Re: Yes they fall short on immigration law in a lot of ways
I'm sure they're sorry, eh?
17 posts • joined 11 Jun 2018
Your complaint about LDAP being started after your application can be fixed.
You'll want to look at Requires= and Before=/After=
You'll also want to... I don't know... read the manual?
Alternatively, the less time the developers have to spend looking for the bugs that Rust fixes, the more time they'll have to spend fixing the bugs that Rust doesn't fix. Fun sidenote, jmp(and derivatives)/goto are perfectly acceptable to use in place of if/while/for and function calls, correct? Or do you let the compiler build those patterns because it's safer and lets you focus your attention more easily?
Unsurprisingly, photons are easier to push around than electrons.
Being that this is a tech site, I think it's worth noting that a 1U battery system for our server (singular, no redundancy, see "budget issues") at work is able to give 45 minutes of power to a server. I suspect someone could have a VOIP handset powered for days on a not-too-expensive chunk of lithium.
This wasn't a main repository. It's an external repository for user-submitted software. Users have to either:
A) Download the build file for manually and follow some steps to build the software
B) Install an extra package manager to automate performing A.
I still think there are some interesting lessons to be learned here, though. It might be useful for AUR pages and AUR helpers to highlight when there's been a maintainer change, or allow you to easily view the diff for the build file. I know that that information is currently available on the AUR pages themselves, but making it super obvious when changes like that have occurred would be helpful.
It's never good to have a discussion about the law without actually bringing up the law.
From the 2015 Open Internet Order: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
> A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
> A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
> A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
Note that paid prioritization above has nothing to do with consumers purchasing bandwidth.
Where does the FCC gather the authority to make such regulations?
Let's look to the 1996 Telecommunications Act (A reminder, the Internet was over a decade old at this point): https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf
> p119 sec 706(C)(1): ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY- The term `advanced telecommunications capability' is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.
We see above that Congress has descriptively defined the Internet. The Internet is, indeed, switched, and does, indeed, allow users to originate and receive "high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications". Thus, the Internet is, according to Congress, a form of "Advanced Telecommunications Capability". Let's dig deeper into what the law has to say about telecommunications providers.
> p7 sec 3(43): TELECOMMUNICATIONS.--The term "telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.
> p7 sec 3(44): TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER.--The term ''telecommunications carrier'' means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage.
We see here that the Internet fits the definition of Telecommunications even further. As a particular example, when I stream video from YouTube, if a change in video codec bitrate is necessary, YouTube's servers, and not the Internet service provider, are responsible for the change. YouTube changed what was being sent on their end, instead of the ISP changing the contents in-flight. As such, Internet service providers transmit data without change. Indeed, ISPs changing data in-flight is by far the exception, not the rule, and in the cases when it has happened the courts have clearly ruled against the ISPs, as the traffic is not theirs to modify.
Further, we see that Congress has defined that Telecommunications Carriers, which Internet Service Providers count as, are to be treated as "common carriers" when they engage in telecommunications service, with the FCC deciding whether or not satellite service also counts as common carriage. Further, the aggregator exception does not apply, see:
> SEC. 226. [47 U.S.C. 226] TELEPHONE OPERATOR SERVICES. (2) The term ''aggregator'' means any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or to transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.
Finally, according to Congress, the FCC regulates common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act ( https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf ). The below is an excerpt from Title II:
> TITLE II--COMMON CARRIERS PART I--COMMON CARRIER REGULATION SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
As we can see, Net Neutrality, writ large, by Congress, with authority given to the FCC.
Of course, none of this matters, because conspiracy-laden nonsense with no bearing on reality and ludicrous claims made with no reading of the relevant law.
I am a product of public education in the United States and I can bother to read the law. What's your excuse?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019