The very first debate will seal the deal with Trump dancing verbal rings around Hillary.
You keep spouting that bullshit, so I'll take the liberty of repeating myself:
She stood face-to-face or toe-to-toe against her interrogators in the eleventeenth Benghazi! investigation and didn't break a sweat from what I heard.
Trump got a couple tough-ish questions from Megyn Kelly and had a tantrum.
Unless he buries her with a Gish-Gallop(?) stream of conscience bullshit from start to end (which is entirely possible), I wouldn't count her out yet in any debates.
I had an unpaid account to comment there, via LiveFyre.
All other unnecessary 3rd party domains were blocked.
One day the "Sign In" and "Sign Up" links presented blank panels.
I poked around a bit, and quickly gave up.
I rarely commented, enjoyed "moderating" others' comments, but just wasn't worth it.
This article had me go back and allow JanRain - still no work.
Unlike the submitter, I find Slate's content fairly unimpressive, but the commentors - they're great. There are a lot of very clever, very humorous people there in the comment threads. When reading, ensure always sorted by "Hot Topics".
I'll admit a guilty pleasure is reading the comments in the "Dear Prudence" column. Brilliantly witty, sarcastic, hilarious.
Slate.com also has some decent podcasts and are really trying to move into the forefront of that field.
They have some good ones, but I'm down to listening to only one regularly now: The Gist with Mike Pesca.
Took me a while to get used to him, but he has some really clever closing segments (The Spiel?). He's also a daily ½ hour show, so there's always something new to listen to.
Anyway, tldr, I just lurk now and would be tempted to cash in the gift due to the onerous conditions of having to deal with 3rd parties that I have no relationship with.
Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work. Apple had the trademark on electronics. These guys took out a trademark on leather goods. Different domains, so no conflict.
Absolutely correct.
And to further rebut the GP, my "Better Half" was (is?) involved with a case where a Chinese business man registered the local trademark for the company she works for - who holds the trademark in the rest of the world, and has done business with that name for decades.
He then went after the factories making the products for trademark infringement and had shipments to US, Canada, Europe all seized by China Customs until the dispute was resolved.
Basically like domain squatting but for tangible goods.
He got his ass handed to him by the Chinese courts.
He clearly registered the trademark simply to extort this and other companies and their justice system frowns upon that - no surprise.
Especially since, if allowed to continue, would be deleterious to the Chinese economy as well as causing them to "lose face".
Trump is literally going to plaster the walls with Hillary, after the first debate that all become apparent even to you... I doubt Hillary will do more than one open debate, and then where will the reclusive sulking get her? Exactly nowhere.
She stood face-to-face or toe-to-toe against her interrogators in the eleventeenth Benghazi! investigation and didn't break a sweat from what I heard.
Trump got a couple tough-ish questions from Megyn Kelly and had a tantrum.
Unless he buries her with a Gish-Gallop(?) stream of conscience bullshit from start to end (which is entirely possible), I wouldn't count her out yet in any debates.
Chrome usage rocketed because it's so much faster than Firefox, and by having a separate task for each thread doesn't crash or grind to a near halt nearly as often.
In my usage I haven't really noticed much difference in speed, but I don't use Chromium for much other than YouTube (to get HD) so my experience is limited.
The extension architecture is a lot more robust too. I think a lot of Firefox's problems are actually just bad extensions, and the first advice they always give is try creating a new extension-free profile.
That's one area that I thought Firefox was still king - in the extensions / add-ons area. How do you come to the conclusion that Chrome is better? I'd be happy to be informed if I'm wrong.
Mozilla realized that one task per tab, properly sandboxed plug-ins and ditching the old extension API was going to be both extremely difficult and extremely disruptive. So they started work on it slowly, and in the mean time mucked about with the UI and tuned up the Javascript engine to try to maintain market share. It backfired terribly.
I can't really see how they can recover. When they fix the extension API it will piss a lot of their remaining users off. That's a necessary step to get one task per tab and sandboxing. Then they will just be an inferior version of Chrome anyway.
Yes, it's a good idea to go to the separate process per tab, and you're quite correct that it'll break some of the main features that keep users using Firefox. It's a bleak outlook, and I, for one, hope they can recover some market share in the near future.
Not sure how they can pull it off, but they have smarter people than me working for them, so I wish them well.
One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.
And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.
Yeah, and "macs4all" is certainly not the pseudonym of a biased fanboi.
That's not to say that there isn't a problem in the Android ecosphere, but fanbois suck worse than the worst software.
Google wax apparently too stupid and short-sighted to look into the future a little bit,
Or they were a bit naÏve and thought that Android phone manufacturers would behave like Linux distributions, that is to say some would push immediate updates (Arch) and others would go for rock-solid reliability (CentOS), or some such models.
Naïve bordering on dumb perhaps, but Google ain't stupid.
... and see the all-too-predictable outcome of losing control over their "Brand". And make no mistake: Most people DO know that Android means Google.
So, now that Android has a reputation as a festering shithole of Carrier-Infused Crapware, Fragmentation, and rampant Malware, how can Google's reputation and "brand" NOT suffer?
I'd say that Google isn't suffering very much, Android is a bit, most people are utterly unaware of the issue, they just use their phones for whatever purposes they bought them for in complete oblivion.
You might find that hard to believe, but for some people their mobile devices are just devices, not status symbols, not objects of intense desire, and not something they pleasure themselves with in private.
Just phones that run some apps.
Perhaps NOW we know the REAL reason why "Alphabet Soup Corporation" was created, eh? They are trying to gradually distance themselves from the (now-tainted) "Google" brand...
Perhaps NOW we can hope the fanbois will STFU with their rabid fanboi-isms.
Yeah, there's a difference between a stray typo and repetitive errors like lack of capitalization, misuse of "your" in situations like, "Your an idiot lol", "lol" as punctuation, excessive use of emoticons, etc. ad nauseam.
I'm sure all but the biggest assholes can overlook a typo, but I don't hesitate to mock writers who clearly indicate that they are absolutely apathetic about how their text-spew reads to others.
They seem to think whatever they vomit out via a keyboard is of great importance and parsing it is a job for the reader, who's blessed to be able to even read the "thoughts" of the writers.
Such writers are best mocked and unread if they're native English speakers, and the world would be better if they stopped posting on the Internet.
It's funny how nobody who ever says that then supports the idea of labelling foods "This food picked by Mexican immigrants", even though that's information that some people would certainly like to use in their purchase decisions.
And can you point to one instance, ever, where someone wanted GMO labelling but also specifically said they do not want labelling regarding who picked the crops?
In the future, you'll be required to label the contents of that straw man as being GMO - and whether it was harvested by Mexican, Nicaraguan, or Honduran immigrants.
No packaging can disclose every bit of information about the product, and the government picking and choosing what information the company is forced to provide, for political reasons, is not free market. (And make no mistake, "some pressure groups hate GMOs and want the government to force companies to label them" is "political reasons".)
Right, no packaging can give all information, so you'll arbitrarily choose which information but certainly not for political reasons.
It's been my consistent position that you can effectively achieve the same results by labelling things as GMO-free, if that's what consumers actually want.
No law has to be passed to cause that to happen (assuming reasonable truth-in-labelling laws exist, anyway),
Current laws regarding ingredient lists ought to cover GMO products, so I'd agree no new laws should be needed.
But the lack of such labelling indicates the truth-in-labelling laws might not be stringent enough. Hence the "this product does not contain GMOs.
This way it's voluntary and nobody has to get in a twist.
The "No GMOs" can still be voluntary, but like multi-lingual labels, ingredient listings, and nutritional info, a GMO indication isn't the burden industry would portray it to be.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, which keeps tabs on what's grown and eaten around the globe, estimates that one-third of food produced for human consumption worldwide is annually lost or wasted along the chain that stretches from farms to processing plants, marketplaces, retailers, food-service operations, and our collective kitchens.
At 2.8 trillion pounds, that's enough sustenance to feed three billion people. In the United States, the waste is even more egregious: More than 30 percent of our food, valued at $162 billion annually, isn't eaten. Pile all that food on a football field and the layers would form a putrefying casserole miles high.
Anyway, for the most part I don't see the rush to GMOs, and I'm definitely in favour of labelling and can't understand anyone being against it other than for knee-jerk reasons. Let the market decide indeed.
As a developer I was raised on SunOS (before it became Solaris). Unix is in my genes.
OSX is what Linux could have been if Thorvalds had ever cared about user interfaces. He doesn't and never will, thereby relegating Linux to the dark basement.
Is it too much to ask to expect someone with "Unix in their genes" to understand the difference between the kernel and user space, specifically Desktop Environments?
Apparently so.
Eclipse for example. I would rather use Eclipse on Windows while having a root canal rather than suffering actual editing on Linux
You may have a point about Eclipse on Linux, but that might be true for Eclipse on any platform, I don't know.
actual usable applications for non-development on Linux is never going to happen
[Citation Needed] - KDE, for me, is a huge productivity boost, going to a Windows *snort* or OSX desktop would be crippling. YMMV but you do not speak for everyone who's experienced KDE or Mate / Gnome 2.
I wonder what's the cost for content providers to join Binge On? Unless it's onerous, I really can't see the censorship part of it.
Your choice of terminology reveals that you don't understand the issue:
That's perhaps true, however I'm comfortable being on the side of the argument that is not likening Binge On to "censorship".
Also, I should state that I'm really quite ambivalent about Binge On, and as a non-American, it has absolutely no impact on me.
in reality, there is no such thing as a "content provider" as a separate and distinct class on the Internet.
Ok, I can somewhat agree with that - I host "content" on my home PC httpd, so it is true that everyone is or can be, to some degree, a "provider".
T-Mobile should not be making a distinction between Netflix and the proverbial Icecast server in some random guy's basement!
Again, how is Icecast guy being negatively affected by Binge On?
With users being able to gorge themselves on "data-cap free" videos, isn't it also possible that Icecast Guy can have more potential listeners due to people being able to consume more content without overage fees?
In principle, all users are content providers.
And even though Binge On is apparently free for the content provider, it's still a problem because this pdf is the only thing I can easily find about how to join it, and although it's sorely lacking in detail, it's fairly clear that setting it up requires manual coordination with T-Mobile, which they obviously aren't going to be willing to do for anyone who isn't a fairly large company. Moreover, even if setting it up were as easy for the content provider as typing your domain name into a web form and clicking a "binge on me" button, that still would prove to be an unreasonable burden when every other ISP started doing the same thing and every random guy with an Icecast server had to spend huge quantities of time signing up with all the ISPs. Netflix can pay somebody to do that as a full-time job; normal people can't.
This makes me think of another issue: as a T-Mobile user, how do I enable Binge On zero-rating for video uploaded from my phone?
I can't speak to the implementation details, I have not read that pdf but trust you that it lacks details.
And should all ISPs start with a similar program, well, then the situation has changed and my opinion might change too.
As for uploading, why should they zero-rate uploading of data? Separate issue. Just because it's a free one-way ticket doesn't mean one is owed a free return trip.
The inability to do that violates the principle of net neutrality, too!
That I'm not sure about. As another commenter posted, this can be argued to be beneficial to T-Mobile's customers without setting up a fee structure for the ISP to charge both ends of the content-to-consumer link for access.
So I think it's probably a bit more of a grey area regarding Net Neutrality.
Binge On is tantamount to censorship, in the sense that T-Mobile is directly limiting the amount of non-"participating" video you can view.
Not sure about that; it could just as easily be flipped around to say that Binge On is increasing the amount of video viewed from non-participating sites, because a customer might have a fairly fixed amount of YouTube videos they watch, but now they can do that and still have data to spare before hitting their caps.
So they fire up another video site and watch some of it, where before Binge On they'd not bother.
I wonder what's the cost for content providers to join Binge On? Unless it's onerous, I really can't see the censorship part of it.
Please restore the redundant "comments" link at the bottom of the summary. If I decide after reading the summary that it's worth reading the comments, it's annoying to have to scroll back if the top link has already scrolled past.
Definitely want to second this request, and add a related one:
Please de-format the "comments" link so the "visited" state is indicated -- sometimes I forget if I've read the comments on Slashdot's story, and there's no "visited" styling to let me know if I've clicked it before.
Also, personally prefer it if clicking links does not open link in new tab / window, but I can understand that change, just prefer the old way.
Thanks whipslash, all these changes so far are very appreciated.
I have a bit of déja vu from when Wheeler took over the FCC and turned out to be not a dingo. You sir are no dingo.
Slashdot Mirror
The very first debate will seal the deal with Trump dancing verbal rings around Hillary.
You keep spouting that bullshit, so I'll take the liberty of repeating myself:
You've made some excellent points, as have other posters in this thread.
When I first saw the source, I immediately thought "Bullshit!"
However, upon reading the TFS, it's possible that they're technically correct.
CO2 is a form of pollution to be sure, but it's decidedly not particulate matter pollution.
I'm really hoping someone at The New Slashdot (nice having you aboard whipslash!) will un-fuck the link to comments so they're:
a) below TFS
b) not always black, so I can determine if I've visited the particular comment thread yet.
Those changes were certainly backwards-facing.
I had an unpaid account to comment there, via LiveFyre.
All other unnecessary 3rd party domains were blocked.
One day the "Sign In" and "Sign Up" links presented blank panels.
I poked around a bit, and quickly gave up.
I rarely commented, enjoyed "moderating" others' comments, but just wasn't worth it.
This article had me go back and allow JanRain - still no work.
Unlike the submitter, I find Slate's content fairly unimpressive, but the commentors - they're great. There are a lot of very clever, very humorous people there in the comment threads. When reading, ensure always sorted by "Hot Topics".
I'll admit a guilty pleasure is reading the comments in the "Dear Prudence" column. Brilliantly witty, sarcastic, hilarious.
Slate.com also has some decent podcasts and are really trying to move into the forefront of that field.
They have some good ones, but I'm down to listening to only one regularly now: The Gist with Mike Pesca.
Took me a while to get used to him, but he has some really clever closing segments (The Spiel?). He's also a daily ½ hour show, so there's always something new to listen to.
Anyway, tldr, I just lurk now and would be tempted to cash in the gift due to the onerous conditions of having to deal with 3rd parties that I have no relationship with.
Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work. Apple had the trademark on electronics. These guys took out a trademark on leather goods. Different domains, so no conflict.
Absolutely correct.
And to further rebut the GP, my "Better Half" was (is?) involved with a case where a Chinese business man registered the local trademark for the company she works for - who holds the trademark in the rest of the world, and has done business with that name for decades.
He then went after the factories making the products for trademark infringement and had shipments to US, Canada, Europe all seized by China Customs until the dispute was resolved.
Basically like domain squatting but for tangible goods.
He got his ass handed to him by the Chinese courts.
He clearly registered the trademark simply to extort this and other companies and their justice system frowns upon that - no surprise.
Especially since, if allowed to continue, would be deleterious to the Chinese economy as well as causing them to "lose face".
GP post is hysterical and uninformed.
Trump is literally going to plaster the walls with Hillary, after the first debate that all become apparent even to you... I doubt Hillary will do more than one open debate, and then where will the reclusive sulking get her? Exactly nowhere.
She stood face-to-face or toe-to-toe against her interrogators in the eleventeenth Benghazi! investigation and didn't break a sweat from what I heard.
Trump got a couple tough-ish questions from Megyn Kelly and had a tantrum.
Unless he buries her with a Gish-Gallop(?) stream of conscience bullshit from start to end (which is entirely possible), I wouldn't count her out yet in any debates.
I'd be happy if they supported Unicode here, for our European, etc., friends to properly spell certain proper nouns.
I'd also strongly support filtering out all comments that have more than, say, a few such characters to keep the foreign-language spam away.
And I'd quite possibly stop visiting the site if they didn't filter out all Emoji.
Or write my own GreaseMonkey script to replace all such instances with "I'M AN ILLITERATE RETARD" so at least I could get some use of the new feature.
Then I'd down-mod all such posts as Trolls, 'cause fuck that shit - we're not a bunch of 12-year-olds and shouldn't be communicating like them.
Chrome usage rocketed because it's so much faster than Firefox, and by having a separate task for each thread doesn't crash or grind to a near halt nearly as often.
In my usage I haven't really noticed much difference in speed, but I don't use Chromium for much other than YouTube (to get HD) so my experience is limited.
The extension architecture is a lot more robust too. I think a lot of Firefox's problems are actually just bad extensions, and the first advice they always give is try creating a new extension-free profile.
That's one area that I thought Firefox was still king - in the extensions / add-ons area. How do you come to the conclusion that Chrome is better? I'd be happy to be informed if I'm wrong.
Mozilla realized that one task per tab, properly sandboxed plug-ins and ditching the old extension API was going to be both extremely difficult and extremely disruptive. So they started work on it slowly, and in the mean time mucked about with the UI and tuned up the Javascript engine to try to maintain market share. It backfired terribly.
I can't really see how they can recover. When they fix the extension API it will piss a lot of their remaining users off. That's a necessary step to get one task per tab and sandboxing. Then they will just be an inferior version of Chrome anyway.
Yes, it's a good idea to go to the separate process per tab, and you're quite correct that it'll break some of the main features that keep users using Firefox. It's a bleak outlook, and I, for one, hope they can recover some market share in the near future.
Not sure how they can pull it off, but they have smarter people than me working for them, so I wish them well.
They can't figure out a way to fuck it up like they did Firefox.
To be fair to Mozilla, they watched Chrome usage sky-rocket with its someone horrid user interface so it probably made some sense to replicate it.
Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle.
It's nice to see some progress on the recycle part.
One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.
And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.
Yeah, and "macs4all" is certainly not the pseudonym of a biased fanboi.
That's not to say that there isn't a problem in the Android ecosphere, but fanbois suck worse than the worst software.
Google wax apparently too stupid and short-sighted to look into the future a little bit,
Or they were a bit naÏve and thought that Android phone manufacturers would behave like Linux distributions, that is to say some would push immediate updates (Arch) and others would go for rock-solid reliability (CentOS), or some such models.
Naïve bordering on dumb perhaps, but Google ain't stupid.
... and see the all-too-predictable outcome of losing control over their "Brand". And make no mistake: Most people DO know that Android means Google.
So, now that Android has a reputation as a festering shithole of Carrier-Infused Crapware, Fragmentation, and rampant Malware, how can Google's reputation and "brand" NOT suffer?
I'd say that Google isn't suffering very much, Android is a bit, most people are utterly unaware of the issue, they just use their phones for whatever purposes they bought them for in complete oblivion.
You might find that hard to believe, but for some people their mobile devices are just devices, not status symbols, not objects of intense desire, and not something they pleasure themselves with in private.
Just phones that run some apps.
Perhaps NOW we know the REAL reason why "Alphabet Soup Corporation" was created, eh? They are trying to gradually distance themselves from the (now-tainted) "Google" brand...
Perhaps NOW we can hope the fanbois will STFU with their rabid fanboi-isms.
Nah, too much to ask for.
You sound like a real winner. What does that have to do with anything?
It means that he doesn't have to use a "Dark Net" site to buy his mostly harmless intoxicant; he can do it like he obtains and consumes his beer.
And the state earns taxes on the sale helping fund the ... whatever Washington funds with those taxes.
Really, is it that hard to understand, or are you just too stupid to make the connection. Maybe you're high?
You can't even use proper capitalization; either you don't pay attention to what you read, or what you write isn't worth even speed reading.
Yeah, there's a difference between a stray typo and repetitive errors like lack of capitalization, misuse of "your" in situations like, "Your an idiot lol", "lol" as punctuation, excessive use of emoticons, etc. ad nauseam.
I'm sure all but the biggest assholes can overlook a typo, but I don't hesitate to mock writers who clearly indicate that they are absolutely apathetic about how their text-spew reads to others.
They seem to think whatever they vomit out via a keyboard is of great importance and parsing it is a job for the reader, who's blessed to be able to even read the "thoughts" of the writers.
Such writers are best mocked and unread if they're native English speakers, and the world would be better if they stopped posting on the Internet.
That's my "Type A" rant for today.
I always pronounced it G-nome out of fear that otherwise no one would understand what I was talking about. Same with Gnu.
Same here, except GNU.
Plus, guh-edit? Nonsense, Gee-Edit. Gee-podder, not guh-podder, etc.
Guh-new is how I say GNU.
It's funny how nobody who ever says that then supports the idea of labelling foods "This food picked by Mexican immigrants", even though that's information that some people would certainly like to use in their purchase decisions.
And can you point to one instance, ever, where someone wanted GMO labelling but also specifically said they do not want labelling regarding who picked the crops?
In the future, you'll be required to label the contents of that straw man as being GMO - and whether it was harvested by Mexican, Nicaraguan, or Honduran immigrants.
No packaging can disclose every bit of information about the product, and the government picking and choosing what information the company is forced to provide, for political reasons, is not free market. (And make no mistake, "some pressure groups hate GMOs and want the government to force companies to label them" is "political reasons".)
Right, no packaging can give all information, so you'll arbitrarily choose which information but certainly not for political reasons.
I'm certain that ought to satisfy everyone.
It's been my consistent position that you can effectively achieve the same results by labelling things as GMO-free, if that's what consumers actually want.
No law has to be passed to cause that to happen (assuming reasonable truth-in-labelling laws exist, anyway),
Current laws regarding ingredient lists ought to cover GMO products, so I'd agree no new laws should be needed.
But the lack of such labelling indicates the truth-in-labelling laws might not be stringent enough. Hence the "this product does not contain GMOs.
This way it's voluntary and nobody has to get in a twist.
The "No GMOs" can still be voluntary, but like multi-lingual labels, ingredient listings, and nutritional info, a GMO indication isn't the burden industry would portray it to be.
Selective breeding is a lot more predictable than directly twiddling genes. There are a lot of unforeseen side-effects.
Such as?
As we've seen with antibiotic resistance, expect Round-Up resistant weeds for starters.
In fact, it seems to already be a problem, with over 61 million acres as of 2012.
Health-wise, GMOs seem to have proven themselves pretty safe - not the worse thing in our diets.
But not sure what most of them are really for. Leaving out Golden Rice, which is awesome, there isn't a food shortage that GMOs are trying to solve, there's a huge amount of wasted food:
Anyway, for the most part I don't see the rush to GMOs, and I'm definitely in favour of labelling and can't understand anyone being against it other than for knee-jerk reasons. Let the market decide indeed.
This AC could get a job at an IMAX theatre -- the projection is strong in this one.
As a developer I was raised on SunOS (before it became Solaris). Unix is in my genes.
OSX is what Linux could have been if Thorvalds had ever cared about user interfaces. He doesn't and never will, thereby relegating Linux to the dark basement.
Is it too much to ask to expect someone with "Unix in their genes" to understand the difference between the kernel and user space, specifically Desktop Environments?
Apparently so.
Eclipse for example. I would rather use Eclipse on Windows while having a root canal rather than suffering actual editing on Linux
You may have a point about Eclipse on Linux, but that might be true for Eclipse on any platform, I don't know.
actual usable applications for non-development on Linux is never going to happen
[Citation Needed] - KDE, for me, is a huge productivity boost, going to a Windows *snort* or OSX desktop would be crippling. YMMV but you do not speak for everyone who's experienced KDE or Mate / Gnome 2.
Your choice of terminology reveals that you don't understand the issue:
That's perhaps true, however I'm comfortable being on the side of the argument that is not likening Binge On to "censorship".
Also, I should state that I'm really quite ambivalent about Binge On, and as a non-American, it has absolutely no impact on me.
in reality, there is no such thing as a "content provider" as a separate and distinct class on the Internet.
Ok, I can somewhat agree with that - I host "content" on my home PC httpd, so it is true that everyone is or can be, to some degree, a "provider".
T-Mobile should not be making a distinction between Netflix and the proverbial Icecast server in some random guy's basement!
Again, how is Icecast guy being negatively affected by Binge On?
With users being able to gorge themselves on "data-cap free" videos, isn't it also possible that Icecast Guy can have more potential listeners due to people being able to consume more content without overage fees?
In principle, all users are content providers.
And even though Binge On is apparently free for the content provider, it's still a problem because this pdf is the only thing I can easily find about how to join it, and although it's sorely lacking in detail, it's fairly clear that setting it up requires manual coordination with T-Mobile, which they obviously aren't going to be willing to do for anyone who isn't a fairly large company. Moreover, even if setting it up were as easy for the content provider as typing your domain name into a web form and clicking a "binge on me" button, that still would prove to be an unreasonable burden when every other ISP started doing the same thing and every random guy with an Icecast server had to spend huge quantities of time signing up with all the ISPs. Netflix can pay somebody to do that as a full-time job; normal people can't.
This makes me think of another issue: as a T-Mobile user, how do I enable Binge On zero-rating for video uploaded from my phone?
I can't speak to the implementation details, I have not read that pdf but trust you that it lacks details.
And should all ISPs start with a similar program, well, then the situation has changed and my opinion might change too.
As for uploading, why should they zero-rate uploading of data? Separate issue. Just because it's a free one-way ticket doesn't mean one is owed a free return trip.
The inability to do that violates the principle of net neutrality, too!
That I'm not sure about. As another commenter posted, this can be argued to be beneficial to T-Mobile's customers without setting up a fee structure for the ISP to charge both ends of the content-to-consumer link for access.
So I think it's probably a bit more of a grey area regarding Net Neutrality.
Binge On is tantamount to censorship, in the sense that T-Mobile is directly limiting the amount of non-"participating" video you can view.
Not sure about that; it could just as easily be flipped around to say that Binge On is increasing the amount of video viewed from non-participating sites, because a customer might have a fairly fixed amount of YouTube videos they watch, but now they can do that and still have data to spare before hitting their caps.
So they fire up another video site and watch some of it, where before Binge On they'd not bother.
I wonder what's the cost for content providers to join Binge On? Unless it's onerous, I really can't see the censorship part of it.
Please restore the redundant "comments" link at the bottom of the summary. If I decide after reading the summary that it's worth reading the comments, it's annoying to have to scroll back if the top link has already scrolled past.
Definitely want to second this request, and add a related one:
Please de-format the "comments" link so the "visited" state is indicated -- sometimes I forget if I've read the comments on Slashdot's story, and there's no "visited" styling to let me know if I've clicked it before.
Also, personally prefer it if clicking links does not open link in new tab / window, but I can understand that change, just prefer the old way.
Thanks whipslash, all these changes so far are very appreciated.
I have a bit of déja vu from when Wheeler took over the FCC and turned out to be not a dingo. You sir are no dingo.
Interesting post - thank you.
Anything you can enlighten us with regarding CanDu reactors?
That's what we have around here - "here" being Canada, but there aren't any within 4,000 km from here.
perfectly reasonable to safely to ignore fuckwits with an agenda
Like the engineers at NRC?
Or yourself?