I didnt ask him how it was a better product overall. Try reading the question before attacking it.
He hasnt answered yet. Soon I will have to assume that he can't, that it isnt actually a better product for him, that he just declares that it is.. which is the argument he was trying to refute by saying it was.
Information wants to be FREEEEEEE and this is an excellent way to *start* educating the public.
..by making the private companies of a specific targeted tech industry foot the bill? Really? Thats an excellent way?
Its like making the automobile manufacturers foot the bill to educate the public on the real and imaginary dangers of smoking (they have that lighter!)
But think about that one lucky fucker that got a cell phone with a deadly cobra in it!! Don't you want to be that lucky son of a bitch? You can increase your odds by buying TWO phones!!
One of C's great advantages is not only that it is simple and very fast, it is also very close to the hardware -- when you make local variables, structures, assignments, etc... you have a good idea what the compiler needs to do. Likewise control structures, statements and so on.
Since when did 'very close to the hardware' mean 'familiar enough with both the architecture and the compiler to predict what the compiler needs to do for a given source code'
C is only "close to the hardware" in that (A) it has pointers, and (B) its compilers can produce binaries that require no external dependencies other than that execution begins
Those qualities are not unique to C.
You've got pointers, so a good command of memory allocation issues on unpaged architectures... thats really it.
Find some other bragging point. One thats true. Like "C's abstract machine is basic enough to construct an OS that can manage memory for guest programs, as long as treating memory as flat is good enough for the architecture.".. you know, the actual reason C was created.
C is a high level language folks. Its not low level, or even mid level. You are programming for an abstract machine that has little to do with anything low level.
I will remind you both that we are not talking about legislation. We are talking about the FCC simply declaring authority by reclassifying broadband.
Obviously both the Democrats and Republicans in congress are against this. Why would they let the executive branch grab this power when it is they themselves who want the power.
The people can complain to the local government which has granted such a singular monopoly.
If the monopoly isnt by grant, then competition can and will come in if there is money to be made. If there is no money to be made, then the existing service can't be all that bad.
In most places, there IS a grant of monopoly, and THAT is the problem.
People claiming the FCC should do it are offering the best solution they see.
You, in turn, are offering no solution. In essence you're arguing for doing nothing.
Doing nothing with regards to enforcing net neutrality seems to be the best solution to me. The ISP's arent that far out of line yet, with the ones farthest out of line breaking the law to do so. Why not enforce the existing laws on man-in-the-middle sabotaging and forgery of communications?
I mean really. You want to give the FCC authority over the internet, when the existing laws arent even being enforced, laws which would should prevent the very thing that is currently a problem?
No, the onus is on those claiming the FCC should do it to show that the FCC should be the ones to do it.
'Who better' is just avoiding the question.
They are anything but pro-neutral when it comes to television broadcasting. Why would the FCC-internet be any different? Because during the grab they were pro-neutral? Really?
Just because wireless signals are invisible doesn't mean they don't have physical limits. Look at your AM and FM radio, or over-the-air TV broadcasts. There are hard limits as to how many signals can be present in the same geographical area, as there is only so much spectrum to go around. So, yeah, there really are physical limits to how many wireless providers can serve the same area. They can't all build their own towers, so you're again left with the notion of sharing them--something corporations generally don't do unless forced.
What evidence do you have that we are actually anywhere near the limits of electromagnetic transmission? All I see is that there was recently an auction for large chunks of spectrum and only big players who already had large chunks, or at least large chunks of cash (hi google!), could conceivably compete in it... and then they also had to get APPROVAL BY THE FCC first.
The wireless monopolies have been crafted by the FCC.
My problem is ignorants who would willingly give up my liberty on the mere promise to improve their internet, all the while making stupid justifications like 'democracy', 'who better', and 'monopoly'
Then why was it that the Bush FCC tried to levy half a million dollars worth of fines against CBS for accidental nudity? One of the grandparent posters stated that, and apparently believes that, it was because hardline conservatives who wanted to levy those fines.
No, I want to precedent to be that I can use the Internet in any legal way I see fit without my provider telling me what sites I can and can't view, or slowing down my access to certain sites.
Would you rather that the FCC tell you what sites you can and can't view?
How about a V-CHIP for the internet? You like that idea? A mandatory proprietary embedded chip, only bypassed illegally, and all sites on the internet must having ratings based on some arbitrary morality metric?
The V-CHIP in televisions i mandated by... THE FCC.
Surely in the age of wireless there could be no effective limit to the number of wireless providers, that "infrastructure" doesnt mean what it once did...
..and yet, the FCC is in full control of the wireless spectrum. In May they issued a report saying that wireless competition has decreased since 2003 and that thus, their new "net neutrality" rules should also apply to wireless.
Maybe instead of grabbing more power with regards to wireless, they should use their power over the airwaves to let in more alternatives. The FCC is not being altruistic here. They hold "auctions" for frequencies, allowing monopolization, and then declare that they need more power because of the monopolies.
Intermittent crashing is not a compatibility issue.
..and of course CPU's are matched with motherboards, and power supplies need to be enough, and so on. Socket (X) chips dont go into socket (Y), power supplies need the right kind of connectors for the motherboard, GPU's need to be for a slot compatible with the motherboard.. "Compatibility charts" are for people that need the help assembling a system.
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
The FCC is influenced by politics, then, right?
The FCC is a member of the executive branch, so will be influenced by whatever president is in office, right? Do you really want the precedent to be that the internet is to be ruled by a revolving door of figureheads?
Why is the post above me, which is pretty much a fucking call to censor free speech that the poster disagrees with, +insightful for an article about the FCC and net neutrality?
You do realize that the FCC is just making a power grab here, right? Like most power grabs, they start off as something the public can really get behind.
Are we better off with the FCC calling the shots? The trouble is that if they do maneuver themselves into Internet Regulator status, we will never see the alternatives.
The FCC imposes fines for broadcasting nudity, right? Even half-a-million-dollar fines for accidental nudity on live broadcasts (superbowl halftime show...) that must later be thrown out in appeals court, right?
When I was growing up, "Fuck the FCC!" was a common "rebel nerd" thing to say. The FCC arent altruists by any stretch. They are another bureaucracy of control.
Slashdot Mirror
I didnt ask him how it was a better product overall. Try reading the question before attacking it.
He hasnt answered yet. Soon I will have to assume that he can't, that it isnt actually a better product for him, that he just declares that it is.. which is the argument he was trying to refute by saying it was.
I use an iPhone and continue to use it because it is a better product for my needs than the Android.
How is it a better product? Seriously, thats what people have been asking.
Yes, and defending the person gets modded flamebait.
The complete list of things that give you cancer:
Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, brooms, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, candles, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, hot tea, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, Vatican radio masts, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.
"not having a twin", "kissing", and "under-arm shaving" are notable.
Information wants to be FREEEEEEE and this is an excellent way to *start* educating the public.
Its like making the automobile manufacturers foot the bill to educate the public on the real and imaginary dangers of smoking (they have that lighter!)
But think about that one lucky fucker that got a cell phone with a deadly cobra in it!! Don't you want to be that lucky son of a bitch? You can increase your odds by buying TWO phones!!
I know why you were modded troll. That $50CDN/month is IN ADDITION to the regular service rates.
You tried a different motherboard too?
One of C's great advantages is not only that it is simple and very fast, it is also very close to the hardware -- when you make local variables, structures, assignments, etc... you have a good idea what the compiler needs to do. Likewise control structures, statements and so on.
Since when did 'very close to the hardware' mean 'familiar enough with both the architecture and the compiler to predict what the compiler needs to do for a given source code'
.. you know, the actual reason C was created.
C is only "close to the hardware" in that (A) it has pointers, and (B) its compilers can produce binaries that require no external dependencies other than that execution begins
Those qualities are not unique to C.
You've got pointers, so a good command of memory allocation issues on unpaged architectures... thats really it.
Find some other bragging point. One thats true. Like "C's abstract machine is basic enough to construct an OS that can manage memory for guest programs, as long as treating memory as flat is good enough for the architecture."
C is a high level language folks. Its not low level, or even mid level. You are programming for an abstract machine that has little to do with anything low level.
I will remind you both that we are not talking about legislation. We are talking about the FCC simply declaring authority by reclassifying broadband.
Obviously both the Democrats and Republicans in congress are against this. Why would they let the executive branch grab this power when it is they themselves who want the power.
The people can complain to the local government which has granted such a singular monopoly.
If the monopoly isnt by grant, then competition can and will come in if there is money to be made. If there is no money to be made, then the existing service can't be all that bad.
In most places, there IS a grant of monopoly, and THAT is the problem.
People claiming the FCC should do it are offering the best solution they see.
You, in turn, are offering no solution. In essence you're arguing for doing nothing.
Doing nothing with regards to enforcing net neutrality seems to be the best solution to me. The ISP's arent that far out of line yet, with the ones farthest out of line breaking the law to do so. Why not enforce the existing laws on man-in-the-middle sabotaging and forgery of communications?
I mean really. You want to give the FCC authority over the internet, when the existing laws arent even being enforced, laws which would should prevent the very thing that is currently a problem?
No, the onus is on those claiming the FCC should do it to show that the FCC should be the ones to do it.
'Who better' is just avoiding the question.
They are anything but pro-neutral when it comes to television broadcasting. Why would the FCC-internet be any different? Because during the grab they were pro-neutral? Really?
Just because wireless signals are invisible doesn't mean they don't have physical limits. Look at your AM and FM radio, or over-the-air TV broadcasts. There are hard limits as to how many signals can be present in the same geographical area, as there is only so much spectrum to go around. So, yeah, there really are physical limits to how many wireless providers can serve the same area. They can't all build their own towers, so you're again left with the notion of sharing them--something corporations generally don't do unless forced.
What evidence do you have that we are actually anywhere near the limits of electromagnetic transmission? All I see is that there was recently an auction for large chunks of spectrum and only big players who already had large chunks, or at least large chunks of cash (hi google!), could conceivably compete in it... and then they also had to get APPROVAL BY THE FCC first.
The wireless monopolies have been crafted by the FCC.
My problem is ignorants who would willingly give up my liberty on the mere promise to improve their internet, all the while making stupid justifications like 'democracy', 'who better', and 'monopoly'
This.
A federal agency is claiming authority over something they previously had no authority over, and there absolutely was no 'democracy' in it.
Wait for it.. a Internet-V-CHIP, and ratings systems.
Then why was it that the Bush FCC tried to levy half a million dollars worth of fines against CBS for accidental nudity? One of the grandparent posters stated that, and apparently believes that, it was because hardline conservatives who wanted to levy those fines.
No, I want to precedent to be that I can use the Internet in any legal way I see fit without my provider telling me what sites I can and can't view, or slowing down my access to certain sites.
Would you rather that the FCC tell you what sites you can and can't view?
How about a V-CHIP for the internet? You like that idea? A mandatory proprietary embedded chip, only bypassed illegally, and all sites on the internet must having ratings based on some arbitrary morality metric?
The V-CHIP in televisions i mandated by... THE FCC.
Surely in the age of wireless there could be no effective limit to the number of wireless providers, that "infrastructure" doesnt mean what it once did...
..and yet, the FCC is in full control of the wireless spectrum. In May they issued a report saying that wireless competition has decreased since 2003 and that thus, their new "net neutrality" rules should also apply to wireless.
Maybe instead of grabbing more power with regards to wireless, they should use their power over the airwaves to let in more alternatives. The FCC is not being altruistic here. They hold "auctions" for frequencies, allowing monopolization, and then declare that they need more power because of the monopolies.
You're familiar with the concept of (small d) democracy, yes?
You are familiar with the idea that we do not elect presidents based on only single policies, right?
..and BTW, its a Republic.
Do you really want to choose between, say, Healthcare and Internet Neutrality?
Intermittent crashing is not a compatibility issue.
..and of course CPU's are matched with motherboards, and power supplies need to be enough, and so on. Socket (X) chips dont go into socket (Y), power supplies need the right kind of connectors for the motherboard, GPU's need to be for a slot compatible with the motherboard.. "Compatibility charts" are for people that need the help assembling a system.
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
The FCC is influenced by politics, then, right?
The FCC is a member of the executive branch, so will be influenced by whatever president is in office, right? Do you really want the precedent to be that the internet is to be ruled by a revolving door of figureheads?
The problem is that it isnt the federal government enforcing the monopolies, hell.. its not even the state governments doing it.
Its every little community preventing the build-out of alternative infrastructure.
Why is the post above me, which is pretty much a fucking call to censor free speech that the poster disagrees with, +insightful for an article about the FCC and net neutrality?
You do realize that the FCC is just making a power grab here, right? Like most power grabs, they start off as something the public can really get behind.
Are we better off with the FCC calling the shots? The trouble is that if they do maneuver themselves into Internet Regulator status, we will never see the alternatives.
The FCC imposes fines for broadcasting nudity, right? Even half-a-million-dollar fines for accidental nudity on live broadcasts (superbowl halftime show...) that must later be thrown out in appeals court, right?
When I was growing up, "Fuck the FCC!" was a common "rebel nerd" thing to say. The FCC arent altruists by any stretch. They are another bureaucracy of control.