no it will not. The issue is not that they cannot block, but if they dont let it though then they cannot discriminate. There are other laws that dictate about blocking.
Umm, I am sorry, but what? The right is the prohibitionist party, they like to tell you what you can and cannot do, not the left. Where are the dry counties in states, right wing bastions, who tries to stop the legalization of pot and other drugs, the right. Who tries to limit poke, the right. Who tries to regulate where stip clubs go, the right. I am not saying that no lefties do these things, but as a general party it is the right.
As my current state rep said on TV, Thom Tillis, He supports removing regulations that force resturant owners from requiring their employees wash their hands, as long as they have to tell you if they dont enforce it via a sign.. To me that sounds like removing a sound and proper regulation with one that is really very silly.
Actually the interconnection fees between netflix and all dont need to exist. Again comcast in this case is acting as a last mile ISP, but charging netflix as though it is acting as a transit carrier. If the data was just crossing comcasts network and ending someplace else, say verizon, then the deal would make sense. But an ISP has an obligation to the customer to let them view what they want. It is their business model. Doing this is essentially having netflix pay for the infrastructure to support their shared customers. Great if you can get away with it, but totally immoral.
Actually this is a action of the legislative and executive branches. Title II gives them the authority to do this, guess who wrote that law. There is no slippery slope here. Also "what is currently the most infamous administration this country has had to endure." is an opinion, not a fact.
...if it is because of systemd, then I will be pissed.
This part is irrational. For one, arguing with machines is rarely fruitful. For another, you're either ignoring equivalent flaws in init scripts or used to working around them.
Here's a thought experiment. If you don't mind, I'll use different concepts to present the analytical tool first; people tend to see the word "systemd" and forget to engage their rationality. So if you were considering getting a better-paid job in a new city, your emotional attachment to your existing situation could weight your decision unduly. It can be useful to consider the reverse situation: would you take an $xx,000 pay cut to move to your current city and hang out with your college roommates.
Applying this to the current situation. Say you had a perfectly working systemd installation, and you were used to using it, and it had no more bugs than your average sysvinit setup. Someone proposes replacing this with init scripts. You would lose on being able to track processes accurately, but have an easier time troubleshooting boot problems. Would you still consider this to be a good tradeoff?
Who said anything about arguing with machines? Also I can fix an init script, I cannot fix a compiled systemd, and the methods used to fix some of the known issues are much more painful than anything in systemv. Also I can track processes without systemd, so it would be a fine tradeoff.
the problem is when someone blows chunks on startup you cannot just take a look at the C program, find and fix then issue and then restart. Sure the "it just works" mantra is fine, until it doesnt just work, then you are screwed. The concept of better codeing is great, the concept that you do it in a way that you cannot fix the problem is not. And to add it in you throw in a fallacy. As a developer, or a user you want it to "just work", however when it does not work you will probably come to a sysadmin and if it is because of systemd, then I will be pissed.
Systemd supporters seem to move the goal post for what systemd is with virtually every change that comes up. First it was a init replacement, then a supervisor, now it is just a project to host many things.
You and your lies/fallacies again. It is not out of ignorance, or out of fear that most people are doing this. It is about design choices that people feel should not have been made, and that it is forced on them.
That says it is being used more often, not that it is grammatically correct. Languages naturally change over time, and this is probably a good example of it.
Of those 47,000, only 5,400 have chosen to get the service.
That does not hold up well when you calculate the number of people per household. In short other than using statistics you are making shiat up. Because you cannot know if those 5400 HOUSEHOLDS have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 people in them.
What the average household size is does not really matter, especially if all the households that have it are larger than the average, which you do not know. Even still I see no conversion in your numbers. It also does not take into account buisness
Slashdot Mirror
well, duh, the article says as much, between 50 and 75% of thefts still occur...
Unless you make it depend on the users approval.
Did you even read the post he commented on? It had nothing to do with politics.
More likely the SCOTUS. Congress can make a law, but the SCOTUS will determine if it is valid and if the content is protected or not.
no it will not. The issue is not that they cannot block, but if they dont let it though then they cannot discriminate. There are other laws that dictate about blocking.
Yes and no. Yes it could, but Wheeler specifically stated they would not interfere with rates
Umm, I am sorry, but what? The right is the prohibitionist party, they like to tell you what you can and cannot do, not the left. Where are the dry counties in states, right wing bastions, who tries to stop the legalization of pot and other drugs, the right. Who tries to limit poke, the right. Who tries to regulate where stip clubs go, the right. I am not saying that no lefties do these things, but as a general party it is the right.
We will see on the 26th about the municipal broadband preexemption.
As my current state rep said on TV, Thom Tillis, He supports removing regulations that force resturant owners from requiring their employees wash their hands, as long as they have to tell you if they dont enforce it via a sign.. To me that sounds like removing a sound and proper regulation with one that is really very silly.
Actually the interconnection fees between netflix and all dont need to exist. Again comcast in this case is acting as a last mile ISP, but charging netflix as though it is acting as a transit carrier. If the data was just crossing comcasts network and ending someplace else, say verizon, then the deal would make sense. But an ISP has an obligation to the customer to let them view what they want. It is their business model. Doing this is essentially having netflix pay for the infrastructure to support their shared customers. Great if you can get away with it, but totally immoral.
Actually this is a action of the legislative and executive branches. Title II gives them the authority to do this, guess who wrote that law. There is no slippery slope here. Also "what is currently the most infamous administration this country has had to endure." is an opinion, not a fact.
And where are they now?
Now you are just calling them trolls... Again with what I stated, you prove..
Also I watched the video and everything he accomplished is possible without a massive hunk of a system like systemd.
...if it is because of systemd, then I will be pissed.
This part is irrational. For one, arguing with machines is rarely fruitful. For another, you're either ignoring equivalent flaws in init scripts or used to working around them.
Here's a thought experiment. If you don't mind, I'll use different concepts to present the analytical tool first; people tend to see the word "systemd" and forget to engage their rationality. So if you were considering getting a better-paid job in a new city, your emotional attachment to your existing situation could weight your decision unduly. It can be useful to consider the reverse situation: would you take an $xx,000 pay cut to move to your current city and hang out with your college roommates.
Applying this to the current situation. Say you had a perfectly working systemd installation, and you were used to using it, and it had no more bugs than your average sysvinit setup. Someone proposes replacing this with init scripts. You would lose on being able to track processes accurately, but have an easier time troubleshooting boot problems. Would you still consider this to be a good tradeoff?
Who said anything about arguing with machines? Also I can fix an init script, I cannot fix a compiled systemd, and the methods used to fix some of the known issues are much more painful than anything in systemv. Also I can track processes without systemd, so it would be a fine tradeoff.
Most admins from large companies who host thousands of machines already have systems to do this, without the headache that comes with systemd.
the problem is when someone blows chunks on startup you cannot just take a look at the C program, find and fix then issue and then restart. Sure the "it just works" mantra is fine, until it doesnt just work, then you are screwed. The concept of better codeing is great, the concept that you do it in a way that you cannot fix the problem is not. And to add it in you throw in a fallacy. As a developer, or a user you want it to "just work", however when it does not work you will probably come to a sysadmin and if it is because of systemd, then I will be pissed.
Systemd supporters seem to move the goal post for what systemd is with virtually every change that comes up. First it was a init replacement, then a supervisor, now it is just a project to host many things.
You and your lies/fallacies again. It is not out of ignorance, or out of fear that most people are doing this. It is about design choices that people feel should not have been made, and that it is forced on them.
It may be the companies, but it is not their admins.
That says it is being used more often, not that it is grammatically correct. Languages naturally change over time, and this is probably a good example of it.
Except your claim was :
Of those 47,000, only 5,400 have chosen to get the service.
That does not hold up well when you calculate the number of people per household. In short other than using statistics you are making shiat up. Because you cannot know if those 5400 HOUSEHOLDS have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 people in them.
You forgot age distribution. About 1/3 of the people in Wilson are under 19.
What the average household size is does not really matter, especially if all the households that have it are larger than the average, which you do not know. Even still I see no conversion in your numbers. It also does not take into account buisness
Because it was free, a free service with no revenue CANNOT survive. Can you really not understand the difference?
Also how many services did the USSR own that collected subscriptions and were not profitable? You are taking it to an absurd level.