For what little it's worth, I read the GP as saying that Gavin Andresen was the only developer who is both a Core Developer and someone working on an Altcoin, not that Andresen is no longer a Core Developer.
The rest of what you say is very interesting and adds a lot of context to the article, I hope it's modded up.
Martha Stewart is a convicted criminal (spent jail time on an insider trading rap) which means she's automatically banned from entry to a variety of countries including Britain. Given the non-violent nature of her crime and the likely nature of any visit to the UK, she probably would qualify for an exception if she lobbied hard enough.
The others I'm not familiar with the circumstances, but is Michael Savage the shock-jock? British Home Secretaries do have a habit of banning controversial figures.
They didn't arrest the family or interrogate them. They simply turned them away, telling the airline not to let them board or face fines.
So it's still fairly bizarre. I've heard some attempts to justify them not being allowed into the US (apparently the father had been questioned before at a different airport), but nothing that explains why the entire family were approved for a pseudo-visa.
Once upon a time that could have been justified by the fact the US government was so divided that different departments were responsible for different aspects of the process, but since shortly after 9/11 it's all been under the TSA's general remit anyway.
I think we're at a point where UI and UX people are like architects after several years of buildings people built that have no doors, or are upside down, or just keep falling down for some reason, and the entire country is wondering why we continue to have architects.
We do need UI and UX experts. The problem is that the people we currently employ as UI/UX people are spectacularly ill-qualified for the job.
I'm not having that problem. Of the tools I mentioned, only Outlook seems to have a problem talking to the others, largely because they want you to use it with Exchange Server. They work especially well with the cloud-based email systems like GMail, but I've found workarounds to help with locally managed contacts lists too.
Geez calm down! "Insinuated"? Geez. I wasn't accusing the poster of murder!
I'm assumed it's something about Thunderbird because that's the client he or she standardized on and because the nature of the question makes it clear he or she intends to continue doing so. The question wasn't "Should I keep using a single client, or change my workflow?", but asking for a replacement for their single client. I think it's reasonable to assume there has to be something about Thunderbird that makes it attractive for someone who uses a single client environment for someone to ask that.
First, actually I run my own mail server, so I do keep (that email) locally rather than "in the cloud". But as I have IMAP, I can access it anywhere.
Secondly: storing your email on a single PC, and only reading it on that single PC, is not an improvement on "the cloud" in any useful way. It's overly restrictive, not merely for forcing you to deal with emails in a single geographic location, but also making it much harder to use email to, for example, share photographs and links from mobile devices.
I definitely wouldn't recommend the old download-everything-with-POP approach.
To be honest, I use a variety of different email clients, and I suspect most people reading Slashdot do here too. Windows 10 mail on my Windows 10 tablet and test laptop, Outlook on my Windows 7 PC, the built-in clients on my Android device, and so on. Plus webmail.
What is it about Thunderbird that makes you eschew the multi-client approach, standardizing on just the one? It might be easier to suggest a direction to go in if you explain further.
I agree.Democrats like and support Sanders. They support Clinton.
Republicans like but disagree with Sanders. They hate and disagree with Clinton.
I'm finding it hard to understand why the DNC/establishment is so gung-ho about Clinton at a time when the Republicans look set to elect someone a significant number Republicans probably won't stomach.
It's the opposite really, the licensed driver simply creates more confusion as to who was responsible for an accident. And no, a few legal precedents aren't likely to fix it, as these kinds of civil lawsuits rarely end up pointing the finger at one entity and saying "That person's 100% at fault".
This is, I suspect, part of the reason why companies selling the cars are keen on establishing the principle they'll be responsible come what may. Uncertainty and lawyer's bills are worse than a set of simple principles that can be priced into a sold (or more likely leased) product.
I'm pretty sure that just because you don't have the FCC or State Utility Commissions breathing down your neck, you're still required, by law, to bill the right people correctly.
If that's not the case, I invite you not merely to state how, but also to send me a check covering your past-due $127 payment for SquiggleSlash Services ASAP.
how can we trust providers to accurately track customers' bandwidth usage?
I hate wired broadband caps with a passion, but this has to be the absolute worst reason not to have them. Somehow electricity companies, water companies, phone companies (traditional and mobile), et al, have survived for decades (centuries perhaps?) despite occasional billing mishaps.
There's nothing particularly new about this as a problem.
Well, it's not actually true to begin with and the truth is less discriminatory. One Reddit forum is banning people who post spoilers. And they probably would do it for any major movie coming out.
Reddit itself isn't taking any stand on it. Supposedly (according to the linked article) virtually every post in/r/4chan is a spoiler right now...
There's nothing particularly nefarious about it, and no kick backs - T-Mobile have been clear no content provider is paying them for this, and others are welcome to join.
The deal is "If you watch video via our compressed system, we'll make it free" combined with "If you let us recompress your video, we'll let our users watch it for free." That's it.
T-Mobile wants to compress it, not let the content provider decide what bit rate to do it at, because this is about their network, not just one user on it.The fact a publisher might be capable of sending 1Mbps to a user doesn't mean this is in the best interests of everyone using the same tower as that user.
So, T-Mobile makes the offer: "Hey providers, if you work with us and send your video in a way that means we can intercept and compress it further, we'll let you be a part of this scheme." It's reasonable. It doesn't violate net neutrality (it's available to Amazon and YouTube, they just choose not to use it - be it for political, financial, or technical reasons), and it's probably a good idea.
...which, even if true, is of no consequence here. The discussion is not "Should we deregulate internet provision?" but "Should cities be banned from providing municipal broadband in locations where the free market is not providing it, dooming their cities to economic oblivion?"
I suspect there's no regulatory problem anyway. Anyone can get a license from the FCC for basic P2P TD-LTE/WiMAX/etc systems, as a basic example. Laying cable is more expensive, but I seriously doubt that the areas that lack broadband also lack telephone and cable TV.
Say what you will about Comcast and friends but we have things like 100Mbps down 75Mpbs up links at affordable prices
To be specific, you have that. I also have that available, I think (I'm not 100% sure, Comcast is very careful to avoid quoting uplink/downlink speeds in their advertising for people in my area.) But a significant number of places don't have that, and there's little or no commercial incentive to introduce it. Hence municipal broadband in those areas.
Surely you can agree that if the free market is not delivering something badly needed in a particular market, then it's reasonable to suppose that the free market is not the answer at that location.
Can you name any US locations that have perfectly good, affordable, high speed broadband, but where cities are setting up their own rival subsidized systems anyway?
Stuff like this doesn't come out of nowhere. Few governments have ever said "There is widespread satisfaction with this already adequate and accessible service. Let's take it over anyway." Even the mass nationalizations that occurred in Europe after WW-II happened during a period where most companies taken over were bankrupt or nearly bankrupt thanks to the damage of six years of continuous war.
I don't know, I think it's ideological nuttery to be honest, the same sort you see exhibited in the very first post to this article (which may or may not be a spoof, but it's a common viewpoint.) "The free market can always do better" they argue, even when presented with systems that exist purely because the free market isn't even bothering to participate.
You are in favor of intentionally poisoning children with a metal that will almost certainly cause permanent brain damage, because a majority of the adults in the same city they live in might have, many decades ago (in the vast majority of cases cases being grandparents of the children concerned, or else unrelated), mistrusted the wrong people the least to manage their city's finances?
The justification for many of the M&As is that the companies have talented people, rather than decent products. ie they're using the companies to recruit, not grow.
I'm not saying it makes sense, just that this is Mayer's justification.
The raid came the day after the Wired/Gizmodo revelations and the cops don't move that fast, so it's more likely we've heard of this guy because of the investigation, not vice versa.
Supposedly it's tax related.
I'd be wary of assuming he is Nakamoto for now, the Wired article raised a number of flags (notably that while much of the evidence tying Wright to Nakamoto is datestamped 2009, there's no evidence much of it actually existed until much later - ie it might have been planted in 2013/2014 with 2009 datestamps. Hard to tell, largely because of the number of websites that have undergone massive redesigns over the last few years.)
If you mean, pay USD$ in paper or metal, yeah. But the discussion is about digital currencies.
If you use an American (billed in dollars) credit card (or debit card backed by a dollar based checking account) in Canada (or Britain, or France, or whatever), it'll be accepted as payment.
So.... not seeing the problem here. If the problem is "How do I make a payment to anyone in the developed world (ie the part of the world that has the Internet)", Bitcoin is "solving" a problem that was solved many decades ago. The issues left - the size of transaction fees, and the possibility of temporarily (until/unless BTC becomes mainstream) hiding transactions from tax collectors - are very different, and aren't compelling enough to get people to move away from dollars, francs, or sterling.
Slashdot Mirror
For what little it's worth, I read the GP as saying that Gavin Andresen was the only developer who is both a Core Developer and someone working on an Altcoin, not that Andresen is no longer a Core Developer.
The rest of what you say is very interesting and adds a lot of context to the article, I hope it's modded up.
Martha Stewart is a convicted criminal (spent jail time on an insider trading rap) which means she's automatically banned from entry to a variety of countries including Britain. Given the non-violent nature of her crime and the likely nature of any visit to the UK, she probably would qualify for an exception if she lobbied hard enough.
The others I'm not familiar with the circumstances, but is Michael Savage the shock-jock? British Home Secretaries do have a habit of banning controversial figures.
They didn't arrest the family or interrogate them. They simply turned them away, telling the airline not to let them board or face fines.
So it's still fairly bizarre. I've heard some attempts to justify them not being allowed into the US (apparently the father had been questioned before at a different airport), but nothing that explains why the entire family were approved for a pseudo-visa.
Once upon a time that could have been justified by the fact the US government was so divided that different departments were responsible for different aspects of the process, but since shortly after 9/11 it's all been under the TSA's general remit anyway.
I think we're at a point where UI and UX people are like architects after several years of buildings people built that have no doors, or are upside down, or just keep falling down for some reason, and the entire country is wondering why we continue to have architects.
We do need UI and UX experts. The problem is that the people we currently employ as UI/UX people are spectacularly ill-qualified for the job.
I'm not having that problem. Of the tools I mentioned, only Outlook seems to have a problem talking to the others, largely because they want you to use it with Exchange Server. They work especially well with the cloud-based email systems like GMail, but I've found workarounds to help with locally managed contacts lists too.
Geez calm down! "Insinuated"? Geez. I wasn't accusing the poster of murder!
I'm assumed it's something about Thunderbird because that's the client he or she standardized on and because the nature of the question makes it clear he or she intends to continue doing so. The question wasn't "Should I keep using a single client, or change my workflow?", but asking for a replacement for their single client. I think it's reasonable to assume there has to be something about Thunderbird that makes it attractive for someone who uses a single client environment for someone to ask that.
Two problems here.
First, actually I run my own mail server, so I do keep (that email) locally rather than "in the cloud". But as I have IMAP, I can access it anywhere.
Secondly: storing your email on a single PC, and only reading it on that single PC, is not an improvement on "the cloud" in any useful way. It's overly restrictive, not merely for forcing you to deal with emails in a single geographic location, but also making it much harder to use email to, for example, share photographs and links from mobile devices.
I definitely wouldn't recommend the old download-everything-with-POP approach.
To be honest, I use a variety of different email clients, and I suspect most people reading Slashdot do here too. Windows 10 mail on my Windows 10 tablet and test laptop, Outlook on my Windows 7 PC, the built-in clients on my Android device, and so on. Plus webmail.
What is it about Thunderbird that makes you eschew the multi-client approach, standardizing on just the one? It might be easier to suggest a direction to go in if you explain further.
I agree.Democrats like and support Sanders. They support Clinton.
Republicans like but disagree with Sanders. They hate and disagree with Clinton.
I'm finding it hard to understand why the DNC/establishment is so gung-ho about Clinton at a time when the Republicans look set to elect someone a significant number Republicans probably won't stomach.
It's the opposite really, the licensed driver simply creates more confusion as to who was responsible for an accident. And no, a few legal precedents aren't likely to fix it, as these kinds of civil lawsuits rarely end up pointing the finger at one entity and saying "That person's 100% at fault".
This is, I suspect, part of the reason why companies selling the cars are keen on establishing the principle they'll be responsible come what may. Uncertainty and lawyer's bills are worse than a set of simple principles that can be priced into a sold (or more likely leased) product.
I'm pretty sure that just because you don't have the FCC or State Utility Commissions breathing down your neck, you're still required, by law, to bill the right people correctly.
If that's not the case, I invite you not merely to state how, but also to send me a check covering your past-due $127 payment for SquiggleSlash Services ASAP.
I hate wired broadband caps with a passion, but this has to be the absolute worst reason not to have them. Somehow electricity companies, water companies, phone companies (traditional and mobile), et al, have survived for decades (centuries perhaps?) despite occasional billing mishaps.
There's nothing particularly new about this as a problem.
Well, it's not actually true to begin with and the truth is less discriminatory. One Reddit forum is banning people who post spoilers. And they probably would do it for any major movie coming out.
Reddit itself isn't taking any stand on it. Supposedly (according to the linked article) virtually every post in /r/4chan is a spoiler right now...
But what do I know? I'm just Kylo Ren's brother.
There's nothing particularly nefarious about it, and no kick backs - T-Mobile have been clear no content provider is paying them for this, and others are welcome to join.
The deal is "If you watch video via our compressed system, we'll make it free" combined with "If you let us recompress your video, we'll let our users watch it for free." That's it.
T-Mobile wants to compress it, not let the content provider decide what bit rate to do it at, because this is about their network, not just one user on it.The fact a publisher might be capable of sending 1Mbps to a user doesn't mean this is in the best interests of everyone using the same tower as that user.
So, T-Mobile makes the offer: "Hey providers, if you work with us and send your video in a way that means we can intercept and compress it further, we'll let you be a part of this scheme." It's reasonable. It doesn't violate net neutrality (it's available to Amazon and YouTube, they just choose not to use it - be it for political, financial, or technical reasons), and it's probably a good idea.
I suspect there's no regulatory problem anyway. Anyone can get a license from the FCC for basic P2P TD-LTE/WiMAX/etc systems, as a basic example. Laying cable is more expensive, but I seriously doubt that the areas that lack broadband also lack telephone and cable TV.
To be specific, you have that. I also have that available, I think (I'm not 100% sure, Comcast is very careful to avoid quoting uplink/downlink speeds in their advertising for people in my area.) But a significant number of places don't have that, and there's little or no commercial incentive to introduce it. Hence municipal broadband in those areas.
Surely you can agree that if the free market is not delivering something badly needed in a particular market, then it's reasonable to suppose that the free market is not the answer at that location.
Can you name any US locations that have perfectly good, affordable, high speed broadband, but where cities are setting up their own rival subsidized systems anyway?
Stuff like this doesn't come out of nowhere. Few governments have ever said "There is widespread satisfaction with this already adequate and accessible service. Let's take it over anyway." Even the mass nationalizations that occurred in Europe after WW-II happened during a period where most companies taken over were bankrupt or nearly bankrupt thanks to the damage of six years of continuous war.
Because corporations are people too? ;-)
I don't know, I think it's ideological nuttery to be honest, the same sort you see exhibited in the very first post to this article (which may or may not be a spoof, but it's a common viewpoint.) "The free market can always do better" they argue, even when presented with systems that exist purely because the free market isn't even bothering to participate.
So... just to be clear...
You are in favor of intentionally poisoning children with a metal that will almost certainly cause permanent brain damage, because a majority of the adults in the same city they live in might have, many decades ago (in the vast majority of cases cases being grandparents of the children concerned, or else unrelated), mistrusted the wrong people the least to manage their city's finances?
You're in favor of that?
This is why I often lose faith in humanity.
Carly Fiorina is not, and never has been, the CEO of Yahoo. I guess all blonde female CEOs look the same to you? ;-)
The justification for many of the M&As is that the companies have talented people, rather than decent products. ie they're using the companies to recruit, not grow.
I'm not saying it makes sense, just that this is Mayer's justification.
Like what? Seriously, what could anyone reveal about Donald Trump right now that would actually damage him?
Sometimes a coincidence isn't A causing B, it's B causing A.
The raid came the day after the Wired/Gizmodo revelations and the cops don't move that fast, so it's more likely we've heard of this guy because of the investigation, not vice versa.
Supposedly it's tax related.
I'd be wary of assuming he is Nakamoto for now, the Wired article raised a number of flags (notably that while much of the evidence tying Wright to Nakamoto is datestamped 2009, there's no evidence much of it actually existed until much later - ie it might have been planted in 2013/2014 with 2009 datestamps. Hard to tell, largely because of the number of websites that have undergone massive redesigns over the last few years.)
If you mean, pay USD$ in paper or metal, yeah. But the discussion is about digital currencies.
If you use an American (billed in dollars) credit card (or debit card backed by a dollar based checking account) in Canada (or Britain, or France, or whatever), it'll be accepted as payment.
So.... not seeing the problem here. If the problem is "How do I make a payment to anyone in the developed world (ie the part of the world that has the Internet)", Bitcoin is "solving" a problem that was solved many decades ago. The issues left - the size of transaction fees, and the possibility of temporarily (until/unless BTC becomes mainstream) hiding transactions from tax collectors - are very different, and aren't compelling enough to get people to move away from dollars, francs, or sterling.
It's a COOKBOOK! It's a COOKBOOK!