The reality is that there aren't enough Linux users around to support something as simple as a magazine!
You seriously misspelled "aren't enough people willing to buy a subscription to something as simple as a magazine!" up there.
The days of subscribing to anything printed on paper is pretty much relegated to us old farts**, and the idea of paying for a digital sub for anything is pretty anathema to the kiddies.
** anyone else recall getting phone-book-sized computer mags in the mail that were half advertisement, or is that just me?
/* get off my lawn mode */...and this is probably real good reason why you shouldn't put vital crap like home HVAC into the IoT bucket. Getting up to change the thermostat once in awhile isn't going to kill you, and while an automated home HVAC control setup might save you a few pennies each month, there are models out there which don't require an Internet connection or smartphone app that perform much the same energy-saving measures./* end */
Oh, you mean the "destabilization" that removed 98% of ISIS' territory out from under them (and dropped their fighters' numbers from a peak of 40k to less than 1k or so) starting when you-know-who took office and stopped micromanaging the whole affair from his desk?
Or maybe you meant the fact that Iraq is once again becoming stable after a certain previous president pulled out too early (on a massively flimsy excuse)?
Oh, maybe you meant the massive anti-Wahhabist royal purge/shakeup that recently occurred in Saudi Arabia after the rest of the royalty there realized that they're actually being watched and held accountable by the US, after decades of being ignored as the penultimate ideological source for all the jihadist garbage that's occurred for 50+ years now?
Perhaps you meant the impending removal of funding and support from Iran... you know, the folks who were busy finding Hezbollah and trying to make nukes in spite of promising on their bestest behavior not to?
Or could it be the fact that most of OPEC finally realized that they're no longer the petrol-soaked king-makers when it comes to geopolitcal affairs, and has to start playing nice with the rest of the planet?
The time to indulge this half-century-long aberrant behavior by various grudge groups in the ME is over, 'mano. By all appearances, they're realizing it fast and adjusting accordingly (c.f. Dubai)... so I doubt the old rules of analyzing the ME from left-wing eyes will apply for much longer.
By the time the batteries in an iPhone get that far gone, the device is usually, what, 3, maybe 4 years old? That's well beyond the time when most folks will have already replaced the thing entirely. Why add weight and reduce battery life (due to the smaller battery you end up with to fit the new case design) just for the 3-5% of users who keep their phones past the third year?
By contrast, how well supported is the typical Android phone past the first year (let alone 2nd or 3rd)? How well do the batteries hold up in them? My LG G4 has seen exactly one update the whole time I've had it, at roughly the 6-month mark (I still have/use it, but it's starting to fade a bit and is about to get replaced). I've also had to buy a new battery for it, because the old one faded to shit at the 24-month mark.
Don't feel bad... I have 16 at home and it works just fine considering what I use it for (browsing, VPN, the occasional tv stream, etc.)
Funny thing - When I lived in-town, I had a 50mbps connection, and comparing my experiences now with what I had then, I don't see any real difference (okay, it was a 50mbps Comcast connection, but...)
All said, I suspect that unless you routinely suck down multi-GB files all day long, or use it to watch like three 4k Netflix/Hulu/whatever streams all at the same time? Even 30mbps is kind of overkill. I won't turn it down, but at the same time I don't really use it, and the vast majority of people out there won't either (at least not for now, and this may change as cable-cutting becomes more prevalent and screen rez goes up.)
Maybe the reason that the internet is devolving is your unwillingness to pay. I pay for the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Washington Post. And they are well worth every penny.
Well, only one (the Economist) is. The rest have devolved into holdovers from the days of Yellow Journalism.
Now, the preceding opinion is *why* your assertion isn't as clear-cut. To wit, what you think to be "worth every penny", others may think of as propaganda organs for $politicalParty. But then, such people will happily pay for their favored news sites of choice. Or, like in my case, would only bother with paying for subs to sites (WSJ, Economist, and similar) that carefully unearth and curate the straight news with as little bias as possible, and not bend/twist/mutilate it to fit the political narratives of their ownership. Sites that provide actual insight an analysis, with no regard to any particular political view or ideology.
Those sites are few and far between, while clickbait political propaganda organs are more plentiful than blades of grass in Iowa.
...well, until Visa, MC, Barclays, and/or Amex gets in on the act. Then it just slipstreams into the existing providers of CC/Debit payment services, and life goes on as usual.
...is reason #31678956784789.8 why I'll never use their stupid Facebook apps. Force the issue, and I cease to go near the site at all.
Bad enough my family pretty much requires that I have an account on that damnable website in the first place, but I tolerate it just enough at this point. The only reason I (and I suspect quite a few others) still tolerate it is because (for now) I still maintain a modicum of control over the experience (viz. ad-blockers and such via web browser).
Honestly? I have no problems paying a sub to visit the WSJ and/or similar trusted, thorough news sources. Maybe as a bonus it'll knock the clickbait bullshit sites offline? Likely not, since many of those sites (especially political clickbait sites) usually have massive backers (e.g. MoveOn was launched and backed financially by George Soros, etc.)
Something to consider - maybe freebie sites that don't have a massive media presence in another medium (or some other visible and transparent means of non-biased/partisan financial support) should eventually be written off as mere propaganda sites? Certainly there are good sites that are small and struggling, that try to get it right, that do a decent job of investigation and such, but they seem to be very few and very far between these days. Just a thought.
Should also add one other thing: The Electoral College makes it harder to commit voter fraud, since you'd have to commit it in a larger number of areas... without it, one only need to rig the vote in a few areas, and have a greater chance of stealing the overall vote.
Dunno about GP, but I like the fact that big, heavily-populated states (California, New York, Texas) don't get to set the agenda for the rest of us. Unlike Congress (specifically the Senate, with two Senators per state), the Electoral College is the only thing that allows smaller states to get a voice in the Executive branch of government.
Remove the Electoral College, and you have a situation where candidates only need pander to a small handful of states, and could literally tell all the other states to go piss up a rope without fear of losing. It would also heavily slant the Executive branch's agenda towards the concerns, demands and desires of the megacities, but screw over everyone living outside of them.
Odd thing is, a healthy set of eyes can adjust to most conditions at night - at least enough to avoid tripping on anything. Under a full moon, you can see pretty much anything you need to (as long as you're not in the deep woods or anything). You just have to sit still in the dark until your eyes adjust.
There would be arguments concerning public safety (and Lord only knows how many lawsuits would spring from such a move), but I could totally get behind shutting off, say, 50% of all street lights after a certain hour (say 10pm?), and in small-enough towns, shut 'em all off entirely (I think a lot of small towns do that anyway to save on the power bills).
I'm just glad I live 30 miles away from any sizable city, and 20 from the nearest town of any kind (which has like a small handful of dim street lights at most.) When family (especially young nieces and nephews) come to visit, I see the same awestruck look on their faces the first time they go outside and look up on a clear night... I actually have to point out that the big band along the sky is the Milky Way, even to the teenaged ones. Pointing out satellites (especially if it's the ISS) gets an even cooler reaction out of them. Makes me feel damned fortunate and humbled at the same time to get that view every night...
Almost every property has a big, fat Sodium-vapor or Mercury-vapor light, but it's rare that I bother having mine on, and given that I'm in Oregon, not too many others have theirs on at night either.
However, I believe it does depend on *why* you get the MBA.
If, for instance, you get an MBA to boost an already progressing career, wherein you're moving from the masses to management, then it makes perfect sense to get one - doubly so if, say, you just became a junior manager and you want to push your career as far as you can take it. It actually helps you navigate the corporate world fairly well (as long as you have a solid intellect and a good eye on culture.)
On the other hand, if you're getting one just because your brain translates it to "$$$$$!!!!!!!one!!", then you'll get approximately nowhere with it - at least not without a lot of hard knocks at first.
All that said, I once worked under someone in a highly technical position (and in a very tech-intensive department), but her only claim to any sort of professional competence was her MBA... and nothing else. She was a nice enough person, but have you ever had to explain/justify any technical decisions to someone like that? It's a royal pain in the ass. Her lack of knowledge, experience, or even competency in the field(s) of the employees she oversaw also made for one very weird culture and work environment... somewhat dysfunctional in quite a few aspects. Little wonder that a once-tight team had pretty much disintegrated within the space of 18 months (I believe I was the last to leave), and that the replacements were not quite up to the tasks before them.
Long story short, because of this, I've come to the conclusion that an MBA is a great addition, but it makes for a really lousy foundation.
Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?
So what if he did?
A government issued license doesn't grant any special magical powers; it only tests basic competency (and depending on state, verifies schooling) in the field which is being licensed. IIRC, even with a medical license, nothing really stops a podiatrist from performing neurosurgery, so...
On the one hand, I say let 'em do it. If they succeed, we have the potential for medical breakthroughs. If they fail, they win Darwin's Award. Either way, nobody gets hurt.
On the other hand, I can see some sort of home-brew Resident Evil thing happening if things go wrong...
Maybe limit it to certain lines of research/self-testing, and calling certain types and materials off-limits?
Hyperbole aside, do you have actual non-biased facts to support any of that?
* "ending DACA", when you likely don't know the size and scope of that program.
* "who want to aggressively deport" - you mean following existing laws? Seriously, if the laws are a problem for your idea of where immigration should be, how about changing the laws? It doesn't do well for the justice system when you arbitrarily support and/or ignore a law based on ideology.
* "false statements"? Like what?
* "wants to bankrupt us" - unsupported hyperbole at its finest. How much would it cost? Compare it to how much we (as a government) spend on far more frivolous things.
I'm steering well clear of partisan bias here (I voted 3rd-party if that tells you anything.) Please try to do the same, and even better, try to discard the overheated propaganda - especially the obvious stuff.
* Criminals escaping arrest (in either direction) * Smuggling of other substances/items (counterfeits, weapons, etc) * Sex trafficking and other kidnapping activities...and lots more.
But as long as we can get cheap labor that's willing to work under-the-table or that has a stolen identity, right?
Therein lies the rub......let's have them actually discuss, openly, immigration limits (keeping in mind that nearly any other nation on Earth (that's not, say, Somalia) has even stricter limits and requirements (excepting recent ME -> EU refugee issues, which in turn are showing cracks and signs of breakdown)).
While we're at it, how about not having such a porous border in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
The reality is that there aren't enough Linux users around to support something as simple as a magazine!
You seriously misspelled "aren't enough people willing to buy a subscription to something as simple as a magazine!" up there.
The days of subscribing to anything printed on paper is pretty much relegated to us old farts**, and the idea of paying for a digital sub for anything is pretty anathema to the kiddies.
** anyone else recall getting phone-book-sized computer mags in the mail that were half advertisement, or is that just me?
Oh, it's "only a local privilege escalation". No worries then.
For the majority of use cases, that's pretty much it; you still have to convince someone to give you basic (local or remote) access to the box first.
Same story on *any* OS, come to think of it.
Out of curiosity, what part of NN would have stopped Joe MoronOnline from downloading a crap malware-loaded binary to his laptop and running it?
/* get off my lawn mode */ ...and this is probably real good reason why you shouldn't put vital crap like home HVAC into the IoT bucket. Getting up to change the thermostat once in awhile isn't going to kill you, and while an automated home HVAC control setup might save you a few pennies each month, there are models out there which don't require an Internet connection or smartphone app that perform much the same energy-saving measures. /* end */
Oh, you mean the "destabilization" that removed 98% of ISIS' territory out from under them (and dropped their fighters' numbers from a peak of 40k to less than 1k or so) starting when you-know-who took office and stopped micromanaging the whole affair from his desk?
Or maybe you meant the fact that Iraq is once again becoming stable after a certain previous president pulled out too early (on a massively flimsy excuse)?
Oh, maybe you meant the massive anti-Wahhabist royal purge/shakeup that recently occurred in Saudi Arabia after the rest of the royalty there realized that they're actually being watched and held accountable by the US, after decades of being ignored as the penultimate ideological source for all the jihadist garbage that's occurred for 50+ years now?
Perhaps you meant the impending removal of funding and support from Iran... you know, the folks who were busy finding Hezbollah and trying to make nukes in spite of promising on their bestest behavior not to?
Or could it be the fact that most of OPEC finally realized that they're no longer the petrol-soaked king-makers when it comes to geopolitcal affairs, and has to start playing nice with the rest of the planet?
The time to indulge this half-century-long aberrant behavior by various grudge groups in the ME is over, 'mano. By all appearances, they're realizing it fast and adjusting accordingly (c.f. Dubai)... so I doubt the old rules of analyzing the ME from left-wing eyes will apply for much longer.
What part of the Mormons' involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was considered to be "defense", do you figure?
By the time the batteries in an iPhone get that far gone, the device is usually, what, 3, maybe 4 years old? That's well beyond the time when most folks will have already replaced the thing entirely. Why add weight and reduce battery life (due to the smaller battery you end up with to fit the new case design) just for the 3-5% of users who keep their phones past the third year?
By contrast, how well supported is the typical Android phone past the first year (let alone 2nd or 3rd)? How well do the batteries hold up in them? My LG G4 has seen exactly one update the whole time I've had it, at roughly the 6-month mark (I still have/use it, but it's starting to fade a bit and is about to get replaced). I've also had to buy a new battery for it, because the old one faded to shit at the 24-month mark.
Don't feel bad... I have 16 at home and it works just fine considering what I use it for (browsing, VPN, the occasional tv stream, etc.)
Funny thing - When I lived in-town, I had a 50mbps connection, and comparing my experiences now with what I had then, I don't see any real difference (okay, it was a 50mbps Comcast connection, but...)
All said, I suspect that unless you routinely suck down multi-GB files all day long, or use it to watch like three 4k Netflix/Hulu/whatever streams all at the same time? Even 30mbps is kind of overkill. I won't turn it down, but at the same time I don't really use it, and the vast majority of people out there won't either (at least not for now, and this may change as cable-cutting becomes more prevalent and screen rez goes up.)
Maybe the reason that the internet is devolving is your unwillingness to pay. I pay for the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Washington Post. And they are well worth every penny.
Well, only one (the Economist) is. The rest have devolved into holdovers from the days of Yellow Journalism.
Now, the preceding opinion is *why* your assertion isn't as clear-cut. To wit, what you think to be "worth every penny", others may think of as propaganda organs for $politicalParty. But then, such people will happily pay for their favored news sites of choice. Or, like in my case, would only bother with paying for subs to sites (WSJ, Economist, and similar) that carefully unearth and curate the straight news with as little bias as possible, and not bend/twist/mutilate it to fit the political narratives of their ownership. Sites that provide actual insight an analysis, with no regard to any particular political view or ideology.
Those sites are few and far between, while clickbait political propaganda organs are more plentiful than blades of grass in Iowa.
...well, until Visa, MC, Barclays, and/or Amex gets in on the act. Then it just slipstreams into the existing providers of CC/Debit payment services, and life goes on as usual.
...is reason #31678956784789.8 why I'll never use their stupid Facebook apps. Force the issue, and I cease to go near the site at all.
Bad enough my family pretty much requires that I have an account on that damnable website in the first place, but I tolerate it just enough at this point. The only reason I (and I suspect quite a few others) still tolerate it is because (for now) I still maintain a modicum of control over the experience (viz. ad-blockers and such via web browser).
As long as there are activist billionaires, I suspect the propaganda organs among them will still have income if they truly need it.
Honestly? I have no problems paying a sub to visit the WSJ and/or similar trusted, thorough news sources. Maybe as a bonus it'll knock the clickbait bullshit sites offline? Likely not, since many of those sites (especially political clickbait sites) usually have massive backers (e.g. MoveOn was launched and backed financially by George Soros, etc.)
Something to consider - maybe freebie sites that don't have a massive media presence in another medium (or some other visible and transparent means of non-biased/partisan financial support) should eventually be written off as mere propaganda sites? Certainly there are good sites that are small and struggling, that try to get it right, that do a decent job of investigation and such, but they seem to be very few and very far between these days. Just a thought.
Should also add one other thing: The Electoral College makes it harder to commit voter fraud, since you'd have to commit it in a larger number of areas... without it, one only need to rig the vote in a few areas, and have a greater chance of stealing the overall vote.
Dunno about GP, but I like the fact that big, heavily-populated states (California, New York, Texas) don't get to set the agenda for the rest of us. Unlike Congress (specifically the Senate, with two Senators per state), the Electoral College is the only thing that allows smaller states to get a voice in the Executive branch of government.
Remove the Electoral College, and you have a situation where candidates only need pander to a small handful of states, and could literally tell all the other states to go piss up a rope without fear of losing. It would also heavily slant the Executive branch's agenda towards the concerns, demands and desires of the megacities, but screw over everyone living outside of them.
Odd thing is, a healthy set of eyes can adjust to most conditions at night - at least enough to avoid tripping on anything. Under a full moon, you can see pretty much anything you need to (as long as you're not in the deep woods or anything). You just have to sit still in the dark until your eyes adjust.
There would be arguments concerning public safety (and Lord only knows how many lawsuits would spring from such a move), but I could totally get behind shutting off, say, 50% of all street lights after a certain hour (say 10pm?), and in small-enough towns, shut 'em all off entirely (I think a lot of small towns do that anyway to save on the power bills).
I'm just glad I live 30 miles away from any sizable city, and 20 from the nearest town of any kind (which has like a small handful of dim street lights at most.) When family (especially young nieces and nephews) come to visit, I see the same awestruck look on their faces the first time they go outside and look up on a clear night... I actually have to point out that the big band along the sky is the Milky Way, even to the teenaged ones. Pointing out satellites (especially if it's the ISS) gets an even cooler reaction out of them. Makes me feel damned fortunate and humbled at the same time to get that view every night...
Almost every property has a big, fat Sodium-vapor or Mercury-vapor light, but it's rare that I bother having mine on, and given that I'm in Oregon, not too many others have theirs on at night either.
Forsooth, you'd be better off in a class of Calligraphy, or locking yourself in a room for a year with The Complete Works of Shakespeare.
Wouldn't laugh too loud... if I remember right, Steve Jobs took a class or two of Calligraphy, and said it influenced a lot of how he saw things.
I agree with you, actually.
However, I believe it does depend on *why* you get the MBA.
If, for instance, you get an MBA to boost an already progressing career, wherein you're moving from the masses to management, then it makes perfect sense to get one - doubly so if, say, you just became a junior manager and you want to push your career as far as you can take it. It actually helps you navigate the corporate world fairly well (as long as you have a solid intellect and a good eye on culture.)
On the other hand, if you're getting one just because your brain translates it to "$$$$$!!!!!!!one!!", then you'll get approximately nowhere with it - at least not without a lot of hard knocks at first.
All that said, I once worked under someone in a highly technical position (and in a very tech-intensive department), but her only claim to any sort of professional competence was her MBA... and nothing else. She was a nice enough person, but have you ever had to explain/justify any technical decisions to someone like that? It's a royal pain in the ass. Her lack of knowledge, experience, or even competency in the field(s) of the employees she oversaw also made for one very weird culture and work environment... somewhat dysfunctional in quite a few aspects. Little wonder that a once-tight team had pretty much disintegrated within the space of 18 months (I believe I was the last to leave), and that the replacements were not quite up to the tasks before them.
Long story short, because of this, I've come to the conclusion that an MBA is a great addition, but it makes for a really lousy foundation.
Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?
So what if he did?
A government issued license doesn't grant any special magical powers; it only tests basic competency (and depending on state, verifies schooling) in the field which is being licensed. IIRC, even with a medical license, nothing really stops a podiatrist from performing neurosurgery, so...
* should say, "nobody else gets hurt."
On the one hand, I say let 'em do it. If they succeed, we have the potential for medical breakthroughs. If they fail, they win Darwin's Award. Either way, nobody gets hurt.
On the other hand, I can see some sort of home-brew Resident Evil thing happening if things go wrong...
Maybe limit it to certain lines of research/self-testing, and calling certain types and materials off-limits?
Hyperbole aside, do you have actual non-biased facts to support any of that?
* "ending DACA", when you likely don't know the size and scope of that program.
* "who want to aggressively deport" - you mean following existing laws? Seriously, if the laws are a problem for your idea of where immigration should be, how about changing the laws? It doesn't do well for the justice system when you arbitrarily support and/or ignore a law based on ideology.
* "false statements"? Like what?
* "wants to bankrupt us" - unsupported hyperbole at its finest. How much would it cost? Compare it to how much we (as a government) spend on far more frivolous things.
I'm steering well clear of partisan bias here (I voted 3rd-party if that tells you anything.) Please try to do the same, and even better, try to discard the overheated propaganda - especially the obvious stuff.
How does a porous border hurt you and me? Drugs?
Not just drugs...
* Criminals escaping arrest (in either direction) ...and lots more.
* Smuggling of other substances/items (counterfeits, weapons, etc)
* Sex trafficking and other kidnapping activities
But as long as we can get cheap labor that's willing to work under-the-table or that has a stolen identity, right?
Therein lies the rub... ...let's have them actually discuss, openly, immigration limits (keeping in mind that nearly any other nation on Earth (that's not, say, Somalia) has even stricter limits and requirements (excepting recent ME -> EU refugee issues, which in turn are showing cracks and signs of breakdown)).
While we're at it, how about not having such a porous border in the first place?