Re: Much as I hate Comcast
Can you demonstrate this? I know the one provided by Cox won't allow this.
16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"If they use a separate network (can share the same cabling) and separate devices to interface with their offering, like they do with their current set-top boxes, cable cards, etc., then they may have a case."
That's EXACTLY what's happening!
"That is immaterial. In these cases, Bloomberg is likely not acting as an ISP. In the case that they are, they're not reselling an internet service with a zero-rated value added service to other entities."
Not an INTERNET service, but a SERVICE nonetheless, which includes a live video feed and plenty of Wall Street data. Comast's internal video service is likewise and can be equated to Video On Demand which DOES goes out over the cable and IS NOT counted as part of their Internet service.
Look, it's basically the difference between getting a package through the Post/Mail and getting one through UPS. The former's a public resource subject to regulations. The other's a private service with its own rules.
NO ON THE NO! They're NOT. The video is being offered over the INTRAnet, NOT the INTERnet, not through the WAN but directly through the cable the way the TV channels and On-Demand Video work. And a LAN is more than just the end user, or CORPORATE LANs wouldn't exist. And guess what? The Comcast internal network qualifies as a Corporate LAN, and the end users count as private clients before Comcast. I can easily equate this to Bloomberg's private network and the Wall Street clients who use them everyday.
But the ISP is offering MORE than the Internet. Telephone, Cable television, and On-Demand Video are NOT Internet Services. NBC and Universal content is in-house and can be considered On-Demand Video which goes out over the CABLE connection and never touches the Internet. Otherwise, by your logic, private LANs are ALSO on the Internet (because Comcast's intranet is a LAN, not a WAN, and the Internet is by definition a WAN).
But not if the zero-rated video service never goes out on the Internet. That's the catch. Comcast owns NBC Universal, so anything from NBC or Universal is done in-house, on their intranet. It's like a private railway or roadway. If it never interacts with another of the same, what business does the government have with it? And if the FCC still decides to invervene, they could play "sauce for the gander" and point out Google does the same thing with its private fiber network.
Part of the catch with Comcast, though, is the problem of vertical integration. Comcast owns NBC Universal, which means they own one of the major US broadcast networks, among other channels. So it's a situation much like when Commodore bought out MOS Technologies (which designed the then-ubiquitous 6502 and derivatives) or when railroad companies bought timber plots. It introduces an element of enveloping, bringing everything in-house that can raise competition concerns (for example, how will ABC, CBS, and FOX respond to this when none of them own or are owned by a major nationwide ISP?). So as some have noted, this is a concern, but on monopoly/competition grounds, not neutrality grounds.
After all, what business does the FCC have over traffic that travels exclusively over a private network owned by the company—essentially one that doesn't actually use the Internet to operate? Cox offers a similar program with its Contour system, and it doesn't go against data caps there, either. But like with here, this is because the content, strictly speaking, doesn't go out over the Internet but rather through the internal ISP network that happens to have Internet-like infrastructure. Then you have the matter of Google's private fiber network as well. Where does the line get drawn?
"If the security of their service relies on the integrity of the customer's device, they ultimately have no useful security at all."
Then by your logic no device on earth has any useful security because, in the final analysis, you MUST use an endpoint of some sort to do business.
Meanwhile, Android is taking greater pains to verify its work environment. dm-verity, for example, is now enforced (from bootup) in Marshmallow and uses a Merkle Tree based on Google's signing key, meaning all official ROMs have to go through Google for verification going forward. Expect the standard to tighten for Android N, which I suspect will be some time coming if Google plans to incorporate this new update scheme into it.
Hmm...I guess the Dextrose provides carbs which mean energy to get over the tired sensation. I can see its uses. Looking it up, I find it's possible to combine the two and end up with a combination Dextrose Sodium Lactate Saline solution: Dextrose for energy, Sodium Lactate to stabilize the blood (it's isotonic with blood), and Salt to replenish electrolytes.
So in other words, a pint and a half of water, a heaping tablespoon of sugar, two pinches of epsom salt, and a pinch each of table salt and salt substitute?
PS. How quickly does it act once ingested? I think part of the craze for IVs is to reduce the time needed for the stuff to go into effect since they want to cut the hangover QUICKLY before they have to explain themselves to the boss or the significant other.
PSS. Going back to IVs, if anything is going to be used as an IV treatment for drunkenness in a supervised medical setting, I think the preferred substance is a solution of sodium lactate.
I often drink a pint of milk before going out on the lash. It seems to work for me.
The milk probably coats your stomach, though I think not as well as solid lipids.
Isn't that Brawndo?
In all seriousness, Gatorade was invented by the University of Florida (thus the "Gator") to treat their football players who kept showing up for practice hung over.
From what I've read, fatty foods are best taken before drinking. The idea is to coat your insides and provide absorptive mass. Both help to slow down the rate of alcohol going into your bloodstream, so the bender comes more gradually making it easier to handle.
Also, I hear eggs are good thing to have after a hangover. Apparently, the aminos in the eggs are good for breaking down the alcohol byproducts that contribute to hangovers. Poultry in general is supposed to have some good stuff. As for electrolytes, don't forget the potassium along with the sodium, meaning a banana or some yoghurt wouldn't hurt.
PS. Did you know that Gatorade was originally invented as a hangover cure? It's still useful for that purpose today, as it's meant to rehydrate and replenish electrolytes.
It's also an enabler to the companies that still exist. MAME in and of itself has never really been an issue with them. It's that basic requirement of using the actual copyrighted code. Which is not an issue if they're using their own code. They've already been taking good looks at retro cabinets (my local Dave & Buster's has a Namco one used for fundraising and had a Nintendo one until recently), and the ability to use the now-very-robust MAME codebase (they can craft custom UIs in front of the untouched codebase to stay legal) will only encourage this going forward.
PS. It's not talked about in the article, but some time back, MESS was merged into MAME, meaning this is a potential boon for retro computer emulation, too.
That was more in nature to protect their interests since many of the companies that made those games still exist in some form (Capcom and Konami, for example, while Square Enix acquired the Taito properties). As the article notes, many individual pieces of the code are available in a 3-clause BSD license which is more liberal than the GPLv2+ license that envelops the entire project.
There HAVE been instances of bootleg cabinet makers using MAME in them, and the license as it was enabled them to either sue the cabinet maker or at the least keep the lawyers away.
"The opiate substitutes are examined for safety and efficacy by the FDA, but they are controlled by the DEA, which apparently doesn't want lots of substitution drugs being used..."
And the DEA in this case has plenty of hard evidence to support this case. Particularly in "redneck territory" in the south, prescription drug abuse (in particular of opioids) is quite rampant. Yes, it's hard to take people out of vices (the whole "what I do in my house is my business" thing), but the thing is that these vices tend to have knock-on effects for the rest of society. If a once-hard-worker stops because he/she is now wasting their days in drink or drugs, what happens to the job, the spouse and kids, and so on?
Was he a TERRORIST or a WHISTLEBLOWER? Tech can't tell the difference and history's written by the winners...
Ever thought the phone's actually EMPTY? The 9/11 hijackers went low-tech and used trustworthy human couriers to pass on their instructions and used safe haven countries where the law couldn't reach. Given that, there's very little LEOs can do to stop serious terrorists. They can act outside the law; the law cannot. It's attacker's advantage. At some point, the defender's gonna lose.
But that situation exists NOW, WITHOUT the need for law enforcement. Why can't an industrial spy get some insider to obtain a company's secret keys in some way (or perhaps the way by which it was created so it can be duplicated)? I'm sure a secret signing key would be a (social) hacker's holy grail and would be attacked mercilessly.
Anyway, what you REALLY really need are two, maybe three keys, but they allow different things. The "root" key, so to speak, is generated internally by the black box cryptochip and NEVER leaves it. Meaning NO ONE, not even Apple, can possibly know it. From this, two other keys can be generated that CAN be released. One is the "public" key that is kept by the user. That way, ONLY the user can use their iDevice as they see fit. The other is a "wipe" key. This one can be kept by the user AND given to Apple. This is the failsafe which allows Apple to reset the device back to Factory condition, but ONLY by wiping out everything in it. THIS key can be kept in escrow as a last resort, but it'll be of no use to law enforcement since it's by definition a "destroy evidence" key.
"You also appear to be conflating or confusing massive towing cables, as used by ocean-going tugs, with the sort of fiber optic cable (this example is to help you think - not exactly aligned) that is used with underwater ROVs every day of the week. Have you ever seen an ROV on Discovery Channel?"
Anything thinner snaps too easily when sea forces are applied, rendering it useless. Anything strong enough can pull the ship enough to seriously list if not capsize it. And breakaway connectors can fail to break and failsafes can fail. Again, think Murphy, who can strike in ways UNimaginable.
"Keep in mind - Satcom as they've implemented it ain't working. Either give up the Live From The Barge hype, or do something."
If it doesn't have to be fixed yesterday, there's no rush to fix it. If they got more DIRECT COMPLAINTS, maybe they'll do something.
Tell you what. Since you claim to know so much, why not take up your gripe with SpaceX IN PERSON?
The problems are geography and physics.
Geography because the primary launch point in the US is in Florida for safety reasons. Rockets practically always launch east (with rotation), meaning if a launch goes pear-shaped, it's likely to fall into the Atlantic Ocean where there's practically no one at risk.
Physics because fitting a space-bound rocket is a delicate act of figuring out just how much fuel you can stand to load (since fuel load creates a recursive increase in the fuel requirements--loading fuel requires more fuel to lift which requires more fuel to load, and so on—IINM this gets into Calculus territory). So you end up using JUST enough to get up there and have a tiny bit left to stabilize yourself coming down (and because the load calculation is so delicate, you can't add on any other equipment like parachutes). So you end up with a pretty predictable course for a minimal GSO launch from Florida, and the calculations basically say it's going to come down somewhere in the Atlantic: in international waters. Politics therefore doesn't really come into play.
"They installed the satellite system (expensive), booked satellite time (moderately expensive)"
Expensive compared to what? Last I checked, satellite links tended to go maybe five figures tops. Meanwhile, space flights in the past routinely hit nine figures. Meaning compared to the space flight itself, the sat com unit is probably just a nick off the roll.
Unless it's acting on a program, meaning it's NOT actively controlled...
And before you say, "Then it can be predicted," the program COULD be using random numbers or can react to sensors, meaning it's acting pseudo-smart and will therefore act like it's being directed when it's reacting on its own.
Nah, it'll have to be bigger than that. At billion-dollar levels, they'll just hire better lawyers to get it thrown out on appeal or just bribe the governments to look the other way. No, it would have to take literally state-threatening levels of f-ing up (meaning a country loses a war or risks getting overrun, bankrupted, or otherwise suffers threat of sovereignty because of it). And because of the way corporations and the like work, good luck getting actual people locked up. Either the corporate structure will shield them, or at worst they'll get knocked down to a lesser charge with carrots and sticks.
"Er ... just don't plug in the network connection or let it know your WiFi password?"
Ever heard of a Whispernet? It can work without your intervention.
"And if it does say that a connection is required, just don't buy that one."
Until you find out they ALL say that, meaning you're in a Take It Or Leave It situation. And don't count on used ones being available. Odds are they'll get scrapped at every opportunity.
Won't that just result in businesses requiring memberships before you can do business with them (which allows them to deal with the personal information bit right away) and result in "signature fatigue"?
As for the legibility part, that may be difficult for foreigners, illiterates, and the true idiots who nonetheless need to be able to eke out a living, unless you want to use the Spartan Solution.
You know the OPPOSITE will happen instead. They'll make the phoning home a core prerequisite function that breaks the whole device (and voids the warranty) if ever tampered with. ALL the manufacturers will then act in cartel so that a reversal can't be made without banning every single device and manufacturer capable of selling there.
"Sudden catastrophic failure (and hard unrecoverable bad block) is the easiest to recover from if you mirror."
But that takes time, and as long as you're trying to reconstruct, you run the risk of the mirror failing, too, thus the mention of failsafe failure. At least with a gradual failure you can still extract useful data from the failing drive to reduce the load on the mirror and reduce the chance of failsafe failure.