Not to over-generalize, but normally, 2 GB to one computer is overkill when connecting to the Internet. The only time I've been able to utilize a large portion of the 1 GB connections I have in my house are on computer to computer transfers when using SSDs or large RAID arrays. However; streaming video or multiple simultaneous uploads and downloads can certainly use a large portion of that 2 GB. It does mean that the subscriber is going to need a better than typical home use switch. They are going to need a "Smart" or "Managed" switch with a true upload port that is greater than 1 GB. Then, each user gets a 1 GB connection and the switch has an upload port that is the "Up To" 2 GB that Comcast will never deliver after the first few speed test after the installation.
It was “likely” that terrorists would stop using phones in favor of mail or courier
One of the curious "misses" based on this statement is that if indeed the "terrorists" were to start using the snail-mail system instead of phones, active terrorism would take a tremendous slow-down in activity. If all of the various methods of detecting terrorist activity were made public then the terrorists are going to have to start going back to actually meeting with each other to communicate because none of the modern electronic methods are going to be unwatched. Even the meta-data that encrypted emails are passing from a suspected terrorist to someone new would mean that a better watch can be kept on the network of terrorists. Instead, the spooks are way to interested in snooping on everybody instead of slowing down or stopping the terrorists by making it too hard for the plots to develop. /rant
Does an alien from the future count as a "person" in the present? Copyright requires that the copyright be held by a person, hence the whole "the ape took the picture" fiasco. An alien from the future is not a person under the legal definition.
But the CIA had another excuse for not releasing the information, and it's a classic. Yes, the CIA said that United States law forbade the CIA from mailing out "obscene or crime-inciting matter."
If they can get past the first issue of the "operational file" non-sense, then they can solve the problem of "mailing porn" by just asking for a pickup location and time so that it doesn't have to be mailed. That should generate some interesting new BS out of the CIA.
I would go with a loud and fully unqualified "NO". They fully expect that the programs will be re-authorized in some form or fashion very soon, and so nothing will stop "until they are really, really, really, ... sure" that the programs will actually need to be stopped. And even then, there will probably have to be a long drawn out multi-year court battle that no one is allowed to be in except the people with the proper clearances (and that does not include the Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives, reporters - legitimately recognized or not, civil rights groups, or citizens of the US). That will come in maybe the next 5 years or so. Until then expect to continue to foot the bill for some very expensive non-programs. Well, unless they can figure out how to just shift it under some other "program", "authorization", or "organization" that can keep it going somehow and just no longer call it by the existing code name. Just prepare yourself for a LOT more tap dancing.
Well, those blasted Senators, they are just starting to listen to their constituents about the massive invasion of privacy that they don't like due to the programs that they let expire that the administration can't say is making us less safe. MR. EARNEST seems to be very good at making long vaguely accusing sentences that don't answer the question but do point the finger somewhere else for letting a very expensive program expire that has no evidence of doing anything. An extremely huge piece of the problem is that "supposedly" these programs are protecting us, you know, the citizens of the US. However; us little kiddies are just too untrustworthy to know anything about all of these extremely expensive programs we have to pay for anyway. What I get out of that interview is that MR. EARNEST wants all of the 1st graders that are asking him the hard questions to just shut up and pay his expensive salary, BECAUSE, he know's better than us based on the non-existent evidence they can't show us, because, you know it would make us less safe (only they can't say so).
P.S. Am I getting any good at really long vague sentences that don't really say anything?
Law enforcement agencies are servants of the Citizens and yet are being allowed to hide contracts from the ones they serve?
One of the problems I see that is not being addressed is that the police departments are agents of the citizens. They are writing contracts that then hide the terms of the contracts from the very ones they represent. Police departments and other law enforcement agencies are not some independent company. They are representatives of the citizens and are writing contracts as their agents. They SHOULD not be allowed to hide the terms of those contracts and their methods from the very citizens they represent. How do the citizens start reigning in these rogue agencies that are supposed to protect and preserve and yet seem to be more attack and destroy and hide the methods organizations.
If they are going to include the cost of the Internet, they are padding the cost. It is what is called a sunk cost. People already have it. They already pay for it. They will have it whether or not they are cord cutters. Since they want to pad costs, they forgot to add in the cost of the TV, the cost of the electricity, the sofa to sit on, the footstool, and the snacks. Oh wait, they forgot the cost of a router, some LAN cables, installation and, oh yeah, a house to keep it all out of the weather, heat and air conditioning, and a bathroom, the water bill, and so on.
Since the internet connection is already a "done deal", then that cost should be taken out of the calculation. In that case, option A becomes $65 (which is much better than the $210 that Comcast wanted to charge me).
Option B becomes $48, Option C becomes $40, and Option D becomes $20.
Most people who are considering cord cutting already have Internet access for other reasons. The cord cutting is just making more use of something they already have, just using is some more at no additional cost.
When the cost of the Internet service is removed, those cord cutting number look very appealing, especially since most people have a TV (as opposed to a monitor) which already has a tuner built in that the cable companies bypass with their set top box, so get an antenna and use the tuner to get full uncompressed high definition over they air signals for free again (with the already paid for tuner in the TV).
So, let's get this straight, the police think it is NOT ok to record them (you know, public servants getting paid with public money) and so arrest people under wire tapping laws, but Hertz thinks it's OK to record voice and video of their paying customers in the car they rented and it's not wire tapping. Boy Hertz in for a surprise when the lawsuits start hitting.
Well, Of Course there is, in consideration of me, the tenant, paying you, the landlord, an ungodly amount of money every month to live in your pigsty, you, the benevolent landlord, also get to have all of my current and future copyrights in any creative work that I produce.
Actually, if we take his (really stupid) premise that self-driving cars need an Internet connection to work. It will definitely need Net Neutrality to work. Net Neutrality says that all traffic is created equal. As in all VOIP traffic is treated equal and all video traffic is treated equal and all ad traffic is treated equal. NOBODY (except advertisers maybe) want ad traffic prioritized above VOIP traffic. But EVERYBODY wants VOIP traffic prioritized above streaming movies so that phone calls work. If somebody was stupid enough to make a car rely on an Internet connection ALL Internet CAR CONTROL traffic should have equal priority. Which you would want to have a higher profile than advertising traffic. That is what Net Neutrality is about. What we don't want is to have say GM car control network traffic prioritized above Toyota car control network traffic.
Since Superfish intercepted ALL communications that the computers users thought were safely encrypted via SSL (as indicated by the green lock on the browser as users were taught to watch), Superfish could be intercepting Personally Protected Information (PII) that is protected by HIPPA and that protection can't be overridden by a EULA. All they need to do is show that someone was accessing health information or Medicaid information on their computer that was being surreptitiously intercepted and looked at by Superfish to show that they were actively violating HIPPA.
Many of these laws are the result of the "must do something" mentality of a nanny state that doesn't feel like dealing with the big issues like the budget problem. It's just too easy to spend a lot of money to "save the victims" and "protect the little guy" (you know, from the big faceless corporations that we created).
For example, Pai co-wrote an editorial in the Chicago Tribune last week that tries to use Obamacare fears to insist Americans will lose the right to choose their own wireless plans if Title II based rules come to pass:
Everybody repeat after me: "Conflation is our enemy's best friend".
And So, the result of all of this not-deliberately breaking the law
will be nothing, absolutely nothing. The sad state of affairs is that the organizations that were put in place to catch law-breakers, commonly known as criminals, are now so far above the law that anything they do is retroactively OK. As long as they can "claim" it was not deliberate. It's OK for them to be law-breaking criminals, just not anyone they target. That target may not have broken the law (fill in your favorite investigative journalist or their significant other who is traveling through an airport) but they can be hassled into the poor house or even thrown in jail for a while, but since they are not the ones who are supposed to uphold the law, it is bad. If you are supposed to uphold the law, it seems to be OK to break the law, as long as you can issue a press release that basically says "oops", didn't mean it. This is a sad sad time.