Are you suggesting that hospitals would not follow the law, if this change was made? If that's the case then literally no laws are ever going to be feasible, because there's nothing that forces people to obey them. Rape, murder, theft, and pedophilia laws are all uselss then, correct?
It would never have sold 100 million copies as an open source game. You're more than welcome to do all the work they did and make your own popular game and open source it.
So you're mad because sites that provide free content let Facebook pay for the content YOU decide to consume and Facebook makes that money by tracking what you do (again on sites that YOU choose to go to) and selling adspace to advertisers they think you will like? How entitled and spoiled you people are. You just have to throw on an extension or two. In exchange you get to look at someone else's work (that they're expecting to get paid for) for free. This is like your being a freeloading bum who is being told that to keep pitching your tent in someone else's back yard, that you have to at least bury your shit in a hole and not take a dump on their grill. Boo-hoo. Don't browse the web or only go to those "marvelous" open source content pages that suck (or Wikipedia who will spam you for weeks asking for donations).
> Why would not they — as long as there is profit to be made?
You should ask the ISPs who didn't do it before this program came into existence.
"Offsetting" where? To people living in other areas. Why are they forced to subsidise Internet-access in low population density areas?
Because in a society, I know this is a difficult concept for people like you, people work together to benefit all of society. Sometimes the net "benefit" is just a shared cost, but society deems it reasonable. This is a basic concept of living in any society. Why couldn't you look this up?
We live in a hyper-connected age. Perhaps I can get better deals than my local stores have on products/items that I use. Maybe my employment could be down from home - thus saving me the time/expense of going to/from work. Perhaps I have a security system that offers better features such as off-site storage of my security feed. Based on your signature, however, I suspect no answer will ever be "good enough" because I believe you're one of those anti-government people and, honestly, debating ideology isn't the point of this post.
Why do I give a shit about what YOU consider to be "enough" for most people? You just said you can't stream Netflix 24/7 -- well maybe I want/need that. Maybe I want to play FPSes online without people wondering what in the hell is wrong with my connection. Maybe I want to download unlimited amounts of porn while streaming a song while my wife watches a movie. All while my NEST, security system, and anything else is connected.
As for your USDA opinion - you live in a rural area and you have no idea what the USDA does? It's more than just rubber stamping meat and looking at crops. It also helps to ensure the growth of rural areas...to ensure maximum productivity. To that end farming, like any other business, has a need for the internet. And what kind of "expertise" do they need? It's not the USDA laying the fiber or building the COs - they're providing funding. They have administrators who review the proposals that go "Okay, so Company XYZ wants to lay down fiber and provide service for the 300 homes in this area and they've estimated the cost is $X and submitted quotes from the companies they'll be working with...does this make sense?"
The talent is understanding if the impact of the development HELPS rural households/farmers/etc. They're not the ISP and never claimed to be - you just don't know what the program is, read a half assed summary, and said "DUHHH BLURB GOBERMENT DUN TOO BIG." What a lazy approach.
Because ISPs are capitalist companies who only focus on profit. They would not, without government's assistance' expand into low population density areas. The government's grants help to encourage building by offsetting some of the costs and/or maintenance necessary to provide critical infrastructure. If the government just did it itself and push companies out of the market you'd have morons complaining about 'DURR NO NOICE FOR PROPHETS". It's helping utility companies do the job they're supposed to - provide infrastructure.
"Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”"
Ah, so they were censoring sources that were known to be bastions of conservative misinformation. Ah yes, beat the drums.One guy said "THEY WUZ CENSORSING MURICAN PINIONS" and a moderate said "Eh, what we really did was remove sources that we thought were overly biased and replaced with a more neutral source."
Oh my god, my moral barometer is shifting with the moon phases and you can't explain that. I'm just OUTRAGED. Liburaldumcrats are RAPING my ECHO CHAMBER BY NOT SPREADING MISINFORMATION!
...and hit up the consumers of the data for that information. "Give us all of the information about this Twitter account that you have and tell no one." Meanwhile it'll be 3rd party advertising firms who don't care/have an image to maintain and are incompetent enough to hand the Feds the keys to ALL of the information. Twitter at least could siphon what information it releases.
It's a PR stunt, it literally does nothing to curtail information flow. If you want to be anonymous, quit using the internet.
Do you mean their not supporting legacy systems and code? Yet when Microsoft devs were writing bug fixes within their OS code to account for legacy software, they were chastised. You cannot have it both ways - you either support them supporting legacy code (and all the headache that comes with it) or you support them requiring updates. Both have significant security/cost implications.
You mean bad developers? There are plenty of Linux systems that break too - it's bad developers. Windows itself can't be blamed, you should look more at the education system, managers who think that coders who go to "coding boot camps" or were trained in India are proficient developers. You get what you pay for and, honestly, most developers are just that - cheap. To suggest it's a "Windows" mindset completely evaporates the responsibility that American managers have for how their is developed. It also shunts responsibility away from companies who believe that software developers from 3rd world nations are, on the whole, just as competent as American developers but magically work for peanuts.
Why can't we use bulletproof and Windows in the same sentence? According to the report it was the AV scanner that caused the application to crash. The PC was then required to be rebooted for the application to start working correctly. Arguably the client software is at fault for not being able to recover from a situation where "communications" get lost. In this case, it didn't sound like the Windows system had any issue. Furthermore, I have experienced many Windows servers who are happy to sit in a corner and chug away for years without issues. Does Windows have its flaws? Sure, but so does any other operating system - and in general I don't find Windows to be so unstable these days. It's usually 3rd party software, written to use higher level privileges than it really needs, to take down Windows. But any poorly written, high privilege software can take down any OS.
For what? This was an antivirus scan and the report itself doesn't mention an OS. Furthermore, this crash brought down the whole system. If developers are writing their software to utilize drivers, they ought to make sure those drivers aren't so buggy that the mere stopping of data will tank the entire system...especially a system that should be as close to "bulletproof" as bulletproof can be in the technological sense of the word.
"If your teens would prefer gaming indoors, alone, as opposed to going out to the movies, meeting friends for burgers or any of the other ways that teens build camaraderie, you may have a problem."
Perhaps I hate paying outrageous amounts of money to sit in a dirty theater with stale, overpriced popcorn while some teenagers in upper back row provide braindead commentary and inside jokes with their other friends while theater management simply does nothing. Why are online relationships so much less "social"? I'm not making out with my friends, I'm not a hugger, so tell me why something like Facetime or Hangouts are less acceptable.
Yeah, I hear you. My PS/2 keyboard, serial mouse, and 28.6K modem are all robust. I shouldn't be expected to upgrade my equipment. It's all perfectly serviceable and simple and I should expect others to continue to support my technology that I steadfastly refuse to upgrade.
Yeah I hear you. I don't even understand why people don't all drive Fords...I mean...aren't all other cars really about the same thing? And why is there Pepsi, isn't Coke basically just the same thing?
Ah yes. nothing better than downloading 30 different "pieces" of a file, separately, to rejoin and decompress....unless you used a third party tool that could read binary and download the other pieces automatically. And there's nothing better than asking a question and getting told to RTFM despite the manual not answering (at least in any clear terms) the question. Usenet was great for what it was, forums were a bit better, Stackoverflow (and its other iterations) have proven to be far more valuable for information seeking. As for file sharing...torrents are 100x easier to deal with.
Well he said dual booting, not running VMs. I don't tend to consider running a VM as "dual booting", but I suppose that's just semantics. As for MAC: DEFACEDBABE1 was always fun (I remembered that from some website I no longer recall).
My network-fu may be a little rusty, but why would that matter? MACs are burned into the network controller's ROM. Are you spoofing your MACs under Linux or something? I'm assuming your firewall is a router or other separate hardware appliance.
This is a natural outcome when you're forced to nearly always choose from among the lowest bidders. The other is that there's never been a real budget (and thus push) to upgrade their systems. I'm reading a lot of comments in this post about the ACA...doesn't anyone remember that half of the problem with healthcare.gov's launch issues was because they were trying to tie together multiple,, severely old systems? Is it any surprise that a 3 decade+ old system wasn't written with modern infosec practices in mind?
Wait...what's wrong with a vaccination campaign regardless of whether or not it causes microcephaly? It would prevent the disease from making someone sick. I fail to see what is wrong with that. I'd be delighted to one day hear that we could vaccinate against every pathogen known to man.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that hospitals would not follow the law, if this change was made? If that's the case then literally no laws are ever going to be feasible, because there's nothing that forces people to obey them. Rape, murder, theft, and pedophilia laws are all uselss then, correct?
You act like Trump isn't corrupt at well. He's had his fair share of scandals as well.
And you want Google's car to honk in support?
It would never have sold 100 million copies as an open source game. You're more than welcome to do all the work they did and make your own popular game and open source it.
So you're mad because sites that provide free content let Facebook pay for the content YOU decide to consume and Facebook makes that money by tracking what you do (again on sites that YOU choose to go to) and selling adspace to advertisers they think you will like? How entitled and spoiled you people are. You just have to throw on an extension or two. In exchange you get to look at someone else's work (that they're expecting to get paid for) for free. This is like your being a freeloading bum who is being told that to keep pitching your tent in someone else's back yard, that you have to at least bury your shit in a hole and not take a dump on their grill. Boo-hoo. Don't browse the web or only go to those "marvelous" open source content pages that suck (or Wikipedia who will spam you for weeks asking for donations).
> Why would not they — as long as there is profit to be made?
You should ask the ISPs who didn't do it before this program came into existence.
"Offsetting" where? To people living in other areas. Why are they forced to subsidise Internet-access in low population density areas?
Because in a society, I know this is a difficult concept for people like you, people work together to benefit all of society. Sometimes the net "benefit" is just a shared cost, but society deems it reasonable. This is a basic concept of living in any society. Why couldn't you look this up?
We live in a hyper-connected age. Perhaps I can get better deals than my local stores have on products/items that I use. Maybe my employment could be down from home - thus saving me the time/expense of going to/from work. Perhaps I have a security system that offers better features such as off-site storage of my security feed. Based on your signature, however, I suspect no answer will ever be "good enough" because I believe you're one of those anti-government people and, honestly, debating ideology isn't the point of this post.
Why do I give a shit about what YOU consider to be "enough" for most people? You just said you can't stream Netflix 24/7 -- well maybe I want/need that. Maybe I want to play FPSes online without people wondering what in the hell is wrong with my connection. Maybe I want to download unlimited amounts of porn while streaming a song while my wife watches a movie. All while my NEST, security system, and anything else is connected.
As for your USDA opinion - you live in a rural area and you have no idea what the USDA does? It's more than just rubber stamping meat and looking at crops. It also helps to ensure the growth of rural areas...to ensure maximum productivity. To that end farming, like any other business, has a need for the internet. And what kind of "expertise" do they need? It's not the USDA laying the fiber or building the COs - they're providing funding. They have administrators who review the proposals that go "Okay, so Company XYZ wants to lay down fiber and provide service for the 300 homes in this area and they've estimated the cost is $X and submitted quotes from the companies they'll be working with...does this make sense?"
The talent is understanding if the impact of the development HELPS rural households/farmers/etc. They're not the ISP and never claimed to be - you just don't know what the program is, read a half assed summary, and said "DUHHH BLURB GOBERMENT DUN TOO BIG." What a lazy approach.
Because ISPs are capitalist companies who only focus on profit. They would not, without government's assistance' expand into low population density areas. The government's grants help to encourage building by offsetting some of the costs and/or maintenance necessary to provide critical infrastructure. If the government just did it itself and push companies out of the market you'd have morons complaining about 'DURR NO NOICE FOR PROPHETS". It's helping utility companies do the job they're supposed to - provide infrastructure.
"Hackerspace" is this the millennial term for computer clubs?
"Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”"
Ah, so they were censoring sources that were known to be bastions of conservative misinformation. Ah yes, beat the drums.One guy said "THEY WUZ CENSORSING MURICAN PINIONS" and a moderate said "Eh, what we really did was remove sources that we thought were overly biased and replaced with a more neutral source."
Oh my god, my moral barometer is shifting with the moon phases and you can't explain that. I'm just OUTRAGED. Liburaldumcrats are RAPING my ECHO CHAMBER BY NOT SPREADING MISINFORMATION!
...and hit up the consumers of the data for that information. "Give us all of the information about this Twitter account that you have and tell no one." Meanwhile it'll be 3rd party advertising firms who don't care/have an image to maintain and are incompetent enough to hand the Feds the keys to ALL of the information. Twitter at least could siphon what information it releases.
It's a PR stunt, it literally does nothing to curtail information flow. If you want to be anonymous, quit using the internet.
Do you mean their not supporting legacy systems and code? Yet when Microsoft devs were writing bug fixes within their OS code to account for legacy software, they were chastised. You cannot have it both ways - you either support them supporting legacy code (and all the headache that comes with it) or you support them requiring updates. Both have significant security/cost implications.
You mean bad developers? There are plenty of Linux systems that break too - it's bad developers. Windows itself can't be blamed, you should look more at the education system, managers who think that coders who go to "coding boot camps" or were trained in India are proficient developers. You get what you pay for and, honestly, most developers are just that - cheap. To suggest it's a "Windows" mindset completely evaporates the responsibility that American managers have for how their is developed. It also shunts responsibility away from companies who believe that software developers from 3rd world nations are, on the whole, just as competent as American developers but magically work for peanuts.
Why can't we use bulletproof and Windows in the same sentence? According to the report it was the AV scanner that caused the application to crash. The PC was then required to be rebooted for the application to start working correctly. Arguably the client software is at fault for not being able to recover from a situation where "communications" get lost. In this case, it didn't sound like the Windows system had any issue. Furthermore, I have experienced many Windows servers who are happy to sit in a corner and chug away for years without issues. Does Windows have its flaws? Sure, but so does any other operating system - and in general I don't find Windows to be so unstable these days. It's usually 3rd party software, written to use higher level privileges than it really needs, to take down Windows. But any poorly written, high privilege software can take down any OS.
For what? This was an antivirus scan and the report itself doesn't mention an OS. Furthermore, this crash brought down the whole system. If developers are writing their software to utilize drivers, they ought to make sure those drivers aren't so buggy that the mere stopping of data will tank the entire system...especially a system that should be as close to "bulletproof" as bulletproof can be in the technological sense of the word.
"If your teens would prefer gaming indoors, alone, as opposed to going out to the movies, meeting friends for burgers or any of the other ways that teens build camaraderie, you may have a problem."
Perhaps I hate paying outrageous amounts of money to sit in a dirty theater with stale, overpriced popcorn while some teenagers in upper back row provide braindead commentary and inside jokes with their other friends while theater management simply does nothing. Why are online relationships so much less "social"? I'm not making out with my friends, I'm not a hugger, so tell me why something like Facetime or Hangouts are less acceptable.
Yeah, I hear you. My PS/2 keyboard, serial mouse, and 28.6K modem are all robust. I shouldn't be expected to upgrade my equipment. It's all perfectly serviceable and simple and I should expect others to continue to support my technology that I steadfastly refuse to upgrade.
Yeah I hear you. I don't even understand why people don't all drive Fords...I mean...aren't all other cars really about the same thing? And why is there Pepsi, isn't Coke basically just the same thing?
Ah yes. nothing better than downloading 30 different "pieces" of a file, separately, to rejoin and decompress....unless you used a third party tool that could read binary and download the other pieces automatically. And there's nothing better than asking a question and getting told to RTFM despite the manual not answering (at least in any clear terms) the question. Usenet was great for what it was, forums were a bit better, Stackoverflow (and its other iterations) have proven to be far more valuable for information seeking. As for file sharing...torrents are 100x easier to deal with.
Well he said dual booting, not running VMs. I don't tend to consider running a VM as "dual booting", but I suppose that's just semantics. As for MAC: DEFACEDBABE1 was always fun (I remembered that from some website I no longer recall).
My network-fu may be a little rusty, but why would that matter? MACs are burned into the network controller's ROM. Are you spoofing your MACs under Linux or something? I'm assuming your firewall is a router or other separate hardware appliance.
This is a natural outcome when you're forced to nearly always choose from among the lowest bidders. The other is that there's never been a real budget (and thus push) to upgrade their systems. I'm reading a lot of comments in this post about the ACA...doesn't anyone remember that half of the problem with healthcare.gov's launch issues was because they were trying to tie together multiple,, severely old systems? Is it any surprise that a 3 decade+ old system wasn't written with modern infosec practices in mind?
Wait...what's wrong with a vaccination campaign regardless of whether or not it causes microcephaly? It would prevent the disease from making someone sick. I fail to see what is wrong with that. I'd be delighted to one day hear that we could vaccinate against every pathogen known to man.
Pedantic isn't us?