I'd actually assert that this is a failure of small government - in Europe where the government is bigger, there's regulations about what information these companies can store, how they must store it, and what the penalty is if they fail to do so.
This is for England, not Scotland. Scotland's public access to land is much more far reaching than this - it amounts to "you can be on someone else's land as much as you like, as long as you don't damage anything".
This didn't happen in England - it happened in Scotland, where it's explicitly written into law that it's completely legal to walk on someone else's land as long as you don't cause damage.
Tresspassing in a field is not a thing in Scotland. In fact, it's explicitly written into law that you have every right to cross someone else's field as long as you don't cause damage.
For reference - neither have these cops sworn to protect and serve the public. They have sworn “I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality,and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.”
Network neutrality is not the same thing as application neutrality.
A network is still allowed to prioritize real time packets like video streaming packets to their hearts content. They're just not allowed to prioritize their own over Netflix's or Amazon's over YouTube's.
Fast lanes are network connections that prioritize traffic from one network over traffic from another, causing it to get to customers faster, and/or causing the traffic not preferred by it to be degraded to the point of unusability.
Not just fats less bad - fats good (up to a point). The study found that your risk of early death goes down the more fat you eat, right up to 2.5 times the current recommended fat intake.
Correct - and that's actually one of the exact arguments the ISPs used against it - it would degrade the quality of some services due to not being able to prioritize them.
"This ISP does it, therefore it doesn't violate net neutrality" is a strange argument to make. The bottom line is that it prevents you downloading certain types of data. That's EXACTLY what net neutrality is meant to prevent.
To be network neutral, an ISP is meant to act as a dumb pipe. It's then up to me to discard packets that I'm not interested in.
Net Neutrality is not only about throttling one particular company. It's about applying any filter that causes some data to be treated differently to another.
If I suddenly can't download certain files as they're hosted on the server, because the ISP deemed them filter worthy, that certainly is a violation of net neutrality.
On the contrary - it is against net neutrality since it is treating some internet traffic (videos) differently to all other internet traffic (not videos). It is applying some kind of filter in the middle if and only if the ISP deems the data to look a certain way. That means that it becomes impossible for me to download certain types of data over this connection.
This is almost the exact case that net neutrality hopes to prevent.
Not only that, but many building techniques these days invert the solid structure, and the insulation - using insulation bricks, and then in-filling it with concrete to provide the structure. There's no need to mortar the bricks when doing that.
Right - the whole point of cord cutting is that I get to chose which channels I pay for and which I don't. That makes it cheaper, because I only really want Netflix and HBO, and all that other crap that I was previously paying $40 for is completely worthless to me.
And why do you give a shit about that. XP is an EOL, insecure operating system. There's litterally no reason to support it any more.
And no - don't give my bullshit about "but my company runs critical systems on it" - THEY FUCKING SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING CRITICAL SYSTEMS ON AN OPERATING SYSTEM THAT'S KNOWN TO BE INSECURE.
Simple - while 10,000 jobs might go away due to this, 26 million people will be earning $1 more an hour, and as a result, $26 billion more is circulating in the economy, rather than sitting in a rich company's bank account.
That $26bn circulating in the economy creates *far* more jobs than the 10,000 lost.
That's why the economy in the states that have introduced higher minimum wages has got better, and why unemployment has gone down.
The first amendment does protect free speech - it stops the government from stopping you from holding (and shouting about) your abhorrent Nazi views.
What it doesn't protect you against is me, and all the other good people in America telling you in no uncertain terms that you're a scumbag and that your Nazi bullshit can fuck right off. It also doesn't protect you against a company refusing to do business with you because of your fucked up views, and their reflection on that company.
The reason that apps that charged $10 for subscriptions were successful was not because that's the price sweet spot. Instead, it was because the samples in that category are dominated by a bunch of really useful applications.
There are tons of apps charging $0.99 for subscriptions to things that are fucking useless, so again, selection bias in that bracket.
Yup - if you were selling good merchandise, then you should have warranted it as good, rather than putting up big disclaimers saying not to watch the eclipse with it.
The worst thing is that open offices aren't just bad for productivity - they're bad for collaboration. Conversations in individual offices happen by poking your head around an office door and discussing something with your colleague. The same conversation in an open office will do one of three things - 1) not happen (because the person initiating it thinks 'this conversation will disturb everyone'); 2) happen in a meeting room, and involve 6 more useless people, because by making it a formal meeting you needed to make sure you used your 1 hour effectively, and had everyone you might possibly need in that meeting; or 3) happen anyway in the open office, slowly accumulate more people throwing random ideas into the pot, and not actually make any decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
He told you - then you go and build your own internet, with blackjack, and hookers... In fact, forget the internet.
Seriously, if you don't like it, go build your own. They built theirs, and they have every right to decide who gets to say what on it.
Only the government can't tell you to shut the fuck up with your abhorrent views.
The company running the site does. As long as it's not the government, that's fine.
In what way is this a failure of big government?
I'd actually assert that this is a failure of small government - in Europe where the government is bigger, there's regulations about what information these companies can store, how they must store it, and what the penalty is if they fail to do so.
It's legal to take a photo of anything you like in the UK, as long as you're stood on publicly accessible property when you take it.
This is for England, not Scotland. Scotland's public access to land is much more far reaching than this - it amounts to "you can be on someone else's land as much as you like, as long as you don't damage anything".
This didn't happen in England - it happened in Scotland, where it's explicitly written into law that it's completely legal to walk on someone else's land as long as you don't cause damage.
Tresspassing in a field is not a thing in Scotland. In fact, it's explicitly written into law that you have every right to cross someone else's field as long as you don't cause damage.
For reference - neither have these cops sworn to protect and serve the public. They have sworn “I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality,and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.”
Network neutrality is not the same thing as application neutrality.
A network is still allowed to prioritize real time packets like video streaming packets to their hearts content. They're just not allowed to prioritize their own over Netflix's or Amazon's over YouTube's.
Fast lanes are network connections that prioritize traffic from one network over traffic from another, causing it to get to customers faster, and/or causing the traffic not preferred by it to be degraded to the point of unusability.
Not just fats less bad - fats good (up to a point). The study found that your risk of early death goes down the more fat you eat, right up to 2.5 times the current recommended fat intake.
No - "net" refers to networks. As in the network is neutral as to how it treats all packets.
Correct - and that's actually one of the exact arguments the ISPs used against it - it would degrade the quality of some services due to not being able to prioritize them.
"This ISP does it, therefore it doesn't violate net neutrality" is a strange argument to make. The bottom line is that it prevents you downloading certain types of data. That's EXACTLY what net neutrality is meant to prevent.
To be network neutral, an ISP is meant to act as a dumb pipe. It's then up to me to discard packets that I'm not interested in.
Net Neutrality is not only about throttling one particular company. It's about applying any filter that causes some data to be treated differently to another.
If I suddenly can't download certain files as they're hosted on the server, because the ISP deemed them filter worthy, that certainly is a violation of net neutrality.
On the contrary - it is against net neutrality since it is treating some internet traffic (videos) differently to all other internet traffic (not videos). It is applying some kind of filter in the middle if and only if the ISP deems the data to look a certain way. That means that it becomes impossible for me to download certain types of data over this connection.
This is almost the exact case that net neutrality hopes to prevent.
Not only that, but many building techniques these days invert the solid structure, and the insulation - using insulation bricks, and then in-filling it with concrete to provide the structure. There's no need to mortar the bricks when doing that.
Right - the whole point of cord cutting is that I get to chose which channels I pay for and which I don't. That makes it cheaper, because I only really want Netflix and HBO, and all that other crap that I was previously paying $40 for is completely worthless to me.
And why do you give a shit about that. XP is an EOL, insecure operating system. There's litterally no reason to support it any more.
And no - don't give my bullshit about "but my company runs critical systems on it" - THEY FUCKING SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING CRITICAL SYSTEMS ON AN OPERATING SYSTEM THAT'S KNOWN TO BE INSECURE.
Simple - while 10,000 jobs might go away due to this, 26 million people will be earning $1 more an hour, and as a result, $26 billion more is circulating in the economy, rather than sitting in a rich company's bank account.
That $26bn circulating in the economy creates *far* more jobs than the 10,000 lost.
That's why the economy in the states that have introduced higher minimum wages has got better, and why unemployment has gone down.
The first amendment does protect free speech - it stops the government from stopping you from holding (and shouting about) your abhorrent Nazi views.
What it doesn't protect you against is me, and all the other good people in America telling you in no uncertain terms that you're a scumbag and that your Nazi bullshit can fuck right off. It also doesn't protect you against a company refusing to do business with you because of your fucked up views, and their reflection on that company.
Yeh, there's MASSIVE selection bias in the study.
The reason that apps that charged $10 for subscriptions were successful was not because that's the price sweet spot. Instead, it was because the samples in that category are dominated by a bunch of really useful applications.
There are tons of apps charging $0.99 for subscriptions to things that are fucking useless, so again, selection bias in that bracket.
If the data they're hosting is uncopyrightable, and it's freely available to the public, then yes.
Yup - if you were selling good merchandise, then you should have warranted it as good, rather than putting up big disclaimers saying not to watch the eclipse with it.
The worst thing is that open offices aren't just bad for productivity - they're bad for collaboration. Conversations in individual offices happen by poking your head around an office door and discussing something with your colleague. The same conversation in an open office will do one of three things - 1) not happen (because the person initiating it thinks 'this conversation will disturb everyone'); 2) happen in a meeting room, and involve 6 more useless people, because by making it a formal meeting you needed to make sure you used your 1 hour effectively, and had everyone you might possibly need in that meeting; or 3) happen anyway in the open office, slowly accumulate more people throwing random ideas into the pot, and not actually make any decisions.