"Extortion fee"? Do you mean peering agreements that save Netflix's transit costs? This has been done for years, long before Netflix. The issue really started with Cogent trying to keep their no-settlement peering agreements after they took on Netflix.

Other than that, I agree. Competition is the way forward. Back in the days of dialup a customer could choose from plenty of ISP's. Same with DSL, but to a lesser degree. Maybe the right way to go is to require last mile networks to only provide connectivity, but not Internet. Then customers would be able to choose their transit provider. This already happens for business class service.

What?! The Supreme Court created this law, it can't be overturned! Ya know, stare decisis! Judges are wonderful overlords and never wrong. (yes, that is sarcasm).

Yes, the ruling needs to go away. I haven't investigated in detail, but I have seen it mentioned that the common law definition of immunity is good enough for law enforcement. There is no need for the Supreme Court to change things up in the 60's.

And while we're at it, can we get rid of the public employee unions? All it seems to do is keep around bad employees and the good employees don't get the reward they deserve. This applies to both police and public school teachers. These changes won't cause immediate change like "defund the police", but I think it is a good start.

See? Both sides of the isle can agree!

Let's ban public employee unions. Unions tend to overprotect bad employees. This not only happens with police, but also public schools. New York City has what is called "rubber rooms" where they keep teachers, they can't fire, on staff and away from the children. Public schools have a serious issue with sex abuse:

"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

The cop involved with the Floyd death had a complaint history, why could he be removed from the force before this happened?

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten...

From what I've read, the drug doesn't do much by itself. This paper seems to support the idea that it must be combined with something else.

The flattening the curve models just calculated for slowing the spread. They didn't say it would stop it. The US had about 10% of the population infected with the flu last season. We have a vaccine for the flu (it varies season to season), It seems to me that a respiratory virus like COVID-19, 10% is the low bar, 20% is easy with or without mitigation. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be much higher.

Lancet points out that closing schools didn't do much to reduce deaths (2%-4%) https://www.thelancet.com/jour...

Reuters also has an article about the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/articl...

Maybe it would have been better to keep kids away from the most vulnerable but let the infection wash over them as fast as possible while they attend school or play in the parks. Obviously kids with asthma or other issues that put them at greater risk would be excused.

Remember flattening the curve was intended to help hospitals and make sure there were enough resources for the people that are seriously ill from this virus. The curve just spreads out the infections. I'm not sure where people got the idea that it would stop the spread completely since respiratory viruses are difficult to contain.

I was wondering the same thing! Is this just a preemptive over-reaction from politicians or a real issue of capacity? I read a comment from someone on the intereweb where German ISP's rejected Netflix CDN boxes.

Maybe with all the anger over peering a few years back just revealed how much peering we do here in the US.

With all the open office setups, people just put on their headphones. Maybe they don't need to do than when they're at home, in their own office.

I think the main issue with Sprint coverage was the PCS frequencies. Verizon and AT&T used lower frequencies that worked better in buildings. The PCS frequencies attenuated faster even though there was more bandwidth.

The one cool part of Sprint back in the 2000's was that they didn't force you into their ringtone/app store. They embraced the Palm phones. Verizon on the otherhand was very locked down. At least with AT&T (being GSM), one could import nice tech friendly phones like the Nokia Symbian phones.

Once Sprint bought Nextel and was able to have some 800MHz bandwidth they were in a much better position.

But all this goes back to not being a tech issue. It is a management and business strategy issue. T-Mobile was not part of the big two (AT&T and Verizon) and has been able to navigate the market pretty well even though they had many more tech challenges (GSM->UTMS->EDGE->HSDPA->LTE->5G). AT&T had a similar tech challenge, but add in the old analog AMPS network that took up a huge amount of bandwidth.

The only real tech mis-step that Sprint made was going with WiMax. But that was relatively short-lived. Sprint was an early adopter of Qualcomm's CDMA and it is still running it because the tech is solid. The Nextel purchase wasn't really for the tech (no one believed iDEN was the future), it was for the frequency allocations. Sprint was exclusively on the PCS frequencies before it purchased Nextel. Putting their CDMA on the lower 800 band was a good idea. Verizon excelled in rural areas using the same combination. Before Sprint had 800MHz bands, it was pretty much unusable outside of metro areas (usually roamed to Verizon).

So Sprint's evolution was CMDA 1x->CDMA 3G->"WiMax 4G"->(buy Nextel... eventually put CMDA on it)->LTE. Verizon was simpler as it used CMDA and then jumped right onto LTE.

AT&T had a much harder time switching out the various incompatible technologies on the towers over the years. AMPS, GSM (EDGE), UTMS, LTE, 5G(?). What's the difference? Clearly tech is not the problem. AT&T was able to juggle the band and tech. Good tech doesn't mean that a company will do well.

I've been on Sprint for a long time. Back in the day, Verizon was really restrictive when it came to what phones they allowed on their network. Verizon initially didn't like the Palm phones because a user could install whatever app they chose. This is why I initially went with Sprint. I live in a metro area and Sprint was friendly to tech friendly phones[1]. Verizon wanted their own ring tone and app stores. Sprint on the other hand embraced Palm phones. The big breakthrough was when Apple partnered with AT&T with the launch of the iPhone. That changed everything.

[1] The other option was AT&T's GSM and buying an imported Nokia Symbian phone. My brother went this route, but the upfront costs were higher.

https://www.chicagotribune.com...

Again, the government doesn't give me any rights. I have them already. The Bill of Rights didn't come into existence from a vacuum. There is a history behind it. Some of it inspired by the English Bill of Rights. Note the item about bearing arms in the English Bill of Rights. But unlike the English Bill of Rights, the US Bill of Rights is a document that recognizes natural rights and prevents the government from infringing on them. Nothing like that existed before. So the 2nd recognizes the right we already have to bear arms. It also states the government should not infringe on that right. It also recognizes that a militia is necessary for the security of the state, which if you think about it, is also pretty radical. That means it was the responsibility of the people, not only to protect the themselves, but to also organize a militia to protect the state! Also remember that there was NO standing army back then (only Navy). The army we have today is a relatively recent idea that happened after WW2.
It is really sad that people WANT a police state. Somehow a police state makes people more free? No thanks.

No, I don't want a police state. Ultimately it is up the the individual to protected oneself from others. The court has ruled on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The whole idea of limited government was to prevent the government from infringing on the natural rights on the individual. It has a duty to punish criminals, but it really can't prevent the crime in the first place.

So now you should know why the 2nd is so important. How can the individual protect themselves from others without the right to defend oneself?

So, do you believe the government grants the right to bear arms? If so, you have it backwards. Unlike other nations we don't believe the government gives us the right to speech. We have it already. The government can only infringe on that right. Same with weapons. We don't get that right from the government. The 2nd is there to make sure that the government doesn't infringe on the natural (or God given) right to protect oneself. Even if the 2nd went away, we would still have the right. The problem would be that if the 2nd went away, the government would have the power to infringe on a natural right. The 2nd is worded that way because they not only recognized that right, but they also felt it important not only to protect the individual from bad people, but the government itself! That had never been stated before and is what makes the USA completely different from all other nations.

Absolutely true. It isn't just RedHat pushing to drop Docker, it is the Kubernetes project. I suspect that Docker will be relegated to simple, single box use. Anything beyond that will not use Docker.