Comcast said they would hold off any big new plans after they killed neutrality. It is a wise move because the suckers will feel safe and think all the fear mongering was a bunch of hype. Then slowly little by little the ISPs turn up the heat and you'll ignore the complains by the haters as we all slowly come to a boil.
You're old enough to have at least heard about the recycling trucks that use to pick up separated items? Easier for a robot to pick up boxes of different types and split them than try to separate a mix of items. BESIDES you cross contaminate and it RUINS all the paper. Most my local paper is NOT recycled because it's ruined. Mine probably is because it's in nice bundles for the min-wage workers to sort out.
We hire a lot of humans to sort the stuff over here. it started out cheaper only because China didn't care. Then China started caring years ago and now they have to pay more to hire sorters. If we sorted and had separate bins they'd not need those people or have a much harder AI sorting problem.
REGULATION. You can't dump your car batteries in the trash; if they catch you it's a fine. AI cams etc will make enforcement far better than now. They can add more to the list of things not allowed.
A LITTLE labor by us saves $$ down the road. plus we can't use the recycled stuff because it's in such bad shape. Do you realize what kind of a MESS it is to sort the trash bins full of mixed items? I've actually seen my local plant and it's not so easy for humans to do quickly and forget about AI. They pick out only the most simple items and let the rest go. If you simply put them into separated bins they'd have it easy.
You don't realize that in the 90s most people had to sort their recycling and have it be a little bit clean. I certainly never stopped despite my local suckers falling for the Chinese offer to take it unsorted cheaper just so they could pay gas on the return boats and then dump it over there. Many people STILL sort the stuff and are required to.
BTW, your argument is pathetic I could use your logic and say we shouldn't have trash cans because some people are too lazy to use them. Why have laws? some people do not follow them!
It's NOT lazy people that would hurt recycling; it began with more effort and a cultural resistance. The problem is LAZY people's trash contaminating my clean recycling. If you think it takes too much effort you are LAZY, even low IQ children can handle doing it.
As far as people who do not recycle, they should be fined. that simple. if you want to use your right to bury trash around your house -- go ahead. but if you want to use a trash service to haul it somewhere else you must follow rules and pay fines etc. BTW, you can't dump anything into your normal trash service; even they have rules and laws. It wouldn't take much to enforce, easily paying for itself. Would lazy people like it? no. they bitch about not dumping toxic shit in their trash already.
The USA convicted a computer monopoly nearly 20 years ago; but since then has been unable to PUNISH the guilty. MS was convicted and never punished; if you call what they got punishment, you're a fool. (They paid a relatively tiny amount to bribe their way out from punishment.)
Even pedophiles go free if you are rich enough (and not black... that takes even more money.)
1) mixed recycling = contamination. We can't export our paper because it's hardly worth bothering over burning it, it's too DIRTY.
2) Sorting adds costs. Pre-sorting reduces labor, error rates, and significantly reduces contamination and mixing.
3) Quality of recycling. even the best... aluminum has huge problems getting quality high enough that major users pay MORE for new aluminum instead!
4) Supported materials. Too many types of plastic; too hard to sort and MOST are not recycled simply because you can't easily identify it. Plastic bags are NOT WORTH the energy waste and are best properly burned for fuel. Many recyclable materials are NOT supported in your area. Mixing plastics doesn't work... Oh, the number of times you can perfectly recycle a plastic bottle is quite limited.
Recycling is supposed to be the responsible thing to do; it's not solely for profits. If it comes down to a form of tax or regulation, so be it:
BAN all plastic containers except 1 type. No need for a symbol, it's a bottle so you know. For exceptions, it has to be so extremely simple an AI can sort it out. Make people sort again. Use computer tracking to CHARGE people who mess it up. Ban labels that can not be recycled/removed from containers; make some things GLASS... require store refill options. WHY do I need my local store to plastic wrap food I'm going to put into a container at home anyway? May as well use my container or take a deposit on theirs. We used to have deposits and also live without plastic... not saying ban all plastic... but it lasts way too long... so it's a major contributor.
Even rock salt has microplastic in it!! sea salt is the worst BTW.
Facebook's GOAL is to replace the web for most everything. It's an actual stated goal!
Why are not more people seeing Facebook as the new AOL Online? We even have advertising saying "find us with AOL keyword ------" that is, find us on Facebook; sometimes leaving out the URL just like back then. The major difference being AOL didn't have personal blog pages; which they surely would have if they hadn't decided to be an ISP instead of trying to recreate the www.
You can't control the internet and the web is not so easy either. but when you create a centralized service you have 1 point of weakness and control. You couldn't control this stuff on the web or track as well. it takes big centralized gatekeepers to do that.
To protect freedom you need to make AOL Online type places unable to work by imposing all the crazy restrictions people want to be P.C. all at once. It's impossible and that is exactly the point. They don't need a business; we had all the elements before and will have later but they are small separated bits with no central authority. Do not confuse new AOL with the rest web. It's running on the internet but it's as out of touch and as bad as AOL was (worse.)
The next gen applications of RSS can replace facebooks. we just need a peer discovery service protocol. blog services exist. they have similar UI to them all now. one just needs the friend feed crap and a way to migrate that info. It doesn't have to be complex but naturally it'll be more steps than facebook.... (maybe people who can't handle that are so vapid and/or stupid they shouldn't be publishing.)
Absolutism is the biggest of them all. You want absolute perfection... in any system people dream up. The downfall to everything is trying to get to that 100%. Idiocracy is satire going the opposite way to highlight that we don't have enough. It is not arguing we need be extreme but only that we are not doing enough.
Any merit system becomes a huge mess of problems on how do you RATE merit. Any "fair" system will be defined in a commonly understandable reproducible set of rules. Those rules will be static and never able to counter the dynamic power of the human brain to hack that system. It is implemented at some level by humans, which will punch holes in even a perfect set of rules (for sake of argument lets say that is possible.)
If you've done business software, you'll have run into them wanting you to implement their policies (system) in software in ways to try to address the flaws humans have in perfectly implementing whatever BS they designed. If you do, then you discover how people needing to get real work done end up always working around the thing... because the system likely is not complex enough to properly model the real-world it was made for. Being a programmer, it's even easier to spot the poor policy programming problems than the managers who write it.
Merit can't be everything. it promotes people to hack and crack the merit system from all angles; undermining it's whole purpose. You have to accept it doesn't every work perfectly and NOT take it too seriously. it'll reduce motivation to cheat and undermine it while letting lucky ones slip bye. it's a search for a realistic equilibrium in an analog reality. you can't make the world digital.
I remember that! It was a totally cool idea! loved it. they should have used it in one of the many movies using computers... at least then it would have been something that really existed.
reply: huh?? TFA states all the conditions they do not charge for. A lot of apps qualify under those conditions. It does not surprise me Amazon would find ways to game the system to avoid any costs; those are the rules and they exploit everything remotely possible... it's Amazon. Perhaps you think the rules should be based upon the size of the app's maker? I'm not defending their rules and I've not done much thought about what would work best... and what would work best would never please everybody... even if you did please everybody some greedy pricks would be bitching because they didn't get more. It's human nature. Apple's setup seems to target only certain areas which can likely sustain the costs... they could be small, but they can work within the model so they are big enough for afford it. After all, overhead costs are pushed to the customer in the pricing. FREE is obviously subsidized by others. It is difficult to police FREE and easier to just allow exploitation of rules against the intent of the rules... it always happens... to the point we have a whole profession in doing that! (lawyers.)
Apple doesn't seem horribly out of line and certainly not within existing legal frameworks. Spottily seems to me to be making more of a PR stunt of this than expecting any progress legally. They need to buy some politicians instead.
Forcing Snowden to be stuck in Russia was quite beneficial to the USA in that they have a lot of people thinking there is a connection there and they continue to smear Snowden as a traitor because he was forced into Russia by the USA. The irony of that smear today is somehow lost as I've still heard it being used against him.
The alternative was to allow Snowden to escape to a safe but neutral country. Sure they could more easily go kill him but everybody would know why and it would make him a greater hero. In Russia, they can continue to attack his character for all of time before he is completely forgotten and only their distortions are remembered.
1) Apple has lawyers and accountants; likely they are doing the minimum required. That said, talented people in those areas likely have creative accounting techniques for minimizing their self-payment.
2) Apple's counterpoint is a clear win; Spotify is just being another greedy corp testing the boundaries. That said, Apple didn't address how they pay themselves so I would guess something isn't quite right... the lawyers might be preparing to remedy that if that could be disclosed in detail.
3) They said "Apple connects Spotify to our users" which indicates they feel 100% safe in a self-created gatekeeper monopoly market in openly saying they do exactly what people don't like and going on to justify it. They are safe on this front because it is essentially the same as any retail store... just because it's on the internet people confuse freedom with what retail actually is.
4) 30% is high if you don't understand retail. It is well within, if not LOW when you think of actual retail store markups. Apple probably puts in more effort than Amazon or Google in curation of their store and app review to legitimately justify that cost; like a actual retail store has to stock items etc. If they spend the same labor $ as a real store doing diligent maintenance and curation of their store then the 30% is worth it.
5) If you look over Apple's details, you'll see that they have a huge volume of Apps that skip the 30% fee. So clearly they are shifting the majority of overhead costs to the big players who can afford it. They don't mention what their profits or operating costs are for their store ; perhaps somebody could find an SEC report? I would guess that it is on the high end of normal and nothing close to typical monopoly profits.
6) Private corps need more regulations. They are not a person with human rights; that should be obvious. If you refuse to allow black people in your store, you should have major legal problems (your personal house, it's your right to be racist.) If you refuse to sell anything made by black people, you should have major legal problems. Sadly the process in resolving such issues is poor at best; it needs to be made better and GENERIC. Apple should be forced to allow FIREFOX with their browser engine on their app store and the decision should not be theirs; all that BS about wasting RAM or security on another browser engine shouldn't be possible.
Note: I will not buy a phone I can't run firefox on.
Anybody notice the FCC has been talking and working in this direction almost as if they were industry insiders and not regulators...
This is just a case of a CEO letting the cat out of the bag; they are all seriously working on making this happen and have been doing experiments in this area for years now. The FCC in their pocket moving to make this dream come true is on the edge of happening and at least 1 CEO seems to think it's a done deal regardless of what happens with Trump.
Parent's 2 links are highly recommended; should be required for every citizen.
Not at the PRICE they sell it. Naturally if supply is not as massive the price will go up. Too many humans is the main problem, next is the greed of humans.
We look down on animals that breed themselves into trouble... but we are the worst of all.
$10,615 USA average for public school per student/year. 51 million students in public school in USA. = $541 billion per year.
Remember, high school used to be optional (kind of still is) and before that it was not free. Progress made high school necessary and it became free; it also kept nations from dropping to 3rd world status.... In the future college is going to be needed as low education jobs continue to be outsourced to near slave labor or to mechanical slaves (aka robotnic.)
He doesn't control the standards; if the W3C took a position against industry they'd just make their own "standards" and either claim to be a standard by monopoly or lousy published specs which they wholly control for their own unfair advantage (MS.)
WHERE ARE THE DISCUSSIONS ON MOB BEHAVIOR? All the worst social human nature is being amplified by social media. Virtual lynch mobs are terrorizing people to the point where we are changing our behaviors lest they come at us.
The human nature to do stupid things always is ingenious in finding new ways to fuck up. You just can't stop it, if you baby people too much some authoritarian takes over and makes a bigger mess of it (it only works if the "parents" are super human... I wish for an A.I. take over in the distant future.)
Berners-Lee is clearly an optimist but his great power is in starting the web, he only has the slightest influence after it exploded out of control so it is not fair to say he has guided us to where we ended up today. He's not responsible for human nature and our culturally ingrained evils; he can go around saying don't use my invention for evil/weapons etc like most every scientist throughout history. He can wish he never gave us the ideas but somebody would have eventually done something similar. Since humans stopped evolving, when doesn't matter -- humanity will never get past our adolescence!
The 80/20 seems to apply to a great many things. Benefits of technology seem to fit 80/20 in that 80% of it is bad and 20% of it is good; in the end. The majority of people have the optimist bias gene which at this point exists in statistics until we find the gene. Tech people have an emotional bias to be optimistic about tech. Like a handyman always buying a new tool. (The master carpenter having matured to realize 80% of the tools are not beneficial haul around.)
FOX mistakenly probably gave him the idea with the yearly bitching that losing an hour causes; they'll set him straight on if he gets serious... unless they poll it gains him a few points... They've still got to win over the smarter portion of the below average IQ voters.
Stupid or Evil. Ignorance of him is no longer an excuse.
I don't anybody up North who likes DST. I live above 45.
It is nice for a short while in the winter but the impact of being north is so great that it quickly means NOTHING to get that hour... it's dark again. Plus where I am we have clouds 2/3 of the year anyhow and so much light pollution that it's never really dark anyhow.
The UV we need for our Vit D doesn't happen even at noon this far north because at that angle the UV bounces off the atmosphere. For the transition months the only UV exposure time is around noon and we will never learn to have large lunch breaks like other cultures...
The holistic solution would be to limit everybody to 30 hours per week per job at full time pay. Then people have more day light. Holidays no longer become huge sales days because the economy will boom all the time instead of just a few times when people have vacation. Kids will have parents again...(2 alternating shifts = 1 full parent.) Robots won't take up as many jobs as quickly... and we'll be closer to the future predicted 50+ years ago where technology actually made our lives better. No this won't happen because productivity gains are forbidden to be felt by anybody but the owners (and those laid off.)
Maybe people will be willing to lift a finger to kill Nazi time. I'm speaking of course for other countries and post Trump USA...
It's a German WAR TIME creation to save fuel. It's actually WW1 when nobody had electric light; but people objecting to calling it Nazi time would have educate others just how even more pointlessly stupid it is for us to have War Time.
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast said they would hold off any big new plans after they killed neutrality. It is a wise move because the suckers will feel safe and think all the fear mongering was a bunch of hype. Then slowly little by little the ISPs turn up the heat and you'll ignore the complains by the haters as we all slowly come to a boil.
You're old enough to have at least heard about the recycling trucks that use to pick up separated items? Easier for a robot to pick up boxes of different types and split them than try to separate a mix of items. BESIDES you cross contaminate and it RUINS all the paper. Most my local paper is NOT recycled because it's ruined. Mine probably is because it's in nice bundles for the min-wage workers to sort out.
We hire a lot of humans to sort the stuff over here. it started out cheaper only because China didn't care. Then China started caring years ago and now they have to pay more to hire sorters. If we sorted and had separate bins they'd not need those people or have a much harder AI sorting problem.
REGULATION. You can't dump your car batteries in the trash; if they catch you it's a fine. AI cams etc will make enforcement far better than now. They can add more to the list of things not allowed.
A LITTLE labor by us saves $$ down the road. plus we can't use the recycled stuff because it's in such bad shape. Do you realize what kind of a MESS it is to sort the trash bins full of mixed items? I've actually seen my local plant and it's not so easy for humans to do quickly and forget about AI. They pick out only the most simple items and let the rest go. If you simply put them into separated bins they'd have it easy.
You don't realize that in the 90s most people had to sort their recycling and have it be a little bit clean. I certainly never stopped despite my local suckers falling for the Chinese offer to take it unsorted cheaper just so they could pay gas on the return boats and then dump it over there. Many people STILL sort the stuff and are required to.
BTW, your argument is pathetic I could use your logic and say we shouldn't have trash cans because some people are too lazy to use them. Why have laws? some people do not follow them!
It's NOT lazy people that would hurt recycling; it began with more effort and a cultural resistance. The problem is LAZY people's trash contaminating my clean recycling. If you think it takes too much effort you are LAZY, even low IQ children can handle doing it.
As far as people who do not recycle, they should be fined. that simple. if you want to use your right to bury trash around your house -- go ahead. but if you want to use a trash service to haul it somewhere else you must follow rules and pay fines etc. BTW, you can't dump anything into your normal trash service; even they have rules and laws. It wouldn't take much to enforce, easily paying for itself. Would lazy people like it? no. they bitch about not dumping toxic shit in their trash already.
I've wished for this disaster movie to come true since I was a child:
Colossus: The Forbin Project
People don't seem to realize how little clean water there is.
The USA convicted a computer monopoly nearly 20 years ago; but since then has been unable to PUNISH the guilty. MS was convicted and never punished; if you call what they got punishment, you're a fool. (They paid a relatively tiny amount to bribe their way out from punishment.)
Even pedophiles go free if you are rich enough (and not black... that takes even more money.)
Actual BIG problems:
1) mixed recycling = contamination. We can't export our paper because it's hardly worth bothering over burning it, it's too DIRTY.
2) Sorting adds costs. Pre-sorting reduces labor, error rates, and significantly reduces contamination and mixing.
3) Quality of recycling. even the best... aluminum has huge problems getting quality high enough that major users pay MORE for new aluminum instead!
4) Supported materials. Too many types of plastic; too hard to sort and MOST are not recycled simply because you can't easily identify it. Plastic bags are NOT WORTH the energy waste and are best properly burned for fuel. Many recyclable materials are NOT supported in your area. Mixing plastics doesn't work... Oh, the number of times you can perfectly recycle a plastic bottle is quite limited.
Recycling is supposed to be the responsible thing to do; it's not solely for profits. If it comes down to a form of tax or regulation, so be it:
BAN all plastic containers except 1 type. No need for a symbol, it's a bottle so you know. For exceptions, it has to be so extremely simple an AI can sort it out. Make people sort again. Use computer tracking to CHARGE people who mess it up. Ban labels that can not be recycled/removed from containers; make some things GLASS... require store refill options. WHY do I need my local store to plastic wrap food I'm going to put into a container at home anyway? May as well use my container or take a deposit on theirs. We used to have deposits and also live without plastic... not saying ban all plastic... but it lasts way too long... so it's a major contributor.
Even rock salt has microplastic in it!! sea salt is the worst BTW.
Facebook's GOAL is to replace the web for most everything. It's an actual stated goal!
Why are not more people seeing Facebook as the new AOL Online? We even have advertising saying "find us with AOL keyword ------" that is, find us on Facebook; sometimes leaving out the URL just like back then. The major difference being AOL didn't have personal blog pages; which they surely would have if they hadn't decided to be an ISP instead of trying to recreate the www.
You can't control the internet and the web is not so easy either. but when you create a centralized service you have 1 point of weakness and control. You couldn't control this stuff on the web or track as well. it takes big centralized gatekeepers to do that.
To protect freedom you need to make AOL Online type places unable to work by imposing all the crazy restrictions people want to be P.C. all at once. It's impossible and that is exactly the point. They don't need a business; we had all the elements before and will have later but they are small separated bits with no central authority. Do not confuse new AOL with the rest web. It's running on the internet but it's as out of touch and as bad as AOL was (worse.)
The next gen applications of RSS can replace facebooks. we just need a peer discovery service protocol. blog services exist. they have similar UI to them all now. one just needs the friend feed crap and a way to migrate that info. It doesn't have to be complex but naturally it'll be more steps than facebook.... (maybe people who can't handle that are so vapid and/or stupid they shouldn't be publishing.)
Absolutism is the biggest of them all. You want absolute perfection... in any system people dream up. The downfall to everything is trying to get to that 100%. Idiocracy is satire going the opposite way to highlight that we don't have enough. It is not arguing we need be extreme but only that we are not doing enough.
Any merit system becomes a huge mess of problems on how do you RATE merit. Any "fair" system will be defined in a commonly understandable reproducible set of rules. Those rules will be static and never able to counter the dynamic power of the human brain to hack that system. It is implemented at some level by humans, which will punch holes in even a perfect set of rules (for sake of argument lets say that is possible.)
If you've done business software, you'll have run into them wanting you to implement their policies (system) in software in ways to try to address the flaws humans have in perfectly implementing whatever BS they designed. If you do, then you discover how people needing to get real work done end up always working around the thing... because the system likely is not complex enough to properly model the real-world it was made for. Being a programmer, it's even easier to spot the poor policy programming problems than the managers who write it.
Merit can't be everything. it promotes people to hack and crack the merit system from all angles; undermining it's whole purpose. You have to accept it doesn't every work perfectly and NOT take it too seriously. it'll reduce motivation to cheat and undermine it while letting lucky ones slip bye. it's a search for a realistic equilibrium in an analog reality. you can't make the world digital.
I remember that! It was a totally cool idea! loved it. they should have used it in one of the many movies using computers... at least then it would have been something that really existed.
reply: huh??
TFA states all the conditions they do not charge for. A lot of apps qualify under those conditions. It does not surprise me Amazon would find ways to game the system to avoid any costs; those are the rules and they exploit everything remotely possible... it's Amazon. Perhaps you think the rules should be based upon the size of the app's maker? I'm not defending their rules and I've not done much thought about what would work best... and what would work best would never please everybody... even if you did please everybody some greedy pricks would be bitching because they didn't get more. It's human nature. Apple's setup seems to target only certain areas which can likely sustain the costs... they could be small, but they can work within the model so they are big enough for afford it. After all, overhead costs are pushed to the customer in the pricing. FREE is obviously subsidized by others. It is difficult to police FREE and easier to just allow exploitation of rules against the intent of the rules... it always happens... to the point we have a whole profession in doing that! (lawyers.)
Apple doesn't seem horribly out of line and certainly not within existing legal frameworks. Spottily seems to me to be making more of a PR stunt of this than expecting any progress legally. They need to buy some politicians instead.
Forcing Snowden to be stuck in Russia was quite beneficial to the USA in that they have a lot of people thinking there is a connection there and they continue to smear Snowden as a traitor because he was forced into Russia by the USA. The irony of that smear today is somehow lost as I've still heard it being used against him.
The alternative was to allow Snowden to escape to a safe but neutral country. Sure they could more easily go kill him but everybody would know why and it would make him a greater hero. In Russia, they can continue to attack his character for all of time before he is completely forgotten and only their distortions are remembered.
1) Apple has lawyers and accountants; likely they are doing the minimum required. That said, talented people in those areas likely have creative accounting techniques for minimizing their self-payment.
2) Apple's counterpoint is a clear win; Spotify is just being another greedy corp testing the boundaries. That said, Apple didn't address how they pay themselves so I would guess something isn't quite right... the lawyers might be preparing to remedy that if that could be disclosed in detail.
3) They said "Apple connects Spotify to our users" which indicates they feel 100% safe in a self-created gatekeeper monopoly market in openly saying they do exactly what people don't like and going on to justify it. They are safe on this front because it is essentially the same as any retail store... just because it's on the internet people confuse freedom with what retail actually is.
4) 30% is high if you don't understand retail. It is well within, if not LOW when you think of actual retail store markups. Apple probably puts in more effort than Amazon or Google in curation of their store and app review to legitimately justify that cost; like a actual retail store has to stock items etc. If they spend the same labor $ as a real store doing diligent maintenance and curation of their store then the 30% is worth it.
5) If you look over Apple's details, you'll see that they have a huge volume of Apps that skip the 30% fee. So clearly they are shifting the majority of overhead costs to the big players who can afford it. They don't mention what their profits or operating costs are for their store ; perhaps somebody could find an SEC report? I would guess that it is on the high end of normal and nothing close to typical monopoly profits.
6) Private corps need more regulations. They are not a person with human rights; that should be obvious. If you refuse to allow black people in your store, you should have major legal problems (your personal house, it's your right to be racist.) If you refuse to sell anything made by black people, you should have major legal problems. Sadly the process in resolving such issues is poor at best; it needs to be made better and GENERIC. Apple should be forced to allow FIREFOX with their browser engine on their app store and the decision should not be theirs; all that BS about wasting RAM or security on another browser engine shouldn't be possible.
Note: I will not buy a phone I can't run firefox on.
Anybody notice the FCC has been talking and working in this direction almost as if they were industry insiders and not regulators...
This is just a case of a CEO letting the cat out of the bag; they are all seriously working on making this happen and have been doing experiments in this area for years now. The FCC in their pocket moving to make this dream come true is on the edge of happening and at least 1 CEO seems to think it's a done deal regardless of what happens with Trump.
Parent's 2 links are highly recommended; should be required for every citizen.
Best post so far.
Could have used links to reports on how they just said the opposite for those who didn't just see and remember from a few days ago.
Good thing no emergencies requiring quick responses have happened...
Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a real thing other than a HUGE example of IRONY.
Sorry if you can't enjoy the irony but that sadly is how irony works a lot of the time.
Not at the PRICE they sell it. Naturally if supply is not as massive the price will go up. Too many humans is the main problem, next is the greed of humans.
We look down on animals that breed themselves into trouble... but we are the worst of all.
$10,615 USA average for public school per student/year.
51 million students in public school in USA.
= $541 billion per year.
Remember, high school used to be optional (kind of still is) and before that it was not free. Progress made high school necessary and it became free; it also kept nations from dropping to 3rd world status.... In the future college is going to be needed as low education jobs continue to be outsourced to near slave labor or to mechanical slaves (aka robotnic.)
mod parent up
He doesn't control the standards; if the W3C took a position against industry they'd just make their own "standards" and either claim to be a standard by monopoly or lousy published specs which they wholly control for their own unfair advantage (MS.)
WHERE ARE THE DISCUSSIONS ON MOB BEHAVIOR? All the worst social human nature is being amplified by social media. Virtual lynch mobs are terrorizing people to the point where we are changing our behaviors lest they come at us.
The human nature to do stupid things always is ingenious in finding new ways to fuck up. You just can't stop it, if you baby people too much some authoritarian takes over and makes a bigger mess of it (it only works if the "parents" are super human... I wish for an A.I. take over in the distant future.)
Berners-Lee is clearly an optimist but his great power is in starting the web, he only has the slightest influence after it exploded out of control so it is not fair to say he has guided us to where we ended up today. He's not responsible for human nature and our culturally ingrained evils; he can go around saying don't use my invention for evil/weapons etc like most every scientist throughout history. He can wish he never gave us the ideas but somebody would have eventually done something similar. Since humans stopped evolving, when doesn't matter -- humanity will never get past our adolescence!
The 80/20 seems to apply to a great many things. Benefits of technology seem to fit 80/20 in that 80% of it is bad and 20% of it is good; in the end. The majority of people have the optimist bias gene which at this point exists in statistics until we find the gene. Tech people have an emotional bias to be optimistic about tech. Like a handyman always buying a new tool. (The master carpenter having matured to realize 80% of the tools are not beneficial haul around.)
FOX mistakenly probably gave him the idea with the yearly bitching that losing an hour causes; they'll set him straight on if he gets serious... unless they poll it gains him a few points... They've still got to win over the smarter portion of the below average IQ voters.
Stupid or Evil. Ignorance of him is no longer an excuse.
I don't anybody up North who likes DST. I live above 45.
It is nice for a short while in the winter but the impact of being north is so great that it quickly means NOTHING to get that hour... it's dark again. Plus where I am we have clouds 2/3 of the year anyhow and so much light pollution that it's never really dark anyhow.
The UV we need for our Vit D doesn't happen even at noon this far north because at that angle the UV bounces off the atmosphere. For the transition months the only UV exposure time is around noon and we will never learn to have large lunch breaks like other cultures...
The holistic solution would be to limit everybody to 30 hours per week per job at full time pay. Then people have more day light. Holidays no longer become huge sales days because the economy will boom all the time instead of just a few times when people have vacation. Kids will have parents again...(2 alternating shifts = 1 full parent.) Robots won't take up as many jobs as quickly... and we'll be closer to the future predicted 50+ years ago where technology actually made our lives better.
No this won't happen because productivity gains are forbidden to be felt by anybody but the owners (and those laid off.)
Maybe people will be willing to lift a finger to kill Nazi time. I'm speaking of course for other countries and post Trump USA...
It's a German WAR TIME creation to save fuel. It's actually WW1 when nobody had electric light; but people objecting to calling it Nazi time would have educate others just how even more pointlessly stupid it is for us to have War Time.