That's what these events are. They are a place for the wealthy, the well to do, and the well connected to show off. This is conspicuous consumption writ large. If you are the person putting this boxing match together, you want people to show up and show that they're present because that's how you get people to go the next time.
Used to be you'd have to have the camera swing over the stands and maybe send a few people with a mic down to interview a few choice people who agreed to ahead of time. Now? Now, they do it all for you. Maybe you have to send a few official invites out, maybe comp a few tickets but otherwise, social media doing all of this is the stuff of dreams for promoters.
The only people who hate the steaming are those who haven't figured out a way to profit off of it yet.
The web is a decentralized because it sits atop of the tcp/ip protocol. Datacenters are scattered all over the place and not in one, central location. Traffic is routed all over the place. Packets still get scattered around the world. It's as decentralized as it's going to physically get. Because that's a physical concept.
But that's not what they're upset about. They decided they don't like that Google and Facebook get a lot of traffic. Too bad. They built useful shit. You make not think so, but millions of other disagree. Search engines made it so we could find those thousands of other pages. FB made it so we could find those friends we're not so good at keeping up with and made it easier to keep up with them.
Unless you're going to show us a way to spread all that traffic out so we don't need a search engine or a facebook, please just be quiet and leave us to get on with life.
Offering (and choosing to purchase) the integrated model is a rational choice. *Not* offering a plain dumb screen option is annoying to us nerds, but we're kind of a purchasing minority for this stuff./
I get that product convergence is a thing and that it can be useful when it happens well. Maybe it's this time we're living through. I don't remember what it was like when VCRs were first coming out, if there were similar difficulties with their connecting to televisions. I can remember the need to switch to channel 3 before you could watch a tape and flipping the selector box for Ataris before you could play. However, those became a thing. People learned how to make it work in short order. It wasn't wrapped up in this pseudo-mystical "only the nerds" can make it work bullshit I continually see being spouted.
Was it decided that the public couldn't be counted on to learn to work the TV? Or was it the Boomers again with their constant whine about the pace of life?
I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration? Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?
Is it a matter of people not understanding what they're getting anymore? Is it a matter of perceived value? Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.
How can the court hold that these people who never authorized, let alone agreed to the terms, of the credit card or account should have to follow the rest of the contract they never agreed to? That doesn't make any sense, legally or otherwise!
Given that just yesterday, Intel announced a product release for September 25th isn't it a little early to talk about what comes after? We haven't had the chance to see how their current compares to AMD's offering which isn't due until later this month.
Guess Intel is afraid of something. Maybe AMD has given them some much needed competition.
Slashdot reader mi asks: "Why are you and I subsidizing Elon Musk's products and when will his businesses be able to compete on their own?"/
Let's not get too pedantic here. There's not a multinational or national company that doesn't have some craveout or handout put into law. Those aren't going away because that's part of how modern governments build agenda and shape policy. Get over it.
As for the rest, I'm okay with this state of affairs. Musk seems to have some good long term goals he's going for. Being able to learn from his mistakes is a good thing for the rest of us trying to figure out how to build and keep an industrial base in the 21st century. That it costs me a few dollars per year in my taxes is a fair price to pay for that knowledge.
That market segmentation is like a parasite to their thinking. They can't do anything without chopping the product line into as small as bites as they're able.
For example, the comments thing, "We nominally have a comment period, but we've decided to just ignore them."
I just don't get it. I'd expect speeches trying to justify what he's been doing, or trying to convince people to come around to his way of thinking...but really it seems like he just doesn't care.
To address the two observations.
First is that he doesn't care. You're not wrong. You are seeing the same thing that everyone else is. Ajit Pai does not care one little whit about this or anything else the general public wants.
As for the second part, the "Why" part. That's a bit tricky.
Right at this exact moment, he's untouchable. There are absolutely no consequences for his actions. After this is done and buried, he will be able to go on doing the same job in the same way for the same people. This is because the GOP controls the two of the three branches. The likelihood of Congress being able to pass a Net-Neutrality law in the next couple of years is close enough to zero to assume zero. The non-zero part is covered by Trump in the White House.
And that's it. That's why he's behaving like this. There are no consequences for him. None. So he is going to fuck everyone over and over for so long as he can get away with it.
It's not only about deregulation but about fair pay. They wouldn't have to do this if the company paid well. If they paid well, then the drivers would think twice about it. As it is, you make people desperate enough, make their lives miserable enough then morals and ideals become secondary to survival.
Please don't tempt them. Ever since it was shown that Google et al have survived thanks to safe harbor provisions, that's been a target. Anything to prompt them to lobby against it more than they currently are is a bad idea, imho.
It's mainly a bunch of people scheming to become the next set of digital gold rush billionaires.
Which is chasing after nothing at this point. That ship has sailed, so to speak. If anything, this breakup sounds like someone wants to start over with part of the bitcoin brand.
First is that being a mega ISP is certainly a profitable business.
Second is that we really need better regulations of that business because that is money which should have been more difficult for them to spend. ie, Economically speaking there should have been a place within the business where that money would have had a much higher return on investment. eg Competitive infrastructure upgrades, R&D, etc. Lobbying/bribing is a poor investment in a competitive environment. Therefore, the environment isn't competitive enough.
in order to understand everything that was going on with the experiment. I wish the traditional media good luck in trying to translate all of that into an article for mass consumption.
It always puzzled me that the shareholders didn't put up more of a stink about it since it looked like it was going to lead to a dilution of value. The brand of Google being broken up and made a subsidiary with the additional non-voting stock being delivered to help cover that.
Fine. Why not just have a developer's only release for those who want to run that? Something that's more than a bit that can be flipped manually.
These people are already have to manage different codebases for the various branches and such. Why not play it safe and keep this headless thing separated from the mainstream user?
Exactly. Why buy into an ecosystem that's not as flexible as the others. Did they offer superior documentation and support? Superior integration? Anything at all aside the brand?
Guessing the bosses at the top want to retrench and focus on their server & consumer spaces now that AMD has shaken up the market once more. Despite this being a tiny space, I doubt it ever made enough money to justify the ongoing costs needed to crowd out all of the established open hardware.
I'm curious about the "stolen" part of his statement.
Is the article about actual piracy? Were physical copies were taken in transit to be sold at street markets? Because that's seems like a legit worry. But then it turns around and says put on the internet. Which isn't how that works at all. You don't need to actually steal anything to make a copy like that.
Maybe he's just a confused, ignorant twat who can't figure out how the world works these days.
The blurb only quotes the article and neither of which links to the decision. What did the court say that limited what the FCC can do? What was their reasoning and why did it 'leave little wiggle room'?
The sentence makes an okay headline but without an actual article describing the decision it doesn't make any sense.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what these events are. They are a place for the wealthy, the well to do, and the well connected to show off. This is conspicuous consumption writ large. If you are the person putting this boxing match together, you want people to show up and show that they're present because that's how you get people to go the next time.
Used to be you'd have to have the camera swing over the stands and maybe send a few people with a mic down to interview a few choice people who agreed to ahead of time. Now? Now, they do it all for you. Maybe you have to send a few official invites out, maybe comp a few tickets but otherwise, social media doing all of this is the stuff of dreams for promoters.
The only people who hate the steaming are those who haven't figured out a way to profit off of it yet.
The web is a decentralized because it sits atop of the tcp/ip protocol. Datacenters are scattered all over the place and not in one, central location. Traffic is routed all over the place. Packets still get scattered around the world. It's as decentralized as it's going to physically get. Because that's a physical concept.
But that's not what they're upset about. They decided they don't like that Google and Facebook get a lot of traffic. Too bad. They built useful shit. You make not think so, but millions of other disagree. Search engines made it so we could find those thousands of other pages. FB made it so we could find those friends we're not so good at keeping up with and made it easier to keep up with them.
Unless you're going to show us a way to spread all that traffic out so we don't need a search engine or a facebook, please just be quiet and leave us to get on with life.
Offering (and choosing to purchase) the integrated model is a rational choice. *Not* offering a plain dumb screen option is annoying to us nerds, but we're kind of a purchasing minority for this stuff./
I get that product convergence is a thing and that it can be useful when it happens well. Maybe it's this time we're living through. I don't remember what it was like when VCRs were first coming out, if there were similar difficulties with their connecting to televisions. I can remember the need to switch to channel 3 before you could watch a tape and flipping the selector box for Ataris before you could play. However, those became a thing. People learned how to make it work in short order. It wasn't wrapped up in this pseudo-mystical "only the nerds" can make it work bullshit I continually see being spouted.
Was it decided that the public couldn't be counted on to learn to work the TV? Or was it the Boomers again with their constant whine about the pace of life?
Learn. Unlearn. Relearn.
I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration? Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?
Is it a matter of people not understanding what they're getting anymore? Is it a matter of perceived value? Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.
How can the court hold that these people who never authorized, let alone agreed to the terms, of the credit card or account should have to follow the rest of the contract they never agreed to? That doesn't make any sense, legally or otherwise!
Not even a good disguise. Seriously.
Given that just yesterday, Intel announced a product release for September 25th isn't it a little early to talk about what comes after? We haven't had the chance to see how their current compares to AMD's offering which isn't due until later this month.
Guess Intel is afraid of something. Maybe AMD has given them some much needed competition.
Slashdot reader mi asks: "Why are you and I subsidizing Elon Musk's products and when will his businesses be able to compete on their own?"/
Let's not get too pedantic here. There's not a multinational or national company that doesn't have some craveout or handout put into law. Those aren't going away because that's part of how modern governments build agenda and shape policy. Get over it.
As for the rest, I'm okay with this state of affairs. Musk seems to have some good long term goals he's going for. Being able to learn from his mistakes is a good thing for the rest of us trying to figure out how to build and keep an industrial base in the 21st century. That it costs me a few dollars per year in my taxes is a fair price to pay for that knowledge.
That market segmentation is like a parasite to their thinking. They can't do anything without chopping the product line into as small as bites as they're able.
For example, the comments thing, "We nominally have a comment period, but we've decided to just ignore them."
I just don't get it. I'd expect speeches trying to justify what he's been doing, or trying to convince people to come around to his way of thinking...but really it seems like he just doesn't care.
To address the two observations.
First is that he doesn't care. You're not wrong. You are seeing the same thing that everyone else is. Ajit Pai does not care one little whit about this or anything else the general public wants.
As for the second part, the "Why" part. That's a bit tricky.
Right at this exact moment, he's untouchable. There are absolutely no consequences for his actions. After this is done and buried, he will be able to go on doing the same job in the same way for the same people. This is because the GOP controls the two of the three branches. The likelihood of Congress being able to pass a Net-Neutrality law in the next couple of years is close enough to zero to assume zero. The non-zero part is covered by Trump in the White House.
And that's it. That's why he's behaving like this. There are no consequences for him. None. So he is going to fuck everyone over and over for so long as he can get away with it.
how is this a surprise to anyone?
It's not only about deregulation but about fair pay. They wouldn't have to do this if the company paid well. If they paid well, then the drivers would think twice about it. As it is, you make people desperate enough, make their lives miserable enough then morals and ideals become secondary to survival.
Please don't tempt them. Ever since it was shown that Google et al have survived thanks to safe harbor provisions, that's been a target. Anything to prompt them to lobby against it more than they currently are is a bad idea, imho.
It's mainly a bunch of people scheming to become the next set of digital gold rush billionaires.
Which is chasing after nothing at this point. That ship has sailed, so to speak. If anything, this breakup sounds like someone wants to start over with part of the bitcoin brand.
and those other pesky safety features which literally saved the US auto industry from becoming another grave.
Even if they can't get their ancient mythology right, they at least got the attack detected.
First is that being a mega ISP is certainly a profitable business.
Second is that we really need better regulations of that business because that is money which should have been more difficult for them to spend. ie, Economically speaking there should have been a place within the business where that money would have had a much higher return on investment. eg Competitive infrastructure upgrades, R&D, etc. Lobbying/bribing is a poor investment in a competitive environment. Therefore, the environment isn't competitive enough.
in order to understand everything that was going on with the experiment. I wish the traditional media good luck in trying to translate all of that into an article for mass consumption.
but I don't see any advertisements. Ever.
No game crap and only a few reminders that I asked for.
Of course, that's because I installed adblock and anti-js tracker everywhere I go. So that may have something to do with it.
Whatever money FB is making off me can't be all that much.
Is that way that happened a couple years ago?
It always puzzled me that the shareholders didn't put up more of a stink about it since it looked like it was going to lead to a dilution of value. The brand of Google being broken up and made a subsidiary with the additional non-voting stock being delivered to help cover that.
Where do I sign up?
Fine. Why not just have a developer's only release for those who want to run that? Something that's more than a bit that can be flipped manually.
These people are already have to manage different codebases for the various branches and such. Why not play it safe and keep this headless thing separated from the mainstream user?
I know where I'd like to setup a new VPN service.
Exactly. Why buy into an ecosystem that's not as flexible as the others. Did they offer superior documentation and support? Superior integration? Anything at all aside the brand?
Guessing the bosses at the top want to retrench and focus on their server & consumer spaces now that AMD has shaken up the market once more. Despite this being a tiny space, I doubt it ever made enough money to justify the ongoing costs needed to crowd out all of the established open hardware.
I'm curious about the "stolen" part of his statement.
Is the article about actual piracy? Were physical copies were taken in transit to be sold at street markets? Because that's seems like a legit worry. But then it turns around and says put on the internet. Which isn't how that works at all. You don't need to actually steal anything to make a copy like that.
Maybe he's just a confused, ignorant twat who can't figure out how the world works these days.
The blurb only quotes the article and neither of which links to the decision. What did the court say that limited what the FCC can do? What was their reasoning and why did it 'leave little wiggle room'?
The sentence makes an okay headline but without an actual article describing the decision it doesn't make any sense.