Sorry, got too used to what's happening on the political scene. Complaining hasn't done a damn thing there. And youtube still dominates despite the well publicized chronic problems. Is inertia really that powerful? When looking at the numbers, most of the complaining looks more like theater. The follow through is absent. Decade after decade, the same people are still running the show, more popular than ever.
The thing is that youtube is still the most convenient outlet for monetizing the cat videos. There isn't really much more to read into it. I don't expect anything more than noise until somebody else becomes more convenient. The headline says it best. "Google isn't the company that we should have handed the web over to." Is that proper grammar?
None of the other streaming services which permit user upload have a significant percentage of eyeballs.
Not youtube's fault. If there's a problem, people need to find/create a solution. I don't know, maybe complaining gets better results. Certainly is easier.
No, something happened to youtube. A few months ago, maybe a year, it started loading much slower. But in Chrome, better than ever. Google is doing what Microsoft used to do with Internet Explorer that got them in trouble. But instead of regulating Google, we need to just abandon them... Oh! I forgot! The money! Oh well...
I can hear the rest of you "But but, you break the internet"
But why would anybody say that if you're only protecting your private LAN? I mean, you're not asking the ISPs to white-list specific IP ranges, are you? That would break the internet, and the ISPs don't need any more help in that department.
It wasn't stupid. It was astute. It was a (maybe unwitting) call to restore net neutrality by showing what will happen without it. Again, we must demand they be put under common carrier rules, and that there be no priority in any particular content. We can do our own filtering, thank you.
Sounds like you *talk to the animals*, but I never said you have to hire bad workers, You're just expected to treat all people humanely regardless of their economic worth, if you want to be considered something other than a sociopathic animal looking for a fast buck.
Were the CEOs of the 18th and 19th centuries as careless with their coke and opium as they are today? Or... was it murder?? What did he know? And when did he know it? Where were YOU last night?
Yeah, but it's not very good for their eyes. And you can't argue against the brain's need for a wider range of input, lest some parts atrophy or are taken over by other functions.
:-) Your appeal to authority precedes you. Regulating the ISP as a common carrier will solve most of the problems. They have no business prioritizing content over the internet. That's like telling you who you can call on the phone.
Wrong, common carrier (A neutral net) allows anybody to host anything. They are there to sell bandwidth, if they want to sell content, that's fine too, they just can't prioritize or block anything. That would be like allowing an advertiser to interrupt a phone call to sell you some life insurance. Give the service provider a switch, not a router. You filter the content at your end.
Slashdot Mirror
There's little to no chance.
Then it's up to all us to make the chance. The whole flock can turn on a dime. Inertia is personal too.
Sorry, got too used to what's happening on the political scene. Complaining hasn't done a damn thing there. And youtube still dominates despite the well publicized chronic problems. Is inertia really that powerful? When looking at the numbers, most of the complaining looks more like theater. The follow through is absent. Decade after decade, the same people are still running the show, more popular than ever.
The thing is that youtube is still the most convenient outlet for monetizing the cat videos. There isn't really much more to read into it. I don't expect anything more than noise until somebody else becomes more convenient. The headline says it best. "Google isn't the company that we should have handed the web over to." Is that proper grammar?
None of the other streaming services which permit user upload have a significant percentage of eyeballs.
Not youtube's fault. If there's a problem, people need to find/create a solution. I don't know, maybe complaining gets better results. Certainly is easier.
Aren't there alternatives to youtube?
those who are better at managing their resources* are the ones that own the government. Why would steal from themselves?
* Is that what you call people who practice predatory lending and usury these days? Who's 'stealing' from whom?
Yes. The people that elected the state that caused the problem is going fix it by reelecting them again and again. That's the ticket.
There...
Shouldn't we just have more babies?
No, something happened to youtube. A few months ago, maybe a year, it started loading much slower. But in Chrome, better than ever. Google is doing what Microsoft used to do with Internet Explorer that got them in trouble. But instead of regulating Google, we need to just abandon them... Oh! I forgot! The money! Oh well...
I can hear the rest of you "But but, you break the internet"
But why would anybody say that if you're only protecting your private LAN? I mean, you're not asking the ISPs to white-list specific IP ranges, are you? That would break the internet, and the ISPs don't need any more help in that department.
the law is poorly written.
Depends who you ask. But you are right. What they did was and still is not prohibited by the law.
Maybe they did it to remind people why a neutral net is important.
If I had a choice of ISPs
That's the rub, isn't it?
It wasn't stupid. It was astute. It was a (maybe unwitting) call to restore net neutrality by showing what will happen without it. Again, we must demand they be put under common carrier rules, and that there be no priority in any particular content. We can do our own filtering, thank you.
I'm not 'society'.
Like it or not, yes, you are... until you cease to interact and leave. You're are not in isolation.
This whole discussion started with 'if you want useful work, hire someone with a history of doing useful work'.
No, that's where you started. I started by saying you need poverty to get people to wipe your ass for you. You took it another direction.
Removing the headphone jack, that's patent infringement, right?
Well you're right. If you don't sell your soul, you're pretty much fucked in this world.
Sounds like you *talk to the animals*, but I never said you have to hire bad workers, You're just expected to treat all people humanely regardless of their economic worth, if you want to be considered something other than a sociopathic animal looking for a fast buck.
Yeah, I think those people are weird. I'm scared to even mix beer and chocolate.
Were the CEOs of the 18th and 19th centuries as careless with their coke and opium as they are today? Or... was it murder?? What did he know? And when did he know it? Where were YOU last night?
:-) Ah yes, fuck the poor!
"Without poor people, who will do the work?"
Our economic systems requires poverty to function. In order to fix one, you gotta toss the other.
Yeah, but it's not very good for their eyes. And you can't argue against the brain's need for a wider range of input, lest some parts atrophy or are taken over by other functions.
:-) Your appeal to authority precedes you. Regulating the ISP as a common carrier will solve most of the problems. They have no business prioritizing content over the internet. That's like telling you who you can call on the phone.
Wrong, common carrier (A neutral net) allows anybody to host anything. They are there to sell bandwidth, if they want to sell content, that's fine too, they just can't prioritize or block anything. That would be like allowing an advertiser to interrupt a phone call to sell you some life insurance. Give the service provider a switch, not a router. You filter the content at your end.
Two little words: common carrier