I don't have an issue with paid prioritization, as long as it's bandwidth added to the promised service level, or perhaps no more than 10% in the case of "unlimited."
That isn't really prioritization though.
Let's say Customer A pays for 100 Mbps, and Customer B pays for 100 Mbps. Their ISP has 500 Mbps available, so there's no problem. If Customer A decides they need more bandwidth and wants to pay more for 250 Mbps, there's still no problem.
Now, if both Customer A and Customer B decide they need 500 Mbps, there may be some issues. If they're both trying to use all of their bandwidth at the same time, which customer gets priority? In a neutral network, the decision would not at all be based on who the customers are. In this example, the fairest prioritization would be to alternate packets (i.e. split the bandwidth), so neither customer is prioritized over the other. If Customer A was paying for 200 Mbps and Customer B was paying for 800 Mbps, then it would be reasonable to handle 4 packets from Customer B for every 1 packet from Customer A, so that both customers are still getting from the available bandwidth the share that they're paying for.
The situation that needs to be avoided is allowing Customer B to pay for priority over Customer A. If they did, you would end up with Customer B getting all 500 Mbps and Customer A maybe being able to sneak a few packets through in the quieter moments. Or even worse, Customer B getting all 500 Mbps without paying anything, since they're just a subsidiary of the ISP anyway.
Or ISPs could take their enormous revenue, spend it on increasing the available bandwidth, and actually deliver the service that they're advertising. But, well, fuck the customers.
While I would acknowledge those are all noble goals for the 'job' of prisons, I would also include restitution to the victims of the crime. Sometimes that takes the form of imposing suffering in some way on the perpetrator.
That is, by definition, not restitution. Restitution is repaying or restoring what was lost, so that the net effect of the crime on the victim is zero. If you steal $100 from someone, restitution would be when the thief gives $100 to the victim. No amount of prison time can ever be restitution, since the victim doesn't regain anything that they lost because of the crime (I suppose you could argue the edge case of imprisoning someone with the ability to pay indefinitely until they agree to repay the victim, but the prison time itself isn't really the restitution).
What you're describing would generally just be called revenge.
Very well could be. When I post stuff on Slashdot, I go with what seems to be the most common definition around here, which says "free market" means "OMG e-e-e-evil gubmint!"
My brain? I can't imagine that I'm the first person to draw this distinction, but I couldn't say specifically if or where I saw it before I started using it.
The issue with that definition is that it doesn't say who/what isn't imposing any restrictions. It's pretty much impossible to have a market with no restrictions at all; either large companies can become monopolies and restrict competitors, or the government can restrict large companies from becoming monopolies.
Having said that, I do agree with your conclusion. The best result from a market-based economy is when we have competition in a Fair Market, which is what you're saying you want, and I don't see how we can have a Fair Market without some amount of government intervention to ensure that there's fair competition.
I thought you guys were in favor of the free market? That's the entire point of NN - to allow a free market on the internet, rather than allowing the ISP oligopoly to decide winners and losers.
"Free Market" usually means a minimum amount (some people want zero) of government regulation. The purpose of Network Neutrality is to enforce a Fair Market, in which content providers compete with each other based on the value of their service instead of based on the abuse of ISPs' monopoly position.
Proponents of free-market capitalism either make no distinction between a Free Market and a Fair Market, or they assume, as an article of faith, that a Fair Market is an inevitable consequence of having a Free Market. Some of us, on the other hand, see plenty of evidence that such an assumption is not valid.
Except that as the summary says, it wasn't merely counting items. It also involved translating color into an arithmetic operation, so there was a symbolic representation of addition and subtraction. I can't speak to the rest of the experiment's design, but if the results are valid, it would seem that the bees do have some amount of understanding of the abstract concepts.
It's so absurd to try and make sweeping assessments of things like climate based on a record that's less than 40 years old. We started tracking data in the 80's...
You might want to read the summary a bit more carefully.
While it is true that the Constitution is generally shat upon by both sides with zero hesitation, the "General Welfare" clause does actually pass muster to allow Government to regulate telecom to a "certain degree". What that "certain degree" is is the real argument.
If I was going to make a legal argument about the constitutionality of federal regulations of the Internet, I would argue that the Internet is simply the modern equivalent of the post road.
I want VoIP/SIP traffic to be prioritized using QoS
Then you buy a plan that allows a certain amount of traffic at higher QoS levels for a few dollars more. You just pay the same for that plan as every other customer. That is what NN is all about.
No, that isn't what Network Neutrality is about. Network Neutrality is about preventing prioritization of certain sources/destinations over others, which ISPs do in order to use their monopoly position as an ISP to restrict competition in the media market. It's not about people streaming videos and playing games versus people using voice communication, it's about stopping monopoly abuse.
Vermont routinely gets that cold and they do not close their schools for 10 degrees or even -10 degrees.
That's why Vermont doesn't have to close schools when it's -10 F - everyone is prepared for it, particularly when it comes to owning adequate winter clothes. When it only goes below freezing once a year, most people, especially people with lower incomes, don't waste money on that kind of winter gear. If you only have clothing that's helpful for 40 F, going outside when it's -10 F can be deadly.
I don't disagree with any of that, I was just pointing out that, from what I could tell, it wasn't about just having a phone in the room, but that there was a perfectly logical explanation of how a third party could have exploited the bug to record the deposition. Someone else posted below that the complaint is just about having a phone in the room, though. If that's correct, then yeah, I got nothing.
Why did he think bringing a powered on recording device to private meeting where no recording should take place was good opsec?
Smart phones have no place in a secure facility.
In most lawsuits, the probability of someone in the room being hit during the deposition with a remote attack that turns on recording is so low that it isn't worth worrying about. Nobody in the room would ever start recording on their own personal device because 1) secretly recording stuff is a quick and easy way to end your career, and 2) there's already a court reporter and videographer in the room recording everything, so there's no point anyway.
More than that, why did he have any phones at all in the room while taking a secret deposition?
My understanding of the bug is that it affects group conferencing, so I assume they were using FaceTime to conduct the deposition. They could set up a FaceTime group with the witness, attorneys from both sides, and probably a court reporter, instead of paying to get everyone together in the same room somewhere.
If such a recording happened, and it was done by someone involved in the case, it could cause permanent injury in terms of people having information in the case they should not have, which is a horse that is very difficult to put back in the barn.
My legal experience is somewhat limited, but I don't think that's a possible scenario. If it was really a deposition, which is done with the intention of putting sworn testimony on record, there would be a court reporter and/or videographer present (as a neutral party to record what is said), as well as an attorney from the opposing party (who is allowed to cross-examine the witness being deposed).
A quick look at current prices for 1 TB M.2 drives shows a range of around $150 to $350 (Samsung's is at the $350 end). I would guess that this chip would be about the same if you were buying it at regular retail price. Phone manufacturers will almost certainly get it cheaper in bulk.
The House of Representatives already passed a budget (which included something like $1.5 billion for border security) on their first day of the year. The Senate hasn't voted on it because Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has refused to call for a vote on any budget that would be vetoed.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have an issue with paid prioritization, as long as it's bandwidth added to the promised service level, or perhaps no more than 10% in the case of "unlimited."
That isn't really prioritization though.
Let's say Customer A pays for 100 Mbps, and Customer B pays for 100 Mbps. Their ISP has 500 Mbps available, so there's no problem. If Customer A decides they need more bandwidth and wants to pay more for 250 Mbps, there's still no problem.
Now, if both Customer A and Customer B decide they need 500 Mbps, there may be some issues. If they're both trying to use all of their bandwidth at the same time, which customer gets priority? In a neutral network, the decision would not at all be based on who the customers are. In this example, the fairest prioritization would be to alternate packets (i.e. split the bandwidth), so neither customer is prioritized over the other. If Customer A was paying for 200 Mbps and Customer B was paying for 800 Mbps, then it would be reasonable to handle 4 packets from Customer B for every 1 packet from Customer A, so that both customers are still getting from the available bandwidth the share that they're paying for.
The situation that needs to be avoided is allowing Customer B to pay for priority over Customer A. If they did, you would end up with Customer B getting all 500 Mbps and Customer A maybe being able to sneak a few packets through in the quieter moments. Or even worse, Customer B getting all 500 Mbps without paying anything, since they're just a subsidiary of the ISP anyway.
Or ISPs could take their enormous revenue, spend it on increasing the available bandwidth, and actually deliver the service that they're advertising. But, well, fuck the customers.
While I would acknowledge those are all noble goals for the 'job' of prisons, I would also include restitution to the victims of the crime. Sometimes that takes the form of imposing suffering in some way on the perpetrator.
That is, by definition, not restitution. Restitution is repaying or restoring what was lost, so that the net effect of the crime on the victim is zero. If you steal $100 from someone, restitution would be when the thief gives $100 to the victim. No amount of prison time can ever be restitution, since the victim doesn't regain anything that they lost because of the crime (I suppose you could argue the edge case of imprisoning someone with the ability to pay indefinitely until they agree to repay the victim, but the prison time itself isn't really the restitution).
What you're describing would generally just be called revenge.
Very well could be. When I post stuff on Slashdot, I go with what seems to be the most common definition around here, which says "free market" means "OMG e-e-e-evil gubmint!"
My brain? I can't imagine that I'm the first person to draw this distinction, but I couldn't say specifically if or where I saw it before I started using it.
The issue with that definition is that it doesn't say who/what isn't imposing any restrictions. It's pretty much impossible to have a market with no restrictions at all; either large companies can become monopolies and restrict competitors, or the government can restrict large companies from becoming monopolies.
Having said that, I do agree with your conclusion. The best result from a market-based economy is when we have competition in a Fair Market, which is what you're saying you want, and I don't see how we can have a Fair Market without some amount of government intervention to ensure that there's fair competition.
I thought you guys were in favor of the free market? That's the entire point of NN - to allow a free market on the internet, rather than allowing the ISP oligopoly to decide winners and losers.
"Free Market" usually means a minimum amount (some people want zero) of government regulation. The purpose of Network Neutrality is to enforce a Fair Market, in which content providers compete with each other based on the value of their service instead of based on the abuse of ISPs' monopoly position.
Proponents of free-market capitalism either make no distinction between a Free Market and a Fair Market, or they assume, as an article of faith, that a Fair Market is an inevitable consequence of having a Free Market. Some of us, on the other hand, see plenty of evidence that such an assumption is not valid.
Except that as the summary says, it wasn't merely counting items. It also involved translating color into an arithmetic operation, so there was a symbolic representation of addition and subtraction. I can't speak to the rest of the experiment's design, but if the results are valid, it would seem that the bees do have some amount of understanding of the abstract concepts.
It's so absurd to try and make sweeping assessments of things like climate based on a record that's less than 40 years old. We started tracking data in the 80's...
You might want to read the summary a bit more carefully.
since record-keeping began in 1880
That would be 140 years, not 40 years.
...but still no scientific proof
Proofs are for mathematicians. Scientists work with things like data, hypotheses, and predictions.
While it is true that the Constitution is generally shat upon by both sides with zero hesitation, the "General Welfare" clause does actually pass muster to allow Government to regulate telecom to a "certain degree". What that "certain degree" is is the real argument.
If I was going to make a legal argument about the constitutionality of federal regulations of the Internet, I would argue that the Internet is simply the modern equivalent of the post road.
Heck show me where it says you should have public roads (if you want to whine about "general welfare" being incorrect).
All it takes to have federally-funded roads is for the Post Office to let everyone else use them.
Uh, leaders of actual Communist nations...
What communist nation is Kim the leader of? North Korea isn't communist, it's a Democratic People's Republic.
So use the Sherman Act to remove media ownings from Telecom companies.
I would be perfectly happy with that, too.
I want VoIP/SIP traffic to be prioritized using QoS
Then you buy a plan that allows a certain amount of traffic at higher QoS levels for a few dollars more. You just pay the same for that plan as every other customer. That is what NN is all about.
No, that isn't what Network Neutrality is about. Network Neutrality is about preventing prioritization of certain sources/destinations over others, which ISPs do in order to use their monopoly position as an ISP to restrict competition in the media market. It's not about people streaming videos and playing games versus people using voice communication, it's about stopping monopoly abuse.
Vermont routinely gets that cold and they do not close their schools for 10 degrees or even -10 degrees.
That's why Vermont doesn't have to close schools when it's -10 F - everyone is prepared for it, particularly when it comes to owning adequate winter clothes. When it only goes below freezing once a year, most people, especially people with lower incomes, don't waste money on that kind of winter gear. If you only have clothing that's helpful for 40 F, going outside when it's -10 F can be deadly.
I don't disagree with any of that, I was just pointing out that, from what I could tell, it wasn't about just having a phone in the room, but that there was a perfectly logical explanation of how a third party could have exploited the bug to record the deposition. Someone else posted below that the complaint is just about having a phone in the room, though. If that's correct, then yeah, I got nothing.
2. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.
Fixed that for you.
Why did he think bringing a powered on recording device to private meeting where no recording should take place was good opsec?
Smart phones have no place in a secure facility.
In most lawsuits, the probability of someone in the room being hit during the deposition with a remote attack that turns on recording is so low that it isn't worth worrying about. Nobody in the room would ever start recording on their own personal device because 1) secretly recording stuff is a quick and easy way to end your career, and 2) there's already a court reporter and videographer in the room recording everything, so there's no point anyway.
More than that, why did he have any phones at all in the room while taking a secret deposition?
My understanding of the bug is that it affects group conferencing, so I assume they were using FaceTime to conduct the deposition. They could set up a FaceTime group with the witness, attorneys from both sides, and probably a court reporter, instead of paying to get everyone together in the same room somewhere.
If such a recording happened, and it was done by someone involved in the case, it could cause permanent injury in terms of people having information in the case they should not have, which is a horse that is very difficult to put back in the barn.
My legal experience is somewhat limited, but I don't think that's a possible scenario. If it was really a deposition, which is done with the intention of putting sworn testimony on record, there would be a court reporter and/or videographer present (as a neutral party to record what is said), as well as an attorney from the opposing party (who is allowed to cross-examine the witness being deposed).
On the other hand if they can get 1TB on a single IC, then imagine the capacity of a standard 2.5" SSD! Virtually unlimited space for a single user.
I was thinking in the same direction. I don't care about soldering this chip inside a phone. Give me a couple of these on an M.2 drive.
A quick look at current prices for 1 TB M.2 drives shows a range of around $150 to $350 (Samsung's is at the $350 end). I would guess that this chip would be about the same if you were buying it at regular retail price. Phone manufacturers will almost certainly get it cheaper in bulk.
"[A] typical car that costs 60k" means a typical car from the set of cars that cost $60k; it doesn't mean that typical cars cost $60k.
In Slashdot terms, it's "typical (car that costs $60k)", not "(typical car) that costs $60k".
People wanting Medicare for All are only worried about... obtaining the power derived in being the one that gets to decide how the money is spent.
Wouldn't it be easier for such people to just get jobs pushing paperwork for an insurance company?
The House of Representatives already passed a budget (which included something like $1.5 billion for border security) on their first day of the year. The Senate hasn't voted on it because Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has refused to call for a vote on any budget that would be vetoed.