I'm playing devil's advocate here, so don't jump down my throat.
I've never heard a compelling argument against gentrification. People are displaced, the neighborhood changes... this is what happens when you allow property to be rented.
And it's such a big country, do we really need to pack more and more people into the same places?
"A dynamically generated internet" is just code for breaking the fundamental design of the web, by serving variable content for identical requests based on ephemeral server-side state.
Not quite. Either
a) You're under the impression that requests are identical. They aren't. Requests are stateful and depend on the context with which they were made.
b) You're under the delusion that a completely static internet depending on the request is a good thing. That would be fundamentally broken design in todays world. The internet isn't the black and white text crap that was featured on Slashdot last week.
Speaking of Slashdot if you now click on this link: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... you may notice a few things. You may notice that it's your user name in the top right and not mine. You may notice that you made a post. You will also notice that since you last visited that page there is additional content replying to you and calling out the absurdity of your claim. That comment was brought to you through the power of the fundamentally broken web as is your ability to reply to it.
You're presumably a developer, and yet you can't conceive of any way at all that stateless requests can work for a web application with logins and changing content? Instead of thinking about it for a second or two, you lash out and call this apparently foreign concept "delusional" and "absurd". Nice.
And you're right, Slashdot breaks the pattern with its volatile paging. I suggested a fix to this broken design years ago, back when they asked for feedback. I'd settle for them fixing the editors first, though.
No. Expiring pages were a necessity of a dynamically generated internet. What we're doing is incorporating the cached system from 10 years ago without breaking what we have now.
"A dynamically generated internet" is just code for breaking the fundamental design of the web, by serving variable content for identical requests based on ephemeral server-side state.
Every application I've reviewed that required disabling back navigation or expiring pages you just visited was seriously broken. They "worked", usually, but they weren't designed by someone who knew what they were doing.
Best done here, of course, but I can't think of a better application. Send an automated manufacturing colony up that can make more copies of itself as it extracts useful things for humans. Wait a few years, have tons and tons of resources waiting, habitats built.
Don't tell me this is beyond our current tech. It's within reach. Certainly closer than the original moon shot was fifty years ago.
Blizzard is a business that exists to make money for its investors, not to keep people employed. Employment is merely incidental. Even the games are incidental.
Look at the greater system that generates this behavior and propose changes if you want to do something about it.
Fuck Comcast and their shitty network. They should have to pay for upgrades to their crappy-ass network. Thankfully Verizon doesn't need to add caps to their network because it's all fiber and can handle the extra traffic.
Verizon is definitely not all fiber.
Take my state for example. We're not even a flyover state. They took millions in subsidies to put everyone on fiber, said it would be done within 2 years.
Out of hundreds of municipalities, they rolled out to seven. Said the others would take longer.
That's like complaining you hate your government and then complain you can't drive anywhere because you can't use the roads they built.
Now if you really want to complain, try living without Google, Microsoft, Apple, Linux and Amazon. Those companies are, like it or not, part of our modern life.
No it's not. Roads are public.
Private entities shouldn't control infrastructure. Privilege of that sort is always abused for rent seeking and anti-competitive behavior. Has Amazon passed that point? Probably not, but there are also problems when only a few large actors control the entire market.
It's always strange to hear people spout off about free markets, and then in the same breath be against regulation. Free markets require rules to exist at all. Free markets are defined by rules, not a lack of them.
Fix: Stop pretending infrastructure is, or can ever be, "free market". Stop allowing private wealth to extract rent from the privileged positions this misunderstanding creates. Utilities should not have any private stake in ownership.
Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant. Also, there is little standing in the way of people setting up their own alternatives to all of these platforms.
This is incorrect for Facebook - social networks are natural monopolies.
There is a less obvious natural monopoly dynamic going on with Google, too, since they utterly dominate their market.
It doesn't necessarily follow that they should be "broken up", but you got to get your theory straight.
Slashdot Mirror
impossible without controlling the international flow of capital.
It naïvely asks for moral behavior from a system that is incapable of it.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, so don't jump down my throat.
I've never heard a compelling argument against gentrification. People are displaced, the neighborhood changes... this is what happens when you allow property to be rented.
And it's such a big country, do we really need to pack more and more people into the same places?
"A dynamically generated internet" is just code for breaking the fundamental design of the web, by serving variable content for identical requests based on ephemeral server-side state.
Not quite. Either
a) You're under the impression that requests are identical. They aren't. Requests are stateful and depend on the context with which they were made.
b) You're under the delusion that a completely static internet depending on the request is a good thing. That would be fundamentally broken design in todays world. The internet isn't the black and white text crap that was featured on Slashdot last week.
Speaking of Slashdot if you now click on this link: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... you may notice a few things. You may notice that it's your user name in the top right and not mine. You may notice that you made a post. You will also notice that since you last visited that page there is additional content replying to you and calling out the absurdity of your claim. That comment was brought to you through the power of the fundamentally broken web as is your ability to reply to it.
You're presumably a developer, and yet you can't conceive of any way at all that stateless requests can work for a web application with logins and changing content? Instead of thinking about it for a second or two, you lash out and call this apparently foreign concept "delusional" and "absurd". Nice.
And you're right, Slashdot breaks the pattern with its volatile paging. I suggested a fix to this broken design years ago, back when they asked for feedback. I'd settle for them fixing the editors first, though.
No. Expiring pages were a necessity of a dynamically generated internet. What we're doing is incorporating the cached system from 10 years ago without breaking what we have now.
"A dynamically generated internet" is just code for breaking the fundamental design of the web, by serving variable content for identical requests based on ephemeral server-side state.
Every application I've reviewed that required disabling back navigation or expiring pages you just visited was seriously broken. They "worked", usually, but they weren't designed by someone who knew what they were doing.
Glad to see someone still has it.
Best done here, of course, but I can't think of a better application. Send an automated manufacturing colony up that can make more copies of itself as it extracts useful things for humans. Wait a few years, have tons and tons of resources waiting, habitats built.
Don't tell me this is beyond our current tech. It's within reach. Certainly closer than the original moon shot was fifty years ago.
"big government", and the "too much regulation".
Oh that's right, it's just code for freedom for business to do whatever it wants - not individuals.
Just look at what people do in their bedrooms. We need to control them.
Blizzard is a business that exists to make money for its investors, not to keep people employed. Employment is merely incidental. Even the games are incidental.
Look at the greater system that generates this behavior and propose changes if you want to do something about it.
Whining about the actors within it is useless.
Fuck Comcast and their shitty network. They should have to pay for upgrades to their crappy-ass network. Thankfully Verizon doesn't need to add caps to their network because it's all fiber and can handle the extra traffic.
Verizon is definitely not all fiber.
Take my state for example. We're not even a flyover state. They took millions in subsidies to put everyone on fiber, said it would be done within 2 years.
Out of hundreds of municipalities, they rolled out to seven. Said the others would take longer.
That was 20 years ago. We're all still waiting.
and that would be the one with the backup copy, which nobody knows about for obvious reasons.
That's like complaining you hate your government and then complain you can't drive anywhere because you can't use the roads they built.
Now if you really want to complain, try living without Google, Microsoft, Apple, Linux and Amazon. Those companies are, like it or not, part of our modern life.
No it's not. Roads are public.
Private entities shouldn't control infrastructure. Privilege of that sort is always abused for rent seeking and anti-competitive behavior. Has Amazon passed that point? Probably not, but there are also problems when only a few large actors control the entire market.
It's always strange to hear people spout off about free markets, and then in the same breath be against regulation. Free markets require rules to exist at all. Free markets are defined by rules, not a lack of them.
The proper response
awkwardly, as one foot went up, and the other down.
As opposed to what, a small supernova potato?
How about just "supernova"?
Nobody believes the tech is ready, but they still granted the contract.
Guess what they got in exchange for it.
Kodak hired a futurist company to envision the future of film, and they said the future was digital - so Kodak fired them.
Any well-established business will violently dismiss anything truly useful that comes out of such a creative exercise.
Nothing to see here.
without enforcement.
Fix: Stop pretending infrastructure is, or can ever be, "free market". Stop allowing private wealth to extract rent from the privileged positions this misunderstanding creates. Utilities should not have any private stake in ownership.
which doesn't involve any technology or new regulation.
These calls are made because they make money. Just have law enforcement take some of the calls and buy whatever they're selling.
Follow the money, see where it lands. Punish everyone in the transaction chain.
If I get a robocall for insurance, and they sell me insurance X, insurance X should get punished. And the call center. And everyone in between.
It's not hard.
was of some fat kid in the back seat of a car letting one rip so bad, you could see the windows vibrate.
Then they could just claim ignorance, so this is useless.
Wrong idea anyway, shareholders are the ones that should be punished.
Wipe out 15% of their stock value, then let them sue the CEO for negligence.
I trust private companies more than the govt.
The Corporation
mean ISP's can now be sued for any illegal content they deliver?
Especially since they're an "information service"?
Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant. Also, there is little standing in the way of people setting up their own alternatives to all of these platforms.
This is incorrect for Facebook - social networks are natural monopolies.
There is a less obvious natural monopoly dynamic going on with Google, too, since they utterly dominate their market.
It doesn't necessarily follow that they should be "broken up", but you got to get your theory straight.