Yeah, that's bullshit, alright. Cityfags constantly mock, belittle, and bitch about "rural and suburban sister-fucking retarded backwards racist redneck hicks." Screeching like an autistic idiot when someone points this out is beyond pathetic and hypocritical.
This is bullshit. _I_ have lived in cities and never said anything of the sort. And most of the people who I have heard call people "racist redneck hicks" actually live... in the suburbs. And they're not saying every non-urban person is a racist redneck hick because that'd mean they're calling themselves that, you stupid twat.
No, you choose to live in a city, which will always be more expensive due to the basic functions of supply and demand. Take your head out of your ass and get off your high horse.
No, I don't. I want to live in a city, but YOU STUPID FUCKS have made living in a city in the US completely impossible. The cities have been intentionally run down, with suburban planning rules enforced in the centers, and their transportation systems and infrastructure underfunded.
Moreover, you're not addressing the point. The cost of living is sky high in the US, and it's because fuckers like you insist that the suburbs need massive subsidies. The result is that taxes are high throughout the US, massive resources are spent providing infrastructure to the suburbs, and most people end up finding the suburbs are the only place they can live thanks to subsidies that make it cheaper than than the cities, and because with infrastructure broken in most cities, they're completely clogged with traffic.
This is completely fucked up, and pretending that it's A-OK because you once heard someone who you think lives in a city, but probably doesn't, call someone else a racist hick shows how out of touch and part of the problem you are.
You are the problem. You are why the cost of living is so high. Fuck you.
3. How many people would just like reliable voice dialing, rather than "Hope the fucker understands my accent this time and doesn't consider my question vague enough for it to prompt with a new question that for some reason it'll not listen for an answer to"?
Gender was once a grammatical construct. It became used as a descriptor for the behavioral side of sex once it became necessary to distinguish between the two. That word has been used for more than a century now with that definition.
Sex is a scientific (as in biological) construct.
There are more sciences than biology, so this is a silly statement to make. Sex is a biological construct. Scientists created the new definition of gender because they needed to discuss that too.
Note though, amusingly, that sex isn't as clear cut as people who get all worked up about having more than two genders like to pretend it is. There are XX people born with XY plumbing and vice versa. And, of course, you get things like XXY and other combinations that aren't XX or XY. The body is weird. The brain is weird. I would have thought that was obvious, and most people would go for a live and let live approach if they don't understand it, but for some reason, here on Slashdot, acknowledging something that the majority of scientists agree with and that's actually beautiful in its way is thoughtcrime.
Or maybe it's just a whole bunch of pissed off programmers annoyed we can't have an easily validateable "gender" or "sex" field in our forms and databases.
Part of the bizarreness here is listening to people talk "rural" and pretend it's farms and stuff, when actually "rural" in the US means "Non-urban". You're saying you're a suburbanite? Congrats, you probably live in a similar neighborhood to the pick up drivers under discussion. You really think they live on farms?
Your plumber, your house painter, your AC guy, they're not living on farms, they're living in places like the one you live in. And that goes for the jackasses hogging charger stations too. Yes, those people doing it are jackasses. They don't have economic anxiety, they're doing it to own the libs (which is ironic, I'll get to why in a moment) not to strike a blow for fair wages and more jobs.
The reason these particular jackasses think of themselves as "rural" and (by-and-large conservative, suburban) Tesla owners as "city" (which is ridiculous) is because of the bizarre identity politics being perpetuated by the culture warriors. They think their "lifestyles" are under threat from "liberals", because that's what Fox News tells them, and they think liberals drive Teslas.
Which we don't. 60% of Tesla owners are conservative, which is what you'd expect because they're expensive and their chief salesperson lives in a different world from that of most liberals, constantly belittling walkable communities and advocates for that, and treating poverty and poor working conditions as if they don't exist.
The number of rural Americans is tiny. Most are suburban. A minority is urban. Most suburbs exist because of "White Flight" during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, which has colored the politics of those areas. Most wouldn't want to admit in a million years that their parents moved to an artificial, poorly thought out, shit hole, because they were frightened of black people, so they cling on to this myth that they live in a "natural", "rural", part of the world that's somehow better than urban living despite being completely unnatural and unusual by historical human standards. And culture warriors like to take advantage of this. And because a handful of every group are assholes, the assholes take it too far, and try to run homeless cyclists off the road (I've seen this), or, less evilly but still obnoxiously, prevent people they think are "bad" by the standards of the culture warriors from being able to do what they want.
The only funny part of this is that they're more likely to end up blocking the Tucker Carlsons of this world than the Keith Olbermanns, so in some ways it's a tremendous self own. And means you're right in an ironic way, because I think most of the problems in the US right now can be traced to people who promote culture wars and who harness racism and other prejudices to pit people against one another, and that fits the Carlsons of this world.
I don't. Vinyl suffers most of the same problems as cassettes - they degrade each time you play them. Don't get me wrong, vinyl is bad but cassettes kick it up a few notches, but essentially normal handling of vinyl's likely to cause damage.
Film? Mostly a terrible medium. Over time the chemicals degrade and colors start to disappear. You've probably noticed this already with your grandparent's photo collection - many of those "black and white" photos have a lot of red in them, and appear to be over exposed? Well, those ones were actually color. On the moving pictures front, I have 16mm and Super 8 movie projectors, and film to go with them - most of the media I have for both is heavily tinted red. Film also burns, which sucks.
It's hard to believe, but optical discs, especially after most of the bit rot issues were solved, are probably the best electronic storage mediums we've come up with so far. Which is not good because even those aren't as good (not even in the same ballpark) as dark marks made on acid free paper, and I don't need to tell you how fragile that stuff is. The best we can do is hope we continue to act like monks from the middle ages and keep copying content from one medium to another.
What, are you unaware of the 192kHz, lossless, 32 bit sampled, audio codec used on YouTube? It's the only way to listen to YouTube, but do make sure your amplifier uses genuine wooden knobs, for the best listening experience of course.
Your tapes and records are in shitty shape if you hear hiss and crackle
I do not miss the days of having to be super careful removing a record from a sleeve, blowing the dust off it as carefully as possible, being super careful putting it on the turn table, and then, delicately trying to drop the needle on the thing in the one area of the record you're allowed to be slightly rough.
Tapes... yeah, they're amazing, they hold music perfectly except if you play them. Then if you play them you have something like a 5% chance of hearing a crunching noise, the music slowing down, then stopping. Then 5 minutes of trying to pick the tape out of the rollers near the magnetic head. Hopefully it didn't break. Whether it did or not, the sound quality on that crumpled tape is now... no longer optimal.
But yes, both vinyl and tape are great at holding pristine, slightly lower than CD for the same mastered recording, recordings, as long as you don't, you know, play them.
Whereas, yes, you're right, CDs sometimes have bit rot. What is this DRM you speak of? They don't have it on proper audio CDs, and the few attempts there have been to put DRM on CDs didn't work and didn't stop anyone from making bit-for-bit copies. So in practice, there's no DRM.
You deduced all that because I observed that we overspend on rural roads and that cities don't get their transportation needs met, huh?
Want to explain the logic? Oh, you can't? Because you're projecting so far you've disappeared up your asshole? It's kinda weird, I've never seen a city advocate complain about people who live outside of cities, but I'm always coming across suburban idiots, like you, who think they're "rural", despite the fact they've never been within one mile of a cow they weren't passing at 70mph.
I've lived in two countries, in both rural and non-rural areas. Policies that run down cities and force people to live outside of them are fucking stupid. People who demonize those who live in urban areas, such as the original poster, are part of the problem. You're part of the problem. YOU ARE WHY THE COST OF LIVING IS SKY HIGH IN THE UNITED STATES. Go fuck yourself you stupid scumbag.
Wonder why the cost of food in Britain is about half the cost of the same food in the United States, despite the fact that the EU's "subsidies" to non-urban areas are nowhere near as extreme.
Oh, I know, it's because American subsidies are fucking stupid and are largely used to fund the lifestyles of white flighters, not to reduce the cost of food. People who live in cities don't generally benefit from the subsidies, in fact, between being taxed more than they would otherwise be, and their lack of services, those subsidies harm them.
Where does your food come from? Not the fucking subsidized suburbs, you dumb fuck.
Just curious, but are you really saying that people who intentionally block others from using a service because of some bizarre prejudice are not assholes?
Your comment is far more Ivanish than the GP. The vast majority of blue collar workers wouldn't do this. Your attempt to equate a bunch of assholes with generic blue collar workers, and then complain that people who criticize the assholes are "dividing the country", is a dick move, and exactly the kind of thing the trolls promote.
Wonder why the cost of food in Britain is about half the cost of the same food in the United States, despite the fact that the EU's "subsidies" to rural areas are nowhere near as extreme.
Oh, I know, it's because American subsidies are fucking stupid and are largely used to fund the lifestyles of white flighters, not to reduce the cost of food. People who live in cities don't generally benefit from the subsidies, in fact, between being taxed more than they would otherwise be, and their lack of services, those subsidies harm them.
You deduced all that because I observed that we overspend on rural roads and that cities don't get their transportation needs met, huh?
I've lived in two countries, in both rural and non-rural areas. Policies that run down cities and force people to live outside of them are fucking stupid. People who demonize those who live in urban areas, such as the original poster, are part of the problem. You're part of the problem. YOU ARE WHY THE COST OF LIVING IS SKY HIGH IN THE UNITED STATES. Go fuck yourself.
One of the lesser known functions of the highway system is for national defense. It's not just about civilian shit.
This is true in every single country in the world. So what?
Also, those non-urban areas have people that pay their taxes just like the urban areas.
On what planet does this justify running down cities and preventing them from having their transportation needs met? You even admit yourself that urban people pay taxes - yet you seriously argue that only non-urban transportation should get adequate funding? REALLY?
Also, again, those highways to nowhere are what connect your urban areas together so you can move between them, and connect farms to your grocery stores so you have food to eat.
Who argued there should be no rural roads?
Your entire rant at me is because I dared mention that we overspend on rural roads while we don't meet the needs of cities. You're pretending that this means I argued that all rural roads should be closed. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you seriously that fucking stupid?
Oh modded down, sorry, did I upset some jackass "I hate cities, I'm not sure why, but Daddy said urban places suck and are full of criminals" moderator?
Because fuck you if that's the case. You shitheads are literally why we can't have nice things in this country. You're why our taxes are through the roof yet we get virtually nothing in services. You're why everyone has to spend a third of their income on a little metal prison on wheels that we have to spend an hour or two a day in playing the fucking game of "Try not to get killed while keeping this thing between two white lines". Fuck you.
Urbanites don't generally drive Teslas, or cars at all if they can help it. You're looking at rich suburbanites. But sure, make it a city vs country thing, despite the rather obvious fact the cities continue to have their transportation needs ignored while expensive, highly subsidized, highways to nowhere continue to serve the non-urban parts of America.
For 'modern' recordings, streaming or CD's are generally the equal of vinyl, so there's no significant advantage to the big black disc.
That should tell you that your conclusion was ultimately a mistake.
On the basic technological level, CDs generally faithfully reproduce a greater part of the original audio than Vinyl is capable of doing. The reason you think the older records are better is more likely to do with the quality of production, before the audio was stamped onto either media, in the 1970s, than it does the medium. Older media is obviously going to sound "better" if the recordings are better than their modern equivalents.
If, comparing like with like, you can't see a difference, then you can't really argue you can conclude one is better than the other. When you've been given identical content on two different mediums, you've found you can't tell them apart. That should tell you that at best vinyl isn't better than a CD (it also says CDs aren't better either), unless you can find technical reasons to support one over the other. As of now, the technical evidence is POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the SCRATCH erence.
Not all CDs, no. This comment reminds me of the similar comments made about cassette tapes. I still have a cassette tape (The Special's eponymous album) I bought in 1979 that plays fine.
It is true though that media created during the 20th Century isn't really designed to last for more than a few decades. If we want content to last longer than that we need to review how we're archiving it.
When I went to the mall the other day there was an FYE with racks of new and used music. Barnes and Noble across the street also have a CD section.
Now, if you mean the selection isn't great, I can't help you with that. Indeed, while selections have been better in the past with more room devoted to CDs and more stores open, I wonder if the current situation isn't hugely better with Amazon.com's selection being wider than you could ever hope to get from a store, and a CD just a download and burn away - if you still need one.
I mean Apple has practically made computers, MP3 players, and phones fashion items. Now they're going to do the same thing with clothes? Let's keep fashion and style out of such an important commodity! We don't want clothes that cost a huge amount of money just because they have a logo on them, or have some distinctive, but not very practical, look to them.
There's nothing wrong with uPnP, it does a job that needs doing at least until we have ubiquitous IPv6.
There's plenty wrong with devices that get (however it's done) external connectivity and then implement zero security, effectively allowing their owners networks to be abused.
I've been on Slashdot since the 20th Century, and to be honest this is the first time I've seen those letters with this definition. You can kinda figure it out from context, but no, software developers are unlikely to run into this phrase during our day to day work.
Verizon: Hey, we're going to make everyone pay to access services other than our own, and throttle Netflix to MODEM speeds. MWAHAHAHAHA!
FCC: Oh, OK, Have fun
After:
Verizon: Hey, we're going to make everyone pay to access services other than our own, and throttle Netflix to MODEM speeds. MWAHAHAHAHA!
FCC: *snore*
Slashdot Mirror
This is bullshit. _I_ have lived in cities and never said anything of the sort. And most of the people who I have heard call people "racist redneck hicks" actually live... in the suburbs. And they're not saying every non-urban person is a racist redneck hick because that'd mean they're calling themselves that, you stupid twat.
No, I don't. I want to live in a city, but YOU STUPID FUCKS have made living in a city in the US completely impossible. The cities have been intentionally run down, with suburban planning rules enforced in the centers, and their transportation systems and infrastructure underfunded.
Moreover, you're not addressing the point. The cost of living is sky high in the US, and it's because fuckers like you insist that the suburbs need massive subsidies. The result is that taxes are high throughout the US, massive resources are spent providing infrastructure to the suburbs, and most people end up finding the suburbs are the only place they can live thanks to subsidies that make it cheaper than than the cities, and because with infrastructure broken in most cities, they're completely clogged with traffic.
This is completely fucked up, and pretending that it's A-OK because you once heard someone who you think lives in a city, but probably doesn't, call someone else a racist hick shows how out of touch and part of the problem you are.
You are the problem. You are why the cost of living is so high. Fuck you.
3. How many people would just like reliable voice dialing, rather than "Hope the fucker understands my accent this time and doesn't consider my question vague enough for it to prompt with a new question that for some reason it'll not listen for an answer to"?
Gender was once a grammatical construct. It became used as a descriptor for the behavioral side of sex once it became necessary to distinguish between the two. That word has been used for more than a century now with that definition.
There are more sciences than biology, so this is a silly statement to make. Sex is a biological construct. Scientists created the new definition of gender because they needed to discuss that too.
Note though, amusingly, that sex isn't as clear cut as people who get all worked up about having more than two genders like to pretend it is. There are XX people born with XY plumbing and vice versa. And, of course, you get things like XXY and other combinations that aren't XX or XY. The body is weird. The brain is weird. I would have thought that was obvious, and most people would go for a live and let live approach if they don't understand it, but for some reason, here on Slashdot, acknowledging something that the majority of scientists agree with and that's actually beautiful in its way is thoughtcrime.
Or maybe it's just a whole bunch of pissed off programmers annoyed we can't have an easily validateable "gender" or "sex" field in our forms and databases.
Part of the bizarreness here is listening to people talk "rural" and pretend it's farms and stuff, when actually "rural" in the US means "Non-urban". You're saying you're a suburbanite? Congrats, you probably live in a similar neighborhood to the pick up drivers under discussion. You really think they live on farms?
Your plumber, your house painter, your AC guy, they're not living on farms, they're living in places like the one you live in. And that goes for the jackasses hogging charger stations too. Yes, those people doing it are jackasses. They don't have economic anxiety, they're doing it to own the libs (which is ironic, I'll get to why in a moment) not to strike a blow for fair wages and more jobs.
The reason these particular jackasses think of themselves as "rural" and (by-and-large conservative, suburban) Tesla owners as "city" (which is ridiculous) is because of the bizarre identity politics being perpetuated by the culture warriors. They think their "lifestyles" are under threat from "liberals", because that's what Fox News tells them, and they think liberals drive Teslas.
Which we don't. 60% of Tesla owners are conservative, which is what you'd expect because they're expensive and their chief salesperson lives in a different world from that of most liberals, constantly belittling walkable communities and advocates for that, and treating poverty and poor working conditions as if they don't exist.
The number of rural Americans is tiny. Most are suburban. A minority is urban. Most suburbs exist because of "White Flight" during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, which has colored the politics of those areas. Most wouldn't want to admit in a million years that their parents moved to an artificial, poorly thought out, shit hole, because they were frightened of black people, so they cling on to this myth that they live in a "natural", "rural", part of the world that's somehow better than urban living despite being completely unnatural and unusual by historical human standards. And culture warriors like to take advantage of this. And because a handful of every group are assholes, the assholes take it too far, and try to run homeless cyclists off the road (I've seen this), or, less evilly but still obnoxiously, prevent people they think are "bad" by the standards of the culture warriors from being able to do what they want.
The only funny part of this is that they're more likely to end up blocking the Tucker Carlsons of this world than the Keith Olbermanns, so in some ways it's a tremendous self own. And means you're right in an ironic way, because I think most of the problems in the US right now can be traced to people who promote culture wars and who harness racism and other prejudices to pit people against one another, and that fits the Carlsons of this world.
I don't. Vinyl suffers most of the same problems as cassettes - they degrade each time you play them. Don't get me wrong, vinyl is bad but cassettes kick it up a few notches, but essentially normal handling of vinyl's likely to cause damage.
Film? Mostly a terrible medium. Over time the chemicals degrade and colors start to disappear. You've probably noticed this already with your grandparent's photo collection - many of those "black and white" photos have a lot of red in them, and appear to be over exposed? Well, those ones were actually color. On the moving pictures front, I have 16mm and Super 8 movie projectors, and film to go with them - most of the media I have for both is heavily tinted red. Film also burns, which sucks.
It's hard to believe, but optical discs, especially after most of the bit rot issues were solved, are probably the best electronic storage mediums we've come up with so far. Which is not good because even those aren't as good (not even in the same ballpark) as dark marks made on acid free paper, and I don't need to tell you how fragile that stuff is. The best we can do is hope we continue to act like monks from the middle ages and keep copying content from one medium to another.
What, are you unaware of the 192kHz, lossless, 32 bit sampled, audio codec used on YouTube? It's the only way to listen to YouTube, but do make sure your amplifier uses genuine wooden knobs, for the best listening experience of course.
I do not miss the days of having to be super careful removing a record from a sleeve, blowing the dust off it as carefully as possible, being super careful putting it on the turn table, and then, delicately trying to drop the needle on the thing in the one area of the record you're allowed to be slightly rough.
Tapes... yeah, they're amazing, they hold music perfectly except if you play them. Then if you play them you have something like a 5% chance of hearing a crunching noise, the music slowing down, then stopping. Then 5 minutes of trying to pick the tape out of the rollers near the magnetic head. Hopefully it didn't break. Whether it did or not, the sound quality on that crumpled tape is now... no longer optimal.
But yes, both vinyl and tape are great at holding pristine, slightly lower than CD for the same mastered recording, recordings, as long as you don't, you know, play them.
Whereas, yes, you're right, CDs sometimes have bit rot. What is this DRM you speak of? They don't have it on proper audio CDs, and the few attempts there have been to put DRM on CDs didn't work and didn't stop anyone from making bit-for-bit copies. So in practice, there's no DRM.
You deduced all that because I observed that we overspend on rural roads and that cities don't get their transportation needs met, huh?
Want to explain the logic? Oh, you can't? Because you're projecting so far you've disappeared up your asshole? It's kinda weird, I've never seen a city advocate complain about people who live outside of cities, but I'm always coming across suburban idiots, like you, who think they're "rural", despite the fact they've never been within one mile of a cow they weren't passing at 70mph.
I've lived in two countries, in both rural and non-rural areas. Policies that run down cities and force people to live outside of them are fucking stupid. People who demonize those who live in urban areas, such as the original poster, are part of the problem. You're part of the problem. YOU ARE WHY THE COST OF LIVING IS SKY HIGH IN THE UNITED STATES. Go fuck yourself you stupid scumbag.
Wonder why the cost of food in Britain is about half the cost of the same food in the United States, despite the fact that the EU's "subsidies" to non-urban areas are nowhere near as extreme.
Oh, I know, it's because American subsidies are fucking stupid and are largely used to fund the lifestyles of white flighters, not to reduce the cost of food. People who live in cities don't generally benefit from the subsidies, in fact, between being taxed more than they would otherwise be, and their lack of services, those subsidies harm them.
Where does your food come from? Not the fucking subsidized suburbs, you dumb fuck.
To be fair, when Hillary lost the second time, it was a disaster for the nation. So there's that.
Just curious, but are you really saying that people who intentionally block others from using a service because of some bizarre prejudice are not assholes?
Your comment is far more Ivanish than the GP. The vast majority of blue collar workers wouldn't do this. Your attempt to equate a bunch of assholes with generic blue collar workers, and then complain that people who criticize the assholes are "dividing the country", is a dick move, and exactly the kind of thing the trolls promote.
Wonder why the cost of food in Britain is about half the cost of the same food in the United States, despite the fact that the EU's "subsidies" to rural areas are nowhere near as extreme.
Oh, I know, it's because American subsidies are fucking stupid and are largely used to fund the lifestyles of white flighters, not to reduce the cost of food. People who live in cities don't generally benefit from the subsidies, in fact, between being taxed more than they would otherwise be, and their lack of services, those subsidies harm them.
You deduced all that because I observed that we overspend on rural roads and that cities don't get their transportation needs met, huh?
I've lived in two countries, in both rural and non-rural areas. Policies that run down cities and force people to live outside of them are fucking stupid. People who demonize those who live in urban areas, such as the original poster, are part of the problem. You're part of the problem. YOU ARE WHY THE COST OF LIVING IS SKY HIGH IN THE UNITED STATES. Go fuck yourself.
This is true in every single country in the world. So what?
On what planet does this justify running down cities and preventing them from having their transportation needs met? You even admit yourself that urban people pay taxes - yet you seriously argue that only non-urban transportation should get adequate funding? REALLY?
Who argued there should be no rural roads?
Your entire rant at me is because I dared mention that we overspend on rural roads while we don't meet the needs of cities. You're pretending that this means I argued that all rural roads should be closed. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you seriously that fucking stupid?
Oh modded down, sorry, did I upset some jackass "I hate cities, I'm not sure why, but Daddy said urban places suck and are full of criminals" moderator?
Because fuck you if that's the case. You shitheads are literally why we can't have nice things in this country. You're why our taxes are through the roof yet we get virtually nothing in services. You're why everyone has to spend a third of their income on a little metal prison on wheels that we have to spend an hour or two a day in playing the fucking game of "Try not to get killed while keeping this thing between two white lines". Fuck you.
Urbanites don't generally drive Teslas, or cars at all if they can help it. You're looking at rich suburbanites. But sure, make it a city vs country thing, despite the rather obvious fact the cities continue to have their transportation needs ignored while expensive, highly subsidized, highways to nowhere continue to serve the non-urban parts of America.
I'm not sure it is. You're effectively saying "I much prefer Vinyl when I don't have a choice."
That should tell you that your conclusion was ultimately a mistake.
On the basic technological level, CDs generally faithfully reproduce a greater part of the original audio than Vinyl is capable of doing. The reason you think the older records are better is more likely to do with the quality of production, before the audio was stamped onto either media, in the 1970s, than it does the medium. Older media is obviously going to sound "better" if the recordings are better than their modern equivalents.
If, comparing like with like, you can't see a difference, then you can't really argue you can conclude one is better than the other. When you've been given identical content on two different mediums, you've found you can't tell them apart. That should tell you that at best vinyl isn't better than a CD (it also says CDs aren't better either), unless you can find technical reasons to support one over the other. As of now, the technical evidence is POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the POP that CDs are higher quality, but possibly not so high anyone can tell the SCRATCH erence.
Not all CDs, no. This comment reminds me of the similar comments made about cassette tapes. I still have a cassette tape (The Special's eponymous album) I bought in 1979 that plays fine.
It is true though that media created during the 20th Century isn't really designed to last for more than a few decades. If we want content to last longer than that we need to review how we're archiving it.
When I went to the mall the other day there was an FYE with racks of new and used music. Barnes and Noble across the street also have a CD section.
Now, if you mean the selection isn't great, I can't help you with that. Indeed, while selections have been better in the past with more room devoted to CDs and more stores open, I wonder if the current situation isn't hugely better with Amazon.com's selection being wider than you could ever hope to get from a store, and a CD just a download and burn away - if you still need one.
I mean Apple has practically made computers, MP3 players, and phones fashion items. Now they're going to do the same thing with clothes? Let's keep fashion and style out of such an important commodity! We don't want clothes that cost a huge amount of money just because they have a logo on them, or have some distinctive, but not very practical, look to them.
What next? Shoes?
There's nothing wrong with uPnP, it does a job that needs doing at least until we have ubiquitous IPv6.
There's plenty wrong with devices that get (however it's done) external connectivity and then implement zero security, effectively allowing their owners networks to be abused.
This is 100% on Google and Chromecast.
I've been on Slashdot since the 20th Century, and to be honest this is the first time I've seen those letters with this definition. You can kinda figure it out from context, but no, software developers are unlikely to run into this phrase during our day to day work.
There was nothing Unix like about NT 3.51, it was also pretty horrible to use given it had a Windows 3.1 type UI.
Before:
Verizon: Hey, we're going to make everyone pay to access services other than our own, and throttle Netflix to MODEM speeds. MWAHAHAHAHA!
FCC: Oh, OK, Have fun
After:
Verizon: Hey, we're going to make everyone pay to access services other than our own, and throttle Netflix to MODEM speeds. MWAHAHAHAHA!
FCC: *snore*