I can imagine (...) We all get charged 10 cents per gigabyte that we download, stream or otherwise consume by our ISPs. The ISPs, already logging everything we do anyway pay all rights holders from the money collected. Done.
And how does a VPN fit into your imagination?
If you are involved in a point to point VPN maybe you aren’t paying for content consumption. If you are using VPN as an anonymizer then the people sucking in that content at the other end of your link might be paying instead. Or as the person below suggests we always are paying for the bits we traffic.
Packed into a windowless pod surrounded by near vacuum with no means of escape if something fucks up. Claustrophobia city, even if there are nice flatscreens to "view" the outside world. If this is the future, then bugger the future with a turbocharged chainsaw.
So, if you didn't get a windows seat, this is just like your last plane flight? Oh, except that you don't plummet 30,000 feet to a certain death when something "fucks up".
There’s also reliabilty to consider. I just repaired a stack of Galaxy Tabs. Lots of fun, not hard to repair at all. The thing is they weren’t that old to be needing new logic boards and charging parts.
Nope, nobody wins because the internet would be effectively unusable. We'd all have to go back to the library for our information. Nobody would have enough money to pay the bastards whatever they wanted for the DRM unlock, so... the internet would be unusable.
Oh, I think I can imagine a workable concept for the DRM laden future Internet. We all get charged 10 cents per gigabyte that we download, stream or otherwise consume by our ISPs. The ISPs, already logging everything we do anyway pay all rights holders from the money collected. Done.
Am I mistaken, or wasn’t Peter Thiel on the Facebook board or actualy in the Facebook C-Suite and also involved with Cambridge Analytica? The whole thing was an inside job. Could anyone get away with this sort of thing without Facebook management’s consent?
Fact checking does not equal censorship. All newspapers used to be pretty strict about it, Republican or Democrat or Agnostic. We're not talking about filtering opinions here. Either Shatner is dead or he isn't.
>With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms
It's making me wonder for sure. Is it just too huge a problem to effectively solve with algorithms.
They know this is devastating to their bottom line, so they must be trying at least a bit. Either they dgaf and are among the worst sociopaths out there (doubt it) or this problem is a lot harder than we all think.
Rock and hard place. Hiring actual people to filter BS posts which will cost big $$$ versus loss of revenue due to bad optics of BS posts which also costs big $$$. All things being equal, if I were faced with losing a few billion dollars, I think I'd try to do some good while taking my lumps.
With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms that can roughly pinpoint who started the hoax, ID them and publicly castigate them or ban them.
Or even better, the originators just get a notice saying "Facebook Legal has determined that you are one of the first/most influential sharers of this hoax. All information about this defamatory post has been preserved in the event that the target wishes to pursue legal action."
I think that would cause enough puckering sphincters to start changing attitudes.
Forget algorithms. Computers are stupid. You can always game any automated system. Put people to work. Require verification of news posts, you know, like actual journalists always did before the inter-webs put them out of their jobs.
“Wimps don’t want to answer emails at 1:00 A.M. on Saturday night they can always quit.”
I imagine that will be the general gist of the commentary to follow. I think that there should be some labor rules as employees generally don’t have much bargaining power anymore. It will be interesting to see how they plan to enforce this.
Smart Watches have flopped. I bought a Pebble, but am back to a $30 Casio. Most people wear no watch at all, and have no intent to do so.
And yet Apple is selling somewhere north of 15 million a year at $300 a pop or more. Not the next big thing but $4.5 Billion is not pocket change either.
Microsoft seems to have become much like the malware purveyors. They still "apologize" after the damage is done and they've accomplished what they set out to do. Soon they won't even bother to make excuses.
Half of parents worry that their kid is addicted to mobile devices? That number seems low. I'm betting that way more than half of their kids actually are addicted to their smartphones.
Russia’s economy is on the ropes. Putin and his billionaire cronies have just about stripped the cupboards bare. Even the oligarchs are hurting a bit with oil prices being so low for so long now.
Who the hell do you think designs the models and then constantly updates and tweaks them as new data arrives? Oh, no weather forecasters or climate scientists need to be involved.
And I seem to recall W standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring “Mission accomplished!”. Years later the head of the Iraqi government Bush had installed refused to sign an agreement with the U.S. to allow our continued occupation. Obama was unable to get that agreement signed either. That’s the extent of the blame you can lay at his feet.
Apple Music was bound to succeed simply because Apple is big enough and rich enough to will it so."
So what happened with Microsoft Edge browser. It is right there on the taskbar of every new Windows computer and every computer that was "voluntarily" upgraded for free to Windows 10. Is Microsoft not big enough or rich enough to make Edge a leading browser?
I think Apple Music is a mess but the rivals are worse IMHO. Perhaps people actually do make informed choices based on preference.
Slashdot Mirror
I can imagine (...) We all get charged 10 cents per gigabyte that we download, stream or otherwise consume by our ISPs. The ISPs, already logging everything we do anyway pay all rights holders from the money collected. Done.
And how does a VPN fit into your imagination?
If you are involved in a point to point VPN maybe you aren’t paying for content consumption. If you are using VPN as an anonymizer then the people sucking in that content at the other end of your link might be paying instead. Or as the person below suggests we always are paying for the bits we traffic.
Travel like "SPAM in a can."
Packed into a windowless pod surrounded by near vacuum with no means of escape if something fucks up. Claustrophobia city, even if there are nice flatscreens to "view" the outside world. If this is the future, then bugger the future with a turbocharged chainsaw.
So, if you didn't get a windows seat, this is just like your last plane flight? Oh, except that you don't plummet 30,000 feet to a certain death when something "fucks up".
Perhaps fewer service contracts and a couple more good techs on staff?
There’s also reliabilty to consider. I just repaired a stack of Galaxy Tabs. Lots of fun, not hard to repair at all. The thing is they weren’t that old to be needing new logic boards and charging parts.
Nope, nobody wins because the internet would be effectively unusable. We'd all have to go back to the library for our information. Nobody would have enough money to pay the bastards whatever they wanted for the DRM unlock, so... the internet would be unusable.
Oh, I think I can imagine a workable concept for the DRM laden future Internet. We all get charged 10 cents per gigabyte that we download, stream or otherwise consume by our ISPs. The ISPs, already logging everything we do anyway pay all rights holders from the money collected. Done.
Am I mistaken, or wasn’t Peter Thiel on the Facebook board or actualy in the Facebook C-Suite and also involved with Cambridge Analytica? The whole thing was an inside job. Could anyone get away with this sort of thing without Facebook management’s consent?
Having been down that path, yes, I would find it really uncomfortable laying in MRI machine. Tied down maybe or an exceptionally small dose?
Fact checking does not equal censorship. All newspapers used to be pretty strict about it, Republican or Democrat or Agnostic. We're not talking about filtering opinions here. Either Shatner is dead or he isn't.
>With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms
It's making me wonder for sure. Is it just too huge a problem to effectively solve with algorithms.
They know this is devastating to their bottom line, so they must be trying at least a bit. Either they dgaf and are among the worst sociopaths out there (doubt it) or this problem is a lot harder than we all think.
Rock and hard place. Hiring actual people to filter BS posts which will cost big $$$ versus loss of revenue due to bad optics of BS posts which also costs big $$$. All things being equal, if I were faced with losing a few billion dollars, I think I'd try to do some good while taking my lumps.
With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms that can roughly pinpoint who started the hoax, ID them and publicly castigate them or ban them.
Or even better, the originators just get a notice saying "Facebook Legal has determined that you are one of the first/most influential sharers of this hoax. All information about this defamatory post has been preserved in the event that the target wishes to pursue legal action."
I think that would cause enough puckering sphincters to start changing attitudes.
Forget algorithms. Computers are stupid. You can always game any automated system. Put people to work. Require verification of news posts, you know, like actual journalists always did before the inter-webs put them out of their jobs.
“Wimps don’t want to answer emails at 1:00 A.M. on Saturday night they can always quit.” I imagine that will be the general gist of the commentary to follow. I think that there should be some labor rules as employees generally don’t have much bargaining power anymore. It will be interesting to see how they plan to enforce this.
The problem isn’t just spending but unnecessary tax cuts.
Smart Watches have flopped. I bought a Pebble, but am back to a $30 Casio. Most people wear no watch at all, and have no intent to do so.
And yet Apple is selling somewhere north of 15 million a year at $300 a pop or more. Not the next big thing but $4.5 Billion is not pocket change either.
like say, a terror attack, no one will know until the day after, because there wouldn't be internet access to report it.
So, you belive the “news” you read on Facebook then?
Microsoft seems to have become much like the malware purveyors. They still "apologize" after the damage is done and they've accomplished what they set out to do. Soon they won't even bother to make excuses.
Subject says it all.
The few people I know with exceptionally high IQs are absolute assholes. They don't brag about that IQ specifically, but they are elitist as hell.
Or, perhaps, they are just that much smarter than you that it comes of as elitist to you.
Half of parents worry that their kid is addicted to mobile devices? That number seems low. I'm betting that way more than half of their kids actually are addicted to their smartphones.
I am thinking it must be a slow news day and the article's title is a big fat troll to start an Apple flame-war.
Russia’s economy is on the ropes. Putin and his billionaire cronies have just about stripped the cupboards bare. Even the oligarchs are hurting a bit with oil prices being so low for so long now.
Who the hell do you think designs the models and then constantly updates and tweaks them as new data arrives? Oh, no weather forecasters or climate scientists need to be involved.
+1
And I seem to recall W standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring “Mission accomplished!”. Years later the head of the Iraqi government Bush had installed refused to sign an agreement with the U.S. to allow our continued occupation. Obama was unable to get that agreement signed either. That’s the extent of the blame you can lay at his feet.
Apple Music was bound to succeed simply because Apple is big enough and rich enough to will it so."
So what happened with Microsoft Edge browser. It is right there on the taskbar of every new Windows computer and every computer that was "voluntarily" upgraded for free to Windows 10. Is Microsoft not big enough or rich enough to make Edge a leading browser?
I think Apple Music is a mess but the rivals are worse IMHO. Perhaps people actually do make informed choices based on preference.
I am not a conservative by any reasonable definition of the label nut I prize my Heinlein collection, all in hardback, BTW.