The company, Get Satisfaction, was once valued at $50 million, at its peak back in 2011. But from what I've heard, the final sale, to Sprinklr, that went down recently was for $8 million (and it's possible that not all of it was cash, making the valuation even more questionable).
This reminds me of all those people who get upset when the state of the economy causes their investment portfolio or real estate valuation to fall. The react to it as if they had lost money, when (unless they're selling at that moment) nothing of the sort had happened.
If you have an asset that has been given a valuation, that means nothing unless you're selling it right then because a valuation is not equal to money in your pocket. It's a theoretical estimate. If I bought stock at $100 and the price falls to $50, I have not lost $50. I have lost nothing. Next month, the price might rise to $150 -- when equally means that I have not gained anything.
The only time you have suffered a loss or enjoyed a gain is as the moment of sale. Period.
Re: Re: Re: You just can't have unlimited data on a limited network
"Next best is to pay some telco to backhaul your tower."
Excluding the smaller players, the wireless companies are the telcos, are they not? So they're paying themselves.
"So, carriers are CONSTANTLY upgrading their tower backhaul, and it costs money."
This is where the problem is. When you're running a comms line somewhere, the expense is in the actual installation (digging the trenches, stringing the cable, etc.) The capacity of the cable itself is a relatively minor expense. So, rather than constantly upgrading their cabling, they should just bury a bundle of high capacity cabling (such as fiber -- even if they can't connect up to a fiber trunk right away) that greatly exceeds what the tower needs at the moment. Then capacity upgrades become a matter of swapping out the transceivers at each end of the cable -- a relatively cheap thing to do.
This is an attitude problem that telcos have had since before the internet existed: they only want to run enough cable capacity to cover what they immediately need, and that makes future capacity increases much more expensive. So expensive that there have been many cases where communities have been underserved as a result.
I have exactly zero sympathy for the companies on this point. I don't think I need to give them any allowances for being so shortsighted.
I haven't used Steam for a long while now, so maybe this has changed, but it used to be that once you've purchased a game through Steam you could download the game and play it offline without ever running Steam again. That's not crippled to me.
Just as you will never meet a person that you agree with about everything, there will never be a candidate that agrees with all of your political desires (unless that candidate is you!) That's just a general life principle -- people are individuals and differ from each each other.
You will always be choosing candidates that are generally closer to your perspective that their opponents. So, in that sense, voting will always be an exercise in choosing the lesser of two evils. Just as choosing anything at all is.
That shouldn't discourage you, though. Go ahead and choose the lesser evil, but recognize that once you've cast your vote, your civil responsibility has not ended -- it's just begun. You then need to work to achieve the ends you think are best, including pressuring the people who got elected, whether you voted for them or not.
No argument with any of that, but I just want to point out that none of it counters my disagreement with your assertion that "tiers simplify the mental math." They don't. They complicate it. Perhaps (depending on your carrier) the added complexity isn't that much -- but it is still added complexity.
In addition to what PaulT said, you can also self-sign your certs and have people using your site manually install your root cert to use your site.
This is unworkable for a publicly-facing site (who's going to bother to install your special cert, even if they know how?) but can work quite well for sites that are not intended for the general public.
Also, if you're talking about internal sites that aren't going out to the internet at large, then you can ignore all of this HTTPS stuff if you wish without any problem (aside from the obvious security one).
These preloaded root CAs are a security compromise. They weaken the trust mechanism quite a lot, in exchange for the convenience of not having to verify the trust chain yourself. So your concern is quite valid.
My answer to the problem basically boils down to... yes, it's suboptimal, but it's the best we have right now. If you require a greater level of security, nothing stops you from doing it the proper way: remove the root CAs and validate the site certs yourself. You can then sign those certs with your own root cert (that you've installed in your OS and/or the browser) and everything will work as normal.