What does it really matter? Microservices aren't much more than an incremental method of monetization.

If I was born in 1950, I'd say they are just a way for them man to nickle and dime you to death.

Stick it to the man and make web servives polymorphic again!

So true, so true

That the Biden administration awarded some dead 11 years.

Does any really believe this any more? And the there's the 3K sample size, pick the group right and you can show anything...

Same. It's not about catching COVID-19, it's about keeping those at risk of severe reaction from catching COVID-19, the 0.5% of the population. We should be looking for ways to help support those 5 out of 1000 people, many of which appear to be at least 70 years old.

This, by the way, is much more doable than trying to support 10% who are currently unemployed. That's a 100 vs. 5 difference. If we shutdown the economy again, unemployment rates are sure to rise back to 15% like they were in April. That goes to 150 vs.5. But with the economy still fragile, I personally expect that unemployment would be higher than 15%.

You'd have to assume so.

With Bluetooth on all the time each device that shares it's current location is also able to share the approximate location of any device that comes with in 30-100 meters depending on if the bluetooth radio in the device has full "industrial" capability. That's how these COVID apps work, some how they give scarlet letter to one bluetooth device id, and then any device that comes with in range is warned that there's a sicko nearby.

Maybe, the article says that the average of those who died was ~79 years. That only 17 (from memory, so double check me) persons under 50 have died, and all of those under 40 were Male with serious preconditions. It really sounds like it's sick elderly people.

OK, is see. So these updated don't change the BIOS? When they're talking about microcode updates, that's code loaded into the CPU when the OS is loading, not something more permanent?

So my father-in-law has his Windows 8 box set for automatic updates. Last week he hit a web site that was telling him to call Microsoft Customer Support at (800)ITS-SCAM (not the real number, and he called me first and didn't go through with it).

He checked the updates and made sure they were applied, now his computer does nothing but reboot. Is this the symptom they are talking about? Does it require a re-install of the OS to fix, or is it bricked?

Now, I can finally write that killer app for my quantum transportation entanglement FTL! I've literally had this thing for ages, but the app store is empty, and before this there was no way to side load anything better than cat pictures.

Ya, I totally agree with the notion that Google is on its way to a monopoly, but in my mind it's a different type of monopoly. Where I live there is a single broadband provider available to me, Cox. And I can choose from two wireless provider (AT&T, Verizon). Neither provides the same level of bandwidth or latency and both would cost four times as much as Cox for the same monthly capacity. If Cox were to suddenly tell me that I can't use YouTube, because they couldn't come to an agreement with Google like they have multiple times with local TV stations, that would put me as a consume in a situation where I have no feasible control.

NN is supposed to keep the Local ISPs from blocking content to consumers. NN ensures that every content provider is on an equal field with the consumer. I'm not sure that something that ensures I have choice and treats content providers equally is a problem, even if it doesn't negatively affect a global monopoly.

I don't know why, but no-one else is making this argument, even though it is the crux of Net Neutrality. Which is to say, Net Neutrality provides a regulatory guideline to ensure the content that consumers wish to receive is delivered to them regardless of the source. If content providers are "clogging" networks with their content, it is because consumers are demanding it.

Here's the deal Local ISPs are akin to local monopolies as many if not most US internet users are limited to one to two fixed line providers (wireless is another beast all together). Without Net Neutrality Local ISPs would be able to charge content endpoints what ever the wished to guarantee a "fast lane." Thus they would be able to prioritize content from which ever stream paid them the most, which could be content delivered by its own organization, even to the point where content from other sources were completely denied.

Look what is happening in the wireless world. Cell traffic is still not considered a Utility Service, and as such Wireless providers are skirting current Internet Net Neutrality regulation by providing their own or contracted content: T-Mobile + Netflix + Hulu, AT&T + DirectTV + HBO, Verizon + NFL Mobile + FiOS Mobile

So to get "free" Netflix video streaming on your cellular device, you have to go with T-Mobile; HBO, then it's AT&T, etc. Is this monopolistic behavior? (Probably)

Question: How does rolling back Net Neutrality make us less "at the mercy of ever stronger Google?" Wouldn't repealing Net Neutrality (which ensures that all parties pay for their on-ramp/off ramp, with no special charges for prioritization) allow Google could then establish contractual agreements with network providers to guarantee that their traffic receive priority over all else, guaranteeing that Google would have the most established "fast lane" available. Wouldn't it also allow Google to contract with the network providers to disallow traffic from other providers?

The Net Neutrality argument goes:
    1) Many LISPs want to become content providers at best, and content redistributors at least, adding this service as a revenue stream.
    2) Because LISPs have control over 100% of the data flowing through their network, it is possible for the LISPs to prioritize content, for which they receive additional revenue, over content from other services.
    3) Local Internet Service Providers (LISPs) are equivalent to local monopolies, as most consumers may pick from 1 (maybe 2) providers for non-wireless service.

Because LISPs are equivalent to a local monopoly, they should be regulated like other local monopolies, i.e. Utilities. The closest Utility match is the telephone carrier (and in fact many LISPs are legacy telephone carriers). Thus they should be regulated like Telephone Carriers to eliminate monopoly power.

Ajit Pai's primary argument is that Net Neutrality is like “1930s-style regulation" (See: TechCrunch). That same regulation busted Banking and Rail Road monopolies and the US economy is arguably healthier for it.

Without Net Neutrality we are at best replacing strong Google/Facebook/Netflix/Amazon/Apple with strong Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter/Cox.

Jeff is pretty sweet, right guys? I mean like a butterscotch tab, am I right?