I'm voting for candidate A, because A claims to be able to fix the country! Candidate B also claims to be able to fix the country but you can't trust liars from that party.
There's nothing to do with foreign governments here. ICANN basically controls it all anyway as a private corporation, with the department of commerce doing nothing at all as far as management. The only change is that instead of doing nothing but nominally being in charge, the department continues to do nothing but removes their name from it.
The US government does not own the internet. It just has some administrative relationship with the private corporation that controls a subset of top level domain names. No property is being given away.
And besides this has been in the works for FIFTEEN years! But it's an election season and so politicians need a hot button issue to distract everyone from important stuff.
They're not government agencies, but they take some small amount of public funding, just one of millions of companies that get government money (ie, defense contractors noted for their extreme waste which legislators never even dream of hindering).
How so? What part of the constitution? It's a minor relationship with a private non-profit corporation in a minor branch of a lesser department that many legislators want to defund. Having to have congressional approval for this low level an action is extreme micro management.
The US is only sometimes a democracy. At the state level we had to basically drag them kicking and crying into equal apportionment, and even then we still have totally messed up representative districts continually being redrawn to cement power relationships. Even a mere 50 years ago it was common place to have grossly unbalanced legislative districts (disproportionate apportionment), denial of voting rights to a very large fraction of hard working and law abiding citizens. The US is new to democracy and still stumbling over it.
Well having the US control it is pretty bad too, and it only works because the US government almost totally ignores ICANN anyway which is essentially a private company indirectly controlled by Google, Apple, Facebook, and UmbrellaCorp Subsidiaries.
Of all the government agencies that Republican libertarians and small government aficionados want to get rid of, ICANN should be the *first* to go. And yet they're suing to keep it? This seems like a good strategy to keep more stuff in government. Let's say PBS and NPR claim they're going to sell themselves to the Chinese, would that cause the Republicans to start increasing its funding? We could give control of the Department of Education to Canada and see what happens.
The fact that those countries can control access to the internet just helps prove that the US isn't in control of the internet. Those countries ignore the dictates from the US, they ignore the dictates from the UN, and they'll ignore the dictates from ICANN no matter who technically controls ICANN.
Then if your logic is true, and it belongs to the US then the US is allowed to give it away and the attorney generals of a few disgruntled states have no legal standing to object.
The Internet is not an US entity. It is international. North Korea will never control it, that's just absurd fear mongering. But Russia is neither more nor less qualified than the US as far as international governance is concerned. Just as you think it is abhorrent to allow Russia to control this, other countries find it absurd that an unreliable nation like the US is in charge of such a vital service, and so it should be controlled by an international group.
Control has been leaving the US already by default, different countries control their own domains. Besides, the department of commerce does almost nothing with ICANN, it leaves ICANN alone to do what it want. Moving control away will change nothing. On the other hand we have a lot of legislators and plenty of presidential candidates who claim they want to get rid of the department of commerce and other unnecessary branches of government, and presumably they'd be happy to get rid of this waste of tax dollars too.
Most boards are carefully shepherded and managed so that they never actually see what the company does. They usually get the financial numbers and not much more, and don't seem to mind that they're not getting more details.
And it's a surprise because his manner of speaking is not very sophisticated at all. Simple words, simple grammar, repeating the same words and phrases multiple times in the same sentence. "100 per cent", "I guarantee it", "huge", "great", etc. This man needs a thesaurus. This is why he's such a conundrum to the typical legislator who grew up learning debate or being coached by debate champs only to see this person fumbling and breaking all the normal campaigning rules and succeeding at it.
I guess bullshit works. I want someone smart, nerdy, and skilled to be my brain surgeon, I wonder if the Trump supporters think the same way?
No one could really predict what it would be worth had Microsoft not stolen it. Microsoft's software was very popular because it was from Microsoft and included by default, whereas a third party product would struggle to get a decent market share over time. On the other hand they could have done the partnership deal with Microsoft, but would they have gotten the same amount of money that way? This was slighlty before the era of Microsoft shafting everyone and buying out competitors for a dime and shutting them down.
Yup, probably a good idea if you don't want color. I remember at the time of their popularity that people didn't like dealing with the powder cartridges, but probably simpler overall then the inkjet cartridges.
I worked at a company next door to Slacker in the 90s. Long after the suit. And yet there was their building with a few actual people going in and out that we could see. The theory we had was that they were living off of the proceeds from the lawsuit, so yes, it was worth it for them.
I print personally maybe once a year, for taxes. A moderately priced home printer isn't good enough for that. At work, I print maybe 2 or 3 additional times per year. Printing is just becoming extremely rare for me.
My mother however likes to print a few times a year, and it's problematic. It's a second hand printer first of. But generally ink cartridges aren't working, nozzles get clogged, the color she wants is empty, several prints needed before it gets sized correctly, etc. If she understood things like thumb drives and how to use them she'd probably do better just taking it to the local drug store to print, or to a friend's house.
He wrote a book about negotiation. Doesn't mean he's any good at negotiation. Lots of people write books, even Hillary wrote a book. The book was about self promotion. Trump spent the majority of his adult life on the talk show circuit, reality shows, and entertainment, and self promotion is his primary business. He claims his greatest asset is his name. He doesn't show his tax returns because the IRS does not place a monetary value on one's name.
Meanwhile Trump had a university to teach how to negotiate and yet it has backfired and is being sued for fraudelent practices. He has a line of businesses with him supplying just his name and no investment, and other investors go along with it because they think "Trump" is a name of value, and then those businesses fail. He has managed to turn a a large amount of money into a larger amount of money, but most people with several million dollars are able to do that just as well or better.
And finally, negotiating real estate deals has no relevance to actually running a country, negotiating with other countries, and so on. He's deluding himself if he thinks he can easily negotiate with China or convince Mexico to build a wall. And I don't think he does believe it but he does believe that this followers eat this stuff up. Overall, I don't want to see a country I live in being run like a business. Most business are badly run, they are run to the detriment of their own employees, they often screw the actual investors when they can, the leadership of the large businesses are there for financial reasons rather than being able to manage day to day affairs. Most CEOs get their start as sales people: shmoozers, brown nosers, purveyors of snake oil. Even an actor would be better suited to be president than a CEO.
No, there are people who are loudly against changing online games. For Fallout 4 for instance, they defended the change so that modding disables achievements (apparently on some consoles you can get some monetary value from achievements), never mind that a mod was able to override this change. The fights that went on over this was amazing, some people just can not bear the thought that somewhere somebody is peaking at the cards in his solitaire deck never mind fixing bugs without permission.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm voting for candidate A, because A claims to be able to fix the country! Candidate B also claims to be able to fix the country but you can't trust liars from that party.
There's nothing to do with foreign governments here. ICANN basically controls it all anyway as a private corporation, with the department of commerce doing nothing at all as far as management. The only change is that instead of doing nothing but nominally being in charge, the department continues to do nothing but removes their name from it.
The US government does not own the internet. It just has some administrative relationship with the private corporation that controls a subset of top level domain names. No property is being given away.
And besides this has been in the works for FIFTEEN years! But it's an election season and so politicians need a hot button issue to distract everyone from important stuff.
They're not government agencies, but they take some small amount of public funding, just one of millions of companies that get government money (ie, defense contractors noted for their extreme waste which legislators never even dream of hindering).
How so? What part of the constitution? It's a minor relationship with a private non-profit corporation in a minor branch of a lesser department that many legislators want to defund. Having to have congressional approval for this low level an action is extreme micro management.
The US is only sometimes a democracy. At the state level we had to basically drag them kicking and crying into equal apportionment, and even then we still have totally messed up representative districts continually being redrawn to cement power relationships. Even a mere 50 years ago it was common place to have grossly unbalanced legislative districts (disproportionate apportionment), denial of voting rights to a very large fraction of hard working and law abiding citizens. The US is new to democracy and still stumbling over it.
Well having the US control it is pretty bad too, and it only works because the US government almost totally ignores ICANN anyway which is essentially a private company indirectly controlled by Google, Apple, Facebook, and UmbrellaCorp Subsidiaries.
Of all the government agencies that Republican libertarians and small government aficionados want to get rid of, ICANN should be the *first* to go. And yet they're suing to keep it? This seems like a good strategy to keep more stuff in government. Let's say PBS and NPR claim they're going to sell themselves to the Chinese, would that cause the Republicans to start increasing its funding? We could give control of the Department of Education to Canada and see what happens.
And that censorship will neither increase nor diminish based upon whether the department of commerce occasionally notices that ICANN exists.
The fact that those countries can control access to the internet just helps prove that the US isn't in control of the internet. Those countries ignore the dictates from the US, they ignore the dictates from the UN, and they'll ignore the dictates from ICANN no matter who technically controls ICANN.
Then if your logic is true, and it belongs to the US then the US is allowed to give it away and the attorney generals of a few disgruntled states have no legal standing to object.
Election year.
The Internet is not an US entity. It is international. North Korea will never control it, that's just absurd fear mongering. But Russia is neither more nor less qualified than the US as far as international governance is concerned. Just as you think it is abhorrent to allow Russia to control this, other countries find it absurd that an unreliable nation like the US is in charge of such a vital service, and so it should be controlled by an international group.
Control has been leaving the US already by default, different countries control their own domains. Besides, the department of commerce does almost nothing with ICANN, it leaves ICANN alone to do what it want. Moving control away will change nothing. On the other hand we have a lot of legislators and plenty of presidential candidates who claim they want to get rid of the department of commerce and other unnecessary branches of government, and presumably they'd be happy to get rid of this waste of tax dollars too.
Except they have no legal standing to bring this suit, and they know it. They are doing this ONLY because it guarantees their re-election.
Most boards are carefully shepherded and managed so that they never actually see what the company does. They usually get the financial numbers and not much more, and don't seem to mind that they're not getting more details.
Everyone's a little bit lacist.
And it's a surprise because his manner of speaking is not very sophisticated at all. Simple words, simple grammar, repeating the same words and phrases multiple times in the same sentence. "100 per cent", "I guarantee it", "huge", "great", etc. This man needs a thesaurus. This is why he's such a conundrum to the typical legislator who grew up learning debate or being coached by debate champs only to see this person fumbling and breaking all the normal campaigning rules and succeeding at it.
I guess bullshit works. I want someone smart, nerdy, and skilled to be my brain surgeon, I wonder if the Trump supporters think the same way?
No one could really predict what it would be worth had Microsoft not stolen it. Microsoft's software was very popular because it was from Microsoft and included by default, whereas a third party product would struggle to get a decent market share over time. On the other hand they could have done the partnership deal with Microsoft, but would they have gotten the same amount of money that way? This was slighlty before the era of Microsoft shafting everyone and buying out competitors for a dime and shutting them down.
Yup, probably a good idea if you don't want color. I remember at the time of their popularity that people didn't like dealing with the powder cartridges, but probably simpler overall then the inkjet cartridges.
Sorry, "Stacker", not "Slacker". Freudian slip.
I worked at a company next door to Slacker in the 90s. Long after the suit. And yet there was their building with a few actual people going in and out that we could see. The theory we had was that they were living off of the proceeds from the lawsuit, so yes, it was worth it for them.
But will HP be punished enough so that they change their behavior? A suit is not always about getting rich.
I print personally maybe once a year, for taxes. A moderately priced home printer isn't good enough for that. At work, I print maybe 2 or 3 additional times per year. Printing is just becoming extremely rare for me.
My mother however likes to print a few times a year, and it's problematic. It's a second hand printer first of. But generally ink cartridges aren't working, nozzles get clogged, the color she wants is empty, several prints needed before it gets sized correctly, etc. If she understood things like thumb drives and how to use them she'd probably do better just taking it to the local drug store to print, or to a friend's house.
If the irony is poetic.
He wrote a book about negotiation. Doesn't mean he's any good at negotiation. Lots of people write books, even Hillary wrote a book. The book was about self promotion. Trump spent the majority of his adult life on the talk show circuit, reality shows, and entertainment, and self promotion is his primary business. He claims his greatest asset is his name. He doesn't show his tax returns because the IRS does not place a monetary value on one's name.
Meanwhile Trump had a university to teach how to negotiate and yet it has backfired and is being sued for fraudelent practices. He has a line of businesses with him supplying just his name and no investment, and other investors go along with it because they think "Trump" is a name of value, and then those businesses fail. He has managed to turn a a large amount of money into a larger amount of money, but most people with several million dollars are able to do that just as well or better.
And finally, negotiating real estate deals has no relevance to actually running a country, negotiating with other countries, and so on. He's deluding himself if he thinks he can easily negotiate with China or convince Mexico to build a wall. And I don't think he does believe it but he does believe that this followers eat this stuff up. Overall, I don't want to see a country I live in being run like a business. Most business are badly run, they are run to the detriment of their own employees, they often screw the actual investors when they can, the leadership of the large businesses are there for financial reasons rather than being able to manage day to day affairs. Most CEOs get their start as sales people: shmoozers, brown nosers, purveyors of snake oil. Even an actor would be better suited to be president than a CEO.
XBox One runs Windows 10??
No, there are people who are loudly against changing online games. For Fallout 4 for instance, they defended the change so that modding disables achievements (apparently on some consoles you can get some monetary value from achievements), never mind that a mod was able to override this change. The fights that went on over this was amazing, some people just can not bear the thought that somewhere somebody is peaking at the cards in his solitaire deck never mind fixing bugs without permission.