|
Whaaaa? OK, off my list. I was trying to be nice to them after they keep buggering their site, but I guess that was just enabling. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
It never was a rule vis-a-vis the FCC since the rules were never actually in force because the FCC had no legal jurisdiction, a point all too often lost in all of this. So who does have legal jurisdiction? The FTC can make a case.
Regardless, the answer is to have congress address this by law. Republicans actually introduced draft legislation for such a bill in 2014, which was even stronger than the FCC's proposed rules, but it was ignored by Democrats who thought they would win the white house and then be able to have the FCC complete its power grab [though the courts weren't going along, but that problem could be solved with time.]
The solution, then, is to contact your congressman and senators and ask them to reintroduce the 2014 bill, which solved some other problems as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I read ...
Net Neutrality is No Moore
and I though ... soapbox.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Well - they say it will spur innovation.
It will:
How to charge more
How to offer less
and most important of all,
How to stifle competition from startups.
There's an acronym for that: BOHICA
Petroleum Jelly now cost extra . . .
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Way better to have our honest and benevolent government in charge. 
|
|
|
|
|
Better than having those ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) ing money-hungry pigs in charge.
Also, especially in this case, Government In Charge means everyone gets a fair chance.
That's why, over a century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt had anti trust acts put in place. Why?
So big businesses could gather together and prevent competition. So that those little mom-and-pops you right winger's pretend to love could stay in business and have a chance to succeed.
Verizon already tried it once (pre those net-neutrality laws) by slowing down NetFlix.
Verizon admits to throttling video in apparent violation of net neutrality - The Verge[^] Only the beginning. And they were caught at this, before.
Now, "The Gloves Come Off" - I'm glad I voted the ISP's into office so they could govern me in there usual benevolent manner.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Better than having those ing money-hungry pigs in charge.
Your trust in big government is scary. Are you perhaps a lifelong civil servant?
W∴ Balboos wrote: Also, especially in this case, Government In Charge means everyone gets a fair chance.
You do realize of course that it was the government who just ended the Net Neutrality regulations...
I'm sure you also realize that:
The FCC is a government agency where employees are not elected.
These were regulations were never laws, so your congressmen had no say in them.
It was always questionable whether the FCC even had the proper authority for these particular regulations.
That the FCC commissioners who created these regulations in 2015 and killed then in 2017 were not elected by voters.
If your government really cared about this stuff congress would have made actual laws to cover it - you know like the right-wingers drafted in 2014 only to have it killed by left-wingers.
|
|
|
|
|
You worry that the FCC isn't all elected? Who the elected the corporate money grubbers?
Congress has a say in anything it wants - the legislative branch makes the laws. The industrial shill in the White House may not sign it, or the Supreme Court could decide it's unconstitutional, but Congress has a say in whatever it wants. Unfortunately, the current majorities have been well paid by big business interests and want to keep it that way. In the case of the internet, now their opponents messages can be legally blocked. Probably will be.
Questionable about whether the FCC had authority - a BS Red-Herring argument.
Mike Mullikin wrote: If your government really cared about this stuff congress would have made actual laws to cover it - you know like the right-wingers drafted in 2014 only to have it killed by left-wingers.
You live in a world where only Breitbart will have internet access. The "Left Wingers" who killed it were (all three) GOP shills; the Left wingers, in fact, were the two votes against it.
Remember - in my previous post I gave you a link to show you just how this latest atrocity will play out. All you have is empty rhetoric and distractions from the reality that the purpose of these businesses is to empty your pockets into theirs.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: You worry that the FCC isn't all elected?
You missed my point. I'm not worried that the FCC isn't elected. I was pointing it out to you who seemed to think government regulation is wonderful because we elect them.
Quote: Congress has a say in anything it wants - the legislative branch makes the laws
Yet... here we are without Net neutrality laws.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Unfortunately, the current majorities have been well paid by big business interests and want to keep it that way
Did you miss the part about the GOP drafting Net Neutrality laws in 2014 and the Democrats killing it?
W∴ Balboos wrote: a BS Red-Herring argument.
Why?
W∴ Balboos wrote: You live in a world where only Breitbart will have internet access.
 Paranoid much?
W∴ Balboos wrote: The "Left Wingers" who killed it were (all three) GOP shills; the Left wingers, in fact, were the two votes against it.
What are you talking about? You seem to be confusing a 2014 law drafted by GOP congressmen and the latest FCC commissioners vote. These are 2 completely different animals.
|
|
|
|
|
But the Internet was Net Neutrality free since 1993* and it was fine, right?
Why, after Net Neutrality only in place for 2 years is everything suddenly bad without it? 
I honestly don't understand how that could be.
*Yes, I know the Internet was around before that, but you get what I mean
|
|
|
|
|
That's what cracks me up. Whatever the FCC tried to do was invalidated by the courts so the rules never went into effect and were, regardless, never enforced. So, in fact, nothing has changed. Yet, the sky is falling.
I've wondered if it's me just getting older and crankier or if people really are freaking out more about change. (Suggest dropping the process-of-the-week and half your listeners will have a coronary, as though actually talking to people affected by your project or those affecting you is an impossible task. Turns out good managers can actually manage projects by just talking to each underling every two to three days. Who'd of thought?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I lived in a Net Neutrality free environment since I purchased the 300 baud modem for my VIC20 in '83.
At that time, I paid an amount directly proportional to my traffic.
My internet speed before the so called Net Neutrality was consistently in the 105/10 area on cable, and there was no limit on content.
Over the last 2 years, I have noticed no changes.
Real world analogs- I would like some examples of where a parallel to Net Neutrality could or has been applied, and what (if any) results there have been.
My original thought was a toll-road. Big Trucks pay more to use the same road, yet they often have reduced speed limits.
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft’s Brendan Burns, who literally wrote the book on how to manage distributed cloud systems, now wants to give developers the tools to write apps with distributed cloud computing in mind from the first keystroke. "Take me to the clouds above"
|
|
|
|
|
Because long ago we received our very own C: drive. Remember the grin? That was because now you had all the power. And like a good boy or girl, if you did your backups then that stuff was yours forever. Now kiddies, in the name of both safety of your data and access anywhere they are systematically going to take that away from you and leave you with a 24bit color vt-100 again . Albeit on your lap or in your hand. What's more is now they will have the data and the apps that you used to possess and control. Unless you say no and like a good boy or girl, do your backups and forgo access anywhere, their going to charge you whatever they want, whenever they want for things that used to be right there behind a humble yet all powerful C: drive.
Those who have no control over you love to marginalize you as someone who is dangerous to yourself to get more control over you. - Nuts to that.
Clouds are great. As long as it's your cloud box somewhere on your static ip or dynamic dns ip. I have a server in my house on a dynamic dns ip. I can access that data from anywhere.
You can do this too. And call it the cloud if you wish. 
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed - that's also why I don't sign up for streaming services (music etc). IF I want something, I'll buy a DVD or obtain a download I can store and play independently.
When I buy something, I like to own it.
|
|
|
|
|
Many people still have to attend those soul-sucking, brain-draining, pointless recurring meetings. You know the ones — they’re usually filed under euphemisms like “stand-ups”, “status”, and “check ins” and happen on a daily or weekly basis. Maybe we should set up a meeting to discuss?
|
|
|
|
|
The last AOB item in any meeting should be "should we have this meeting again". The first time the vote is "no" the meeting (and all going forward) is cancelled.
You can easily spin up a new meeting if/when you need it.
|
|
|
|
|
A stand-up meeting is not a status meeting, at least that's what I've been told.. but it is because people don't want to follow the processes put in place.
Like.. when the process owner defines the priority list, but others disagree and complain to management who then brings pressure to rearrange your schedule. Just let the process play out and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
I would gladly have a weekly meeting... but that would require some form of management, which we don't have - we have only managers.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Hold on, you can't just jump into this discussion with a pre-meeting planning session.
|
|
|
|
|
if you have daily reccuring meetings, you should just quit.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
The most dramatic cybersecurity story of 2016 came to a quiet conclusion Friday in an Anchorage courtroom, as three young American computer savants pleaded guilty to masterminding an unprecedented botnet—powered by unsecured internet-of-things devices like security cameras and wireless routers—that unleashed sweeping attacks on key internet services around the globe last fall. Beware of more than the creeper
|
|
|
|
|
In working life it's now almost expected that employees answer work-related emails after hours, or take their laptops with them on holiday. But the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life can affect people's sense of well-being and lead to exhaustion. Unless your business is pleasure
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
