I like this solution better than the optimistic locking usually seen in web apps, but it's a matter of the specific use-case, of course. This is a good method when there is a) significant chance of collision and/or b) editing takes a lot of effort or is high cost.

pessimistic locking (even with js automation, timeouts and overrides as you describe) has the downside of of high complexity/cost of implementation, and as the guy above says you still need versioning or other system as backup if this is at all an "important" system since you can't (shouldn't) trust that the web browser will do the right thing.

bugzilla's done ok w/ just collision detection for a good 10 or 15 years :-)

What's the actual change in policy that's the main target of your talk ? If you're just going to tell them that "you can't hit Facebook from work anymore" or "If you ever blog about the company we'll fire you" then you will have lost your audience already. Anything else you tell them may even be counter productive because it will be associated with the main negative message you just delivered.

In fact, along the same lines, if someone else decided this policy change (which i'm assuming is not "employee friendly") it may not be in your best interest to do the announcement. If it was a committee decision, then yes you should do it even if you don't agree with it. If it's the lawyers or the CEO or VP etc. cramming it down your throat, then consider, respectfully, asking him, her or them to do the announcement.

As to something you might say / do: consider suggesting that they get a nettop to use for personal business (if you allow such things on your network) and/or perhaps set-up or a secondary "guest" network that they might use for this purpose. Beyond that, the usual, use non-IE browser.... make sure you run some sort of virus scanner at home, run Spybot S&D every once in a while... don't ignore https warnings... The ATM thing may be a bit outside the scope of the talk.

bah, didn't initially realize that the vag-can was a 3rd party solution, should have been more skeptical of VW than i already was... Also didn't realize that the post i was referring to was just the next post.

I agree with the title of your post for an entirely different reason: I don't want the government to legislate this stuff. It should be something that is requested by consumers and responded to by manufacturers. For example, there's a post somewhere in this thread that points out that VW/Audi is much better about providing this data than Volvo. Thus, people should favor VW over Volvo for this if it's important to them. (for me this is good info because i generally have thought VW to be sort of overpriced and questionable qual, but this is a point to take into account).

The right path here is to pressure manufacturers to release all their ODB2 accessible codes and other specs and to implement the newer standards (as you mention).

What happened to the usual pseudo-libertarian /. sentiment ? We don't need to run to daddy government for every little thing!

There's no need to get snarky, mmmkay ?

"World of Ends" is one view of the network ceratainly, but if you look at wikipedia's article on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Definitions_of_network_neutrality you'll find three definitions of network neutrality and that two of the three have to do with QoS and traffic tiering. TFA doesn't provide any details as to what specifically the FCC is referring to.

The bandwidth issue is relevant because residential ISPs engage in oversubscription and rely on the fact that most connections are idle most of the time. I can't point you to solid industry wide numbers as to the ratio (as most companies don't reveal the information) but various places on the web put it from 10:1 to 50:1. Here is an example of an ISP in the SF Bay Area called Etheric http://www.dslreports.com/reviews/2384 that advertises overbooking ratio of 3.3:1 for their "Enterprise" service all the way to 20:1 for residential usage. They claim that that DSL competitors oversubscribe at up to 80:1.

Current residential ISP pricing is based on this model. If connections were priced no the assumption that you would actually use your 3mbps continuously all month, it would cost considerably more than $10 or $20 /mo.

When Comcast and British Telecom and others have engaged in throttling thus far it has been to curb the usage of users using high amounts of bandwidth. I haven't heard yet of Comcast prioritizing their own VoIP over Vonnage VoIP or similar.

Here is a relatively extensive article on commercial ISP realities http://jobs.tmcnet.com/topics/broadband-comm/articles/22237-dismal-reality-internet-management.htm. Prices have come down some since that was written so, in a colo, you can now get quality transfer for ~$5/Mbit per month (95 percentile) if you're buying multiple gigabits, but otherwise it's right on. (I have no connection to the author, just found the post via Google).

"all packets are equal" is a nice idea, but i certainly wouldn't want to pay for it. (Actually, i currently wouldn't mind paying for it since i neither torrent nor watch much video, but i wouldn't want to pay for it if i were a heavy consumer of media delivered through the internet.)

(apologies for the bad formatting. I still can't figure out what slashcode wants me to do to make a paragraph)

Video over the internet is exactly the issue (currently). Video streams, especially the higher qualities, are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude larger than audio and several orders of magnitude larger than text based communication like email and IM. One 2mbit video stream would be enough to serve a whole city's email needs.

I like net neutrality as a concept, e.g. i don't want Comcast blocking my port 25, but on the other hand there will eventually have to be some use-based pricing because transfer does cost money. So if networks don't impose some usage caps or use QoS to provide multiple tiers, then we're just going to end up with metered service (like water, power, gas, phones and cell phones)... and that's going to hurt enthusiasts just as much if not more.

Ok, i'll bite.

In my case I commute by walking to a rail station and then taking a train (or sometimes a LRV)

Any other insightful comments ?

The real problem, imho, is that speed limits are artificially low. In the US anyway, the only reason to follow the speed limit is to avoid fines. The numbers are unnecessarily conservative for most driving.

In fact, i can drive past a cop at the speed limit in the rain and not get a ticket though clearly I have a much lower margin of safety going 65 in the rain than I do going 65 on dry pavement.

Similarly, one is allowed to go the same speed at night as during the day even though visibility is definitely impaired.

(Yes, I know the limit is set as an upper limit and that cops can ticket you for going an unsafe speed for the conditions, etc, etc. but in practice it doesn't happen for up to moderate levels of inclement levels. And in fog or a downpour or blizzard, well most people slow down well below the speed limit anyway.)

I do like the "advised speed" that's attached to signs signaling curves ahead. That actually provides useful information about the road rather than info about the revenue generation and/or paranoia of the local residents.