I'm sure the FCC will get right on it
Just as soon as their funding is back on, and they've dealt with everything else in their in-tray.
So, maybe by mid-2021.
2260 posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
The summary is here. Heck, you can read the full text if you like. I guess somebody should...
I read the summary, and I can see a number of quite glaring loopholes available to anyone who still doesn't want "evidence" to get in the way of their policymaking. For instance:
- Appoint a Chief Evaluation Officer who's sympathetic to your aims
- Stack the OMB's "advisory committee" with political allies
- Although you have to publish evidence in machine-readable format, there's nothing to say you can't change that format at will, thus making it basically impossible to compare figures from one year to the next. Or from one department to another, or one state or region to another...
Basically, it's like the constitution. Sounds fine in theory, but in practice it's only as good as the people who enforce it - and the executive basically gets to pick those.
Does this have anything to do with Antigua's long-standing complaint against the US blocking its online casinos?
As I recall it, Antigua's case to the WTO was that the US was being discriminatory because it allowed online betting with US casinos. The WTO sided with them and awarded damages, but the USA has still not paid out so much as a dime. Now they're changing the rules - retroactively, no less - they can ask the WTO to re-examine the case and find they're not discriminating after all.
What odds can I get on:
- American casino owners having to repay all the money they've earned online in the past
- Antigua getting any settlement money, ever
- Campaign contributions by gambling interests increasing sharply in the near future?
Well, no actual money is being saved because employees are still due to be paid. And even if that weren't true, there's still last year's unfunded tax cuts to pay for. And when you've worked that off, then you can get started on the deficit.
Welcome to Republicans' idea of fiscal responsibility.
A pipe is subject to leakage, corrosion, unauthorised (unpaid) tapping, and needs ongoing maintenance even if none of these things happen.
A bottle is easy to secure, practically immune to all kinds of degradation except drinking, and requires no maintenance.
It's not (necessarily) a corruption problem. Bottles are just easier.
Not the point.
Assuming you want internet TV services: then no matter how the signal gets to the TV, there has to be some bit of electronics in your home that's receiving and processing the data. It may be (what we used to call) a set-top box, or a laptop, or some specialised bit of gear. Increasingly nowadays, it's most often built into the TV itself.
But wherever it sits, whatever it is, it needs to be connected to the 'net, and that means it needs protection.
You're making an assumption about deviation from a baseline. We would need evidence to support that assumption.
(And then we should also consider valid business goals, such as cost saving, that would militate in the opposite direction. Given a choice between a 25 year old earning $50k and a 50 year old earning $100k with the same transferrable skills, what's wrong with firing the older person? Sure you can say (speculate) that s/he actually has a great many more skills that aren't being properly valued - but on the other hand, they may also have a lot of baggage/bad habits that are actively holding them back. We just don't know.)
Sure, if my initial assumptions are wrong. But I have no reason to believe they are. You've made an assumption, but haven't presented any supporting evidence for it.
I see nothing wrong with adopting "uniformity" as a baseline assumption. If you want to deviate from that, then make arguments and put together evidence to support them, and we can discuss them. But don't just go claiming that your particular non-uniform distribution assumption must be correct because it's just obvious. That's not how evidence works.
If we assume that the baseline workforce, if there is such a thing, is evenly distributed between the ages of 23 and 65, and layoffs are likewise evenly distributed, then you would expect 60% of layoffs to be of people over 40. Welcome to maths.
And the much-ballyhooed private documents refer explicitly to hiring decisions. Not firing decisions.
Much as I'd like to see a smoking gun here - hey, I'm no spring chicken myself - I don't.
... will be exactly the same as the problem with regular cars: it's really cool and exciting to imagine having one, until you realise that when that happens, there's no way to stop every other bugger from having them as well.
What we need is more inventions that don't suffer from this kind of reverse network effect. Where's my Orgasmatron?
You try filming "the sky" for "an hour or two". Then watch it to see if there's something that might possibly be a drone flickering somewhere in the distance.
Bear in mind "the sky" is more than just one direction, so it's going to take a lot of cameras to watch the whole thing.
Let's make up some numbers, just for fun. Let's assume (optimistically, but you gotta start somewhere) that the drone is going to be 30 cm across, in whatever dimension we happen to see it. And we want to be able to spot it at least 2 km away. At that range, it's going to cover an arc of about 0.008 degrees in the sky. If your camera records a picture width of (let's say) 4000 pixels, then a single camera can be trusted to watch about 30 degrees (horizontally, about half that vertically) of sky at high enough resolution to capture the drone as a single pixel. (That's assuming the camera doesn't use some kind of lossy compression, of course.)
So, set up 30 cameras to watch 180 degrees of sky to a height of 75 degrees. In the rain. When you've analysed the resulting 30 hours of video, let us know if there was a drone in it. I look forward to hearing back from you. (And note that the area this experiment monitors is only a small fraction of the exclusion zone described in these rules, so a negative result is still far from conclusive. To cover the whole area, you'd need to be watching - considerably more cameras at this resolution.)
From - well, from before the day I began my engineering degree, back in the 1980s, I've heard this complaint about how the rabble misuse the term "engineer". Throughout the 90s, I must have read half a dozen missives a year from the Engineering Council and other bodies bemoaning the fact that they couldn't lock people up for calling themselves "engineers". (OK, I may exaggerate - but only slightly.)
Or to put it more accurately: about how the word "engineer", in the UK at least, doesn't mean what people with engineering degrees wish it meant.
I'm sorry, but that's just how the word is used. The onus is on people who want to redefine it to show how and why the rest of the world should stop using it in the way they're accustomed. What's in it for them, exactly?
If that's the "attack" you meant, I'm having a hard time seeing how it's "actively harmful".
Seems to me a couple of sheets of paper (and corresponding toner) is a small price to pay for the lesson in security practice. If he wanted to be "actively harmful", he could have done a lot worse.
Attackers of what, exactly? The otherwise-peaceful and generally bonhomous atmosphere of YouTube? the hardened and professional security practices of people who previously had no idea what "UP&P" even was? the sheer pristine purity of goodwill on the internet?
Pewdiepie is an arsehole, and TheHackerGiraffe is just some kid. Now hopefully a little wiser.
Something about over-developed muscles either attracts spider bites, or makes you more vulnerable to them.
I had a colleague whose hobby was cage-fighting, and who was ridiculously industrious about his physique. One bite from a humble white-tail, and he was off work for two weeks. A second bite, and such serious health problems set in that he never returned.
A bigger problem with rifles is, it's bloody hard to hit a target of that size, moving at that speed, at a range of several hundred metres. It's hard enough even to see the damn' thing, let alone shoot it.
So you'd probably end up firing many rounds, probably hundreds of them, before scoring a hit. Or (more probably, and more embarrassingly), before giving up having not hit anything. And every round has a chance of hitting something/one on the ground.
Military systems for this kind of purpose use fully automatic weapons. I don't think anyone's going to sign off on firing one of those over Gatwick.
The answer has to be either something that's harmless when it falls (e.g. shotgun pellets), or doesn't fall at all (energy bursts, e.g. highly directed EMP, which as far as I know is still the stuff of science fiction but looks like it should be overdue for some serious R&D about now).
They're different drones each time. First there was some idiot who just didn't look where they were going. Then that was reported, and various other idiots sent their drones out to look at the fun. The BBC sent one to take footage of the closed runway, and the police sent a couple to try to track all the others...
By now it's mostly desperate would-be travellers checking to see if anything's moving.
I note that the only "world leaders" who seem actively enthusiastic about Brexit are - Trump and Putin. Putin because it weakens the EU and what we used to call the "Western alliance", and Trump (I presume) because it would allow him to dictate his own terms of trade to an isolated and desperate UK. (Oh, and to please his buddy Putin, of course.)
Everyone else is still hoping it can be stopped, with the ignoble exceptions of the dodgy nationalists on the continent, and that idiot Corbyn at home.
I would say the current Google hegemony is worse than the abusive Microsoft monopoly of the 90s.
Back then, browser makers innovated, and hundreds of thousands of webmasters (remember them?) strove to keep up, trying their best to please their myriad customers.
Now, those "hundreds of thousands" are whittled down to maybe a dozen hosts that actually matter - Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc. - and everyone else is either insignificant or (in most cases) piggybacking on one of the big players. Independent webmasters - the kind of people who actively maintained and tested their own CSS and JS - are, if not quite dead yet, then certainly a dying breed.
And when the dominant player in web hosting is also, simultaneously, the number one browser maker... that's a far bigger concentration of power than Microsoft ever had.
What gives me hope is that - I remember in the 1990s we thought Microsoft's hold was unbreakable, then Google came and ate their lunch. Someone, somewhere, will do the same to Google one day.
You're going to have to explain to me exactly how ID cards will make it possible to increase anyone's certainty as to how many people live in the UK.
Are you assuming that the numbers of people who get multiple ID cards (for whatever nefarious, or simply incompetent, purpose) will exactly mirror those who refuse to get one at all?
Human intelligence isn't confined to the brain. The nervous system extends all through the body, the brain constantly solicits - and gets - feedback from the legs, back, guts, loins and every other part. "Thinking with your gut" is a real thing, there are more nerve endings there than in the brain of an adult cat.
This is why sentient brains in jars is still science fiction, and likely to remain so. Also why uploading "yourself" is such a stupid idea. The brain and body can't be separated, at least not without effectively destroying whatever owned them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019