Comment Re:Meaningful Competition? (Score 1) 97
Exactly. There's only so much telephone pole space (or underground conduit).
Exactly. There's only so much telephone pole space (or underground conduit).
Government (or really a quasi-public company) owns the last mile. Vendors compete to provide the content. You pay the government X dollars per month to cover the cost of upgrade and maintenance of the fiber coming to your house, and then you choose from Verizon/Comcast/TWC and the packages/bandwidth you select.
In practice this isn't too different from how my electric bill works - National Grid charges me for the delivery and the electricity, but I can shop around to get electricity cheaper from other vendors. It still shows up as one bill.
That seems kinda stupid. Why announce that they're 'watching you' and give you evidence that they're doing so?
"Hey Agent P, I got a great idea. Let's h4xx0r her laptop, wipe out data, and let her know we're watching her. A member of the press would take that as a warning and not report on it, right?"
"Cool. *type type type*"
If you look at any person's laptop you'll find it absolutely coated with spyware. I run PC cleaning workshops for my church. Some of the stuff that comes in should really be nuked from orbit they're so bad. I'm starting to advocate people just start getting Chromebooks because there's not much of an OS to hack and 90% of what people do can be done from a web browser.
Maybe. If the pushes are in the right direction it gradually moves the overall discussion in the way you want it to go.
Yes. I bought one for my daughter (11) and one for an older person who kept getting her laptop pwn3d. Given the number of parents/grandparents that no longer have the time or ability to have a stable system and just want a browser, this is the perfect solution for them.
I've had a few failures (Kreyos and the Neal Stephenson sword game) but the rest of about two dozen have given me exactly what they promised and I got some really nice items.
Libertarians claim that bad business practices will force bad companies out of business allowing good companies to prosper, but any time a person buys a product from a 'bad' vendor is their own fault for not doing enough research.
Perhaps, and maybe that's the problem. I'm sure they're growing at a really rapid rate. If you grow like that for 10 years, there's going to be a lot of amortized expenses that will catch up if you're growing that quickly every year.
when libertarians get treated the way they'd treat others in a libertarian utopia.
Caveat emptor.
If this were Amazon vs. rinkydink provider, I'd buy that. When it's Google vs. Amazon vs. Microsoft, they have the resources to slug this out for as long as they want.
That link wasn't there originally, nor (IIRC) did it say "estimated".
Given the new information, then it doesn't matter. AWS is running at some sort of loss, but the question is why are they running at a loss. Are they spending lots of money on new infrastructure and scoping out new locations for data centers? That all costs a lot of money to implement and it would show up as a loss. Given how well the rest of the company is doing (AMZN would have had a profit if it were not for AWS), it sounds like revenue from other Amazon operations is going to provide capital for AWS to continue building. AWS isn't going anywhere soon if they're continuing to build out at this rate. There will be a time when the demand starts to plateau and they don't need to spend quite so much every quarter to expand. At that point they start raking in the dollars.
Because it causes panic in the target countries, they flee through porous borders and spread the disease more. Other countries think the problem is fixed, never bother screening at airports or other border crossings and they still get in anyway.
How about this for a counter-question: Why aren't we quarantining Texas?
Yeah this. I can't find a source for this claim. According to Wall Street Journal, AWS' revenue is only a $1.2billion per quarter. It would have to be losing at least $500mil/quarter to make a $2 billion/yr loss. In other words, for every dollar you spend on AWS, they're really losing $.50 or so.
Their ISP and storage costs will increase to handle the new format and you have to pay for that somehow.
At least they have 4k content.
You're still failing at point #2. Why was there insufficient security? Ordinarily you'd think that the user had a poor password, but then you said this:
We can tell because they went public without authorization via a hack. That security was Jennifer Lawrence's responsibility.
And what is precisely why you don't get this. This is an either/or case. Either there was a vulnerability on the part of the cloud vendor, or the end users handled their passwords improperly. Given the number of people involved, it seriously points to the former.
We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission