I think one would have to be in their left mind to pay for CNN.
Of course, FoxNews is completely fair and balanced. Unbiased. Truthful. Not propaganda at all. (snicker)
It's really a matter of what echo chamber one wants to listen to. But CNN joined FoxNews in quality once CNN closed all their foreign bureaus and fired all their investigative reporters. It's all talking heads now. Talking heads all the way down. Like turtles.
Maybe a media site should offer a Paywall or an Advertising site. (Sort of like YouTube constantly nagging: tired of ads?)
If the Ads won't support the site for the visitors who elect Ads, then the problem would seem that the advertisers are not willing to pay enough to support the number of pages that visitors look at. Or the problem is that the content itself is not valuable enough to warrant visitors, or perhaps advertisers to be interested.
If the Paywall isn't working, why is that? Is the subscription price too high? Or is the content too poor to be worth the asking price?
It seems like other mediums were purely ad supported for a long time. Broadcast TV. Print Magazines. Even Newspapers primarily got their revenue from ads rather than subscriptions.
Another problem with the ads is that they need to be quite different than ads are today. Static inline images from the originating website. No JavaScript. No malware. No bitcoin mining. There is a REASON people use ad blockers. And hey, if even your non-animated static no-javascript ads are too numerous, or too obnoxious, then I will solve the problem by not visiting your site again. Or you could charge the advertiser more for the ad impression. If the advertiser won't pay, then maybe your business model is broken. Either way, not my problem.
This is far more interesting than Microsoft Edge browser available on Android. Really? Who cares.
This at least invites, as evidence in some of the comments: critical thinking, exploration of various theories such as what if the tattoo was a joke or someone else's prank or a stupid frat hazing.
Why would you want it? Because it will send all of your personal information to Microsoft instead of to Google. Isn't that reason enough to rush right out and install this?
The rules were to protect the status quo. From the beginning, the internet did not discriminate based on where your packets go to or come from, nor based on what they contain. That kind of non-neutral interference is a recent development. That recent development is why the rules were created. To protect what caused the internet to become what it is. Removing Net Neutrality will put up choke points everywhere. Especially at all the endpoints which are mostly consumers.
Google is not evil. Therefore Google won't do anything bad with the massive amount of highly personal information it invasively collects about every person ever alive on the planet, without their consent.
I know Google is not evil, because Google says so. Their motto is "don't be evil". Since Google is not evil, therefore Google cannot lie. And therefore, the motto must be true, and thus Google is not evil.
And please do not call this circular logic. Think of it as no loose ends.
and only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with and.
Net Neutrality is not only about bandwidth allocation but also about WHAT you are allowed to connect to. It is none of my ISP's business nor concern whether my packets are going across the state or across the planet. The source and destination (and contents) of my packets are none of the ISPs business beyond simply routing the packets.
This is true whether my packets to go a so called 'social' network (they do not) or to elsewhere.
Net Neutrality is about my connection to the internet and my choices to connect to sites of my liking. Not about what is allowed or not allowed on those sites. I can choose the sites for myself. I don't want my ISP choosing for me.
None of us can dictate. But we can have opinions. Yes, really. For example, smoking cigarettes does not benefit society. Unregulated polluting of the air and water for corporate profits is also not a benefit to society.
He is republican in the sense that he was appointed by Trump. As expected he is trying to undo anything done by the previous administration. He is also republican in the sense that he would like to destroy the internet.
As long as the check clears the deflected sharks don't matter. Informed discussion as well as an informed electorate are fond memories. But not as fond as SRAM memories.
I might be able to agree that social media is not a net benefit to American society. But for entirely different reasons than Ajit Pai.
Ajit Pai doesn't like it because people can express opinions -- oh my!
I think it is simply a huge black hole for time that could be productively used for employment, study, personal enrichment, and trolling slashdot. With the additional benefit of avoiding more ads. Don't get me started about TV.
A root account with no password is a fantastic idea to increase user friendliness. Everything should be easy to use. Remember the UI principles. Point and click rather than Remember and Type. Why should a Mac user have to be burdened with remembering a password?
Locking people out of their smart phones might reduce people walking with their face glued to the tiny screen. Especially in crosswalks or near construction zones. It is even possible that people driving will stop looking at a phone that they are locked out of. Maybe not, but possibly.
Who knows, people might even discover this thing called 'outdoors' and become aware of what color the sky is.
If you hire your neighbor's kid as a babysitter, then my point still stands that it is quite different than letting Amazon delivery into your home. You know the neighbor. You (presumably) know the kid.
Yes. Background check and adult babysitter. You can live in a very nice neighborhood and still do this. Just because YOU live in a nice neighborhood doesn't mean that the babysitter is nice. Especially if hired by a service. I would also point out that some very bad people who do some very bad things come as a shock to everyone once they make national news. But they were such a nice neighbor! Who knew that they molested kittens while listening to Justin Bieber music! How awful! One of those things is almost as bad as the other!
A babysitting service does the background check for you. Still, the real on-topic point here is that housekeepers and babysitters are VERY different than letting Amazon Random Delivery people into your home.
Slashdot Mirror
> Who in their right mind would EVER pay for CNN?
I think one would have to be in their left mind to pay for CNN.
Of course, FoxNews is completely fair and balanced. Unbiased. Truthful. Not propaganda at all. (snicker)
It's really a matter of what echo chamber one wants to listen to. But CNN joined FoxNews in quality once CNN closed all their foreign bureaus and fired all their investigative reporters. It's all talking heads now. Talking heads all the way down. Like turtles.
Then there is the Leftist Tree data structure.
No. I'm suggesting that there are always easy solutions. But they are not necessarily good ideas.
Maybe a media site should offer a Paywall or an Advertising site. (Sort of like YouTube constantly nagging: tired of ads?)
If the Ads won't support the site for the visitors who elect Ads, then the problem would seem that the advertisers are not willing to pay enough to support the number of pages that visitors look at. Or the problem is that the content itself is not valuable enough to warrant visitors, or perhaps advertisers to be interested.
If the Paywall isn't working, why is that? Is the subscription price too high? Or is the content too poor to be worth the asking price?
It seems like other mediums were purely ad supported for a long time. Broadcast TV. Print Magazines. Even Newspapers primarily got their revenue from ads rather than subscriptions.
Another problem with the ads is that they need to be quite different than ads are today. Static inline images from the originating website. No JavaScript. No malware. No bitcoin mining. There is a REASON people use ad blockers. And hey, if even your non-animated static no-javascript ads are too numerous, or too obnoxious, then I will solve the problem by not visiting your site again. Or you could charge the advertiser more for the ad impression. If the advertiser won't pay, then maybe your business model is broken. Either way, not my problem.
Easy solution: Build a wall around the paywalls and make the paywalls pay for it.
> American Airlines Accidentally Let Too Many Pilots Take Off The Holidays
It would lead me to ask: what's wrong with having an excessive number of aircraft departures on the holidays?
This is far more interesting than Microsoft Edge browser available on Android. Really? Who cares.
This at least invites, as evidence in some of the comments: critical thinking, exploration of various theories such as what if the tattoo was a joke or someone else's prank or a stupid frat hazing.
Why would you want it? Because it will send all of your personal information to Microsoft instead of to Google. Isn't that reason enough to rush right out and install this?
The rules were to protect the status quo. From the beginning, the internet did not discriminate based on where your packets go to or come from, nor based on what they contain. That kind of non-neutral interference is a recent development. That recent development is why the rules were created. To protect what caused the internet to become what it is. Removing Net Neutrality will put up choke points everywhere. Especially at all the endpoints which are mostly consumers.
Google's network infrastructure border routers make sure that all outgoing packets have the evil bit cleared, because Google is not evil. That is how.
Google is not evil. Therefore Google won't do anything bad with the massive amount of highly personal information it invasively collects about every person ever alive on the planet, without their consent.
I know Google is not evil, because Google says so. Their motto is "don't be evil". Since Google is not evil, therefore Google cannot lie. And therefore, the motto must be true, and thus Google is not evil.
And please do not call this circular logic. Think of it as no loose ends.
and only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with and.
Windows 10 is free.
Not free as in freedom.
Not primarily free as in beer.
But mostly free as in herpes.
How is this malware running on 600 million machines?
Did the recently announced Microsoft Sets look like Windows will become another Chromebook?
Net Neutrality is what the net HAD for 30 years. Only recently has it become an issue to defend net neutrality.
Uh, no. Not frosty. No thanks. I'd rather have to use Perl.
Net Neutrality is not only about bandwidth allocation but also about WHAT you are allowed to connect to. It is none of my ISP's business nor concern whether my packets are going across the state or across the planet. The source and destination (and contents) of my packets are none of the ISPs business beyond simply routing the packets.
This is true whether my packets to go a so called 'social' network (they do not) or to elsewhere.
Net Neutrality is about my connection to the internet and my choices to connect to sites of my liking. Not about what is allowed or not allowed on those sites. I can choose the sites for myself. I don't want my ISP choosing for me.
None of us can dictate. But we can have opinions. Yes, really. For example, smoking cigarettes does not benefit society. Unregulated polluting of the air and water for corporate profits is also not a benefit to society.
He is republican in the sense that he was appointed by Trump. As expected he is trying to undo anything done by the previous administration. He is also republican in the sense that he would like to destroy the internet.
As long as the check clears the deflected sharks don't matter. Informed discussion as well as an informed electorate are fond memories. But not as fond as SRAM memories.
Veiled statements to the Twit still may not have any impact on his boss Vladimir.
I might be able to agree that social media is not a net benefit to American society. But for entirely different reasons than Ajit Pai.
Ajit Pai doesn't like it because people can express opinions -- oh my!
I think it is simply a huge black hole for time that could be productively used for employment, study, personal enrichment, and trolling slashdot. With the additional benefit of avoiding more ads. Don't get me started about TV.
It's not a crime. It's an, uh . . . it's an off site backup! That's what it is!
A root account with no password is a fantastic idea to increase user friendliness. Everything should be easy to use. Remember the UI principles. Point and click rather than Remember and Type. Why should a Mac user have to be burdened with remembering a password?
Locking people out of their smart phones might reduce people walking with their face glued to the tiny screen. Especially in crosswalks or near construction zones. It is even possible that people driving will stop looking at a phone that they are locked out of. Maybe not, but possibly.
Who knows, people might even discover this thing called 'outdoors' and become aware of what color the sky is.
If you hire your neighbor's kid as a babysitter, then my point still stands that it is quite different than letting Amazon delivery into your home. You know the neighbor. You (presumably) know the kid.
Yes. Background check and adult babysitter. You can live in a very nice neighborhood and still do this. Just because YOU live in a nice neighborhood doesn't mean that the babysitter is nice. Especially if hired by a service. I would also point out that some very bad people who do some very bad things come as a shock to everyone once they make national news. But they were such a nice neighbor! Who knew that they molested kittens while listening to Justin Bieber music! How awful! One of those things is almost as bad as the other!
A babysitting service does the background check for you. Still, the real on-topic point here is that housekeepers and babysitters are VERY different than letting Amazon Random Delivery people into your home.
> They're building access to the Internet.
If Detroit builds access to the internet as well as it built machines to access roads, then they are in trouble.
Maybe they ARE thinking of the Children and are afraid of a modern IoT version of the Pied Piper.