be bygones." That is what responsibility is about.
Captain Kelly ran the Enterprise a nuclear powered aircraft carrier aground and was promoted a few months later.
Captain Larrobino was not charged when a sailor was having a bad day and panic tossed a lit magnesium flare into a weapons locker nearly destroying a different aircraft carrier while killing 44. After the cause was found (manufacturing defects in flares) everyone who had been court-martialed was cleared.
Some captains (Schettino, Avranas) deserved much worse than they got.
Facts matter not nonsensical abstract ideology.
The CEO is always the ultimate responsible party, and the bigger the breach of decency, public perception, corporate stewardship, the trust of their customers-shareholders-employees, and compliance with the law, then the harder they should fall or be reprimanded.
Fuck that the CEO should be liable for their actions not for what happens in the abstract.
My god we are talking about people being held blanket liable for the criminal acts of completely unrelated people, criminal organizations or governments committing illegal acts working against the interest of a corporation. Where does the fucking madness end? You attack me and I go to jail? Give me a fucking break.
What is especially disgusting about this legislation is the blanket conversion of civil liability into criminal liability without regard for what it even is.
Is there any candidate who both isn't corrupt and NOT an obnoxious rabid zealot?
the term 'covered corporation' means a corporation that generates more than $1,000,000,000 in revenue on an annual basis
Why should how much a company makes dictate CRIMINAL liability of executive officers? Why should during an off-year when yearly revenues dip below some magic threshold the same executive officer have less CRIMINAL liability or vis versa? Why should executive officer of a small million dollar company have less CRIMINAL liability for the same exact behavior as a larger company?
Making law that targets people you don't like so specifically in this way is a practice I find particularly sleazy and disgusting.
It shall be unlawful for an executive officer of a covered corporation to negligently permit or fail to prevent a violation of law described in paragraph
Leave it to the lawyers to keep trying to make everyone liable for something even if they had nothing to do with it. Its getting old.
(C) any criminal or civil violation of Federal or State law, for which the covered corporation was convicted or found liable, as the case may be, that was committed while the covered corporation was operating under a civil or criminal judgment of any court
Nice a law that turns arbitrary uncategorized unspecified civil violations into criminal ones.
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
My own perspective is that something fundamental is missed when arguments are framed in this way. I believe underlying issue is piss poor governance. The tech industry generally is royally failing for selfish reasons to create structures where positive rather than negative outcomes are reinforced.
Governance doesn't have to be tyrannical. Governing power doesn't have to be centralized in any meaningful way or in any way related to those holding actual positions of governing authority in the real world.
The only necessary ingredient is that systems be designed to reinforce good rather than rewarding bad behavior.
What would eBay be like without buyer and seller feedback? Seems likely the answer is total cesspool of unchecked corruption as bad actors are rewarded for predatory behavior. Without feedback to provide incentive for good behavior and express earned reputation eBay for as flawed as is would quickly devolve into a Wal-Mart or Amazon "marketplace" or worse.
Without moderation system to reinforce good behavior everyone on this site would be buried alive in Nazi ASCII art and APKs.
The problem that needs solving is piss poor governance. How to create a governance model where interest in corporate profit does not actively promote bad behavior.
Congestion is the fault of the network operator. There are literally no excuses. They don't need to build or buy more bandwidth than their customers actually use, so overcommitting their network is acceptable, but only up to the point where there is congestion on a regular basis. Then they need to provide more bandwidth. If they don't, then their customers are not getting what they paid for.
When I say "congestion" it's not necessarily a bad thing like being stuck in rush hour traffic type of congestion. What I'm talking about is universal. Congestion is applicable globally in every network regardless of whether you believe anyone is at fault for the characteristics of the network.
Nowhere is bandwidth infinite and so over any given route between peers one path will act to constrain rate of information able to be transmitted between peers. Even under the best possible outcome where I buy 20mbit/s service and my ability to send and receive information is limited to 20mbit/s I paid for congestion control plays a critical role.
Congestion machinery in stream transports is the mechanism which infers the available capacity of the channel in order to optimally utilize capacity. Too little data results in unused capacity. Too much results in reduced capacity due to congestion.
If over my 20mbit pipe I have 20 users. 19 using TCP and one using QUIC assume all downloading at once and assumed 20 mbit link is exclusive constraint on performance.
In this case the single QUIC user's download rate is ~13.5mbit/s and each of each of the remaining 19 users is ~0.35mbit/sec.
Same scenario except the operator wisely elects to block QUIC. Each of the 20 users consume 1mbit/sec.
QUIC is a significant threat to operators. The best solution is simply to block it.
The technology that Cloudflare is betting will make Warp fast is a protocol invented by Google called QUIC, and it could one day make the rest of the internet faster and more reliable.
Most operators I know are blocking QUIC because it's way too aggressive.
When a single QUIC session intentionally consumes twice the bandwidth of the sum total of 20 TCP sessions over a bandwidth constrained link Huston we have a problem. Not a small problem but a massive unsustainable one.
Does it say that Nvidia is releasing a VR headset in there somewhere? Only two of the articles are less than a year old.
You misunderstand.
I said "I'm still waiting for Nvidia or someone to release a serious next gen VR HMD. "
Parent AC replied "Nvidia won't release a VR headset because they don't care about it."
I merely offered evidence to suggest NVidia DOES care about VR in order to refute parents assertion. Never said anything about NVidia actually bringing a product to market. I have no idea if they are even considering it. Simply expressed hope they or someone with comparable R&D resources would.
You have this backwards.The penalties are because carrying traffic costs money, if Comcast is receiving way more data from Netflix, Comcast has to pay for more equipment to transit that hence Netflix gets the penalty.
I've heard this argument many times yet still cringe whenever it is invoked. The concept you are conveying makes no logical sense and has no parallels to anything in the real world.
What you are saying is no different than a grocery store attempting to charge farmers for providing more fruit to them because more people want to buy apples and it costs grocery store more to hire staff to run checkout counters and stock apples. Therefore farmers have to pay!!
On what planet does this make any sense to anyone? Only the Wal-Mart's of the world would even think to leverage their massive market position to impose these kinds of terms on those providing what store's own customers are requesting.
In the real world middlemen buy from suppliers, apply a mark up and sell to buyers. Operating costs are passed on to buyers which keep the middleman in business. Any difficulties or costs incurred scaling to meet demand are the middleman's problem not customers or suppliers.
Keep in mind Comcast's own CUSTOMERS are explicitly REQUESTING this data. Netflix was facilitating the provision of data Comcast's own paying customers wanted in the first place. Normal ISPs without countless millions of sub and a national footprint would be happy for cheap incoming.
This is probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't think it's a black and white issue. The benefit of for-profit journals is their incentive to publish high quality research. The business model most people propose for open access is to pay the publishers on a per-paper basis. That incentivizes quantity over quality, and we already have a quality problem as is.
There is nothing stopping paywalls from changing their business models offering their paying customers a filtering service which rewards quality.
If that is truly the issue as you say there should be a market for it.
Actually, zero rating is specifically permitted in the net neutrality regs. And folks forget, the reason comcast was throttling netflix was because they were overloading a public gig-e link in order to get to part of the comcast network.
The Netflix drama originally started with Netflix dropping normal bandwidth / CDN services people who need to distribute data at scale normally call upon and instead took it in-house.
As you can imagine this pissed off a lot of ISPs who saw bandwidth from Netflix going to plaid as result of cost cutting measure undertaken by Netflix.
Eventually over time Comcast started pushing back with TE policy that unnecessarily disadvantaged Netflix with side effects well beyond just Netflix.
netflix didn't have a direct peerage agreement with comcast back then, nor did their ISP. (which is how ISPs get paid for sinking traffic, BTW). the bottom line is, that model has worked well since day 1. It only appears unfair if you don't understand that it does, in fact, cost money to carry someone's traffic, and the 'no cost' peering arrangements are predicated on the idea that the traffic flow is fairly even. pretty much every peering contract I've ever seen sets forth penalties and fees if your traffic starts going too much in one direction or the other, because at that point, one is using the link as a transit connection, which requires payment. Only folks who don't understand this seem to think that comcast was 'out to get' netflix.
By this standard Comcast should be paying Netflix because Comcast was receiving way more data from Netflix than was transmitted in the other direction.
The reality is they were out to get Netflix and only because of the sheer size of Comcast did it seem like good business strategy to even attempt to leverage captive Comcast eyeballs.
Under the same condition smaller shops would be happy for cheap incoming.
Beyond a certain limit companies increasingly seek to leverage their positions and things go to shit as a result.
Network neutrality says nothing about the underlying tech.
This should be true but isn't. The vehicle democrats are using to impose it (Title II) sure has a heck of a lot to say about a whole lot of unrelated things.
If the big telco's don't want to build the infrastructure if they can't screw everyone over then fuck em.
The problem is government regulation is actively being used to reinforce large monopolies. Examples include spectrum policy favoring large providers and pole attachment rights.
Let me just stop you right there and let you know that there's a lot of Republicans who are fine with letting NN die a horrible death if that means their person gets another term to "protect the babies". I live in the deep south and on a list of top 50 things folks are concerned about, NN ranks about 246,789,122nd place.
I'm not so sure anymore. Everyone is online these days. When you start talking about screwing with peoples Internets or raising price of said Internets as we have seen with FCC comments, Wikipedia campaigns, Facebook hearings..etc.. people end up caring and in significant numbers.
Internet policy from what I've seen is an issue politicians talk about and spend time on for the short time they spend any time giving a fuck about any policy in the first place. It isn't top of any list by any means yet like most things it doesn't rank until you fuck with it or there is credible fear of it being fucked with.
Consider that 1000 of my local ISP's customers want to watch a hot new Netflix show. My ISP is 1000 km from the nearest Netflix data center. The dumb solution is that 1000 customers sent requests to ISP who sends them 1000 km to Netflix who sends the show 1000 times over the backbone connection.
As time moves on I'm less and less convinced of this. Sounds quite reasonable and certainly makes sense in certain situations. Yet generally given cost of bandwidth especially for those with easy hotel access at some point it's cheaper to be stupid and have dumb as bricks specialized hardware forwarding a lot more packets than to spend money on installing, operating and maintaining intelligence.
Possibly money changes hands between ISP and Netflix to make this work, although I'm not sure in which direction.
With net neutrality, the ISP can't offer reduced rating on Netflix data. How do the incentives work in this case? The great reduction of data going over the backbone should provide savings, but who was paying this cost in the first place? Does the ISP want to pay Netflix to colocate a server, or to charge them for it?
With CDNs like Akamai people I've talked to described it as a trade. Basically you give power and rack space and get a nice reduction of bandwidth in return. This was many years ago in relatively small shops.
With net neutrality, the ISP can't offer reduced rating on Netflix data. How do the incentives work in this case? The great reduction of data going over the backbone should provide savings, but who was paying this cost in the first place?
Personally I don't even support these arguments. It sounds good superficially yet for many last mile bandwidth is usually a much larger issue contrasted with cost of transit.
My personal view is any benefit to the ISP in optimizing traffic within their network can go into reducing operating costs and as such still provide useful incentives for service providers to innovate without allowing these types of carve outs that evil monopolies will drive trucks thru.
In many ways what makes the Internet work is lack of metering. The idea as a user I don't have to pay any more to send a packet across the street than I do to send one across the planet is what made the Internet what it is. Fancy rating schemes that carve exceptions for lower cost packets are in my opinion ultimately harmful and unnecessary pretty much across the board.
Welcome back to your copper insulated wireline that 100% NN ready and federally approved.
Yep pretty much. They could have written a clean NN bill that addresses competition.
What they elected to do instead was continue POTS era Title II bullshit with an insane number of administrative forbearances that can be dissolved at any time by the whim of technocrats.
Everyone who is cheerleading for this bill enjoy regressive Internet USF taxes coming to an account statement near you.
Democrats blew the best opportunity we've ever had to get constructive NN passed.
Oculus has always been twofaced about specs. Palmer and crew went on and on about how important minspec was so people wouldn't get "sick" and end up hating VR.
Yet the very first product Oculus did was 3DOF VR in form of a plastic box that clipped on to cell phones where any head translation results in instant nausea.
Now after THREE YEARS they are releasing an inferior product lacking the very features they previously touted as necessary.
HP Reverb is bare minimum of what Rift CV2 should have been and best of all it's not tied to FACEBOOK.
I'm still waiting for Nvidia or someone to release a serious next gen VR HMD. What is needed is at least 32k display with eye tracking and custom foveated display driver to make using it feasible. Bonus points for light field / dynamic focus depth.
It's pretty clear Oculus is out of the VR hardware business which is fine with me.
Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.
Hafrada
I have a friend in Israel. He has Muslim friends, and tells me that one of his friends won't get an Israeli citizenship -- because if he does, he will not be allowed into many neighboring countries, like Syria.
Hell your screwed if you merely have an Israeli stamp on your passport.
Yes, the Palestinians have a rough time. But that is because they keep on trying to kill Jews. What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"
If some other country say China was occupying my country and exerting colonial rule, stealing property and shit.. I would probably be building rockets too.
What sealed the deal for me on this permanently was the asymmetry. In a single hour of military maneuvers Israelis managed to kill more people than the combined sum of deaths from ALL rocket attacks on Israel in modern history.
Slashdot Mirror
Because such a company has sufficient resources to actually fix the security holes identified by their security team.
This is completely absurd on its face. It doesn't take a billion dollars of revenue a year to do this.
The smaller company is usually restrained by the danger of lawsuits - they could actually destroy the business
What is the relationship between effect of lawsuits on company and sending people to jail for CIVIL liability?
You should probably learn a bit about the concept of Negligence before commenting.
Negligence is whatever you can convince a judge and or jury negligence is.
"We got hacked" isn't negligence.
You're a big company you get hacked you get fined and sued no matter what the facts of the situation is. You could be fully compliant with whatever security standards exist and it won't do you a lick of good.
Well, the fine executives over at ol' Equifax decided it was cheaper to just keep the security holes in place, and paid a pittance in civil liability.
Is this supposed to be some kind of justification for conversion of CIVIL liability into CRIMINAL liability? If public and lawmakers are unhappy about low fines they can change the laws to address the issue specifically. There is no need to pull stunts like this. It's especially egregious given the standards of proof are different for each category of crime. Linking them in this manner effectively bypasses important process protections.
If you are the Commanding Officer of a ship, then everything about that ship is ultimately your responsibility. Good or bad.
If something stupid happens it's YOUR fault because there is likely something YOU could have done to prevent it.
( Be it better training for your crew, better judgement from your Officers, knowing everything about your ship inside and out, etc. etc. )
You don't get to blame it on a scapegoat. YOUR command, YOUR responsibility. Period.
Your glory if you get it right, your shame if you don't.
Sounds great. Only problem it's demonstrably false.
Captain Kelly ran the Enterprise a nuclear powered aircraft carrier aground and was promoted a few months later.
Captain Larrobino was not charged when a sailor was having a bad day and panic tossed a lit magnesium flare into a weapons locker nearly destroying a different aircraft carrier while killing 44. After the cause was found (manufacturing defects in flares) everyone who had been slapped on the wrist or court-martialed was cleared.
The risk alone will deter all but the most serious candidates to even apply for the job. Hell, it may even ensure that CEO's take security seriously. ( for once )
The problem with this rhetoric is none of us have any idea what "take security seriously" means. Is it even possible to be exonerated of responsibility for a breach even if you had the best security in the world? Is there a system in existence where in hindsight you couldn't get someone to point out what shoulda coulda woulda? Has any corporation ever in history ever once been exonerated in a breach?
Do ends justify means?
Are commanders held liable by default for lost personal and equipment as a result of enemy action?
The CEO is responsible for what the company does, just like the captain of ship.
Nice tagline, what does it actually mean? Every Captain says they are responsible for their ship.
If a boat captain runs his ship aground, the Navy doesn't say,"gee, we know you didn't mean to run over the beach and boardwalk, so we'll let bygones be bygones." That is what responsibility is about.
Captain Kelly ran the Enterprise a nuclear powered aircraft carrier aground and was promoted a few months later.
Captain Larrobino was not charged when a sailor was having a bad day and panic tossed a lit magnesium flare into a weapons locker nearly destroying a different aircraft carrier while killing 44. After the cause was found (manufacturing defects in flares) everyone who had been court-martialed was cleared.
Some captains (Schettino, Avranas) deserved much worse than they got.
Facts matter not nonsensical abstract ideology.
The CEO is always the ultimate responsible party, and the bigger the breach of decency, public perception, corporate stewardship, the trust of their customers-shareholders-employees, and compliance with the law, then the harder they should fall or be reprimanded.
Fuck that the CEO should be liable for their actions not for what happens in the abstract.
My god we are talking about people being held blanket liable for the criminal acts of completely unrelated people, criminal organizations or governments committing illegal acts working against the interest of a corporation. Where does the fucking madness end? You attack me and I go to jail? Give me a fucking break.
What is especially disgusting about this legislation is the blanket conversion of civil liability into criminal liability without regard for what it even is.
Is there any candidate who both isn't corrupt and NOT an obnoxious rabid zealot?
the term 'covered corporation' means a corporation that generates more than $1,000,000,000 in revenue on an annual basis
Why should how much a company makes dictate CRIMINAL liability of executive officers? Why should during an off-year when yearly revenues dip below some magic threshold the same executive officer have less CRIMINAL liability or vis versa? Why should executive officer of a small million dollar company have less CRIMINAL liability for the same exact behavior as a larger company?
Making law that targets people you don't like so specifically in this way is a practice I find particularly sleazy and disgusting.
It shall be unlawful for an executive officer of a covered corporation to negligently permit or fail to prevent a violation of law described in paragraph
Leave it to the lawyers to keep trying to make everyone liable for something even if they had nothing to do with it. Its getting old.
(C) any criminal or civil violation of Federal or State law, for which the covered corporation was convicted or found liable, as the case may be, that was committed while the covered corporation was operating under a civil or
criminal judgment of any court
Nice a law that turns arbitrary uncategorized unspecified civil violations into criminal ones.
Or that the human brain is a unique (magic) machine, that cannot be reproduced because it was created by magic
The difference son is every blessed one of us are gods children.
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
My own perspective is that something fundamental is missed when arguments are framed in this way. I believe underlying issue is piss poor governance. The tech industry generally is royally failing for selfish reasons to create structures where positive rather than negative outcomes are reinforced.
Governance doesn't have to be tyrannical. Governing power doesn't have to be centralized in any meaningful way or in any way related to those holding actual positions of governing authority in the real world.
The only necessary ingredient is that systems be designed to reinforce good rather than rewarding bad behavior.
What would eBay be like without buyer and seller feedback? Seems likely the answer is total cesspool of unchecked corruption as bad actors are rewarded for predatory behavior. Without feedback to provide incentive for good behavior and express earned reputation eBay for as flawed as is would quickly devolve into a Wal-Mart or Amazon "marketplace" or worse.
Without moderation system to reinforce good behavior everyone on this site would be buried alive in Nazi ASCII art and APKs.
The problem that needs solving is piss poor governance. How to create a governance model where interest in corporate profit does not actively promote bad behavior.
Congestion is the fault of the network operator. There are literally no excuses. They don't need to build or buy more bandwidth than their customers actually use, so overcommitting their network is acceptable, but only up to the point where there is congestion on a regular basis. Then they need to provide more bandwidth. If they don't, then their customers are not getting what they paid for.
When I say "congestion" it's not necessarily a bad thing like being stuck in rush hour traffic type of congestion. What I'm talking about is universal. Congestion is applicable globally in every network regardless of whether you believe anyone is at fault for the characteristics of the network.
Nowhere is bandwidth infinite and so over any given route between peers one path will act to constrain rate of information able to be transmitted between peers. Even under the best possible outcome where I buy 20mbit/s service and my ability to send and receive information is limited to 20mbit/s I paid for congestion control plays a critical role.
Congestion machinery in stream transports is the mechanism which infers the available capacity of the channel in order to optimally utilize capacity. Too little data results in unused capacity. Too much results in reduced capacity due to congestion.
If over my 20mbit pipe I have 20 users. 19 using TCP and one using QUIC assume all downloading at once and assumed 20 mbit link is exclusive constraint on performance.
In this case the single QUIC user's download rate is ~13.5mbit/s and each of each of the remaining 19 users is ~0.35mbit/sec.
Same scenario except the operator wisely elects to block QUIC. Each of the 20 users consume 1mbit/sec.
QUIC is a significant threat to operators. The best solution is simply to block it.
The technology that Cloudflare is betting will make Warp fast is a protocol invented by Google called QUIC, and it could one day make the rest of the internet faster and more reliable.
Most operators I know are blocking QUIC because it's way too aggressive.
When a single QUIC session intentionally consumes twice the bandwidth of the sum total of 20 TCP sessions over a bandwidth constrained link Huston we have a problem. Not a small problem but a massive unsustainable one.
$30/month for a glorified spell check that steals all of your contacts and stalks your physical location in order to check your spelling.
The tech industry has completely lost its mind. Enjoy your third "happy time" while it lasts.
Does it say that Nvidia is releasing a VR headset in there somewhere? Only two of the articles are less than a year old.
You misunderstand.
I said "I'm still waiting for Nvidia or someone to release a serious next gen VR HMD. "
Parent AC replied "Nvidia won't release a VR headset because they don't care about it."
I merely offered evidence to suggest NVidia DOES care about VR in order to refute parents assertion. Never said anything about NVidia actually bringing a product to market. I have no idea if they are even considering it. Simply expressed hope they or someone with comparable R&D resources would.
You have this backwards.The penalties are because carrying traffic costs money, if Comcast is receiving way more data from Netflix, Comcast has to pay for more equipment to transit that hence Netflix gets the penalty.
I've heard this argument many times yet still cringe whenever it is invoked. The concept you are conveying makes no logical sense and has no parallels to anything in the real world.
What you are saying is no different than a grocery store attempting to charge farmers for providing more fruit to them because more people want to buy apples and it costs grocery store more to hire staff to run checkout counters and stock apples. Therefore farmers have to pay!!
On what planet does this make any sense to anyone? Only the Wal-Mart's of the world would even think to leverage their massive market position to impose these kinds of terms on those providing what store's own customers are requesting.
In the real world middlemen buy from suppliers, apply a mark up and sell to buyers. Operating costs are passed on to buyers which keep the middleman in business. Any difficulties or costs incurred scaling to meet demand are the middleman's problem not customers or suppliers.
Keep in mind Comcast's own CUSTOMERS are explicitly REQUESTING this data. Netflix was facilitating the provision of data Comcast's own paying customers wanted in the first place. Normal ISPs without countless millions of sub and a national footprint would be happy for cheap incoming.
This is probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't think it's a black and white issue. The benefit of for-profit journals is their incentive to publish high quality research. The business model most people propose for open access is to pay the publishers on a per-paper basis. That incentivizes quantity over quality, and we already have a quality problem as is.
There is nothing stopping paywalls from changing their business models offering their paying customers a filtering service which rewards quality.
If that is truly the issue as you say there should be a market for it.
Stopped reading after "Magento, an Adobe-owned company". It's not necessary to add any additional details to this article.
Cutting brownies is impossible without plastic knives.
Betcha Microsoft sends out another Memo on April 1st "recalling" this memo.
Sometimes wonder how many MS exchange/outlook users realize what really happens when they push the magic recall button.
Actually, zero rating is specifically permitted in the net neutrality regs. And folks forget, the reason comcast was throttling netflix was because they were overloading a public gig-e link in order to get to part of the comcast network.
The Netflix drama originally started with Netflix dropping normal bandwidth / CDN services people who need to distribute data at scale normally call upon and instead took it in-house.
As you can imagine this pissed off a lot of ISPs who saw bandwidth from Netflix going to plaid as result of cost cutting measure undertaken by Netflix.
Eventually over time Comcast started pushing back with TE policy that unnecessarily disadvantaged Netflix with side effects well beyond just Netflix.
This lead to the now infamous Netflix chart:
https://www.statista.com/chart...
netflix didn't have a direct peerage agreement with comcast back then, nor did their ISP. (which is how ISPs get paid for sinking traffic, BTW). the bottom line is, that model has worked well since day 1. It only appears unfair if you don't understand that it does, in fact, cost money to carry someone's traffic, and the 'no cost' peering arrangements are predicated on the idea that the traffic flow is fairly even. pretty much every peering contract I've ever seen sets forth penalties and fees if your traffic starts going too much in one direction or the other, because at that point, one is using the link as a transit connection, which requires payment. Only folks who don't understand this seem to think that comcast was 'out to get' netflix.
By this standard Comcast should be paying Netflix because Comcast was receiving way more data from Netflix than was transmitted in the other direction.
The reality is they were out to get Netflix and only because of the sheer size of Comcast did it seem like good business strategy to even attempt to leverage captive Comcast eyeballs.
Under the same condition smaller shops would be happy for cheap incoming.
Beyond a certain limit companies increasingly seek to leverage their positions and things go to shit as a result.
Network neutrality says nothing about the underlying tech.
This should be true but isn't. The vehicle democrats are using to impose it (Title II) sure has a heck of a lot to say about a whole lot of unrelated things.
If the big telco's don't want to build the infrastructure if they can't screw everyone over then fuck em.
The problem is government regulation is actively being used to reinforce large monopolies. Examples include spectrum policy favoring large providers and pole attachment rights.
NN isn't about the consumer, it's about who pays.
This is an oxymoron. The consumer ultimately is footing the bill for everything one way or another.
Let me just stop you right there and let you know that there's a lot of Republicans who are fine with letting NN die a horrible death if that means their person gets another term to "protect the babies". I live in the deep south and on a list of top 50 things folks are concerned about, NN ranks about 246,789,122nd place.
I'm not so sure anymore. Everyone is online these days. When you start talking about screwing with peoples Internets or raising price of said Internets as we have seen with FCC comments, Wikipedia campaigns, Facebook hearings..etc.. people end up caring and in significant numbers.
Internet policy from what I've seen is an issue politicians talk about and spend time on for the short time they spend any time giving a fuck about any policy in the first place. It isn't top of any list by any means yet like most things it doesn't rank until you fuck with it or there is credible fear of it being fucked with.
Consider that 1000 of my local ISP's customers want to watch a hot new Netflix show. My ISP is 1000 km from the nearest Netflix data center. The dumb solution is that 1000 customers sent requests to ISP who sends them 1000 km to Netflix who sends the show 1000 times over the backbone connection.
As time moves on I'm less and less convinced of this. Sounds quite reasonable and certainly makes sense in certain situations. Yet generally
given cost of bandwidth especially for those with easy hotel access at some point it's cheaper to be stupid and have dumb as bricks specialized hardware forwarding a lot more packets than to spend money on installing, operating and maintaining intelligence.
Possibly money changes hands between ISP and Netflix to make this work, although I'm not sure in which direction.
With net neutrality, the ISP can't offer reduced rating on Netflix data. How do the incentives work in this case? The great reduction of data going over the backbone should provide savings, but who was paying this cost in the first place? Does the ISP want to pay Netflix to colocate a server, or to charge them for it?
With CDNs like Akamai people I've talked to described it as a trade. Basically you give power and rack space and get a nice reduction of bandwidth in return. This was many years ago in relatively small shops.
With net neutrality, the ISP can't offer reduced rating on Netflix data. How do the incentives work in this case? The great reduction of data going over the backbone should provide savings, but who was paying this cost in the first place?
Personally I don't even support these arguments. It sounds good superficially yet for many last mile bandwidth is usually a much larger issue contrasted with cost of transit.
My personal view is any benefit to the ISP in optimizing traffic within their network can go into reducing operating costs and as such still provide useful incentives for service providers to innovate without allowing these types of carve outs that evil monopolies will drive trucks thru.
In many ways what makes the Internet work is lack of metering. The idea as a user I don't have to pay any more to send a packet across the street than I do to send one across the planet is what made the Internet what it is. Fancy rating schemes that carve exceptions for lower cost packets are in my opinion ultimately harmful and unnecessary pretty much across the board.
Welcome back to your copper insulated wireline that 100% NN ready and federally approved.
Yep pretty much. They could have written a clean NN bill that addresses competition.
What they elected to do instead was continue POTS era Title II bullshit with an insane number of administrative forbearances that can be dissolved at any time by the whim of technocrats.
Everyone who is cheerleading for this bill enjoy regressive Internet USF taxes coming to an account statement near you.
Democrats blew the best opportunity we've ever had to get constructive NN passed.
Nvidia won't release a VR headset because they don't care about it. They care about AI.
https://research.nvidia.com/re...
Oculus has always been twofaced about specs. Palmer and crew went on and on about how important minspec was so people wouldn't get "sick" and end up hating VR.
Yet the very first product Oculus did was 3DOF VR in form of a plastic box that clipped on to cell phones where any head translation results in instant nausea.
Now after THREE YEARS they are releasing an inferior product lacking the very features they previously touted as necessary.
HP Reverb is bare minimum of what Rift CV2 should have been and best of all it's not tied to FACEBOOK.
I'm still waiting for Nvidia or someone to release a serious next gen VR HMD. What is needed is at least 32k display with eye tracking and custom foveated display driver to make using it feasible. Bonus points for light field / dynamic focus depth.
It's pretty clear Oculus is out of the VR hardware business which is fine with me.
They are. But the point is that they take the value from you either way, you might as well take the rewards.
No, SuperKendall was explicitly contrasting people who use credit cards with those who do not.
Your argument is different. You are making a judgment about what people who use credit cards should do.
Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.
Hafrada
I have a friend in Israel. He has Muslim friends, and tells me that one of his friends won't get an Israeli citizenship -- because if he does, he will not be allowed into many neighboring countries, like Syria.
Hell your screwed if you merely have an Israeli stamp on your passport.
Yes, the Palestinians have a rough time. But that is because they keep on trying to kill Jews. What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"
If some other country say China was occupying my country and exerting colonial rule, stealing property and shit.. I would probably be building rockets too.
What sealed the deal for me on this permanently was the asymmetry. In a single hour of military maneuvers Israelis managed to kill more people than the combined sum of deaths from ALL rocket attacks on Israel in modern history.