There is no reason to assume that TCP/IP or QoS will be standardized upon or even used at all here.
There is every reason to assume that. The car manufacturers are working hard not just to standardize on IPv6 in general, but in fact to have a common approach to such things as address allocation. QoS will be much easier to handle with ethernet, not because it is less complex but because the code is already written and widely deployed.
Also, QoS is a total dog if you are trying to employ it on consumer grade equipment.
I must admit that I have never tried to use QoS on ethernet with consumer grade equipment. Why would you want to though? Generally you have precisely one switch at home, and that switch is typically capable of simultaneous full speed on all ports, so it only drops packets if multiple input ports are trying to send more than 1 gigabit in total to one output port. I have difficult imagining that scenario in a home.
QoS on the WAN is entirely different, but the WAN is typically not yet ethernet, or at least not ethernet at standard speeds.
Perhaps FIOS is still atypical. 300Mbps/75Mbps is what I've got. Pity I can't get 300/300.
In fact, the included diagram seems to indicate broadcom is pitching some kind of adapter device which would enable inclusion of the new L1 layer with no changes whatsoever to the programming of the devices on either end. One would hope that such a thing would be only considered a stop-gap measure while they reworked their components to use the new bus natively in future models. History clearly shows that such adapters tend to be inefficient.
Mixing entertainment systems and critical safety systems on the same bus is common already. The only change is that with ethernet you get decent bandwidth and well-understood QoS.
QoS is OSI level 7. Ethernet is OSI level 1. There is no reason to assume that TCP/IP or QoS will be standardized upon or even used at all here.
Also, QoS is a total dog if you are trying to employ it on consumer grade equipment. At least, that's been my experience with numerous linksys, d-link, and netgear devices. I'm kind of down on QoS as a result. Great idea, ruined by the implementation that most consumers will ever see.
In most countries the government guarantees your funds to a certain extent. So the question becomes, do you trust your government? (or the government in charge of the foreign currency you are storing).
I think there's more to it than that. I trust the bank and the government not to both pull a mtgox at the same time. I wouldn't trust the government alone, nor would I trust the bank alone.
No. Bill specifically about Google Glass is an "excellent" idea.
Make a bill general enough, and the Makers will join forces to fight it.
Make a bill to every single one, one by one, and you will have to handle just one each time: you will have more profit opportunities this way,
(you don'y think they're *really" concerned about safety, do you? They want the money)
Because politicians are known for getting things done? I think we'd be lucky to have a single bill actually passed. After the bill controlling the first such device is passed the campaign PR is in the bag. The politicians will subsequently forget the issue.
Your right to privacy doesn't automatically completely disappear because you're on government property. If you go to a public park, you still have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. A cop can't tell you to empty your pockets or open the trunk of your car just because he feels like it and you happen to be on government property. Admittedly "stop and frisk" has made a mockery of that, but it used to apply before they made a mockery of the 4th Amendment.
Stop waving the constitution in people's faces, it's just a stupid piece of paper.
Ok, is that irony?
This story has been making the rounds since the weekend, and now slashdot gets around to it? No wonder this site is going into the toilet and readership drying up.
I can't believe I'm the first person to welcome you to slashdot.
Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree. So this DEA "parallel construction" is not only a subversion of the intent of the law but is actually a conspriacy to subvert justice. The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.
Fortunately for the DEA, not all criminals get a trial anymore. Of course, this means anyone they say is a criminal is a criminal.
America, land of the fee. Home of the Braves.
I know that in the Florida region it was a major driver in Verizon rolling out fiber to the premise.
In any event, I'm sure phone companies will be quick to implement any changes that still must be made.
94930. Deposit of Fees, Adjustment of Fees, Reserve Balance
(a) All fees collected pursuant to this article, including any interest on those fees, shall be deposited in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund, and shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for expenditure by the bureau for the administration of this chapter.
(b) If the bureau determines by regulation that the adjustment of the fees established by this article is consistent with the intent of this chapter, the bureau may adjust the fees. However, the bureau shall not maintain a reserve balance in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund in an amount that is greater than the amount necessary to fund six months of authorized operating expenses of the bureau in any fiscal year.
94930.5. Fee Schedule
An institution shall remit to the bureau for deposit in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund the following fees, in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution submitting an application for an approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Application fee for an approval to operate: five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(2) Application fee for the approval to operate a new branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000).
(3) Application fee for an approval to operate by means of accreditation: seven hundred fifty dollars ($750).
(b) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution seeking a renewal of its approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Renewal fee for the main campus of the institution: three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500).
(2) Renewal fee for a branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000).
(3) Renewal fee for an institution that is approved to operate by means of accreditation: five hundred dollars ($500).
(c) The following fees shall apply to an institution seeking authorization of a substantive change to its approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Processing fee for authorization of a substantive change to an approval to operate: five hundred dollars ($500).
(2) Processing fee in connection with a substantive change to an approval to operate by means of accreditation: two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(d) (1) In addition to any fees paid to the bureau pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, each institution that is approved to operate pursuant to this chapter shall remit both of the following:
(A) An annual institutional fee, in an amount equal to three-quarters of 1 percent of the institution's annual revenues derived from students in California, but not exceeding a total of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) annually.
(B) An annual branch fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each branch or campus of the institution operating in California.
(2) The amount of the annual fees pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be proportional to the bureau's cost of regulating the institution under this chapter.
(e) If the bureau determines that the annual cost of providing oversight and review of an institution, as required by this chapter, is less than the amount of any fees required to be paid by that institution pursuant to this article, the bureau may decrease the fees applicable to that institution to an amount that is proportional to the bureau's costs associated with that institution.
94931. Late Payment
(a) A fee that is not paid on or before the 30th calendar day after the due date for the payment of the fee shall be subject to a 25 percent late payment penalty fee.
(b) A fee that is not paid on or before the 90th calendar day after the due date for payment of the fee shall be subject to a 35 percent late payment penalty fee.
94931.5. Proposed Modifications to Fees, Publishing Fee Schedule
(a) The bureau may propose modifications to the fee schedule in Section 94930.5 to the Governor and the Legislature to add or delete categories of fees related to work performed by the bureau and propose to the Governor and the Legislature the maximum amount to be charged for each fee category added to the fee schedule. The fee schedule shall provide adequate resources for the bureau to effectively implement this chapter.
(b) The bureau shall annually publish a schedule of the current fees to be charged pursuant to this article and shall make this schedule available to the public.
I really like IE10 on my Win 7 and use it as my default browser. The layout is more streamlined that firefox, which seems to take over half your screen with menus. speed is fast. have you tried this version? I don't use chrome because it gives google a direct view into everything I do, and no thank you. at home
I use safari as my default on mac, but I don't use the windows version of safari because for whatever reason they decided to make the win version resemble the mac version as closely as possible and it looks weird.
Personal preference, I suppose. I like the menus. Scant menus are one reason I don't like chrome. Now that there's an adblock for chrome it's just the menus and lack of RSS based live bookmark support. IE traditionally has horrible performance compared to pretty much anything else. How's ie10 doing in that regard?