Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:come on Google Fiber (Score 1) 333

by tburkhol (#47763697) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

They're offering service in areas that are already flooded with ISP options, this is not progress.

That's a bit of hyperbole, isn't it? Yes, google is rolling out to relatively high-density neighborhoods, but none of these are "flooded" with ISP options. At best, they have one cable option, one FIOS option, and one DSL option. To the best of my knowledge, there is nowhere in this country that you can choose between two cable providers.

You may also be forgetting that, when the incumbent ISPs were themselves startups, they didn't offer much in the way of rural service, either. In fact, most of them had to be paid by the government (and are still being paid by the government) to extend service outside of the most profitable neighborhoods.

Of course, that was 20-50 years ago, so you can be forgiven for imagining that Comcast launched in 1969 to 100,000,000 homes scattered across 80,000 square miles. I, for one, am happy to see anything vaguely resembling a new entrant in communication services. If they can only roll out to one city block, or even just one apartment complex, and provide better, faster or cheaper service than the legacy behemoths, I'll be happy to see them succeed.

Comment: Re:Simple economics. (Score 1) 80

by tburkhol (#47367191) Attached to: Time Warner Cable Customers Beg Regulators To Block Sale To Comcast

Free market capitalism is very beneficial to the consumers...when there is open competition.

You have to remember how the government has framed "competition" for companies like Comcast. Comcast and Time Warner are not competitors, any more than New York's MTA is a competitor of San Francisco's BART. Comcast competes with other "Internet Service Providers" or "Video Services" in its exclusive territorial boundaries. ie: Comcast only competes with AT&T, Verizon, and Dish.

As long as you can manage the double-think of "competition" specifically excluding the relationship between multiple providers similar technology, you will understand how having a single, national, coax-cable-based company increases competition, specifically with the twisted-copper-based company (AT&T) and the satellite-based company. As long as you can manage the double-think of competition, you will see that there is no barrier to any new company developing and distributing "Internet" or "TV," as long as that company doesn't use coax or twisted-pair wires. See how easily Google has been able to enter the ISP business by using fiber?

Comment: Re:Big Difference (Score 1) 210

by tburkhol (#47347497) Attached to: Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service

The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.

But, don't you see that that is exactly the value that Aereo was offering? Space for me to put an antenna that would reliably receive the digital broadcasts that were supposed to be so much better than analog, even in the middle of a forest of concrete and steel. How fondly I remember the pre-digital days, when I could get (slightly staticky) broadcasts from 30 miles away. With great anticipation, I waited on the new digital signals that claimed to provide clearer pictures over even greater distances. Imag.....y turns out.....digit....sts don......fully.

Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.

Comment: Re:Administrators (Score 1) 538

by tburkhol (#47292555) Attached to: Teaching College Is No Longer a Middle Class Job

Not the OP, but I can add some. In the biological sciences, it has definitely become common for PhD's to do several post-docs (in the conventional sense of a 2-3 year position) or to do extended post-docs of 6 or more years. There are many reasons for this. Some people go into advanced science because they like doing experiments, and postdoc is the last level where you get to be heavily involved in bench work. Some people prefer to be 'behind the scenes' as the lab manager or head technician, but it's administratively difficult to create a position with that title, so the head technician may be an essentially permanent postdoc. Some of it is because people will take a sub-optimal job to accommodate their spouse or partner.

Some of it is because there are a lot more PhD graduates than tenure track positions or extramural funding, and professors really only know how to train students to become professors. So, students enter the post-doc pool as a sort of purgatory until they find a tenure-track job, rather than search for other work to apply their PhD skills. The recession basically halted academic hiring for 5 years, so now there's a big backlog of graduates with lots of time spent as postdocs. A recent Assistant Prof search I was involved in wouldn't even consider candidates without a Science or Nature publication. Candidates averaged about 4 years post-doc, and some were 10.

As always, it's important to remember that these positions are technically university jobs, but they are created by an individual researcher based on extramural funding. They're not jobs created by a dean to do the university's work more cheaply than a tenured professor. There's a sense in which postdocs are like research-track adjunct professors (and may even get that title eventually), but the problem form of adjunct professors are temporary positions created by a Department or College to meet its functional mandate (teaching) without distracting a professor from his income-generating activities.

Comment: Re:Administrators (Score 1) 538

by tburkhol (#47292479) Attached to: Teaching College Is No Longer a Middle Class Job

One of the main reasons for rising tuition, especially at public universities, is the disappearance of taxpayer support. Support for public universities is down 25-30% in the last 25 years. Universities make up for that by raising tuitiion and shifting faculty from teaching to extramural-funded research. And by lowering salaries.

The big difference between tenure-track and adjunct faculty is that tenure-track faculty are expected to pay their own salary through grants and contracts. Professors are profit centers for universities, and the less time they spend teaching, the more income they can raise. Adjuncts are cost centers.

Comment: Re:What moron puts IPMI public facing? (Score 2) 102

by tburkhol (#47285619) Attached to: Supermicro Fails At IPMI, Leaks Admin Passwords

IPMI is awesome for managing servers. All the supermicro mobo's I've ever used had a dedicated ethernet port to make sure the IPMI was on a separate, dedidcated, not-internet connected network. The real problem is that they will (or at least would) fallback to the normal ethernet port for IPMI if the dedicated port was not connected.

So the risk here is anyone who bought nice Supermicro hardware, didn't bother to learn about the IPMI, and only connected the normal ethernet port. It's not going to be a problem for people running 5,000 servers in a datacenter. It's going to be a problem for SOHO guys whose web server has a BMC they don't know about communicating on the same port.

Comment: Re:Communist revolution is needed (Score 1) 548

by tburkhol (#46906989) Attached to: Reason Suggests DoJ Closing Porn Stars' Bank Accounts

No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.

Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle.

Depends on the area. Individuals tend to want the public to share their values and behavior, so gun nutters tend to want the public to share their values. In places where the gun nutter values coincide with local law, this means they like when the state uses strong enforcement of law, say to win the war on drugs. In places where the gun nutter values differ from local law, they tend to see their guns as a defense against government over-reach, say to defend free grazing rights.

Big surprise, they're only "totalitarian gun nutters" if they disagree with you.

Comment: Re:April Fools stories are gay (Score 2) 1482

by tburkhol (#46634707) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

You just have to understand that, if the Bible is right, that you will not be able to get into Heaven leading a lifestyle of sin. That includes not only homosexuality, but adultery, drunkenness, lying, anger, etc.

That's old testament bible. If you're a follower of Jesus, you should know that the only entrance criterion to heaven is accept Jesus as the son of God. "There is NO sin so bad that the blood of Jesus cannot cover it -- all you have to do is trust Him." Even homosexuality.

Comment: Re:I don't care about sharing information (Score 2) 138

Aside from that, if I prevent you from using it, I would post it.

This sounds like an admission that it is impossible to control how another person or organization uses information once they have it, but you apparently consider that control a necessary requirement for the open sharing of information proposed by Mr. Roger's law. The inability to actually control the use of information once shared or collected is exactly why so many people oppose such sharing.

When you say "I don't care about sharing information; it should flow freely" you sound like you are in favor of sharing and collecting information among institutions, despite the fact that it is impossible to impose any controls more powerful than administrative and legal policy. It makes you look like a troll.

Comment: Re:Makers and takers (Score 1) 676

by tburkhol (#46459387) Attached to: 70% of U.S. Government Spending Is Writing Checks To Individuals

If you count all military who currently serve as well as retirees who get a check we make up well under 1% of the population. The issue here is that we have too many freeloaders.

The OP used veteran pensions as an example of a direct payment to individuals that no one would consider "takers" as a group. He did this to counter the conservative talking point of "makers and takers," which implies that anyone taking money from the government is a taker getting a handout. It's a nice talking point. There are currently about 2 million military retirees receiving about $52 billion. There are 63 million social security beneficiaries receiving $816 billion and 49 million medicare beneficiaries receiving $600 billion. Total federal spending is about $3500 billion, so those three groups account for 41% of federal spending (and I don't think many people would argue that any of them are "takers") There are 2 million people who work for the government and collect $180 B in salary. The point is that, just because "the government" sends someone a check, doesn't mean that person is a lazy, incompetent drain on society.

Comment: Re:First blacks, (Score 5, Insightful) 917

by tburkhol (#46342017) Attached to: Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation

Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?

Because if you allow anyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference, then you allow everyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference. It may be a single bakery refusing to sell a cake to a single icky gay couple that started the fuss, but the the consequence of the law may make it difficult or impossible for any gay person to buy any product from any store. Or to force a two-tiered system of businesses where gays can only do business with a subset of "gay friendly" businesses (which, one imagines, would be boycotted by upstanding Christians).

If you're in the business of making cakes, then make the damn cake. If you're in the business of being a religious busybody, then don't sell cakes.

Comment: Re:tl;dr (Score 1) 712

by tburkhol (#46300567) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

I pay no banking fees. The only fee I do pay to them is a yearly 25$ for my credit card and thats only because I have one that earns points with cash back, so I make back that 25$ in 2-4 weeks and the rest of the year get ~50$ back a month.

Just because you're not writing the bank a check doesn't mean you're not paying fees. The bank charges 2-4% on every credit card purchase you make. You can imagine that "the store pays it," but the store is paying it with money they got from you.

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 2) 712

by tburkhol (#46300495) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

What incentive is there to work to succeed if the govt is to take it all from you?

If the only reason you work is for your salary, then you are a wage slave and will never join the C-level. Those people you work for, they put in their hours because they want to win, and most of them aren't keeping score in dollars. Or not just in dollars. They're keeping score in how many people use "their" brand of computer or how many hotels they control. BoDs use compensation to try to make those rare people adopt the board's brand, but the compensation is not why CEOs are CEOs.

Comment: Re:Hours worked is the key (Score 1) 717

by tburkhol (#46259609) Attached to: Your 60-Hour Work Week Is Not a Badge of Honor

the Bureau of Labor reports that the percentage of people that are poor in the US AND working at least 1000 hours per year is just 4%.

From your link, the US population is quite large, and their 4.2% is 10,382,000 people (adults in the labor force for half the year) below the poverty line in 2011. This includes 4,375,000 people working full-time for the full year and 3,190,000 people working part-time for the full year. Even in the most generous interpretation, that's still 4 million hard-working Americans showing up for work every day, putting in a full day, and still going home to poverty.

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown