I still do better with Google results most of the time, but I get those from Startpage when I need them. DuckDuckGo mostly returns Bing results, Startpage mostly (exclusively?) returns Google results, and between the two of them I can find whatever I need.
We've been down that road before, redundant infrastructure is bad for other reasons and doesn't generate as much competition as you might hope for. Given the extremely high barrier to entry.
One of the advantages of classifying ISPs as Title II common carriers was that it allowed for the implementation of line sharing rules, which were baked into the Telecommunications Act. These rules were implemented briefly in 1999, and worked well, but they were only implemented for DSL and were revoked in 2005 when a new FCC decided to reclassify DSL as an "information service." (i.e.: exactly the same thing that the current FCC is doing)
I do know that, yes. We would be well past midnight if Trump just had a big round "launch the nukes" button that he could mistake for a boob and start groping one day.
Instead we have his campaign of antagonism and threats against... pretty much everyone. (except Russia, natch) It's not as certain or as quick as a "launch the nukes" button, but it's another way to get there.
This is not what people mean when they refer to water as a limited resource. No one is operating under the delusion that the water disappears when it's consumed, only that we use fresh water faster than it is replenished. There are a number of examples of this, one of the starkest in the United States is the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides water to a huge portion of the great plains region, including much of the agriculture in the US. The Kansas portion of the aquifer has been depleted by about 30% since we starting large-scale pumping during World War 2.
Likewise, no one thinks that carbon dioxide just appears out of nothing, or however it is that you think people think that works. There are three ways in which livestock contribute to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere: one is all of the additional fuel that gets burned in raising them - growing all of the additional food, moving all of that additional food into their mouths, etc. Second is direct production - you have no-doubt heard that ruminants convert carbon dioxide and acetic acid into methane, and that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So this is detrimental. Third is indirect, and similar to the water example - a very large portion of all of the land on earth is devoted to livestock. A very large portion. Once upon a time, much of this land was covered in carbon-capturing forests.
I feel that I need to impress upon you just how much land we're talking about here (from the Smithsonian Magazine):
The global scope of the livestock issue is huge. A 212-page online report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. Seventy percent of Brazil’s deforested land is used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder. And in Botswana, the livestock industry consumes 23 percent of all water used. Globally, 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the livestock industry—more than is produced by transportation-related sources. And in the United States, livestock production is responsible for 55 percent of erosion, 37 percent of all applied pesticides and 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, while the animals themselves directly consume 95 percent of our oat production and 80 percent of our corn, according to the Sierra Club.
Also, while I'm at it: Meat is not more nutritious than plants are, it's just more calorie-dense. If you want to consider the entirety of a person's dietary needs, including fiber, vitamins, etc., then meat is less nutritious than plants. The fact that eating vegetables is healthy should surprise no-one, but there are a lot of atkins true-believers running around out there nowadays...
The "independent" in "independent repair provider" does imply that end-users should not require authorization, otherwise they would not be independent. Ability is another question, and where you say "easily replaceable by the end user" you're putting some unnecessary limits on design. How many end-users are really comfortable with changing a CMOS battery in an average desktop? I don't think all desktops need to be designed with externally accessible battery compartments. I guess that wouldn't count for your rule, since CMOS batteries aren't rechargeable, but... why only rechargeable batteries then?
As long as truly independent repair providers can replace the batteries, then you're removing the monetary incentive that device manufacturers have to make it difficult. That should be enough.
It seems as though it would be hard to lose credibility over something like this, since it's basically just a reminder that there are some unstable people in charge of nuclear weapons right now. This fact is hard to deny: even people who think that Trump is totally stable and, like, a really smart guy, probably aren't as generous towards Kim Jong-il. And vice-versa for supporters of Kim Jong-il. So regardless of where you stand on those two, you should be able to recognize a problem there.
And that's just two examples. Wasn't there a story recently about Russia's new nuclear-equipped underwater drones? And there are always the nukes in Pakistan, which are not exactly reassuringly secure.
Could you specify when this group's credibility was lost? I'll accept a general answer, I don't need a date and time.
I don't think this is true. NASA isn't anathema to Trump in the same way that the EPA is, or solar power is, or checks and balances are, etc. I do believe that he would like someone to go to Mars on his order, simply because then he could brag about putting someone on Mars. The ISS, meanwhile, offers no bragging rights.
They're cancelling the Pebble to try and get people to buy the Ionic. The Pebble cost $150, the Ionic costs $300. The Pebble had a 7-day battery life, the Ionic has a 4-day battery... So what does the Ionic actually do better? Well, it looks like it has a color screen. Also, it has a pedometer and it's spying on you.
It's less about "afford" than about "willing to spend." Regardless of the reason why, if we start doing this then eventually we will stop. It's deferring the problem rather than solving it.
But even when her protagonists are male, they avoid the macho posturing of so many science fiction and fantasy heroes.
::sigh:: This is a completely necessary sentence. It's flamebait, in an article which should be about the passing of a very talented author who has, no doubt, impacted a lot of people here and elsewhere.
It's hard to say for sure whether Apple or Amazon are responsible for the fact that the Apple TV only just last month got an Amazon Prime video app. They are both walled-garden monopolists, and they both pull this shit. The topic at hand is comparing Amazon to Google, and Google is by comparison a wide open standards-compliant fountain of joy and love and venereal diseases. They want a finger in every pie, instead of a whole pie to themselves.
The platforms we're talking about are not operating systems, they're streaming devices. i.e.: it's Chromecast vs. Fire Stick, it's not Android that's the issue. They both run Android.
Total [google.com] fucking [apple.com] bullshit [roku.com].
The only one of those that applies here is Roku. The other links just go to the iTunes store and Google Play. Amazon Prime was only added to the Apple TV last month, and it's still not available for the Chromecast - the device that actually matters for this story.
Also, your rant about stores is... ridiculous. Google has first-party products and sells them through a first-party store, that's fine. Amazon has first party products and sells them through their store, that's fine too. The thing is, Amazon's store is way more than first-party. Let's pick another product, let's say paper towels - Google also doesn't sell paper towels through their store. Why? Because it's a first-party store and Google doesn't make paper towels. I am not going to criticize Google for neglecting to sell paper towels through their store. I would criticize Amazon for not selling paper towels, because that's exactly the sort of thing that I would expect to be able to buy there.
And while I'm at it, this "Google controlling the operating system" is not really true and it's one of the virtues of Android. In fact, Amazon has their own Android products which Google has no influence over. Google does control the Play Store, which gives it a lot of influence, probably too much. But as you point out, Amazon Prime is available through the Play Store... but only since last August. Why? Because for the last couple years Amazon has been trying to force people to download it through their own storefront, Amazon Underground.
No, Google isn't the problem here. Amazon is trying to keep their content off of everyone else's platforms, while retaining everyone else's content.
Google just wants to spy on you, they're generally very happy to do so in an accommodating cross-platform way. Amazon wants to spy on you and be a monopolistic walled garden.
War is not required for treason, that's a common mistake. War makes it really obvious who some enemies of the state are, but aiding an enemy of the state, whether during wartime or peacetime, is still treason.
The parent is saying that Facebook is hurting democracy. That's not quite what the Facebook rep said, but from a certain perspective that could be viewed as being an enemy of the state. Seems like an overstatement to me... but that's the answer to your question.
The parent's example wasn't a very good one, but there are plenty of examples of people being prosecuted for sitting in a car while drunk in places other than California. (Here's one.)
If you use set theory to only allow what is universally "correct" much information is excluded.
This is certainly true, and is what I meant when I said, "we could expect a real caccophony of medical advice and products, all being pushed by interested parties. The volume of information would certainly be larger, but would we be better informed for that?"
All of your questions are valid, but you seem to be phrasing them as though they were hypothetical. All of the things you say are true right now: we do indeed suppress new medical ideas and procedures, with the reasoning that the rejected procedures don't deliver on what they're supposed to be doing or that they are too harmful in other ways.... Oh wait, I see what you're saying. No, I wasn't suggesting that only doctors have to universally agree in order for an opinion to be valid (different from true). I was just responding to the parent who was kind of sort of implying that agreement between experts in a field was a bad thing, indicative of group-think. It's generally more likely that when a lot of experts agree on something then it's because that thing is correct.
The thing about a second opinion is, it's not necessarily different from the first. The point of seeking a second opinion is not to keep talking to doctor after doctor until one says something you like. If every doctor has the same opinion, it's likely because that opinion is what is true.
And I did provide an example of someone you can go to in order to get a differing opinion if that's really what you're after: the kook down the street.
And if they use a panel of experts than the experts are controlling the news people see. That's not good either.
... Why? What if, instead of calling them "experts," we called them "journalists"? Is that still bad? Even though that's how it is anyway, and how it has always been?
You could make the standard argument about bias, but that's why we get our news from multiple sources (multiple journalists) instead of just one. Let's try a medical analogy: your rely on your doctor for medical advice, because you doctor spends all of his time on that crap and knows a lot more about it than you do. If you disagree with your doctor or don't like what he says, then you get a second opinion from another knowledgeable doctor who, let me repeat, follows developments in his field closely and knows more about it than you do.
If you still don't like what any doctors are saying, and you're dumb, you might talk to some conspiracy theorist down the street who will sell you a bunch of leaves and tell you that they're definitely better than what "those pharma-shills" will give you, because these leaves are "totally natural man," and not full of that "mercury (or whatever) that you know causes autism."
So. Is it a bad thing that the kook down the street isn't given equal status? Is it a problem that panels of doctors at the FDA and elsewhere control, to some degree, the advice that you get? If so, would we be better off if they weren't there? Supposing that there were no controls on who could call themselves a doctor and what advice they could give - we could expect a real caccophony of medical advice and products, all being pushed by interested parties. The volume of information would certainly be larger, but would we be better informed for that?
You were wrong about last year's vote, but only because all of the anti-statehood people boycotted that election. For the last two referendums you would have been right (depending on how you count the votes). It's pretty clear that Puerto Ricans are not of one mind on this.
At first glance I made this mistake too. For some reason they've chosen to focus their marketing effort on the cardboard, and not on the game that you play with the cardboard. This gives the impression that you're shelling out really a lot of money for some punched cardboard that have have to assemble yourself. In fact, that $80 robot kit comes with a $60 game. The cardboard is just a substitute for the plastic controllers which were so popular on the Wii.
If you look at it in that light, the cardboard is an improvement: It's cheaper than the plastic controllers, it's more environmentally friendly, it takes up less shelf space, etc. The only downside is that it's not as sturdy. This is possibly a large drawback.
The confusing bit is that they don't call the game a game, they call it "kit software," and it makes up a very small part of the advertising. I think they're trying to spin it as educational, and the fact that you have to assemble it yourself is a positive because... creativity. Or something. The problem is this gives the impression that this whole business is way overpriced.
I appreciate you saying this, there are very few people here who have paid much attention to how the paper was written, choosing to focus instead on whether they agreed with its conclusions. The most frustrating thing about this Damore issue for me has been how readily people here on Slashdot have accepted such poorly supported claims. The paper read like an argument on a web forum: many of his claims weren't supported at all, and those which were mostly linked to single-study results or wikipedia articles. This is wildly insufficient support to be making such inflammatory comments in a professional setting.
Even among the people who agreed with him I would have hoped for something like: "I do agree that there's a problem, I just wish it had been better represented here."
If "creating a welcoming environment," (i.e.: a non-hostile workplace) is a political reason, then term has lost all meaning. If the bar for being political is that low, then what's the point in distinguishing?
It seems like you're reading something into that sentence that isn't there.
Slashdot Mirror
I still do better with Google results most of the time, but I get those from Startpage when I need them. DuckDuckGo mostly returns Bing results, Startpage mostly (exclusively?) returns Google results, and between the two of them I can find whatever I need.
We've been down that road before, redundant infrastructure is bad for other reasons and doesn't generate as much competition as you might hope for. Given the extremely high barrier to entry.
One of the advantages of classifying ISPs as Title II common carriers was that it allowed for the implementation of line sharing rules, which were baked into the Telecommunications Act. These rules were implemented briefly in 1999, and worked well, but they were only implemented for DSL and were revoked in 2005 when a new FCC decided to reclassify DSL as an "information service." (i.e.: exactly the same thing that the current FCC is doing)
I do know that, yes. We would be well past midnight if Trump just had a big round "launch the nukes" button that he could mistake for a boob and start groping one day.
Instead we have his campaign of antagonism and threats against... pretty much everyone. (except Russia, natch) It's not as certain or as quick as a "launch the nukes" button, but it's another way to get there.
Likewise, no one thinks that carbon dioxide just appears out of nothing, or however it is that you think people think that works. There are three ways in which livestock contribute to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere: one is all of the additional fuel that gets burned in raising them - growing all of the additional food, moving all of that additional food into their mouths, etc. Second is direct production - you have no-doubt heard that ruminants convert carbon dioxide and acetic acid into methane, and that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So this is detrimental. Third is indirect, and similar to the water example - a very large portion of all of the land on earth is devoted to livestock. A very large portion. Once upon a time, much of this land was covered in carbon-capturing forests.
I feel that I need to impress upon you just how much land we're talking about here (from the Smithsonian Magazine):
The global scope of the livestock issue is huge. A 212-page online report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. Seventy percent of Brazil’s deforested land is used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder. And in Botswana, the livestock industry consumes 23 percent of all water used. Globally, 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the livestock industry—more than is produced by transportation-related sources. And in the United States, livestock production is responsible for 55 percent of erosion, 37 percent of all applied pesticides and 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, while the animals themselves directly consume 95 percent of our oat production and 80 percent of our corn, according to the Sierra Club.
Also, while I'm at it: Meat is not more nutritious than plants are, it's just more calorie-dense. If you want to consider the entirety of a person's dietary needs, including fiber, vitamins, etc., then meat is less nutritious than plants. The fact that eating vegetables is healthy should surprise no-one, but there are a lot of atkins true-believers running around out there nowadays...
The "independent" in "independent repair provider" does imply that end-users should not require authorization, otherwise they would not be independent. Ability is another question, and where you say "easily replaceable by the end user" you're putting some unnecessary limits on design. How many end-users are really comfortable with changing a CMOS battery in an average desktop? I don't think all desktops need to be designed with externally accessible battery compartments. I guess that wouldn't count for your rule, since CMOS batteries aren't rechargeable, but... why only rechargeable batteries then?
As long as truly independent repair providers can replace the batteries, then you're removing the monetary incentive that device manufacturers have to make it difficult. That should be enough.
Oh? I wasn't aware of that.
It seems as though it would be hard to lose credibility over something like this, since it's basically just a reminder that there are some unstable people in charge of nuclear weapons right now. This fact is hard to deny: even people who think that Trump is totally stable and, like, a really smart guy, probably aren't as generous towards Kim Jong-il. And vice-versa for supporters of Kim Jong-il. So regardless of where you stand on those two, you should be able to recognize a problem there.
And that's just two examples. Wasn't there a story recently about Russia's new nuclear-equipped underwater drones? And there are always the nukes in Pakistan, which are not exactly reassuringly secure.
Could you specify when this group's credibility was lost? I'll accept a general answer, I don't need a date and time.
I don't think this is true. NASA isn't anathema to Trump in the same way that the EPA is, or solar power is, or checks and balances are, etc. I do believe that he would like someone to go to Mars on his order, simply because then he could brag about putting someone on Mars. The ISS, meanwhile, offers no bragging rights.
It's really that simple.
They're cancelling the Pebble to try and get people to buy the Ionic. The Pebble cost $150, the Ionic costs $300. The Pebble had a 7-day battery life, the Ionic has a 4-day battery... So what does the Ionic actually do better? Well, it looks like it has a color screen. Also, it has a pedometer and it's spying on you.
I can see how it's worth the extra money.
We will stop eventually, regardless of the reason why. - Does that make more sense? This is how that sentence was intended.
The difference is a solution which requires doing something, vs. a solution which requires not doing something.
It's less about "afford" than about "willing to spend." Regardless of the reason why, if we start doing this then eventually we will stop. It's deferring the problem rather than solving it.
Unnecessary. Un. I'm blaming the spell checker for this.
But even when her protagonists are male, they avoid the macho posturing of so many science fiction and fantasy heroes.
::sigh:: This is a completely necessary sentence. It's flamebait, in an article which should be about the passing of a very talented author who has, no doubt, impacted a lot of people here and elsewhere.
It's hard to say for sure whether Apple or Amazon are responsible for the fact that the Apple TV only just last month got an Amazon Prime video app. They are both walled-garden monopolists, and they both pull this shit. The topic at hand is comparing Amazon to Google, and Google is by comparison a wide open standards-compliant fountain of joy and love and venereal diseases. They want a finger in every pie, instead of a whole pie to themselves.
The platforms we're talking about are not operating systems, they're streaming devices. i.e.: it's Chromecast vs. Fire Stick, it's not Android that's the issue. They both run Android.
Total [google.com] fucking [apple.com] bullshit [roku.com].
The only one of those that applies here is Roku. The other links just go to the iTunes store and Google Play. Amazon Prime was only added to the Apple TV last month, and it's still not available for the Chromecast - the device that actually matters for this story.
Also, your rant about stores is... ridiculous. Google has first-party products and sells them through a first-party store, that's fine. Amazon has first party products and sells them through their store, that's fine too. The thing is, Amazon's store is way more than first-party. Let's pick another product, let's say paper towels - Google also doesn't sell paper towels through their store. Why? Because it's a first-party store and Google doesn't make paper towels. I am not going to criticize Google for neglecting to sell paper towels through their store. I would criticize Amazon for not selling paper towels, because that's exactly the sort of thing that I would expect to be able to buy there.
And while I'm at it, this "Google controlling the operating system" is not really true and it's one of the virtues of Android. In fact, Amazon has their own Android products which Google has no influence over. Google does control the Play Store, which gives it a lot of influence, probably too much. But as you point out, Amazon Prime is available through the Play Store... but only since last August. Why? Because for the last couple years Amazon has been trying to force people to download it through their own storefront, Amazon Underground.
No, Google isn't the problem here. Amazon is trying to keep their content off of everyone else's platforms, while retaining everyone else's content.
Google just wants to spy on you, they're generally very happy to do so in an accommodating cross-platform way. Amazon wants to spy on you and be a monopolistic walled garden.
War is not required for treason, that's a common mistake. War makes it really obvious who some enemies of the state are, but aiding an enemy of the state, whether during wartime or peacetime, is still treason.
The parent is saying that Facebook is hurting democracy. That's not quite what the Facebook rep said, but from a certain perspective that could be viewed as being an enemy of the state. Seems like an overstatement to me... but that's the answer to your question.
The parent's example wasn't a very good one, but there are plenty of examples of people being prosecuted for sitting in a car while drunk in places other than California. (Here's one.)
If you use set theory to only allow what is universally "correct" much information is excluded.
This is certainly true, and is what I meant when I said, "we could expect a real caccophony of medical advice and products, all being pushed by interested parties. The volume of information would certainly be larger, but would we be better informed for that?"
... Oh wait, I see what you're saying. No, I wasn't suggesting that only doctors have to universally agree in order for an opinion to be valid (different from true). I was just responding to the parent who was kind of sort of implying that agreement between experts in a field was a bad thing, indicative of group-think. It's generally more likely that when a lot of experts agree on something then it's because that thing is correct.
All of your questions are valid, but you seem to be phrasing them as though they were hypothetical. All of the things you say are true right now: we do indeed suppress new medical ideas and procedures, with the reasoning that the rejected procedures don't deliver on what they're supposed to be doing or that they are too harmful in other ways.
The thing about a second opinion is, it's not necessarily different from the first. The point of seeking a second opinion is not to keep talking to doctor after doctor until one says something you like. If every doctor has the same opinion, it's likely because that opinion is what is true.
And I did provide an example of someone you can go to in order to get a differing opinion if that's really what you're after: the kook down the street.
And if they use a panel of experts than the experts are controlling the news people see. That's not good either.
... Why? What if, instead of calling them "experts," we called them "journalists"? Is that still bad? Even though that's how it is anyway, and how it has always been?
You could make the standard argument about bias, but that's why we get our news from multiple sources (multiple journalists) instead of just one. Let's try a medical analogy: your rely on your doctor for medical advice, because you doctor spends all of his time on that crap and knows a lot more about it than you do. If you disagree with your doctor or don't like what he says, then you get a second opinion from another knowledgeable doctor who, let me repeat, follows developments in his field closely and knows more about it than you do.
If you still don't like what any doctors are saying, and you're dumb, you might talk to some conspiracy theorist down the street who will sell you a bunch of leaves and tell you that they're definitely better than what "those pharma-shills" will give you, because these leaves are "totally natural man," and not full of that "mercury (or whatever) that you know causes autism."
So. Is it a bad thing that the kook down the street isn't given equal status? Is it a problem that panels of doctors at the FDA and elsewhere control, to some degree, the advice that you get? If so, would we be better off if they weren't there? Supposing that there were no controls on who could call themselves a doctor and what advice they could give - we could expect a real caccophony of medical advice and products, all being pushed by interested parties. The volume of information would certainly be larger, but would we be better informed for that?
You were wrong about last year's vote, but only because all of the anti-statehood people boycotted that election. For the last two referendums you would have been right (depending on how you count the votes). It's pretty clear that Puerto Ricans are not of one mind on this.
At first glance I made this mistake too. For some reason they've chosen to focus their marketing effort on the cardboard, and not on the game that you play with the cardboard. This gives the impression that you're shelling out really a lot of money for some punched cardboard that have have to assemble yourself. In fact, that $80 robot kit comes with a $60 game. The cardboard is just a substitute for the plastic controllers which were so popular on the Wii.
If you look at it in that light, the cardboard is an improvement: It's cheaper than the plastic controllers, it's more environmentally friendly, it takes up less shelf space, etc. The only downside is that it's not as sturdy. This is possibly a large drawback.
The confusing bit is that they don't call the game a game, they call it "kit software," and it makes up a very small part of the advertising. I think they're trying to spin it as educational, and the fact that you have to assemble it yourself is a positive because... creativity. Or something. The problem is this gives the impression that this whole business is way overpriced.
I appreciate you saying this, there are very few people here who have paid much attention to how the paper was written, choosing to focus instead on whether they agreed with its conclusions. The most frustrating thing about this Damore issue for me has been how readily people here on Slashdot have accepted such poorly supported claims. The paper read like an argument on a web forum: many of his claims weren't supported at all, and those which were mostly linked to single-study results or wikipedia articles. This is wildly insufficient support to be making such inflammatory comments in a professional setting.
Even among the people who agreed with him I would have hoped for something like: "I do agree that there's a problem, I just wish it had been better represented here."
If "creating a welcoming environment," (i.e.: a non-hostile workplace) is a political reason, then term has lost all meaning. If the bar for being political is that low, then what's the point in distinguishing?
It seems like you're reading something into that sentence that isn't there.