First, to be clear, I'm not defending the initial problem or Microsoft.
The problem was with deleting folders that they were assuming would be empty. The fix is, to either not delete the folders or not to delete them if there is content. I don't think that is something that requires a lot of time to implement.
I checked multiple major dictionary sites online, and all of them show one of the definitions of refute to be some equivalent of denying the accuracy of a person/statement. So, while your definition of refute is an accurate definition it is not the sole definition.
While I wouldn't give him a complete out, I wouldn't blame him for this problem. If this had been an ongoing issue, or if he opts to do nothing about this problem, then I would assign more blame to him.
The reality is that you're either terribly confused, or have a vested interest in allowing ISPs to run roughshod all over their customers. Net neutrality has nothing to do with creating or enforcing the monopolies. It has no impact on whether there is market competition for ISPs. It has nothing to do with propping up major content providers. It only exists as a preventative measure, to keep the ISPs from having too much power over their customers given their status as a monopoly/duopoly.
ISPs should be a common carrier. I'm not talking about classification, that would be another argument, but method of operation. They exist solely to connect you to what you want online. They have every right to charge you for the service they provide, based on how much data you use and/or how fast the data can flow. They should have no control over what sites/services you use online, or the speeds of those sites/services in relation to any other.
While you're not entirely inaccurate, your assessment of it being a small incremental change is wrong. Yes, a lot of the middle/upper management positions aren't changing. It's all the lower tier jobs, that employ the most people, that are changing. If one or two people can maintain automation for what used to take 10 people... You have 8 people out of work. Even if that efficiency change caused the company to double their output, you're now at 4 people and 6 out of work. Sure, one or two people might then also be hired, higher up in the chain. That's still leaving 4-5 without work. That's half as many workers employed at the lowest level. This is just for a single group of 10. There is an upper bound to the demand of whatever product. It's ultimately going to be a lot less people employed.
Keeping the FCC from regulating Internet is what ensures an open internet.
There are two definitions of open being used. There is open, as in every site and person has relatively equal access to the internet. They're not restricted by what their ISP tells them they can/can't have, or at what price point and speeds they get it. This is what net neutrality is about. Then, there is open as in the ISPs and other major companies are open to exploit it and its users for as much money as they can. This is what Pai and the FCC are currently all about.
When dealing with monopolies and duopolies, it's impossible for the free market to regulate itself. Government has to step in to maintain a level of fairness.
The one I hate is when dealing with online support. The survey for the interaction is at the end of the interaction. On more than one occasion the interaction has ended in a supervisor or another department needing to get back to me. I then get the survey at the end asking if they resolved my issue. Considering the company has failed to get back to me more than once, I cannot actually answer the question truthfully without negatively affecting the rep's score. I just end up saying yes, and then bitch about the survey in the comments.
First, I want to clarify. I'm talking about governmental laws/policies. I'm saying that a policy based on merely hoping people don't have kids isn't a solid policy on its own. You have to allow for the fact that people will be people and may not adhere to what you want if they're not required to by law. As such, there has to be policy that accounts for that.
As to sustainability, it isn't a question of can we... we can. It's a question of how. Most answers against our capitalistic tendencies, so it would be a challenge. I also don't say UBI specifically/alone is the answer, but the general idea of supporting the unemployed populace.
I already mentioned encouraging reduction in population growth is good. It'll reduce some of the stress on the system as a whole.
The reason the first option isn't viable as a solution is because actually enforcing a reduction/restriction is unethical. There is literally no metric that can fairly determine whose offspring is more/less deserving to be allowed to exist. If it's not enforceable, then it's not a viable solution to the problem.
I just closed my tab with this typed out more extensively. However, I want to go to bed so I'll be brief. The summary mentioned automation, the article mentioned automation. The blog post from Altman, the CEO of Y Combinator, mentioned automation taking most jobs as being a driving factor. So, I'm not just pulling it out of my ass. The reality is that eventually there will be a time when there are more employable people than employable positions on a large scale. The gist is, if people aren't starving, or trying to keep themselves from starving, they're free to do other things or explore new ideas.
You're talking about experiments from 50-60 years ago. Do you realize that the driving force of UBI in today's environment is to actually allow people to survive without working? Automation means fewer workers are needed overall. Unless something major happens, we're going to eventually reach the point where most people will be unable to find work due to it not being available.
There are only two real solutions, less people or a viable welfare system. Any conscionable society would ignore the first option. While encouraging reduction in population growth might be good, actually restricting it would be dangerous from a moral standpoint. That only leaves the second option. UBI alone may not be enough, or even the best way. But, it's better we work towards a solution before it's needed.
My outrage(if you want to use such a strong term) has little to do with net neutrality or any impact that might have had on the situation. I'm not going to say VZW should operate at a loss, but they should have fixed the problem during the emergency situation and then resolved the issue behind the problem afterwards. It might mean a few gigs of data goes unpaid, but emergency services are able to do their job and potentially save lives. The PR implications alone, let alone potential loss of life and property to others, are worth the perceived loss in billing.
Not everything would be about warranties. What happens if the new buyer opens the box and the disc is missing? As it was listed as new, the buyer would turn to the company to resolve it. But, the seller could have nicked the disc and sealed it back up.
As someone working ISP(email) tech support, I can assure you... iPhone users aren't any better at knowing what version. I'll even ask if they're on the latest version and they act like a deer in headlights. I always just have to give up and have them check whether they have Accounts & Passwords under settings.
Sure, but then I have to have a cell phone and cell phone plan with tethering. If you only had a cellphone that could place calls, you wouldn't need to carry a cellphone to tether to the kindle.
Pretty much exactly this. I mean, the latest version of Android was officially released 3 days ago. As far as the Note 9 goes, they pretty much did release it with the newest version available at the time the phone was finalized. There might be some room for argument over the s9/s9+ as it only shipped with 8.0 when 8.1 had been out for a few months. But, even then.. I'm sure they'd been working on the OS before the 8.1 release.
Samsung is improving when it comes to security updates, but they really aren't doing a great job of keeping their new phones up to date otherwise.
You give Verizon, and for that matter.. people, too much credit.Those types of fees aren't in the upfront costs of the plan. They're in with the other taxes and fees. It's not what people see when they choose their provider. They look at coverage(maybe) and the plan costs. When the price increase isn't part of the plan, they don't see it until after the fact. This type of crap already happens, so there is no use arguing that it wouldn't happen.Yes, there is sometimes some backlash. But usually, even when a provider receives some backlash, it doesn't go anywhere.
If Verizon's operating costs increase, they're no longer getting optimal profit if they keep the costs to the customer the same. The bit about it being a protection fee is a jab at the fact that they can increase the cost of the bill, without increasing the cost of the actual plan. Many(Most?) people aren't going to even pay attention to the extra $1 on the bill. Many of the ones that do will see it's under the fees and assume it's due to government BS. Most that do will probably be annoyed by it, but $1/mo isn't reason enough to switch providers. This is especially true if they live in an area with limited reliable competition.
From what I see about the current generation of Star Wars movies is that they're good, not great. They're still worth loads of money. There is so much more they COULD be doing with it, but it would require them to break away from the existing movie storyline. Think along the lines of the expanded universe books. Not as in make movies about them, but use that mentality with the Star Wars movie universe.
The only difference between Apple and Google, in regards to the choice of apps, what group of people wants to have freedom of choice for installed apps. In Google's case, the manufacturers want control over what apps come pre-installed. (Users do too, but that isn't what the fine is about.) In Apple's case, it's the users that want that control. Apple gets to say what apps come pre-installed. They also get to say what apps can and cannot have their features duplicated by a 3rd party app. All said and done, Google allows much more freedom in app choice. They're only getting fined because it's another major business going after them, instead of consumers.
Again, I don't really care argue whether you believe it should be legal or not. I don't care to argue whether it should be legal for the government to say it's legal or not. It has literally no impact on the point I was making. Saying they government should stop enforcing a law, solely because it's possible to break the law(or get around it), is an idiotic argument.
Slashdot Mirror
First, to be clear, I'm not defending the initial problem or Microsoft.
The problem was with deleting folders that they were assuming would be empty. The fix is, to either not delete the folders or not to delete them if there is content. I don't think that is something that requires a lot of time to implement.
I checked multiple major dictionary sites online, and all of them show one of the definitions of refute to be some equivalent of denying the accuracy of a person/statement. So, while your definition of refute is an accurate definition it is not the sole definition.
While I wouldn't give him a complete out, I wouldn't blame him for this problem. If this had been an ongoing issue, or if he opts to do nothing about this problem, then I would assign more blame to him.
The reality is that you're either terribly confused, or have a vested interest in allowing ISPs to run roughshod all over their customers. Net neutrality has nothing to do with creating or enforcing the monopolies. It has no impact on whether there is market competition for ISPs. It has nothing to do with propping up major content providers. It only exists as a preventative measure, to keep the ISPs from having too much power over their customers given their status as a monopoly/duopoly.
ISPs should be a common carrier. I'm not talking about classification, that would be another argument, but method of operation. They exist solely to connect you to what you want online. They have every right to charge you for the service they provide, based on how much data you use and/or how fast the data can flow. They should have no control over what sites/services you use online, or the speeds of those sites/services in relation to any other.
While you're not entirely inaccurate, your assessment of it being a small incremental change is wrong. Yes, a lot of the middle/upper management positions aren't changing. It's all the lower tier jobs, that employ the most people, that are changing. If one or two people can maintain automation for what used to take 10 people... You have 8 people out of work. Even if that efficiency change caused the company to double their output, you're now at 4 people and 6 out of work. Sure, one or two people might then also be hired, higher up in the chain. That's still leaving 4-5 without work. That's half as many workers employed at the lowest level. This is just for a single group of 10. There is an upper bound to the demand of whatever product. It's ultimately going to be a lot less people employed.
Keeping the FCC from regulating Internet is what ensures an open internet.
There are two definitions of open being used. There is open, as in every site and person has relatively equal access to the internet. They're not restricted by what their ISP tells them they can/can't have, or at what price point and speeds they get it. This is what net neutrality is about. Then, there is open as in the ISPs and other major companies are open to exploit it and its users for as much money as they can. This is what Pai and the FCC are currently all about.
When dealing with monopolies and duopolies, it's impossible for the free market to regulate itself. Government has to step in to maintain a level of fairness.
No no, it's a site for people that are overly critical about the way people are having sex.
The one I hate is when dealing with online support. The survey for the interaction is at the end of the interaction. On more than one occasion the interaction has ended in a supervisor or another department needing to get back to me. I then get the survey at the end asking if they resolved my issue. Considering the company has failed to get back to me more than once, I cannot actually answer the question truthfully without negatively affecting the rep's score. I just end up saying yes, and then bitch about the survey in the comments.
First, I want to clarify. I'm talking about governmental laws/policies. I'm saying that a policy based on merely hoping people don't have kids isn't a solid policy on its own. You have to allow for the fact that people will be people and may not adhere to what you want if they're not required to by law. As such, there has to be policy that accounts for that.
As to sustainability, it isn't a question of can we... we can. It's a question of how. Most answers against our capitalistic tendencies, so it would be a challenge. I also don't say UBI specifically/alone is the answer, but the general idea of supporting the unemployed populace.
I never moved the goal posts. You're just not using the same ones. To each their own.
I already mentioned encouraging reduction in population growth is good. It'll reduce some of the stress on the system as a whole.
The reason the first option isn't viable as a solution is because actually enforcing a reduction/restriction is unethical. There is literally no metric that can fairly determine whose offspring is more/less deserving to be allowed to exist. If it's not enforceable, then it's not a viable solution to the problem.
I just closed my tab with this typed out more extensively. However, I want to go to bed so I'll be brief. The summary mentioned automation, the article mentioned automation. The blog post from Altman, the CEO of Y Combinator, mentioned automation taking most jobs as being a driving factor. So, I'm not just pulling it out of my ass. The reality is that eventually there will be a time when there are more employable people than employable positions on a large scale. The gist is, if people aren't starving, or trying to keep themselves from starving, they're free to do other things or explore new ideas.
You're talking about experiments from 50-60 years ago. Do you realize that the driving force of UBI in today's environment is to actually allow people to survive without working? Automation means fewer workers are needed overall. Unless something major happens, we're going to eventually reach the point where most people will be unable to find work due to it not being available.
There are only two real solutions, less people or a viable welfare system. Any conscionable society would ignore the first option. While encouraging reduction in population growth might be good, actually restricting it would be dangerous from a moral standpoint. That only leaves the second option. UBI alone may not be enough, or even the best way. But, it's better we work towards a solution before it's needed.
My outrage(if you want to use such a strong term) has little to do with net neutrality or any impact that might have had on the situation. I'm not going to say VZW should operate at a loss, but they should have fixed the problem during the emergency situation and then resolved the issue behind the problem afterwards. It might mean a few gigs of data goes unpaid, but emergency services are able to do their job and potentially save lives. The PR implications alone, let alone potential loss of life and property to others, are worth the perceived loss in billing.
Not everything would be about warranties. What happens if the new buyer opens the box and the disc is missing? As it was listed as new, the buyer would turn to the company to resolve it. But, the seller could have nicked the disc and sealed it back up.
As someone working ISP(email) tech support, I can assure you... iPhone users aren't any better at knowing what version. I'll even ask if they're on the latest version and they act like a deer in headlights. I always just have to give up and have them check whether they have Accounts & Passwords under settings.
Sure, but then I have to have a cell phone and cell phone plan with tethering. If you only had a cellphone that could place calls, you wouldn't need to carry a cellphone to tether to the kindle.
Pretty much exactly this. I mean, the latest version of Android was officially released 3 days ago. As far as the Note 9 goes, they pretty much did release it with the newest version available at the time the phone was finalized. There might be some room for argument over the s9/s9+ as it only shipped with 8.0 when 8.1 had been out for a few months. But, even then.. I'm sure they'd been working on the OS before the 8.1 release.
Samsung is improving when it comes to security updates, but they really aren't doing a great job of keeping their new phones up to date otherwise.
I would think the whole being a cellphone bit would be harder for Kindle Fire to overcome.
You give Verizon, and for that matter.. people, too much credit.Those types of fees aren't in the upfront costs of the plan. They're in with the other taxes and fees. It's not what people see when they choose their provider. They look at coverage(maybe) and the plan costs. When the price increase isn't part of the plan, they don't see it until after the fact. This type of crap already happens, so there is no use arguing that it wouldn't happen.Yes, there is sometimes some backlash. But usually, even when a provider receives some backlash, it doesn't go anywhere.
If Verizon's operating costs increase, they're no longer getting optimal profit if they keep the costs to the customer the same. The bit about it being a protection fee is a jab at the fact that they can increase the cost of the bill, without increasing the cost of the actual plan. Many(Most?) people aren't going to even pay attention to the extra $1 on the bill. Many of the ones that do will see it's under the fees and assume it's due to government BS. Most that do will probably be annoyed by it, but $1/mo isn't reason enough to switch providers. This is especially true if they live in an area with limited reliable competition.
From what I see about the current generation of Star Wars movies is that they're good, not great. They're still worth loads of money. There is so much more they COULD be doing with it, but it would require them to break away from the existing movie storyline. Think along the lines of the expanded universe books. Not as in make movies about them, but use that mentality with the Star Wars movie universe.
The only difference between Apple and Google, in regards to the choice of apps, what group of people wants to have freedom of choice for installed apps. In Google's case, the manufacturers want control over what apps come pre-installed. (Users do too, but that isn't what the fine is about.) In Apple's case, it's the users that want that control. Apple gets to say what apps come pre-installed. They also get to say what apps can and cannot have their features duplicated by a 3rd party app. All said and done, Google allows much more freedom in app choice. They're only getting fined because it's another major business going after them, instead of consumers.
Again, I don't really care argue whether you believe it should be legal or not. I don't care to argue whether it should be legal for the government to say it's legal or not. It has literally no impact on the point I was making. Saying they government should stop enforcing a law, solely because it's possible to break the law(or get around it), is an idiotic argument.
I agree there. They want too much money for something that is mostly a last gen product with a slightly improved OS.