you act like racism and bigotry don't exist, and it's just a ploy to smear people
I didn't see him say anything like that, I saw him complain about racism used to avoid substantive debates on policy. Sort of a transparent attempt at a straw man on your part, isn't it?
Being horrified by NAT is all well and good, but the fact is, ISPs look at the horrible bandaids that work 80% of the time and say, "Good enough. Now I don't have to rebuild my entire infrastructure for IPv6."
And yet Comcast is rolling out IPv6. I'm on IPv6 at home today.
Verizon FiOS supports IPv6, but the routers come with it disabled by default. If I turn it on, they assign IPv6 addresses to the router. However, it doesn't seem to be routed very far. DNS only responds on IPv4, so it may be the same "roll out" as Comcast which seems to be "you can use it in your house."
That's possible, but it's pretty sucky (do you really want all of your broadcast traffic to go to your ISP?).
You wouldn't do that with IPv6 - that's what Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses are for - they are easily filtered at the site boundary, but can be used across privately interconnected sites.
It's a show that inspired a lot of kids to be scientists
... At a time when television was 3 channels + PBS, which meant it aired as 1 of 4 choices, at a time when there was no Internet and you had to plunk down the equivalent of $700 to play Pong on your TV. Good like getting anything like the same audience when it's competing with Game of Thrones, Duck Dynasty, or anything on Netflix. And those are just the broadcast entertainment competitors.
PBS also was not nearly the corporate shill in 1980 that they have become. Knowing PBS today, they'll probably air the thing during a funding-raising drive where you have to sit through 20 minutes of begging for money for every 15 minutes of show.
Cool. This is what we need - alternatives, for when Dice decides to go full retard and implement their horrid new system. Will the/. community fracture, or will most of it land somewhere else?
No, that's a good point. Let's put at least the same burden of proof on any federal agency, probably even more on the ones advocating for war and violence. "National Security" should mean avoiding violence, not instigating it with secret motivations.
It's a fascinating case. It has _nothing_ do with navigable waters, it has to do with wetlands, which are federally protected in various ways, and the Clean Waters Act, which involves protecting water supplies. If you're going to cite an example of bureaucratic abuse because of "navigable waters" that only exist for a day, cite one they're actually guilty of, please. Please don't cite cases that have no direct relevance to your claim of abuse.
Idiot. What law does this "wetlands" protection come from? Huh? Idiot. Clean Water Act (not "Waters", dumbass). All that regulation has sprung from the "navigable waters" clause in that 1970's legislation. The rest is unauthorized expansion by overzealous bureaucrats.
And I call it "straw man argument" when someone cites bureaucratic foibles with what are demonstrably nonexistent examples.
Kindly cite the cases of "navigable waters" including "any puddle that lasts more than 24 hours". The Supreme Court guidelines are fascinating, and seem to be extensible to include waterways large enough to handle a canoe, depending on whether it's connected to another waterway. But they're workable, and discharging the waste into a creek that _feeds into_ a lake or ocean could certainly make such discharges relevant to public safety.
Really? The EPA has been abusing people like this for years, but one couple finally stood up to them. I can't believe you've never heard of cases like Sackett v. EPA. Willful ignorance?
If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window.
Exactly right. There is no justification for using the precautionary principle unless you just don't have enough empirical evidence to support your agenda - and that's precisely the reason the precautionary principle was contrived in the first place. It turns the burden of proof up-side-down. It is inherently anti-science.
What I call abuse is when a bureaucracy takes a law that says industries cannot discharge toxic waste into the navigable waters of the US and re-interprets "navigable waters" to include any puddle that lasts more than 24 hours, and "toxic waste" to include dirt.
When an agencny like the EPA takes action the science is based upon compilations of complex studies and agreement among scientists.
No, it's not. You can find example after example of the EPA and other agencies falsifying information and distorting data to get to a political-based outcome. Another famous one was the snail darter population issue in California. The EPA did not go after the problem (agricultural runoff), but decided to treat the symptom by cutting off water to the small farmers in the San Joaquin valley so that the corporate farms on the SF Bay watershed could continue to pollute.
However, if slashdot dies because of this, it won't be because of Dice. It will be because like the dinosaurs, we couldn't adapt.
Well, first, why should a user base be required to "adapt" to a broken system? If they functionality they want goes away, they'll go somewhere else. Try to learn from other mistakes or you will die. Just check out all the comments there, most are along the lines of "Well it's too little and too late, me and all my friends have gone elsewhere."
However, if slashdot dies because of this, it won't be because of Dice. It will be because like the dinosaurs, we couldn't adapt.
Well, first, why should a user base be required to "adapt" to a broken system? If they functionality they want goes away, they'll go somewhere else. Try to learn from other mistakes or you will die. Just check out all the comments there, most are along the lines of "Well it's too little and too late, me and all my friends have gone elsewhere."
Slashdot Mirror
Waiting for the libertarians here to demonstrate why this shows how Bitcoin is such a wonderful idea.
Because irresponsible bankers are forced to shut down and declare bankruptcy, instead of being bailed out by working class tax payers?
Great comment, thank you Mr. AC. So many people just don't get this.
I think he meant, for a whole roll of plumber's tape.
Me too. Try 50 - 60 cents. For like 40 FEET.
it costs 10 bucks for a shower head (and 3-5 for plumber's tape if you don't have any)
WTF? What kind of gold-plated plumber's tape are you using?
Still the only one: you.
-1 off topic
i also question the sanity or intent of anyone who wants to make believe they don't exist, for whatever reason
You're the only one who suggested they don't exist
saying that accusations of racism and bigotry is just a ploy: that's the strawman
because racists and bigots are real
It's not a ploy it's actually happening, and in response to nothing but questioning policy.
The argument that "well you're saying racists and bigots don't exist" is the real straw man, because nobody ever claimed that.
Surely you see the difference?
And his.
Clearly you don't know what a straw man is.
When all the news source belong to big corporations, how can one be surprised that press freedom is disappearing ?
One solution
Looks like altslashdot.org and SoylentNews have joined forces, since they resolve to the same site.
Two more
you act like racism and bigotry don't exist, and it's just a ploy to smear people
I didn't see him say anything like that, I saw him complain about racism used to avoid substantive debates on policy. Sort of a transparent attempt at a straw man on your part, isn't it?
Being horrified by NAT is all well and good, but the fact is, ISPs look at the horrible bandaids that work 80% of the time and say, "Good enough. Now I don't have to rebuild my entire infrastructure for IPv6."
And yet Comcast is rolling out IPv6. I'm on IPv6 at home today.
Verizon FiOS supports IPv6, but the routers come with it disabled by default. If I turn it on, they assign IPv6 addresses to the router. However, it doesn't seem to be routed very far. DNS only responds on IPv4, so it may be the same "roll out" as Comcast which seems to be "you can use it in your house."
That's possible, but it's pretty sucky (do you really want all of your broadcast traffic to go to your ISP?).
You wouldn't do that with IPv6 - that's what Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses are for - they are easily filtered at the site boundary, but can be used across privately interconnected sites.
It's a show that inspired a lot of kids to be scientists
... At a time when television was 3 channels + PBS, which meant it aired as 1 of 4 choices, at a time when there was no Internet and you had to plunk down the equivalent of $700 to play Pong on your TV. Good like getting anything like the same audience when it's competing with Game of Thrones, Duck Dynasty, or anything on Netflix. And those are just the broadcast entertainment competitors.
PBS also was not nearly the corporate shill in 1980 that they have become. Knowing PBS today, they'll probably air the thing during a funding-raising drive where you have to sit through 20 minutes of begging for money for every 15 minutes of show.
And the price of renewables is decreasing exponentially.
I don't think you know what "exponential" means.
Cool. This is what we need - alternatives, for when Dice decides to go full retard and implement their horrid new system. Will the /. community fracture, or will most of it land somewhere else?
No, that's a good point. Let's put at least the same burden of proof on any federal agency, probably even more on the ones advocating for war and violence. "National Security" should mean avoiding violence, not instigating it with secret motivations.
Who modded up this moron? Ideologically blinded much, mods?
It's a fascinating case. It has _nothing_ do with navigable waters, it has to do with wetlands, which are federally protected in various ways, and the Clean Waters Act, which involves protecting water supplies. If you're going to cite an example of bureaucratic abuse because of "navigable waters" that only exist for a day, cite one they're actually guilty of, please. Please don't cite cases that have no direct relevance to your claim of abuse.
Idiot. What law does this "wetlands" protection come from? Huh? Idiot. Clean Water Act (not "Waters", dumbass). All that regulation has sprung from the "navigable waters" clause in that 1970's legislation. The rest is unauthorized expansion by overzealous bureaucrats.
And I call it "straw man argument" when someone cites bureaucratic foibles with what are demonstrably nonexistent examples.
Kindly cite the cases of "navigable waters" including "any puddle that lasts more than 24 hours". The Supreme Court guidelines are fascinating, and seem to be extensible to include waterways large enough to handle a canoe, depending on whether it's connected to another waterway. But they're workable, and discharging the waste into a creek that _feeds into_ a lake or ocean could certainly make such discharges relevant to public safety.
Really? The EPA has been abusing people like this for years, but one couple finally stood up to them. I can't believe you've never heard of cases like Sackett v. EPA. Willful ignorance?
If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window.
Exactly right. There is no justification for using the precautionary principle unless you just don't have enough empirical evidence to support your agenda - and that's precisely the reason the precautionary principle was contrived in the first place. It turns the burden of proof up-side-down. It is inherently anti-science.
It could be abused
What I call abuse is when a bureaucracy takes a law that says industries cannot discharge toxic waste into the navigable waters of the US and re-interprets "navigable waters" to include any puddle that lasts more than 24 hours, and "toxic waste" to include dirt.
When an agencny like the EPA takes action the science is based upon compilations of complex studies and agreement among scientists.
No, it's not. You can find example after example of the EPA and other agencies falsifying information and distorting data to get to a political-based outcome. Another famous one was the snail darter population issue in California. The EPA did not go after the problem (agricultural runoff), but decided to treat the symptom by cutting off water to the small farmers in the San Joaquin valley so that the corporate farms on the SF Bay watershed could continue to pollute.
To ignore these abuses is to submit to tyranny.
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs.
Well you've obviously bought into the ad hominem hyperbole, so you must be one of those half-brain people!
However, if slashdot dies because of this, it won't be because of Dice. It will be because like the dinosaurs, we couldn't adapt.
Well, first, why should a user base be required to "adapt" to a broken system? If they functionality they want goes away, they'll go somewhere else. Try to learn from other mistakes or you will die. Just check out all the comments there, most are along the lines of "Well it's too little and too late, me and all my friends have gone elsewhere."
Hmmm... linky failed. Should have been this
However, if slashdot dies because of this, it won't be because of Dice. It will be because like the dinosaurs, we couldn't adapt.
Well, first, why should a user base be required to "adapt" to a broken system? If they functionality they want goes away, they'll go somewhere else. Try to learn from other mistakes or you will die. Just check out all the comments there, most are along the lines of "Well it's too little and too late, me and all my friends have gone elsewhere."