Breaking up FB, even if it could be done, will accomplish exactly zero. Like every other breaking up, from Standard Oil in 1910 to the telephone monopoly.
About ten years ago I bought a Prada-labelled shoulder bag in Vietnam for $10 from a street vendor. When I got it back to NY I asked around and it sold for around $400. Not only is it indistinguishable from the real thing, it IS the real thing. It's what I call a "real fake." As described above, the factory gets an order for 5000 of these bags, makes 6000 and sells 1000 out the back door. There is no difference between those 1000 and the other 5000. Did this happen in China with iPhones? Has Apple complained about it? Because they would surely know.
I guess the implication of this article is that there's something bad or dangerous about the fact that these apps are Chinese in origin or ownership. But why is that worse than anywhere else? Do the big US internet companies not work closely with the US government? Or the UK? Why is it that if it's Chinese it's sinister? Fu Manchu is dead.
Split up Standard Oil in 1910--how well did that work out? Split up Ma Bell--happy with the result? Split it up and the parts will recombine in some other form but functionally equivalent.
At a big commercial printer you might find either toner-based or inkjet digital printers. Each does something better than the other (but neither is as good as offset).
You make socialism out to be a threat but these tactics aren't being developed by socialists, but by the world's largest capitalist country. You're worried about the wrong thing.
The NRA doesn't "Stick up for the Constitution". It sticks up for part of the second part of the 2nd Amendment. If the NRA "defended the Constitution" they'd be demanding a "well-regulated militia." Which appears to have been more important to the people who approved the Constitution than "the right of the people to bear arms." Because they put it first.
There's a Civilian Review Board in New York City and it's a sick joke--it's totally useless for getting any kind of justice where the cops are concerned.
I've never heard a good argument for driverless cars that doesn't involve driver cars. Why do we need cars at all? By which I mean a transportation system that's based on individual and widespread ownership and use of vehicles for one or two people. What problem will driverless cars solve?
I'll be more impressed when the US starts calling out Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Or apologizes for the military dictatorships it sponsored in Latin America for decades.
I'd like to hear the owners of Google and Facebook make equally strong statements about not cooperating with "wrong" demands from the government. I'll wait.
I tend not to get too excited about political promises. There are two ways, as I see it, this can happen. One is the city tries to build the network. The private ISPs will sue and the project will languish for years, if it ever gets off the ground at all. Second, the city pays the private ISP's to build the network--in other words, a giant handout. Then some public interest group will sue, and the project will languish for years, if it ever gets off the ground at all.
Very naive idea that only the guilty have something to fear. The cops don't care if you're "innocent" or "guilty"--witness the vast numbers of people in jail right now who are not guilty. They care about arrests and convictions and along with the prosecutors will use whatever means they have at their disposal to get a conviction on whoever they decide fits their idea of who's guilty.
Leaving the rest aside, it's not historically accurate to say books were never considered disruptive. (Relatively) widespread literacy was one of the causes of the split in the Christian church.
Leaks are an essential part of how the US government works. The White House uses them, Congress uses them, the military, the CIA, NSA, etc. It's an aspect of bureaucratic infighting. "Leaks" will never stop because no one who says they want them to actually wants them to. They want EVERYBODY ELSE to stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Breaking up FB, even if it could be done, will accomplish exactly zero. Like every other breaking up, from Standard Oil in 1910 to the telephone monopoly.
You do see the irony in the phrase "misogynist cunt," don't you? If not, perhaps check a dictionary.
About ten years ago I bought a Prada-labelled shoulder bag in Vietnam for $10 from a street vendor. When I got it back to NY I asked around and it sold for around $400. Not only is it indistinguishable from the real thing, it IS the real thing. It's what I call a "real fake." As described above, the factory gets an order for 5000 of these bags, makes 6000 and sells 1000 out the back door. There is no difference between those 1000 and the other 5000. Did this happen in China with iPhones? Has Apple complained about it? Because they would surely know.
I guess the implication of this article is that there's something bad or dangerous about the fact that these apps are Chinese in origin or ownership. But why is that worse than anywhere else? Do the big US internet companies not work closely with the US government? Or the UK? Why is it that if it's Chinese it's sinister? Fu Manchu is dead.
Split up Standard Oil in 1910--how well did that work out? Split up Ma Bell--happy with the result? Split it up and the parts will recombine in some other form but functionally equivalent.
At a big commercial printer you might find either toner-based or inkjet digital printers. Each does something better than the other (but neither is as good as offset).
This is not so different from "leftists" who want to prevent anyone they don't like from speaking.
You make socialism out to be a threat but these tactics aren't being developed by socialists, but by the world's largest capitalist country. You're worried about the wrong thing.
Ten percent of households electrified=village is electrified? That's not much to brag about.
The NRA doesn't "Stick up for the Constitution". It sticks up for part of the second part of the 2nd Amendment. If the NRA "defended the Constitution" they'd be demanding a "well-regulated militia." Which appears to have been more important to the people who approved the Constitution than "the right of the people to bear arms." Because they put it first.
There's a Civilian Review Board in New York City and it's a sick joke--it's totally useless for getting any kind of justice where the cops are concerned.
This is the problem--people deciding for other people. You're no righter than the people whose mental processes you make fun of.
I've never heard a good argument for driverless cars that doesn't involve driver cars. Why do we need cars at all? By which I mean a transportation system that's based on individual and widespread ownership and use of vehicles for one or two people. What problem will driverless cars solve?
I'll be more impressed when the US starts calling out Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Or apologizes for the military dictatorships it sponsored in Latin America for decades.
I'd like to hear the owners of Google and Facebook make equally strong statements about not cooperating with "wrong" demands from the government. I'll wait.
I tend not to get too excited about political promises. There are two ways, as I see it, this can happen. One is the city tries to build the network. The private ISPs will sue and the project will languish for years, if it ever gets off the ground at all. Second, the city pays the private ISP's to build the network--in other words, a giant handout. Then some public interest group will sue, and the project will languish for years, if it ever gets off the ground at all.
See subject line
If and when the truth is ever known, it will turn out to be a CIA operation gone bad.
Very naive idea that only the guilty have something to fear. The cops don't care if you're "innocent" or "guilty"--witness the vast numbers of people in jail right now who are not guilty. They care about arrests and convictions and along with the prosecutors will use whatever means they have at their disposal to get a conviction on whoever they decide fits their idea of who's guilty.
Leaving the rest aside, it's not historically accurate to say books were never considered disruptive. (Relatively) widespread literacy was one of the causes of the split in the Christian church.
You mean like signing the Russia sanctions bill?
ctrl-shift-t only opens the last tab, not the last 10
He didn't say "worthless," he said "not willing to pay for or wait for it on Netflix." Not at all the same thing.
Hey genius--there are NO web sites blocked in Cuba.
Leaks are an essential part of how the US government works. The White House uses them, Congress uses them, the military, the CIA, NSA, etc. It's an aspect of bureaucratic infighting. "Leaks" will never stop because no one who says they want them to actually wants them to. They want EVERYBODY ELSE to stop.