They were sent packing from the court with a list of options. Different ways that they could resolve this, they could alter their rules or they could re-categorize ISPs or they could give up on net neutrality. We are disappointed that they chose the latter.
So what, cloud based DVR is not not acceptable? Why is time shifting OK in a box in my livingroom but not on a box at some hosting service? Does it matter if I own or rent the actual server that is being used for the time shifting? What is so important about the internet that it invalidates the rights we have elsewhere?
You are comparing this device to other devices that honestly lacked the kind of popular appeal that modern tablets do. Sure, it was running a great OS for the time but that OS did not have the kind of app ecosystem that the iPad does. That ecosystem is pretty critical to the popularity of the device.
and yes, check the UID, I was on line in 2000, quite a bit before that actually, and frankly the web was not the most interesting place for the mainstream. Sure, for hard core geeks it was great but that was not going to be enough to kick off a serious change in the way normal people interacted with technology.
When the iPad came out we already had a really rich web experience available, people had already started supporting mobile safari extensively thanks to the iPhone and there was an existing ecosystem of high quality apps available and plenty of companies and engineers available who's goal was to grow that eco system. This device had none of that and without that it was not going to be successful. Honestly I am not so sure that the iPad would have even managed to take off if it were not for the iPhone that came before it, to pull it off when all wireless bandwidth was slow and expensive and the web was a mostly static place to read news and there were no social networks to speak of.... most people would not have use for such a device.
Plus, we still don't know what it would have cost, which is another huge barrier to adoption.
Honestly, looking at the design of that thing, I am not so sure it had a viable market. There were few wireless networks set up in 2000 it wasn't a given that every home had one. Cell data was expensive and slow. The device seems unwieldy and large and the controls don't look like they would be particularly easy to use. Also, what OS does it run, can it do anything but surf the web? Was the web on its own interesting enough in 2000 to make this a killer device? No streaming movies and TV shows, Spotify or any of those interesting services.
Finally, what was the price going to be? Back then 500 would have been a tough sell and I would not be surprised if this device was more expensive than that.
Timing really is everything. The tech needed to reach a certain level and honestly the web had to reach the point where having it in your hand and on the go was valuable to consumers. Sure you can't just ask people what they want but you also have to consider that a lot of things were different 13 years ago.
You could try to argue that, yes. But again its up to the dismissed party to show that it was a hostile work environment and that might also run into issues where the employees are allowed to express their feelings if those expressions don't meet some particular definition of harassment.
if the pressure came from the board you might be right, if all the pressure was coming from the calls for boycot or from his underlings (who have no authority to dismiss the CEO) then they don't really mean anything. You would have a hard time convincing someone that the company is at fault because the low level employees hated the CEO.
You may be right about the actions of the board, though it might be hard to prove that depending on how they went about it. If there isn't a paper trail it becomes his word against theirs.
I can comprehend it, its just too damn much work to sift through run on sentences. What is sad is that the person who wrote this claims to be a journalist. I figured it was a developer writing on their blog which would be forgivable.
Every online reference to it on dictionary sites lists it as a UK idiom or a UK and Australian idiom. That you have encountered it before as an America does not mean that it is in remotely common usage.
Further, not knowing an idiom does not make one illiterate. Maybe try not being so much of an asshole next time.
it is followed by an actual error which probably added to the confusion. I can usually work out the meaning of an idiom from context but given there was a mistake 2 words later it was just as likely that there was a missing word or 2 elsewhere in the sentence.
I am an american and I watch a lot of british TV which allowed me to figure out that it wasn't a typo or a missing word but just an idiom. Not everyone else is familiar with the british tendency to drop words from phrases to make common idioms ("Would do" for instance). It certainly doesn't help that there is an actual mistake immediately after it.
if the phrase was "put down their tools" that would not be idiomatic and would be generally understood. "downed their tools" is an idiom... the closest use for "downed" that I can think of to an American would be if someone "downed their beer" which is to say finished a beer quickly.
To say "I put down my dog" means you killed your dog, you aren't killing your tools if you "down your tools". Downtown has nothing to do with this use either.
Part of the problem here is "downing their tools" which is an idiom that is not used in American english. While I was able to take a guess at what it meant it is confusing and awkward to those who are not familiar with the idiom.
Not doubting you, but can I get a reference to that? I don't recall him specifically stating that during the campaign. I guess I kind of expected that he took a states rights approach to it but it has been a while. I would be very interested to see that.
First, its not blocked, you can continue.... but yes, people use to do stuff like this with IE back in the day of the anti trust trials and such, back when it seemed inevitable, at least to some, that Microsoft would manage to take over the internet. Ain't nothin new under the sun.
I think we are looking at a bad summary as usually the articles dateline is March 31st, but thank you for reminding me to get off of the internet for the next ~48 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
They were sent packing from the court with a list of options. Different ways that they could resolve this, they could alter their rules or they could re-categorize ISPs or they could give up on net neutrality. We are disappointed that they chose the latter.
Did it ever occur to you that neither advertising fees nor subscription fees are enough, by themselves, to cover the cost and still make a profit?
Is that why Viacom is posting record losses every quarter?
So what, cloud based DVR is not not acceptable? Why is time shifting OK in a box in my livingroom but not on a box at some hosting service? Does it matter if I own or rent the actual server that is being used for the time shifting? What is so important about the internet that it invalidates the rights we have elsewhere?
Its not easy to get JoeWalsh out of bed in the morning. I assume it is because he goes to parties.... sometimes until 4.
You are comparing this device to other devices that honestly lacked the kind of popular appeal that modern tablets do. Sure, it was running a great OS for the time but that OS did not have the kind of app ecosystem that the iPad does. That ecosystem is pretty critical to the popularity of the device.
and yes, check the UID, I was on line in 2000, quite a bit before that actually, and frankly the web was not the most interesting place for the mainstream. Sure, for hard core geeks it was great but that was not going to be enough to kick off a serious change in the way normal people interacted with technology.
When the iPad came out we already had a really rich web experience available, people had already started supporting mobile safari extensively thanks to the iPhone and there was an existing ecosystem of high quality apps available and plenty of companies and engineers available who's goal was to grow that eco system. This device had none of that and without that it was not going to be successful. Honestly I am not so sure that the iPad would have even managed to take off if it were not for the iPhone that came before it, to pull it off when all wireless bandwidth was slow and expensive and the web was a mostly static place to read news and there were no social networks to speak of.... most people would not have use for such a device.
Plus, we still don't know what it would have cost, which is another huge barrier to adoption.
Honestly, looking at the design of that thing, I am not so sure it had a viable market. There were few wireless networks set up in 2000 it wasn't a given that every home had one. Cell data was expensive and slow. The device seems unwieldy and large and the controls don't look like they would be particularly easy to use. Also, what OS does it run, can it do anything but surf the web? Was the web on its own interesting enough in 2000 to make this a killer device? No streaming movies and TV shows, Spotify or any of those interesting services.
Finally, what was the price going to be? Back then 500 would have been a tough sell and I would not be surprised if this device was more expensive than that.
Timing really is everything. The tech needed to reach a certain level and honestly the web had to reach the point where having it in your hand and on the go was valuable to consumers. Sure you can't just ask people what they want but you also have to consider that a lot of things were different 13 years ago.
assuming its a touch screen at all.
And yet ladies night is still a thing.
You could try to argue that, yes. But again its up to the dismissed party to show that it was a hostile work environment and that might also run into issues where the employees are allowed to express their feelings if those expressions don't meet some particular definition of harassment.
It might be possible but its not trivial.
if the pressure came from the board you might be right, if all the pressure was coming from the calls for boycot or from his underlings (who have no authority to dismiss the CEO) then they don't really mean anything. You would have a hard time convincing someone that the company is at fault because the low level employees hated the CEO.
You may be right about the actions of the board, though it might be hard to prove that depending on how they went about it. If there isn't a paper trail it becomes his word against theirs.
It may not be universal but that doesn't mean its not incredibly common.
Teenagers are usually idiots though, they don't usually have the foresight to disguise themselves.
Thats the disturbing part!
Thanks, now all I can picture is Wil Wheaton in a luchador mask
I can comprehend it, its just too damn much work to sift through run on sentences. What is sad is that the person who wrote this claims to be a journalist. I figured it was a developer writing on their blog which would be forgivable.
Every online reference to it on dictionary sites lists it as a UK idiom or a UK and Australian idiom. That you have encountered it before as an America does not mean that it is in remotely common usage.
Further, not knowing an idiom does not make one illiterate. Maybe try not being so much of an asshole next time.
it is followed by an actual error which probably added to the confusion. I can usually work out the meaning of an idiom from context but given there was a mistake 2 words later it was just as likely that there was a missing word or 2 elsewhere in the sentence.
I am an american and I watch a lot of british TV which allowed me to figure out that it wasn't a typo or a missing word but just an idiom. Not everyone else is familiar with the british tendency to drop words from phrases to make common idioms ("Would do" for instance). It certainly doesn't help that there is an actual mistake immediately after it.
if the phrase was "put down their tools" that would not be idiomatic and would be generally understood. "downed their tools" is an idiom... the closest use for "downed" that I can think of to an American would be if someone "downed their beer" which is to say finished a beer quickly.
To say "I put down my dog" means you killed your dog, you aren't killing your tools if you "down your tools". Downtown has nothing to do with this use either.
Practically unreadable. It is far too long and contains many run-on sentences. Further it is filled with jargon that is not explained.
Part of the problem here is "downing their tools" which is an idiom that is not used in American english. While I was able to take a guess at what it meant it is confusing and awkward to those who are not familiar with the idiom.
Not doubting you, but can I get a reference to that? I don't recall him specifically stating that during the campaign. I guess I kind of expected that he took a states rights approach to it but it has been a while. I would be very interested to see that.
First, its not blocked, you can continue.... but yes, people use to do stuff like this with IE back in the day of the anti trust trials and such, back when it seemed inevitable, at least to some, that Microsoft would manage to take over the internet. Ain't nothin new under the sun.
Not an april fools story, this one is real.
I think we are looking at a bad summary as usually the articles dateline is March 31st, but thank you for reminding me to get off of the internet for the next ~48 hours.