Right to work has nothing to do with contracts between two entities that aren't in an employer/employee relationship, unless you are talking about unions.
Right to work protects you from being forced to join a terrorist orginzation like the teamsters just to be able to work somewhere.
The new world order IS a mess of misorganization and incompetence.
Just look at the USSR, it could have been described as exactly that. Nepotism, bribes, kickbacks, major corruption, social programs that are just jobs for the incompetent, spying on your political foes... It wasn't a sleek, well oiled government, it was a government bursting at the seams under the weight of corruption.
I mean just the other day, there was a prison shootout, not between the guards and prisioners, but between federal agents trying to shut down the huge number of corrupt guards.
The real criminals aren't the ones behind the bars, it's the ones in power.
If a developer doesn't use valid code, the page is likely to break when new versions of browsers come out.
I'd say it would be gross negligence to develop invalid pages. One should at least get anyone requesting IE-only development to sign a special release showing they understand the implications on the long term value of the work.
Yes, it is an ethical issue. We shouldn't let our customers make ignorant decisions that will hurt them, without at least getting a big fat release first so we can prove we tried to educate them.
Do web developers decided what browsers a web site supports?
Absolutely.
I would never develop a page that didn't validate, period. If the client thinks it's important to support obselete browsers like IE, then I will find some way to make it functional in IE while still being valid code.
It doesn't matter what the browser market share is in terms of installed base. That's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
The real market share is the number of pages on the net that are coded to some IE standard rather than the open standard. That's the real market share here.
Developers have adopted the open standards and valid code at a fast rate lately. It's extremely rare to find a page that only works in IE these days. Most of those pages are holdovers from 1997 or something.
And more and more pages are W3C valid. Even slashdot is valid now!
So really IE can hang themselves if they want, it's not up to their idiots users, it's up to the web developers. And the web developers are telling MS to fuck off.
A digital multimeter can't do time domain reflectometry either.
Doesn't mean that the tool isn't useful. Sound like sour grapes on your part... You some kinda overpaid RF Engineer that feels threatened by this tool?
There's the aggregate demand theory. If you see an ad for ice cream, and it makes you think about ice cream more often, you will buy more ice cream.
This especially works in a market with substitutes that are just as good. If it drives people away from substitutes to your product, it's good.
Why do you think companies pay so much money to these industry associations that run ads for generic classes of products (Got Milk?) It's the same idea.
If we can manage to pull that off without clogging up large chunks of RF spectrum, great.
Our current technology isn't particularly up to the task though.
If you want a true mesh with current technology, imagine the witch hunt when a bandwidth leech moves into the area. It's just way too easy for a single user to blow 50+ megabits of bandwidth.
The FCC in the past has claimed supreme authority over the things it has juristiction over.
For example, as a ham operator, I can erect an antenna tower in violation of a local ordinance, and the town can't say anything about it. Well they can, but I'll win in court.
The same goes for renters. Your landlord can't tell you that you can't have a satellite dish. Or your homeowner's association. If they don't like your 200 foot ham radio tower, they can go fuck themselves.
Anyway, my point is, this will likely override any state or local laws, since it will be under the juristiction of the FCC, which is generally granted supreme authority.
Well that's where we need to concentrate the efforts.
Net neutrality becomes irrelevant in a market with choice.
Take the natural local monopoly away and give it to the localities and all this becomes irrelevant.
I wonder if this is the entire reason this debate is centered on the net neutrality provisions, to take attention away from the real issue, the breaking of the local monopolies.
Re:They already pay their "fair share".
on
Net Neutrality or Not?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Regulating companies that have any form of a monopoly (I literally have one choice for broadband) is not a bad thing.
Agreed.
When the phone monopolies were granted
A mistake.
The government realized that a monopoly has no interest in reaching every consumer,
A consequence of that mistake.
Hence they made universal access a requirement of granting the monopoly.
A bad new law to band-aid over that mistake.
Until we have total competition in all aspects of the network
That won't happen. The last mile is a natural monopoly. I believe that localities should own last mile media. Any interested party should be able to rent use of said media.
That will solve your "one choice for broadband" problem nicely. The only place there isn't competition is the last mile. People seem to be extrapolating their situation onto the Internet in general.
I can tell you when you go shopping for a T1 or T3 or more, you get to choose from at least 10 ISPs. There's plenty of competition there.
Slashdot Mirror
Right to work has nothing to do with contracts between two entities that aren't in an employer/employee relationship, unless you are talking about unions.
Right to work protects you from being forced to join a terrorist orginzation like the teamsters just to be able to work somewhere.
Because the electric company doesn't charge you a flat rate for essentially unlimited usage.
Like I said, it's not the consumer's fault that they are using an unsustainable business model.
Now if you're willing to pay based on the actual bandwidth used
Of course I am. They don't want to do it the honest way, because then they couldn't lie about "unlimited, always on" connections.
Their business model is to tell you they are selling you one thing, when in reality it's something else.
That's also known as "fraud". When they stop lying about the service offerings, then they might have some leg to stand on.
So really, they can go shit in their hat.
If the power company cancelled your service because you decided to install a welder, you'd be pissed right?
Why is bandwidth any different?
It's none of their fucking business where the bytes coming through your pipe originated from.
TOS or no TOS, they don't have the right to say what you can or can't do with your own network and equipment.
it seems some asshatishness is often necessary to get things done
New sig!
Fuck em. If their business model is unsustainable, it's not the end-user's responsibility to prop it up.
hasn't had any user-facing usability changes EVER
s lashdot.org/
Bullshit
http://web.archive.org/web/19990125092017/http://
The "mound" of useless ambiguous links on the left went away. The entire left side was redone around 2000.
The new world order IS a mess of misorganization and incompetence.
Just look at the USSR, it could have been described as exactly that. Nepotism, bribes, kickbacks, major corruption, social programs that are just jobs for the incompetent, spying on your political foes... It wasn't a sleek, well oiled government, it was a government bursting at the seams under the weight of corruption.
I mean just the other day, there was a prison shootout, not between the guards and prisioners, but between federal agents trying to shut down the huge number of corrupt guards.
The real criminals aren't the ones behind the bars, it's the ones in power.
If a developer doesn't use valid code, the page is likely to break when new versions of browsers come out.
I'd say it would be gross negligence to develop invalid pages. One should at least get anyone requesting IE-only development to sign a special release showing they understand the implications on the long term value of the work.
Yes, it is an ethical issue. We shouldn't let our customers make ignorant decisions that will hurt them, without at least getting a big fat release first so we can prove we tried to educate them.
who tell the web developers what to do
Web developers aren't some kind of automaton. They have a responsibility to develop valid pages while fulfilling any other requirements.
You wouldn't expect a programmer to produce code that wouldn't compile, would you?
Do web developers decided what browsers a web site supports?
Absolutely.
I would never develop a page that didn't validate, period. If the client thinks it's important to support obselete browsers like IE, then I will find some way to make it functional in IE while still being valid code.
You are pretty far off.
It doesn't matter what the browser market share is in terms of installed base. That's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
The real market share is the number of pages on the net that are coded to some IE standard rather than the open standard. That's the real market share here.
Developers have adopted the open standards and valid code at a fast rate lately. It's extremely rare to find a page that only works in IE these days. Most of those pages are holdovers from 1997 or something.
And more and more pages are W3C valid. Even slashdot is valid now!
So really IE can hang themselves if they want, it's not up to their idiots users, it's up to the web developers. And the web developers are telling MS to fuck off.
So what?
A digital multimeter can't do time domain reflectometry either.
Doesn't mean that the tool isn't useful. Sound like sour grapes on your part... You some kinda overpaid RF Engineer that feels threatened by this tool?
, they also need money to use for further research and development into new drugs.
Then why do they spend more on advertising than R&D? I don't buy it.
commercials shown on daytime TV aren't representative of the entire field of pharmacological research.
It's where most of the money goes. They spend more on advertising then R&D.
To think that they're intentionally withholding drugs or not trying to cure diseases to keep making money is simply ridiculous and paranoid.
No it isn't.
The've spent billions on new sleeping pills, erection drugs, herpes supression (not a cure though), etc.
In fact, nothing's a cure anymore, it's always a lengthy treatment that you have to keep taking or it stops working.
They aren't interested in curing things anymore, curing things is a losing proposition.
There's the aggregate demand theory. If you see an ad for ice cream, and it makes you think about ice cream more often, you will buy more ice cream.
This especially works in a market with substitutes that are just as good. If it drives people away from substitutes to your product, it's good.
Why do you think companies pay so much money to these industry associations that run ads for generic classes of products (Got Milk?) It's the same idea.
If we can manage to pull that off without clogging up large chunks of RF spectrum, great.
Our current technology isn't particularly up to the task though.
If you want a true mesh with current technology, imagine the witch hunt when a bandwidth leech moves into the area. It's just way too easy for a single user to blow 50+ megabits of bandwidth.
Oh, sorry.
What the fuck are you talking about? LSL isn't undocumented and it isn't dynamically typed!
P age
http://secondlife.com/badgeo/wakka.php?wakka=Home
And WoW actually runs with better performance in Linux than Windows.
The FCC in the past has claimed supreme authority over the things it has juristiction over.
For example, as a ham operator, I can erect an antenna tower in violation of a local ordinance, and the town can't say anything about it. Well they can, but I'll win in court.
The same goes for renters. Your landlord can't tell you that you can't have a satellite dish. Or your homeowner's association. If they don't like your 200 foot ham radio tower, they can go fuck themselves.
Anyway, my point is, this will likely override any state or local laws, since it will be under the juristiction of the FCC, which is generally granted supreme authority.
Well that's where we need to concentrate the efforts.
Net neutrality becomes irrelevant in a market with choice.
Take the natural local monopoly away and give it to the localities and all this becomes irrelevant.
I wonder if this is the entire reason this debate is centered on the net neutrality provisions, to take attention away from the real issue, the breaking of the local monopolies.
Regulating companies that have any form of a monopoly (I literally have one choice for broadband) is not a bad thing.
Agreed.
When the phone monopolies were granted
A mistake.
The government realized that a monopoly has no interest in reaching every consumer,
A consequence of that mistake.
Hence they made universal access a requirement of granting the monopoly.
A bad new law to band-aid over that mistake.
Until we have total competition in all aspects of the network
That won't happen. The last mile is a natural monopoly. I believe that localities should own last mile media. Any interested party should be able to rent use of said media.
That will solve your "one choice for broadband" problem nicely. The only place there isn't competition is the last mile. People seem to be extrapolating their situation onto the Internet in general.
I can tell you when you go shopping for a T1 or T3 or more, you get to choose from at least 10 ISPs. There's plenty of competition there.