You can't possibly be amazed they're getting away with this. Netflix is no longer the young lovable new puppy. It's an old established dog of a corporation that too many people simply live with (and, largely, they enjoy simply flipping on the tube and watching whatever is on). Baby Boomers have a netflix button on their TV remote. Their stock price in this case isn't how happy the users are, it's how profitable and powerful the company is. This is a move that makes them more powerful at the expense of customer satisfaction. And the stock prices went up.
They're so big they didn't even feel the need to defend network neutrality and said as much. What are the ISPs going to do, NOT offer Netflix? Their user-base would revolt.
When Netflix showed up, it moved markets. People got a bunch of old shows for cheap, old IP made some money, and people cut their cable cords. YAY! Markets are moving again, but it's not looking good for the end-user. Streaming services are no longer disruptive, they're established. Or at least becoming established.
Netflix is just another bundle of channels. Some of their stuff is good. A lot is decent. Most is.... just TV.
"It was cool when you were rating other people's stuff. But now that we're making our own content, we really don't appreciate you saying it's all junk."
On an even more cynical level, they simply want to control what you watch.
Do you honestly expect anything for the corporate overlords within an hour? The sysadmins and network engineers, sure, it's literally their job and some of them are bound to believe in keeping customers informed. But corporate? And I think it's the sort of thing that takes someone with authority to fess up to. I'd throw that upstairs. Maybe it's different in an ISP company, but getting ANY sort of reply from management isn't exactly a quick process. Certainly not within an hour. If it's embarrassing to the company they'd squirm and point fingers and make you vouch three times that, yes, there's actually a problem before they admit to the customer.
It's Comcast, so fuck'em, but it kind of feels like an unreasonable expectation.
If something was up with Slashdot... how fast do you think you could get a public statement out of the corporate overlords at... oh, now it's "BizX".
All those records are great for observing. Strange you would feel the need to even mention it? I clearly agreed with you on the point when I said the models do on the whole hind cast the observed warming correctly. Predicting though, that is another beast.
Yes, and... just so we're clear: Observing the global average ToE flux... is an observation. The one with uncertainty? The one you're pinning all your hopes and dreams about justifying the American Petroleum Institute plan upon? Unless, hey, feel free to move that goalpost.
And it's not exactly a different beast entirely. Better observations and more historical data help make future predictions. If you need to slow down to 45, it helps to know if you're going 50 or 80.
Quothe the IPCC "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal".
Again, you are under the mistaken impression that we were ever in disagreement on this.
AH! Wonderful. Then there's really no basis for those bullet points put forth by the API, it's not uncertain at all that the Earth is warming, we know for sure it's going to keep warming. It's just a nefarious plan of propaganda, FUD, and character assassination set forth by a committee of megacorps. Alright, as long as we're square on that, then honestly I'm fine with whatever nuance you want to quibble over about data vs statistics vs models.
I explain shit like this to people, they call me paranoid. I show them proof, they say they don't care.
"Whoa now, you just called me paranoid over this. Like someone was out to get me. Do you really not care that people are out to get you? Why was it paranoia 2 seconds ago, but now it's a non-event?"
Privacy? They say they have nothing to hide.
"Oh yeah? Mind if I see your phone and look through your browsers history? Chat history? Call list?"
"How about your senator? Your boss? So you're a boring person, fine, no one is likely going to waste too much time going over your grocery list. But how would you feel if your boss had no privacy and everyone's salaries and performance reviews were public knowledge? How would you feel about Putin being able to listen in on the conversations of your US senator? Does privacy seem important now? They're people just like you and me. Not every US congressman is followed around by SS and shits in a bag. The world doesn't entirely revolve around you."
I've been using this line for about a decade. I wasn't really expecting the "facebook data used by Russia to influence US elections" to become a reality... But ok, it's time to accept our cyberpunk overlords. Bring in the pink mohawks and powergloves.
OH NOES! A satellite doesn't have an accurate reading when looking at Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. Now all we have to use to observe and predict global warming is thermometers, tree rings, glaciers, sea-ice levels, core samples, and historical records thereof. "Robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperatures". The correct phrase is "multiple independently produced datasets". It's not like all of global warming depends upon one satellite, or one method of measurement.
Quothe the IPCC "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal".
Now... having a precise value for global ToA flux would certainly be a nice metric to have. It'd give us a MORE accurate knowledge of how much the globe has warmed. It might even help us predict how much it's going to warm next year.
Doesn't his view of "if an idea of a society could reasonably be conceived, it's time had come" kind of contradict "He also, in communication with Russian radicals, dismissed the idea the Russia could stage a Socialist revolution [as they're not advanced enough]"? Or is that more like.... if a society doesn't balk at an idea, it's go time.
I'm still sticking to the idea of "market feudalism". A "social arrangement" of consolidated ownership whereby economic markets are dominated by a few corporations who in turn parcel out certain work to certain divisions. Sometimes literally defined by physical territory, like ISPs. Markets are inalienable, cannot be bought or entered. And the customers and consumers are bound to the corporation controlling the market. If you want Internet service in this town, you have to go through comcast. If you want packaged delivered, it's UPS or FEDEX and they collude. Likewise they have a grip on (some) employment. If you want to be a professional graphic artist, practically all the magazine companies go through... some company... I forget who she was complaining about.. There are most certainly exceptions, and plenty of markets that have competition and people could in theory start up a business. I don't think we're completely dead center in late-stage shitsville, but I think we're on our way. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's got plenty of parallels.
Thus a Capitalist revolution (from Feudalism) was necessary to establish modern productive forces and create both the wealth necessary to enable Socialism and the Communism to be born, and also to create the industrial working class, who would be humanity's saviour.
Huh, I hadn't heard that one before.
So if you assume that late-stage capitalism degrades from frontier entrepreneurship to what is essentially market feudalism where a small handful of companies control sectors of the economy and have walled themselves in with sufficient barriers to entry and regulatory capture, then is it fair to assume that Marx would argue we need a revolution to simply go BACK to captialism? Or would he argue that the wealth is there, so captialism has done it's job, so choo-choo it's socialism time?
Regardless, I'm pretty sure Peoples Dew and Peoples Doughnuts would eventually become People Dew and People Doughnuts with a side of Soylent.
Get your head out of the sand, declaring the Kyoto treaty as badly flawed is "planned character assassination"?
No no, the goal in that bullet point wasn't to refute the Kyoto treaty. There was no science there. It was explicitly to make people supporting it look "out of touch". Read it again.
you clearly left my claim untouched, that the energy imbalance is badly modelled.
Read the fucking executive summary again:
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century
The models sure as shit aren't perfect, it's not like we can predict the rainfall in a month. But they are not badly modeled.
But hey, thank you for actually doing the minimal amount of footwork to make a claim. Page 749. 8 papers had to deal with clouds. And you're not wrong, the IPCC said it themselves in the executive summary:
The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. However, the simulation of clouds in climate models has shown modest improvement relative to models available at the time of the AR4, and this has been aided by new evaluation techniques and new observations for clouds. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter. {9.2.1, 9.4.1, 9.7.2, Figures 9.5, 9.43}
This shit is hard, but it's getting better all the time. Even with that very real and very sciency factoid of uncertainty when it comes to clouds in a number of climate models, we still have a very high level of confidence (ie, it is not uncertain) that climate change models accurately show the rapid warming after 1950.
That uncertainty does lead to questions about how bad it's going to get.
Yeah, I'd agree. I think we probably hold doctors in too high of a regard. They really don't have to go to school for THAT long. And... considering that they all do, it makes every misdiagnosis, guesswork, and "Fuck it, take two aspirin and call me* in the morning" sort of treatment really unexcusable. As a group they are the ones who save lives, let the blind see, and the lame walk. Gods among men!....But that's EMTs, medics, surgeons, and research doctors. General practitioners don't work in ER or develop new drugs. And they typically don't solve the hard issues, they refer you to a specialist. They're gatekeepers to pharmacies....Not to be too hard on them, there's like a billion things that can go wrong with someone and every symptom report is like a badly written bug ticket.
Part of it that we WANT them to be powerful. We want them to be all knowing and dictators of health. The placebo effect is real and a lot larger than people think. So having faith in doctors actually DOES help.
But honestly, they're more like meat mechanics. Things go wrong, lights come on, they look up what diagnosis that leads to, and they fiddle with this or that (by telling you to do this or that). Most of the time it's just a loose belt or a low fluid. Sometimes they have to send you to a certified dealer. But come on! I'm a domestic model, why is this so fucking expensive!?
*HA, like I can call my doctor. They want an appointment two weeks out.
Because I already pointed out your argument against the title ii classification is moot as they have always and will continue to play by separate rules, with or without the classification change. Alright, I'm trying not to be mean here, but come on, read what I wrote.
abusing their position in power to make a buck
As long as it is not anti-competitive I don't care.
Any dollar they can make that their competitors CAN'T make is BY DEFINITION anti-competitive. It's money they can't COMPETE over. Work with me here, take off the blinders for a moment.
Netflix did the [same] thing as Comcast and throttle[ed] their own users to blame on ISPs for favorable legislation.
Yep. 2016. They throttled their service on cellular networks. Their excuse was "we're saving customers from cell data caps". Which is kinda bullshit unless it's advertised as such and the user can turn it off. (Which I don't think they could).
But. SO?
Do you think I'm just a stooge of Netflix over here? Hell they didn't even stand up for NN last time it was on the chopping block (as quickly as they ought to of. They explained that they're big enough not to care anymore. pft, corporate fuckers.)
Also, the FTC DID NOT open a case against Netflix. (As far as I can tell). People just repeatedly pointed out that it's not an FCC matter, and that the FTC really ought to do something. The fact that the FTC then proceeded to do jack shit is kinda damning to your argument that we can trust the FTC to protect us from this sort of network neutrality violation. Again, would you be in favor of expanding the FTC?
You have to prove anti-competitive behavior took place to have a claim
My view is that anything that breaks network neutrality is inherently anti-competitive. Do you know of any way it could be broken which wouldn't be?
Address local municipalities creating deals that favor only one provider is a better solution than reworking the entire thing from the top. That is a problem we all see and agree that can help the problem.
Agreed. (Other than the implication that "reworking the entire thing from the top" is in any way similar to tittle II classification. It's really not and that's just a low-ball dig.) But yeah, stopping that sort of exclusivity in contracts for public utilities would help.....but we ALSO want to keep network neutrality.
Expanding the legal rules from which a company works does increase the cost of entering that industry.
Except in the case of Network Neutrality, the only thing a new company has to to do comply is DON'T FUCK WITH THE PIPES! It's requires NON-action. Every potential ISP simply has to NOT be and evil dickhead with backroom deals. They comply by default. Yeah, I disagree with this one. Your only argument here is that... by allowing telecoms to fuck with the pipes they could make deals which offloads the cost from the customers to the content providers allowing for new and exciting forms of competition.....But do you think new small ISPs would be able to make those deals or would it be the big established players? This is my argument for why removing NN allows for anti-competitive practices.
(Oh, and ideally, being classified as NOT a common carrier really ought to mean the telecoms are now liable for what's going through their pipes and every artist and copyright holder can sue them for IP violations and they can get thrown in jail for kiddy porn. But it's not ideal and I'm pretty sure there's plenty of exceptions to that. Someone argued about the decency clause and title i vs ii, but it turns out there's entirely separate exceptions for this. )
Title 2 classification is nice and broad and established law that the telecoms can't get their weedly little fingers into. It was a perfect solution.
It looks like Bernie took PAC money: "PAC Contributions* $112,340 1.73%" And it's impossible to tell how much went through a superPAC because fuck you Citizens vs. United. And the same goes for all the candidates. And it's kind of impossible to stop them. What are you going to do? Sue them for advertising for you? pft.
Buuuuuuut, that kinda looks like Bernie broke his pledge.
. . . You're the one that said integrity doesn't require grandstanding and that they "could just go do it".
And now you're saying it doesn't matter if any republicans do it?...That's back-peddling.
But yeah, I agree. I had to look into it again, but superPACs don't need to contribute anything to the campaign. They can simply advertise for the candidate.
(now... if they DID want to get money to the candidate... they's simply make TWO PACs. or three. Or more. Corporations are just paper, there's an unlimited supply, effectively removing any cap)
BUT ANYWAY, yeah, Bernie took PAC money: "PAC Contributions* $112,340 1.73%" And it's impossible to tell how much went through a superPAC because fuck you Citizens vs. United. And the same goes for all the candidates. And it's kind of impossible to stop them. What are you going to do? Sue them for advertising for you? pft.
hmmm, hang on lemme poke rsilvergun and see the response.
(And all of that is different than actual real people stumping for a candidate... which I think is a good thing. )
I certainly don't do it. You want me to work overtime, you can damn well pay me.
But the common phrase around an embedded development shop in Denver is "I've already hit my 40 this week".
I stayed way late one time making up some hours and a co-worker complained that "working late doesn't make me look special when everyone does it". And yeah, the lights are usually still on at 7pm. SOMEONE is still here.
Yeah dude, which one of those bullet points DOESN'T sound nefarious to you? Because each one of those is a blatant FUD campaign. Fear, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT. ok, so not so much fear. The last bullet is literally planned character assassination.
we have... uncertainties around how much warming how much CO2 will end up causing [and] what impact that... warming will lead to
Minus all the spin, bias, and weasel words... this is true. Don't get me wrong, the current debate is:
- How bad it will be?
- What can we do about it?
The fact that these are debatable means there is uncertainty. Science is about removing uncertainty leading to better understanding. Speaking on the science of "error margins in the global energy imbalance that are GREATER than the actual imbalance driving climate change(that is directly from the IPCC", Put up or shut up. Pics or it didn't happen.
So how's our uncertainty doing? You want IPCC's views on climate models? Boom.
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century
I know your kneejerk reaction is to assume GOV'MINT BAD! and that any regulation leads to monopolies,
Apparently you are a mind reader and know who I am or what I think.
Oh sorry man, I thought that was implied, I didn't mean to... hold up....
Regulation increases the barrier to entry for competition strengthening the existing companies position.
.... yes. Yes, see that's exactly what I assumed you'd said. Thank you for... exactly showcasing my point?
Apparently you DID jerk that knee and assume that network neutrality regulation increases the barriers to entry and strengthens existing companies positions therefore leading to monopolies. You could.... you know.... read the rest of the post before reciting the mantra, but HEY! sure, let's go for it.
NN actually encourages a neutral level playing field, both on the Internet and for those providing the connection.
No, it doesn't.
Such eloquence. I gave you a pretty clear example of how the LACK of network neutrality would create an unfair playing field and lead to monopolies. You gave me... Well alright, you've got a point with the different handling between cell networks and landlines. Yeah, I never liked that disticntion either, but they've been playing different games for decades. I think it's because cable grew out of the phone line system while the cell network had to raise all those towers, so they whined harder for more free money from uncle Sam. REGARDLESS, even now with putting the telecoms back under title i, they're still playing under different rules, so your main complaint is kinda moot.
You know all those past violations of network neutrality? How many times did the FTC step in and fix it? None? That's because they deal with fraud. And as long as the terms and service state somewhere that "these terms can change", they're pretty free to do whatever they want. Nobody reads that junk.
If increasing regulation and increasing the barriers to entry is your idea of promoting competition then you are delusional.
. . . you realize that the FTC is a regulatory body as well right? You're saying they can stop anti-competitive practices. What would you say about.... increasing their funding? Encouraging them to start more cases? Expanding the sort of issues that are worth their time? It stops anti-competitive behaviour? Right? More FTC would do more of that. Are you in favor of increasing the regulation set forth by the FTC?
But no. Network neutrality stops giant players from abusing their position in power to make a buck. Enforcing that lowers the barrier to entry, levels the playing field, promotes competition, and keeps the Internet working like we all know and love. If you believe otherwise you're blinded by your party's dogma.
"IBM Watson has great AI," one engineer said, who asked to remain anonymous so he wouldn't lose his severance package. "It's like having great shoes, but not knowing how to walk -- they have to figure out how to use it." The layoffs at the end of May cut a swath through the Watson Health division.
The path to money is replacing doctors. Duh. Partner with insurance companies that PAY YOU to make doctor Watson the initial contact for their customers.
You call in, or log in and give it your symptoms, answering it's questions (Maybe sending it photos). It gives you a diagnosis, advice, a prescription, and/or refers you to a specialist or a bloodwork lab.
That means giving Watson the authority of a real doctor, that can actually DO things like diagnos and write prescriptions. And that means making it liable for fucking up. If Watson is good, then that should be viable.
This makes money for Watson and that dev team, they get paid by the insurance companies. This makes money for the insurance companies as the rate for one computer on the Internet is hella cheaper than all those general practioners. This is a general improvement for the customers as their doctor is on tap 24/7 and doesn't have a hideous co-pay.
This screws over doctors who will undoubtedly become neoluddites or further specialize.
This screws over Insurance companies that don't actually want you to make use of them. They make money off of healthy people that carry the policy just out of fear. If you actually USE the insurance, the insurance company loses money. To that extent, health insurance companies anything that makes the health-care system simpiler and easier to use. And thus we see why IBM can't appear to sell Watson.
Google has introduced a small change to Play Store apps that could significantly protect several Android users.
What the fuck is with this weaselly bullshit advertising?
This part here. This one. This is the part that you need to focus on: "your phone will run a version of Android that won't be able to install apps without it." This is the part you should be mad about. That's control. By a monolithic corporation that does not have your best interest at heart.
And the article itself is talking out of it's ass and throwing around doublespeak willy nilly. Observe:
DRM means you are being treated like a thief before you buy any software.
EA doesn't trust that we paid for the software title so it forces us to present our papers when demanded.
and every other entertainment publisher which decides where in the world you are allowed to listen to music or watch a movie that you paid for, or how many times you are allowed to do so.
Yeah, that's right, DRM is bad. Abusive. Annoying. A bad stance to have with the business-customer relationship. We're all on the same page.....And then it does some mental gymnastics and says this:
So DRM is bad to the core. But not really. DRM is simply a way for a developer or publisher to keep track of software versions and authenticity.
. . . wtf? That's EXACTLY what those examples above are doing. "Keep track of authenticity" as in "This is not an approved app, SO YOU CANNOT RUN IT". How can you possibly acknowledge the pitfalls of DRM and then immediately turn around and say Google is doing this for the right reasons? That's utter delusional fan-boy bullshit.
There is certainly potential for abuse there, but we have to wait and see if any developers get any bad ideas.
No we don't. We've been to this rodeo before. And it's NOT the developers we have teo worry about. It's Google decided to flip on the walled garden bit of disallowing people to install what applications they want.
It's like how a knife in the back certainly has potential for worry. But we'll have to wait and see if google twists it on the way out.
[gatekeepers abusing their monopoly to extort money from those they don't like]
That is what is supposed to happen. It is the right thing.
Dude, wtf?
Guaranteeing that Netflix comes in at the same speed as Comcast's own services means Comcast needs to pay for a lot more hardware and peering to route Netflix traffic onto their network to any potential user.
Otherwise known as PROVIDING INTERNET SERVICE. This is what I pay the ISP for. And why Netflixs pays THEIR ISP. We both pay to get connected to the Internet, and the Internet is supposed to be neutral with reguard to who is using it. Just because netflix is popular and people like to use the Internet should give the ISP an excuse to charge a specific company more money. And... just to be clear... The more data netflix uses, the more they pay THEIR ISP. That's normal. That's understandable. Everyone gets that. When NN does is prevent every tiny tom-dick-and-jerry middle man in between Netflix's servers and my TV from tacking on their own special netflix tax.
Also, this is double bullshit as of course Netflix has a content delivery network. Local servers so they avoid transmission costs because they want to cut down on their ISP bill. Duh.
Why would telecoms even bother "blocking little players"?
Because they're competition. Duh. And they would JUST block little players, but any competitor.
And why should I be forced to subsidize "little players" anyway?
That's cute how you swapped "create a level playing field" with "subsidize". You're adorable.
Yes, so? Why should low cost consumer plans offer high outgoing data volumes?
Because what they sold was Internet access, not JUST-EMAIL-ACCESS. And who said it was a high data volume? They blocked the protocol, not the people moving a ton of data 24/7.
AT&T fucking with VoIP to help their own business.
Don't buy from AT&T then.
Welcome to monopoly shitsville where you don't have a viable alternative.
Comcast favoring Microsoft's 360 traffic by not counting it towards data caps
Oh, the horror! People get stuff for free!
ESPN3 was paid by comcast. Where do you think that money came from? It ain't free. TANSTAFL. You paid for it. I paid for it. (No really, I did, I checked and my ISP at the time DID buy into this bullshit). Why should I subsidize sports fans?
Telecoms blocking Google Wallet.
Google is translating their massive near-monopoly into an attempt to dominate online payment systems and that justifies that I am forced to subsidize their efforts. Thanks, but no thanks.
. . . Oh. Ok. You have no idea what "subsidize" means. ok. I gave you a shot, but you're crazy. We're done here. Good luck with that being crazy thing.
Nothing about network neutrality "solidifies existing telecom market position". I know your kneejerk reaction is to assume GOV'MINT BAD! and that any regulation leads to monopolies, but NN actually encourages a neutral level playing field, both on the Internet and for those providing the connection.
Consider this: A giant telecom strong-arms netflix or skype or bitbucket into paying them extra for all that bandwidth their customers are using. More cash for the giants and either netflix and co. end up with smaller margins or they charge customers more.
Then comes along a little ISP starting up in a podunk town. YAY competition right? Do you think tiny little ISP is going to be able to extort the same money from the Internet companies? No? Then that's an unlevel playing field that benefits the big boys. It's abusing their power to make more money and stay powerful. An inheirent positive feedback loop that would normally lead to market consolidation, but I think we're already saturated to the point where anymore and anti-trust laws would kick in. Right now everyone is quietly admitted that there's a pseudo monopoly, unless you're that shit-eating Ajit Pai.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't possibly be amazed they're getting away with this. Netflix is no longer the young lovable new puppy. It's an old established dog of a corporation that too many people simply live with (and, largely, they enjoy simply flipping on the tube and watching whatever is on). Baby Boomers have a netflix button on their TV remote. Their stock price in this case isn't how happy the users are, it's how profitable and powerful the company is. This is a move that makes them more powerful at the expense of customer satisfaction. And the stock prices went up.
They're so big they didn't even feel the need to defend network neutrality and said as much. What are the ISPs going to do, NOT offer Netflix? Their user-base would revolt.
When Netflix showed up, it moved markets. People got a bunch of old shows for cheap, old IP made some money, and people cut their cable cords. YAY! Markets are moving again, but it's not looking good for the end-user. Streaming services are no longer disruptive, they're established. Or at least becoming established.
Netflix is just another bundle of channels. Some of their stuff is good. A lot is decent. Most is.... just TV.
"It was cool when you were rating other people's stuff. But now that we're making our own content, we really don't appreciate you saying it's all junk."
On an even more cynical level, they simply want to control what you watch.
Do you honestly expect anything for the corporate overlords within an hour? The sysadmins and network engineers, sure, it's literally their job and some of them are bound to believe in keeping customers informed. But corporate? And I think it's the sort of thing that takes someone with authority to fess up to. I'd throw that upstairs. Maybe it's different in an ISP company, but getting ANY sort of reply from management isn't exactly a quick process. Certainly not within an hour. If it's embarrassing to the company they'd squirm and point fingers and make you vouch three times that, yes, there's actually a problem before they admit to the customer.
It's Comcast, so fuck'em, but it kind of feels like an unreasonable expectation.
If something was up with Slashdot... how fast do you think you could get a public statement out of the corporate overlords at... oh, now it's "BizX".
All those records are great for observing. Strange you would feel the need to even mention it? I clearly agreed with you on the point when I said the models do on the whole hind cast the observed warming correctly. Predicting though, that is another beast.
Yes, and... just so we're clear: Observing the global average ToE flux... is an observation. The one with uncertainty? The one you're pinning all your hopes and dreams about justifying the American Petroleum Institute plan upon? Unless, hey, feel free to move that goalpost.
And it's not exactly a different beast entirely. Better observations and more historical data help make future predictions. If you need to slow down to 45, it helps to know if you're going 50 or 80.
Quothe the IPCC "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal".
Again, you are under the mistaken impression that we were ever in disagreement on this.
AH! Wonderful. Then there's really no basis for those bullet points put forth by the API, it's not uncertain at all that the Earth is warming, we know for sure it's going to keep warming. It's just a nefarious plan of propaganda, FUD, and character assassination set forth by a committee of megacorps. Alright, as long as we're square on that, then honestly I'm fine with whatever nuance you want to quibble over about data vs statistics vs models.
I explain shit like this to people, they call me paranoid.
I show them proof, they say they don't care.
"Whoa now, you just called me paranoid over this. Like someone was out to get me. Do you really not care that people are out to get you? Why was it paranoia 2 seconds ago, but now it's a non-event?"
Privacy? They say they have nothing to hide.
"Oh yeah? Mind if I see your phone and look through your browsers history? Chat history? Call list?"
"How about your senator? Your boss? So you're a boring person, fine, no one is likely going to waste too much time going over your grocery list. But how would you feel if your boss had no privacy and everyone's salaries and performance reviews were public knowledge? How would you feel about Putin being able to listen in on the conversations of your US senator? Does privacy seem important now? They're people just like you and me. Not every US congressman is followed around by SS and shits in a bag. The world doesn't entirely revolve around you."
I've been using this line for about a decade. I wasn't really expecting the "facebook data used by Russia to influence US elections" to become a reality... But ok, it's time to accept our cyberpunk overlords. Bring in the pink mohawks and powergloves.
OH NOES! A satellite doesn't have an accurate reading when looking at Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. Now all we have to use to observe and predict global warming is thermometers, tree rings, glaciers, sea-ice levels, core samples, and historical records thereof. "Robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperatures". The correct phrase is "multiple independently produced datasets". It's not like all of global warming depends upon one satellite, or one method of measurement.
Quothe the IPCC "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal".
Now... having a precise value for global ToA flux would certainly be a nice metric to have. It'd give us a MORE accurate knowledge of how much the globe has warmed. It might even help us predict how much it's going to warm next year.
Neat. And thanks.
Doesn't his view of "if an idea of a society could reasonably be conceived, it's time had come" kind of contradict "He also, in communication with Russian radicals, dismissed the idea the Russia could stage a Socialist revolution [as they're not advanced enough]"? Or is that more like.... if a society doesn't balk at an idea, it's go time.
I'm still sticking to the idea of "market feudalism". A "social arrangement" of consolidated ownership whereby economic markets are dominated by a few corporations who in turn parcel out certain work to certain divisions. Sometimes literally defined by physical territory, like ISPs. Markets are inalienable, cannot be bought or entered. And the customers and consumers are bound to the corporation controlling the market. If you want Internet service in this town, you have to go through comcast. If you want packaged delivered, it's UPS or FEDEX and they collude. Likewise they have a grip on (some) employment. If you want to be a professional graphic artist, practically all the magazine companies go through... some company... I forget who she was complaining about.. There are most certainly exceptions, and plenty of markets that have competition and people could in theory start up a business. I don't think we're completely dead center in late-stage shitsville, but I think we're on our way. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's got plenty of parallels.
Thus a Capitalist revolution (from Feudalism) was necessary to establish modern productive forces and create both the wealth necessary to enable Socialism and the Communism to be born, and also to create the industrial working class, who would be humanity's saviour.
Huh, I hadn't heard that one before.
So if you assume that late-stage capitalism degrades from frontier entrepreneurship to what is essentially market feudalism where a small handful of companies control sectors of the economy and have walled themselves in with sufficient barriers to entry and regulatory capture, then is it fair to assume that Marx would argue we need a revolution to simply go BACK to captialism? Or would he argue that the wealth is there, so captialism has done it's job, so choo-choo it's socialism time?
Regardless, I'm pretty sure Peoples Dew and Peoples Doughnuts would eventually become People Dew and People Doughnuts with a side of Soylent.
I understand the sunk cost fallacy angle.
But why do you assume it's old and outdated? If we got it into the air, it'd be humanity's best telescope. Even 15 years after it's initial design.
Get your head out of the sand, declaring the Kyoto treaty as badly flawed is "planned character assassination"?
No no, the goal in that bullet point wasn't to refute the Kyoto treaty. There was no science there. It was explicitly to make people supporting it look "out of touch". Read it again.
you clearly left my claim untouched, that the energy imbalance is badly modelled.
Read the fucking executive summary again:
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century
The models sure as shit aren't perfect, it's not like we can predict the rainfall in a month. But they are not badly modeled.
But hey, thank you for actually doing the minimal amount of footwork to make a claim. Page 749. 8 papers had to deal with clouds. And you're not wrong, the IPCC said it themselves in the executive summary:
The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging.
There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes
explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. However,
the simulation of clouds in climate models has shown modest improvement
relative to models available at the time of the AR4, and this has
been aided by new evaluation techniques and new observations for
clouds. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors
on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter.
{9.2.1, 9.4.1, 9.7.2, Figures 9.5, 9.43}
This shit is hard, but it's getting better all the time. Even with that very real and very sciency factoid of uncertainty when it comes to clouds in a number of climate models, we still have a very high level of confidence (ie, it is not uncertain) that climate change models accurately show the rapid warming after 1950.
That uncertainty does lead to questions about how bad it's going to get.
Yeah, I'd agree. I think we probably hold doctors in too high of a regard. They really don't have to go to school for THAT long. And... considering that they all do, it makes every misdiagnosis, guesswork, and "Fuck it, take two aspirin and call me* in the morning" sort of treatment really unexcusable. As a group they are the ones who save lives, let the blind see, and the lame walk. Gods among men! ....But that's EMTs, medics, surgeons, and research doctors. General practitioners don't work in ER or develop new drugs. And they typically don't solve the hard issues, they refer you to a specialist. They're gatekeepers to pharmacies. ...Not to be too hard on them, there's like a billion things that can go wrong with someone and every symptom report is like a badly written bug ticket.
Part of it that we WANT them to be powerful. We want them to be all knowing and dictators of health. The placebo effect is real and a lot larger than people think. So having faith in doctors actually DOES help.
But honestly, they're more like meat mechanics. Things go wrong, lights come on, they look up what diagnosis that leads to, and they fiddle with this or that (by telling you to do this or that). Most of the time it's just a loose belt or a low fluid. Sometimes they have to send you to a certified dealer. But come on! I'm a domestic model, why is this so fucking expensive!?
*HA, like I can call my doctor. They want an appointment two weeks out.
The executive summary is page #3.
oh NOES, is the poor little anonymous coward shill going to have to... READ?
No, because I pulled out the quoted text for you.
Observe people, THIS is the sort of troll that argues against climate change and supports the oil companies.
Why not argue what I say
Because I already pointed out your argument against the title ii classification is moot as they have always and will continue to play by separate rules, with or without the classification change. Alright, I'm trying not to be mean here, but come on, read what I wrote.
abusing their position in power to make a buck
As long as it is not anti-competitive I don't care.
Any dollar they can make that their competitors CAN'T make is BY DEFINITION anti-competitive. It's money they can't COMPETE over. Work with me here, take off the blinders for a moment.
Netflix did the [same] thing as Comcast and throttle[ed] their own users to blame on ISPs for favorable legislation.
Yep. 2016. They throttled their service on cellular networks. Their excuse was "we're saving customers from cell data caps". Which is kinda bullshit unless it's advertised as such and the user can turn it off. (Which I don't think they could).
But. SO?
Do you think I'm just a stooge of Netflix over here? Hell they didn't even stand up for NN last time it was on the chopping block (as quickly as they ought to of. They explained that they're big enough not to care anymore. pft, corporate fuckers.)
Also, the FTC DID NOT open a case against Netflix. (As far as I can tell). People just repeatedly pointed out that it's not an FCC matter, and that the FTC really ought to do something. The fact that the FTC then proceeded to do jack shit is kinda damning to your argument that we can trust the FTC to protect us from this sort of network neutrality violation. Again, would you be in favor of expanding the FTC?
You have to prove anti-competitive behavior took place to have a claim
My view is that anything that breaks network neutrality is inherently anti-competitive. Do you know of any way it could be broken which wouldn't be?
Address local municipalities creating deals that favor only one provider is a better solution than reworking the entire thing from the top. That is a problem we all see and agree that can help the problem.
Agreed. (Other than the implication that "reworking the entire thing from the top" is in any way similar to tittle II classification. It's really not and that's just a low-ball dig.) But yeah, stopping that sort of exclusivity in contracts for public utilities would help. ....but we ALSO want to keep network neutrality.
Expanding the legal rules from which a company works does increase the cost of entering that industry.
Except in the case of Network Neutrality, the only thing a new company has to to do comply is DON'T FUCK WITH THE PIPES! It's requires NON-action. Every potential ISP simply has to NOT be and evil dickhead with backroom deals. They comply by default. Yeah, I disagree with this one. Your only argument here is that... by allowing telecoms to fuck with the pipes they could make deals which offloads the cost from the customers to the content providers allowing for new and exciting forms of competition. ....But do you think new small ISPs would be able to make those deals or would it be the big established players? This is my argument for why removing NN allows for anti-competitive practices.
(Oh, and ideally, being classified as NOT a common carrier really ought to mean the telecoms are now liable for what's going through their pipes and every artist and copyright holder can sue them for IP violations and they can get thrown in jail for kiddy porn. But it's not ideal and I'm pretty sure there's plenty of exceptions to that. Someone argued about the decency clause and title i vs ii, but it turns out there's entirely separate exceptions for this. )
Title 2 classification is nice and broad and established law that the telecoms can't get their weedly little fingers into. It was a perfect solution.
Hey, about that.....
It looks like Bernie took PAC money: "PAC Contributions* $112,340 1.73%" And it's impossible to tell how much went through a superPAC because fuck you Citizens vs. United. And the same goes for all the candidates. And it's kind of impossible to stop them. What are you going to do? Sue them for advertising for you? pft.
Buuuuuuut, that kinda looks like Bernie broke his pledge.
Thoughts?
. . . You're the one that said integrity doesn't require grandstanding and that they "could just go do it".
And now you're saying it doesn't matter if any republicans do it? ...That's back-peddling.
But yeah, I agree. I had to look into it again, but superPACs don't need to contribute anything to the campaign. They can simply advertise for the candidate.
(now... if they DID want to get money to the candidate... they's simply make TWO PACs. or three. Or more. Corporations are just paper, there's an unlimited supply, effectively removing any cap)
BUT ANYWAY, yeah, Bernie took PAC money: "PAC Contributions* $112,340 1.73%" And it's impossible to tell how much went through a superPAC because fuck you Citizens vs. United. And the same goes for all the candidates. And it's kind of impossible to stop them. What are you going to do? Sue them for advertising for you? pft.
hmmm, hang on lemme poke rsilvergun and see the response.
(And all of that is different than actual real people stumping for a candidate... which I think is a good thing. )
Yeah, you'd think. But that's more true of physical labor rather than knowledge workers.
Still... That's a pretty obvious path to apathy when making the company millions doesn't get you a dime.
I certainly don't do it. You want me to work overtime, you can damn well pay me.
But the common phrase around an embedded development shop in Denver is "I've already hit my 40 this week".
I stayed way late one time making up some hours and a co-worker complained that "working late doesn't make me look special when everyone does it". And yeah, the lights are usually still on at 7pm. SOMEONE is still here.
Some people are just workaholics.
Yeah dude, which one of those bullet points DOESN'T sound nefarious to you? Because each one of those is a blatant FUD campaign. Fear, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT. ok, so not so much fear. The last bullet is literally planned character assassination.
we have ... uncertainties around how much warming how much CO2 will end up causing [and] what impact that ... warming will lead to
Minus all the spin, bias, and weasel words... this is true. Don't get me wrong, the current debate is:
- How bad it will be?
- What can we do about it?
The fact that these are debatable means there is uncertainty. Science is about removing uncertainty leading to better understanding. Speaking on the science of "error margins in the global energy imbalance that are GREATER than the actual imbalance driving climate change(that is directly from the IPCC", Put up or shut up. Pics or it didn't happen.
So how's our uncertainty doing? You want IPCC's views on climate models? Boom.
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century
Note that he said "IT" rather than development. Really, what kind of programmer is on call?
Switching off for a sysadmin means not responding to fires or people calling about fires.
Programmers occasionally have to deal with those big puzzles that consume their soul.
I know your kneejerk reaction is to assume GOV'MINT BAD! and that any regulation leads to monopolies,
Apparently you are a mind reader and know who I am or what I think.
Oh sorry man, I thought that was implied, I didn't mean to... hold up....
Regulation increases the barrier to entry for competition strengthening the existing companies position.
.... yes. Yes, see that's exactly what I assumed you'd said. Thank you for... exactly showcasing my point?
Apparently you DID jerk that knee and assume that network neutrality regulation increases the barriers to entry and strengthens existing companies positions therefore leading to monopolies. You could.... you know.... read the rest of the post before reciting the mantra, but HEY! sure, let's go for it.
NN actually encourages a neutral level playing field, both on the Internet and for those providing the connection.
No, it doesn't.
Such eloquence. I gave you a pretty clear example of how the LACK of network neutrality would create an unfair playing field and lead to monopolies. You gave me... Well alright, you've got a point with the different handling between cell networks and landlines. Yeah, I never liked that disticntion either, but they've been playing different games for decades. I think it's because cable grew out of the phone line system while the cell network had to raise all those towers, so they whined harder for more free money from uncle Sam. REGARDLESS, even now with putting the telecoms back under title i, they're still playing under different rules, so your main complaint is kinda moot.
You know all those past violations of network neutrality? How many times did the FTC step in and fix it? None? That's because they deal with fraud. And as long as the terms and service state somewhere that "these terms can change", they're pretty free to do whatever they want. Nobody reads that junk.
If increasing regulation and increasing the barriers to entry is your idea of promoting competition then you are delusional.
. . . you realize that the FTC is a regulatory body as well right? You're saying they can stop anti-competitive practices. What would you say about.... increasing their funding? Encouraging them to start more cases? Expanding the sort of issues that are worth their time? It stops anti-competitive behaviour? Right? More FTC would do more of that. Are you in favor of increasing the regulation set forth by the FTC?
But no. Network neutrality stops giant players from abusing their position in power to make a buck. Enforcing that lowers the barrier to entry, levels the playing field, promotes competition, and keeps the Internet working like we all know and love. If you believe otherwise you're blinded by your party's dogma.
ooooooookay.
Do you know of any republicans who "just don't accept corporate or PAC money"?
"IBM Watson has great AI," one engineer said, who asked to remain anonymous so he wouldn't lose his severance package. "It's like having great shoes, but not knowing how to walk -- they have to figure out how to use it." The layoffs at the end of May cut a swath through the Watson Health division.
The path to money is replacing doctors. Duh. Partner with insurance companies that PAY YOU to make doctor Watson the initial contact for their customers.
You call in, or log in and give it your symptoms, answering it's questions (Maybe sending it photos). It gives you a diagnosis, advice, a prescription, and/or refers you to a specialist or a bloodwork lab.
That means giving Watson the authority of a real doctor, that can actually DO things like diagnos and write prescriptions. And that means making it liable for fucking up. If Watson is good, then that should be viable.
This makes money for Watson and that dev team, they get paid by the insurance companies. This makes money for the insurance companies as the rate for one computer on the Internet is hella cheaper than all those general practioners. This is a general improvement for the customers as their doctor is on tap 24/7 and doesn't have a hideous co-pay.
This screws over doctors who will undoubtedly become neoluddites or further specialize.
This screws over Insurance companies that don't actually want you to make use of them. They make money off of healthy people that carry the policy just out of fear. If you actually USE the insurance, the insurance company loses money. To that extent, health insurance companies anything that makes the health-care system simpiler and easier to use. And thus we see why IBM can't appear to sell Watson.
Google has introduced a small change to Play Store apps that could significantly protect several Android users.
What the fuck is with this weaselly bullshit advertising?
This part here. This one. This is the part that you need to focus on: "your phone will run a version of Android that won't be able to install apps without it."
This is the part you should be mad about. That's control. By a monolithic corporation that does not have your best interest at heart.
And the article itself is talking out of it's ass and throwing around doublespeak willy nilly. Observe:
DRM means you are being treated like a thief before you buy any software.
EA doesn't trust that we paid for the software title so it forces us to present our papers when demanded.
and every other entertainment publisher which decides where in the world you are allowed to listen to music or watch a movie that you paid for, or how many times you are allowed to do so.
Yeah, that's right, DRM is bad. Abusive. Annoying. A bad stance to have with the business-customer relationship. We're all on the same page. ....And then it does some mental gymnastics and says this:
So DRM is bad to the core. But not really. DRM is simply a way for a developer or publisher to keep track of software versions and authenticity.
. . . wtf? That's EXACTLY what those examples above are doing. "Keep track of authenticity" as in "This is not an approved app, SO YOU CANNOT RUN IT". How can you possibly acknowledge the pitfalls of DRM and then immediately turn around and say Google is doing this for the right reasons? That's utter delusional fan-boy bullshit.
There is certainly potential for abuse there, but we have to wait and see if any developers get any bad ideas.
No we don't. We've been to this rodeo before. And it's NOT the developers we have teo worry about. It's Google decided to flip on the walled garden bit of disallowing people to install what applications they want.
It's like how a knife in the back certainly has potential for worry. But we'll have to wait and see if google twists it on the way out.
[gatekeepers abusing their monopoly to extort money from those they don't like]
That is what is supposed to happen. It is the right thing.
Dude, wtf?
Guaranteeing that Netflix comes in at the same speed as Comcast's own services means Comcast needs to pay for a lot more hardware and peering to route Netflix traffic onto their network to any potential user.
Otherwise known as PROVIDING INTERNET SERVICE. This is what I pay the ISP for. And why Netflixs pays THEIR ISP. We both pay to get connected to the Internet, and the Internet is supposed to be neutral with reguard to who is using it. Just because netflix is popular and people like to use the Internet should give the ISP an excuse to charge a specific company more money. And... just to be clear... The more data netflix uses, the more they pay THEIR ISP. That's normal. That's understandable. Everyone gets that. When NN does is prevent every tiny tom-dick-and-jerry middle man in between Netflix's servers and my TV from tacking on their own special netflix tax.
Also, this is double bullshit as of course Netflix has a content delivery network. Local servers so they avoid transmission costs because they want to cut down on their ISP bill. Duh.
Why would telecoms even bother "blocking little players"?
Because they're competition. Duh. And they would JUST block little players, but any competitor.
And why should I be forced to subsidize "little players" anyway?
That's cute how you swapped "create a level playing field" with "subsidize". You're adorable.
Yes, so? Why should low cost consumer plans offer high outgoing data volumes?
Because what they sold was Internet access, not JUST-EMAIL-ACCESS. And who said it was a high data volume? They blocked the protocol, not the people moving a ton of data 24/7.
AT&T fucking with VoIP to help their own business.
Don't buy from AT&T then.
Welcome to monopoly shitsville where you don't have a viable alternative.
Comcast favoring Microsoft's 360 traffic by not counting it towards data caps
Oh, the horror! People get stuff for free!
ESPN3 was paid by comcast. Where do you think that money came from? It ain't free. TANSTAFL. You paid for it. I paid for it. (No really, I did, I checked and my ISP at the time DID buy into this bullshit). Why should I subsidize sports fans?
Telecoms blocking Google Wallet.
Google is translating their massive near-monopoly into an attempt to dominate online payment systems and that justifies that I am forced to subsidize their efforts. Thanks, but no thanks.
. . . Oh. Ok. You have no idea what "subsidize" means. ok. I gave you a shot, but you're crazy. We're done here. Good luck with that being crazy thing.
Nothing about network neutrality "solidifies existing telecom market position". I know your kneejerk reaction is to assume GOV'MINT BAD! and that any regulation leads to monopolies, but NN actually encourages a neutral level playing field, both on the Internet and for those providing the connection.
Consider this: A giant telecom strong-arms netflix or skype or bitbucket into paying them extra for all that bandwidth their customers are using. More cash for the giants and either netflix and co. end up with smaller margins or they charge customers more.
Then comes along a little ISP starting up in a podunk town. YAY competition right? Do you think tiny little ISP is going to be able to extort the same money from the Internet companies? No? Then that's an unlevel playing field that benefits the big boys. It's abusing their power to make more money and stay powerful. An inheirent positive feedback loop that would normally lead to market consolidation, but I think we're already saturated to the point where anymore and anti-trust laws would kick in. Right now everyone is quietly admitted that there's a pseudo monopoly, unless you're that shit-eating Ajit Pai.