That's the best part, Youtube is on the list of default whitelisted sites (along with Netflix, Hulu, Yahoo, Facebook, and half dozen others making up 90% of the Flash video streaming usage...)
Basically it will totally inconvenience (aka reduce traffic to) the small guys and reinforce the big ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the whitelist concept generates a class action antitrust lawsuit...
Not cool Google. Don't bother asking me. I'm sure you know what I really want.
Did you even read the summary?
This change disables Adobe Flash Player unless there's a user indication that they want Flash content on specific sites, and eventually all websites will require the user's permission to run Flash.
The whole point is they are NOW ASKING YOU for permission if you want Flash to run on a site instead of trying to figure out what you want.
What are you talking about? The leader of UK is even less democratically selected than the leader of the US! The Parliament chooses a Prime Minister. It would be as if the President were just chosen by Congress...
Hilarious. Your original argument WAS THE DEFINITION OF FREE MARKET.
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.
And then, this gem: A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.
WTF is the "right" level, then? You clearly have no fucking clue, and have not cited a SINGLE source or answered any questions outside your little brain to the contrary...
My Dell 2006 laptop is still going strong (with a self-applied memory upgrade, disk upgrade, and battery swap).
My 2012 Macbook Pro has had several annoying graphics issues I have not been able to do anything about due to the total pain in the ass steps to required even to try to self-repair anything on it.
Not to mention that the new replacement MBP is a fucking disaster for any actual "Pros" who made the mistake of buying the previous generation (which was goddamn great HW, if unreliable as shit).
Ride sharing should never be considered a job. You agree to carry a passenger who's going your way in exchange for some money to cover the gas. Diverting your route to pick up passengers then drive to their destination in exchange for a fee based on distance, that's the basic definition of taxi.
I can't believe I have to re-quote my post AGAIN... why can't you read it before replying?
What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?
Of course it's a replacement for taxis. One that nearly all customers of taxis and Ubers are ecstatic over. Maybe the taxi companies could clean up their cars and find more drivers who don't drive like maniacs... you know, try to *compete*...
You don't actually understand how Uber works, do you? Have you ever even used it?
Uber is paying way more than it needs to for it's drivers in order to establish itself. They're doing that with investor capital that will eventually dry up. If the necessary legal precedence is established by then expect your friends pay to be about 1/2 - 1/3 minimum wage
The rates for Uber vary based on demand in a specific area. So when there aren't enough drivers on the road, the rate goes up and more drivers get out there. When the rate goes down to where it's not worth it, some drivers stop.
Almost no Uber driver does it as their primary/full time job (I saw a stat that it was something like 90% of drivers have another job, and 70% have a full time job other than Uber). People use it to supplement their income. If Uber lowers the rates too much, they won't bother driving any more.
In fact, Uber did cut their rates in some areas earlier this year. It rightfully pissed off a lot of drivers, and a bunch of them stopped driving. At that point there were not *enough* drivers, so the surge pricing kicked in, raised the rates from the lower base, and drivers came back. Uber is also talking about ending surge pricing... and Uber drivers are threatening to quit over it. Not to mention Lyft is expanding like mad, and currently offering big bonuses trying to steal drivers from Uber.
Do I think it's possible/likely Uber will try to screw over drivers? Yeah, I don't they have their drivers interests at heart, they want to make money. But so far the pure supply and demand has created a service that both drivers and passengers are, for the most part, pretty happy with. The *real* fuck you to the drivers is going to come when self driving cars completely replace them...
And yet his argument is well thought out and totally reasonable. while your argument provides almost no actual evidence supporting your opinion. Who's the one pushing the "religion" in this case?
I'd argue that someone magically believing that setting BOTH arbitrary limits on supply AND pricing is the one bowing to a fake religion...
Of COURSE it's about people in "certain areas". Te Urban areas are the only places this is even an issue. In the suburbs and even more the rural areas Uber is a godsend for those not having their own means of transportation.
Where do you live? Have you ever tried to get a cab in the semi-rural Midwest? I have. It's nigh-impossible, while getting an Uber still takes make 10-15 minutes since the driver doesn't have to be a part of a big taxi company.
Who's turning their back? I'm encouraging that the government allow Uber to let people call in and schedule rides. I think that would be a great service, and in the VAST majority of areas where that "2%" lives, would result in faster service.
What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?
Actually, I TOTALLY AGREE that Uber is a transportation company and not a digital services company. My argument is that the current regulations on "transportation companies" are absurd.
I a not "pro Uber" per se - but I do agree some additional regulation is in order. But I also have several friends who are Uber drivers who are very happy with it and yet would never have been able to be taxi drivers due to the taxi company commmitments/onerous regulations/etc.
And we are not talking China or South America in THIS ARTICLE (though actually - in SA Uber drivers "dying" are from cartel-connected taxi companies encouraging shooting at them). We are talking Europe. I have taken a bunch of Ubers in Europe and it was a great experience all around. I asked the drivers if they liked it and most (who were driving Mercedes and BMWs by the way) said it was the best job they have had).
So you are arguing that ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis) should be suppressed because they are so much better for 98% of the population, but may make it harder for the other 2%?
So why not just throw away they rest of the outdated taxi regulations and let people call a number to request an Uber? I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige that 2% (in reality, it's way less than that - probably a fraction of a percent) in order to get government regulators off their backs.
Yes, in some cases it was because people were being abused. In many other cases it's because lobbyists of the oligopolies want to prevent competition or local governments can't figure out how to maximize their taxes on it.
If you disagree, please explain how Uber has seriously harmed anyone other than the outdated Taxi companies. It's frankly absurd that a person would need government permission just to accept money to drive another person where they want to go.
Of course he has. He has said about Breitbart - exact quote - "we are the platform of the alt-right movement". That EXPLICITLY links him to the alt-right. Go look up *their* platform yourself, and if you aren't willing to do that why would anyone bother debating it with you?
He owned slaves early in his life, realized it was a horrible practice, and then spend most of the later years of his life trying to abolish slavery.
Are you saying that Bannon has now publicly apologized for he previous opinions and is now pro-diversity and pro-equal rights?
You can look at what someone did over their life/career, and yes, it matters, but for fuck's sake what they did THIS YEAR matters much more, and both Bannon and Trump have failed that test miserably. I defy them to publicly apologize for what they have said or done previously. But they have not, and I assume they will not...
IBM wasn't racist. But IBM sold machines to the Nazis that helped count and kill the Jews. So IBM is racist. By your logic, anyone who likes the Model M keyboard must be a Nazi.
Another fucking awful analogy. IBM did business with Germany like most other companies until they found out that Germany was doing some horrible things - but your characterization is just plain slanderous.
Really, yes, your last few posts have been staunchly defending racism. I have seen you on/. for many years so I am really disappointed that this is the position you are taking.
Bill Gates ran a company that sold Operating Systems. That didn't make him one.
That's the worst analogy I have heard in a long time. Literally nonsensical, Kindergarten bad, not even matching like subjects.
Bannon called his site "the platform of the alt-right". You don't get to be the biggest publishing platform of the biggest mainstream racist movement in the US and pretend you are just a "neutral publisher".
And from what I can tell in your previous posts you are basically claiming that his (ex-)wife's comment that he said "I don't want my children going to a school with Jews" is "he said she said". Which while technically correct - they were the only ones there - when given CONTEXT makes it a lot less questionable.
I bet you defended Trump when people claimed he was a misogynist until ACTUAL VIDEO appeared proving it. Well, surprise, sometimes when all of the circumstantial evidence points at something it's actually true...
His comment was wrong and stupid, but not racist. If he said they were "foreigners" would that make it racist? If so, what "race" are Americans?
It was wrong and stupid and YES, racist. Because it wasn't about "foreigners", it was about executives and CEOs of Asian ancestry. Does it surprise you to know that in California there are literally millions of "Asians" actually BORN in the United States? And that even if you used the simple metric of ASIAN US CITIZENS in tech the percentage of CEOs still statistically underperforms? (Of COURSE it doesn't underperform in the overall population, and why should it? If you aren't in tech you aren't likely to be a tech CEO...)
While yes, the remarks were clearly racist - especially given Bannon's background for context - his comments are also completely factually inaccurate, so defending them means you are at *best* extremely ignorant of the facts.
"two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia"
Wha?? The percentage of any executive level is 14%, and of CEOs, well under that. Certainly below the population percentages of the area.
And your comment, "70-80% of tech workers here on H1-B visas" is even more inaccurate. I did see a quote (unverified) that 70% of Silicon Valley tech workers are foreign born, but that doesn't mean they are on a Visa nor Asian. I work with dozens of foreign born co-workers from all over - China, Russia, Germany, UK, India, Brazil, France, Thailand, etc - and probably only 1 in 10 are on a Visa, the rest are citizens or permanent residents.
We have a half dozen openings at any one time that we can't fill, and we rarely even SEE US-born applicants. If you are having trouble finding a job in the Silicon Valley right now, you are either not looking or just plain unqualified.
Oh, and back to racism... I don't think people are racist just for voting for Trump - they simply decided other (mostly empty) promises of his were more important to them than rejecting his racism flat out. But once you start actively ignoring or worse defending the racist aspects, then yes, you, too, are a racist, that's kind of the definition.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the best part, Youtube is on the list of default whitelisted sites (along with Netflix, Hulu, Yahoo, Facebook, and half dozen others making up 90% of the Flash video streaming usage...)
Basically it will totally inconvenience (aka reduce traffic to) the small guys and reinforce the big ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the whitelist concept generates a class action antitrust lawsuit...
Not cool Google. Don't bother asking me. I'm sure you know what I really want.
Did you even read the summary?
This change disables Adobe Flash Player unless there's a user indication that they want Flash content on specific sites, and eventually all websites will require the user's permission to run Flash.
The whole point is they are NOW ASKING YOU for permission if you want Flash to run on a site instead of trying to figure out what you want.
There is a huge difference between "spying on kids" and "security hole". This article and complaint are such crocks of shit.
What are you talking about? The leader of UK is even less democratically selected than the leader of the US! The Parliament chooses a Prime Minister. It would be as if the President were just chosen by Congress...
Hilarious. Your original argument WAS THE DEFINITION OF FREE MARKET.
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.
And then, this gem: A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.
WTF is the "right" level, then? You clearly have no fucking clue, and have not cited a SINGLE source or answered any questions outside your little brain to the contrary...
My Dell 2006 laptop is still going strong (with a self-applied memory upgrade, disk upgrade, and battery swap).
My 2012 Macbook Pro has had several annoying graphics issues I have not been able to do anything about due to the total pain in the ass steps to required even to try to self-repair anything on it.
Not to mention that the new replacement MBP is a fucking disaster for any actual "Pros" who made the mistake of buying the previous generation (which was goddamn great HW, if unreliable as shit).
Ride sharing should never be considered a job. You agree to carry a passenger who's going your way in exchange for some money to cover the gas. Diverting your route to pick up passengers then drive to their destination in exchange for a fee based on distance, that's the basic definition of taxi.
I can't believe I have to re-quote my post AGAIN... why can't you read it before replying?
What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?
Of course it's a replacement for taxis. One that nearly all customers of taxis and Ubers are ecstatic over. Maybe the taxi companies could clean up their cars and find more drivers who don't drive like maniacs... you know, try to *compete*...
You don't actually understand how Uber works, do you? Have you ever even used it?
Uber is paying way more than it needs to for it's drivers in order to establish itself. They're doing that with investor capital that will eventually dry up. If the necessary legal precedence is established by then expect your friends pay to be about 1/2 - 1/3 minimum wage
The rates for Uber vary based on demand in a specific area. So when there aren't enough drivers on the road, the rate goes up and more drivers get out there. When the rate goes down to where it's not worth it, some drivers stop.
Almost no Uber driver does it as their primary/full time job (I saw a stat that it was something like 90% of drivers have another job, and 70% have a full time job other than Uber). People use it to supplement their income. If Uber lowers the rates too much, they won't bother driving any more.
In fact, Uber did cut their rates in some areas earlier this year. It rightfully pissed off a lot of drivers, and a bunch of them stopped driving. At that point there were not *enough* drivers, so the surge pricing kicked in, raised the rates from the lower base, and drivers came back. Uber is also talking about ending surge pricing... and Uber drivers are threatening to quit over it. Not to mention Lyft is expanding like mad, and currently offering big bonuses trying to steal drivers from Uber.
Do I think it's possible/likely Uber will try to screw over drivers? Yeah, I don't they have their drivers interests at heart, they want to make money. But so far the pure supply and demand has created a service that both drivers and passengers are, for the most part, pretty happy with. The *real* fuck you to the drivers is going to come when self driving cars completely replace them...
When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Is ad hominem all you have?
And yet his argument is well thought out and totally reasonable. while your argument provides almost no actual evidence supporting your opinion. Who's the one pushing the "religion" in this case?
I'd argue that someone magically believing that setting BOTH arbitrary limits on supply AND pricing is the one bowing to a fake religion...
Do these friends of yours havea a driver's license that allows them to operate a vehicle for hire?
Who cares, that's my point, duh.
Do they have mandatory inspections for safety and serviceability of their vehicles?
Yep they do, and I have felt safer in most Uber rides over many of the shitty, dirty cabs I have been a passenger in.
Do they carry insurance sufficient to cover their passengers in the case of an accident?
Absolutely. This was a done deal years ago welcome to the modern age...
Of COURSE it's about people in "certain areas". Te Urban areas are the only places this is even an issue. In the suburbs and even more the rural areas Uber is a godsend for those not having their own means of transportation.
Where do you live? Have you ever tried to get a cab in the semi-rural Midwest? I have. It's nigh-impossible, while getting an Uber still takes make 10-15 minutes since the driver doesn't have to be a part of a big taxi company.
Who's turning their back? I'm encouraging that the government allow Uber to let people call in and schedule rides. I think that would be a great service, and in the VAST majority of areas where that "2%" lives, would result in faster service.
What part of Uber is a ride share service?
What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?
Actually, I TOTALLY AGREE that Uber is a transportation company and not a digital services company. My argument is that the current regulations on "transportation companies" are absurd.
I a not "pro Uber" per se - but I do agree some additional regulation is in order. But I also have several friends who are Uber drivers who are very happy with it and yet would never have been able to be taxi drivers due to the taxi company commmitments/onerous regulations/etc.
And we are not talking China or South America in THIS ARTICLE (though actually - in SA Uber drivers "dying" are from cartel-connected taxi companies encouraging shooting at them). We are talking Europe. I have taken a bunch of Ubers in Europe and it was a great experience all around. I asked the drivers if they liked it and most (who were driving Mercedes and BMWs by the way) said it was the best job they have had).
So you are arguing that ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis) should be suppressed because they are so much better for 98% of the population, but may make it harder for the other 2%?
So why not just throw away they rest of the outdated taxi regulations and let people call a number to request an Uber? I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige that 2% (in reality, it's way less than that - probably a fraction of a percent) in order to get government regulators off their backs.
Yes, in some cases it was because people were being abused. In many other cases it's because lobbyists of the oligopolies want to prevent competition or local governments can't figure out how to maximize their taxes on it.
If you disagree, please explain how Uber has seriously harmed anyone other than the outdated Taxi companies. It's frankly absurd that a person would need government permission just to accept money to drive another person where they want to go.
Of course he has. He has said about Breitbart - exact quote - "we are the platform of the alt-right movement". That EXPLICITLY links him to the alt-right. Go look up *their* platform yourself, and if you aren't willing to do that why would anyone bother debating it with you?
Yep. It's amazing to see all of those people claiming H1-B's are taking their jobs but they have absolutely ZERO skills to fill those jobs...
Guess you suck at the Internet, then (not surprising).
B-BYE, THEN, IN ALL CAPS!
He owned slaves early in his life, realized it was a horrible practice, and then spend most of the later years of his life trying to abolish slavery.
Are you saying that Bannon has now publicly apologized for he previous opinions and is now pro-diversity and pro-equal rights?
You can look at what someone did over their life/career, and yes, it matters, but for fuck's sake what they did THIS YEAR matters much more, and both Bannon and Trump have failed that test miserably. I defy them to publicly apologize for what they have said or done previously. But they have not, and I assume they will not...
IBM wasn't racist. But IBM sold machines to the Nazis that helped count and kill the Jews. So IBM is racist. By your logic, anyone who likes the Model M keyboard must be a Nazi.
Another fucking awful analogy. IBM did business with Germany like most other companies until they found out that Germany was doing some horrible things - but your characterization is just plain slanderous.
Really, yes, your last few posts have been staunchly defending racism. I have seen you on /. for many years so I am really disappointed that this is the position you are taking.
Bill Gates ran a company that sold Operating Systems. That didn't make him one.
That's the worst analogy I have heard in a long time. Literally nonsensical, Kindergarten bad, not even matching like subjects.
Bannon called his site "the platform of the alt-right". You don't get to be the biggest publishing platform of the biggest mainstream racist movement in the US and pretend you are just a "neutral publisher".
And from what I can tell in your previous posts you are basically claiming that his (ex-)wife's comment that he said "I don't want my children going to a school with Jews" is "he said she said". Which while technically correct - they were the only ones there - when given CONTEXT makes it a lot less questionable.
I bet you defended Trump when people claimed he was a misogynist until ACTUAL VIDEO appeared proving it. Well, surprise, sometimes when all of the circumstantial evidence points at something it's actually true...
Bullshit. Have you ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? "Irish Need Not Apply"? The Japanese Internment?
Either your textbooks are woefully inadequate or you are. I'm guessing both.
His comment was wrong and stupid, but not racist. If he said they were "foreigners" would that make it racist? If so, what "race" are Americans?
It was wrong and stupid and YES, racist. Because it wasn't about "foreigners", it was about executives and CEOs of Asian ancestry. Does it surprise you to know that in California there are literally millions of "Asians" actually BORN in the United States? And that even if you used the simple metric of ASIAN US CITIZENS in tech the percentage of CEOs still statistically underperforms? (Of COURSE it doesn't underperform in the overall population, and why should it? If you aren't in tech you aren't likely to be a tech CEO...)
While yes, the remarks were clearly racist - especially given Bannon's background for context - his comments are also completely factually inaccurate, so defending them means you are at *best* extremely ignorant of the facts.
"two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia"
Wha?? The percentage of any executive level is 14%, and of CEOs, well under that. Certainly below the population percentages of the area.
And your comment, "70-80% of tech workers here on H1-B visas" is even more inaccurate. I did see a quote (unverified) that 70% of Silicon Valley tech workers are foreign born, but that doesn't mean they are on a Visa nor Asian. I work with dozens of foreign born co-workers from all over - China, Russia, Germany, UK, India, Brazil, France, Thailand, etc - and probably only 1 in 10 are on a Visa, the rest are citizens or permanent residents.
We have a half dozen openings at any one time that we can't fill, and we rarely even SEE US-born applicants. If you are having trouble finding a job in the Silicon Valley right now, you are either not looking or just plain unqualified.
Oh, and back to racism... I don't think people are racist just for voting for Trump - they simply decided other (mostly empty) promises of his were more important to them than rejecting his racism flat out. But once you start actively ignoring or worse defending the racist aspects, then yes, you, too, are a racist, that's kind of the definition.