"being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant."
And that goes for half the country.
There is a half of the country that is doing exactly what the Russians wanted, and that is be mad at the other half and not be behind the president. That's exactly what they wanted, a weakened president. They just thought it would be Hillary. Doesn't really matter to them as long as the country is divided.
It's not 1970 - let people stream the events. This will be more convenient for people, won't waste Comcast's bandwidth, and the only tradeoff is some extra hard drive space being used up.
And require that Comcast NOT count the bandwidth used for that as part of its customer's monthly download cap.
I didn't think that having written some little find-the-bomb puzzle game in the late eighties would qualify one for modern gaming unless he'd kept with the progress of game development over the last thirty years.
Word.
I kept hearing for YEARS how popular Minecraft was before I realized people were not, actually talking about Mine Sweeper!!
I think you forgot the following two decades. The 70's gave us disco, and then the 80's gave us rap / hip hop *and* electronica - think Kraftwerk, Numan, Yello, etc.
A lot of disco music became "pop" music, sure, but very little rap / hip hop (RunDMC the exception) or the electronica you mention (maybe Devo). The 1980's brought in MTV, which drove a lot of what pop music. Talking Heads, Duran Duran, U2, Tom Petty, Michael Jackson, the Eurythmics, Dire Straights, etc. Even Van Halen (after being ruined by that blonde woman).
"Lean"? Is that the Promethazine and Codeine concoction you're referring to? Is that really what the kids are doing these days? No wonder the music is getting slower, if your assertion has any merit.
It's even worse than when the 'boomers stopped dropping acid and listening to the Grateful Dead and started doing cocaine and listening to disco...
The fact is, NN boils down to just this: ISPs can't discriminate against (or be in favor of) data flowing through their pipes.
That was just marketing, it's not what the rules actually did. It often talked about "lawful" content (check law texts for the difference between "lawful" and "legal", they were not the same). There were lots of exceptions and exemptions and all kinds of discretion in what bureaucrats could do to ISPs.
What it really turned out to be was a set of revenue-protection measures for Google and Facebook. You know, the monolithic multi-national corporations that ACTUALLY control the flow of information on the Internet.
And with two years of the FCC rule in place, nothing really changed.
Dude, that was 25 years ago! There are plenty more places to get nasty stuff, like Norovirus. Try Chipotle or Taco Bell.
Chipotle was targeted because they started talking about using only non-GMO food.
And that e-coli people got infected with was way worse than Norovirus. And it had nothing to do with the food sources - it happened because of the way Jack in the Box handled the food after they had it in the restaurant...
Actually, companies needing minimum wage laws as an incentive to pay any wage at all are the problem. The CEO making these claims after the minimum wage went up by one silly dollar should be reason enough to not want to do business with him.
... as if I needed another reason to NOT go to Jack-in-the-Box. I'm still amazed the thing is still around, after making so many people sick.
And what creates wealth? Manufacturing and agriculture. Turning something useless into something useful. The majority of which the weathy West has offshored to China and other cheap labour nations.
Meanwhile the West just pushes money around in service and banking industries creating no wealth at all, just redistributing what's left into the hands of thoss that already control the system.
That's pretty much true, but that wealth (agricultural and manufactured products) are not much good if you can't trade them. You just end up with wheat you can't use or shoes no one will wear. From the first time civilizations began trading, lots of wealth was captured by those that enabled that trade. The middle east grew fat off the trade on the Silk Road, from goods moving to and from China and Europe.
That's still where a lot of wealth flows to today, but it uses a lot more abstraction.
If you think it's bad now, just wait until Disney gets their new streaming service and pulls all their content and their new Twenty First Century Fox subsidiary's content off of all the other services...
Is Google not in a position to block the user agent string for Firefox for Fire TV? Net Neutrality has been repealed, any other rules in place to prevent this?
Net Neutrality would not have prevented Google from doing that anyway. It only prevented ISPs from doing it, not content providers from blocking access. If it did something like that, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the other big providers would never have supported it.
If these dietary supplements you're taking really have "well-proven science-based benefits" then why aren't the submitted to the FDA for approval?
Because they've been used for decades by people, cannot be patented, and the FDA approval process is hugely expensive, not just for the fees but for the process required. There's no way any company would do that for something that any other company can sell for less. You can't make money that way.
But, you know, avoid taking vitamins because they don't have FDA approval or something. Aspirin was never submitted with double-blind clinical studies either.
Actually, I think you're just a pharmaceutical representative troll. I can't imagine someone being so trusting of such an industry while eschewing anything that has a long history of effective and safe use, but doesn't have a patent attached to it.
You had to highly edit my comment to create your straw-man "you're a nut-job" argument.
And, frankly, if you trust everything the global multinational pharmaceutical industry is selling, from toe fungus pills to statin pills and other pills for the side-effects of those pills, well good luck with that. I'll stick to using exercise, good nutritional choices, and, yes, dietary supplements that have well-proven science-based benefits.
That's more than I can say for everything the FDA approves (and bans). Of course the FDA is a member of the Federal bureaucracy that still lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance. Who do you think that is benefiting? Because it's not the public.
If you're still dependent on fiber to within a short distance from the premises, that's not going to solve much. You'll still be dependent on a single, for-profit regional fiber provider that can crank up prices on commercial fiber and crank down the price on residential fiber until it drives that competition out of business.
Sure, that's possible. But it hasn't happened with mobile. You can pay higher prices for Verizon or AT&T, or you can get much cheaper plans from T-Mobile and Sprint, which use the same exact towers.
You are clearly uneducated in elementary grammar. The post you are replying to is in the present tense. You are replying to it with something in future.
What will be in future does not justify what is in the present. Even if it will be exactly like you dream.
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future - Neils Bohr
No, it was not. Besides, the big selling point for NN regulation is that it's needed because "ISPs might do something bad in the future if we don't make a rule against it now."
2007: It won't be the case in a few years, when 3G is deployed broadly enough.
2011: It won't be the case in a few years, when LTE is deployed broadly enough.
2017: It won't be the case in a few years, when 5G rolls out.
You are clearly uneducated about 5G. It's not like the old protocols and some incremental improvement. Most people do everything in their residence with wireless (Wi-Fi) anyway, including streaming video and stuff.
You can look at some more detail to whet your appetite right here. 5G might be a mobile broadband service in the distant future, but the real promise is for fixed wireless, providing lots more competition and options for last-mile Internet access. You have to license the spectrum from the FCC, and this may be where the FCC can really enable a lot more competitiveness in the market.
Could it fizzle? Sure. But your out-of-hand dismissal is pure ignorance.
There are such things as natural monopolies - and the last mile of internet connectivity is a pretty good candidate.
For now it is, sure, since you need fiber or cable for decent broadband connection that isn't metered. I won't be the case at all in a few years, when 5G rolls out...
I hardly ever go to the doctor, I have a healthy lifestyle and make my own health decisions. I have some manageable chronic ailments but I don't like pharmaceuticals so I use diet and exercise and supplements for the most part. But I want to be protected if I have a trauma or serious illness that needs long-term treatment. Those plans did that. Yes, I pay more for doctor visits and any drugs, so I shop around. You would be amazed at the number of 3rd party pharmaceutical discounts available if you look for them. And, yes, I'd have a big bill to deal with if that trauma or serious illness ever actually happened (it was something like a $20,000 maximum out-of-pocket, IIRC), but that's a risk I was willing to take, instead of paying someone else for the risk.
I'd rather keep the money to save for much more likely unforeseen occurrences, like job loss.
I guess they just think the American public is stupid, or the FCC commissioners live under rocks and never saw any public statements that Obama made. Their claims are moronic.
There are tons of small ISPs. Try going to one of the broadcast network's streaming services (such as AMC [amc.com] or USA [usanetwork.com]), and try to watch one of the full episodes of a show. To do that, you have to prove you have some kind of cable subscription. There are the big ones listed up top (Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Dish, etc.), but you can look at the full list. It's a VERY long list. Sure, a few are only TV only, but the vast majority are also ISPs. And, yes, most of them are small ISPs.
Meanwhile the real Internet giants (and bullies) Google, Amazon, Twitter and Facebook are taking over the world and nobody seems to give a flying fuck about THEM!
Slashdot Mirror
"being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant."
And that goes for half the country.
There is a half of the country that is doing exactly what the Russians wanted, and that is be mad at the other half and not be behind the president. That's exactly what they wanted, a weakened president. They just thought it would be Hillary. Doesn't really matter to them as long as the country is divided.
They are in Moscow laughing their asses off.
He hasn't even touched the hacking yet.
You mean "leak"
It's not 1970 - let people stream the events. This will be more convenient for people, won't waste Comcast's bandwidth, and the only tradeoff is some extra hard drive space being used up.
And require that Comcast NOT count the bandwidth used for that as part of its customer's monthly download cap.
The only good phone is a land line, and the phone should be made out of Bakelite!
Mission in the Rain
Kids these days!
I didn't think that having written some little find-the-bomb puzzle game in the late eighties would qualify one for modern gaming unless he'd kept with the progress of game development over the last thirty years.
Word.
I kept hearing for YEARS how popular Minecraft was before I realized people were not, actually talking about Mine Sweeper!!
I think you forgot the following two decades. The 70's gave us disco, and then the 80's gave us rap / hip hop *and* electronica - think Kraftwerk, Numan, Yello, etc.
A lot of disco music became "pop" music, sure, but very little rap / hip hop (RunDMC the exception) or the electronica you mention (maybe Devo). The 1980's brought in MTV, which drove a lot of what pop music. Talking Heads, Duran Duran, U2, Tom Petty, Michael Jackson, the Eurythmics, Dire Straights, etc. Even Van Halen (after being ruined by that blonde woman).
"Lean"? Is that the Promethazine and Codeine concoction you're referring to? Is that really what the kids are doing these days? No wonder the music is getting slower, if your assertion has any merit.
It's even worse than when the 'boomers stopped dropping acid and listening to the Grateful Dead and started doing cocaine and listening to disco...
The fact is, NN boils down to just this: ISPs can't discriminate against (or be in favor of) data flowing through their pipes.
That was just marketing, it's not what the rules actually did. It often talked about "lawful" content (check law texts for the difference between "lawful" and "legal", they were not the same). There were lots of exceptions and exemptions and all kinds of discretion in what bureaucrats could do to ISPs.
What it really turned out to be was a set of revenue-protection measures for Google and Facebook. You know, the monolithic multi-national corporations that ACTUALLY control the flow of information on the Internet.
And with two years of the FCC rule in place, nothing really changed.
Dude, that was 25 years ago! There are plenty more places to get nasty stuff, like Norovirus. Try Chipotle or Taco Bell.
Chipotle was targeted because they started talking about using only non-GMO food.
And that e-coli people got infected with was way worse than Norovirus. And it had nothing to do with the food sources - it happened because of the way Jack in the Box handled the food after they had it in the restaurant...
Actually, companies needing minimum wage laws as an incentive to pay any wage at all are the problem. The CEO making these claims after the minimum wage went up by one silly dollar should be reason enough to not want to do business with him.
... as if I needed another reason to NOT go to Jack-in-the-Box. I'm still amazed the thing is still around, after making so many people sick.
And what creates wealth? Manufacturing and agriculture. Turning something useless into something useful. The majority of which the weathy West has offshored to China and other cheap labour nations.
Meanwhile the West just pushes money around in service and banking industries creating no wealth at all, just redistributing what's left into the hands of thoss that already control the system.
That's pretty much true, but that wealth (agricultural and manufactured products) are not much good if you can't trade them. You just end up with wheat you can't use or shoes no one will wear. From the first time civilizations began trading, lots of wealth was captured by those that enabled that trade. The middle east grew fat off the trade on the Silk Road, from goods moving to and from China and Europe.
That's still where a lot of wealth flows to today, but it uses a lot more abstraction.
Yep
Also, all the rest of these comments suck.
If you think it's bad now, just wait until Disney gets their new streaming service and pulls all their content and their new Twenty First Century Fox subsidiary's content off of all the other services...
Is Google not in a position to block the user agent string for Firefox for Fire TV? Net Neutrality has been repealed, any other rules in place to prevent this?
Net Neutrality would not have prevented Google from doing that anyway. It only prevented ISPs from doing it, not content providers from blocking access. If it did something like that, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the other big providers would never have supported it.
If these dietary supplements you're taking really have "well-proven science-based benefits" then why aren't the submitted to the FDA for approval?
Because they've been used for decades by people, cannot be patented, and the FDA approval process is hugely expensive, not just for the fees but for the process required. There's no way any company would do that for something that any other company can sell for less. You can't make money that way.
But, you know, avoid taking vitamins because they don't have FDA approval or something. Aspirin was never submitted with double-blind clinical studies either.
Actually, I think you're just a pharmaceutical representative troll. I can't imagine someone being so trusting of such an industry while eschewing anything that has a long history of effective and safe use, but doesn't have a patent attached to it.
You had to highly edit my comment to create your straw-man "you're a nut-job" argument.
And, frankly, if you trust everything the global multinational pharmaceutical industry is selling, from toe fungus pills to statin pills and other pills for the side-effects of those pills, well good luck with that. I'll stick to using exercise, good nutritional choices, and, yes, dietary supplements that have well-proven science-based benefits.
That's more than I can say for everything the FDA approves (and bans). Of course the FDA is a member of the Federal bureaucracy that still lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance. Who do you think that is benefiting? Because it's not the public.
If you're still dependent on fiber to within a short distance from the premises, that's not going to solve much. You'll still be dependent on a single, for-profit regional fiber provider that can crank up prices on commercial fiber and crank down the price on residential fiber until it drives that competition out of business.
Sure, that's possible. But it hasn't happened with mobile. You can pay higher prices for Verizon or AT&T, or you can get much cheaper plans from T-Mobile and Sprint, which use the same exact towers.
You are clearly uneducated in elementary grammar. The post you are replying to is in the present tense. You are replying to it with something in future.
What will be in future does not justify what is in the present. Even if it will be exactly like you dream.
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future - Neils Bohr
No, it was not. Besides, the big selling point for NN regulation is that it's needed because "ISPs might do something bad in the future if we don't make a rule against it now."
2007: It won't be the case in a few years, when 3G is deployed broadly enough. 2011: It won't be the case in a few years, when LTE is deployed broadly enough. 2017: It won't be the case in a few years, when 5G rolls out.
You are clearly uneducated about 5G. It's not like the old protocols and some incremental improvement. Most people do everything in their residence with wireless (Wi-Fi) anyway, including streaming video and stuff.
here is a quick primer on the services going into trial, and Verizon is planning something similar.
You can look at some more detail to whet your appetite right here. 5G might be a mobile broadband service in the distant future, but the real promise is for fixed wireless, providing lots more competition and options for last-mile Internet access. You have to license the spectrum from the FCC, and this may be where the FCC can really enable a lot more competitiveness in the market.
Could it fizzle? Sure. But your out-of-hand dismissal is pure ignorance.
There are such things as natural monopolies - and the last mile of internet connectivity is a pretty good candidate.
For now it is, sure, since you need fiber or cable for decent broadband connection that isn't metered. I won't be the case at all in a few years, when 5G rolls out...
This.
I hardly ever go to the doctor, I have a healthy lifestyle and make my own health decisions. I have some manageable chronic ailments but I don't like pharmaceuticals so I use diet and exercise and supplements for the most part. But I want to be protected if I have a trauma or serious illness that needs long-term treatment. Those plans did that. Yes, I pay more for doctor visits and any drugs, so I shop around. You would be amazed at the number of 3rd party pharmaceutical discounts available if you look for them. And, yes, I'd have a big bill to deal with if that trauma or serious illness ever actually happened (it was something like a $20,000 maximum out-of-pocket, IIRC), but that's a risk I was willing to take, instead of paying someone else for the risk.
I'd rather keep the money to save for much more likely unforeseen occurrences, like job loss.
Amazing. They "investigated the claim" huh? And Obama didn't influence the FCC at all, eh? I have some evidence they seem to have overlooked:
I guess they just think the American public is stupid, or the FCC commissioners live under rocks and never saw any public statements that Obama made. Their claims are moronic.
There are tons of small ISPs. Try going to one of the broadcast network's streaming services (such as AMC [amc.com] or USA [usanetwork.com]), and try to watch one of the full episodes of a show. To do that, you have to prove you have some kind of cable subscription. There are the big ones listed up top (Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Dish, etc.), but you can look at the full list. It's a VERY long list. Sure, a few are only TV only, but the vast majority are also ISPs. And, yes, most of them are small ISPs.
Meanwhile the real Internet giants (and bullies) Google, Amazon, Twitter and Facebook are taking over the world and nobody seems to give a flying fuck about THEM!
IKR. We never got to see the raw data that the EPA was trying to use for their power grab, either.