So it would be easy to say "FIFO, anything else is illegal." That solves any kind of throttling and such nicely and has no way around it. However, as you note, it has the problem of making any kind of useful QoS undoable. It isn't like QoS is something that nobody wants either, there's a reason why all the nice business gear you get has support for it. Ok so we'd like to allow that. Thing is, how do you write the law so that it doesn't mess with legit QoS, but doesn't have loopholes that allow companies to throttle traffic they don't like? It isn't an easy answer.

I work for the engineering college and so of course getting more women is something they work at. You find a good number of women in the intro courses, 175 and that kind of stuff, but most of them vanish by graduation, off to other degrees. So one of the things they tried is having a women's only honour section taught by one of our female professors.

She is an excellent role model: She's a women who has not had to give up on either her career or family. She's a full professor with tenure, her own research lab, multiple papers to her name and so on, however she also has two boys, just about to become teenagers. She's an engineering geek, but it doesn't mean she can't be girly when she wants (she got a pink laptop she just loved). She's also passionate about engineering and teaching and a very engaging and caring lecturer.

So a great example. The result? No retention increase. The women in her class weren't any more interested in staying in engineering than those in regular classes.

The people who bring this up are not interested in equality as in making sure that there is a perfect split in all things. They are interested in making sure women have access to what they see as desirable careers. They don't go after the blue collar jobs because those are seen as undesirable.

Mike Rowe has given several good talks about what he calls the "war on work" and how it is seen in America as somehow a bad thing to have a skilled trade. You are "successful" if you have an office white collar job. This is despite the fact that many blue collar trades pay extremely well and, according to Rowe, the people in them are generally very happy.

Hence why you see people take issue with tech jobs. They are white collar jobs and are perceived to be good, and they have less women than men. So they wish that to be changed. They do not care about change in jobs that are perceived to be bad, an imbalance is perfectly fine there.

As a short guy how much it sucks to try and date. I'm lucky in that I'm quite tall but man, are women stuck on height. Most women will NOT date a man shorter than them. It is a deal breaker to them for whatever reason. They also seem to feel it is perfectly reasonable, and not just very shallow.

It really sucks for short guys because at least with looks you can generally do something. While you can't change your looks radically you can lose weight, work out, wear better clothes, etc and improve your looks at least somewhat. Also cosmetic surgery is a more drastic approach that can modify some things. There's fuck-all you can do about height though. You are 5'1"? That's what you are.

Women like to think they aren't shallow, and of course some really aren't (as some men aren't) but most are they just lie to themselves about it. One of the issues is that women tend to have a skewed view of men. They believe most men are below average. OKCupid did an interesting study on this. Men rated women's pictures on a bell curve of attractiveness, as one would expect. Women rated most men below average. So what you get is a lot of women who believe they've "settled" for a below average guy and thus aren't caring about looks, when in reality they've "settled" for an average or above average guy and just haven't gotten a hunk.

You are an exception (I'm presuming you are female). Most women do not wish to initiate a relationship. Part of it is cultural that historically in western (and most other) cultures men pursued women and that carries over to today. However part of it, no small part from the women I've discussed it with, is emotional. You take the emotional risk when you initiate a relationship, when you ask the other person to date you. If they say you, then you have been rejected, which nobody likes. Many women would prefer not to do that, they'd rather be the ones who get to do the rejecting.

Hence we have a setup online where men send tons of messages, because if they don't they don't get a response, and most women send none.

If you are different that is wonderful and I applaud you. However recognize you are by far in the minority.

It has been tried. A dating site was made where only women could initiate contact. The result? It went nowhere because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case. Men couldn't women wouldn't, so it didn't go anywhere.

The thing is not only do we have a cultural bias that men are supposed to initiate relationships, but the person who initiates puts their emotions on the line, sets themselves up for rejection. Women do not wish to do that by and large, and do not need to since men are very willing to initiate so they just don't.

Unless we are able to change that, such a site will go nowhere. The vast majority of women will just be unwilling to initiate a relationship and thus the site will wither and die.

Nope. I find none of that stuff helps. All I do is:

1) Run a good AV scanner (NOD32) as a last line of defense to make sure I don't get malware.

2) Uninstall shit when I don't need it.

3) Have normal maintenance shit like have trim run on the drives at regular intervals and such.

I've found that there are really no issues with regards to running a new OS for long periods of time. There was a time when regular reinstalls were a part of my regimen but that is long past. I reinstall only when there's a specific need. That doesn't mean I just put up with a slow computer either, I demand very fast performance from my systems. A reinstall just isn't needed to maintain that.

Likewise, components have gotten much better, and upgrades more incremental, so I've found the need to buy new hardware that would necessitate a reinstall to be less.

My guess? This person either has crap on their system that causes issues, or this is just a "magic incantation" they've always done for supposedly better performance without understanding or examination.

Everyone should just go and learn C and how to do POSIX programming, attain enough mastery in it to be able to diagnose code for obscure security issues (that have eluded many programmers for years) and then design a secure fix.

And they should do that in a day.

Ya that sounds reasonable.

FYI not only are most people not programmers, and have no interest in becoming programmers, but most lack the kind of brain it takes to be a good programmer. The whole "Oh it is OSS fix it yourself!" argument is a really stupid one.

If you set foot in a country, they can arrest you for violating their laws. Doesn't matter if you aren't a citizen and live overseas. If you come there, they can arrest you. So let's say you regularly trash Islam and the Ayatollah and are well known for this. Then you travel to Iran. They very well can arrest you for that. They can't do much if you don't go there but if you show up, they can grab you.

Now in terms of if this particular arrest is legit for the American legal system, almost certainly. Doesn't matter that he was living in a foreign country. If he sold something that is illegal to Americans and using American services, he broke American law. Doesn't matter if he wasn't in America at the time, you don't have to be in a country to break their law. Let me give you a couple examples of how one can easily break a country's law from another country:

1) Ordering someone murdered. Let's say you have yourself a little gang with members in a few countries. You don't like someone over in Sweden so you order one of your Swedish members to murder them. That person broke Swedish law, but so did you. Doesn't matter you weren't there, you orchestrated a murder, that's illegal, and if they can get their hands on you you'll stand trial for it (the US would happily extradite you for that).

2) You set up a gun smuggling business for Canadians. You go and buy guns that are legal in the US, but illegal in Canada. You have them smuggled up and warehoused there, and then sell them to Canadians. You've broken Canadian law. Even if you are operating everything out of the US, what you are doing isn't legal in Canada and that's where it is being done. You house the guns in Canada and sell them to Canadians, that makes it a Canadian issue (you'd get extradited for that too).

So if this dude is selling his shit from AWS, to Americans, the courts will have no problems with the claim that American law applies.

Intent matters in the law. There are things that can be legal or illegal depending on the intent behind it. This can apply to tools as well as actions. If you sell a tool for legitimate uses, you are generally fine even if the tool has some illegitimate uses too. So long as your actions, as in marketing and such, show that you intend it for legit uses, you are fine.

A good example would be all the fine burglary tools for sale at Home Depot. A large number of the tools they sell would work very well for breaking in to houses or cars. However it is very clear that isn't why they sell them, nor why 99.99% of their customers buy them. Not only do the tools have a substantial legitimate use, but that it what all their marketing is about. They don't try to convince you that you need a hammer drill because you could drill open most locks, they try to convince you that you need a hammer drill because you want to put up shelves in concrete or the like. They intend their tools to be used for legitimate activities.

The more shady the product, the more careful you'd better be about how you sell it because the easier it could show intent to have it used for criminal purposes. If it looks like you are just paying lip service to legit uses but really trying to sell your stuff for illegal uses, you are likely to get in trouble.

They know this is an issue they'll win in the long run. There is no justification for the states doing what they are doing, they've just been paid off by the auto dealers. Tesla has won every fight about this I'm aware of. So they want it, they want to get this straightened out in the courts.

If you try to do something to skirt the law, you risk it biting you in the ass later. If you get a court ruling saying "You are allowed to do this, the state has to F off," then you are good to go.

Also, you might notice it gets them press. Nothing like looking like the poor trod on underdog to get more people sympathetic to your cause an interested in your product. They go about everything above board, get stepped on, fight back, win, and then get their way, plus good PR.

Have to take the long view on these things.

No kidding. The whole reason there's a time between "due" and "late" is so that you've time to get a payment out and deal with any issues. Hence it behooves you to pay when something comes due, or shortly after, rather than wait.

Like one time I get a call from some business who just got a check from me to them by mistake. It was for my association dues. My bank mails out a cashier's check, at my behest, each month to the property manager. They had done so properly, but the USPS fucked up and sent it to the wrong address. Now this was no issue as I still had 25 days until payment was late. So I called the bank, they voided the first check and issued a new one. Everything got there no problem.

Now had I waited till the last second it would have been ok, I wouldn't have been out of house and home or anything, but it would have been a hassle getting things all straightened out, and I might have had to pay a late fee. Probably not, as they need to be nice to the owners since we hire them, but they would have the right to charge it.

You want to build slack in to your schedule in case something goes wrong, and that applies to finance as well as it does travel or the like. Well, that time between "due" and "late" is the slack.

I wouldn't presume reporters did their job, they rarely do these days. It is amazing how lazy most reporting is. I generally assume when you hear a story with no discussion of it that all they did was get that person/company's story and print it and did no checking. Usually, I'm right in that :P.

While I'm not saying we should take the word of the lenders without verification, neither should we take the word of the people who are on the receiving end. They may very well not be telling the whole story. Some people who have financial troubles have them because of their own choices, but they rarely admit it.

I had a roommate like that. He was an alcoholic who wouldn't admit it or deal with it. He continually made bad choices in his life, but would never admit anything was his fault. In terms of finance he never paid things when they came due, he didn't pay until he was forced to. It was "due" according to him when they were about to shut off his service, or the like. So he'd get mad about his cellphone getting shut down when he was "a day late" by which he really mean "45 days past the due date, over 30 days late, and had 2 threatening letters to disconnect."

So before you go jumping to the defense of the people in the article, you might want to see what the terms of something like this is. I don't know, and I'm not saying it isn't a "you have to pay by the second it is due or we shut it off," but it also might well be a normal "It is due on day X, late on day X+15, and we shut it off on day X+20," and the people involved have just decided that "X+20" is the day it is "due".

With regards to #2, where in the US if you call 911 do you not get an ambulance? They are not taxpayer funded, but they are required to take ALL calls. If there's a medical emergency, you'll get transport and treatment, even if you lack the means to pay. That is part of the problem with high healthcare costs (the costs of people who don't pay get rolled in to the people who do) and an excellent argument for universal healthcare at least for emergency treatment.