C is almost ML because almost all features of the langage can be directly translated into a few assembly instructions.
Behold the backward belief system of some of the "C is low level" crowd.
A language is low level if almost all of the features of the hardware can be directly translated into the language. See, you've got it backwards. You want it to be the other way around, but when its the way you want then its trivial to get to the argument that BASIC is low level too.
Another segment of the "C is low level" crowd focuses on pointers. You are all wrong. Was paying attention when the language was invented. Always understood to be a high level language until the snobs came.
Start using a democratic system where every vote is equal, it's called Proportional Representation and works very well.
Thats fine for House elections, not so fine for Senate elections. The House represents the People but the Senate is supposed to represent the States. We should go back to appointing Senators rather than electing them.
What the EU court has set in motion here leads, eventually, to either a Great Firewall of Europe, or the EU getting to perform global censorship against everyone. Neither outcome seems plausible, so, what next?
Why do you think that neither outcome is plausible? Did you also think that It wasnt plausible for the U.S. government to go around seizing domain names? What do you think now that they do it? Did they totally get away with it because of your short attention span?
Maybe you didnt think it plausible that the U.K. would have set up a firewall? What do you think now that they have one? did you already forget that they have one? Did they totally get away with it because of your short attention span?
There is no reason to believe that the E.U. setting up a firewall is not plausible. There is every reason to believe that its plausible, and good reason to believe that its inevitable.
. It was too expensive to build out the infrastructure w/o a guaranteed profit
Complete bullshit, multiple levels of ignorance.
First level: It was not too expensive to build out the infrastructure without guaranteed profits because there are plenty of fucking places that didnt grant guaranteed profits but still got cable companies that wanted in You are basically lying right now. You are saying something thats not true in order to justify an argument that doesnt have true justifications that you can easily sell to us.
Second level: Businesses that have guaranteed profits are not part of the free market. They are part of the very thing you appear to be arguing against, but somehow amazingly you dont see the problem with actually using the thing you should despise as a justification for your argument. You are basically saying that businesses should have guaranteed profits, and that we better get the god damed federal government involved to make their monopoly a federal level institution rather than just a local one, and make sure that it guarantees them profits for ever.
What the fuck is wrong with you people. The problem is the monopoly. The monopoly is created in your local government. They gave it to these companies. The federal government isnt the solution. The solution is that instead of complaining on slashdot about how apathetic you are about local politics, you stop being so fucking apathetic about local politics.
I don't care who does it. It just has to be done, and if somebody has to step because the locals won't handle it, all the better.
Going to be rude here because you deserve it. You are the fucking locals.
What you are saying is that you wont fucking handle it, so someone else better handle it for you, and you dont care one bit who gets hurt in the process of you not handling your own shit.
You mean the solution isnt to ask the federal government to solve our specifically local problems that were created by local politicians that were enabled by the fact that we don't get involved in our own local politics?
AT&T did not buy everything back up. In fact, AT&T lost it all. AT&T is gone.
It was the baby bells that merged, most aggressive was Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) which picked up the completely failing AT&T in 2005 and took over its name.
Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare
Only implemented twice... once in Massachusetts which leans extremely left, and then upon the nation as a whole when the left controlled house, senate, AND whitehouse.
You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
When you measure "productivity" as the amount of legislation passed, then the most foul suppressive police state regimes of the world are the most productive.
Perhaps you shoudnt be blowing this particular horn. The people in office certainly know better.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are voting for evil on purpose.
And that makes you a willing supporter of evil. Your intent is to do harm. Your intent is more evil.
There are zero valid excuses for this. Either you proudly say that you wanted more evil, or you are trying to fool people (and maybe even yourself) with an excuse.
If you live in a Democratic-leaning precinct and you're in a union
Sure, because unions are based on the premise of free association instead of government enforced mandate.
Do you think that I have a choice to be in the union that I am in? You clearly think that. I'll keep this in mind if you ever try to defend unions, that this guy doesnt even know the first thing about how unions work. Not even the first thing.
Your view of reality is based on the notion that if you arent very comfortable then you arent a member of the middle class. Thats not how middle class is defined.
Neither extreme of the socio-economic strata. The middle class. The ones that continue to vote for themselves more government benefits and services than they pay for at the expense the rich, the poor, and when its neither of those then its at the expense of future adults... children and all the people that havent even been born yet.
You can't dream your way out of this. Follow the money. They are even adding foodstamps to the list of things required to appease them. At the expense of the rich and the poor. Thats the middle class.
And who do you think tells the politicians what to do?
For the most part, the middle class.
The middle class benefits from both the taxation of the rich and the taxation on the poor. This isn't because the middle class isnt calling most of the shots. They call most of the shots.
If you make the middle class angry then you will not survive reelection. The politicians vilify both the rich and the poor because thats the tune that satisfies their middle class electorate.
As the OP asked, why shouldn't licensees return unused spectrum to the actual owners
If the choice was to keep the license for the spectrum and pretend to need it, or magnanimously give up the license for no benefit, they would do the first not the second.
I dont understand why you willingly and intentionally refuse to understand this.
No. This is basic economics - when you make a product, you don't charge the consumer what it costs + x%, you charge what the market will bear. The primary control on the price of an item is the amount that the consumer is willing to pay for it.
Amazing how the anonymous simpletons neglect to deal with actual business economics but instead want to focus on some simplistic price model (that doesnt even include the basics.. supply, demand, and competition)
The idea that Apple would not in any way change its business practices if its profit margins change is laughably ludicrous. Only someone looking to justify their position with horseshit would ever believe otherwise. Picking theories first and then searched for shallow justifications is not rational. Stop doing it.
I don't want it either, primarily because it ends up with poor people paying a higher percentage of their income in tax. You can make adjustments for necessities, like food and gas, but that tends to make it so the middle class is paying the highest percentage of their income in tax.
You seem to be missing the point that corporate taxes are already the exact "regressive" you are worried about. Businesses pass their expenses, such as taxes, along to their customers even when their customers are poor.
There are several differences. For instance those in the know can pretend that corporate taxes are not regressive taxes that effect poor people the most, while shallow slogan-chanting ignorant sheep have no clue that corporate taxes are regressive taxes that effect poor people the most.
End all indirect taxes, including corporate taxes.
So if an ISP becomes a teir one or tier 2 provider up stream that gives them the right to bottle neck their customers and create toll roads that would never have been there?
If you dont like it, set up your own transit network and see how swell it is to increase your transit networks capacity in order to meet the needs of another transit networks profits.
I'm sure you are OK with being my networks transit bitch while I dominate the market with the lowest prices that I can offer because I get settlement free peering with a complete morons transit network.
On the internet, you cannot tell. You seem to be missing this key fact. If you make the receiver pay instead of the sender, I will set up a network tomorrow and send shit towards your network all day and night, and then when you refuse to pay the bill I send you I will file a lawsuit and send notice to your credit agencies. While you are busy deciding if its worth fighting me in court or not, I'll be speaking to the press telling them what a deadbeat you are for not paying your bandwidth bill.
Whats that? The way you imagine things requires honest actors? Yeah.. thats the point... thats why its not set up that way. its set up to that the sender pays so that it doesnt matter if they are honest or not.
That is NOT how it has worked for decades. Sure there have been paid agreements, UPSTREAM, but not with ISPs, whose customers generate ALL the traffic.
ISP's have traditionally purchased transit. The idea that ISP's have commonly gotten settlement free peering is laughable because it is quite uncommon for an ISP to do any peering at all. The ISP's that do have peering agreements are tier 2 or tier 1, and there are only a few dozen of those each in the entire world. These so called ISP's are transit networks that happen to also be providers.
Transit networks have always had to be paid for asymmetric flow. Settlement free only lasts so long as the ratio to and fro isnt far from balanced.
Netflix's current ISP is Level 3. Back in the days when Cogent was Netflix's ISP, Level 3 ended their settlement free agreement, disconnected from Cogent, and demanded money because Cogent had a very imbalanced ratio with them. Now that Level 3 is Netflix's ISP, they pretend that ratios don't matter. Bullshit.
Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.
Most last mile providers are tier 3 networks and purchase transit. Thats not "settlement free."
Even Comcast which is tier 2 purchase their primary transit from Tata. They don't get a free ride because they can't do the transit.
Verizon is tier 1. They dont buy transit. They do transit. You dont get to dump many times as much data on another transit network as they dump on yours without consequences. You cannot argue around this because this is the way it is, the way its been, and the way it will continue to be. The burden is on the sender because thats the only way it makes sense to do it. The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it. A lot of people bring up the idea that netflix users "requested" the data. The internet maintains no concept of "requested." Packets are pushed through the network, not pulled.
Netflix's old ISP was Cogent. Remember the issues between Cogent and Level3 back in 2005? Netflix's current ISP, Level 3, didnt want Cogent to get a free ride and shut down the interlinks, but now that Level3 is netflix's ISP they suddenly are all for free rides with everybody? Really?
There is the way you want things to work, and the way they actually work. There is good reason for the way things actually work.
The scandal here is not the peering, but rather the fact that instead of being mutual (each side foots its own half of the bill), the ISP's are using their customers as leverage to get paid for it.
No, the scandal here is that the asymmetric arrangement isnt presented honestly, like you didnt do right here.
Settlement free peering has never existed when one side sends significantly more traffic than the other side. Period. Its not something that happens. You can call it extortion if you want, never the less thats not how the business operates now or has ever operated in the past.
In this case the peering agreement need to be asymmetric (one side pays the other) because the bandwidth simply isnt even close to symmetric, but Level 3 (the ISP Netflix uses) does not want to pay the difference. Level 3 approached Netflix with a sweetheart deal, got their business, but now don't want to pay other backbones for the consequences of being Netflix's ISP.
Now given that Netflix itself is saving money because Level 3 isnt charging them a traditional price for the amount of bandwidth that they push, and Level 3 gets away with this by not paying other backbone providers a traditional price for such asymmetric peering, then it only seems natural that Neflix takes that money they are saving using their cheapskate ISP and uses some of it to route around the issues that choosing a cheapskate ISP has caused them.
Slashdot Mirror
C is almost ML because almost all features of the langage can be directly translated into a few assembly instructions.
Behold the backward belief system of some of the "C is low level" crowd.
A language is low level if almost all of the features of the hardware can be directly translated into the language. See, you've got it backwards. You want it to be the other way around, but when its the way you want then its trivial to get to the argument that BASIC is low level too.
Another segment of the "C is low level" crowd focuses on pointers. You are all wrong. Was paying attention when the language was invented. Always understood to be a high level language until the snobs came.
Start using a democratic system where every vote is equal, it's called Proportional Representation and works very well.
Thats fine for House elections, not so fine for Senate elections. The House represents the People but the Senate is supposed to represent the States. We should go back to appointing Senators rather than electing them.
What the EU court has set in motion here leads, eventually, to either a Great Firewall of Europe, or the EU getting to perform global censorship against everyone. Neither outcome seems plausible, so, what next?
Why do you think that neither outcome is plausible? Did you also think that It wasnt plausible for the U.S. government to go around seizing domain names? What do you think now that they do it? Did they totally get away with it because of your short attention span?
Maybe you didnt think it plausible that the U.K. would have set up a firewall? What do you think now that they have one? did you already forget that they have one? Did they totally get away with it because of your short attention span?
There is no reason to believe that the E.U. setting up a firewall is not plausible. There is every reason to believe that its plausible, and good reason to believe that its inevitable.
. It was too expensive to build out the infrastructure w/o a guaranteed profit
Complete bullshit, multiple levels of ignorance.
First level: It was not too expensive to build out the infrastructure without guaranteed profits because there are plenty of fucking places that didnt grant guaranteed profits but still got cable companies that wanted in You are basically lying right now. You are saying something thats not true in order to justify an argument that doesnt have true justifications that you can easily sell to us.
Second level: Businesses that have guaranteed profits are not part of the free market. They are part of the very thing you appear to be arguing against, but somehow amazingly you dont see the problem with actually using the thing you should despise as a justification for your argument. You are basically saying that businesses should have guaranteed profits, and that we better get the god damed federal government involved to make their monopoly a federal level institution rather than just a local one, and make sure that it guarantees them profits for ever.
What the fuck is wrong with you people. The problem is the monopoly. The monopoly is created in your local government. They gave it to these companies. The federal government isnt the solution. The solution is that instead of complaining on slashdot about how apathetic you are about local politics, you stop being so fucking apathetic about local politics.
I don't care who does it. It just has to be done, and if somebody has to step because the locals won't handle it, all the better.
Going to be rude here because you deserve it. You are the fucking locals.
What you are saying is that you wont fucking handle it, so someone else better handle it for you, and you dont care one bit who gets hurt in the process of you not handling your own shit.
You mean the solution isnt to ask the federal government to solve our specifically local problems that were created by local politicians that were enabled by the fact that we don't get involved in our own local politics?
sigh...
AT&T did not buy everything back up. In fact, AT&T lost it all. AT&T is gone.
It was the baby bells that merged, most aggressive was Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) which picked up the completely failing AT&T in 2005 and took over its name.
AT&T is dead. Long live AT&T.
...regulation of every fucking aspect of our lives except border ingress.
Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare
Only implemented twice ... once in Massachusetts which leans extremely left, and then upon the nation as a whole when the left controlled house, senate, AND whitehouse.
You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
A conservative government wouldnt do that.
When you measure "productivity" as the amount of legislation passed, then the most foul suppressive police state regimes of the world are the most productive.
Perhaps you shoudnt be blowing this particular horn. The people in office certainly know better.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are voting for evil on purpose.
And that makes you a willing supporter of evil. Your intent is to do harm. Your intent is more evil.
There are zero valid excuses for this. Either you proudly say that you wanted more evil, or you are trying to fool people (and maybe even yourself) with an excuse.
Interesting - according to this here [nolo.com], employers have to give you time off to vote.
Time off is personal time.
The OP seems to be complaining that they arent getting paid to vote. Apparently being paid to vote isnt a big flashing red alarm.
and none of the candidates who lost to "none of the above" may run for that office in the next election for it.
How about: if none of the above wins, then none of the candidates that lost to none of the above may ever hold any public office ever again.
If you live in a Democratic-leaning precinct and you're in a union
Sure, because unions are based on the premise of free association instead of government enforced mandate.
Do you think that I have a choice to be in the union that I am in? You clearly think that. I'll keep this in mind if you ever try to defend unions, that this guy doesnt even know the first thing about how unions work. Not even the first thing.
Your view of reality is based on the notion that if you arent very comfortable then you arent a member of the middle class. Thats not how middle class is defined.
Neither extreme of the socio-economic strata. The middle class. The ones that continue to vote for themselves more government benefits and services than they pay for at the expense the rich, the poor, and when its neither of those then its at the expense of future adults... children and all the people that havent even been born yet.
You can't dream your way out of this. Follow the money. They are even adding foodstamps to the list of things required to appease them. At the expense of the rich and the poor. Thats the middle class.
And who do you think tells the politicians what to do?
For the most part, the middle class.
The middle class benefits from both the taxation of the rich and the taxation on the poor. This isn't because the middle class isnt calling most of the shots. They call most of the shots.
If you make the middle class angry then you will not survive reelection. The politicians vilify both the rich and the poor because thats the tune that satisfies their middle class electorate.
As the OP asked, why shouldn't licensees return unused spectrum to the actual owners
If the choice was to keep the license for the spectrum and pretend to need it, or magnanimously give up the license for no benefit, they would do the first not the second.
I dont understand why you willingly and intentionally refuse to understand this.
What do you do though when they've legislated that cars not bought in the state or that are on some blacklist can't get registered?
You start shooting politicians until the problem is solved.
No. This is basic economics - when you make a product, you don't charge the consumer what it costs + x%, you charge what the market will bear. The primary control on the price of an item is the amount that the consumer is willing to pay for it.
Amazing how the anonymous simpletons neglect to deal with actual business economics but instead want to focus on some simplistic price model (that doesnt even include the basics .. supply, demand, and competition)
The idea that Apple would not in any way change its business practices if its profit margins change is laughably ludicrous. Only someone looking to justify their position with horseshit would ever believe otherwise. Picking theories first and then searched for shallow justifications is not rational. Stop doing it.
I don't want it either, primarily because it ends up with poor people paying a higher percentage of their income in tax. You can make adjustments for necessities, like food and gas, but that tends to make it so the middle class is paying the highest percentage of their income in tax.
You seem to be missing the point that corporate taxes are already the exact "regressive" you are worried about. Businesses pass their expenses, such as taxes, along to their customers even when their customers are poor.
There are several differences. For instance those in the know can pretend that corporate taxes are not regressive taxes that effect poor people the most, while shallow slogan-chanting ignorant sheep have no clue that corporate taxes are regressive taxes that effect poor people the most.
End all indirect taxes, including corporate taxes.
So if an ISP becomes a teir one or tier 2 provider up stream that gives them the right to bottle neck their customers and create toll roads that would never have been there?
If you dont like it, set up your own transit network and see how swell it is to increase your transit networks capacity in order to meet the needs of another transit networks profits.
I'm sure you are OK with being my networks transit bitch while I dominate the market with the lowest prices that I can offer because I get settlement free peering with a complete morons transit network.
They DID request it and they DID want it
On the internet, you cannot tell. You seem to be missing this key fact. If you make the receiver pay instead of the sender, I will set up a network tomorrow and send shit towards your network all day and night, and then when you refuse to pay the bill I send you I will file a lawsuit and send notice to your credit agencies. While you are busy deciding if its worth fighting me in court or not, I'll be speaking to the press telling them what a deadbeat you are for not paying your bandwidth bill.
Whats that? The way you imagine things requires honest actors? Yeah.. thats the point... thats why its not set up that way. its set up to that the sender pays so that it doesnt matter if they are honest or not.
That is NOT how it has worked for decades. Sure there have been paid agreements, UPSTREAM, but not with ISPs, whose customers generate ALL the traffic.
ISP's have traditionally purchased transit. The idea that ISP's have commonly gotten settlement free peering is laughable because it is quite uncommon for an ISP to do any peering at all. The ISP's that do have peering agreements are tier 2 or tier 1, and there are only a few dozen of those each in the entire world. These so called ISP's are transit networks that happen to also be providers.
Transit networks have always had to be paid for asymmetric flow. Settlement free only lasts so long as the ratio to and fro isnt far from balanced.
Netflix's current ISP is Level 3. Back in the days when Cogent was Netflix's ISP, Level 3 ended their settlement free agreement, disconnected from Cogent, and demanded money because Cogent had a very imbalanced ratio with them. Now that Level 3 is Netflix's ISP, they pretend that ratios don't matter. Bullshit.
Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.
Most last mile providers are tier 3 networks and purchase transit. Thats not "settlement free."
Even Comcast which is tier 2 purchase their primary transit from Tata. They don't get a free ride because they can't do the transit.
Verizon is tier 1. They dont buy transit. They do transit. You dont get to dump many times as much data on another transit network as they dump on yours without consequences. You cannot argue around this because this is the way it is, the way its been, and the way it will continue to be. The burden is on the sender because thats the only way it makes sense to do it. The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it. A lot of people bring up the idea that netflix users "requested" the data. The internet maintains no concept of "requested." Packets are pushed through the network, not pulled.
Netflix's old ISP was Cogent. Remember the issues between Cogent and Level3 back in 2005? Netflix's current ISP, Level 3, didnt want Cogent to get a free ride and shut down the interlinks, but now that Level3 is netflix's ISP they suddenly are all for free rides with everybody? Really?
There is the way you want things to work, and the way they actually work. There is good reason for the way things actually work.
The scandal here is not the peering, but rather the fact that instead of being mutual (each side foots its own half of the bill), the ISP's are using their customers as leverage to get paid for it.
No, the scandal here is that the asymmetric arrangement isnt presented honestly, like you didnt do right here.
Settlement free peering has never existed when one side sends significantly more traffic than the other side. Period. Its not something that happens. You can call it extortion if you want, never the less thats not how the business operates now or has ever operated in the past.
In this case the peering agreement need to be asymmetric (one side pays the other) because the bandwidth simply isnt even close to symmetric, but Level 3 (the ISP Netflix uses) does not want to pay the difference. Level 3 approached Netflix with a sweetheart deal, got their business, but now don't want to pay other backbones for the consequences of being Netflix's ISP.
Now given that Netflix itself is saving money because Level 3 isnt charging them a traditional price for the amount of bandwidth that they push, and Level 3 gets away with this by not paying other backbone providers a traditional price for such asymmetric peering, then it only seems natural that Neflix takes that money they are saving using their cheapskate ISP and uses some of it to route around the issues that choosing a cheapskate ISP has caused them.
Decisions have consequences.