Blah blah non-free blah blah. At least I know where I stand with Google.
With Mozilla I'm never quite sure.
Right, with Google, your privacy is always getting screwed. With Mozilla, you're sure that sometimes your privacy is going to get screwed over without your knowledge (or with it), but sometimes you'll get these weird periods where they don't screw you over at all. Much preferable to getting fucked all the time with Google!
Another surprise was hearing that NPR is still in business.
It's a pretty good business. If you're going to listen to radio, it's hard to get better. Except when they air some crazy stuff after midnight, and not whenever Prairie Home Companion is on.
Oh, don't worry, we won't be forgetting the fact they compounded their guilt by figuratively trying to sweep the mistake under the rug.
So fixing a mistake sucks too? Were they supposed to crawl back begging for forgiveness because they made an assumption that turned out not to be true in a few minor edge cases?
Oh sure, there will always be people who think that they can make a decent business of giving their customers what they want -- and they'd be right. Their problem is the entrenched fellows have managed to make it illegal to set up alternate providers. The barriers to entry are so incredibly high that in many places they go with the big boys, and anyone else who wants to bury cables or get pole access can take a hike. Any attempt to set up a municipality for Internet service gets attacked and struck down in the courts.
Most LGBT people I know have the same agenda as everyone else - to live a nice normal life. Your fantasies about gay people coming to 'get you' say more about yourself than anything else (but you know what, its OK)
His stupid religious philosophy likely claims that God doesn't make anyone born gay, so you somehow have to be "converted" away from the natural (heterosexuality). The wingnuts believe that the "homosexual agenda" is converting schoolkids to homosexuality, because they refuse to believe that this could be a trait inherent in anyone. It's always a choice, and the wrong choice that should be guarded against and punished.
They will take others' content and redistribute it to you through a single interface and a single monthly bill. They'll handle billing and local caching and probably employ all of two or three people for any given urban area, but they'll exist.
It'll probably be very expensive as well. And Pay-Per-View. Oh, they don't want to do that? Then they will get no distribution rights for the content. Just because customers want something, and a company is interested in providing it for a reasonable cost, doesn't mean it will happen. Legally, it won't be possible without media conglomerate blessing.
They probably will block it, considering that Republican conservatives in power might lose their right-wing spin machine to a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.
The Fox News Network is not included with the sale. Fox News, Fox Sports, etc remain with the old company.
That's good to hear! I couldn't think of a recent Pixar thing that wasn't a sequel (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I'm looking forward to Incredibles 2, but in general it underlined the GGP's point about a lack of originality), I think even Brave was a while ago. Glad Pixar are doing well reviewed things that are original.
Pixar has been off and on in quality. I think even their "off" productions are better than most animated movies, but here's the quick list this decade: Sequel 2010: Toy Story 3 Sequel 2011: Cars 2 Original 2012: Brave Sequel 2013: Monsters University Original 2015: Inside Out Original 2015: The Good Dinosaur Sequel 2016: Finding Dory Sequel 2017: Cars 3 Original 2017: Coco Sequel 2018: Incredibles 2 Sequel 2019: Toy Story 4 Original 2020: Untitled Original Film Original 2020: Untitled Original Film Original 2021: Untitled Original Film
Netflix isn't a "streaming service". There are other streaming services out there. Netflix is a user experience.
Are you posting this from Netflix headquarters? This is the sort of marketing speak used to dazzle investors that anyone with half a brain sees through as corporate blather. Netflix is a fucking streaming service (and very good but not as good as they used to be DVD/BluRay service), in some ways better, in many ways worse than its competition.
I don't want a monthly bill that only covers 1/10th of what I want to watch.
That is what The Pirate Bay is for.
Nah, there are no limits to what your ISP can do. If they want the Pirate Bay gone, they can block your access to it. They can block access to VPNs as well (or basically white-list "approved" business ISPs). Why wouldn't they slow down or totally block direct competitors now?
Do you even remember the good old days of dozens of DSL resellers?
Yes. And I remember that they were GOOD days. Those were days of ISPs trying to woo customers with features they wanted, rather than fucking them over because the ISP captured the market.
I don't remember the ISPs being horrible, like you're trying to imply. They were about the same as big boys when it came to routing packets. I -DO- remember the big boys had tons of fuckups with network links to backbones back then as well.
But the "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" has been deafening from sysadmins, because they're not used to doing things this way.
Maybe because it's a horrible way to do software management? Hint: software management should not be done by or be the choice of the end-user. It should happen without them needing to do a damned thing. If this is the case, then we're cool.
Mostly these are packages that predate the establishment of the/etc/default standard,
Given all the packages I've had to mess around with over the years and seeing how they like to do things, I think/etc/default was a very short-lived standard that most just didn't pick up. I'm looking backwards at some of the distros I've used over the years, and I just don't see that it got a lot of traction.
The Communications Decency Act is a good start. Other anti-pornography/decency laws dovetail nicely into it. Porn was the most visible difference, but diversity of opinion, an open expression of ideas, knowledge on all sorts of subjects (though mostly computers). Sadly, 20 years later, we're far far more divided and partisan than we ever were, but back then on the 'net, everyone's big chant was "don't meddle with our Internet." We liked its Wild West flavor. We didn't want tons of regulations for what we're allowed to look at, or do, or talk about. Everyone knew at some point the government would try to step in, and everyone hoped that can could be kicked down the road for as long as possible. All you had to do was look at the wasteland of broadcast television at the time, or anything decided by "standards and practices," and didn't want the 'net to become so stifled and creatively void.
Another good example is the entire history of the telecommunications industry until the breakup of Ma Bell. The entire history of broadcast television. Etcetc. The US federal government has a pretty good history of absolutely stifling and slowing to a standstill any communications fields it gets into.
It's hard to take moral argument seriously when the same people making them say it's fine for Google and FB to censor or ban people on their networks because 'it's a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply'. Well no, it doesn't. But not everywhere is the US
Everywhere is not the US, but Google and Facebook are bound by US laws. We're especially talking about US laws when we're discussing US government action being taken against them, which is what the result of laws restricting behavior would be. But regardless of legal arguments, if I set up a service, it's really my choice whether I want, say, hate speech on it, unless having such speech violates the laws of where my service is hosted. And if I don't want to work to provide a platform for such speech, I shouldn't have to. It should be my choice. And that choice is just more important than your desire to use my platform for your own speech. This doesn't even get into the cases of people who were banned for actual harassment of other users.
You have freedom of speech. But no one should be compelled against their will to work to give you the platform that you prefer to express yourself. You have other choices. I don't really use Google for communication, just for the occasional web search. I don't use Facebook at all, and I'm not really missing anything (according to my friends who are still on Facebook). I'm not going to file lawsuits against either of them because their services don't meet my wants. I just looked elsewhere and found places that work better for me for socializing.
To bring it full circle, people usually don't have that choice in broadband ISPs. They ISPs are given monopoly or duopoly power (in the case of cable + telco). If they want that power, that power had better come with more open requirements. They were able to get away with their shakedowns of Netflix (most prominently, though nowadays people seem to forget this because Netflix caved and raised their subscription rates years ago) but also Google, HBO (that was a weird story), and pretty much any content provider which competed with the ISP, because these mega-ISPs are also content providers now.
That, among many other reasons is why this whole Comcast/Verizon vs Facebook/Google is comparing apples to bananas. The issues involved are not at all similar.
And/etc/default is good enough for every other package but not for systemd.
Eh? There are plenty of packages that pull default configs out of some location in/usr, with/etc/ being an override./etc has long (apart from systemd even) been considered the user-editable configuration, and/usr/share the non-user-editable configuration area (among other things).
Sometimes the dramatic predictions of the future came not to past because they helped us recognize mistakes we could make, and either avoid them or fix them. Y2K is a good example of it; predictions of chaos that ended up not coming true. People afterwards said that the people warning about the problem were full of it, but it was only not an enormous problem because many people put in long hours beforehand.
It's a little generic, especially because it doesn't count the type of protest. IE, the Tea Party protesters had a non-low voting rate. The Occupy Wall Sheet protesters had a pretty low voting rate, according to former representative Barney Frank. Occupy Wall Street protesters should have voted instead. I don't see the quote in there, but I do remember listening to him on a program (Fresh Air?) where Rep. Frank went to an OWS protest and asked why there was no voter registration effort or attempts to educate people on voting for the causes they believe in. He was told by the organizers of that Occupy Wall Street group that voter registration and voting "wasn't really their thing." That was the point when he realized that OWS was doomed, that its effect would be pretty minimal. And the shabby youth voting turnout would tend to support his position.
Slashdot bitching is not really a good indication of the Linux community in general. It's certainly not an indication of what people who know what they're doing (like distro maintainers) feel.
If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.
As much as I'm personally in favor of Net Neutrality, giving the FCC power to impose Internet regulations is a VERY VERY bad thing. It always has been, the 1990s is a nice list of case studies why giving government regulatory power on the Internet is terrible. The only reason there's any discussion here is the ISPs have been forcing everyone's hand, and that citizens don't have choice in the broadband world.
I'd say the Internet worked pretty well with light touch regulation.
You're right, it worked just fine UNTIL ISPS started pulling these shenanigans. The 2015 regulations were put into place as a direct result of the previous years of escalation when the ISPs started slowing down Youtube and Netflix until they started coughing up fees beyond bandwidth costs. This isn't a slim window here, we have a evidence of this happening for much of the last decade.
It's just a bunch people shilling for Comcast and Verizon vs another bunch of people shilling for Google and Facebook.
What a perfect example of a false dilemma. An either/or proposition that's based off a flawed assumption -- that if you're in favor of Net Neutrality, you're in Google and Facebook's pocket.
In this particular issue, what we have here is something that benefits Comcast and Verizon and other large telecoms/cable companies, and adversely affects EVERYONE ELSE, so in that case, of course my interests align with Google's and Facebook's. I get screwed, Facebook gets screwed, we all get screwed, except for the gatekeepers.
The intention for that seems transparent: It's the company line of Comcast and Verizon that Net Neutrality is just trying to benefit Facebook and Google as a way to make it sound like it's big business favoritism, thus undercutting the moral argument for NN. So by pushing that message, they get to change the message from "Big ISPs use their monopoly/duopoly position to force sites to pay them extra" to "Comcast/Verizon want money, Facebook/Google want money, the only right decision is to not have rules saying who is right."
Slashdot Mirror
Blah blah non-free blah blah. At least I know where I stand with Google.
With Mozilla I'm never quite sure.
Right, with Google, your privacy is always getting screwed. With Mozilla, you're sure that sometimes your privacy is going to get screwed over without your knowledge (or with it), but sometimes you'll get these weird periods where they don't screw you over at all. Much preferable to getting fucked all the time with Google!
Another surprise was hearing that NPR is still in business.
It's a pretty good business. If you're going to listen to radio, it's hard to get better. Except when they air some crazy stuff after midnight, and not whenever Prairie Home Companion is on.
Oh, don't worry, we won't be forgetting the fact they compounded their guilt by figuratively trying to sweep the mistake under the rug.
So fixing a mistake sucks too? Were they supposed to crawl back begging for forgiveness because they made an assumption that turned out not to be true in a few minor edge cases?
Oh sure, there will always be people who think that they can make a decent business of giving their customers what they want -- and they'd be right. Their problem is the entrenched fellows have managed to make it illegal to set up alternate providers. The barriers to entry are so incredibly high that in many places they go with the big boys, and anyone else who wants to bury cables or get pole access can take a hike. Any attempt to set up a municipality for Internet service gets attacked and struck down in the courts.
Most LGBT people I know have the same agenda as everyone else - to live a nice normal life. Your fantasies about gay people coming to 'get you' say more about yourself than anything else (but you know what, its OK)
His stupid religious philosophy likely claims that God doesn't make anyone born gay, so you somehow have to be "converted" away from the natural (heterosexuality). The wingnuts believe that the "homosexual agenda" is converting schoolkids to homosexuality, because they refuse to believe that this could be a trait inherent in anyone. It's always a choice, and the wrong choice that should be guarded against and punished.
They will take others' content and redistribute it to you through a single interface and a single monthly bill. They'll handle billing and local caching and probably employ all of two or three people for any given urban area, but they'll exist.
It'll probably be very expensive as well. And Pay-Per-View. Oh, they don't want to do that? Then they will get no distribution rights for the content. Just because customers want something, and a company is interested in providing it for a reasonable cost, doesn't mean it will happen. Legally, it won't be possible without media conglomerate blessing.
They probably will block it, considering that Republican conservatives in power might lose their right-wing spin machine to a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.
The Fox News Network is not included with the sale. Fox News, Fox Sports, etc remain with the old company.
That's good to hear! I couldn't think of a recent Pixar thing that wasn't a sequel (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I'm looking forward to Incredibles 2, but in general it underlined the GGP's point about a lack of originality), I think even Brave was a while ago. Glad Pixar are doing well reviewed things that are original.
Pixar has been off and on in quality. I think even their "off" productions are better than most animated movies, but here's the quick list this decade:
Sequel 2010: Toy Story 3
Sequel 2011: Cars 2
Original 2012: Brave
Sequel 2013: Monsters University
Original 2015: Inside Out
Original 2015: The Good Dinosaur
Sequel 2016: Finding Dory
Sequel 2017: Cars 3
Original 2017: Coco
Sequel 2018: Incredibles 2
Sequel 2019: Toy Story 4
Original 2020: Untitled Original Film
Original 2020: Untitled Original Film
Original 2021: Untitled Original Film
Netflix isn't a "streaming service". There are other streaming services out there. Netflix is a user experience.
Are you posting this from Netflix headquarters? This is the sort of marketing speak used to dazzle investors that anyone with half a brain sees through as corporate blather. Netflix is a fucking streaming service (and very good but not as good as they used to be DVD/BluRay service), in some ways better, in many ways worse than its competition.
I don't want a monthly bill that only covers 1/10th of what I want to watch.
That is what The Pirate Bay is for.
Nah, there are no limits to what your ISP can do. If they want the Pirate Bay gone, they can block your access to it. They can block access to VPNs as well (or basically white-list "approved" business ISPs). Why wouldn't they slow down or totally block direct competitors now?
Do you even remember the good old days of dozens of DSL resellers?
Yes. And I remember that they were GOOD days. Those were days of ISPs trying to woo customers with features they wanted, rather than fucking them over because the ISP captured the market.
I don't remember the ISPs being horrible, like you're trying to imply. They were about the same as big boys when it came to routing packets. I -DO- remember the big boys had tons of fuckups with network links to backbones back then as well.
But the "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" has been deafening from sysadmins, because they're not used to doing things this way.
Maybe because it's a horrible way to do software management? Hint: software management should not be done by or be the choice of the end-user. It should happen without them needing to do a damned thing. If this is the case, then we're cool.
Mostly these are packages that predate the establishment of the /etc/default standard,
Given all the packages I've had to mess around with over the years and seeing how they like to do things, I think /etc/default was a very short-lived standard that most just didn't pick up. I'm looking backwards at some of the distros I've used over the years, and I just don't see that it got a lot of traction.
The Communications Decency Act is a good start. Other anti-pornography/decency laws dovetail nicely into it. Porn was the most visible difference, but diversity of opinion, an open expression of ideas, knowledge on all sorts of subjects (though mostly computers). Sadly, 20 years later, we're far far more divided and partisan than we ever were, but back then on the 'net, everyone's big chant was "don't meddle with our Internet." We liked its Wild West flavor. We didn't want tons of regulations for what we're allowed to look at, or do, or talk about. Everyone knew at some point the government would try to step in, and everyone hoped that can could be kicked down the road for as long as possible. All you had to do was look at the wasteland of broadcast television at the time, or anything decided by "standards and practices," and didn't want the 'net to become so stifled and creatively void.
Another good example is the entire history of the telecommunications industry until the breakup of Ma Bell. The entire history of broadcast television. Etcetc. The US federal government has a pretty good history of absolutely stifling and slowing to a standstill any communications fields it gets into.
It's hard to take moral argument seriously when the same people making them say it's fine for Google and FB to censor or ban people on their networks because 'it's a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply'. Well no, it doesn't. But not everywhere is the US
Everywhere is not the US, but Google and Facebook are bound by US laws. We're especially talking about US laws when we're discussing US government action being taken against them, which is what the result of laws restricting behavior would be. But regardless of legal arguments, if I set up a service, it's really my choice whether I want, say, hate speech on it, unless having such speech violates the laws of where my service is hosted. And if I don't want to work to provide a platform for such speech, I shouldn't have to. It should be my choice. And that choice is just more important than your desire to use my platform for your own speech. This doesn't even get into the cases of people who were banned for actual harassment of other users.
You have freedom of speech. But no one should be compelled against their will to work to give you the platform that you prefer to express yourself. You have other choices. I don't really use Google for communication, just for the occasional web search. I don't use Facebook at all, and I'm not really missing anything (according to my friends who are still on Facebook). I'm not going to file lawsuits against either of them because their services don't meet my wants. I just looked elsewhere and found places that work better for me for socializing.
To bring it full circle, people usually don't have that choice in broadband ISPs. They ISPs are given monopoly or duopoly power (in the case of cable + telco). If they want that power, that power had better come with more open requirements. They were able to get away with their shakedowns of Netflix (most prominently, though nowadays people seem to forget this because Netflix caved and raised their subscription rates years ago) but also Google, HBO (that was a weird story), and pretty much any content provider which competed with the ISP, because these mega-ISPs are also content providers now.
That, among many other reasons is why this whole Comcast/Verizon vs Facebook/Google is comparing apples to bananas. The issues involved are not at all similar.
And /etc/default is good enough for every other package but not for systemd.
Eh? There are plenty of packages that pull default configs out of some location in /usr, with /etc/ being an override. /etc has long (apart from systemd even) been considered the user-editable configuration, and /usr/share the non-user-editable configuration area (among other things).
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...
Attacking the messenger -- but can the article writer point to specific things are false? Or things marked false that ended up being true?
Sometimes the dramatic predictions of the future came not to past because they helped us recognize mistakes we could make, and either avoid them or fix them. Y2K is a good example of it; predictions of chaos that ended up not coming true. People afterwards said that the people warning about the problem were full of it, but it was only not an enormous problem because many people put in long hours beforehand.
Any sources on that?
It's a little generic, especially because it doesn't count the type of protest. IE, the Tea Party protesters had a non-low voting rate.
The Occupy Wall Sheet protesters had a pretty low voting rate, according to former representative Barney Frank.
Occupy Wall Street protesters should have voted instead. I don't see the quote in there, but I do remember listening to him on a program (Fresh Air?) where Rep. Frank went to an OWS protest and asked why there was no voter registration effort or attempts to educate people on voting for the causes they believe in. He was told by the organizers of that Occupy Wall Street group that voter registration and voting "wasn't really their thing." That was the point when he realized that OWS was doomed, that its effect would be pretty minimal. And the shabby youth voting turnout would tend to support his position.
"Redhat wanted more control of Linux so they pushed systemd" is "insightful?"
Slashdot bitching is not really a good indication of the Linux community in general.
It's certainly not an indication of what people who know what they're doing (like distro maintainers) feel.
If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.
As much as I'm personally in favor of Net Neutrality, giving the FCC power to impose Internet regulations is a VERY VERY bad thing. It always has been, the 1990s is a nice list of case studies why giving government regulatory power on the Internet is terrible. The only reason there's any discussion here is the ISPs have been forcing everyone's hand, and that citizens don't have choice in the broadband world.
"obabas congress" is a rather misleading term. A better phrase would be "the congress that Obama had to fight and circumvent to get anything done".
Are we also talking about the first two years of Obama's term when the Democratic Party had a super-majority in both houses of Congress?
I'd say the Internet worked pretty well with light touch regulation.
You're right, it worked just fine UNTIL ISPS started pulling these shenanigans. The 2015 regulations were put into place as a direct result of the previous years of escalation when the ISPs started slowing down Youtube and Netflix until they started coughing up fees beyond bandwidth costs. This isn't a slim window here, we have a evidence of this happening for much of the last decade.
It's just a bunch people shilling for Comcast and Verizon vs another bunch of people shilling for Google and Facebook.
What a perfect example of a false dilemma. An either/or proposition that's based off a flawed assumption -- that if you're in favor of Net Neutrality, you're in Google and Facebook's pocket.
In this particular issue, what we have here is something that benefits Comcast and Verizon and other large telecoms/cable companies, and adversely affects EVERYONE ELSE, so in that case, of course my interests align with Google's and Facebook's. I get screwed, Facebook gets screwed, we all get screwed, except for the gatekeepers.
The intention for that seems transparent: It's the company line of Comcast and Verizon that Net Neutrality is just trying to benefit Facebook and Google as a way to make it sound like it's big business favoritism, thus undercutting the moral argument for NN. So by pushing that message, they get to change the message from "Big ISPs use their monopoly/duopoly position to force sites to pay them extra" to "Comcast/Verizon want money, Facebook/Google want money, the only right decision is to not have rules saying who is right."