That's why I said "driving the market", not "directly competing with".
Anyone who bought a netbook.... would have wanted one of these.
No. They just aren't the same capability or intended use.
It was the fore-runner to netbooks and first to market.
A. Big deal. B. No, it wasn't really. There were other small form factor computers. They cost more and were designed to do more.
Just two examples. The HP OmniBook 300 came out in 1993 -- long before OLPC. The OmniBook 800 came out in 1996. NEITHER were in the same market as the OLPC. People who bought Omnibooks would not buy an OLPC to replace them, but they might buy one for either of the two reasons I already mentioned. Those reasons would mean IN ADDITION to the HP or other devices they already owned, not INSTEAD OF. The OLPC just was not intended to be the same market as existing small computers of the day, or of today.
I had about four of the 300s. The LCD screen tends to go out first, and the stupid decision to power them with a positive ground cost me two of the dear little devices. I still have an 800.
yeah man, who has a dozen netbooks at home? Buying ONE is plenty.
When I said "It was novel. I would have something unusual." that wasn't because it would be novel to own more than one, it was novel in that not many people owned them at all. It was unusual for anyone to own any of them. It was "hey, this is the thing Negroponte is making all the hoopla about. Look how cute it is. Isn't it just darling?"
And sweetheart, I've already told you I had four Omnibook 300s of my own and an 800 at work, plus two Aspire Ones and several other laptops of various sizes. I don't know if "a dozen" is accurate, but "many more than one" certainly is. That's counting just the ones that weren't bought for their novelty value but because they solved a computing problem and did real work.
. ..oh shit. Is someone making you code professionally on a laptop?
What a completly asinine non-sequitor. Read the fucking discussion. It's about the OLPC and the laptop market, not who "codes professionally on a laptop".
It surely can be when academic success leads to the maintenance or reinforcement of disparities.
I think it is almost a by-definition kind of statement that academic success creates disparity in success compared to drop-outs. Sometimes "disparity" is not a bad thing, like when half the group gets a high school diploma and the other half does not. It is certainly better than 90% not having any diploma at all.
Disparity is only a derogatory concept when one's success comes at the expense of another's failure. Getting a high school diploma or good grades does not force other people to get poor grades or miss out on a diploma. Schools are happy if everyone graduates; they'll print as many diplomas as it takes to give one to everyone who deserves one. It's not a zero-sum game.
I also wouldn't be surprised if those elite colleges are under-recruiting from this segment because they've been trying to push a more culturally diverse recruitment policy for a while now.
I don't believe that "upper class" has been a recruiting priority for diversity programs for many years now, so they will not be overloading the mix. I think it is more likely that "lower class" and even, perhaps, "ethnic" are high-value recruiting targets, and thus those groups are not going to be under-recruited.
I perceive him to be a kind of digital profit in the desert.
Stallman is the last person I would perceive to be a capitalist, no matter what climate he operates in. The problem is getting enough electricity to actually do any bit-mining, and then keeping your systems cool in the heat.
Yes -- but people could audit the code and find out exactly what data was being harvested, make informed decisions, and fork it to create an alternate version that didn't harvest the same data.
This is the same logical fallacy that results in statements like "FOSS is so good because if you don't like how something works or need a new feature you can add it yourself." Ninety-nine and 54 one hundredths of the users have no clue how to audit the code, and thus no way of making the "informed decision", and even fewer would know that "fork" wasn't what you eat with.
And then you have to ask, exactly what is a "malicious functionality"? Does it include using the code for malicious purposes? (It can function in a malicious way?) All FOSS can do that. There is nothing in MySQL or any other database that prohibits it from being used to collect and collate data about everyone. My apache web server will happily log every web page you look at on my site, including the 1 pixel tracking images in your email. If I want to find our what mailserver you use I can log the accesses that happen too fast to be you clicking on a link. (I bet a lot of people don't know that some anti-spam "appliances" will access links in incoming email to test them for known malware, which creates a log entry on the web server. I don't have to guess whether your email address is valid, I just put a link in spam to you and watch for your email server to rat you out. And then I wait for your html email client to load the 1 pixel tracking image to know when you read my email.)
The fact is that Facebook collects data about people because it can, and it can collect things because people tell it things. If you make a law to prevent Facebook from collecting the data the people tell it, then they'll have to stop people from telling it, and they'll flock to the next social media site that lets them share their lives and feel important because they think someone cares. There's a reason why most social media sites tell you how many followers or friends you have, and it's to make you feel loved and wanted and important. Unless Stallman thinks he can change that part of human nature, then he's going to fail before he even begins. Sounding like a nutter will only make people tune him out and he'll be less likely to get his message across.
And yet rich Americans were chomping at the bit to purchase them, and weren't allowed. Until they came up with their buy 2 get 1 plan...
I don't know that "rich Americans" were chomping at anything. I think the draws were novelty ("I have something unusual") or philanthropy ("I'm helping poor children while getting something unusual.") They weren't "chomping at the bit" because the OLPC was going to be a primo laptop that they'd use all the time.
You're literally a counter-example to your own stance.
Wrong. It is a perfect example. It was novel. I would have something unusual. It would not be something I carried with me as a work unit. It would be something I showed to others ("look at this cool thing") and then it would go on the shelf next to all the other "cool things" I have bought over the years. Would you like to see my Atari 800? How about my Vectrex? I have a Merlin, too.
Of course cheap-ass laptops didn't replace desktops. Come on dude.
Come on, dude, nobody said they did. The discussion is about the OLPC allegedly driving the small laptop/netbook/tablet market, and it just didn't do that. The OLPC market was very different from the standard laptop market. People who needed portable computing weren't going to find it in the OLPC, it just wasn't designed to be that. The OLPC was a very niche market.
Could you program a Palm Pilot, really? Buy one, power it up, and program it?
As much as for most COTS desktops you buy today.
For example, I can't program my Android phone. I can do web development (writing Javascript in Jota), but that's not the same -- it doesn't result in an Android app.
"Program" doesn't always mean you wind up with an app. Sometimes it means there are interpreters, like Python or Octave. Sometimes it means apps development like AIDE or Java N-IDE (look in the play store).
The phone doesn't have Python preinstalled, or a Java IDE.
My desktop Windows machine didn't have those, either. So you install them and then they are there. I don't bother doing it on my phone, but my android tablets have python, Octave, and usually Forth.
It purported to come with a text library AND a programming environment
That's software. It can be on any computer. That doesn't make the OLPC special. It only means that someone knew about free software. If you knew two words -- gutenberg and walnut creek (ok, three words, two things) -- you could do it too.
it's faster than my old Silicon Graphics machine from 1995, and that was plenty fast.
Isn't it amazing what a 180 MHz RISC processor with dedicated video hardware could do? I still have 02s in operation. The MIPS C compiler was da bom at optimized code.
You think your random 64-characters password is safe? Wait until quantum computers become commonplace.
My password will be safer then. All the bad guys will be trying to break into the fancy new quantum computers instead of my 386 desktop with a 64-character password.
Computer system manufacturers had huge huge huge incentive to sink it. If it was a decent laptop, then it would be a huge disruption to their trillion-dollar market.
It wasn't designed or intended to be a "decent laptop". It was designed to be OLPC. OLPC was a very different market and very different customers.
The only reason I ordered one was because it was novel. I would never expect to use it for serious work, and companies would not buy these things for their employees. "Sorry boss, can't finish that report right now, I have to crank-charge my OLPC...". Yes, I fell prey to the blue sky promises of cool technology cheap, and I learned to be skeptical from then on.
Palm Pilots cost more then $100 and they wouldn't be considered worthy of being called a computer due to its limitation.
Huh? I had a lot of Palm Pilots and they were quite capable machines, especially for the price. It was a computer. You could program it. One of them had wireless built in. I had two different camera attachments, so it could even take pictures.
But back in 2005 you needed some CPU Power to render web pages,
Have you looked at what it takes to render modern pages? It takes a lot more CPU today that it did in 2005. The CPUs are faster so it doesn't look like it takes more power, but it sure does.
The failure of OLPC was their BOGO that never could deliver. Vaporware. The delivery of "my" OLPC kept getting pushed back AFTER they had pulled the money from my credit card, but they were crowing about how well production was going. It got to the point where the time limit for contesting the charge was about to run out and I cancelled. That's three months for my credit card, so yeah, they promised delivery over and over for almost three months and could never quite pull it off. But they kept telling me all about all the other people who were getting theirs as if that should make me happy.
Zero-rating isn't an add-on I can choose or refuse. It's not 'buy this meal and get drinks free'.
Which is it -- something you didn't choose or something that comes as part of the package? "Buy a meal and get the water free" is a package, just like zero-rating with some ISP services is. You don't have to use the zero-rating services, so yes, you do get a choice, just like you can say "I don't want the free drink."
No one's complaining about having to pay for what they ask for, or for what they want.
The person I replied to did exactly that regarding BBC sports feeds, and it was because other people get something included in their service. He gets it too but doesn't want it. He wants something else that he has to pay for, and therefore other people should have to pay for Sky. (And by "pay for it", I mean "pay for the data", of course.)
Also, it's called an "analogy" because it isn't an "identity", and there will be differences. No, an ISP is not a restaurant, but both offer services that patrons are expected to pay for and services that come as part of other things. Zero-rating is one of the latter. It happens in all kinds of things. I don't want Comcast email with my Comcast internet, but it's there if I do and I'm not forced to use it. It costs me money, and I have to pay someone else for the service I do use. I would be selfish to demand that Comcast stop offering email just because I don't want it and I have to pay for it elsewhere. When I get an oil change, I also get a coupon for a free car wash. I don't want it, I don't use it, it costs me money, and I have to pay someone else if I want to get it from them. Same thing.
To the AC who claims trolling: it's an opinion I hold that differs from yours. Learn the difference.
Also, learn the difference between shooting down one argument in favor of something and arguing that it's a good thing with no downsides. When you make selfish arguments like this one about something that most people find useful and valuable, they tune you out. You're arguing against their better interests. You need to have an argument that shows it isn't in their interest, and "you need to pay for yours because I have to pay for something different" isn't it.
So if I want to watch Sky Sports on-demand then hooray, that's zero-rated! But if I want to watch the BBC sports coverage, that will cost me.
This is about the most selfish argument against zero-rating that is possibles. "If I can't get what I want zero-rated, then NOBODY should be able to get ANYTHING zero-rated."
Zero-rating doesn't mean "free", it means "included in the price you're already paying". If you want something that isn't included in the price you're already paying, then you should expect to pay for it.
Do you get unhappy when you go to a nice restaurant and the table next to yours gets free glasses of water with their meal but you have to pay for the coffee and cokes you drink? How about people who order a drink that includes free refills and yours does not? Free refills for all or free refills for none?
Netflix isnt something customers want as a service from your company. Netflix is an alternative to overpriced cable TV
Netflix is putting themselves in this position by creating content and not just streaming other people's stuff. Yes, some people want Netflix original content, and that means some customers of cable will want to also have Netflix. They also want the standard movie streams from Netflix that Comcast does not have.
Netflix and Kodi (https://kodi.tv/) are the killing blow for an industry that has strong-armed the american consumer for more than forty years.
Well, unfortunately, cable still has things that Netflix does not, like local content and sports, so people will still buy cable.
BUT we still had access to all the shopping and junk for sale channels, as well as they pay per view stations.
Of course. The shopping channels pay the distributor to be carried and the distributor gets a cut. The pay per view is a money-maker, too. You aren't actually paying Dish for either set of channels, so not paying your bill will have no effect on your service.
However, when I dropped Dish they immediately bricked the receiver I owned, so I guess they were hoping you would pay up and come back, and they knew I was gone for good.
Sign ups even for free services are a necessary evil to avoid excessive leaching (by shady "stream aggregator" websites that leech the streams of other people and wrap ads around). Deal with it.
You really have no clue what we're talking about, do you? It's not "sign ups" for "free services", it's an On Demand system that is already "signed up" and "paid for" (not free) that shows some programs as "free" when they actually require paying for YET ANOTHER service.
The paper claims that the breakdown products are "environmentally benign". While terephthalic acid doesn't seem to be a problem, ethylene glycol is reasonably toxic. It is also a danger to pets and children because of its sweet taste, and it is commonly found in anti-freeze. Dogs and children will lap the stuff up if they encounter a spill and can die from that.
Ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are known to exert high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose propylene glycol.[8]:2-23 This process can adversely affect other aquatic life by consuming oxygen needed for their survival.
Airports that use this stuff are required to have capture processes to keep this from the ground water. It doesn't sound so environmentally benign to me. The only reasons these two precursors are less dangerous is because they aren't lumps of (previously thought) poorly-bio-degradable plastic.
I was also going to point to Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters, but someone beat me to it.
They're not offering the program for sale, so it's technically not advertising. But yes, I find that to very annoying for all of the different things that the OnDemand menu shows as "free" and then winds up to be "Free with service X". It's one of the reasons I don't bother with OnDemand anymore.
Your examples are the exact opposite of what was being responded to. Denying that an email was sent is not the same as trying to forge an email and then claiming it cannot be denied because it was "expired". It's not "you can't prove I was stalking you by email because you have no email", it's "I can prove you were stalking me by email because I have a screenshot of a google expired email and I don't have to prove you sent it because it was sent using expiration." That last clause is the ridiculous claim.
Besides which all this doesn't federal law mandate that ISPs have to retain copies of all email sent and received for, what 18 months or something like that?
I have no idea what the law is, but many organizations (companies, e.g.) require retention of all official communications in case there are lawsuits about stuff.
One professor here moved from 'professor' to 'associate dean' and because of that had to move her email from the local system over to the university email system that retains everything.
This Gmail feature will be a lot like the Exchange "recall email" feature. On a semi-regular basis I get email from some Uni official who then five minutes later changes his mind and tries to recall the message. I see both the original and the recall because I'm not on Exchange. It's funny.
you can just produce a "screenshot" of whatever shit you want, and then claim it was sent as an "expiring email." No need to prove it was actually sent anymore.
I have no idea where you got this idea from. Are the laws different on your planet than here on planet Earth? If you want to claim an email is valid, you do still have to prove it was sent, even if it was sent using an expire flag. You can't just make stuff up and claim that you don't have to prove it is real because you say it came from Gmail's expiring email system.
But otherwise they're watching movies or cooking or eating or using the toilet. Sometimes they'll even go to sleep if they're alone.
The first time their autopilot is off course by 30 degrees and they wind up further from shore than their remaining fuel supply will take them, they'll stop doing that.
The first time their autopilot is 5 degrees off course and they run into a rocky cliff, they won't get a second chance.
Yes, people do stupid things. Not paying attention to what an autopilot is doing when you know it can fail and you are being told to pay attention BY THE AUTOPILOT is a stupid thing.
I don't think we need more handholding along the lines of the safety warnings not to use a toaster while in the bathtub or not standing on the very top of a step ladder.
It is a fundamental flaw to have a system where you can sort of half watch the road most of the time and probably not have much of an accident unless you're unlucky.
Except that's the system we have today. Human drivers can already take their eyes off the road for significant* periods of time and probably not have much of an accident. When I drive on the interstate I can see the traffic ahead of me, that the road is straight, and know I can look away to do something else for a short period. I don't need 100% eyes-on just in case a car that isn't there suddenly stops in front of me, or the road that was straight when I last looked at it suddenly leaps out of its bed and makes a 90 degree turn.
With normal driving, you basically have to concentrate 100% of the time.
When you've done it a bit longer, you'll learn when 100% is not necessary. While you still have your learner's permit you probably should concentrate.
* significant doesn't mean 50%, or even 20%. But it is significantly less than 0% you are claiming is necessary.
"AutoPilot", OTOH, appears to allow that - until it doesn't.
No other "autopilot" in any other transportation system allows that. Every other autopilot requires operator attention, even if it is just supervision. That is specifically because of the "until it doesn't" part of the system. Everything can fail. And it did for Mr. Huang.
Slashdot Mirror
This was before netbooks.
That's why I said "driving the market", not "directly competing with".
Anyone who bought a netbook.... would have wanted one of these.
No. They just aren't the same capability or intended use.
It was the fore-runner to netbooks and first to market.
A. Big deal. B. No, it wasn't really. There were other small form factor computers. They cost more and were designed to do more.
Just two examples. The HP OmniBook 300 came out in 1993 -- long before OLPC. The OmniBook 800 came out in 1996. NEITHER were in the same market as the OLPC. People who bought Omnibooks would not buy an OLPC to replace them, but they might buy one for either of the two reasons I already mentioned. Those reasons would mean IN ADDITION to the HP or other devices they already owned, not INSTEAD OF. The OLPC just was not intended to be the same market as existing small computers of the day, or of today.
I had about four of the 300s. The LCD screen tends to go out first, and the stupid decision to power them with a positive ground cost me two of the dear little devices. I still have an 800.
yeah man, who has a dozen netbooks at home? Buying ONE is plenty.
When I said "It was novel. I would have something unusual." that wasn't because it would be novel to own more than one, it was novel in that not many people owned them at all. It was unusual for anyone to own any of them. It was "hey, this is the thing Negroponte is making all the hoopla about. Look how cute it is. Isn't it just darling?"
And sweetheart, I've already told you I had four Omnibook 300s of my own and an 800 at work, plus two Aspire Ones and several other laptops of various sizes. I don't know if "a dozen" is accurate, but "many more than one" certainly is. That's counting just the ones that weren't bought for their novelty value but because they solved a computing problem and did real work.
. . .oh shit. Is someone making you code professionally on a laptop?
What a completly asinine non-sequitor. Read the fucking discussion. It's about the OLPC and the laptop market, not who "codes professionally on a laptop".
It surely can be when academic success leads to the maintenance or reinforcement of disparities.
I think it is almost a by-definition kind of statement that academic success creates disparity in success compared to drop-outs. Sometimes "disparity" is not a bad thing, like when half the group gets a high school diploma and the other half does not. It is certainly better than 90% not having any diploma at all.
Disparity is only a derogatory concept when one's success comes at the expense of another's failure. Getting a high school diploma or good grades does not force other people to get poor grades or miss out on a diploma. Schools are happy if everyone graduates; they'll print as many diplomas as it takes to give one to everyone who deserves one. It's not a zero-sum game.
I also wouldn't be surprised if those elite colleges are under-recruiting from this segment because they've been trying to push a more culturally diverse recruitment policy for a while now.
I don't believe that "upper class" has been a recruiting priority for diversity programs for many years now, so they will not be overloading the mix. I think it is more likely that "lower class" and even, perhaps, "ethnic" are high-value recruiting targets, and thus those groups are not going to be under-recruited.
I perceive him to be a kind of digital profit in the desert.
Stallman is the last person I would perceive to be a capitalist, no matter what climate he operates in. The problem is getting enough electricity to actually do any bit-mining, and then keeping your systems cool in the heat.
Yes -- but people could audit the code and find out exactly what data was being harvested, make informed decisions, and fork it to create an alternate version that didn't harvest the same data.
This is the same logical fallacy that results in statements like "FOSS is so good because if you don't like how something works or need a new feature you can add it yourself." Ninety-nine and 54 one hundredths of the users have no clue how to audit the code, and thus no way of making the "informed decision", and even fewer would know that "fork" wasn't what you eat with.
And then you have to ask, exactly what is a "malicious functionality"? Does it include using the code for malicious purposes? (It can function in a malicious way?) All FOSS can do that. There is nothing in MySQL or any other database that prohibits it from being used to collect and collate data about everyone. My apache web server will happily log every web page you look at on my site, including the 1 pixel tracking images in your email. If I want to find our what mailserver you use I can log the accesses that happen too fast to be you clicking on a link. (I bet a lot of people don't know that some anti-spam "appliances" will access links in incoming email to test them for known malware, which creates a log entry on the web server. I don't have to guess whether your email address is valid, I just put a link in spam to you and watch for your email server to rat you out. And then I wait for your html email client to load the 1 pixel tracking image to know when you read my email.)
The fact is that Facebook collects data about people because it can, and it can collect things because people tell it things. If you make a law to prevent Facebook from collecting the data the people tell it, then they'll have to stop people from telling it, and they'll flock to the next social media site that lets them share their lives and feel important because they think someone cares. There's a reason why most social media sites tell you how many followers or friends you have, and it's to make you feel loved and wanted and important. Unless Stallman thinks he can change that part of human nature, then he's going to fail before he even begins. Sounding like a nutter will only make people tune him out and he'll be less likely to get his message across.
And yet rich Americans were chomping at the bit to purchase them, and weren't allowed. Until they came up with their buy 2 get 1 plan...
I don't know that "rich Americans" were chomping at anything. I think the draws were novelty ("I have something unusual") or philanthropy ("I'm helping poor children while getting something unusual.") They weren't "chomping at the bit" because the OLPC was going to be a primo laptop that they'd use all the time.
You're literally a counter-example to your own stance.
Wrong. It is a perfect example. It was novel. I would have something unusual. It would not be something I carried with me as a work unit. It would be something I showed to others ("look at this cool thing") and then it would go on the shelf next to all the other "cool things" I have bought over the years. Would you like to see my Atari 800? How about my Vectrex? I have a Merlin, too.
Of course cheap-ass laptops didn't replace desktops. Come on dude.
Come on, dude, nobody said they did. The discussion is about the OLPC allegedly driving the small laptop/netbook/tablet market, and it just didn't do that. The OLPC market was very different from the standard laptop market. People who needed portable computing weren't going to find it in the OLPC, it just wasn't designed to be that. The OLPC was a very niche market.
Could you program a Palm Pilot, really? Buy one, power it up, and program it?
As much as for most COTS desktops you buy today.
For example, I can't program my Android phone. I can do web development (writing Javascript in Jota), but that's not the same -- it doesn't result in an Android app.
"Program" doesn't always mean you wind up with an app. Sometimes it means there are interpreters, like Python or Octave. Sometimes it means apps development like AIDE or Java N-IDE (look in the play store).
The phone doesn't have Python preinstalled, or a Java IDE.
My desktop Windows machine didn't have those, either. So you install them and then they are there. I don't bother doing it on my phone, but my android tablets have python, Octave, and usually Forth.
It purported to come with a text library AND a programming environment
That's software. It can be on any computer. That doesn't make the OLPC special. It only means that someone knew about free software. If you knew two words -- gutenberg and walnut creek (ok, three words, two things) -- you could do it too.
it's faster than my old Silicon Graphics machine from 1995, and that was plenty fast.
Isn't it amazing what a 180 MHz RISC processor with dedicated video hardware could do? I still have 02s in operation. The MIPS C compiler was da bom at optimized code.
In my case, I owned the IRS but my state owned me.
If your state owns you, shouldn't they be the one paying the federal tax?
You think your random 64-characters password is safe? Wait until quantum computers become commonplace.
My password will be safer then. All the bad guys will be trying to break into the fancy new quantum computers instead of my 386 desktop with a 64-character password.
Computer system manufacturers had huge huge huge incentive to sink it. If it was a decent laptop, then it would be a huge disruption to their trillion-dollar market.
It wasn't designed or intended to be a "decent laptop". It was designed to be OLPC. OLPC was a very different market and very different customers.
The only reason I ordered one was because it was novel. I would never expect to use it for serious work, and companies would not buy these things for their employees. "Sorry boss, can't finish that report right now, I have to crank-charge my OLPC...". Yes, I fell prey to the blue sky promises of cool technology cheap, and I learned to be skeptical from then on.
Palm Pilots cost more then $100 and they wouldn't be considered worthy of being called a computer due to its limitation.
Huh? I had a lot of Palm Pilots and they were quite capable machines, especially for the price. It was a computer. You could program it. One of them had wireless built in. I had two different camera attachments, so it could even take pictures.
But back in 2005 you needed some CPU Power to render web pages,
Have you looked at what it takes to render modern pages? It takes a lot more CPU today that it did in 2005. The CPUs are faster so it doesn't look like it takes more power, but it sure does.
The failure of OLPC was their BOGO that never could deliver. Vaporware. The delivery of "my" OLPC kept getting pushed back AFTER they had pulled the money from my credit card, but they were crowing about how well production was going. It got to the point where the time limit for contesting the charge was about to run out and I cancelled. That's three months for my credit card, so yeah, they promised delivery over and over for almost three months and could never quite pull it off. But they kept telling me all about all the other people who were getting theirs as if that should make me happy.
Zero-rating isn't an add-on I can choose or refuse. It's not 'buy this meal and get drinks free'.
Which is it -- something you didn't choose or something that comes as part of the package? "Buy a meal and get the water free" is a package, just like zero-rating with some ISP services is. You don't have to use the zero-rating services, so yes, you do get a choice, just like you can say "I don't want the free drink."
No one's complaining about having to pay for what they ask for, or for what they want.
The person I replied to did exactly that regarding BBC sports feeds, and it was because other people get something included in their service. He gets it too but doesn't want it. He wants something else that he has to pay for, and therefore other people should have to pay for Sky. (And by "pay for it", I mean "pay for the data", of course.)
Also, it's called an "analogy" because it isn't an "identity", and there will be differences. No, an ISP is not a restaurant, but both offer services that patrons are expected to pay for and services that come as part of other things. Zero-rating is one of the latter. It happens in all kinds of things. I don't want Comcast email with my Comcast internet, but it's there if I do and I'm not forced to use it. It costs me money, and I have to pay someone else for the service I do use. I would be selfish to demand that Comcast stop offering email just because I don't want it and I have to pay for it elsewhere. When I get an oil change, I also get a coupon for a free car wash. I don't want it, I don't use it, it costs me money, and I have to pay someone else if I want to get it from them. Same thing.
To the AC who claims trolling: it's an opinion I hold that differs from yours. Learn the difference.
Also, learn the difference between shooting down one argument in favor of something and arguing that it's a good thing with no downsides. When you make selfish arguments like this one about something that most people find useful and valuable, they tune you out. You're arguing against their better interests. You need to have an argument that shows it isn't in their interest, and "you need to pay for yours because I have to pay for something different" isn't it.
So if I want to watch Sky Sports on-demand then hooray, that's zero-rated! But if I want to watch the BBC sports coverage, that will cost me.
This is about the most selfish argument against zero-rating that is possibles. "If I can't get what I want zero-rated, then NOBODY should be able to get ANYTHING zero-rated."
Zero-rating doesn't mean "free", it means "included in the price you're already paying". If you want something that isn't included in the price you're already paying, then you should expect to pay for it.
Do you get unhappy when you go to a nice restaurant and the table next to yours gets free glasses of water with their meal but you have to pay for the coffee and cokes you drink? How about people who order a drink that includes free refills and yours does not? Free refills for all or free refills for none?
Netflix isnt something customers want as a service from your company. Netflix is an alternative to overpriced cable TV
Netflix is putting themselves in this position by creating content and not just streaming other people's stuff. Yes, some people want Netflix original content, and that means some customers of cable will want to also have Netflix. They also want the standard movie streams from Netflix that Comcast does not have.
Netflix and Kodi (https://kodi.tv/) are the killing blow for an industry that has strong-armed the american consumer for more than forty years.
Well, unfortunately, cable still has things that Netflix does not, like local content and sports, so people will still buy cable.
BUT we still had access to all the shopping and junk for sale channels, as well as they pay per view stations.
Of course. The shopping channels pay the distributor to be carried and the distributor gets a cut. The pay per view is a money-maker, too. You aren't actually paying Dish for either set of channels, so not paying your bill will have no effect on your service.
However, when I dropped Dish they immediately bricked the receiver I owned, so I guess they were hoping you would pay up and come back, and they knew I was gone for good.
Sign ups even for free services are a necessary evil to avoid excessive leaching (by shady "stream aggregator" websites that leech the streams of other people and wrap ads around). Deal with it.
You really have no clue what we're talking about, do you? It's not "sign ups" for "free services", it's an On Demand system that is already "signed up" and "paid for" (not free) that shows some programs as "free" when they actually require paying for YET ANOTHER service.
Deal with it yourself.
From the wiki article on "deicing fluid":
Airports that use this stuff are required to have capture processes to keep this from the ground water. It doesn't sound so environmentally benign to me. The only reasons these two precursors are less dangerous is because they aren't lumps of (previously thought) poorly-bio-degradable plastic.
I was also going to point to Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters, but someone beat me to it.
They're not offering the program for sale, so it's technically not advertising. But yes, I find that to very annoying for all of the different things that the OnDemand menu shows as "free" and then winds up to be "Free with service X". It's one of the reasons I don't bother with OnDemand anymore.
Your examples are the exact opposite of what was being responded to. Denying that an email was sent is not the same as trying to forge an email and then claiming it cannot be denied because it was "expired". It's not "you can't prove I was stalking you by email because you have no email", it's "I can prove you were stalking me by email because I have a screenshot of a google expired email and I don't have to prove you sent it because it was sent using expiration." That last clause is the ridiculous claim.
Besides which all this doesn't federal law mandate that ISPs have to retain copies of all email sent and received for, what 18 months or something like that?
I have no idea what the law is, but many organizations (companies, e.g.) require retention of all official communications in case there are lawsuits about stuff.
One professor here moved from 'professor' to 'associate dean' and because of that had to move her email from the local system over to the university email system that retains everything.
This Gmail feature will be a lot like the Exchange "recall email" feature. On a semi-regular basis I get email from some Uni official who then five minutes later changes his mind and tries to recall the message. I see both the original and the recall because I'm not on Exchange. It's funny.
you can just produce a "screenshot" of whatever shit you want, and then claim it was sent as an "expiring email." No need to prove it was actually sent anymore.
I have no idea where you got this idea from. Are the laws different on your planet than here on planet Earth? If you want to claim an email is valid, you do still have to prove it was sent, even if it was sent using an expire flag. You can't just make stuff up and claim that you don't have to prove it is real because you say it came from Gmail's expiring email system.
But otherwise they're watching movies or cooking or eating or using the toilet. Sometimes they'll even go to sleep if they're alone.
The first time their autopilot is off course by 30 degrees and they wind up further from shore than their remaining fuel supply will take them, they'll stop doing that.
The first time their autopilot is 5 degrees off course and they run into a rocky cliff, they won't get a second chance.
Yes, people do stupid things. Not paying attention to what an autopilot is doing when you know it can fail and you are being told to pay attention BY THE AUTOPILOT is a stupid thing.
I don't think we need more handholding along the lines of the safety warnings not to use a toaster while in the bathtub or not standing on the very top of a step ladder.
You CANNOT provide a product for which the PRIMARY purpose is to prevent the user from needing to pay attention,
Well then, Tesla is off the hook because that is not the primary purpose of their Autopilot.
It is a fundamental flaw to have a system where you can sort of half watch the road most of the time and probably not have much of an accident unless you're unlucky.
Except that's the system we have today. Human drivers can already take their eyes off the road for significant* periods of time and probably not have much of an accident. When I drive on the interstate I can see the traffic ahead of me, that the road is straight, and know I can look away to do something else for a short period. I don't need 100% eyes-on just in case a car that isn't there suddenly stops in front of me, or the road that was straight when I last looked at it suddenly leaps out of its bed and makes a 90 degree turn.
With normal driving, you basically have to concentrate 100% of the time.
When you've done it a bit longer, you'll learn when 100% is not necessary. While you still have your learner's permit you probably should concentrate.
* significant doesn't mean 50%, or even 20%. But it is significantly less than 0% you are claiming is necessary.
"AutoPilot", OTOH, appears to allow that - until it doesn't.
No other "autopilot" in any other transportation system allows that. Every other autopilot requires operator attention, even if it is just supervision. That is specifically because of the "until it doesn't" part of the system. Everything can fail. And it did for Mr. Huang.