ISP should be limited to purchasing more bandwidth and using anti-bufferbloat AQMs, but no throttling or QoS.

QoS may be hard. But it's necessary, because streaming and TCP don't play well together.

Streaming requires low latency, low jitter, low packet loss, and has a moderate and limited (in absence of compression, typically constant) bandwidth. TCP, when being used for things like large file transfers, increases speed to consume ALL available bandwidth at the tightest choke point, and divide it fairly among all TCP connections using the choke point. It discovers the size of the choke point by expanding until packets are dropped, and signals other TCP connections by making their packets drop. The result that TCP forces poor QoS onto streams unless the infrastructure is massively oversized.

This can be fixed by a number of traffic management schemes. But they all have this in common:
  - They treat different packets differently.
  - The infrastructure can be misused for competitive advantage and other unfair business practices.

The PROBLEM is not the differing treatment of different packages (which can help consumers), but the misuse of the capability (to hurt consumers).

So IMHO an "appropriate legal remedy", under current legal theories, is not to try to force ISPs to treat all packets the same (and break QoS), but to limit the ISPs ability and incentives to misuse the capability.

So the appropriate regulation is not communications technical regulation, but consumer protection and antitrust law:
  - Consumer fraud law should already cover misbehavior that penalizes certain traffic flows improperly. (What is "internet service" if it doesn't handle whatever end-to-end traffic is thrown at it, just for starters) Ditto charging extra for better packet treatment rather than just fatter pipes, charging anyone other than their base customers for the service, or heavily penalizing packets of customers (or the customers themselves) whose usage is problematic for the ISP but within the advertised service. If current law needs a tweak, the enforcement infrastructure is already there should Congress choose to commit the tweak and use it.
  - Penalizing packets of competitors for its own services, or giving appropriate handling to its own packets of a type and not to that of others, is anticompetitive behavior. Indeed, having such services in the same company AT ALL, let alone forming conglomerates that include both "content" creation and Internet service distributing it, is a glaring conflict-of-interest, of the sort that led to the historic breakups of AT&T and Standard Oil. Antitrust law is up to the problem: Just use it.

(I put quotes around "appropriate legal remedy" above, because I think that a free market solution would be even better. Unfortunately, we don't have a free market in ISP services, due to massive, government-created or government-ignored barriers to entry. And we aren't likely to see one in the near future - or EVER, unless the government power-wielders get it through their skulls that "competition" and its free-market betnefits don't kick in until there are at least three, and usually until there are four or more, competitors for each customer. (This "Two-is-competition, Hey! Where's the market benefits?" error has been built into communication law ever since the allocation of bandwidth for the early, analog, AMPS cellphone service.) With only two "competitors", market forces drive them to cartel-like behavior and all-the-market-will-bear pricing, without any collusion at all.)

ALL power plants require external power for cooling once they're tripped. In big plants like that, if you don't shut the system down correctly and cool the boiler off in a controlled fashion, you're going to cause all kinds of damage. This can include catastrophic failure of the boiler. Only difference is a coal fired boiler doesn't contain nuclear fuel and radioisotopes.

Fukushima was a cluster fuck. American plants apparently have more redundancy on the emergency generators than Japan requires. In addition, there are emergency cooling systems, even in the older designs, that use (for example) the steam generated by the plant itself to turn pumps. In Japan, they'd never tested those systems; so, didn't know if they were working or not (they were not).

I would like to see the plants all upgraded to newer designs myself but that's going to take decades; and, in the current societal and political climate may not happen.

What you're describing is true of any power plant, disconnect the load and you have to stop feeding the turbine and dump the steam or you'll destroy the generator and turbine. This is a standard capability built into any plant, coal, gas, or nuclear. The gotcha is in shutting down the reactor, which can take longer to bring up than a coal plant -- which takes 1/2 day instead of several days.

"...after music streaming service Grooveshark was shutdown"
Why in hell are you using a noun when a verb is required?

This is how language evolves.

Sometimes you can convince people to drop a useful construct or misspelling - like by telling them it makes their arguments less convincing. Other times it's like trying to sweep back the tied.

Are you going to host it in Antigua?

Come on. This misinformation is 30 years old already. Why can't we let it die already?

Contrary to popular belief, Haimes never claimed that a CAT scan had caused her to lose her psychic powers. In fact, the often alluded-to CAT scan never took place. Haimes only claimed that the headaches resulting from her allergic reaction prevented her from earning a living as a psychic.

On the other hand, I could see an MRI actually destroying a hypothetical human magnetic navigation sense.

  - A number of animals, including birds, are documented to have a magnetic sense they use in navigation.
  - Bacteria are known to migrate vertically using the earth's field to align them as "dipping needles" so their cilia drive them downward to lower-oxygen water.
  - The bacteria obtain their magnetic alignment by depositing crystals of magnetitie of a size that will hold no more than a single magnetic domain, and thus be automatically magetized. New crystals are deposited next to old, making them align in the same direction. The row of crystals is a strong enough magnet to align the bug like a compass needle. The row is normally split when the bug reproduces, so the two new bugs are both magnetized the same way, rather than one getting a 50/50 chance of swimming the wrong way. (No doubt the occasional offspring gets none and has to take the chance - which let the species survive magnetic reversal events.)
  -Some nerve cells in a number of animals contain such magnetite particles, leading to the speculation that these may be the basis for a magnetic sense.
  - Among such nerve types is on in the human nose, leading to the speculation that some humans may be able to "smell" magnetic fields (or have some magnetic sense in some OTHER group of neurons that ALSO produces the particles and that those in the nose are vestigial mis-triggering of the mechanism, or that an organism in their ancestry may once have had a magnetic sense, of which this is a vestigial remanent.)
  - (I have a small number of personal, anaecdotal, experiences that lead me to believe that I once had a magnetic sense that was input to my brain's location processing, but at a priority far below visual observation. These all occurred before I ever had an MRI.)
  - If some nerves do detect ambient magnetism by monitoring mechanical forces originating in magnetitie particles, the strong magnetic field of an MRI machine might be expected to disrupt this by modifying the magnetization of the particles, or by yanking on then so strongly they disrupt, or even kill, the nerves in question.

So if humans DO have a magnetic sense of this form, it might actually be destroyed by exposure to, and especially testing in, an MRI machine.

TFA said: "Otherwise, it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner."

I'm curious what platforms those might be.

The only one I'm (slightly) familiar with at the moment is Replicant, which is an all-open port of Android - with support for a limitied - and (thus?) somewhat pricey (when even available)- handful of platforms.

("All-Open" being defined as "Functionality dependent on binary blobs we don't have open source replacements for is left out of the distribution. You might get it working by installing proprietary modules. But we think that's a bad idea / counterproductive / reduces incentive for people to MAKE open source replacements, so we don't recommend it or provide instructions." i.e. do a web search for somebody who figured out how to do it if you want, say, the front camera, WiFI, or Bluetooth to work and forget about GPS for now. (v4.2 on Samsung s3))

Now I think that's the right approach. And I'd love to see more support or help for the project.

But are there others? If so, what are they?

Nope, wrote it myself, asshole. But thanks!

...and your comment represents the absolutely fundamental misunderstanding that pervades this discussion.

The truth no one wants to hear:

The distinction is no longer the technology or the place, but the person(s) using a capability: the target. In a free society based on the rule of law, it is not the technological capability to do a thing, but the law, that is paramount.

Gone are the days where the US targeted foreign communications on distant shores, or cracked codes used only by our enemies. No one would have questioned the legitimacy of the US and its allies breaking the German or Japanese codes or exploiting enemy communications equipment during WWII. The difference today is that US adversaries -- from terrorists to nation-states -- use many of the same systems, services, networks, operating systems, devices, software, hardware, cloud services, encryption standards, and so on, as Americans and much of the rest of the world. They use iPhones, Windows, Dell servers, Android tablets, Cisco routers, Netgear wireless access points, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Gmail, and so on.

US adversaries now often use the very same technologies we use. The fact that Americans or others also use them does not suddenly or magically mean that no element of the US Intelligence Community should ever target them. When a terrorist in Somalia is using Hotmail or an iPhone instead of a walkie-talkie, that cannot mean we pack our bags and go home. That means that, within clear and specific legal authorities and duly authorized statutory missions of the Intelligence Community, we aggressively pursue any and all possible avenues, within the law, that allow us to intercept and exploit the communications of foreign intelligence targets.

If they are using hand couriers, we target them. If they are using walkie-talkies, we target them. If they are using their own custom methods for protecting their communications, we target them. If they are using HF radios, VSATs, satellite phones, or smoke signals, we target them. If they are using Gmail, Windows, OS X, Facebook, iPhone, Android, SSL, web forums running on Amazon Web Services, etc., we target them -- within clear and specific legal frameworks that govern the way our intelligence agencies operate, including with regard to US Persons.

That doesn't mean it's always perfect; that doesn't mean things are not up for debate; that doesn't mean everyone will agree with every possible legal interpretation; that doesn't mean that some may not fundamentally disagree with the US approach to, e.g., counterterrorism. But the intelligence agencies do not make the rules, and while they may inform issues, they do not define national policy or priorities.

Without the authorities granted by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), the United States cannot target non-US Persons who are foreign intelligence targets if their communications enters, traverses, or otherwise touches the United States, a system within the United States, or, arguably, a system or network operated by a US corporation (i.e., a US Person) anywhere in the world. FAA in particular is almost exclusively focused on non-US Persons outside the US, who now exist in the same global web of digital communications as innocent Americans.

Without FAA, the very same Constitutional protections and warrant requirements reserved for US Persons would extend to foreign nations and foreign terrorists simply by using US networks and services â" whether intentionally or not. Without FAA, an individualized warrant would be required to collect on a foreign intelligence target using, say, Facebook, Gmail, or Yahoo!, or even exclusively foreign providers if their communications happens to enter the United States, as 70% of international internet traffic does. If you do not think there is a problem with this, there might be an even greater and more basic misunderstanding about how foreign SIGINT and cyber activities fundamentally must work.

If you believe NSA should not have these capabilities, what you are saying is that you do not believe the United States should be able to target foreign intelligence targets outside the United States who, by coincidence or by design, ever utilize or enter US systems and services. If you believe the solution is an individualized warrant every time the US wishes to target a foreign adversary using Gmail, then you are advocating the protection of foreign adversaries with the very same legal protections reserved for US citizens -- while turning foreign SIGINT, which is not and never has been subject to those restrictions, on its head.

These are the facts and realities of the situation. Any government capability is imperfect, and any government capability can be abused. But the United States is the only nation on earth which has jammed intelligence capabilities into as sophisticated and extensive a legal framework as we have. When the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress, multiple executive agencies under two diametrically opposite Presidential administrations, armies of lawyers within offices of general counsel and and inspectors general, and federal judges on the very court whose only purpose is to protect the rights of Americans under the law and the Constitution in the context of foreign intelligence collection are all in agreement, then you have the judgment of every mechanism of our free civil society.

Or we could just keep laying our intelligence sources, methods, techniques, and capabilities bare to our enemies.

âMany forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947

"The necessity of procuring good Intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged â" all that remains for me to add, is, that you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon Secrecy, Success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, and for want of it, they are generally defeated, however well planned and promising a favourable issue.â â" George Washington, our nation's first spymaster, in a letter to Colonel Elias Dayton, 26 July 1777

GWB is about as poor an example of a sociopath as you can muster. There are quite a few documented cases of impromptu empathy.

You can hate the machine, you can hate the politics, but don't hate the person. It narrows your mind and cheapens your thoughts.

Bill Clinton is a little closer (as in harder to find impromptu, unexpected empathetic responses), but that's because he polished himself up earlier and better.

Yes, I realize it's a spectrum. I also realize that there are jobs where you are required to shed empathy in the role, or at least a large portion of it. Any job where you hold fiduciary responsibility, for instance, as it may be proven that you didn't act in the best interests of the stakeholders and might be held liable. At that point, you have to ask "What is the exposure?" of a decision.

Another excellent example, military leaders: The reduce their feelings to win tactically, or strategically... but I've known a lot of battle tested Marines, none of whom was a sociopath. In fact, when the boots and utes come off... I swear to god you couldn't find a bigger bunch of shit talking softies....

This story is being way overblown. Yes, it's a bug. Yes, it should be fixed. However...

248 days of continuous operation is well past the scheduled major maintenance for the aircraft. By this point, a 787 would have to go through many minor maintenance cycles which would have required shutting down the electrical system. In addition, loss of all 4 generators would not result in a loss of vehicle because there are batteries, an APU (a backup generator) and Ram Air Turbines (RATs), generators that deploy from the wing if the APU won't start. To have to rely on any of these would not make for a good day for the pilots; but, they would certainly provide the necessary power to safely land the aircraft at the nearest airport. They might even be able to continue on and finish their flight if they successfully reset the generators.

This is not the OMG Planes Are Going to Fall From The Sky! event the media is making it out to be.

It's a failsafe mode for the controller and generator. There are four (4) of them. There is more than enough redundancy.

If it ever happened on a plane, then it means that the maintenance was intentionally skipped. If they reach 248 days of continuous operation then a number of significant maintenance cycles have been skipped (some 23-25 inspection / maintenance cycles that generally require shutting down the electrical system). The generators in question are attached to the engines. The engines have a overhaul schedule that is shorter than 248 days of continuous operation. If they managed to reach this point, then the major maintenance cycles have been skipped and the engines are long overdue for a tear down inspection and overhaul. Any plane which could reach this point, 248 days of continuous operation missing all of the required maintenance; this is not a plane (or an airline for that matter) which anyone should be flying on.

So perhaps the astronauts shouldn't spend all their time standing naked out on the airless surface of Mars, letting the universe blast their noggins with relativistic oxygen and titanium ions (yes, I read the article). If you don't want to get wet, you have to come in out of the rain.

Good. Now we've gone from "they're all scum" to "some of them (possibly including Rand Paul") are good and trying but the Repubican machine and its operators will block them."

At this point we're mostly on the same page.

Ron Paul is clearly one of those good guys. And the Neocons controlling the R party machine (one of the four major factions) steamrollered him and his supporters (sometimes violently), and changed the rules to make it even harder for a grass roots uprising to displace them.

Two debates are going on right now. One is between working through the R party (is it salvagable?) or coming in with a "third" party - either an existing one or a new one (is that doable or do the big two have too much of a lock?)

The other is whether Rand is a sellout to the Neocons or if he's just more savvy than his dad and trying to look non-threatening to them in order to get the nomination. Andrew Napolitano, who knows him personally, says he knows him to be a genuine liberty advocate, and I trust A. N. on this subject.