have been directed toward conservatives or others who don't mindlessly toe the party line. Strangely, those all seem to stay up. If you want to talk about uneven enforcement, how about starting there?
If you need spudgers, soldering irons, and skill to do it, then it's not user replaceable.
You certainly don't need a soldering iron to replace an iPhone battery, and you don't need much skill beyond the ability to read and follow straightforward directions. And the idea that a battery isn't user replaceable because you have to use a tool that came with the replacement battery rather than one out of your red Craftsman toolbox is just plain silly.
You're just proving my point. "Stuff I the customer don't like and I think looks bad" need not remotely be driven by a company deliberately trying to do bad by its customers, and the closer you are to the actual tough decisions that companies have to make on a day to day basis, the closer you are to understanding that.
People who have actually run a business (or at least been involved in the higher-level management of one) are a lot less likely to believe that typical corporations make money hand over fist for doing next to nothing, are deliberately looking for ways to screw over their customers, and so on.
Not that it wouldn't be nice if antitrust laws were enforced. I just cannot remember the last time they were in the US (with the exception of MS bundling IE)
Then why would you believe that a net neutrality law would be enforced? If you feel like the current laws aren't being enforced, shouldn't our focus be on that rather than passing new laws that will make people feel good but then sit on the shelf with the others?
Fun question, without NN, what's to stop Verizon, Comcast, etc from saying as a group "You can serve your website to our customers, or to little startup ISPs, but not both"?
Antitrust law. Just as it has prevented companies from colluding to harm competition for over 125 years.
The point is to make a law about Net Neutrality so we don't have votes made of 5 people making important decisions
But consider the alternative. A law would result in a lawsuit by parties on the other side of the debate, which would be ruled upon by a single federal judge (likely sympathetic to the challengers, of course -- they would carefully select the forum to increase those odds). The inevitable appeal would be heard by a panel of three appellate judges, and, if you're lucky, be reconsidered by the entire appellate court (generally around a dozen judges). If the Supreme Court were then to take it, the final call would be made by no more than 9 justices. Once they make that call, that will likely be the status quo for a long, long time.
Oh, and by the way, all those judges are appointed for life and have no accountability to anyone. That probably sounds pretty good if you're confident they're going to rule in your favor. If not, maybe it's not such a bad thing to have the policy determined (until it's later redetermined, exactly as Wheeler's policy was) by a panel of commissioners with fairly short and deliberately staggered terms.
We already have (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Information_Sharing_Act) this which theoretically undoes the onion router when combined with the repeal of network neutrality.
Um, yeah. Remember, kids -- just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Or something like that.
For most if not all of the providers I've had over the years, there was a significant fee for the tech visit if the problem ended up being on your end, and that's true with Comcast as well. Looks like they're running around $70 per trip at the moment, and for $6 a month, that fee gets waived. So the break-even is about a year between visits. Depending on the condition of your internal wiring and your personal troubleshooting abilities, that may not be a bad deal.
Automatically signing people up is a different issue, but it seems a bit much to say that the program is "near-worthless."
Hmmm, why so eager to change the subject? The focus of your post and mine was on your silly proposition about an inalienable right to online consumption.
Goodin quoted a security expert, and was reporting on the expert's opinion. Keeper will lose and lose big.
I don't think it's that clear-cut at all, for at least the reason that the current version of the Ars Technica article behind the link is not the the one that occasioned the lawsuit. Taking a look at the complaint Keeper filed, paragraph 30 walks through a laundry list of statements that Goodin himself made in the original article. Then, paragraphs 38 and 39 detail how he incrementally walked back many of the original statements after Keeper challenged them. The multiple rounds of watering down the original statements (coupled with the fact that, according to the complaint, Goodin didn't even talk to Keeper before publishing) could themselves suggest the original article was published with reckless disregard for the truth.
How is a free cardboard box that is more environmentally friendly than plastic wrap a "problem"?
For one thing, the box takes up unnecessary volume in every single leg of the distribution chain between Amazon and you. That means more trucks on the road to achieve the same number of shipments. Whether that environmental cost outweighs the substitution of plastic wrap for cardboard is not a simple question, but the logistical costs definitely go down.
I rather thought the debate here was over whether the internet is a critical public utility, not whether there's an argument that might manipulate politicians into giving you what you want.
The internet is a critical part of the backbone of our consumption-based economy.
Wait. So your argument for NN is that people must have guaranteed snappy access to the site of their choice so we make sure they don't lose the ability to... buy stuff online at a frenzied pace?
Well, no. It's exactly this kind of tripe that IS the what-about-ism. Show me the first article on this site about the Brian Ross debacle. There isn't a single one (and that holds true for the vast majority of attempts by the official media channels to foment the masses), yet we're treated to several poorly written, poorly sourced, handwaving articles a week about supposed Reds under our beds. It's nothing but a distraction from the misinformation campaign we're treated to on a daily basis from the supposed good guys.
This kind of crap is what lead to the murder of a British Member of Parliament.
Rank speculation. Your article didn't even come close to connecting those dots.
So yes, let's definitely keep the focus where it belongs -- on a handful of posts from Rooshun nobodies. Because that's clearly what's dividing everyone.
Just passing one by is quickly becoming a coin-toss as to whether or not we end up beaten and arrested on trumped-up charges especially if we're black.
OK, I'll touch the third rail -- I have plenty of karma.
Coin-toss, eh? Like, 50-50 odds. Guess you're pretty much hosed if you pass 5-6 every day like I do. How am I still alive?
Oh, because the real numbers are somewhere around 1.5% of encounters where force is used or threatened. (Pro tip: that means the percentage of encounters where force was actually used is less than 1.5% -- about half that, according to the report.)
This sort of fanciful swill is what passes for "insightful" on Slashdot these days. The nerds are rapidly becoming outnumbered by the brain-dead activists.
Slashdot Mirror
have been directed toward conservatives or others who don't mindlessly toe the party line. Strangely, those all seem to stay up. If you want to talk about uneven enforcement, how about starting there?
As an example consider the text "You with a donkey's member!" This is apparently a violently abusive comment,
Proof positive that the snowflake generation needs to lighten the hell up. Violently abusive? Really?
If you need spudgers, soldering irons, and skill to do it, then it's not user replaceable.
You certainly don't need a soldering iron to replace an iPhone battery, and you don't need much skill beyond the ability to read and follow straightforward directions. And the idea that a battery isn't user replaceable because you have to use a tool that came with the replacement battery rather than one out of your red Craftsman toolbox is just plain silly.
that there were only two other articles between this one and the one on people evolving out of conspiratorial thought patterns.
You're just proving my point. "Stuff I the customer don't like and I think looks bad" need not remotely be driven by a company deliberately trying to do bad by its customers, and the closer you are to the actual tough decisions that companies have to make on a day to day basis, the closer you are to understanding that.
People who have actually run a business (or at least been involved in the higher-level management of one) are a lot less likely to believe that typical corporations make money hand over fist for doing next to nothing, are deliberately looking for ways to screw over their customers, and so on.
Not that it wouldn't be nice if antitrust laws were enforced. I just cannot remember the last time they were in the US (with the exception of MS bundling IE)
Then why would you believe that a net neutrality law would be enforced? If you feel like the current laws aren't being enforced, shouldn't our focus be on that rather than passing new laws that will make people feel good but then sit on the shelf with the others?
Fun question, without NN, what's to stop Verizon, Comcast, etc from saying as a group "You can serve your website to our customers, or to little startup ISPs, but not both"?
Antitrust law. Just as it has prevented companies from colluding to harm competition for over 125 years.
has applications beyond elementary school math.
Next story.
The point is to make a law about Net Neutrality so we don't have votes made of 5 people making important decisions
But consider the alternative. A law would result in a lawsuit by parties on the other side of the debate, which would be ruled upon by a single federal judge (likely sympathetic to the challengers, of course -- they would carefully select the forum to increase those odds). The inevitable appeal would be heard by a panel of three appellate judges, and, if you're lucky, be reconsidered by the entire appellate court (generally around a dozen judges). If the Supreme Court were then to take it, the final call would be made by no more than 9 justices. Once they make that call, that will likely be the status quo for a long, long time.
Oh, and by the way, all those judges are appointed for life and have no accountability to anyone. That probably sounds pretty good if you're confident they're going to rule in your favor. If not, maybe it's not such a bad thing to have the policy determined (until it's later redetermined, exactly as Wheeler's policy was) by a panel of commissioners with fairly short and deliberately staggered terms.
With this, Amazon can just deactivate your security system on demand whenever the delivery person needs to use the Amazon Key to get in.
Sign. Me. Up. </sarc>
We already have (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Information_Sharing_Act) this which theoretically undoes the onion router when combined with the repeal of network neutrality.
Um, yeah. Remember, kids -- just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Or something like that.
For most if not all of the providers I've had over the years, there was a significant fee for the tech visit if the problem ended up being on your end, and that's true with Comcast as well. Looks like they're running around $70 per trip at the moment, and for $6 a month, that fee gets waived. So the break-even is about a year between visits. Depending on the condition of your internal wiring and your personal troubleshooting abilities, that may not be a bad deal.
Automatically signing people up is a different issue, but it seems a bit much to say that the program is "near-worthless."
Most definitely. But that has no bearing on whether the position you're selling is actually correct.
Just substitute "blockchain" for "dot com."
Hmmm, why so eager to change the subject? The focus of your post and mine was on your silly proposition about an inalienable right to online consumption.
Goodin quoted a security expert, and was reporting on the expert's opinion. Keeper will lose and lose big.
I don't think it's that clear-cut at all, for at least the reason that the current version of the Ars Technica article behind the link is not the the one that occasioned the lawsuit. Taking a look at the complaint Keeper filed, paragraph 30 walks through a laundry list of statements that Goodin himself made in the original article. Then, paragraphs 38 and 39 detail how he incrementally walked back many of the original statements after Keeper challenged them. The multiple rounds of watering down the original statements (coupled with the fact that, according to the complaint, Goodin didn't even talk to Keeper before publishing) could themselves suggest the original article was published with reckless disregard for the truth.
How is a free cardboard box that is more environmentally friendly than plastic wrap a "problem"?
For one thing, the box takes up unnecessary volume in every single leg of the distribution chain between Amazon and you. That means more trucks on the road to achieve the same number of shipments. Whether that environmental cost outweighs the substitution of plastic wrap for cardboard is not a simple question, but the logistical costs definitely go down.
I rather thought the debate here was over whether the internet is a critical public utility, not whether there's an argument that might manipulate politicians into giving you what you want.
why don't they make the batteries user-replaceable?
They already are. I just replaced mine earlier this month.
The internet is a critical part of the backbone of our consumption-based economy.
Wait. So your argument for NN is that people must have guaranteed snappy access to the site of their choice so we make sure they don't lose the ability to... buy stuff online at a frenzied pace?
Wow. Power to the people, d00d.
What-about-ism.
Well, no. It's exactly this kind of tripe that IS the what-about-ism. Show me the first article on this site about the Brian Ross debacle. There isn't a single one (and that holds true for the vast majority of attempts by the official media channels to foment the masses), yet we're treated to several poorly written, poorly sourced, handwaving articles a week about supposed Reds under our beds. It's nothing but a distraction from the misinformation campaign we're treated to on a daily basis from the supposed good guys.
This kind of crap is what lead to the murder of a British Member of Parliament.
Rank speculation. Your article didn't even come close to connecting those dots.
And created some sort of ill-defined "discord" -- maybe.
Meanwhile, U.S. "journalist" Brian Ross's fake news about Michael Flynn was retweeted over 25,000 times in less than half a day and caused the stock market to tank.
So yes, let's definitely keep the focus where it belongs -- on a handful of posts from Rooshun nobodies. Because that's clearly what's dividing everyone.
Just passing one by is quickly becoming a coin-toss as to whether or not we end up beaten and arrested on trumped-up charges especially if we're black.
OK, I'll touch the third rail -- I have plenty of karma.
Coin-toss, eh? Like, 50-50 odds. Guess you're pretty much hosed if you pass 5-6 every day like I do. How am I still alive?
Oh, because the real numbers are somewhere around 1.5% of encounters where force is used or threatened . (Pro tip: that means the percentage of encounters where force was actually used is less than 1.5% -- about half that, according to the report.)
This sort of fanciful swill is what passes for "insightful" on Slashdot these days. The nerds are rapidly becoming outnumbered by the brain-dead activists.
<eom>