The quantum upgrade really provided a lot of advantages. Yes it broke some of the old plugins, but having a really nice buggy whip is not a good reason to shun automobiles. If there's some plugin which you absolutely can't do without, then use Waterfox.
All telecommunications services are taxed for the purpose given in the summary. So that's some degree of virtue. I would add: text messaging is really a very bad mechanism for communication, for several reasons, and taxing it might be one step towards encouraging cell providers to move to something a little more functional.
For example: as I understand it in Japan, where data charges are reasonable, everyone uses email rather than text messages. This can do everything that texting can do, plus allows for longer messages, plus attachments, plus it's standardized and can operate between all platforms and services.
cayenne8 gave an opinion. It's not provable or disprovable.
Also... you understand that reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, right? I bring this up because the phrase is usually, "Nice [logical fallacy]." and is meant to point out a flaw in the parent's reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly fine rhetorical argument.
Having been raised in a predominantly Christian area, something I didn't understand for the longest time was that when Jews go to ridiculous extremes to follow their rules, that's the point. It's not that they don't know it's ridiculous, it's that the more ridiculous it is the more it shows your dedication when you do it anyway.
It's analogous to a Christian test of faith: Christians get into god's good graces through belief rather than works, so when something arises which exposes that belief as... poorly considered, then they demonstrate their devotion by persevering anyway.
It is critical that genetically modified food be labeled, so that we can make informed decisions about whether we might be eating something that's been tainted by creepy science that I don't understand.
It's necessary that the asbestos content of packaged foods be marked clearly, in large print, so that we can avoid it. How am I supposed to know how much asbestos is in my food if it isn't labeled?
Foods that aren't made out of 100% whole grains absolutely need to have flashing lights and warning sirens to ensure that I know that these grains don't meet my minimum standard for wholeness.
What? Arbitrary distinctions without any basis or rational? I know exactly what should and should not be in food! I've been eating for almost my whole life!
I did find the wording here interesting though, I read another headline: "Swift uses facial recognition to track her stalkers at concerts."... That's a telling change, but neither one of these headlines is really capturing the problem here. Maybe another headline would be a little more accurate: "Swift uses facial recognition to track tens of thousands of people, a few of which are stalkers."
It seems that you're splitting hairs. What's the difference between a tech company that sells ads and an advertising company that uses tech? Really, it's just about focus - which thing is more important to the company. Given that Facebook derives 100% of its revenue from advertising, it's arguable that it's more of an advertising company than it is a tech company.
This has no legal weight, but the author seems to be arguing that this is how we need to start thinking about Facebook if we want to put into more accurate context.
Why... you're right! We should just get rid of the internet. And computers. And humans. The world was doing fine before those things, the world will be fine once they're gone.
You're contradicting yourself. I've been shocked at how long it's taken to reach this point, I figured this was just a momentary lapse in judgment, but this has gone on for quite a while now and you've given the reason right there.
Ethereum thinks it can change the world? Maybe. Can't rule out that possibility. If enough people believe in it hard enough, that alone can be enough to sustain it.
No, that wasn't what Zenimax's lawsuit was about. Carmack used a bit of code that he had written while at Bethesda in a Powerpoint slide at a meeting with staff at Occulous. It was a trivial bit of nothing and he was just using it as an example of the direction in which he wanted to go, that code was never used in the actual software that Occulous wrote, but that was what Zenimax based their case on.
I am very glad that people are finally realizing what an awful company Bethesda is, even if it is over something as stupid as a nylon bag.
I hope Bernie Sanders gets last place in the primary
How are you dragging Sanders into this? He is neither against Network Neutrality, nor is he a sore loser. I mean... I never played a game with him, but he was gracious enough in his defeat for the democratic primary and encouraged his supporters to support Hillary (who is also not against Network Neutrality).
There's also the fact that all of these games are proprietary and copyrighted. Though the Olympic committee might like that, since it implies kickbacks... I'm sorry, I meant "corporate sponsorship."
/. has been reporting incessently for years on bitcoin evangelicals. I agree that this was a mistake, just helping to fuel something very very stupid, but now is not the time to stop. If you're going to tell a story, even a stupid story, there's some responsibility to finish it. That's especially true when people are betting their savings on this - the fall of bitcoin needs to be publicized just as widely as its stupid stupid rise.
What you're talking about was discussed in a well-publicized paper fairly recently. The authors called it The Silurian Hypothesis and found that it was a lot more plausible than you're suggesting.
Everyone always wants simple laws, but simple laws have no teeth. What you are suggesting would allow for an ISP to charge for preferential treatment of packets based on their origin. It would allow for preferential treatment of packets based on their protocol, or on their contents, or any other reason that ISPs could concoct to get around this. But they wouldn't need to get around it because your proposal has no means of enforcement.
As the parent explicitly pointed out, the net for net neutrality is not hypothetical. It's a response to a demonstrated problem.
Also: waiting for a problem to manifest before you do anything about it is terrible planning. You should be ashamed of yourself. You were clearly never a boyscout.
You're thinking of the House of Representatives, with a mid-90% victory rate for incumbents. The senate rate is 5-10% lower, and the presidency is ~70% over the last fifty years.
First one I would be asking is why a "non-lethal" form of defense would be considered "dangerous goods"
Okay... death is not the only way in which something can be dangerous. For example, just recently 24 Amazon workers were sent to the hospital after a robot accidentally unleashed a can of nonlethal bear spray. One of those workers remains in critical condition. Did you hear about that? It was in the news.
To answer your next question: typically bans of that nature are handled on the basis of individual item categories, e.g.: banning pepper spray exceeding a certain concentration, or banning spring loaded knives, rather than banning on some abstract notion of how dangerous an item is. And the answer to your question is, "Wherever Amazon, et. al., feel is appropriate." Someone has to define those categories and decide Amazon's product line-up. Given that they already ban some things, liqueur, tobacco, etc., it's likely that there's some VP somewhere who makes those decisions.
Your comment is irrational, it is possible for more than one thing to be happening in the world at any given time. It is possible for some foreigners to provoke and encourage bigotry while, simultaneously, other foreigners are the subject of bigotry. That can happen. It's not a contradiction.
Slashdot Mirror
The quantum upgrade really provided a lot of advantages. Yes it broke some of the old plugins, but having a really nice buggy whip is not a good reason to shun automobiles. If there's some plugin which you absolutely can't do without, then use Waterfox.
All telecommunications services are taxed for the purpose given in the summary. So that's some degree of virtue. I would add: text messaging is really a very bad mechanism for communication, for several reasons, and taxing it might be one step towards encouraging cell providers to move to something a little more functional.
For example: as I understand it in Japan, where data charges are reasonable, everyone uses email rather than text messages. This can do everything that texting can do, plus allows for longer messages, plus attachments, plus it's standardized and can operate between all platforms and services.
cayenne8 gave an opinion. It's not provable or disprovable.
Also... you understand that reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, right? I bring this up because the phrase is usually, "Nice [logical fallacy]." and is meant to point out a flaw in the parent's reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly fine rhetorical argument.
Having been raised in a predominantly Christian area, something I didn't understand for the longest time was that when Jews go to ridiculous extremes to follow their rules, that's the point. It's not that they don't know it's ridiculous, it's that the more ridiculous it is the more it shows your dedication when you do it anyway.
It's analogous to a Christian test of faith: Christians get into god's good graces through belief rather than works, so when something arises which exposes that belief as... poorly considered, then they demonstrate their devotion by persevering anyway.
It is critical that genetically modified food be labeled, so that we can make informed decisions about whether we might be eating something that's been tainted by creepy science that I don't understand.
It's necessary that the asbestos content of packaged foods be marked clearly, in large print, so that we can avoid it. How am I supposed to know how much asbestos is in my food if it isn't labeled?
Foods that aren't made out of 100% whole grains absolutely need to have flashing lights and warning sirens to ensure that I know that these grains don't meet my minimum standard for wholeness.
What? Arbitrary distinctions without any basis or rational? I know exactly what should and should not be in food! I've been eating for almost my whole life!
It's not consent if it's buried in some ToS.
... That's a telling change, but neither one of these headlines is really capturing the problem here. Maybe another headline would be a little more accurate: "Swift uses facial recognition to track tens of thousands of people, a few of which are stalkers."
I did find the wording here interesting though, I read another headline: "Swift uses facial recognition to track her stalkers at concerts."
It seems that you're splitting hairs. What's the difference between a tech company that sells ads and an advertising company that uses tech? Really, it's just about focus - which thing is more important to the company. Given that Facebook derives 100% of its revenue from advertising, it's arguable that it's more of an advertising company than it is a tech company.
This has no legal weight, but the author seems to be arguing that this is how we need to start thinking about Facebook if we want to put into more accurate context.
Why... you're right! We should just get rid of the internet. And computers. And humans. The world was doing fine before those things, the world will be fine once they're gone.
Never Going to Work
The currency issue is religious/political.
You're contradicting yourself. I've been shocked at how long it's taken to reach this point, I figured this was just a momentary lapse in judgment, but this has gone on for quite a while now and you've given the reason right there.
Ethereum thinks it can change the world? Maybe. Can't rule out that possibility. If enough people believe in it hard enough, that alone can be enough to sustain it.
No, that wasn't what Zenimax's lawsuit was about. Carmack used a bit of code that he had written while at Bethesda in a Powerpoint slide at a meeting with staff at Occulous. It was a trivial bit of nothing and he was just using it as an example of the direction in which he wanted to go, that code was never used in the actual software that Occulous wrote, but that was what Zenimax based their case on.
I am very glad that people are finally realizing what an awful company Bethesda is, even if it is over something as stupid as a nylon bag.
I hope Bernie Sanders gets last place in the primary
How are you dragging Sanders into this? He is neither against Network Neutrality, nor is he a sore loser. I mean... I never played a game with him, but he was gracious enough in his defeat for the democratic primary and encouraged his supporters to support Hillary (who is also not against Network Neutrality).
There's also the fact that all of these games are proprietary and copyrighted. Though the Olympic committee might like that, since it implies kickbacks... I'm sorry, I meant "corporate sponsorship."
you mean, like, emacs versus vi?
Psh, we all know the answer to that one. I am genuinely curious about what she could have been referring to.
Maybe it was intentionally left vague, so people would just assume that it was whatever they wanted.
/. has been reporting incessently for years on bitcoin evangelicals. I agree that this was a mistake, just helping to fuel something very very stupid, but now is not the time to stop. If you're going to tell a story, even a stupid story, there's some responsibility to finish it. That's especially true when people are betting their savings on this - the fall of bitcoin needs to be publicized just as widely as its stupid stupid rise.
What you're talking about was discussed in a well-publicized paper fairly recently. The authors called it The Silurian Hypothesis and found that it was a lot more plausible than you're suggesting.
Everyone always wants simple laws, but simple laws have no teeth. What you are suggesting would allow for an ISP to charge for preferential treatment of packets based on their origin. It would allow for preferential treatment of packets based on their protocol, or on their contents, or any other reason that ISPs could concoct to get around this. But they wouldn't need to get around it because your proposal has no means of enforcement.
I'm an Apple user but you're making sweeping generalizations of which I've honestly only heard from non-Apple users.
Why on earth would Apple users make derogatory generalizations about themselves?
*need. need for net neutrality.
As the parent explicitly pointed out, the net for net neutrality is not hypothetical. It's a response to a demonstrated problem.
Also: waiting for a problem to manifest before you do anything about it is terrible planning. You should be ashamed of yourself. You were clearly never a boyscout.
You're thinking of the House of Representatives, with a mid-90% victory rate for incumbents. The senate rate is 5-10% lower, and the presidency is ~70% over the last fifty years.
Why on earth would coal miners swing the election? There are only something like 80,000 of them, and that number is dropping.
That's... actually really nice. I don't need a truck, but a boutique manufacturer like that might be the right way to go.
The big problem that I have with EVs is that they're all new. In other words, they all have "navigation systems." In other words, they all spy on you.
This lets me have an EV and lets me grandfather in my privacy at the same time.
First one I would be asking is why a "non-lethal" form of defense would be considered "dangerous goods"
Okay... death is not the only way in which something can be dangerous. For example, just recently 24 Amazon workers were sent to the hospital after a robot accidentally unleashed a can of nonlethal bear spray. One of those workers remains in critical condition. Did you hear about that? It was in the news.
To answer your next question: typically bans of that nature are handled on the basis of individual item categories, e.g.: banning pepper spray exceeding a certain concentration, or banning spring loaded knives, rather than banning on some abstract notion of how dangerous an item is. And the answer to your question is, "Wherever Amazon, et. al., feel is appropriate." Someone has to define those categories and decide Amazon's product line-up. Given that they already ban some things, liqueur, tobacco, etc., it's likely that there's some VP somewhere who makes those decisions.
Your comment is irrational, it is possible for more than one thing to be happening in the world at any given time. It is possible for some foreigners to provoke and encourage bigotry while, simultaneously, other foreigners are the subject of bigotry. That can happen. It's not a contradiction.