No. What changed is that we're generally better educated, and today many people are able to successfully reject the onslaught of religious idiocy that was much more prevalent back then.
The phrase "smut peddler" harkens back to an age when North America was dominated by religious people looking to control the sexuality of stupid people for monetary and/or power gains, and so intelligent people mock those who use it today.
We - the engineers who wrote the software your company uses to generate profit - are watching. Screw us out of our own systems, and we will replace you, as we did those before you.
Ok - so here's the thing. Developers should have a firm understanding of OS maintenance, firewalls, networking, security, and all that good stuff. Operators should know how to code. I wouldn't personally hire a developer whose workstation was a disaster area, and I wouldn't hire an prod-level operator who didn't know, at least in passing, a few languages.
But this whole "devops" thing is kind of a joke when you get to the enterprise level. The goals of developers and operators are simply different, and the stakes are way too high to encourage those who write the code to also run the code.
On the other hand, if you're a small team / company slapping together a simple web site, multitasking may simply be a necessity.
Solar panels can generate around 80% of peak during dismal overcast days.
Eh. Solar's awesome enough that we don't need to lie about it.
On "dismal overcast days" you won't be seeing much more than 15-25% of the nameplate power output from most panels, with with the cloud edge effect.
Having said that, solar is taking over the electricity generating industry one watt at a time, and I invite all the haters to short clean energy stocks. I could use the money.
I have two thousand US dollars to spend on a smartphone, because I haven't upgraded since 2013. My note 3 has a replaceable battery, full sensor complement, headphone jack, MicroSD slot, hardware home button, silkscreen back/menu buttons, IR blaster, unlocked bootloader...
There doesn't exist an equivalent phone, let alone a better phone. However, if any company is interested in making an actual flagship phone (think: ugly, powerful, maintainable, and with no wear items glued in), then I will pay two thousand US dollars for it.
Normally I'm against regulation of technology (in general), but here's a case where we, the people, genuinely need the government to step in. It should be illegal to manufacture, import, or offer for sale any device which contains anti-freedom provisions such as bootloader locking or anti-root measures.
Irony of ironies. Being driven to school is massively more dangerous and likely to cause death or serious injury than walking to school, almost regardless of the distance.
I've got a ZeroLemon 10,000mAh TPU battery and case on my Note 3. I scoff at my friends and their cracked displays, and just to prove the point, often toss my phone onto the ground as a demonstration.
It's possible to engineer rugged devices. It baffles me as to why people don't demand them (and replaceable wear items, such as batteries).
As much as we like to assume legislators are simply braindead.. this is not always the case.
The most likely explanation here: they tried to shake various coffee chains, distributors, and resellers down for "campaign contributions" and were denied. Hence, added to the cancer list.
My personal rule is pretty simple: treat me with respect and honesty, and honour your committment, and I will remain a fiercely loyal customer. I will spend lots of money with you to the exclusion of your competition, and try my best to convince others to do the same.
Attempt to screw me, and I'll do exactly the same as above, except the opposite.
I literally can't fathom why a vendor would choose to gamble that they can screw a customer without consequences.
I can imagine two reasons they might have done that.
One, it's more like Tinder which is their main competition these days.
Aye; I'd read that... but to me it makes no sense. I chose okcupid over Tinder specifically because Tinder isn't very useful to me.
I can get laid any night of the week. I don't need some silly web site to facilitate. But meeting like-minded people / potential life partners - that's tough.
The best way for okcupid to acquire and retain users is to offer something that Tinder doesn't, right? But they seem to have abandoned it. In fact I went and installed Tinder to see what all the fuss is about as a direct result of their change.
Two, the biggest complaint I've heard about online dating has mostly been that women are absolutely inundated with messages and consequently barely respond to any of them so men never get any responses so they just spam every woman so women get inundated with messages and so on in a vicious cycle. If you can only see messages from people you also "like" (without first knowing that they like you enough to message you), then women won't be so inundated with messages that they stop responding, so men will actually get some responses, and men will have less incentive to spam every woman with "sup", breaking the vicious cycle.
Hey, I get it.. but why not just add a checkbox: "ignore messages from people I dislike / haven't liked?" No need to force it on everyone. Kind of one of those baby / bathwater things.
This could be useful. I was recently on okcupid (formerly the best of the bunch) and they seem to have lost their way.
They sent me an email proclaiming that I'd been liked, and received a message. Great!
Nothing in my inbox.
Re-read the message, and it explained that in order to see the message, I'd have to click through a bunch of random profiles and swipe, and that if I'd happened to have swiped the particular user who messaged me, then I'd get to see said message.
I thought it was a bug or scam.. but apparently that's how it works now. Needless to say, I wasn't able to see the person's message. Love lost!
But seriously, it kinda blew my mind. Dating sites have one purpose: connect people together. okcupid hired someone who clearly didn't understand what their raison d'etre is, and made their site, essentially, pointless. Maybe they were looking for a way to exit the market slowly for some reason. Or maybe the person they hired was a trojan from Facebook.:p
*shrug* lol.. I just mean I'm unwilling to give up a single useful feature during an "upgrade" that's done to "refresh the user experience" or whatever they call it.
Dude or dudette, I work on a console all day long.. lol.
I care about functionality/feature set, performance, and reliability. So long as the fonts are legible and all of the forms are properly aligned, I don't care which fonts they choose. It just doesn't matter.
I've got two thousand dollars with your name on it.
All you need to do is make an actual flagship phone with a replaceable battery. I, and many others, will not purchase a device into which consumables have been glued.
People/governments around the world should lay this one out crystal clear: carriers, you will serve our will, or we will delete you, arrest your CEO, and seize your assets for the common good.
It is our land, and they are our airwaves. Not yours. Carriers, you exist at our behest.
There is a shitton of money to be made by serving the telecommunication needs the citizens of a modern nation.
That should be enough. And, if carriers can't act in good faith, there's no reason for us, the people, to allow them right of way, or access to our radio spectrum.
So, eliminating Net Neutrality was never about maximizing Internet profit from consumers. In fact, consumers would likely benefit (at first), because they're the ones with the power. They're the ones the telcos don't want to piss off.
Internet prices might even fall (in the short-term) as part of an appeasement strategy.
The real money is in charging the established content providers a premium for access to consumers.
Take Spotify, for example. If Net Neutrality is eliminated, Spotify and all of the carriers will most likely collude to offer NZ metering (possibly even free to the consumer) for their service, encouraging many consumers to switch to Spotify. Spotify, of course, then increases their prices by a few dollars, split with the carriers. Consumers are annoyed, but they don't make the connection.
SuperTunesPlus attempts to enter the market, offering great new features at a lower price. However, not only do the carriers not want their money, SuperTunesPlus can't afford to pay the protection fee anyway. Consumers, having to pay bandwidth fees for SuperTunesPlus, decide they're better off with the established player, and SuperTunesPlus suffers greatly. They hold on just long enough for the carriers to slow their traffic, causing persistent buffering issues. The last of their customers leave, and they go bankrupt.
Picking winners and losers in the market - that's what the anti-NN movement is about.
Who cares? Well, in a US without Net Neutrality protections, the next YouTube, Spotify, Google, Uber, or Amazon will likely be invented in China, Canada, France, or Japan. The world is a big place, and while it sucks not being able to serve American customers, it sucks worse trying to build a business when you can't even count on the network to function properly. Over the long-term (say, 20 years), silicon valley will become a power base of large, expensive, established, and inefficient American-only companies, while tech leadership will migrate out to the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Has what's right and wrong changed since 1938?
No. What changed is that we're generally better educated, and today many people are able to successfully reject the onslaught of religious idiocy that was much more prevalent back then.
The phrase "smut peddler" harkens back to an age when North America was dominated by religious people looking to control the sexuality of stupid people for monetary and/or power gains, and so intelligent people mock those who use it today.
We - the engineers who wrote the software your company uses to generate profit - are watching. Screw us out of our own systems, and we will replace you, as we did those before you.
YouTube desperately needs some legit competition.
Ok - so here's the thing. Developers should have a firm understanding of OS maintenance, firewalls, networking, security, and all that good stuff. Operators should know how to code. I wouldn't personally hire a developer whose workstation was a disaster area, and I wouldn't hire an prod-level operator who didn't know, at least in passing, a few languages.
But this whole "devops" thing is kind of a joke when you get to the enterprise level. The goals of developers and operators are simply different, and the stakes are way too high to encourage those who write the code to also run the code.
On the other hand, if you're a small team / company slapping together a simple web site, multitasking may simply be a necessity.
Everyone, short TSLA! Ramble on about how Tesla sucks and is overvalued! I've got a few hundred shares I'm willing to loan anyone who is interested.
Solar panels can generate around 80% of peak during dismal overcast days.
Eh. Solar's awesome enough that we don't need to lie about it.
On "dismal overcast days" you won't be seeing much more than 15-25% of the nameplate power output from most panels, with with the cloud edge effect.
Having said that, solar is taking over the electricity generating industry one watt at a time, and I invite all the haters to short clean energy stocks. I could use the money.
I have two thousand US dollars to spend on a smartphone, because I haven't upgraded since 2013. My note 3 has a replaceable battery, full sensor complement, headphone jack, MicroSD slot, hardware home button, silkscreen back/menu buttons, IR blaster, unlocked bootloader...
There doesn't exist an equivalent phone, let alone a better phone. However, if any company is interested in making an actual flagship phone (think: ugly, powerful, maintainable, and with no wear items glued in), then I will pay two thousand US dollars for it.
Do you hear me, Samsung?
Normally I'm against regulation of technology (in general), but here's a case where we, the people, genuinely need the government to step in. It should be illegal to manufacture, import, or offer for sale any device which contains anti-freedom provisions such as bootloader locking or anti-root measures.
Irony of ironies. Being driven to school is massively more dangerous and likely to cause death or serious injury than walking to school, almost regardless of the distance.
One, the statistic is bogus: 10% of all energy? No. All electricity? Perhaps.
Two, irrelevant if the world would get off the nuclear anxiety train.
.. if you run Oracle, you kinda deserve what you get. The company has been honest and upfront about how they treat customers from day one.
I've got a ZeroLemon 10,000mAh TPU battery and case on my Note 3. I scoff at my friends and their cracked displays, and just to prove the point, often toss my phone onto the ground as a demonstration.
It's possible to engineer rugged devices. It baffles me as to why people don't demand them (and replaceable wear items, such as batteries).
As much as we like to assume legislators are simply braindead .. this is not always the case.
The most likely explanation here: they tried to shake various coffee chains, distributors, and resellers down for "campaign contributions" and were denied. Hence, added to the cancer list.
... and before it's deprecated!
If their revamp is anything like what they did to Google Finance, then Yahoo's about to get a bunch more page impressions...
I feel like this may be an unnecessary distraction from solving the real problem: burning hydrocarbons.
It's so bizarre.
My personal rule is pretty simple: treat me with respect and honesty, and honour your committment, and I will remain a fiercely loyal customer. I will spend lots of money with you to the exclusion of your competition, and try my best to convince others to do the same.
Attempt to screw me, and I'll do exactly the same as above, except the opposite.
I literally can't fathom why a vendor would choose to gamble that they can screw a customer without consequences.
I can imagine two reasons they might have done that. One, it's more like Tinder which is their main competition these days.
Aye; I'd read that... but to me it makes no sense. I chose okcupid over Tinder specifically because Tinder isn't very useful to me.
I can get laid any night of the week. I don't need some silly web site to facilitate. But meeting like-minded people / potential life partners - that's tough.
The best way for okcupid to acquire and retain users is to offer something that Tinder doesn't, right? But they seem to have abandoned it. In fact I went and installed Tinder to see what all the fuss is about as a direct result of their change.
Two, the biggest complaint I've heard about online dating has mostly been that women are absolutely inundated with messages and consequently barely respond to any of them so men never get any responses so they just spam every woman so women get inundated with messages and so on in a vicious cycle. If you can only see messages from people you also "like" (without first knowing that they like you enough to message you), then women won't be so inundated with messages that they stop responding, so men will actually get some responses, and men will have less incentive to spam every woman with "sup", breaking the vicious cycle.
Hey, I get it .. but why not just add a checkbox: "ignore messages from people I dislike / haven't liked?" No need to force it on everyone. Kind of one of those baby / bathwater things.
This could be useful. I was recently on okcupid (formerly the best of the bunch) and they seem to have lost their way.
They sent me an email proclaiming that I'd been liked, and received a message. Great!
Nothing in my inbox.
Re-read the message, and it explained that in order to see the message, I'd have to click through a bunch of random profiles and swipe, and that if I'd happened to have swiped the particular user who messaged me, then I'd get to see said message.
I thought it was a bug or scam.. but apparently that's how it works now. Needless to say, I wasn't able to see the person's message. Love lost!
But seriously, it kinda blew my mind. Dating sites have one purpose: connect people together. okcupid hired someone who clearly didn't understand what their raison d'etre is, and made their site, essentially, pointless. Maybe they were looking for a way to exit the market slowly for some reason. Or maybe the person they hired was a trojan from Facebook. :p
*shrug* lol.. I just mean I'm unwilling to give up a single useful feature during an "upgrade" that's done to "refresh the user experience" or whatever they call it.
And it happens _all the time_.
Dude or dudette, I work on a console all day long.. lol.
I care about functionality/feature set, performance, and reliability. So long as the fonts are legible and all of the forms are properly aligned, I don't care which fonts they choose. It just doesn't matter.
Yawn. Don't care.
Does the new version rip out a bunch of features like most Google "upgrades?" That's all I care about.
I've got two thousand dollars with your name on it.
All you need to do is make an actual flagship phone with a replaceable battery. I, and many others, will not purchase a device into which consumables have been glued.
But why even take the risk?
People/governments around the world should lay this one out crystal clear: carriers, you will serve our will, or we will delete you, arrest your CEO, and seize your assets for the common good.
It is our land, and they are our airwaves. Not yours. Carriers, you exist at our behest.
There is a shitton of money to be made by serving the telecommunication needs the citizens of a modern nation.
That should be enough. And, if carriers can't act in good faith, there's no reason for us, the people, to allow them right of way, or access to our radio spectrum.
I'll field this one.
So, eliminating Net Neutrality was never about maximizing Internet profit from consumers. In fact, consumers would likely benefit (at first), because they're the ones with the power. They're the ones the telcos don't want to piss off.
Internet prices might even fall (in the short-term) as part of an appeasement strategy.
The real money is in charging the established content providers a premium for access to consumers.
Take Spotify, for example. If Net Neutrality is eliminated, Spotify and all of the carriers will most likely collude to offer NZ metering (possibly even free to the consumer) for their service, encouraging many consumers to switch to Spotify. Spotify, of course, then increases their prices by a few dollars, split with the carriers. Consumers are annoyed, but they don't make the connection.
SuperTunesPlus attempts to enter the market, offering great new features at a lower price. However, not only do the carriers not want their money, SuperTunesPlus can't afford to pay the protection fee anyway. Consumers, having to pay bandwidth fees for SuperTunesPlus, decide they're better off with the established player, and SuperTunesPlus suffers greatly. They hold on just long enough for the carriers to slow their traffic, causing persistent buffering issues. The last of their customers leave, and they go bankrupt.
Picking winners and losers in the market - that's what the anti-NN movement is about.
Who cares? Well, in a US without Net Neutrality protections, the next YouTube, Spotify, Google, Uber, or Amazon will likely be invented in China, Canada, France, or Japan. The world is a big place, and while it sucks not being able to serve American customers, it sucks worse trying to build a business when you can't even count on the network to function properly. Over the long-term (say, 20 years), silicon valley will become a power base of large, expensive, established, and inefficient American-only companies, while tech leadership will migrate out to the rest of the world.
There is still time to fix this, though.