Strip your bullshit JS code and deliver the content rather than the ads. Until you do, no header will improve performance or "user experience".
Let's face it, no user gives a shit just how quickly you serve your ads. He wants the content, and guess what you don't give half a shit about how fast he gets it.
Show me ONE browser application that works well without any kind of readjustments on those systems and where adjusting it is less work than do a batch-compile for all of them.
Same problem as with spam. One in a million clicks on the shit, but since the price to send is zero, if that millionth's idiot hands you 10 bucks, it's getting 10 bucks with zero effort.
How about not trying to cram any and all applications into a fucking browser? Not every problem is a nail, try to find a new tool, your hammer isn't going to cut it. Literally.
US interference advocates for democracy, transparency, anti-corruption, and a free press. This is good for you, and for your country.
Is that so? Well, let's see what US interference got some countries.
There is for example Augusto Pinochet, the veritable epitome of freedom and democracy. That the CIA installed him after eliminating Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of the country, shouldn't faze you. That Allende must have been some kind of Commie for sure.
Maybe Manuel Noriega? Yes, believe it or not, that once was our buddy. Before he tried to actually think for himself, then the US quickly removed him. But calling the op to get rid of him "Operation Just Cause" was... you know, there's irony and then there is mockery.
No, now I got it. Ferdinand Marcos. Now here's a poster child for transparency, freedom of press, democracy and most of all anti-corruption!
And I guess I don't have to introduce him, do I? Originally hired to take our toys away from that Ayatollah after that towelhead had the audacity to kick our friend Reza in the butt, he eventually became our butt to kick himself.
Now that I think of it, that does happen to a lot of our "friends"...
The example was to show that it is possible to make your enemy depend on your money and that creating a financial dependence leads to them being easy to topple. How does Putin come into play anyway, you are aware that the US is currently neither fighting Russia nor any country in the former East Bloc, yes?
Where did I demand this? I only question whether the F35 is where money for military equipment should be spent. I didn't say disarm, I said buy stuff that you can actually use.
Fear and pain. And the combination, being afraid to die after catching a bullet.
Real life combat is not a milsim. One is business, the other is fun. And you notice the difference VERY quickly. No matter how "professional" you want to pull it off. People are WAY braver and WAY more collected when their ass isn't on the line.
People who get shot scream. That's maybe the worst thing missing here, and you cannot simulate this. Yes, you can make the character model scream, but who gives a fuck about some generic voice acted scream? Hearing the scream of pain and fear in the voice of your buddy is what breaks it. And you can't fake that, nobody is that good an actor. People who get shot in a milsim are not afraid that they are going to die. They might die, all right, in the sim. Who gives a shit about dying in a sim? People who get shot and survive that shot are going to scream. No matter how brave they are on the outside. Everyone screams. And everyone is afraid of dying.
And that affects you.
You cannot simulate this. But I guess if you could, people would probably quit that line of work in greater numbers.
Saying that anyone playing a MilSim would gladly go out and shoot everyone in sight is bullshit. There is a huge difference between treating a virtual "wounded soldier" and a person that got really hit by enemy fire.
One of them make you puke the first time you do it. I leave it to your imagination which one it might be.
And the difference is what now? If you get unlimited data to $content_provider_A and not even the option to pay for it for $content_provider_B, which one will you use?
Imagine you could get Netflix on an unmetered link but any content you get from Amazon Prime counts against your contingent. So which one will you get?
Only on a level playing field new players can join, increasing competition and offering the experience of a truly free market. Anyone opposing net neutrality necessarily opposes a free market.
Slashdot Mirror
Strip your bullshit JS code and deliver the content rather than the ads. Until you do, no header will improve performance or "user experience".
Let's face it, no user gives a shit just how quickly you serve your ads. He wants the content, and guess what you don't give half a shit about how fast he gets it.
Show me ONE browser application that works well without any kind of readjustments on those systems and where adjusting it is less work than do a batch-compile for all of them.
Millions, billions, does it matter?
Same problem as with spam. One in a million clicks on the shit, but since the price to send is zero, if that millionth's idiot hands you 10 bucks, it's getting 10 bucks with zero effort.
How about not trying to cram any and all applications into a fucking browser? Not every problem is a nail, try to find a new tool, your hammer isn't going to cut it. Literally.
Easy. We have to slap people for trying to touch the wiggly throbbing bouncy controls, too.
US interference advocates for democracy, transparency, anti-corruption, and a free press. This is good for you, and for your country.
Is that so? Well, let's see what US interference got some countries.
There is for example Augusto Pinochet, the veritable epitome of freedom and democracy. That the CIA installed him after eliminating Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of the country, shouldn't faze you. That Allende must have been some kind of Commie for sure.
Or how about Shah Reza Pahlevi, who was installed after some idiot dared to nationalize the oil fields in Persia. Old Reza put our oil back into our hands ("our" being us westeners, of course) and in return we gave him the fourth largest army on the planet. He was a bit of a despot, though, but that's secondary.
Maybe Manuel Noriega? Yes, believe it or not, that once was our buddy. Before he tried to actually think for himself, then the US quickly removed him. But calling the op to get rid of him "Operation Just Cause" was ... you know, there's irony and then there is mockery.
No, now I got it. Ferdinand Marcos. Now here's a poster child for transparency, freedom of press, democracy and most of all anti-corruption!
And I guess I don't have to introduce him, do I? Originally hired to take our toys away from that Ayatollah after that towelhead had the audacity to kick our friend Reza in the butt, he eventually became our butt to kick himself.
Now that I think of it, that does happen to a lot of our "friends"...
They're probably the leading cause of death in quite a few areas of the planet.
No, not even close. Heart disease and stroke are still number one and two.
Worldwide, yes. But not in a few areas. Somehow, I doubt that too many people die of strokes in Afghanistan. Strikes, yes, but not strokes.
The example was to show that it is possible to make your enemy depend on your money and that creating a financial dependence leads to them being easy to topple. How does Putin come into play anyway, you are aware that the US is currently neither fighting Russia nor any country in the former East Bloc, yes?
Where did I demand this? I only question whether the F35 is where money for military equipment should be spent. I didn't say disarm, I said buy stuff that you can actually use.
The title is IT security researcher&consultant and the company I work for deals with security in the financial sector.
Fear and pain. And the combination, being afraid to die after catching a bullet.
Real life combat is not a milsim. One is business, the other is fun. And you notice the difference VERY quickly. No matter how "professional" you want to pull it off. People are WAY braver and WAY more collected when their ass isn't on the line.
People who get shot scream. That's maybe the worst thing missing here, and you cannot simulate this. Yes, you can make the character model scream, but who gives a fuck about some generic voice acted scream? Hearing the scream of pain and fear in the voice of your buddy is what breaks it. And you can't fake that, nobody is that good an actor. People who get shot in a milsim are not afraid that they are going to die. They might die, all right, in the sim. Who gives a shit about dying in a sim? People who get shot and survive that shot are going to scream. No matter how brave they are on the outside. Everyone screams. And everyone is afraid of dying.
And that affects you.
You cannot simulate this. But I guess if you could, people would probably quit that line of work in greater numbers.
I heard one guy managed to pull it off, but even for him it took 3 days and they said he was a god.
I'd guess they start with only recruiting people who are already pros at the basics.
What should we do about it?
Saying that anyone playing a MilSim would gladly go out and shoot everyone in sight is bullshit. There is a huge difference between treating a virtual "wounded soldier" and a person that got really hit by enemy fire.
One of them make you puke the first time you do it. I leave it to your imagination which one it might be.
I honestly wonder how many would actually stop playing when they realize this. And how many would redouble their effort because now it's MORE fun.
Last time I checked the USA is pretty much "keeping its guard up". They're probably the leading cause of death in quite a few areas of the planet.
Wasn't Soldier of Fortune a bit like that?
The F35 as an A10 replacement? Care to elaborate how to pull that off?
Come out of the 90s, will ya?
I bet you dollars for pennies, whenever an initial strike is to be called in the future, you'll see drones fly, not planes.
So... whoever can beat up whom is right?
Odd way of arguing.
Putin might have, but Putin wasn't president in 1990.
If that's an option to you, you're one of the lucky few.
Not yet. It's still being worked on. And fought tooth and nail by, well, you guessed who.
And the difference is what now? If you get unlimited data to $content_provider_A and not even the option to pay for it for $content_provider_B, which one will you use?
Imagine you could get Netflix on an unmetered link but any content you get from Amazon Prime counts against your contingent. So which one will you get?
Only on a level playing field new players can join, increasing competition and offering the experience of a truly free market. Anyone opposing net neutrality necessarily opposes a free market.