Hi, meet me.
I support internet fast lanes "if" they can be implemented without slowing any other connection speeds down to below what the customer actually pays for. I also support QOS prioritization of VoIP traffic.
I also think net neutrality can be realized today by enforcement of existing laws and rules. When an ISP sells you service advertised at 10 megs or up to 10 megs, if they purposely and intentionally slow any part of it below that 10 megs, they are not delivering the goods sold to the consumer. And no, up to is not a cop out because the up to number will never be above what they limit. That means if they limit a connection to 1 meg, regardless of what they sold you, they are delivering goods of up to 1 meg. But if they sell a 4 meg connection and Youtube wants to stream at 10 megs, I have no problem with them paying to do so as long as it doesn't slow anyone else speeds to below what they purchased.
Also, many of these ISPs get money from the governments to roll out broadband or service areas not profitable to them. Well, if they limit their service or any parts of the service to below 4 megs, it is technically not broadband and they would be in default. Also, if they manipulate packets in ways like with the bit torrent in which they injected packets to cause the connection to reset, wouldn't that be a copyright violation as well as under the fraud abuse laws? For instance, Ohio law considers it bait advertising to " Delivering offered goods or services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes represented or materially different from the offered goods or services. ".
But more than all, I think the way the FCC is trying to create and or change law by wrangling reinterpretations and classifications without any intervention of congress (elected officials) is dangerous to freedom and directly contradictory to democracy. This should be true whether you support it or not. Get it done right and get congress or even your local state governments to pass the laws. Even at the state level, the state can extend it's jurisdiction to actions by the same company in other states so if Verizon in Indian is barred from restricting packets based on payments from any third party, Verizon in California doing so for traffic originating from or destined for Indiana would put them in violation and under jurisdiction.
Looks like someone likes the troll mod.. That's critical thinking for ya, squash answers to questions asked- the mod must be a product of outcome based education.
God I'm commenting at the bottom.
Furthermore, you think that you're sticking it to the employer if you force them to pay higher wages, but they are simply going to raise their prices and pass the costs on to the rest of us.
This isn't actually how it works, sometimes it works this way, but only by degrees. A minimum wage is a form of price control and the difference between the equilibrium price and the fixed price can be treated as a form of tax or subsidy (in this case a tax), so this makes the question a tax incidence problem.
If McDonalds is operating in an environment where their food can be replaced with many different supplementary goods below their menu price, they actually, in the limit, cannot raise their prices because they would lose demand as people switched to the supplementary goods. If McDonalds offers a good that cannot be easily supplemented, then they have some liberty to raise prices -- but they have little control over this, their ability to raise their prices is constrained by the price elasticity of demand for their goods.
You can go a little further, and we can argue that McDonalds was paying their employees below the equilibrium wage for the work, because McDs was benefiting from either regulatory capture or some externality (an illiquid labor market, for instance), and the amount they were keeping was a pure economic rent. In this case, raising the minimum wage is a form of Pigovian regulation, and is a "perfect" pareto-optimal tax with no deadweight loss.
We shouldn't challenge student's fixed beliefs? Or undermine parental authority? Those sound like usual and desired outcomes of critical thinking skills.
Yes, because the last thing we want is the child to possibly believe there is or may be a god, or that sharing is good, stealing is bad, murder is bad and you will be locked up for life unless you live in a state that will kill you too, that you should look both ways before crossing a street, cussing and swearing around people you do not know is impolite and still rude with ones you do know, or anything else parents instill as fixed beliefs with their authority. Well, that unless the child comes to those conclusions on their own through trial and error or whatever process he/she may choose to develop an understanding of them.
Yes, that sounds like a great thing.
And I'll admit that "focus on behavior modification" sounds like a code phrase. You seem to like this statement; could you translate it into language that I can understand?
Politifact has a writeup on it that explains it. Some of the links are dead though but it drops the meat right in the analysis.
From this write up
Opponents said the outcome-based approach was antithetical to critical thinking. They claimed it "dumbed down" curricula and influenced students to adopt liberal attitudes because the "outcome" of their studies was predetermined by academia.
In case you did not know, most conservatives think academia is fraught with liberals pushing their agenda which is why you can get Mumia Abu-Jamal speaking at a commencement ceremony and Condoleezza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, protested to the point they withdrew from speaking. The lists goes on.
Part of this is from The Naked Communist (1958) and School of Darkness by Bella V. Dodd but more recent claims have been made
You don't have to believe those claims, but you should believe that other do. That is what is meant by behavior modification as stated.
My very secure password, is well over 100 bits of entropy. Easily extendable when the time comes.
But that is not the problem. We're using a Secret for single factor identification. Real identification is multi-factor and requires non-secret means for identity, and then a secret for proof of identity. Non-secret identification requires a web of trust. Online systems have neither non-secret web of trust Identification nor proper secret proof of Identification.
Two-factor auth is a big win, of course. For anything financial, and for work accounts, the whole idea of strong passwords should be abandoned in favor of well-designed two-factor solutions.
How many people do per-user salting of the password hash? It's an important best practice to defeat rainbow tables. If you have thousand of passwords stolen, despite your best efforts, the least you can do is make it non-trivial to guess each one.
Mostly, though, encrypt your stored credentials in some way that requires an attacker to compromise two unrelated machines to get anything of value. Even a simple AES encryption with a hard-coded key is a win, as it's actually pretty tough (for a non-insider) to figure out he needs to either hack the source code repo, or somehow find the key in the object, on disk or in-memory. That's not impossible, but practically it limits the threat to malicious insiders, and malicious governments.
Nope, my theory is that the internet was indeed created for porn.
The integrated part was only to clarify that the bunk mate was not a woman. I also shouldn't have to remind you that don't ask don't tell came after arpanet, the internet, and openly serving gays happens only recently.
Administrators should be responsible for closing failing schools and get fired when they don't,
And when the administrator claims no schools are failing? When the administrators competitive salary is determined by the number of schools he's in charge of? If the administration is great in the first place, there won't be any failing schools.
If it were easy to choose between school systems (via a voucher system or something more), then you could tell the failing schools because parents would move their kids out of them. When there's no "market" pressure, you need something to help force the issue.
Sure, a bad metric gets gamed, but it still beats no metric at all! And the schools really do include with teachers and admins who really do suck, and really were counting on the lack of any metric to just coast through life at our kids' expense.
Bull.. The internet was specifically designed to get Asian porn on US shores and US bases as quickly as possible. People think it was about national security with arpanet but it was really about cold war soldiers needing something to look at besides their bunkmate. And this was before women were "integrated" in the military.
ST:TNG settled 2 things for geeks: the pronunciation of "data", and the phrasing "data is".
But, it makes the equations balance...
That's how science works. The predictions of the current model fail - the equations don't balance. You'll get many competing hypotheses each with its own suggestion for a new something that makes the equations balance. There were quite a few ideas for "dark matter" including a few "we just got gravity wrong" ideas.
The was no doubt at all that something was missing in established theory about galaxies and gravity - too much data to argue with. It's not like someone just invented dark matter out of the blue, then went looking for a use for it! There was no reason at the time to prefer any particular hypothesis.
Then the CMBR data gave us a fairly accurate measurement of the ratio of dark matter to matter in the universe long ago, and removed any doubt that it must be cold dark matter of some sort - not c or near-c particles, not a different theory of gravity, those ideas were falsified by the new data And in fact only the WIMP theory of dark matter accurately predicted the new measurement.
Dark energy is still early in this curve. There's no doubt about the data: there's something we don't know about the universe at very large scale, and it's the dominant effect at that scale. There are a bunch of hypotheses about what it might be, but that's about it right now.
Sorry, "HTTPS everywhere", not "-only" - it tries HTTPS first, which helps with a bunch of sites so you don't have to bookmark the https version specifically, but still falls back to HTTP when needed.
Everyone should use that plugin in normal browsing IMO - it will drive traffic to HTTPS, and really there's no reason for non-HTTPS sites anymore Slashdot are you listening, you HTTP-only weenies?
"HTTPS only" is a plug-in, on by default in the Tor Browser Bundle. The Tor dev team is really focused on making the browsing experience as normal as possible to encourage use over strong security by default. JS is enabled by default, for example (noscript is the other plug-in bundled, but I think it's turned off by default - haven't looked at Tor for a few years).
I understand the desire of the Tor team to encourage many people to use Tor for normal, legal browsing, and ultimately that's the best security: when use of Tor is not itself a red flag. But it makes the default Tor install much softer than it would otherwise be.
It's a very well known problem that "A players hire A players, but B players hire C players", and not just in engineering. The best want to work with the best, but the nervous-that-they're-not-the-best want to work with the mediocre. So most companies large enough to have formal hiring processes are at least aware of the problem, and are trying to cope.
The real problem IMO is "how can you create a standardized test to measure critical thinking", because our school system is helpless without it (and for all the complaints of teaching to the test, we need some objective way to find schools that aren't working).
Plus, the whole structure of school is around training manufacturing workers. You may not learn math, but for damn sure you're learn to sit for 30 minutes, move form task to task when the bell rings, rush to the bathroom during designated windows, and so on - all great for the manufacturing jobs that were the best jobs most people could get in most of the 20th century. But it's a new millennium now, and manufacturing is the past. We need a classroom in which student are given time to think, to stare off into space while the subconscious works on the problem - but how to distinguish that from daydreaming and doing nothing? It will take a lot of change to schools, that's for sure.