Just how far is this going to be allowed to proceed
The answer should be: "until it causes a lot of people to stop buying from Amazon." But I have a feeling you really meant, "Why won't the government step in and force Amazon to sell smut?"
I think the knee-jerk reaction here is that this is some sort of censorship conspiracy, when in reality it is probably Amazon protecting its bottom-line and reacting to what it thinks its customers expect.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. His job requires someone with self-control, and he didn't have it (as evident by the assault, and his subsequent release of classified information).
Fighting in the military isn't exactly considered a negative. The same impulses that cause you to hit an officer make you willing to kill another human being.
The UCMJ disagrees, and provides some heavy punishments for people who strike an officer. In war time, such an act is a capital offense.
He was a SP4 who was demoted to PFC because he assaulted an officer. The question isn't why a PFC had access to sensitive information. The question is why someone with demonstrated behavioral problems still had a secret clearance.
Except, this CEO didn't exactly manage things to a positive result, did he? And if I were asked to guess who understands open-source business models more; Slashdot readers or CEOs of companies that failed to capitalize on open-source business models? I'd go with the Slashdot readers every time.
And Comcast customers are getting what they paid for: a connection to the internet. But this goes beyond that and into the realm of a sustained QoS from Netflix. No Comcast customers are paying for that.
The disconnect (pun intended) here lies in the expectation that Comcast provide end-to-end connectivity between their customers and any possible end-point the customer demands at the speed the customer demands, even if that end-point is not on their network. That is simply unreasonable, and has nothing to do with network neutrality.
The problem with your thinking is that Comcast was paid to provide their customers access to their internetwork at a guranteed speed, not to any other end-point the customer demands, and certainly not Netflix.
Comcast customers paid for a specific amount of bandwidth to Comcast's internetwork, not to Netflix. That's the problem, Comcast can not be expected to provide end to end bandwidth to services not on their network. And I am sure their customer agreements to do not gurantee as much.
After all, why should Netflix partner with Level 3 at all? They could simply call themselves a backbone provider and demand free links to all of the different major ISPs.
No, Netflix does not pay Comcast. They used to, in a sort of indirect way. Netflix used to pay Akamai, a content delivery network, to deliver streaming video to customers. Akamai does this by having data centers all over the place that can serve up content faster than anything centralized. And Akamai pays to link their data centers to Comcast so they can do this.
Well, here comes Level 3. Traditionally a backbone provider, they go to Netflix with a sweetheart deal on delivering content. Netflix dumps Akamai for them, and Level 3 realizes they lack the bandwidth to Comcast needed to deliver Netflix's streaming video. So they want additional links to Comcast, like Akamai had, only they don't want to pay for them. And why? Because they're a backbone provider, peer links should be free.
So Level 3, not wanting to pay Comcast (probably because those costs were not factored into what they charged Netflix), is playing the Network Neutrality card to provide CDN services under the guise of a backbone provider. But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free.
At the end of the day the customer is going to pay Comcast to deliver that content one way or another. Whether it is directly in the form of higher internet prices, or indirectly through Netflix in the form of higher subscription fees; I see very little difference.
Don't you know, ALL CAPS is like yelling at someone! So they are working to make these signs more net-friendly. So when I tell you to go to 5TH STREET and BROADWAY, you won't have to ask me to quit yelling and I won't have to explain that I wasn't yelling and that is how the street names are actually spelled.
Just that simple, huh? So let's say the Dean for Admissions demands you give him the organization-wide root or domain admin password. Will you? What if it's the dean for admissions, two members of the board of trustees, the chief of campus police, and a computer lab tech from the biology department, and all want you to give the password to the lab tech?
If the policy states you shall not give the password to anybody but the CIO, and all of these "designated agents" come to you and demand the password... are you going to give it to them?
Let's say you quit your job, and three days afterward they call you asking for the passwords. How do you know if the policy changed? Maybe the CIO was fired. How do you know these are still the "designated agents"?
These are the types of problems that arrise from this prosecution. The law gives organizational policy the force of law, without realizing its limitations. So before you tell us to "shut up", you might want to think about the ramifications of that first.
I once took my cell phone scuba diving. It was a couple of years ago at White Star Quarry in Ohio. I was having trouble donning my rented wet suit and forgot my cell was in my swim trunks pocket. I did not even notice it until we were on our safety stop, which is where you stop on your way back to the surface for a few minutes ease decompressing. So that was 40-some minutes submerged in water up to 50 feet deep.
Miraculously after drying out the phone worked just fine.
The CVP on this aircraft only records the last 30 minutes of conversation. So what they have is roughly from just before final approach to parking at the gate.
Your graphic hardly tells the whole picture. Intragovernmental holdings increased more during the last 50 years than publicly held debt decreased. What that means is that the total debt increased every one of those years.
The only way to arrive at the numbers referenced by that graphic is to use faulty Enron-ic accounting practices (aka Congressional accounting standards) that if followed by any publicly traded company would result in a major fines and jail time.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer should be: "until it causes a lot of people to stop buying from Amazon." But I have a feeling you really meant, "Why won't the government step in and force Amazon to sell smut?"
I think the knee-jerk reaction here is that this is some sort of censorship conspiracy, when in reality it is probably Amazon protecting its bottom-line and reacting to what it thinks its customers expect.
He had it because he needed it for his job.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. His job requires someone with self-control, and he didn't have it (as evident by the assault, and his subsequent release of classified information).
Fighting in the military isn't exactly considered a negative. The same impulses that cause you to hit an officer make you willing to kill another human being.
The UCMJ disagrees, and provides some heavy punishments for people who strike an officer. In war time, such an act is a capital offense.
He was a SP4 who was demoted to PFC because he assaulted an officer. The question isn't why a PFC had access to sensitive information. The question is why someone with demonstrated behavioral problems still had a secret clearance.
Except, this CEO didn't exactly manage things to a positive result, did he? And if I were asked to guess who understands open-source business models more; Slashdot readers or CEOs of companies that failed to capitalize on open-source business models? I'd go with the Slashdot readers every time.
If you really think Comcast internet service includes end-to-end QoS then you know even less than your condescending anti-business mentality lets on.
Oh, and my field is mathematics, not business. So go apply your troll somewhere else.
And Comcast customers are getting what they paid for: a connection to the internet. But this goes beyond that and into the realm of a sustained QoS from Netflix. No Comcast customers are paying for that.
The disconnect (pun intended) here lies in the expectation that Comcast provide end-to-end connectivity between their customers and any possible end-point the customer demands at the speed the customer demands, even if that end-point is not on their network. That is simply unreasonable, and has nothing to do with network neutrality.
The problem with your thinking is that Comcast was paid to provide their customers access to their internetwork at a guranteed speed, not to any other end-point the customer demands, and certainly not Netflix.
Comcast customers paid for a specific amount of bandwidth to Comcast's internetwork, not to Netflix. That's the problem, Comcast can not be expected to provide end to end bandwidth to services not on their network. And I am sure their customer agreements to do not gurantee as much.
After all, why should Netflix partner with Level 3 at all? They could simply call themselves a backbone provider and demand free links to all of the different major ISPs.
No, Netflix does not pay Comcast. They used to, in a sort of indirect way. Netflix used to pay Akamai, a content delivery network, to deliver streaming video to customers. Akamai does this by having data centers all over the place that can serve up content faster than anything centralized. And Akamai pays to link their data centers to Comcast so they can do this.
Well, here comes Level 3. Traditionally a backbone provider, they go to Netflix with a sweetheart deal on delivering content. Netflix dumps Akamai for them, and Level 3 realizes they lack the bandwidth to Comcast needed to deliver Netflix's streaming video. So they want additional links to Comcast, like Akamai had, only they don't want to pay for them. And why? Because they're a backbone provider, peer links should be free.
So Level 3, not wanting to pay Comcast (probably because those costs were not factored into what they charged Netflix), is playing the Network Neutrality card to provide CDN services under the guise of a backbone provider. But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free.
At the end of the day the customer is going to pay Comcast to deliver that content one way or another. Whether it is directly in the form of higher internet prices, or indirectly through Netflix in the form of higher subscription fees; I see very little difference.
Anyway, Comcast's letter to the FCC is worth reading.
And what private company had built a program from scratch and sent humans to the moon.
North American and Grumman?
Don't you know, ALL CAPS is like yelling at someone! So they are working to make these signs more net-friendly. So when I tell you to go to 5TH STREET and BROADWAY, you won't have to ask me to quit yelling and I won't have to explain that I wasn't yelling and that is how the street names are actually spelled.
Yeah, it's not like conjuring up some mystical phenomena that allows the characters to defy the laws of physics.
Nah. In that case Carly would be an improvement over who they have now.
It doesn't help that the other half of congress think party and skin color is what drives the others to oppose the president's agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Real-time_Cueing_Hyperspectral_Enhanced_Reconnaissance
Just that simple, huh? So let's say the Dean for Admissions demands you give him the organization-wide root or domain admin password. Will you? What if it's the dean for admissions, two members of the board of trustees, the chief of campus police, and a computer lab tech from the biology department, and all want you to give the password to the lab tech?
If the policy states you shall not give the password to anybody but the CIO, and all of these "designated agents" come to you and demand the password... are you going to give it to them?
Let's say you quit your job, and three days afterward they call you asking for the passwords. How do you know if the policy changed? Maybe the CIO was fired. How do you know these are still the "designated agents"?
These are the types of problems that arrise from this prosecution. The law gives organizational policy the force of law, without realizing its limitations. So before you tell us to "shut up", you might want to think about the ramifications of that first.
I once took my cell phone scuba diving. It was a couple of years ago at White Star Quarry in Ohio. I was having trouble donning my rented wet suit and forgot my cell was in my swim trunks pocket. I did not even notice it until we were on our safety stop, which is where you stop on your way back to the surface for a few minutes ease decompressing. So that was 40-some minutes submerged in water up to 50 feet deep.
Miraculously after drying out the phone worked just fine.
On the Airbus A318/19/20/21. The following conditions must be met to erase:
The aircraft is on the ground, and the parking brake is on
Pressing the CVR ERASE push button for 2 seconds will then erase the tape.
The prelim from the NTSB says "The CVR recording began during final approach, and continued while the aircraft was at the gate."
The CVP on this aircraft only records the last 30 minutes of conversation. So what they have is roughly from just before final approach to parking at the gate.
Your graphic hardly tells the whole picture. Intragovernmental holdings increased more during the last 50 years than publicly held debt decreased. What that means is that the total debt increased every one of those years.
Check for yourself:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
The only way to arrive at the numbers referenced by that graphic is to use faulty Enron-ic accounting practices (aka Congressional accounting standards) that if followed by any publicly traded company would result in a major fines and jail time.
Hey, thank you for posting that. I really got a good laugh! Nuts will be nuts, eh?
Send complaint to: banned@slashdot.org
I'm about to send an email complaining about the horrible stylesheet that idle.slashdot.org uses.
Make that two hundred, or 200. Not 200 hundred, which would be 20,000. This is why I don't post in the morning.
Well, 200 hundred of them actually.