About 10 years back, some private group tried starting up a fiber-to-the-home project, called Utopia. In it, they went to every city that wanted it and asked them to put up a bond in case the project failed to turn profitable. In exchange, they would be able to install and sell fiber lines in the city.
Sale Lake City refused, but Provo (down south) and Brigham City (up north) got it, but not the main most-populated city.
It didn't do too well, being sold off a few times, until most recently it is still around, but tiny regional internet providers I've never heard of are the ones providing the internet. The big names such as Comcast and Century Link all refuse to use this "open" network, probably because anyone can use whatever provider they want to, and they don't want to provide internet for the cost the others do.
I checked just last week, and they charge (unless you buy the install out-right for almost $3000) 30/month for the equipment, and the ISPs charge about 35/month for the internet of synchronous 50 mbps. So, 65/month total.
And Salt Lake City still has no fiber-to-the-home network, because.... it would be too good? I can't understand how Century Link can justify it. At all. Without lies.
"Another concern bubbling up in Chicago is that the programs are effectively using racial profiling to target already-troubled areas where crime naturally would be greater due to poverty, without anybody bothering to perform a deeper analysis of why those areas might be having problems (aka targeting symptoms, not disease)"
Well, it's not the police's job to prevent poverty (or the disease as we use in the analogy), their job is supposed to be treatment of the symptoms. Their local legislature is supposed to "regulate" away the disease through social programs.
What irks me the most about current Xbone defenders, is that they are angry that people got the always-online retail-discs-are-coasters part of the Xbox. That it had to phone home every 24 hours in order to "allow" us to play the games we bought and (had to) put on our hard drive.
Once Microsoft rolled that back, they all complained that it set back digital distribution another decade. As if Microsoft now can't implement Xbox-Live-connected-only single player digital downloads to your hard drive on its own. As if the ability to play a game with no internet enabled by simply putting in a disk would prevent download games from being possible.
It is still possible to allow the 1984-ish big brother distopia that they want if they only buy games digitally. And those that don't want online play can still use their disks bought in a real store if they want to as well.
Hah, I came in to these comments specifically to point out both Google's attempt to install fiber into provo (the next city south), and also the Utopia project: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_Infrastructure_Agency).
Unfortunately, the actual city that could make use of fiber connection - Salt Lake - has adamantly refused to opt into either Utopia, nor did it lobby for Google's fiber. And now, with this law, legislators are acting as if fiber optic infrastructure is a disease, trying to quarantine its spread.
I'd say this is a clever ploy by the REAL Starbucks to weaken fair use laws. By taking "parody" use of something to it's very extreme, they will certainly get a court and jury to admit that making fun of a company while using their resources isn't fair use.
And... we will forever be unable to post a picture of a company logo - even under clear fair use - again.
Huh, and I thought we paid for radio with our ears, having to listen to idiotic car salesmen and accident lawyers trying to drum up business. Who knew I was a leech on creativity by making these radio stations pay for the content.
Why, if only we had a similar concept in place online. Why, some kind of "internet radio", in which I could listen to music with the occasional advertisement. Certainly that would be a swell thing.
I'd listen to it on the iPhone knockoff I made for $50 bucks worth of parts and $100 worth of "innovation" crafting an operating system for it.
Honestly, I'm actually kind of fine with it in this case. As MWL-G said, there have already been multiple attacks on foreign and civilian targets - possibly at random - in the area BECAUSE of the Olympics. Once they get underway, there are going to be many factors of 10 more people around, making for better targets.
But, this surveillance MUST be temporary. As soon as the threat is over with, and things return to normal, it should be scaled back.
The difference between this period leading up to / including the Olympics and our own situation is CLEAR and PREVIOUS evidence of a threat. Unlike our own, in which we are told to "trust" in the NSA that they need to stay vigilant despite a large, organized attack not having happened for over a decade (Boston was by two guys who did it without massive support from any group).
So, if the admin responded to a petition with an age of 90 days, and the average are at 298+... Did the administration do this JUST so it could increase the average wait time faster than if it ignored them all?
Oh my. Buy DirecTV stock. One of the biggest downsides to the NFL sunday ticket that a TON of people bought every year was that local sports teams were NOT included in the package, with rights to those games (whether they chose to show it or not) was the EXCLUSIVE rights of local broadcasters.
Or maybe not. If this just stops the "blackout the game if we don't sell-out a stadium" rule, then it won't do anything for the local broadcaster "exclusive right to broadcast in local area" rights.
Oh well. One step closer to the people getting what they want, and not what corporations want us to have.
Actually, I'm with OOTB on this one. I know, I know, VERY odd. But, if we don't like this, we need to not support it. If we keep buying digital goods because it's the ONLY choice, we are reinforcing the companys' decisions to screw us over this way.
Until we can get the content that we pay for guaranteed access to forever from the very beginning of a transaction, we shouldn't ask for anything less.
The problem is that OOTB is being rude as always and not being sympathetic to this. The ability for Amazon to revoke licenses IS in the terms, but as always nobody reads them (and they shouldn't HAVE to). But now that we know, everyone should stop buying, and let Amazon and the content publishers watch as their sales in this format drop to nothing.
It worked for iTunes and other music distribution options. When you can buy a song that CAN be downloaded at will and has no DRM, yes it can lead to piracy. But people accepted nothing less and we got DRM-free MP3s. The files could be copied and pirated, but guess what? People still bought them. It wasn't the end of the world.
Heh, when news of this first broke, I spoke with my father who we are planning to make apps together. We'd discussed, at least a year ago, that android should allow people this option. I'd argued at the time it probably won't, since any earlier android os versions would not include this feature. Most android devices never update their core version, and those that do are usually at the will of the device maker to update the version their device runs on (such as phones).
Guess they ended up doing it anyway. I'd love this feature, and am sad to see it go, but I also accept Google's reason and believe that they wanted to make it ready fully before allowing it. My opinion is that they want to make it a part of the APK that your program has to continue working if your app was denied a permission it asked for.
See, right now, your app will crash - hard - if it tried to use a permission that is disabled. So google will reintroduce it only when it becomes a standard for people designing under the new android versions to put in "permission denied" workarounds, even if it's to say "this program cannot and WILL NOT work without XXXXXX permision" and close.