It's only "new" in the sense that they stopped forcibly blocking this functionality. Probably because Windows 10 can run Linux apps finally so now Chrome OS was the only major one left that couldn't.
Maybe you should read up on WebSphere and figure out why these huge enterprises may be all mysteriously holding onto an ancient and buggy fork of an open source project.
I've been learning to get angry about stuff in advance, so that I have time to vent some of it before the incidents I see coming actually happen. This way, the anger itself is not such a surprise to me when it does.
Ooh ooh, I know this one! The answer is "none of the above."
The really stupid people here are the ones who are still trying to argue that the breach of privacy is no big deal if you don't care about your own personal privacy. These people still think the overarching conversation is just about personal embarrassment. They don't realize that this big of a breach of global privacy creates threats to things far more important than just your individual dignities.
I don't care if it sounds elitist to you. I don't care if you miss out on the fact that your analogy is broken and it would be more accurate to compare all these mobile users to people duped into spending Ferrari prices for a used kit-car recreation of a 90's-era Honda Civic. The fact of the matter is that as a software developer, this shovelware garbage offends me, and it's both my personal as well as professional opinion that the vast majority of mobile games are not only harmful to the economy but also to individuals' cognitive capabilities as well as society as a whole.
Probably nothing, in practice, unless they currently work for Uber. I don't see any compelling evidence that any other companies will change their policies unless forced to directly in the same fashion. This isn't a new law, it's merely a new ruling on an old law that companies across the entire industry have been flouting for years. You'd think there would be some sort of organized backlash, but these same employers are also the primary source of most such employees' understanding of employment laws in the first place and they've engendered an entire culture of lying to them about their rights as well as their actual employment status.
... but importantly, this doesn't actually cost your neighborhood any less bandwidth.
And, just to be completely clear here, this means that you as the customer, will not notice any improvement in service from this change. In fact, it probably will just get worse and more expensive at the same time.
What's so outrageous about this is that it was illegal until a couple weeks ago. I get that you're desperately trying to save face by pretending you understand the situation at a fundamentally greater level than me but it's just that... pretending.
As is often the case in this sort of discussion, you're conflating LAN bandwidth with WAN bandwidth.
No, this is false. Just because Comcast's network exposes your broadcast traffic to all your network peers doesn't mean that your neighborhood is a LAN. It's about as insecure as one, but it's not a LAN. What this means is that it may cost Comcast more if you stream from Youtube than their proprietary services but importantly, this doesn't actually cost your neighborhood any less bandwidth.
I bet if Google or AT&T or $competition showed up with Fiber, Comcast couldn't bump those speeds up fast enough.
That's plan C. So far it's never come to that. Plan A (bribing municipalities to block Google fiber with crippling permit restrictions) so far has worked in almost all cases. Plan B (bribing Google directly) only has to occur occasionally.
Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data, so yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you. So this is just another sly way for Comcast to charge you extra for using their network for competitor's services.
Also, the thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me, so I'm going to just assume you're being paid to shill for them instead. I bet they even offered you 3 months of discounted service, too, didn't they? Enjoy having all your encrypted traffic throttled to 128kbps sucker!!! (YOU did this. This is YOUR fault.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's only "new" in the sense that they stopped forcibly blocking this functionality. Probably because Windows 10 can run Linux apps finally so now Chrome OS was the only major one left that couldn't.
I agree it'd be cool to see them do this with some GameCube games...
Maybe you should read up on WebSphere and figure out why these huge enterprises may be all mysteriously holding onto an ancient and buggy fork of an open source project.
I've been learning to get angry about stuff in advance, so that I have time to vent some of it before the incidents I see coming actually happen. This way, the anger itself is not such a surprise to me when it does.
When a human driver kills someone, there is an obvious chain of responsibility and simple target of blame.
They outsourced that part to India.
(or some other ill-conceived and bloated atrocity that will never receive security updates because they cost too much money)
Why does everyone assume those two things are mutually exclusive? It doesn't take a lot of brains to lie and sound dumb at the same time.
Ooh ooh, I know this one! The answer is "none of the above."
The really stupid people here are the ones who are still trying to argue that the breach of privacy is no big deal if you don't care about your own personal privacy. These people still think the overarching conversation is just about personal embarrassment. They don't realize that this big of a breach of global privacy creates threats to things far more important than just your individual dignities.
someone give this a +1 informative
Look, as long as the only people who can stop the robo-dialers aren't doing it, we're just gonna all assume they're the ones actually doing it.
I don't care if it sounds elitist to you. I don't care if you miss out on the fact that your analogy is broken and it would be more accurate to compare all these mobile users to people duped into spending Ferrari prices for a used kit-car recreation of a 90's-era Honda Civic. The fact of the matter is that as a software developer, this shovelware garbage offends me, and it's both my personal as well as professional opinion that the vast majority of mobile games are not only harmful to the economy but also to individuals' cognitive capabilities as well as society as a whole.
"Majority of non-gamers have short attention spans, spend money badly."
Can you imagine what this means to the illegals?
Probably nothing, in practice, unless they currently work for Uber. I don't see any compelling evidence that any other companies will change their policies unless forced to directly in the same fashion. This isn't a new law, it's merely a new ruling on an old law that companies across the entire industry have been flouting for years. You'd think there would be some sort of organized backlash, but these same employers are also the primary source of most such employees' understanding of employment laws in the first place and they've engendered an entire culture of lying to them about their rights as well as their actual employment status.
That's what I was gonna bring up. How is Apple off the hook here? By the minor semantic difference of using software instead of an actual sticker?
How much would you bet that the person they caught doing this was also previously tasked with fulfilling those requests for the NSA?
The only thing that would surprise me here to find out is if this person was actually one of them and not just their scapegoat.
... but importantly, this doesn't actually cost your neighborhood any less bandwidth.
And, just to be completely clear here, this means that you as the customer, will not notice any improvement in service from this change. In fact, it probably will just get worse and more expensive at the same time.
I fail to see, what's so outrageous here...
What's so outrageous about this is that it was illegal until a couple weeks ago. I get that you're desperately trying to save face by pretending you understand the situation at a fundamentally greater level than me but it's just that... pretending.
As is often the case in this sort of discussion, you're conflating LAN bandwidth with WAN bandwidth.
No, this is false. Just because Comcast's network exposes your broadcast traffic to all your network peers doesn't mean that your neighborhood is a LAN. It's about as insecure as one, but it's not a LAN. What this means is that it may cost Comcast more if you stream from Youtube than their proprietary services but importantly, this doesn't actually cost your neighborhood any less bandwidth.
Oh... too late, the law for that was just repealed. Bummer.
I bet if Google or AT&T or $competition showed up with Fiber, Comcast couldn't bump those speeds up fast enough.
That's plan C. So far it's never come to that. Plan A (bribing municipalities to block Google fiber with crippling permit restrictions) so far has worked in almost all cases. Plan B (bribing Google directly) only has to occur occasionally.
Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data, so yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you. So this is just another sly way for Comcast to charge you extra for using their network for competitor's services.
Also, the thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me, so I'm going to just assume you're being paid to shill for them instead. I bet they even offered you 3 months of discounted service, too, didn't they? Enjoy having all your encrypted traffic throttled to 128kbps sucker!!! (YOU did this. This is YOUR fault.)
That's the invisible hand of the free market at work, baby!
No, your error in logic is to assume he didn't just steal yours instead and pawn it off without your consent.