Who I blame is actual Mainstream Media who for many decades have deliberately - and profitably - ignored and censored what real, ordinary people have to go through in the real world. All in the name of social cohesion and economic stability.
Your premise is backwards. Newspapers don't profit from social cohesion and economic stability, newspapers profit from outrage and fear. This is where we get the term "yellow journalism," and the Spanish American war is sometimes credited as a war we fought for the sake of newspaper profits. This is debated, but the newspapers did profit from that war.
Let's consider: where did you get the idea that the "Mainstream Media" was doing this? Was it from the "non-Mainstream Media"? They are also out to make a profit, and like everyone else they profit from outrage and fear.
The Associated Press is a nonprofit business cooperative. It can't be owned by any one company or person.
I don't believe that Reuters is owned by anyone in the Rothschild family, but it is at least a private organization which could, potentially, be owned by someone. Maybe there's a Rothschild somewhere who owns some stock or something.
It's not about money, or at least it's not all about money. People in gaming forums are currently throwing various screaming tantrums over the fact that Epic is launching a competitor to Steam, and that's free.
I really think it's more about fragmentation than cost. People don't want their stuff scattered all over the place, and a lot of people have developed brand loyalty (developed Stockholm syndrome, have become enveloped in the RDF, whatever you want to call it) to the platforms which have been around for a while. The fact that Netflix is really cheap compared to a legacy cable subscription certainly helps, but people have already demonstrated that they're willing to pay quite a lot for those cable subscriptions.
This is especially true for the Steam loyalists, who "purchase" products rather than just watching whatever's available on the platform at the moment. Having a large Steam library confers bragging rights, and further ties you to that brand.
Boeing. If a "disagree light" is both optional and expensive enough that it would make anyone hesitate, there's something wrong with how that product is being monetized.
Nonsense. Why would they do that? Canada doesn't have a competitor to Boeing, so they're free to benefit from that low cost without needing to deal with complaints from lobbyists.
I'm way more concerned that the summary was talking exclusively about debate centered on whether these companies should be handing over data, and not about whether these companies should be collecting that data in the first place.
Should we blame Tide for the idiots that ate their Tide-pods?
Maybe? Funny thing about the Tide Pod Challenge: people doing that fad were a tiny fraction of the total number who have eaten Tide Pods. They were introduced in 2012, and just in that first year more than 7,000 children ate them. Age five and under.
Sure we can blame the children, I don't have a problem with that. Children are awful. 7,000 in one year sure seems like a lot though.
Well it is now... there have been times that the government has been functional though, it's not like our millions of miles of roads, dams, bridges, and other infrastructure just appeared out of nothing. We're especially good at blowing things up, that's what we spend most of our money on.
Well given how unprofitable this business seems to be, I wouldn't worry too much. $6,000 in five months, minus the costs of 42 cameras, paying for hotel accommodations, hosting... This is a very involved scheme, given how truly ineffective it was.
If you're not Canadian and not paying Canadian taxes then you have to buy health insurance. When was there as a student it was something like ~$900 / year.
I expect that in the end a full complement of streaming services will cost more than a full cable package, simply because there aren't any commercials. Although, realistically, they'll probably just add commercials at some point. Streaming does provide a little savings in the form of removing a middle-man, the cable TV company, but I can't imagine that offsetting the extra money from advertising.
It's not limited to first person shooters, or other twitch games, I wouldn't even want to play a turn-based game through one of these services. Just moving your mouse across the screen comes with an annoying amount of lag.
The only games that will work well for this are games which are designed for this. I'm trying to imagine an interface which isn't effected by latency and I'm having a little trouble... but I'm sure it can be done. None of these companies seem interested in developing games for these services though. So much money has been poured into these, but it's all for the sake of adapting existing games.
What does this have to do with trust? They produce a product, you use the product. Maybe they cancel the product if not enough people use it. Then you stop using it and go do something else. That's how it always works, and has always worked.
You shouldn't trust Chinese hardware because China recently passed a law which some people have interpreted as giving the Chinese government power to compel Huawei to compromise security on their products for the purpose of Chinese intelligence. That the law can be utilized in this way is disputed.
You shouldn't trust US hardware because the US passed a similar law some time ago (the Patriot Act). Except that law, like the Chinese law, applies to telecoms and not to manufactures of telecom hardware.
Of course, the US seems to have done the spying anyway (Don't know the details of this particular Snowden leak, they could have just been exploiting a bug for all I know.) so the implication might be that it's better to buy from any of the other manufacturers listed in the summary. Or you could make note of the fact that the US has been transparently disingenuous about it's actions against Huawei, and suspect that this is not really about Huawei or spying or telecom security at all.
Sure. This law is an example of corruption, but the parent was trying to claim that every state which has laws protecting car dealers were equally guilty of corruption.
Not surprised to see Idaho so high on the list, they're basically owned by mining interests... I'd like to see a more granular breakdown. I was about to say that Texas is too big and too diverse to be dominated by a single industry like that, but that's not true for west Texas. West Texas is almost a mono culture, ripe for manipulation. That's also where most of the oil is.
I wonder how well my little theory lines up with reality. In principle, west Texas should be considerably more "susceptible to corruption" than east Texas. It may not be possible to be more granular though, since most of these laws are enacted at the state level.
Cronyism, corruption, and rent-seeking are nonpartisan.
In this case it's not so much about those things, rather it's mostly just about age. Those laws were enacted to protect dealers during the great depression, when the manufacturers were exploiting their relationship to force the dealers to buy inventory that they knew wasn't going to sell.
When affirmative action applied to race / ethnicity it is an attempt to counter nepotism. The idea is that nepotism is inevitable, and this results in the dominant racial or ethnic group maintaining its dominance indefinitely. Because nepotism is about showing preference to your family members, and nepotism is not whatever you think it is.
I have no idea how you could apply the idea of nepotism to ass-kissing, you seem to just be using the word to describe anything that isn't about merit. Except being really good at ass-kissing doesn't count as merit? That's a skill too...
I had assumed destructive interference, though this only works in one direction. So yeah, you'd still need some insulation. I dunno, I'm struggling to see a use case for this.
The article doesn't mention the limitations of this, but I'd expect that it would only work over a fairly narrow range of wavelengths. And the way it's designed doesn't seem to allow for the use of multiple rings calibrated for different wavelengths...
That said, high pitched sounds are easy to block with (relatively) thin insulation. If this could be made to block the lower end of the spectrum, without the large amount of insulation which that normally requires, I could picture this as being a nice development. Or if you have a mono-toned source of noise, like in the demo. I don't think that's very common though.
Marvel's done damage control, but they've not said a single thing that can be construed as anti-anyone other than anti-misogynists-who-hate-this-movie-before-theyve-even-seen-it.
Well... As it was described to me, the primary instigator was this:
“Am I saying I hate white dudes?” asked the Oscar-winning “Room” actress, a question that she’d repeat twice more during her speech. She answered with a sneer, “No, I’m not [but if] you make the movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie and review your movie.”
Larson continued, “[Audiences] are not allowed enough chances to read public discourse on these films by the people that the films were made for. I do not need a 70-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about ‘[A] Wrinkle in Time.’ It wasn’t made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, to biracial women, to teen women of color, to teens that are biracial.”
Calling for greater inclusivity among film critics is all well and good, but saying that white men can't or shouldn't critique a given film is discriminatory. "White men should know their place."
In a vacuum, what she said here would not be terrible. It's easy to see her intention and the discriminatory aspect can be overlooked, as it was not her goal. (Though I do think it would be a mistake even in a vacuum; stories are how we connect to one another. If you craft your story in such an exclusionary way then you're missing the point.) However, this was not in a vacuum: ranting about 'white men' is a trigger for many people, since it's rapidly become an acceptable form of racism in certain contexts. And not tiny limited contexts that no one pays attention too, consider the story about Sarah Jeong. That's a tough nut.
So... I'm not disagreeing with your main point, some people certainly blew this out of proportion, but it's not quite as spontaneous as you're suggesting.
It wouldn't be good for anyone in the short term, other than the Russian oligarchs. The people causing the problems are acting on behalf of the state, and would certainly be exempt from this. There might be a few independent actors who would be slowed by this temporarily, but if China is any indication then access to the real internet will be available to anyone with a little knowledge and a willingness to break the law. Since there's no chance of prosecution for these people, this is no barrier at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Who I blame is actual Mainstream Media who for many decades have deliberately - and profitably - ignored and censored what real, ordinary people have to go through in the real world. All in the name of social cohesion and economic stability.
Your premise is backwards. Newspapers don't profit from social cohesion and economic stability, newspapers profit from outrage and fear. This is where we get the term "yellow journalism," and the Spanish American war is sometimes credited as a war we fought for the sake of newspaper profits. This is debated, but the newspapers did profit from that war.
Let's consider: where did you get the idea that the "Mainstream Media" was doing this? Was it from the "non-Mainstream Media"? They are also out to make a profit, and like everyone else they profit from outrage and fear.
The Associated Press is a nonprofit business cooperative. It can't be owned by any one company or person.
I don't believe that Reuters is owned by anyone in the Rothschild family, but it is at least a private organization which could, potentially, be owned by someone. Maybe there's a Rothschild somewhere who owns some stock or something.
Your claims are dumb.
It's not about money, or at least it's not all about money. People in gaming forums are currently throwing various screaming tantrums over the fact that Epic is launching a competitor to Steam, and that's free.
I really think it's more about fragmentation than cost. People don't want their stuff scattered all over the place, and a lot of people have developed brand loyalty (developed Stockholm syndrome, have become enveloped in the RDF, whatever you want to call it) to the platforms which have been around for a while. The fact that Netflix is really cheap compared to a legacy cable subscription certainly helps, but people have already demonstrated that they're willing to pay quite a lot for those cable subscriptions.
This is especially true for the Steam loyalists, who "purchase" products rather than just watching whatever's available on the platform at the moment. Having a large Steam library confers bragging rights, and further ties you to that brand.
Boeing. If a "disagree light" is both optional and expensive enough that it would make anyone hesitate, there's something wrong with how that product is being monetized.
Nonsense. Why would they do that? Canada doesn't have a competitor to Boeing, so they're free to benefit from that low cost without needing to deal with complaints from lobbyists.
I'm way more concerned that the summary was talking exclusively about debate centered on whether these companies should be handing over data, and not about whether these companies should be collecting that data in the first place.
Should we blame Tide for the idiots that ate their Tide-pods?
Maybe? Funny thing about the Tide Pod Challenge: people doing that fad were a tiny fraction of the total number who have eaten Tide Pods. They were introduced in 2012, and just in that first year more than 7,000 children ate them. Age five and under.
Sure we can blame the children, I don't have a problem with that. Children are awful. 7,000 in one year sure seems like a lot though.
Well it is now... there have been times that the government has been functional though, it's not like our millions of miles of roads, dams, bridges, and other infrastructure just appeared out of nothing. We're especially good at blowing things up, that's what we spend most of our money on.
Well given how unprofitable this business seems to be, I wouldn't worry too much. $6,000 in five months, minus the costs of 42 cameras, paying for hotel accommodations, hosting... This is a very involved scheme, given how truly ineffective it was.
If you're not Canadian and not paying Canadian taxes then you have to buy health insurance. When was there as a student it was something like ~$900 / year.
Well it's a good idea to start a hardware review site twenty years ago, anyway.
erasing much/all of the savings of cord-cutting
I expect that in the end a full complement of streaming services will cost more than a full cable package, simply because there aren't any commercials. Although, realistically, they'll probably just add commercials at some point. Streaming does provide a little savings in the form of removing a middle-man, the cable TV company, but I can't imagine that offsetting the extra money from advertising.
It's not limited to first person shooters, or other twitch games, I wouldn't even want to play a turn-based game through one of these services. Just moving your mouse across the screen comes with an annoying amount of lag.
The only games that will work well for this are games which are designed for this. I'm trying to imagine an interface which isn't effected by latency and I'm having a little trouble... but I'm sure it can be done. None of these companies seem interested in developing games for these services though. So much money has been poured into these, but it's all for the sake of adapting existing games.
What does this have to do with trust? They produce a product, you use the product. Maybe they cancel the product if not enough people use it. Then you stop using it and go do something else. That's how it always works, and has always worked.
You shouldn't trust Chinese hardware because China recently passed a law which some people have interpreted as giving the Chinese government power to compel Huawei to compromise security on their products for the purpose of Chinese intelligence. That the law can be utilized in this way is disputed.
You shouldn't trust US hardware because the US passed a similar law some time ago (the Patriot Act). Except that law, like the Chinese law, applies to telecoms and not to manufactures of telecom hardware.
Of course, the US seems to have done the spying anyway (Don't know the details of this particular Snowden leak, they could have just been exploiting a bug for all I know.) so the implication might be that it's better to buy from any of the other manufacturers listed in the summary. Or you could make note of the fact that the US has been transparently disingenuous about it's actions against Huawei, and suspect that this is not really about Huawei or spying or telecom security at all.
Sure. This law is an example of corruption, but the parent was trying to claim that every state which has laws protecting car dealers were equally guilty of corruption.
Not surprised to see Idaho so high on the list, they're basically owned by mining interests... I'd like to see a more granular breakdown. I was about to say that Texas is too big and too diverse to be dominated by a single industry like that, but that's not true for west Texas. West Texas is almost a mono culture, ripe for manipulation. That's also where most of the oil is.
I wonder how well my little theory lines up with reality. In principle, west Texas should be considerably more "susceptible to corruption" than east Texas. It may not be possible to be more granular though, since most of these laws are enacted at the state level.
Cronyism, corruption, and rent-seeking are nonpartisan.
In this case it's not so much about those things, rather it's mostly just about age. Those laws were enacted to protect dealers during the great depression, when the manufacturers were exploiting their relationship to force the dealers to buy inventory that they knew wasn't going to sell.
Having the law in place could be relevant, depending on how the case goes. It also establishes grounds to challenge the FCC's claim of preemption.
When affirmative action applied to race / ethnicity it is an attempt to counter nepotism. The idea is that nepotism is inevitable, and this results in the dominant racial or ethnic group maintaining its dominance indefinitely. Because nepotism is about showing preference to your family members, and nepotism is not whatever you think it is.
I have no idea how you could apply the idea of nepotism to ass-kissing, you seem to just be using the word to describe anything that isn't about merit. Except being really good at ass-kissing doesn't count as merit? That's a skill too...
I had assumed destructive interference, though this only works in one direction. So yeah, you'd still need some insulation. I dunno, I'm struggling to see a use case for this.
The article doesn't mention the limitations of this, but I'd expect that it would only work over a fairly narrow range of wavelengths. And the way it's designed doesn't seem to allow for the use of multiple rings calibrated for different wavelengths...
That said, high pitched sounds are easy to block with (relatively) thin insulation. If this could be made to block the lower end of the spectrum, without the large amount of insulation which that normally requires, I could picture this as being a nice development. Or if you have a mono-toned source of noise, like in the demo. I don't think that's very common though.
Marvel's done damage control, but they've not said a single thing that can be construed as anti-anyone other than anti-misogynists-who-hate-this-movie-before-theyve-even-seen-it.
Well... As it was described to me, the primary instigator was this:
“Am I saying I hate white dudes?” asked the Oscar-winning “Room” actress, a question that she’d repeat twice more during her speech. She answered with a sneer, “No, I’m not [but if] you make the movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie and review your movie.”
Larson continued, “[Audiences] are not allowed enough chances to read public discourse on these films by the people that the films were made for. I do not need a 70-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about ‘[A] Wrinkle in Time.’ It wasn’t made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, to biracial women, to teen women of color, to teens that are biracial.”
Calling for greater inclusivity among film critics is all well and good, but saying that white men can't or shouldn't critique a given film is discriminatory. "White men should know their place."
In a vacuum, what she said here would not be terrible. It's easy to see her intention and the discriminatory aspect can be overlooked, as it was not her goal. (Though I do think it would be a mistake even in a vacuum; stories are how we connect to one another. If you craft your story in such an exclusionary way then you're missing the point.) However, this was not in a vacuum: ranting about 'white men' is a trigger for many people, since it's rapidly become an acceptable form of racism in certain contexts. And not tiny limited contexts that no one pays attention too, consider the story about Sarah Jeong. That's a tough nut.
So... I'm not disagreeing with your main point, some people certainly blew this out of proportion, but it's not quite as spontaneous as you're suggesting.
It wouldn't be good for anyone in the short term, other than the Russian oligarchs. The people causing the problems are acting on behalf of the state, and would certainly be exempt from this. There might be a few independent actors who would be slowed by this temporarily, but if China is any indication then access to the real internet will be available to anyone with a little knowledge and a willingness to break the law. Since there's no chance of prosecution for these people, this is no barrier at all.
There were some animated side stories though. Don't skip the Animatrix, there are really good shorts there from some talented animators.
(I liked the third movie...)