Privacy Badger blocks via heuristics, so the results are going to be a little inconsistent. I run it alongside Disconnect, for a blocklist-based privacy filter as well. Of course, neither one blocks Google Analytics, since NoScript filters it out before it gets to them...
The advantage with the heuristics approach is that it will catch new things, and things which otherwise don't get included into blocklists.
The parent may be trolling, but I am totally on board with that idea. Maybe they should start with the Russians, but in the long term greater transparency in advertising (and elsewhere) can only be a good thing. After all, while it may be primarily the Russians right now there's no reason to believe that this will always be the case.
"Weakest argument" "provably false"... thems some big words there. I don't even know what assumptions you're talking about, so let's just assume that you're right about everything, and that you can "prove" whatever that is. Great. It's irrelevant.
The person that I was replying to was suggesting replacing a law which was designed to adapt to circumstances, with one that isn't. The issue is the longevity of the solution, and nothing other than vigilance can address that problem.
They don't need to change anything, allowing fast lanes is enough to kill it. This law is scarier than what the FCC did - the GOP seems to be backpedaling on their anti-net neutrality stance lately. Rather than trying to paint neutrality as bad, they're trying to pivot into something like, "We just didn't like how it was being implemented." If they can successfully frame it in that context, and pass a law like this one which kills net neutrality while claiming to protect it, then enough people may believe them to stifle dissent.
The point of the law which put the FCC in charge of identifying and enforcing common carrier status was to ensure that the law would stay current even as technology changed. Our current situation is not a regulatory failure: The current FCC has not failed in this task, they are applying the law in exactly way that congress wants them to (i.e.: they are killing net neutrality, because congress wants them to. Pai has always been clear about his stance on net neutrality, well before he was nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate).
Making a new law, one which can not adapt to future technologies, does not solve this problem. This particular law, which doesn't even fully address current technology, does not solve this problem. The only thing that can solve this problem is ensuring that the people in congress are not horrible. That's it. That's the only thing.
Oh, neat. I did do a quick search for Corpus Christi, in case there was some meaning I hadn't heard of, but I didn't find that. Probably should have looked harder.
I get it now. I guess. Maybe they do parades differently in Poland, but around here parades are all virtually the same, with minor differences in theme.
I am vary curious about this place where you grew up, where parades are dependent on both the economics of Poland and a town in Texas. Or was that some kind of "labor day is communist" thing? (it's not communist)
Your list of what constitutes a religion is also pretty arbitrary. Is breakfast cereal a religion? Scripture? Check (I read the holy texts printed on the box every day). Clergy? Check (Pastor Crunch is a moving speaker). Rituals? Check. Portraits of prophets and dead saints? Check (undead counts, right?). Proselytism? Huge advertising budget. Hatred of unbelievers? Well. I'm willing to hate you if it means that you'll consider ideas based on merit instead of concocting excuses to dismiss them.
There are forks of Firefox with more sense than this. Plenty of free options available. This is typical for free software, after all - when the maintainer gets too drunk on power, you fork.
It is alarmist in a nebulous sense, but it's not a warning. There aren't any actual claims about negative impacts to your health, just a bunch of bullshit about what may happen, or what some people believe. The actual title is, "CDPH Issues Guidelines on How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones."
The closest thing to a solid claim that it makes is: "Although the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the risks of cell phone use, research suggests long-term, high use may impact human health." Claiming that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on this seems like an outright falsehood, but I suppose that as long as there's one holdout then you can say that it's not a real consensus.
Not denying the thing about Luxottica, but the prescription problem for contacts is real. Try to order contacts in the US without a prescription. You can't get them online, and if you want to get them from a store they'll be happy to give you a fitting... for an extra $50-70.
The law was written so that it would stay current. The mechanism by which it accomplishes this is the empowerment of a panel of experts to evaluate each situation as it comes along and create rules which will uphold the law in that situation. Sometimes they get this wrong, as the FCC did in 2010, and the court will void their rules for failing to uphold the law as required. Sometimes they get it right, as the FCC did in 2015, and the court will validate their rules for successfully upholding the law.
When The Force Awakens came out, Lucas said, "Every movie, I work very hard to make them different... I make them completely different, with different planets and different spaceships, to make it new."
People give him crap because the prequels weren't very good, and that's true, but at least they were new. I'd take Force Awakens over Episode 1, because that was awful, but for the others? I'd rather have something new. Episodes 2 and 3 weren't so bad.
The cost of health care in the US is a pretty robust problem. There's no single culprit, the executives that you talk about at insurance companies and elsewhere do take a chunk of it, but given the size of health care expenditures it's not enough to make a big difference. The insurance companies have fairly thin profit margins.
The largest single factor (i.e.: the group with the highest profit margins) are the pharmaceutical companies. They've been given essentially free reign, with minimal limitations and no price controls, and over the last couple decades have decided to see far they can push it. The answer seems to be, "extremely far." This is less to do with the Affordable Care Act than it is to do with the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, but the ACA did fail to revoke the prohibition on government bargaining for drug prices that the MMA established (this was one of Obama's campaign promises).
However, the drug companies can't be blamed for everything. A lot of the costs are related to compensation for medical staff, which can get pretty ridiculous, and inefficient methodology, such as the pretty extreme hoops that medical establishments have to jump through to file insurance claims (the ACA tried to address this, but doesn't seem to have been wholly successful). No one really profits from inefficiency, but unless someone or something steps in to change it then it tends to be self-perpetuating.
It's always dangerous when you take a problem and say, "This one single factor is the cause of this problem." Since you're basically giving every other factor that you may have missed a pass to go nuts.
The typical way that FCC commissioners are purchased is with a cushy position at the beneficiary company after the deal is done, often in a lobbying capacity. This is perfectly legal as long as no one explicitly admits that this is why that person is getting that job (only quid-pro-quo bribery is illegal in the US). A recent and particularly obvious example of this is Meredith Attwell Baker.
Let me give it a shot: Force Awakens was pretty bad, Rogue One was really good. I was very happy with Rogue One, and am consequently uncertain of what to expect for The Last Jedi. But, because I'm doing this properly, I haven't seen it. And, because I'm cooler and more intelligent than everyone else (not to mention more attractive and sexually desirable), and I don't like to procrastinate, I have already written "it sucks" at the top of my future review. My backspace key doesn't work, but I'm confident that I won't need it.
alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE
Alternative energy has always made long-term economic sense, the point of the article is that it now also makes short-term economic sense. Did you miss the part about solar+batteries being cheaper than natural gas? Here, I'll quote from the summary for you: "Already we are seeing the net cost of combined solar and batteries cheaper than the equivalent natural gas peaker plant."
And that's only how it is now, the cost of photovoltaic cells is still falling incredibly fast. It is now cheaper than any other option except wind and geothermal, and no one knows where it is going to bottom out.
They're really not doing well with communication here. They make this announcement claiming that it's for the benefit of creators, and that it would improve the payment system... A bunch of people make a bunch of guesses about what they're actually trying to improve, confident that they know what Patreon's costs are and that Patreon is screwing them. Here is Patreon's chance to explain themselves, but their apology just says that there are "issues" that need to be solved.
If they would just be upfront about their costs and margins it could settle an awful lot of this... Provided they're being honest, and not actually out to screw everyone.
The significant part of the article was the paragraph after the one quoted in the summary:
... But rather than launching a new software platform he's had to launch hardware.
This is a reality of life these days, unfortunately. To get your software adopted widely, and for your services to reach critical scale, you need to make hardware. It's why Amazon makes Alexas and Fire devices, and why Google pours so much effort into digital tat nobody wants.
Obama nominated Pai as an opposition commissioner, someone with very little actual power. He was there because the law requires two opposition commissioners. Trump nominated Pai as a majority commissioner, there because he liked what Pai wanted to do (i.e.: kill net neutrality).
Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Badger blocks via heuristics, so the results are going to be a little inconsistent. I run it alongside Disconnect, for a blocklist-based privacy filter as well. Of course, neither one blocks Google Analytics, since NoScript filters it out before it gets to them...
The advantage with the heuristics approach is that it will catch new things, and things which otherwise don't get included into blocklists.
The parent may be trolling, but I am totally on board with that idea. Maybe they should start with the Russians, but in the long term greater transparency in advertising (and elsewhere) can only be a good thing. After all, while it may be primarily the Russians right now there's no reason to believe that this will always be the case.
"Weakest argument" "provably false" ... thems some big words there. I don't even know what assumptions you're talking about, so let's just assume that you're right about everything, and that you can "prove" whatever that is. Great. It's irrelevant.
The person that I was replying to was suggesting replacing a law which was designed to adapt to circumstances, with one that isn't. The issue is the longevity of the solution, and nothing other than vigilance can address that problem.
They don't need to change anything, allowing fast lanes is enough to kill it. This law is scarier than what the FCC did - the GOP seems to be backpedaling on their anti-net neutrality stance lately. Rather than trying to paint neutrality as bad, they're trying to pivot into something like, "We just didn't like how it was being implemented." If they can successfully frame it in that context, and pass a law like this one which kills net neutrality while claiming to protect it, then enough people may believe them to stifle dissent.
The point of the law which put the FCC in charge of identifying and enforcing common carrier status was to ensure that the law would stay current even as technology changed. Our current situation is not a regulatory failure: The current FCC has not failed in this task, they are applying the law in exactly way that congress wants them to (i.e.: they are killing net neutrality, because congress wants them to. Pai has always been clear about his stance on net neutrality, well before he was nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate).
Making a new law, one which can not adapt to future technologies, does not solve this problem. This particular law, which doesn't even fully address current technology, does not solve this problem. The only thing that can solve this problem is ensuring that the people in congress are not horrible. That's it. That's the only thing.
Which isn't relevant, and why should I know that?
My post was not actually about breakfast cereal, you understand.
Oh, neat. I did do a quick search for Corpus Christi, in case there was some meaning I hadn't heard of, but I didn't find that. Probably should have looked harder.
I get it now. I guess. Maybe they do parades differently in Poland, but around here parades are all virtually the same, with minor differences in theme.
I am vary curious about this place where you grew up, where parades are dependent on both the economics of Poland and a town in Texas. Or was that some kind of "labor day is communist" thing? (it's not communist)
Your list of what constitutes a religion is also pretty arbitrary. Is breakfast cereal a religion? Scripture? Check (I read the holy texts printed on the box every day). Clergy? Check (Pastor Crunch is a moving speaker). Rituals? Check. Portraits of prophets and dead saints? Check (undead counts, right?). Proselytism? Huge advertising budget. Hatred of unbelievers? Well. I'm willing to hate you if it means that you'll consider ideas based on merit instead of concocting excuses to dismiss them.
There are forks of Firefox with more sense than this. Plenty of free options available. This is typical for free software, after all - when the maintainer gets too drunk on power, you fork.
It is alarmist in a nebulous sense, but it's not a warning. There aren't any actual claims about negative impacts to your health, just a bunch of bullshit about what may happen, or what some people believe. The actual title is, "CDPH Issues Guidelines on How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones."
The closest thing to a solid claim that it makes is: "Although the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the risks of cell phone use, research suggests long-term, high use may impact human health." Claiming that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on this seems like an outright falsehood, but I suppose that as long as there's one holdout then you can say that it's not a real consensus.
Okay, thank you.
No one here has claimed that the Switch isn't a handheld. Let me ask you: is the Mac Mini a desktop?
Not denying the thing about Luxottica, but the prescription problem for contacts is real. Try to order contacts in the US without a prescription. You can't get them online, and if you want to get them from a store they'll be happy to give you a fitting... for an extra $50-70.
You mind saying where in the UK, specifically? I've run into this problem myself recently.
The law was written so that it would stay current. The mechanism by which it accomplishes this is the empowerment of a panel of experts to evaluate each situation as it comes along and create rules which will uphold the law in that situation. Sometimes they get this wrong, as the FCC did in 2010, and the court will void their rules for failing to uphold the law as required. Sometimes they get it right, as the FCC did in 2015, and the court will validate their rules for successfully upholding the law.
Star System, yes? The Solar System is the star system surrounding Sol, right?
Had the same confusion.
When The Force Awakens came out, Lucas said, "Every movie, I work very hard to make them different ... I make them completely different, with different planets and different spaceships, to make it new."
People give him crap because the prequels weren't very good, and that's true, but at least they were new. I'd take Force Awakens over Episode 1, because that was awful, but for the others? I'd rather have something new. Episodes 2 and 3 weren't so bad.
The cost of health care in the US is a pretty robust problem. There's no single culprit, the executives that you talk about at insurance companies and elsewhere do take a chunk of it, but given the size of health care expenditures it's not enough to make a big difference. The insurance companies have fairly thin profit margins.
The largest single factor (i.e.: the group with the highest profit margins) are the pharmaceutical companies. They've been given essentially free reign, with minimal limitations and no price controls, and over the last couple decades have decided to see far they can push it. The answer seems to be, "extremely far." This is less to do with the Affordable Care Act than it is to do with the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, but the ACA did fail to revoke the prohibition on government bargaining for drug prices that the MMA established (this was one of Obama's campaign promises).
However, the drug companies can't be blamed for everything. A lot of the costs are related to compensation for medical staff, which can get pretty ridiculous, and inefficient methodology, such as the pretty extreme hoops that medical establishments have to jump through to file insurance claims (the ACA tried to address this, but doesn't seem to have been wholly successful). No one really profits from inefficiency, but unless someone or something steps in to change it then it tends to be self-perpetuating.
It's always dangerous when you take a problem and say, "This one single factor is the cause of this problem." Since you're basically giving every other factor that you may have missed a pass to go nuts.
The typical way that FCC commissioners are purchased is with a cushy position at the beneficiary company after the deal is done, often in a lobbying capacity. This is perfectly legal as long as no one explicitly admits that this is why that person is getting that job (only quid-pro-quo bribery is illegal in the US). A recent and particularly obvious example of this is Meredith Attwell Baker.
The didn't seem very cynical. C- for low effort.
Let me give it a shot: Force Awakens was pretty bad, Rogue One was really good. I was very happy with Rogue One, and am consequently uncertain of what to expect for The Last Jedi. But, because I'm doing this properly, I haven't seen it. And, because I'm cooler and more intelligent than everyone else (not to mention more attractive and sexually desirable), and I don't like to procrastinate, I have already written "it sucks" at the top of my future review. My backspace key doesn't work, but I'm confident that I won't need it.
alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE
Alternative energy has always made long-term economic sense, the point of the article is that it now also makes short-term economic sense. Did you miss the part about solar+batteries being cheaper than natural gas? Here, I'll quote from the summary for you: "Already we are seeing the net cost of combined solar and batteries cheaper than the equivalent natural gas peaker plant."
And that's only how it is now, the cost of photovoltaic cells is still falling incredibly fast. It is now cheaper than any other option except wind and geothermal, and no one knows where it is going to bottom out.
They're really not doing well with communication here. They make this announcement claiming that it's for the benefit of creators, and that it would improve the payment system... A bunch of people make a bunch of guesses about what they're actually trying to improve, confident that they know what Patreon's costs are and that Patreon is screwing them. Here is Patreon's chance to explain themselves, but their apology just says that there are "issues" that need to be solved.
If they would just be upfront about their costs and margins it could settle an awful lot of this... Provided they're being honest, and not actually out to screw everyone.
... But rather than launching a new software platform he's had to launch hardware.
This is a reality of life these days, unfortunately. To get your software adopted widely, and for your services to reach critical scale, you need to make hardware. It's why Amazon makes Alexas and Fire devices, and why Google pours so much effort into digital tat nobody wants.
It's not news, just a sad truth.
Obama nominated Pai as an opposition commissioner, someone with very little actual power. He was there because the law requires two opposition commissioners. Trump nominated Pai as a majority commissioner, there because he liked what Pai wanted to do (i.e.: kill net neutrality).
Yes, he only said it five times. That's hardly comparable.