Not a good idea for everyone to just cross license as you'll likely see a duplicate of cable today with everyone having average price minimums. There aren't that many content producers and they're going to want to maximize profit by mandatory tying of unpopular/unprofitable content with that of the stuff people actually want. Maybe in the EU these practices may be stopped but here in the States, highly unlikely. Having all these competitors trying to offer their own services will force prices down as the race for the bottom starts to occur after more consumers like your self say "f**k it!" What I could see happening though is the rise of centralized pointers, or organizations that exists solely to manage not only indexing the libraries from these providers but billing, logins, and ease of access. We're already seeing Apple and Amazon attempting this on their respective set top boxes. I just hope this part of the innovation doesn't come from the incumbent tech giants. And yes, I am aware of the old is new again effect occurring with these centralized pointers, but let's just let the kids think they're doing something different.
Oooh! That's an easy one: how do you know if an advance was unwanted? Are you ugly? If so, is always unwanted. Are you considered cute by the other party? Only marginally wanted with limitations. Are you hot? Then you're always flirting and could never take things too far. Don't believe me? Look at the evidence. There only guys get called out, the hot ones walk. The only downside with being attractive is you get harassed by men, women, and everything in between. One of the best things that had ever happened to me is I got a dad bod, lost my hair, and stopped buying new clothes. I haven't been harassed in well over a year.
This is the most misguided thing I've ever heard as you've excluded the one thing needed to identify a saxophone, someone telling you it's called a saxophone in the first place. That's what the "learning" part of AI is, teaching it what to look for and what it's called in the communication verbiage of the user. Musk maybe wrong about apocalyptic doom of AI, but he is right about legislation dragging their feet until it's too late. Hell, we're still trying to get internet regulations right and we're heading on 20 years of it being available to the masses. The fact of the matter is we humans tend to be predictable, on average, and with enough samples start to follow curves very closely. Are their outliers, sure always have been, but just because AI doesn't handle the outliers as well as it does the medians and means, doesn't mean that it won't be dangerous in the wrong hands or that it won't be used to starve the masses for profit.
I didn't call you a racists because my argument is or isn't falling apart, I called you a racists solely due to your desire to not distinguish racial slurs used to cause deliberate harm to people who are biologically different and words that are used to voice your opinion of a person. You know damn well that n*igger, which is very far from the Latin root, was and is used by whites, particularly in the USA, to describe blacks that they feel are inferior to whites. It literally has nothing to do with your red herrings of "well 10 black people owned slaves" while ignoring the tens of thousands of white slave owners. You've brought back this argument "whites were slaves too" while ignoring the fact that "whites" aren't used as adjectives to describe the types of slaves enshrined into the law of the land. And Freeman were still called n*gger by whites in people, literature, campaigns, and even Presidents on record as recently as Nixon and allegedly as Trump. So, you want to scream "whaaa, he called me cracker and no one will sensor him but I can't call him a n*gger!" Then be prepared for no one to listen when you're still reaping the benefits of your, assumingly, ancestors being able to call black people, or anyone non-white, whatever they feel without persecution, discriminate against them, red line them, push them out of your neighborhoods, beat them, and even kill them without prosecution (and no, those select few that were don't make up for the vast majority that weren't). With all that being said, I still hold my argument that cracker is in fact a racial slur, but cracker can also be a food, n*gger is NEVER used for anything else but to disenfranchise a group of people that merely have more melanin than yourself. So, if you need a definition of hate speech: any perjoritive language used to attack a person on the basis of a protected attribute. You can define further what those protected attributes are, but currently they're race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, ethnic origin, and more recently sexual orientation, and gender identity. You can amend/prune the attribute list as much as you like but the definition of hate speech won't change. So in the future, if you start calling people gooblygoocks because they're gay and you disagree with that or think you're superior because you're a heterosexual, then gooblygoocks will be considered hate speech. If you need further explanation, well, then you're likely a moron.
Ok, now you're starting to grasp at straws here to justify your racism (which wasn't as obvious until this last post). So here's some context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t... this is the Confederate constitution. Notice how negros of the African race are considered property. Notice negro is used as an adjective to slave, as to point out that other races of slave weren't to allowed but the black man is OK. Now, let's jump over to the term cracker. https://www.npr.org/sections/c... This word as it turns out is of European (i.e. white) decent. It's not a term black people made up, it's a term you called yourselves centuries before African slaves hit the Americas. Now as for the middle East and other parts of Africa, these terms aren't used to describe black or white people at all. The closest you're going to get are Nigerians, but even there it's not the hard n*gger that whites use in anger to describe Africans here in the States and parts of the UK. You wanting to call people racists terms is nothing more than you attempting to exert superiority over others. I could at least give white people credit for confusion with n*gger and nigga where that hard "er" crosses that line between cute and racial slur, but that's not even the case you're trying to make. They have an argument to make as when you're not using the term everyday, they're the same to you and at least they're trying to beore culturally inclusive, but you're just being a dick.
Well, only one of those words have been used in some form or another to classify me as property, so continuing to call me that is continuing to say I'm not a fellow human but property. It's not always exactly what you say, but also includes some historical context. When speech is used to marginalize people and put them in a group that's historically been disenfranchised against both legally and illegally, then it's likely hate speech. Not saying cracker can't be used as hate speech, it's just doesn't carry much weight when it's towards the historical perpetrator. That being said, if you're a white guy that works in an organization that's predominantly black and you get called a cracker, you've likely got a case on your hand.
I think you're confusing hate speech vs. opinion. Retard (if legitimate), n*gger, cracker, and f*ggot are all targeting things people can't change about themselves. Calling someone a moron is a matter of opinion and one can likely become not a moron to the person calling them such a term, but I can't change the fact that I'm black. Hate speech is clearly the attempt to down someone and marginalize them for something they can't change.
Microsoft has and still has over 90% of the US and Global market share for desktop operating systems and is only being usurped by mobile devices from both Apple and Android, with the latter truly dominating the world. IBM's dominance was prominent until Microsoft came along and gutted them. The difference is the length of time the dominance is shorter than before as technology has been the sole disruptor.
If you look at the GM stat, GM had dominance in the US and still is King here, albeit not by much, but was never the dominant global supplier of automobiles. Prior to GM was Ford who owned nearly 100% of the market with the Model-T. GM was able to use tech advances in manufacturing to offer variety something Ford couldn't easily do. Toyota and VW expanded this more with quality improvements and Six Sigma. And while neither of them have 50%+ in an industry, the top 60% is concentrated in four companies globally, GM isn't on that list. In all cases, the automobile is homogenized to the point where for the most part, the only things that are different are size and color.
The one thing you haven't done is disprove my point that we humans flock to choice reduction over a plethora of choices, instead we got sidetracked over me giving examples to support my notions and you only looking to invalidate those examples without providing your own to support your argument. I'm not so stubborn that I won't change my view, but I would like for you to point when your premise has actually worked without people like ourselves, those that see the inherit danger with monopolies, breaking things up for the rest of the masses. From dictators to federated governments, to smartphones, to candles, we humans can't manage a ton of choices as a species. Also keep in mind, I was just making a point to the challenges to your original post that is at a +4 for a reason: people agree including myself, but we're on a different part of that bell curve that's not median. You don't need to change my view, we're on the same page, I was looking for a way to overcome the challenges of homogeneous behavior that doesn't really involve "telling" people they're wrong as that hasn't worked out to well for humans either (this thread is an example of that).
In example number one, we got industry standards in PCs and now moving that direction with mobile (ARM/LCD/Flash,etc).
#2) industry standards for decades with new standards likely going in for both autonomy and electric.
What we've done is limit real new innovation with standards and created the illusion of choice when the choices all source from the same people (e.g. Samsung, LG, Foxconn, Takata, etc.). The standards simple reduced the barrier to entry and the next wave of tech (likely AI) is already following similar suit. Not saying that standards are good or bad, just that it creates an illusion. Even social media is heading that direction with the pacts made recently by the big firms for data transportability. Once the data can be moved with ease is when you'll see more choice for to lower barriers to entry.
I think k you've just proved my point. All of these monopolies had the same model: one stop shop. All were taken to task by new innovation, but in the end we just hopped from one master to the next. What's new is how quickly this is happening vs. years of yonder, it's still happening. I'm not knocking your premise and would agree that a plethora of choices is great, especially for competition and prices, but we need to evolve first. That's one thing I can give credit to the newer generations' lower attention spans, they'll eventually keep changing so often that we'll sort of get the same thing you're proposing.
I wish I wasn't on mobile to respond to this but the fact of the matter is that we,as humans, DO NOT function this way. Centralization keeps happening again, and again, and again throughout history because our brains don't deal with a plethora of choices too well. Put more than five choices in front of us and bulk. Put too many choices, then we force industry standards, effectively reducing the choices. Find an organization that will centralize things for us, we flock to it like insects to artificial sun/moon light. Despite the fact that a few of us can handle a plethora of choices, the vast majority do not have the capacity for such a thing. In another 10,000 years? Sure. Today, not likely. You have to fix people's ability to manage a plethora of choices before you can offer a plethora of choices.
In my first year of business school in Foundations of Business, we had a game called Mike's Bikes that we used to simulate an actual business. Game included all the actual parts of the business including starting new products, investments, and financials. While it wasn't exactly Tycoon level easy, it was easy enough for Freshmen to use the basics.
You're missing the entire point (and ironically the jokes/memes). Apple not updating it's lines puts it even more behind than it already was when the products are usually released. There's that old joke that if you bought a Mac you just bought 2 year old PCs at next year's price. Apple updating the hardware each year just catches it up with all the other Windows and Linux PCs of the previous year. That's why people are pissed.
I'm just holding off hoping that Apple will update mY MBP to use third party docks or at least re-enable displaylink so I don't have to use the 20+ dongles just to get a second monitor and all of my USB A stuff to work again. I'm tired of looking at all of these PCs in my office connect all of their prereferals to their Windows laptops with one cable while I'm looking like I've tapped directly into the Matrix due to dongle hell. Before you ask, you can't just plug in ANY thunderbolt dock into macOS, it won't work with a nice message that it's unsupported. And not because it won't work, just because Apple wants to be a dick and block it so I have to use a Thunderbolt Unlocker kext just so it can partially function. DisplayLink killed off the rest of the dock's use since 10.13.4.
Someone called it on these forums a LOOOONG time ago that Apple was trying to convert Macs into iOS devices. Hell, I think Jobs was still alive when that assertion was made and with iOS apps coming to Macs (which will likely become the ONLY way you'll get new Mac software soon since the Mac app store wooed sooo many iOS developers/sarcasm), we're seeing it come to realization and soon to past.
Damn shame that we'll have to look to Google or Microsoft soon for advancement in PCs especially considering that both of them believe in this "app store" philosophy too. Sigh....
I was thinking the same thing. This is like blaming the mail man for bringing you junk mail or the phone provider for connecting a telemarketer to your phone. They're pointing the finger at the wrong people. Now if these two sold ads that were spreading misinformation then I'd agree, but you can't blame them for an algorithm that is designed to upvote popular content when we've demonstrated time and time again that the population is no longer driven or even cares about facts, just hyperbolic finger pointing.
No, because you have to encode in different bitrates in order to have a seamless playback on multitude of devices and bandwidth. Today's streaming techniques don't encode one video file in entirety but instead break the video down into multiple short videos that are stitched together by the player using a playlist. This allows the video to start almost instantly at a lower quality then seamlessly play higher qualities a few seconds later, and drop down to lower qualities when you experience congestion in the pipe. The idea is to reduce buffering, so no it isn't just one time but more like 5 times per video.
Lol, I was being facetious but this gave me another tickle. Although, if you're smart enough to know you're flushing the rules then I'd think you'd know to iptables-save before you run a script off the internet.
Did anyone actually read the actual paper? They were only able to track Firefox browsers on Linux due to the precision of the battery level outputs. Their recommendation was to limit the precision to two significant digits, something a home and Opera were already doing, and something all of them do on every other OS. So this is only applicable to that 2% of PC users running Linux desktops with their tin foil hats. For the vast majority of us, THIS DOESNT WORK!
Re:What about all the competing content sources?
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This made my day. What's funny is the lack of understanding that these companies and many stores offer more competition to consumers than ever before, and the average price is still ridiculously low. Even if you were to subscribe to every service and buy digital content from each company on a frequent basis, it would still be cheaper than shelling out $150-200/month for the same/similar level of content from cable providers. Hollywood is the only loser in this game as they're watching their home entertainment profits erode from foreign competition, indie stuff, and these companies just growing a pair and coming up with their own stuff.
Well, an efficient setup wouldn't have the municipality running the bill to your home like a lot of places do with garbage and water, but give the ISPs a single pipe they're all allowed to share to bill you. Your packets leave your house, make their way to your ISPs colo then on to the rest of the routers scattered across the net. The municipality would be responsible for keeping that pipe open to only a few customers vs. hundreds to millions. Problem with your connection? Call your ISP. Problem with your water, call your local municipality. The multiple ISPs are what will drive pricing down as they race for the bottom. You'll start out with a bunch of entrants but eventually, you'll be left with only about 3-5, but that's still more than a lot of places have. Plus, someone else can always come in and be the big hero and saviour of oppression from those 3-5.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a good idea for everyone to just cross license as you'll likely see a duplicate of cable today with everyone having average price minimums. There aren't that many content producers and they're going to want to maximize profit by mandatory tying of unpopular/unprofitable content with that of the stuff people actually want. Maybe in the EU these practices may be stopped but here in the States, highly unlikely. Having all these competitors trying to offer their own services will force prices down as the race for the bottom starts to occur after more consumers like your self say "f**k it!" What I could see happening though is the rise of centralized pointers, or organizations that exists solely to manage not only indexing the libraries from these providers but billing, logins, and ease of access. We're already seeing Apple and Amazon attempting this on their respective set top boxes. I just hope this part of the innovation doesn't come from the incumbent tech giants. And yes, I am aware of the old is new again effect occurring with these centralized pointers, but let's just let the kids think they're doing something different.
Oooh! That's an easy one: how do you know if an advance was unwanted? Are you ugly? If so, is always unwanted. Are you considered cute by the other party? Only marginally wanted with limitations. Are you hot? Then you're always flirting and could never take things too far. Don't believe me? Look at the evidence. There only guys get called out, the hot ones walk. The only downside with being attractive is you get harassed by men, women, and everything in between. One of the best things that had ever happened to me is I got a dad bod, lost my hair, and stopped buying new clothes. I haven't been harassed in well over a year.
This is the most misguided thing I've ever heard as you've excluded the one thing needed to identify a saxophone, someone telling you it's called a saxophone in the first place. That's what the "learning" part of AI is, teaching it what to look for and what it's called in the communication verbiage of the user. Musk maybe wrong about apocalyptic doom of AI, but he is right about legislation dragging their feet until it's too late. Hell, we're still trying to get internet regulations right and we're heading on 20 years of it being available to the masses. The fact of the matter is we humans tend to be predictable, on average, and with enough samples start to follow curves very closely. Are their outliers, sure always have been, but just because AI doesn't handle the outliers as well as it does the medians and means, doesn't mean that it won't be dangerous in the wrong hands or that it won't be used to starve the masses for profit.
I didn't call you a racists because my argument is or isn't falling apart, I called you a racists solely due to your desire to not distinguish racial slurs used to cause deliberate harm to people who are biologically different and words that are used to voice your opinion of a person. You know damn well that n*igger, which is very far from the Latin root, was and is used by whites, particularly in the USA, to describe blacks that they feel are inferior to whites. It literally has nothing to do with your red herrings of "well 10 black people owned slaves" while ignoring the tens of thousands of white slave owners. You've brought back this argument "whites were slaves too" while ignoring the fact that "whites" aren't used as adjectives to describe the types of slaves enshrined into the law of the land. And Freeman were still called n*gger by whites in people, literature, campaigns, and even Presidents on record as recently as Nixon and allegedly as Trump. So, you want to scream "whaaa, he called me cracker and no one will sensor him but I can't call him a n*gger!" Then be prepared for no one to listen when you're still reaping the benefits of your, assumingly, ancestors being able to call black people, or anyone non-white, whatever they feel without persecution, discriminate against them, red line them, push them out of your neighborhoods, beat them, and even kill them without prosecution (and no, those select few that were don't make up for the vast majority that weren't). With all that being said, I still hold my argument that cracker is in fact a racial slur, but cracker can also be a food, n*gger is NEVER used for anything else but to disenfranchise a group of people that merely have more melanin than yourself. So, if you need a definition of hate speech: any perjoritive language used to attack a person on the basis of a protected attribute. You can define further what those protected attributes are, but currently they're race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, ethnic origin, and more recently sexual orientation, and gender identity. You can amend/prune the attribute list as much as you like but the definition of hate speech won't change. So in the future, if you start calling people gooblygoocks because they're gay and you disagree with that or think you're superior because you're a heterosexual, then gooblygoocks will be considered hate speech. If you need further explanation, well, then you're likely a moron.
Ok, now you're starting to grasp at straws here to justify your racism (which wasn't as obvious until this last post). So here's some context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t... this is the Confederate constitution. Notice how negros of the African race are considered property. Notice negro is used as an adjective to slave, as to point out that other races of slave weren't to allowed but the black man is OK. Now, let's jump over to the term cracker. https://www.npr.org/sections/c... This word as it turns out is of European (i.e. white) decent. It's not a term black people made up, it's a term you called yourselves centuries before African slaves hit the Americas. Now as for the middle East and other parts of Africa, these terms aren't used to describe black or white people at all. The closest you're going to get are Nigerians, but even there it's not the hard n*gger that whites use in anger to describe Africans here in the States and parts of the UK. You wanting to call people racists terms is nothing more than you attempting to exert superiority over others. I could at least give white people credit for confusion with n*gger and nigga where that hard "er" crosses that line between cute and racial slur, but that's not even the case you're trying to make. They have an argument to make as when you're not using the term everyday, they're the same to you and at least they're trying to beore culturally inclusive, but you're just being a dick.
Well, only one of those words have been used in some form or another to classify me as property, so continuing to call me that is continuing to say I'm not a fellow human but property. It's not always exactly what you say, but also includes some historical context. When speech is used to marginalize people and put them in a group that's historically been disenfranchised against both legally and illegally, then it's likely hate speech. Not saying cracker can't be used as hate speech, it's just doesn't carry much weight when it's towards the historical perpetrator. That being said, if you're a white guy that works in an organization that's predominantly black and you get called a cracker, you've likely got a case on your hand.
I think you're confusing hate speech vs. opinion. Retard (if legitimate), n*gger, cracker, and f*ggot are all targeting things people can't change about themselves. Calling someone a moron is a matter of opinion and one can likely become not a moron to the person calling them such a term, but I can't change the fact that I'm black. Hate speech is clearly the attempt to down someone and marginalize them for something they can't change.
Microsoft has and still has over 90% of the US and Global market share for desktop operating systems and is only being usurped by mobile devices from both Apple and Android, with the latter truly dominating the world. IBM's dominance was prominent until Microsoft came along and gutted them. The difference is the length of time the dominance is shorter than before as technology has been the sole disruptor.
If you look at the GM stat, GM had dominance in the US and still is King here, albeit not by much, but was never the dominant global supplier of automobiles. Prior to GM was Ford who owned nearly 100% of the market with the Model-T. GM was able to use tech advances in manufacturing to offer variety something Ford couldn't easily do. Toyota and VW expanded this more with quality improvements and Six Sigma. And while neither of them have 50%+ in an industry, the top 60% is concentrated in four companies globally, GM isn't on that list. In all cases, the automobile is homogenized to the point where for the most part, the only things that are different are size and color.
The one thing you haven't done is disprove my point that we humans flock to choice reduction over a plethora of choices, instead we got sidetracked over me giving examples to support my notions and you only looking to invalidate those examples without providing your own to support your argument. I'm not so stubborn that I won't change my view, but I would like for you to point when your premise has actually worked without people like ourselves, those that see the inherit danger with monopolies, breaking things up for the rest of the masses. From dictators to federated governments, to smartphones, to candles, we humans can't manage a ton of choices as a species. Also keep in mind, I was just making a point to the challenges to your original post that is at a +4 for a reason: people agree including myself, but we're on a different part of that bell curve that's not median. You don't need to change my view, we're on the same page, I was looking for a way to overcome the challenges of homogeneous behavior that doesn't really involve "telling" people they're wrong as that hasn't worked out to well for humans either (this thread is an example of that).
Just to make a point about IBM and GM:
IBM-->Microsoft-->Apple(US),Google(World)
Ford-->GM(US)-->Toyota/VW(World)
In example number one, we got industry standards in PCs and now moving that direction with mobile (ARM/LCD/Flash,etc).
#2) industry standards for decades with new standards likely going in for both autonomy and electric.
What we've done is limit real new innovation with standards and created the illusion of choice when the choices all source from the same people (e.g. Samsung, LG, Foxconn, Takata, etc.). The standards simple reduced the barrier to entry and the next wave of tech (likely AI) is already following similar suit. Not saying that standards are good or bad, just that it creates an illusion. Even social media is heading that direction with the pacts made recently by the big firms for data transportability. Once the data can be moved with ease is when you'll see more choice for to lower barriers to entry.
As for the rest of your post, ditto.
I think k you've just proved my point. All of these monopolies had the same model: one stop shop. All were taken to task by new innovation, but in the end we just hopped from one master to the next. What's new is how quickly this is happening vs. years of yonder, it's still happening. I'm not knocking your premise and would agree that a plethora of choices is great, especially for competition and prices, but we need to evolve first. That's one thing I can give credit to the newer generations' lower attention spans, they'll eventually keep changing so often that we'll sort of get the same thing you're proposing.
I wish I wasn't on mobile to respond to this but the fact of the matter is that we,as humans, DO NOT function this way. Centralization keeps happening again, and again, and again throughout history because our brains don't deal with a plethora of choices too well. Put more than five choices in front of us and bulk. Put too many choices, then we force industry standards, effectively reducing the choices. Find an organization that will centralize things for us, we flock to it like insects to artificial sun/moon light. Despite the fact that a few of us can handle a plethora of choices, the vast majority do not have the capacity for such a thing. In another 10,000 years? Sure. Today, not likely. You have to fix people's ability to manage a plethora of choices before you can offer a plethora of choices.
In my first year of business school in Foundations of Business, we had a game called Mike's Bikes that we used to simulate an actual business. Game included all the actual parts of the business including starting new products, investments, and financials. While it wasn't exactly Tycoon level easy, it was easy enough for Freshmen to use the basics.
https://www.smartsims.com/busi...
You're missing the entire point (and ironically the jokes/memes). Apple not updating it's lines puts it even more behind than it already was when the products are usually released. There's that old joke that if you bought a Mac you just bought 2 year old PCs at next year's price. Apple updating the hardware each year just catches it up with all the other Windows and Linux PCs of the previous year. That's why people are pissed.
I'm just holding off hoping that Apple will update mY MBP to use third party docks or at least re-enable displaylink so I don't have to use the 20+ dongles just to get a second monitor and all of my USB A stuff to work again. I'm tired of looking at all of these PCs in my office connect all of their prereferals to their Windows laptops with one cable while I'm looking like I've tapped directly into the Matrix due to dongle hell. Before you ask, you can't just plug in ANY thunderbolt dock into macOS, it won't work with a nice message that it's unsupported. And not because it won't work, just because Apple wants to be a dick and block it so I have to use a Thunderbolt Unlocker kext just so it can partially function. DisplayLink killed off the rest of the dock's use since 10.13.4.
Someone called it on these forums a LOOOONG time ago that Apple was trying to convert Macs into iOS devices. Hell, I think Jobs was still alive when that assertion was made and with iOS apps coming to Macs (which will likely become the ONLY way you'll get new Mac software soon since the Mac app store wooed sooo many iOS developers /sarcasm), we're seeing it come to realization and soon to past.
Damn shame that we'll have to look to Google or Microsoft soon for advancement in PCs especially considering that both of them believe in this "app store" philosophy too. Sigh....
I was thinking the same thing. This is like blaming the mail man for bringing you junk mail or the phone provider for connecting a telemarketer to your phone. They're pointing the finger at the wrong people. Now if these two sold ads that were spreading misinformation then I'd agree, but you can't blame them for an algorithm that is designed to upvote popular content when we've demonstrated time and time again that the population is no longer driven or even cares about facts, just hyperbolic finger pointing.
No, because you have to encode in different bitrates in order to have a seamless playback on multitude of devices and bandwidth. Today's streaming techniques don't encode one video file in entirety but instead break the video down into multiple short videos that are stitched together by the player using a playlist. This allows the video to start almost instantly at a lower quality then seamlessly play higher qualities a few seconds later, and drop down to lower qualities when you experience congestion in the pipe. The idea is to reduce buffering, so no it isn't just one time but more like 5 times per video.
Lol, I was being facetious but this gave me another tickle. Although, if you're smart enough to know you're flushing the rules then I'd think you'd know to iptables-save before you run a script off the internet.
What if you're on Windows? Also ( iptables -F), you just flushed all of my goddamn rules, you jerk! I was better off just not going to Facebook.
Netflix allows you to pay in more ways than your CC (e.g. PayPal & gift cards).
Well, Slashdot, your slashvertisements have hit a new low. Going to have to add the entire root domain to ABP now.
Hey, don't bring me into this conversation. I'm here to read the comments, not be called out in them.
Did anyone actually read the actual paper? They were only able to track Firefox browsers on Linux due to the precision of the battery level outputs. Their recommendation was to limit the precision to two significant digits, something a home and Opera were already doing, and something all of them do on every other OS. So this is only applicable to that 2% of PC users running Linux desktops with their tin foil hats. For the vast majority of us, THIS DOESNT WORK!
This made my day. What's funny is the lack of understanding that these companies and many stores offer more competition to consumers than ever before, and the average price is still ridiculously low. Even if you were to subscribe to every service and buy digital content from each company on a frequent basis, it would still be cheaper than shelling out $150-200/month for the same/similar level of content from cable providers. Hollywood is the only loser in this game as they're watching their home entertainment profits erode from foreign competition, indie stuff, and these companies just growing a pair and coming up with their own stuff.
Not always true, here's an example of a lawsuit caused by sampling a song in India for an R&B and rap song.
http://www.mtv.com/news/145767...
Well, an efficient setup wouldn't have the municipality running the bill to your home like a lot of places do with garbage and water, but give the ISPs a single pipe they're all allowed to share to bill you. Your packets leave your house, make their way to your ISPs colo then on to the rest of the routers scattered across the net. The municipality would be responsible for keeping that pipe open to only a few customers vs. hundreds to millions. Problem with your connection? Call your ISP. Problem with your water, call your local municipality. The multiple ISPs are what will drive pricing down as they race for the bottom. You'll start out with a bunch of entrants but eventually, you'll be left with only about 3-5, but that's still more than a lot of places have. Plus, someone else can always come in and be the big hero and saviour of oppression from those 3-5.