This is all rather rich after the preaching from Oculus people about quality and deepest fears of proliferation of cheap knockoffs that suck and get everyone sick poisoning the well of public opinion.
OR's problem is the VR market is tiny, and they're getting beaten in it by their competitors. I'm guessing that they recognize that they have to take some sort of action to change that, and that they think they can't win market share if they keep going toe-to-toe on the high end.
So, then I must infer that you mean the establishment doesn't like Trump because he is a bad actor?
Yes. I think that Trump's only real concern is what is or is not good for Trump.
In fact he ran specifically opposing them openly.
I am perfectly aware of his campaign rhetoric.
None of these perspectives on Trump is true, quite the opposite.
I would seriously love to see evidence of this, but it has yet to appear.
He's not dumb or stupid, far from it.
Oh, I agree with you on this! I think the guy is very smart. Con men tend to be.
He's not acting out of self interest.
Again, some evidence would be nice.
Giving up his salary is meaningless. He did not give up control of his businesses -- his children are holding that, which keeps it firmly in his control.
the evidence shows that he actually is a patriot who wants the best for the country
What is that evidence, then?
I can say is you need to provide actual *evidence* for that view.
My evidence is literally everything he's said and done since he's entered office. Every single thing he's done that I can see is to benefit himself, his cronies, and wall street.
The last idea is that he's actually out to destroy the USA... This would be outrageously funny to suggest if folks didn't actually believe this..
I never said, and don't believe, that his intention is to destroy America. I said that he is motivated by pure self-interest, and doesn't care about the best interests of America.
Except that that asking for information that is held by a third party isn't covered under that amendment.
Asking for information is something that the government (like literally everybody else) is perfectly within their rights to do. Compelling information is something that is restricted by the Constitution -- whether its held by a third party or not.
The Constitutional distinction is this:
The government cannot conduct a search without a warrant unless they have the permission of the entity they want to search.
Let's say you have information about me and have not agreed to keep the information confidential. Let's say the government has no warrant, and I do not agree to provide the information to them. They can certainly ask you for the information, and you are free to volunteer it. But if you refuse as well, they need a warrant.
As much as the government tries to convince people otherwise, the Constitution does not cease to apply just because someone else gets information from or about you.
nobody over here on the right is saying we need to or should remove ALL regulations.
True, but it sure does look like they have a very different definition of that is "good" regulation. The Republicans seem to think that if regulation reduces the ability of companies to make a profit, that means the regulation is bad.
It does, but only indirectly, by eliminating anybody who wants to make politics a career.
Which doesn't address any of my points. Whether or not someone is a career politician is independent of whether or not they're actually working for the best interests of the nation.
By having a party of people who run for one office, serve for two terms, and never run for office again, you eliminate all of those people.
And you also eliminate people who do have the best interests of the nation at heart, and you still have a whole boatload of people who are corrupt, etc.
I think I explained it pretty well, a couple of times, in my other comments. IBM used to be top dog, the force that you couldn't escape dealing with. They are no longer that. Microsoft is top dog, the force you can't escape dealing with. They are well on their way to no longer being that.
The parallel between the two companies growth and behavior is actually very spooky, and not encompassed in my oversimplified description here. It's actually very interesting.
Of course. Let me explain the joke: the poster was giving the same oversimplified retort we always hear. However, he said it in a way that implies that a single person can actually change anything by voting. That is not true.
I will agree that both sides of the establishment don't like him because he's not part of them, and doesn't want to be part of them.
I just had to respond to this to eliminate any confusion, since your use of the word "agree" may imply that you are stating a point of agreement with me here.
We do not agree on this point. I don't think that's the reason.
When I'm faced with an action that could be attributed to either stupidity or maliciousness, my tendency is to assume that it's maliciousness. I've found that it's more often mistaken to assume it's stupidity.
He only self identifies as a republican for political convenience, but he's actually very much a democrat
Trump is no Republican, I agree, but he isn't anything like a Democrat either. Trump only cares about Trump.
He's hated by the republicans because he won without their help or approval and isn't beholden to their handlers (those who give them money and keep them in power). He's hated by the democrats simply because he won over the heir apparent.
I don't think any of this is accurate. Trump is hated by Republicans and Democrats for pretty much the same fundamental reason (although Reps and Dems might disagree on the details): he's a threat to the nation.
Then we're a hop skip and a jump away from having DRM that the consumer is unable to crack.
To a very limited extent, perhaps. There are some very large technical differences between the two cases that make this conclusion dubious. And, to the extent that it could be true, it's already true.
I'm not sure I really trust what powerful organizations can do with the perfect crypto
Then you can relax, because we don't have perfect, unbreakable crypto.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all rather rich after the preaching from Oculus people about quality and deepest fears of proliferation of cheap knockoffs that suck and get everyone sick poisoning the well of public opinion.
OR's problem is the VR market is tiny, and they're getting beaten in it by their competitors. I'm guessing that they recognize that they have to take some sort of action to change that, and that they think they can't win market share if they keep going toe-to-toe on the high end.
Is this the Monster of Monster Cables infamy?
That'll go well.
You don't seem to be listening close enough to the republicans then.
I listen very closely. But, more importantly, I also look at what they actually do, and what they propose to actually do.
Yet for you to be right, he has to be lying, lying a lot
Indeed.
nothing that justifies your judgment of the man.
We clearly disagree on this point.
I ask you to take an impassionate view of the actual facts as they unfold.
I think you meant "dispassionate". Don't worry, I am.
you asked if browsing the web works without an internet connection? Huh?
I often use a web browser on machines that have no network connections, to view locally stored pages (mostly manuals and other documentation).
Everyone's signature is chicken-scratch on those things
Mine isn't -- I just draw a straight horizontal line.
So, then I must infer that you mean the establishment doesn't like Trump because he is a bad actor?
Yes. I think that Trump's only real concern is what is or is not good for Trump.
In fact he ran specifically opposing them openly.
I am perfectly aware of his campaign rhetoric.
None of these perspectives on Trump is true, quite the opposite.
I would seriously love to see evidence of this, but it has yet to appear.
He's not dumb or stupid, far from it.
Oh, I agree with you on this! I think the guy is very smart. Con men tend to be.
He's not acting out of self interest.
Again, some evidence would be nice.
Giving up his salary is meaningless. He did not give up control of his businesses -- his children are holding that, which keeps it firmly in his control.
the evidence shows that he actually is a patriot who wants the best for the country
What is that evidence, then?
I can say is you need to provide actual *evidence* for that view.
My evidence is literally everything he's said and done since he's entered office. Every single thing he's done that I can see is to benefit himself, his cronies, and wall street.
The last idea is that he's actually out to destroy the USA... This would be outrageously funny to suggest if folks didn't actually believe this..
I never said, and don't believe, that his intention is to destroy America. I said that he is motivated by pure self-interest, and doesn't care about the best interests of America.
I think that the headline, while clearly written in a provocative way, is accurate. The government asked for the moon, and didn't get it.
Except that that asking for information that is held by a third party isn't covered under that amendment.
Asking for information is something that the government (like literally everybody else) is perfectly within their rights to do. Compelling information is something that is restricted by the Constitution -- whether its held by a third party or not.
The Constitutional distinction is this:
The government cannot conduct a search without a warrant unless they have the permission of the entity they want to search.
Let's say you have information about me and have not agreed to keep the information confidential. Let's say the government has no warrant, and I do not agree to provide the information to them. They can certainly ask you for the information, and you are free to volunteer it. But if you refuse as well, they need a warrant.
As much as the government tries to convince people otherwise, the Constitution does not cease to apply just because someone else gets information from or about you.
nobody over here on the right is saying we need to or should remove ALL regulations.
True, but it sure does look like they have a very different definition of that is "good" regulation. The Republicans seem to think that if regulation reduces the ability of companies to make a profit, that means the regulation is bad.
It does, but only indirectly, by eliminating anybody who wants to make politics a career.
Which doesn't address any of my points. Whether or not someone is a career politician is independent of whether or not they're actually working for the best interests of the nation.
By having a party of people who run for one office, serve for two terms, and never run for office again, you eliminate all of those people.
And you also eliminate people who do have the best interests of the nation at heart, and you still have a whole boatload of people who are corrupt, etc.
This is true -- but it also means that you are unfree.
I think I explained it pretty well, a couple of times, in my other comments. IBM used to be top dog, the force that you couldn't escape dealing with. They are no longer that. Microsoft is top dog, the force you can't escape dealing with. They are well on their way to no longer being that.
The parallel between the two companies growth and behavior is actually very spooky, and not encompassed in my oversimplified description here. It's actually very interesting.
Of course. Let me explain the joke: the poster was giving the same oversimplified retort we always hear. However, he said it in a way that implies that a single person can actually change anything by voting. That is not true.
But at this point I'd take evil as hell over slothful and expensive.
That's not the choice, really. Microsoft is also evil as hell.
I will agree that both sides of the establishment don't like him because he's not part of them, and doesn't want to be part of them.
I just had to respond to this to eliminate any confusion, since your use of the word "agree" may imply that you are stating a point of agreement with me here.
We do not agree on this point. I don't think that's the reason.
The nation has moved to a very precarious and dangerous place, no question.
But we've been in even more precarious and dangerous places as a nation before and managed to recover. We can do so again.
Not in a market sense. In a market sense, they are colluding (working together to maximize the amount of revenue for both teams).
Can I use it without it ever having to talk to Google's servers? If not, then it's no replacement for Android.
Finally, someone is putting this tech to a task that is both helpful and not destroying uninvolved people's privacy!
The coasts have plenty of internet options.
Specific parts of the coasts do, yes. But I live in a coastal state, and my internet options boil down to Comcast.
You could be right.
When I'm faced with an action that could be attributed to either stupidity or maliciousness, my tendency is to assume that it's maliciousness. I've found that it's more often mistaken to assume it's stupidity.
He only self identifies as a republican for political convenience, but he's actually very much a democrat
Trump is no Republican, I agree, but he isn't anything like a Democrat either. Trump only cares about Trump.
He's hated by the republicans because he won without their help or approval and isn't beholden to their handlers (those who give them money and keep them in power). He's hated by the democrats simply because he won over the heir apparent.
I don't think any of this is accurate. Trump is hated by Republicans and Democrats for pretty much the same fundamental reason (although Reps and Dems might disagree on the details): he's a threat to the nation.
Then we're a hop skip and a jump away from having DRM that the consumer is unable to crack.
To a very limited extent, perhaps. There are some very large technical differences between the two cases that make this conclusion dubious. And, to the extent that it could be true, it's already true.
I'm not sure I really trust what powerful organizations can do with the perfect crypto
Then you can relax, because we don't have perfect, unbreakable crypto.
Despite what the FCC may say, if there are only two competitors, there is no effective competition.