Being snide isn't useful. You didn't make your point in the summary at all in this case. Pentium100's impression is very likely what everyone else read as well.

Compared to my neighborhood's power, a small country's power is very much a large quantity. The poster was correct that "large quantity" is vague.

Being snide isn't useful. Since Netflix/Cogent would be the one jamming traffic into the pipe, not Comcast, my point still stands. One cannot "jam" something by any of these definitions by doing nothing. The jamming is done by something or someone else.

On the summary, not the article. Comcast wasn't "jamming' Netflix. Jamming is an active response. What Comcast did was nothing. Now whether they should have done something about the overflowing links is the argument, but that's a far cry from "jamming."

Some might argue that the difference lies in the different levels of risk. Flu isn't 50% (or more) fatal. I don't' know if I agree with that argument, but I think it's a flaw in your comparison.

There are also various state level programs, of course these vary by state. It is, though, generally easier for children than poor adults.

Sorry, I know a couple families who are poor and get free preventative care through various government programs. Including prescription medicine. So in addition to being a coward, you are also a moron by your own criterion.

So how are direct bank transfers validated? This is one of the main uses for ACH, at least in my experience, and the only validation is I can call the bank and reverse any charges after they appear in my statement.

+1 Accurate

He didn't mention /. posters.

A good point. An obvious case of fraud would get reversed quickly. "Walmart screwed up and charged me twice" could take forever to get reversed.

It is indeed wonderful if you think about it. The only reason it works is because there is comparatively very little fraud. A great example of how security works in the real world. As Marcus Ranum wrote once "[security] is only as good as it has to be". There is just enough protection on it to discourage most of the fraud, and we accept the rest. If technology changes and the fraud rate rises to an intolerable level, the system will get updated. But not before then, no matter how much security folks complain.

That is interesting, do you know off hand any good summaries of the differences? I thought the US ACH system was fairly global. Rather parochial of me, I know. I'll Google on it at some point in any case.

I don't want to give you nightmares, but it is horrifying how little security there is on ACH transactions. The whole system relies on the ability to undo transactions to discourage fraud. All anyone needs is the routing and account numbers that are helpfully printed on your checks.

Probably the whole goal of getting rid of the windows is to shrink the walls an inch so they can cram one more row of seats into the plane.