"Free" healthcare. Sure. "Free." You pay a fee for an ambulance, you pay hospital fees for some things, and the medication you need ends up not being covered by the "all medications for people under 25 are free" program that the lying, idiot Wynne government puts in place. Then on top of that, you'really paying outrageous taxes for everything, and needed surgeries can take literally years to schedge. I'd rather pay premiums for a system that works, TYVM.
You're missing one fact: Corporations are also arrogant. Nobody foresees their own downfall. Google, CloudFlare, et al don't want to have to pay Comcast millions of dollars that will keep competition out, because they don't think anybody can compete with them anyway. That's why the content providers are protesting the removal of net neutrality.
They may be right. Net neutrality will certainly keep them innovating, because if they don't, they could be surpassed in the market. But lack of net neutrality isn't something they want, either, because it will cost them money.
You're either completely clueless, or intentionally stupid. If it's the first, I'll explain it to help you out:
Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc, are not the target of net neutrality legislation. They are content providers, that provide or host the content that you view on the Internet. Comcast, Verizon, etc are Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They are the target of net neutrality legislation. They provide your connection to the Internet, not the content that you view on the Internet. Think of it as the difference between the road, and your grocery store. You get groceries (content) from the grocery store (content provider), and use the road (ISP) to get to the grocery store.
The issue is that with net neutrality, Comcast has to provide their customers equal access to both Google and MyNextGenSearchEngine.com. This means if Google gets slow and sloppy and stops innovating, then MyNextGenSearchEngine.com can come in with a better idea and start taking market share from Google, by providing a better product.
Without net neutrality, Comcast can say to Google "Give us $1 million dollars a year to get access to our customers." and Google will be able to pay it. When Comcast then goes to MyNextGenSearchEngine.com, which is run by two university grad students out of their garage, they can't afford $1 million, so Comcast blocks or degrades their site performance. When Comcast customers then go to MyNextGenSearchEngine.com, they either get nothing at all, or a very slow site. Comcast customers will then favour Google, even though MyNextGenSearchEngine.com may be a much better search experience, solely because Google had the money to pay to Comcast.
Keep in mind, Comcast is already being paid by their own customers for Internet access, so the possibility is that they will be charging the customer for access, to the Internet, then charging Google for access to the customer. Google already pays for their own Internet access, but they'll also be paying ISPs that they do not use directly, just so that ISPs customers are able to access Google.
Going back to the grocery store example: If the roads were privately owned, then the road owners could ask for what amounts to basically protection money from the grocery stores, or the road going to their store would be torn up and under construction for months or years, with only a single lane in and out. The big stores would be able to pay this money, but a new specialty grocery store wouldn't, so no customers would be able to drive to their store.
It basically entrenches the big players, not allowing the smaller, less financially powerful startups to get a foothold.
Of course, because left-wingers, like all these Hollywood directors and actors being accused of sexual harassment, are all paragons of virtue.
</sarcasm>
For crying out loud, how much evidence do you need before you finally figure out that it's not right or left wing that's the problem. It's the powerful and elite that like to screw over everybody, regardless of political leanings. Don't give the powerful more power. If you don't regret it right away, you're setting a precedent that you will regret eventually.
Well, if Net Neutrality disappears, then the tiny forum website that allows people who are gay men for 6 days a week, but identify as lesbiantranspostandrogynousmiscellanouswhydoihaveapenis on Tuedays to chat with others like them might not be reachable, so the 2 people who qualify for this in the entirety of Canada would be horribly oppressed.
No, the ideas that Google and Facebook censor are those nasty, independent though, backed up by disgusting facts right wing ideas, so Trudeau doesn't care about them.
The computer in question was running Kapersky antivirus software, which logs when it discovers viruses and malware.
But apparently doesn't actually delete or quarantine those malicious files, because they claim that they blocked the malware communication until the end user turned Kaspersky off. So, they detected it, and blocked the symptoms, but didn't bother to remove the infection.
Sounds like a pretty good reason not to run Kaspersky, to me.....
Strangely enough, I've run CCleaner for years, on probably hundreds of different systems, and never had it break something by deleting something it shouldn't. Most system cleaners/optimizers are crap, but CCleaner is one of the only ones that I actually trust(ed).
That's interesting, so the kid who can only communicate through a sip & puff connected to a laptop is better off without a laptop in the classroom? Oh that's an exception? What about the kid with a processing speed deficit who performs their work 3 times faster on a laptop? Another exception?
Of course there are exceptions. But when you're talking about requiring a computer for communication with classmates and the instructor due to some physical challenge, then that obviously doesn't fall into "being distracted by YouTube fidget spinner videos during class."
What about a well run classroom where the teachers is supervising what the children are doing, the same way as my teachers called me out when I was doodling at my desk instead of getting my work done?
I'm pretty sure TFS quote (from the first line, for crying out loud. You didn't even need to read the entire summary!): " in fact students would be better off leaving their laptops in the dorm during class" means that we're not talking about children, here. I don't know any elementary or high schools that have dorms, so we're looking at college/university level for this study. I don't know any college/university profs that supervise what their students are doing during class. They give the lecture, and if you haven't learned to pay attention and prioritize your own work habits by the time you've graduated high school, tough luck for you.
Like most things involving humans, sweeping conclusionary statements about the educational process are myopic and ill advised, because educational methods should be shaped to the PEOPLE involved. What works for one teacher/student/class will not work for another teacher/student/class combination. That's why teachers are professionals, the same way as IT professionals are, they shape their approach to the situation at hand. (and before someone makes a disparaging remark about teachers, allow me to point out we all know IT people who should be in another profession too)
Min
Also, like most things involving humans, people who don't read and understand the information they're given are usually ill prepared to comment on said information. Similar to the YouTube-surfing students in this study, actually. I'd have expected more from someone with such a low UID.
stored on my primary computer's hard drive. In order to steal them, someone has to come to my house and steal my computer.
All someone has to do is gain remote access to your computer and they have access to your documents. Could happen through a Javascript exploit. Yikes!
No kidding. You'd think someone posting on a site like slashdot would be more familiar with technology than to assume that the only way to steal documents on a hard drive is to physically steal the computer...
No, APK doesn't do a hosts file program. APK did a hosts file program. There's a difference. And, while I haven't polled everybody here, I haven't yet had a conversation with anybody who likes and uses APK's program. I, for one, have never even tried it, due to the sheer amount of obnoxious, irrelevant spewage that shows up every time someone posts that APK is a <fill in insult of choice, here>.
Now, the fact that you're an AC, and supporting APK, leads me to strongly believe that you are in fact APK, posting as an astroturf supporter of yourself.
I'm not sure you should. I search Google for "phones", and the first ad that comes up is a refurb iPhone 6 from Telus. In fact, there are 6 ads: 3 of them for various iPhone products, and 3 for Samsung Galaxy products. Then, the organic listings are for various carriers, plus the big box stores that sell phones. Nowhere on the entire first page do I see the word "pixel." For "watches" I see ads for "Call It Spring" (WTF kind of name is that for a watch company?), Timex, Ashford, Rosefield. Organic listings again are department stores, some big box stores, and a couple of traditional manufacturer listings. No Google watches on the entire first page. "Smoke detector" gives me a similar result: Ads for Kidde, First Alert, and organic listings for Home Depot, Consumer Reports, the wikipedia article on smoke detectors, and others. Although this page does list Nest, it's not in an ad, and it's not until the 7th organic listing: an ArsTechnica article called "Life with the Nest Protect: Are “smart” smoke detectors a dumb idea?"
That doesn't sound like Google promoting their products at all.
Maybe it's stores in the NYC area that are buying ads trying to sell this shit to the area yuppies and millennials that just have to buy the next big thing, and have more money than brains. But then, the WSJ might just not understand how the Internet, Google, and geolocating works, and manages to completely screw up their reporting as a result, like happens too frequently with traditional media companies...
Slashdot Mirror
"Free" healthcare. Sure. "Free." You pay a fee for an ambulance, you pay hospital fees for some things, and the medication you need ends up not being covered by the "all medications for people under 25 are free" program that the lying, idiot Wynne government puts in place.
Then on top of that, you'really paying outrageous taxes for everything, and needed surgeries can take literally years to schedge.
I'd rather pay premiums for a system that works, TYVM.
Hey, it''s another fact-free liberal.....
https://pics.me.me/communism-h...
But, but...Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!
Virtually all virus scanners automatically quarantine files, which removes them from their original location, and sometimes encrypts them.
If you think that's unacceptable, then I guess you need to change the settings for anything you run.
You're missing one fact: Corporations are also arrogant. Nobody foresees their own downfall.
Google, CloudFlare, et al don't want to have to pay Comcast millions of dollars that will keep competition out, because they don't think anybody can compete with them anyway. That's why the content providers are protesting the removal of net neutrality.
They may be right. Net neutrality will certainly keep them innovating, because if they don't, they could be surpassed in the market. But lack of net neutrality isn't something they want, either, because it will cost them money.
You're either completely clueless, or intentionally stupid. If it's the first, I'll explain it to help you out:
Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc, are not the target of net neutrality legislation. They are content providers, that provide or host the content that you view on the Internet.
Comcast, Verizon, etc are Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They are the target of net neutrality legislation. They provide your connection to the Internet, not the content that you view on the Internet.
Think of it as the difference between the road, and your grocery store. You get groceries (content) from the grocery store (content provider), and use the road (ISP) to get to the grocery store.
The issue is that with net neutrality, Comcast has to provide their customers equal access to both Google and MyNextGenSearchEngine.com. This means if Google gets slow and sloppy and stops innovating, then MyNextGenSearchEngine.com can come in with a better idea and start taking market share from Google, by providing a better product.
Without net neutrality, Comcast can say to Google "Give us $1 million dollars a year to get access to our customers." and Google will be able to pay it. When Comcast then goes to MyNextGenSearchEngine.com, which is run by two university grad students out of their garage, they can't afford $1 million, so Comcast blocks or degrades their site performance.
When Comcast customers then go to MyNextGenSearchEngine.com, they either get nothing at all, or a very slow site. Comcast customers will then favour Google, even though MyNextGenSearchEngine.com may be a much better search experience, solely because Google had the money to pay to Comcast.
Keep in mind, Comcast is already being paid by their own customers for Internet access, so the possibility is that they will be charging the customer for access, to the Internet, then charging Google for access to the customer. Google already pays for their own Internet access, but they'll also be paying ISPs that they do not use directly, just so that ISPs customers are able to access Google.
Going back to the grocery store example: If the roads were privately owned, then the road owners could ask for what amounts to basically protection money from the grocery stores, or the road going to their store would be torn up and under construction for months or years, with only a single lane in and out. The big stores would be able to pay this money, but a new specialty grocery store wouldn't, so no customers would be able to drive to their store.
It basically entrenches the big players, not allowing the smaller, less financially powerful startups to get a foothold.
Of course, because left-wingers, like all these Hollywood directors and actors being accused of sexual harassment, are all paragons of virtue.
</sarcasm>
For crying out loud, how much evidence do you need before you finally figure out that it's not right or left wing that's the problem. It's the powerful and elite that like to screw over everybody, regardless of political leanings. Don't give the powerful more power. If you don't regret it right away, you're setting a precedent that you will regret eventually.
Justin Trudeau's opinion isn't even relevant to most of Canada, but he still forces it on us, anyway....
Well, if Net Neutrality disappears, then the tiny forum website that allows people who are gay men for 6 days a week, but identify as lesbiantranspostandrogynousmiscellanouswhydoihaveapenis on Tuedays to chat with others like them might not be reachable, so the 2 people who qualify for this in the entirety of Canada would be horribly oppressed.
You do realize that Canada has already won a war against the US, right? Oh, no...you probably don't, US education system and all...
No, the ideas that Google and Facebook censor are those nasty, independent though, backed up by disgusting facts right wing ideas, so Trudeau doesn't care about them.
Yes, but you do it poorly, also.
I am Russian, born and raised in cold tundra. In part that snows and where we drink vodka.
I can imagine that a lot easier with a Russian accent than yours...
The computer in question was running Kapersky antivirus software, which logs when it discovers viruses and malware.
But apparently doesn't actually delete or quarantine those malicious files, because they claim that they blocked the malware communication until the end user turned Kaspersky off. So, they detected it, and blocked the symptoms, but didn't bother to remove the infection.
Sounds like a pretty good reason not to run Kaspersky, to me.....
I'm proud to be a patriotic American.
We can tell, by your stupidity, obnoxiousness, and dogged attraction to your opinion, regardless of evidence to the contrary....
Don't need to click. Just mouseover and check the status bar.
Oh, if only I had mod points.
How much saliva did you have to wipe off your monitor and keyboard after typing that up?
That was.....brilliant.
I suspect you're mixing it up with PC Decrapifier. That's the one to remove all the preinstalled crap from major OEM vendors.
Strangely enough, I've run CCleaner for years, on probably hundreds of different systems, and never had it break something by deleting something it shouldn't.
Most system cleaners/optimizers are crap, but CCleaner is one of the only ones that I actually trust(ed).
That's interesting, so the kid who can only communicate through a sip & puff connected to a laptop is better off without a laptop in the classroom? Oh that's an exception? What about the kid with a processing speed deficit who performs their work 3 times faster on a laptop? Another exception?
Of course there are exceptions. But when you're talking about requiring a computer for communication with classmates and the instructor due to some physical challenge, then that obviously doesn't fall into "being distracted by YouTube fidget spinner videos during class."
What about a well run classroom where the teachers is supervising what the children are doing, the same way as my teachers called me out when I was doodling at my desk instead of getting my work done?
I'm pretty sure TFS quote (from the first line, for crying out loud. You didn't even need to read the entire summary!): " in fact students would be better off leaving their laptops in the dorm during class" means that we're not talking about children, here. I don't know any elementary or high schools that have dorms, so we're looking at college/university level for this study. I don't know any college/university profs that supervise what their students are doing during class. They give the lecture, and if you haven't learned to pay attention and prioritize your own work habits by the time you've graduated high school, tough luck for you.
Like most things involving humans, sweeping conclusionary statements about the educational process are myopic and ill advised, because educational methods should be shaped to the PEOPLE involved. What works for one teacher/student/class will not work for another teacher/student/class combination. That's why teachers are professionals, the same way as IT professionals are, they shape their approach to the situation at hand. (and before someone makes a disparaging remark about teachers, allow me to point out we all know IT people who should be in another profession too)
Min
Also, like most things involving humans, people who don't read and understand the information they're given are usually ill prepared to comment on said information. Similar to the YouTube-surfing students in this study, actually. I'd have expected more from someone with such a low UID.
stored on my primary computer's hard drive. In order to steal them, someone has to come to my house and steal my computer.
All someone has to do is gain remote access to your computer and they have access to your documents. Could happen through a Javascript exploit. Yikes!
No kidding. You'd think someone posting on a site like slashdot would be more familiar with technology than to assume that the only way to steal documents on a hard drive is to physically steal the computer...
No, APK doesn't do a hosts file program. APK did a hosts file program. There's a difference. And, while I haven't polled everybody here, I haven't yet had a conversation with anybody who likes and uses APK's program. I, for one, have never even tried it, due to the sheer amount of obnoxious, irrelevant spewage that shows up every time someone posts that APK is a <fill in insult of choice, here>.
Now, the fact that you're an AC, and supporting APK, leads me to strongly believe that you are in fact APK, posting as an astroturf supporter of yourself.
Go away.
I'm not sure you should.
I search Google for "phones", and the first ad that comes up is a refurb iPhone 6 from Telus. In fact, there are 6 ads: 3 of them for various iPhone products, and 3 for Samsung Galaxy products.
Then, the organic listings are for various carriers, plus the big box stores that sell phones. Nowhere on the entire first page do I see the word "pixel."
For "watches" I see ads for "Call It Spring" (WTF kind of name is that for a watch company?), Timex, Ashford, Rosefield. Organic listings again are department stores, some big box stores, and a couple of traditional manufacturer listings. No Google watches on the entire first page.
"Smoke detector" gives me a similar result: Ads for Kidde, First Alert, and organic listings for Home Depot, Consumer Reports, the wikipedia article on smoke detectors, and others.
Although this page does list Nest, it's not in an ad, and it's not until the 7th organic listing: an ArsTechnica article called "Life with the Nest Protect: Are “smart” smoke detectors a dumb idea?"
That doesn't sound like Google promoting their products at all.
Maybe it's stores in the NYC area that are buying ads trying to sell this shit to the area yuppies and millennials that just have to buy the next big thing, and have more money than brains. But then, the WSJ might just not understand how the Internet, Google, and geolocating works, and manages to completely screw up their reporting as a result, like happens too frequently with traditional media companies...
Shut up, ya hoser!
Your tagline: "-- space for rent"
Is it referring to space in the GPs head? Or are you simply selling advertising in your sig?