I've used this kind of thing on Dell servers for, umm, a decade or so? It means I can have headless high-density boxes (four independent systems in a 2U rackmount, e.g.) in my computing center and when a user wedges one of them I can reboot it remotely. I can look at system status, see failed components, and do all kinds of things that I couldn't otherwise do at all. "The system is wedged" is very unsatisfying as a diagnosis. Being able to run a remote console that shows that the swap has gone to 0 and the system is busy killing things tells me right away that someone is using all the memory is great. And then telling the iDrac to "reset the system"... priceless.
It may use the same physical interface, but it has its own address, and it can be disabled if someone is ultra-paranoid about it.
There is your problem right there. You think property rights are absolute
Don't tell me what I think when you so obviously have no clue whatsoever.
Thinking that a corporation can do anything because it owns its stuff.
The "poison" here is your repeated attempts at deliberately misinterpreting what I've said. You know very well I've never said anything even close to this. It's pretty clear you just want to vent your hate at corporations because they don't give you what you want for free, or they're somehow destroying your "free Internet" because they sell services to people who want to pay for them, but it's over as far as I'm concerned.
Amazon wants to be a monopoly.
So what? It they want to try, go for it. You don't have to buy anything from them unless you want to. Them being an overnight sales and delivery monopoly doesn't change the Internet as a whole. It doesn't destroy it.
Control is the enemy of freedom.
Control of one market is not the enemy of "freedom" in an entirely different market. And they cannot possibly control the delivery and sales market. It's stupid to think they could. It scares you so much that they might, so you must think they can, so... connect the dots yourself and see how much that kind of insult adds to the discussion.
You can connect the last two dots by yourself, can't you?
Right. Amazon takes over the web-based ordering of overnight delivery items. That destroys the free Internet. You're spouting nonsense and deliberately misinterpreting what I've said so you can win some nonsensical argument.
When did the world go to shit so much that the desire to not compete in a market, but control it completely isn't raising eyebrows even?
I really don't know how you can ask such a thing. It's always been that way. It hasn't always been as easy to control a market as it is today, but if you think that almost every company ever created didn't want to be a controlling player in their market from the beginning, you just aren't paying attention.
When a company says that it wants to dominate a market, that's the same as some politician saying he wants to replace democracy with monarchy.
Nonsense. Absolute malarky.
but that is exactly what they want to change.
No, that is not what they want to change. They cannot force you to buy from them, period, end of sentence.
No, believing that property rights are the only rights that matter is.
First, I didn't say that, so stuff it.
Second, your "rights" to control other people's property don't matter. They don't exist. If you think they do, then be ready to cede control of everything you own to other people at their whim.
since the whole point of civil asset forfeiture is that the people having their things taken are innocent.
No, the point of civil forfeiture is to be a punishment without having to go through a trial for someone who is probably guilty of something. While the precept that the person is "innocent until proven guilty" is commonly quoted, it's not a statement about their actual innocence but about how the system is supposed to treat them.
Your guns will be forfeit, even if the government does not attempt to prove you committed a crime.
People don't kill people, guns kill people.
It could be entertaining to see a murder defense referencing civil forfeiture to prove that an object can commit a crime without the wielder of the object committing the same crime.
First of all, if you use a gun in a crime and get caught, your gun will absolutely be confiscated, even if it is held for nothing more than evidence.
Second, the claim that the property committed the crime is not a claim that the person who owned the property did not also commit a crime.
So, in your "guns kill people" analogy, the gun will be subject to civil forfeiture AND you will be subject to criminal charges, too.
The explosion of technologies in the extremely limited ISM bands suggests at just how useful this spectrum could be, instead of sitting around mostly unused.
There are valid reasons to have licensed spectrum and communications systems that don't have to be at the mercy of a yahoo with an unlicensed source of interference.
Imagine the result had that joker with the cellphone jammer in his car been stuck in a traffic jam because of and near a multi-car accident, and his jammer was happily disrupting the emergency service providers trying to handle the situation. Is that how you want all communication systems to operate?
Imagine an "open airwaves" white-space network your neighbor installs next door when you have an OTA antenna trying to pick up the distant broadcast station. The FCC won't catch him, it will be YOUR problem to find him and get him to stop. How nice for everyone.
In all real fascist governments so far, people quite willingly brought them to power. They were the choice of their generation.
That's just more nonsense.
The people "quite willingly" brought to power people when there were free elections, prior to the government turning fascist. After the government changed, the "willingly" part was gone.
That you can get out is meaningless to the definition of the system.
That you can get out is CRITICAL to the definition of the system.
When you leave a company, they expect you to abandon your desk and give back the company car.
OF COURSE THEY DO. The desk and the car belong to the company. Why do you have such a big problem with the idea of property rights? Do you REALLY think that when you buy a computer and attach it to the Internet that you give up control of that system the same way you think that Amazon and Google must give up control of their systems or be branded fascists by you?
It just happens that where countries are concerned, that's the usual model.
And since the term applies to countries, I guess "where countries are concerned" is pretty relevant. No, Amazon cannot be fascist. They are a private company and they have every right to control their property, just as YOU have the right to say how your home computer is used, whether or not it is attached to "the free Internet".
No, I think I understand now. You are one of those people who loves to use inflammatory rhetoric and derogatory terms in a way that make them meaningless. Like those who cry "censorship" when a private webmaster removes one of your comments from his page, or a newspaper publisher chooses not to publish one of your letters, or in any of the myriads of ways that someone, who owns the system you want to use to speak, prevents you from having your full and complete, unfettered utterance. It's "censorship" in a meaningless way, just as "prejudiced" can be used in a similar meaningless way, or "discriminate", or now "fascist". It becomes a hate word that is brandied about to make flames without light; heat without warmth.
Yeah, companies are "fascist". They have every right to be. The equipment they buy and maintain belongs to the company. You don't have a say in what they do with it. That's too bad, and that's not the death of the "free Internet" that you want to claim it is. And I'm still scratching my head over the claim that Amazon is destroying the "free Internet" because they want to be the product delivery megacompany. I'm not sure how overnight delivery of a book has anything to do with the "free Internet", and I don't think you know how, either.
Amazon has a stated desire and goal: To be the delivery service for anything that can be delivered.
Of course they do. They are a COMPANY. You don't have to buy from them, and being a company doesn't make them a fascist.
You are completely trapped inside extremist capitalist thinking. So it's their stuff, but who makes it run?
Believing in private property is "extremist capitalist thinking", so I guess we have so little overlap in world view that I doubt anything I say will make any impact on you. Yes, you go on about how the world could be and all, but that doesn't change the world as it is, nor does it mean that existing companies are fascist thugs stealing your public internet.
The BEST they could hope for is to create a specific libertarian UN empowered organization in charge of the free-web, giving it massive enforcement powers but only related to the free-web.
Who decides what they enforce? Who elects the people who decide what they enforce?
That libertarian organization could possibly maintain enough control over the internet to reign in mankind's darker side,
Who decides what is "mankind's darker side" and what is "unusual"?
But make no mistake, it can only be done by ADDING a new layer of government to the internet,
Adding a layer doesn't remove the other layers. How does adding an unelected government's control reduce the existing ones'?
A rasberry pi zero I imagine can adequately serve 90% of people's blogs.
You mean the $5 device that has no network capability? Yes, that device can handle all of the blog capabilities for all the people who don't have a blog, but serves none of the people who actually have one. And it requires the blogger to have admin knowledge, which most of them don't.
I'm not crying a river for the altruistic cloud monopolists.
I'm not saying you should cry a river for anything. I pointed out that calling those 'fascist corporations' the death of the free Internet is stupid.
And I hate to correct you on this point, but running "the cloud" isn't a monopoly. There is freeware so you can run your own if you want to be altruistic about it. You just need to pay for the network connection and power.
If we want to have a free Internet, corporations are the real enemy.
Wow. You mean the corporations that people are paying to provide web servers so everyone and their brother can have their own website or blog? Those evil corporations that are stepping in to fill the demand for services that people are willing to pay for?
I get it that you think that Amazon is fascist for running aws as a company, but you don't have to use them. Or google.
Of COURSE companies who sell services have strict top-down control and no democracy. It's THEIR HARDWARE and THEIR SYSTEM. You don't get to tell them how to run their company, and I don't see why you should think you do. If you want to put your computer online and allow everyone else in the word vote on how it is run, that's fine, but I think you'd choose not to do that once you get outvoted and wind up spending money for a system that isn't doing anything close to what you want.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, UUCP was a network that was in large part run using donated services, but even that developed commercial backbones for people who didn't have the personal connections to get free links, or who didn't want to depend on the free and sometimes intermittent and usually restricted connections they could get. The presence of corporations in the "network" is hardly a new thing, and hardly the fascist jackboot on your throat that you seem to think it is.
The IP/TCP/HTTP/HTML stack was developed at CERN, EU.
HTTP and HTML are a "stack"?
Berners-Lee is the "creator" of "the web", not "the Internet". And many other people have turned it into the more functional system that it is today. How many people remember running the original CERN web server and accessing it with Mosaic? Or better, how many people never realize what it was like when Berners-Lee created it?
Until each 'node' (that would be the end-users) can automagically and wirelessly do all the routing and TX/RX with only a minimum of completely neutral minimal-infrastructure relays,
Who is going, as a user, to want to pay the money it will cost to be able to route other people's stuff at multi-gigabit speeds? That's the problem with "mesh networking". If you don't hub-and-spoke to concentrate bandwidth needs where they can be paid for, you're stuck at the speed of the "mesh". And since all the hops are short distance, you add huge delays to the system if you're going any distance at all.
but it would be so slow that gamers and movie addicts everywhere would avoid it like it were Space Herpes.
Both slow and high-latency as every packet needs to find the route to the destination.
Note that the Primaries, since they're entirely internal concerns of the Parties should NOT be paid for by the taxpayers,
The voters are taxpayers. It's a vote dealing with elections of public officials. I think primaries being part of the normal voting processes is fine. There are almost always other things on the primary ballots, such as bond levies, school board elections, and initiatives, so the cost is pretty well sunk anyway.
nor should people who are not Party members be involved in them (yes, open primaries are a very bad idea -
I could not agree more.
The "primary system" is not the cause of bad candidates. The cause is that being a politician has become a job with fewer positives than "used car salesman", and perhaps even "telemarketer". The absolute vitriol that appears during campaigns would deter anyone sane from running.
Insert here "what could possibly go wrong with a single, national government database of DNA sequences..."? "C'mon, you know it's the right thing to do..."
So far, the only downsides to cannabis legalization have been prison guard layoffs,
Well, there are concerns about edibles and the dosages that people consume without realizing it. And turning "candy" into "drugs", thus creating issues for young people. (Kinda like the old candy cigarettes that aren't sold much anymore.)
As soon as you expose pure water to air, it absorbs carbon dioxide and the PH drops.
When pure water absorbs an impurity it is no longer pure water, and of course the pH may change. As I pointed out, "I'd guess you've got dissolved CO2, but who knows?" The fact remains, pure water has a pH of 7. His claim that he has pure water with a pH of 5.5 to 6 is nonsense, and bad science. This is a forum for technically literate people, and to allow this kind of mistake to go uncorrected is silly.
one source of many if you care to look.
Did you read that "source"? It actually says that the pH of pure water is 7. It then explains why the output of their stills is not pure, but contains dissolved CO2. It's not proving their water is pure, it's marketing hype to convince people that it's ok if their "pure water" doesn't have a pH of 7. And to be completely accurate, they are referring to distilled water, not pure water.
The math is right given that the poster said "5.5 to 6" and "nearly 10,000 times."
Here's what the OP said:
Some insist that it is acidic (which is also true...it has a ph of 5.5 to 6, which is slightly less acidic than a banana. way less acidic than apple juice or orange juice. Nearly 10,000 times less acidic than soda pop).
He's claiming that his "pure water" is "nearly 10,000 times less acidic than soda pop." The most acidic soda pop according to the reference I gave has a pH of 2.38. Ten thousand time less acidic means a pH of 6.38 -- which is higher than the acidity of his "pure water." Other soda pops are less acidic, making the factor even smaller than 10,000. Now, that specific pop is a bit more than 10,000 times less acidic than pure water, but his water is, again, provably not pure.
They agreed to updates and this has never happened before.
All kinds of companies have upgraded software automatically when they are permitted to do so at their own whim. Windows tells me "new software installed" almost every week -- and yes, there's new software from Dropbox. If I had "automatic updates" enabled for my Android apps, I'd be getting new apps every day, probably. And I know that some of them would be completely different versions that don't work like the old ones, and are sometimes useless because of the changed, because that has happened before, and is why I have automatic updates disabled.
If you say "you may update my software based on what you feel is important", you have given someone else permission to update your software as they see fit. The fact that they haven't done an OS update that before way is, well, interesting, but changes nothing. They certainly HAVE updated things in a way that breaks the system and makes it less usable before, so this is not a precedent.
Bringing your SUV to the dealer for a recall and getting a sub compact back is a better analogy than rape.
If you take your car to the dealer and tell him "you may change this vehicle in any way you feel is important", then yes, you've agree to a new car, if the dealer decides it is important for you to have one. Why do you think it is important to get a written estimate every time to take your car to be serviced? Because mechanics have a long history of replacing irrelevant parts and charging you for them when they have your permission to do what they think necessary. So yeah, this is a much better analogy. You give the dealer a blanket approval, you better trust that dealer.
no, you'd be pissed.
I understand that people get pissed when they trust someone and they get surprised. It's a normal human reaction. Instead of being pissed at themselves for trusting someone they shouldn't have (why SHOULD you trust Microsoft to do only what you would like them to do when you say "you decide for me"?) people get pissed at the person they trusted improperly. They misdirect their anger. It's common. That doesn't mean the person they're angry at is responsible for the result. They assumed you meant "yes" when you said "yes.". And here, they not only assumed you meant "yes" when you said "yes", they told you it was going to happen and how to stop it. And when you threw away that notice without requesting an action (by clicking 'x' on the notice window) they assumed you intended to take no action. That's what 'x' on a notification window means, and has always meant. Always.
It is not rape when a company that you tell to provide updates to things they think need to be updated actually does that. Nowhere close. It's sick and twisted to even try to compare the two.
Because today's snowflakes have no ability to rationally assess risk and make cost benefit decisions for themselves.
I'm glad that you are able to assess the flying skills of someone you have never met before just by meeting him at the airplane, and the airworthiness of the aircraft by standing next to it, but it is not being a "snowflake" for most people to be unable to do the same things.
The fact is that the possession of a private pilot certificate is not and never has been a certification of currency or ability, and the fact that pieces are not dangling from the aircraft is not proof of airworthiness. An additional fact is that most people would not be able to assess either factor until something horrible is already happening. E.g., would a civilian know that flying under a certain shaped cloud with virga below is a stupid and dangerous thing, or would it appear to be kewl? Should the passengers already be experiencing moderate turbulence and a high rate of descent towards the ground before they find out the pilot is an idiot?
The regulations governing commercial operations do provide a basis to assume competency and some management of the process.
When I walk onto a commercial flight and see the pilot, I may be able to judge his professionalism from his attitude and attire, but I have a good reason to expect that his employer is watching over his currency and abilities, and that there is a professional support system for the maintenance of the aircraft. In fact, because there is a company with assets to protect, I have some basis to think they will act in a way to protect them -- by following the FAA regulations and avoiding successful lawsuits. I have no such expectation when I meet a private pilot and his aircraft for the first time. I've met too many bad pilots and flown in too many crappy private aircraft.
Now, if I know the private pilot then I have some justification to trust him and make an informed decision about the risks of flying with him, and that's why the private pilot regulations regarding commercial operations are written the way they are. If you cannot make an informed decision about the risks yourself, then regulation steps in to provide a groundwork.
The insistance that either is a conscious, willfull choice to have something done to them is sick. Get over yourself.
The decision to select "install recommended updates automatically" is a causal action for having updates installed automatically. Putting makeup on is not a causal action for rape.
To believe otherwise is delusional and sick. To try to equate the two is sad. You need to get over yourself.
Because that's what the "You did agree! You had had suggested updates turned on!" really amounts to.
Oh, please. You agree to automatic updates and you think that's like blaming the victim for wearing makeup? If you can't figure it out, one is a causal decision, the other is not.
Some insist that it is acidic (which is also true...it has a ph of 5.5 to 6,
Pure water has a pH of 7. You cannot have the excess of hydrogen ions necessary to have a pH below 7 in pure water without having the requisite hydroxide to balance it. It's amazing how it works that way; H2O splits into one H+ and one OH- every time. And if you have something driving the equilibrium of that reaction towards excess H+, then the water isn't pure. I'd guess you've got dissolved CO2, but who knows?
Nearly 10,000 times less acidic than soda pop
10,000 times is 4 pH units. "10,000 times more acidic than pure water" would be a pH of 3. But 10,000 times more acidic than your "pure water" at pH 5.5 would be a pH of 1.5. From here:
AGD spokesman Kenton Ross said that RC Cola was found to be the most acidic soft drink studied, with a pH of 2.387
That's almost an order of magnitude less acidic.
Not that you shouldn't filter or process your tap water, but if you're getting a pH of 5.5 from your distillation, it's not working as well as you think it is.
Like any upgrade/downgrade, you should be able to accept or reject it.
You accepted it. You chose to keep "install recommended updates automatically", and that's what is happening.
If you want to reject it, don't let Microsoft install things automatically, or to determine what is "recommended" for you.
I have a lot of Windows 7 systems that will not suffer from this nonsense because they don't install anything without my review and permission. Once I accept the update, however, I expect that it will take place -- because I've approved it.
And simply closing the notice that an update has been scheduled isn't saying it's ok to do the update, it's closing the notice. It's lunacy to think that clicking an 'x' or closing a window with alt-f4 would mean "take an action to change the system adminstrator's authorizations."
The issue is not what "share" means, it is that you said "or collect a penny more than ACTUAL costs". You cannot collect the actual costs, either. You have to pay a share.
As long as you are not "flying for money" as a private pilot knock yourself out,
Sorry, but money isn't the only profit that a private pilot can make from "sharing the costs".
but if you start hauling strangers around, even if they are only paying half your costs, it's going to start looking like a business
Yes, and that's why there are two considerations. It's not just shares, but unrelated purposes.
So now, 45 years later, there's app for that. Why is this any of the FAA's concern?
Why would a group of friends and acquaintences who are all going someplace for the same reason and know the pilot personally need an app to hook them up? Answer: they wouldn't.
How does the app make all the strangers involved in the flight know the currency of the pilot and the airworthiness of the aircraft, and make them all aware of the risks involved and the requirements the pilot must meet to be legal? Answer: it doesn't.
That's why the FAA is right to have a concern. Public sharing requires an implicit level of trust that a pilot pilot and private aircraft cannot meet because the standards aren't designed to provide that.
Slashdot Mirror
It may use the same physical interface, but it has its own address, and it can be disabled if someone is ultra-paranoid about it.
There is your problem right there. You think property rights are absolute
Don't tell me what I think when you so obviously have no clue whatsoever.
Thinking that a corporation can do anything because it owns its stuff.
The "poison" here is your repeated attempts at deliberately misinterpreting what I've said. You know very well I've never said anything even close to this. It's pretty clear you just want to vent your hate at corporations because they don't give you what you want for free, or they're somehow destroying your "free Internet" because they sell services to people who want to pay for them, but it's over as far as I'm concerned.
Amazon wants to be a monopoly.
So what? It they want to try, go for it. You don't have to buy anything from them unless you want to. Them being an overnight sales and delivery monopoly doesn't change the Internet as a whole. It doesn't destroy it.
Control is the enemy of freedom.
Control of one market is not the enemy of "freedom" in an entirely different market. And they cannot possibly control the delivery and sales market. It's stupid to think they could. It scares you so much that they might, so you must think they can, so ... connect the dots yourself and see how much that kind of insult adds to the discussion.
You can connect the last two dots by yourself, can't you?
Right. Amazon takes over the web-based ordering of overnight delivery items. That destroys the free Internet. You're spouting nonsense and deliberately misinterpreting what I've said so you can win some nonsensical argument.
Goodbye.
When did the world go to shit so much that the desire to not compete in a market, but control it completely isn't raising eyebrows even?
I really don't know how you can ask such a thing. It's always been that way. It hasn't always been as easy to control a market as it is today, but if you think that almost every company ever created didn't want to be a controlling player in their market from the beginning, you just aren't paying attention.
When a company says that it wants to dominate a market, that's the same as some politician saying he wants to replace democracy with monarchy.
Nonsense. Absolute malarky.
but that is exactly what they want to change.
No, that is not what they want to change. They cannot force you to buy from them, period, end of sentence.
No, believing that property rights are the only rights that matter is.
First, I didn't say that, so stuff it.
Second, your "rights" to control other people's property don't matter. They don't exist. If you think they do, then be ready to cede control of everything you own to other people at their whim.
since the whole point of civil asset forfeiture is that the people having their things taken are innocent.
No, the point of civil forfeiture is to be a punishment without having to go through a trial for someone who is probably guilty of something. While the precept that the person is "innocent until proven guilty" is commonly quoted, it's not a statement about their actual innocence but about how the system is supposed to treat them.
Your guns will be forfeit, even if the government does not attempt to prove you committed a crime.
I believe that's what I said.
People don't kill people, guns kill people. It could be entertaining to see a murder defense referencing civil forfeiture to prove that an object can commit a crime without the wielder of the object committing the same crime.
First of all, if you use a gun in a crime and get caught, your gun will absolutely be confiscated, even if it is held for nothing more than evidence.
Second, the claim that the property committed the crime is not a claim that the person who owned the property did not also commit a crime.
So, in your "guns kill people" analogy, the gun will be subject to civil forfeiture AND you will be subject to criminal charges, too.
The explosion of technologies in the extremely limited ISM bands suggests at just how useful this spectrum could be, instead of sitting around mostly unused.
There are valid reasons to have licensed spectrum and communications systems that don't have to be at the mercy of a yahoo with an unlicensed source of interference.
Imagine the result had that joker with the cellphone jammer in his car been stuck in a traffic jam because of and near a multi-car accident, and his jammer was happily disrupting the emergency service providers trying to handle the situation. Is that how you want all communication systems to operate?
Imagine an "open airwaves" white-space network your neighbor installs next door when you have an OTA antenna trying to pick up the distant broadcast station. The FCC won't catch him, it will be YOUR problem to find him and get him to stop. How nice for everyone.
In all real fascist governments so far, people quite willingly brought them to power. They were the choice of their generation.
That's just more nonsense.
The people "quite willingly" brought to power people when there were free elections, prior to the government turning fascist. After the government changed, the "willingly" part was gone.
That you can get out is meaningless to the definition of the system.
That you can get out is CRITICAL to the definition of the system.
When you leave a company, they expect you to abandon your desk and give back the company car.
OF COURSE THEY DO. The desk and the car belong to the company. Why do you have such a big problem with the idea of property rights? Do you REALLY think that when you buy a computer and attach it to the Internet that you give up control of that system the same way you think that Amazon and Google must give up control of their systems or be branded fascists by you?
It just happens that where countries are concerned, that's the usual model.
And since the term applies to countries, I guess "where countries are concerned" is pretty relevant. No, Amazon cannot be fascist. They are a private company and they have every right to control their property, just as YOU have the right to say how your home computer is used, whether or not it is attached to "the free Internet".
No, I think I understand now. You are one of those people who loves to use inflammatory rhetoric and derogatory terms in a way that make them meaningless. Like those who cry "censorship" when a private webmaster removes one of your comments from his page, or a newspaper publisher chooses not to publish one of your letters, or in any of the myriads of ways that someone, who owns the system you want to use to speak, prevents you from having your full and complete, unfettered utterance. It's "censorship" in a meaningless way, just as "prejudiced" can be used in a similar meaningless way, or "discriminate", or now "fascist". It becomes a hate word that is brandied about to make flames without light; heat without warmth.
Yeah, companies are "fascist". They have every right to be. The equipment they buy and maintain belongs to the company. You don't have a say in what they do with it. That's too bad, and that's not the death of the "free Internet" that you want to claim it is. And I'm still scratching my head over the claim that Amazon is destroying the "free Internet" because they want to be the product delivery megacompany. I'm not sure how overnight delivery of a book has anything to do with the "free Internet", and I don't think you know how, either.
Amazon has a stated desire and goal: To be the delivery service for anything that can be delivered.
Of course they do. They are a COMPANY. You don't have to buy from them, and being a company doesn't make them a fascist.
You are completely trapped inside extremist capitalist thinking. So it's their stuff, but who makes it run?
Believing in private property is "extremist capitalist thinking", so I guess we have so little overlap in world view that I doubt anything I say will make any impact on you. Yes, you go on about how the world could be and all, but that doesn't change the world as it is, nor does it mean that existing companies are fascist thugs stealing your public internet.
The BEST they could hope for is to create a specific libertarian UN empowered organization in charge of the free-web, giving it massive enforcement powers but only related to the free-web.
Who decides what they enforce? Who elects the people who decide what they enforce?
That libertarian organization could possibly maintain enough control over the internet to reign in mankind's darker side,
Who decides what is "mankind's darker side" and what is "unusual"?
But make no mistake, it can only be done by ADDING a new layer of government to the internet,
Adding a layer doesn't remove the other layers. How does adding an unelected government's control reduce the existing ones'?
A rasberry pi zero I imagine can adequately serve 90% of people's blogs.
You mean the $5 device that has no network capability? Yes, that device can handle all of the blog capabilities for all the people who don't have a blog, but serves none of the people who actually have one. And it requires the blogger to have admin knowledge, which most of them don't.
I'm not crying a river for the altruistic cloud monopolists.
I'm not saying you should cry a river for anything. I pointed out that calling those 'fascist corporations' the death of the free Internet is stupid.
And I hate to correct you on this point, but running "the cloud" isn't a monopoly. There is freeware so you can run your own if you want to be altruistic about it. You just need to pay for the network connection and power.
If we want to have a free Internet, corporations are the real enemy.
Wow. You mean the corporations that people are paying to provide web servers so everyone and their brother can have their own website or blog? Those evil corporations that are stepping in to fill the demand for services that people are willing to pay for?
I get it that you think that Amazon is fascist for running aws as a company, but you don't have to use them. Or google. Of COURSE companies who sell services have strict top-down control and no democracy. It's THEIR HARDWARE and THEIR SYSTEM. You don't get to tell them how to run their company, and I don't see why you should think you do. If you want to put your computer online and allow everyone else in the word vote on how it is run, that's fine, but I think you'd choose not to do that once you get outvoted and wind up spending money for a system that isn't doing anything close to what you want.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, UUCP was a network that was in large part run using donated services, but even that developed commercial backbones for people who didn't have the personal connections to get free links, or who didn't want to depend on the free and sometimes intermittent and usually restricted connections they could get. The presence of corporations in the "network" is hardly a new thing, and hardly the fascist jackboot on your throat that you seem to think it is.
The IP/TCP/HTTP/HTML stack was developed at CERN, EU.
HTTP and HTML are a "stack"?
Berners-Lee is the "creator" of "the web", not "the Internet". And many other people have turned it into the more functional system that it is today. How many people remember running the original CERN web server and accessing it with Mosaic? Or better, how many people never realize what it was like when Berners-Lee created it?
Until each 'node' (that would be the end-users) can automagically and wirelessly do all the routing and TX/RX with only a minimum of completely neutral minimal-infrastructure relays,
Who is going, as a user, to want to pay the money it will cost to be able to route other people's stuff at multi-gigabit speeds? That's the problem with "mesh networking". If you don't hub-and-spoke to concentrate bandwidth needs where they can be paid for, you're stuck at the speed of the "mesh". And since all the hops are short distance, you add huge delays to the system if you're going any distance at all.
but it would be so slow that gamers and movie addicts everywhere would avoid it like it were Space Herpes.
Both slow and high-latency as every packet needs to find the route to the destination.
Note that the Primaries, since they're entirely internal concerns of the Parties should NOT be paid for by the taxpayers,
The voters are taxpayers. It's a vote dealing with elections of public officials. I think primaries being part of the normal voting processes is fine. There are almost always other things on the primary ballots, such as bond levies, school board elections, and initiatives, so the cost is pretty well sunk anyway.
nor should people who are not Party members be involved in them (yes, open primaries are a very bad idea -
I could not agree more.
The "primary system" is not the cause of bad candidates. The cause is that being a politician has become a job with fewer positives than "used car salesman", and perhaps even "telemarketer". The absolute vitriol that appears during campaigns would deter anyone sane from running.
Insert here "what could possibly go wrong with a single, national government database of DNA sequences ..."? "C'mon, you know it's the right thing to do..."
So far, the only downsides to cannabis legalization have been prison guard layoffs,
Well, there are concerns about edibles and the dosages that people consume without realizing it. And turning "candy" into "drugs", thus creating issues for young people. (Kinda like the old candy cigarettes that aren't sold much anymore.)
As soon as you expose pure water to air, it absorbs carbon dioxide and the PH drops.
When pure water absorbs an impurity it is no longer pure water, and of course the pH may change. As I pointed out, "I'd guess you've got dissolved CO2, but who knows?" The fact remains, pure water has a pH of 7. His claim that he has pure water with a pH of 5.5 to 6 is nonsense, and bad science. This is a forum for technically literate people, and to allow this kind of mistake to go uncorrected is silly.
one source of many if you care to look.
Did you read that "source"? It actually says that the pH of pure water is 7. It then explains why the output of their stills is not pure, but contains dissolved CO2. It's not proving their water is pure, it's marketing hype to convince people that it's ok if their "pure water" doesn't have a pH of 7. And to be completely accurate, they are referring to distilled water, not pure water.
The math is right given that the poster said "5.5 to 6" and "nearly 10,000 times."
Here's what the OP said:
He's claiming that his "pure water" is "nearly 10,000 times less acidic than soda pop." The most acidic soda pop according to the reference I gave has a pH of 2.38. Ten thousand time less acidic means a pH of 6.38 -- which is higher than the acidity of his "pure water." Other soda pops are less acidic, making the factor even smaller than 10,000. Now, that specific pop is a bit more than 10,000 times less acidic than pure water, but his water is, again, provably not pure.
Don't argue chemistry with a chemist, son.
They agreed to updates and this has never happened before.
All kinds of companies have upgraded software automatically when they are permitted to do so at their own whim. Windows tells me "new software installed" almost every week -- and yes, there's new software from Dropbox. If I had "automatic updates" enabled for my Android apps, I'd be getting new apps every day, probably. And I know that some of them would be completely different versions that don't work like the old ones, and are sometimes useless because of the changed, because that has happened before, and is why I have automatic updates disabled.
If you say "you may update my software based on what you feel is important", you have given someone else permission to update your software as they see fit. The fact that they haven't done an OS update that before way is, well, interesting, but changes nothing. They certainly HAVE updated things in a way that breaks the system and makes it less usable before, so this is not a precedent.
Bringing your SUV to the dealer for a recall and getting a sub compact back is a better analogy than rape.
If you take your car to the dealer and tell him "you may change this vehicle in any way you feel is important", then yes, you've agree to a new car, if the dealer decides it is important for you to have one. Why do you think it is important to get a written estimate every time to take your car to be serviced? Because mechanics have a long history of replacing irrelevant parts and charging you for them when they have your permission to do what they think necessary. So yeah, this is a much better analogy. You give the dealer a blanket approval, you better trust that dealer.
no, you'd be pissed.
I understand that people get pissed when they trust someone and they get surprised. It's a normal human reaction. Instead of being pissed at themselves for trusting someone they shouldn't have (why SHOULD you trust Microsoft to do only what you would like them to do when you say "you decide for me"?) people get pissed at the person they trusted improperly. They misdirect their anger. It's common. That doesn't mean the person they're angry at is responsible for the result. They assumed you meant "yes" when you said "yes.". And here, they not only assumed you meant "yes" when you said "yes", they told you it was going to happen and how to stop it. And when you threw away that notice without requesting an action (by clicking 'x' on the notice window) they assumed you intended to take no action. That's what 'x' on a notification window means, and has always meant. Always.
It is not rape when a company that you tell to provide updates to things they think need to be updated actually does that. Nowhere close. It's sick and twisted to even try to compare the two.
Because today's snowflakes have no ability to rationally assess risk and make cost benefit decisions for themselves.
I'm glad that you are able to assess the flying skills of someone you have never met before just by meeting him at the airplane, and the airworthiness of the aircraft by standing next to it, but it is not being a "snowflake" for most people to be unable to do the same things.
The fact is that the possession of a private pilot certificate is not and never has been a certification of currency or ability, and the fact that pieces are not dangling from the aircraft is not proof of airworthiness. An additional fact is that most people would not be able to assess either factor until something horrible is already happening. E.g., would a civilian know that flying under a certain shaped cloud with virga below is a stupid and dangerous thing, or would it appear to be kewl? Should the passengers already be experiencing moderate turbulence and a high rate of descent towards the ground before they find out the pilot is an idiot?
The regulations governing commercial operations do provide a basis to assume competency and some management of the process. When I walk onto a commercial flight and see the pilot, I may be able to judge his professionalism from his attitude and attire, but I have a good reason to expect that his employer is watching over his currency and abilities, and that there is a professional support system for the maintenance of the aircraft. In fact, because there is a company with assets to protect, I have some basis to think they will act in a way to protect them -- by following the FAA regulations and avoiding successful lawsuits. I have no such expectation when I meet a private pilot and his aircraft for the first time. I've met too many bad pilots and flown in too many crappy private aircraft.
Now, if I know the private pilot then I have some justification to trust him and make an informed decision about the risks of flying with him, and that's why the private pilot regulations regarding commercial operations are written the way they are. If you cannot make an informed decision about the risks yourself, then regulation steps in to provide a groundwork.
The insistance that either is a conscious, willfull choice to have something done to them is sick. Get over yourself.
The decision to select "install recommended updates automatically" is a causal action for having updates installed automatically. Putting makeup on is not a causal action for rape.
To believe otherwise is delusional and sick. To try to equate the two is sad. You need to get over yourself.
Because that's what the "You did agree! You had had suggested updates turned on!" really amounts to.
Oh, please. You agree to automatic updates and you think that's like blaming the victim for wearing makeup? If you can't figure it out, one is a causal decision, the other is not.
Some insist that it is acidic (which is also true...it has a ph of 5.5 to 6,
Pure water has a pH of 7. You cannot have the excess of hydrogen ions necessary to have a pH below 7 in pure water without having the requisite hydroxide to balance it. It's amazing how it works that way; H2O splits into one H+ and one OH- every time. And if you have something driving the equilibrium of that reaction towards excess H+, then the water isn't pure. I'd guess you've got dissolved CO2, but who knows?
Nearly 10,000 times less acidic than soda pop
10,000 times is 4 pH units. "10,000 times more acidic than pure water" would be a pH of 3. But 10,000 times more acidic than your "pure water" at pH 5.5 would be a pH of 1.5. From here:
That's almost an order of magnitude less acidic.
Not that you shouldn't filter or process your tap water, but if you're getting a pH of 5.5 from your distillation, it's not working as well as you think it is.
Like any upgrade/downgrade, you should be able to accept or reject it.
You accepted it. You chose to keep "install recommended updates automatically", and that's what is happening.
If you want to reject it, don't let Microsoft install things automatically, or to determine what is "recommended" for you.
I have a lot of Windows 7 systems that will not suffer from this nonsense because they don't install anything without my review and permission. Once I accept the update, however, I expect that it will take place -- because I've approved it.
And simply closing the notice that an update has been scheduled isn't saying it's ok to do the update, it's closing the notice. It's lunacy to think that clicking an 'x' or closing a window with alt-f4 would mean "take an action to change the system adminstrator's authorizations."
As long as you are not "flying for money" as a private pilot knock yourself out,
Sorry, but money isn't the only profit that a private pilot can make from "sharing the costs".
but if you start hauling strangers around, even if they are only paying half your costs, it's going to start looking like a business
Yes, and that's why there are two considerations. It's not just shares, but unrelated purposes.
So now, 45 years later, there's app for that. Why is this any of the FAA's concern?
Why would a group of friends and acquaintences who are all going someplace for the same reason and know the pilot personally need an app to hook them up? Answer: they wouldn't.
How does the app make all the strangers involved in the flight know the currency of the pilot and the airworthiness of the aircraft, and make them all aware of the risks involved and the requirements the pilot must meet to be legal? Answer: it doesn't.
That's why the FAA is right to have a concern. Public sharing requires an implicit level of trust that a pilot pilot and private aircraft cannot meet because the standards aren't designed to provide that.