one day you will wake up stuck in an ISP walled garden like AOL, paying extra to reach the outside.
You do realize that's what the government's brand of Net Neutrality will bring us? Versus actual plain old network neutrality, which is good and what everyone wants.
Go read the actual rules. It opens the door wide for ISPs to legally censor any content they want. It was written by the media, Hollywood, and the telecoms, and this dog and pony show about repealing it (Note: it never got implemented in the first place so there was nothing to repeal) got everyone to buy into it hook, line and sinker. Think of other brands of legislation we've been sold by the government, and what it brought us. What did the Patriot act do for patriots? That's what Net Neturality will do for network neutrality.
My internet connection works fine, leave it the fuck alone. I don't need a bunch of leeching bureaucrats getting involve in it.
I think an ex-CEO of Qwest told the FBI or someone to go fuck themselves once. IIRC, a year later he was doing time for some "completely unrelated" trumped up insider trading charge or something. Pretty much set the example for everyone else to play ball.
Would you care to explain how "knowledge", "expertise", or even "Fake News" have anything to do with Instagram censoring their users for their own protection?
Oh, that's right, anyone who doesn't bow down to today's lesson in political correctness from the technocratic elite is obviously a trailer-dwelling toothless prole who JustDoesn'tGetIt(tm) and should JustShutUp(tm) and let the chosen ones rule over them without any guff.
But there's exactly the problem, if someone is so weak-minded that they base their self-worth on what a bunch of whores on Instagram say is important, why is it anyone else's job to protect them from themselves.
When I was growing up, it was a common thing in my house to hear about how everything on TV is fake, Hollywood is made of wax and plastic, and not to put too much stock into anything you see or hear in the media. These exact same lessons apply to the internet and social media. It's all fake, and it's all bullshit, and no one should take it very seriously at all.
The socially-responsible thing for any of the companies to do is let these people learn their lessons on their own and stop trying to protect everyone from themselves so we don't end up with yet another generation of adults with the brains of children trying to bubble-wrap the world for everyone.
So it's fat hate if you point out that there are people who promote how healthy it is to weigh 400+ pounds, who are not being targeted for their eating disorders by the nanny-statists, right?
Yep, just another slide down the "progressive" fetish of being saved from yourself by people who just absolutely, positively know better than you.
And as other have said, I'm sure this is only going to be selectively applied to skinny people, but that's not even the biggest problem. The fact that any company would censor their users (obviously unless it's illegal content) and the users put up with it proves exactly how spineless and sheeplike the people who use these kinds of services are in the first place.
If you kill yourself from not eating because you base your self-worth on what an "influencer" or someone else on these cesspits of narcissism think of you, well, here's your fucking Darwin award. I don't give a single fuck.
Pai is a liar and is doing to the FCC exactly what Trump is doing to the country. But hey, he's got a big cool mug he drinks from.
Because your life has changed so much for the worse in the last two years, amirite?
I can only assume, based on your comment, that the fixed-line broadband companies were just beating down your door to run a cable a hundred kilometers out into the woods before November of 2016, but that dag-nabbed Pai and the BadOrangeMan came along and forced them to stop, right?
For fuck's sake, not everything is political. Some things make little economic sense regardless of who is currently the government figurehead. Unless you're asking for someone else to subsidize your connection. Let me know when you convince the city water and sewer departments to run pipes out your way, then we can quabble about your choices in ISPs.
Do you want a truly neutral internet? Or do you want Net Neutrality(tm) loaded with loopholes and allowances for ISPs to censor speech and block unpopular content?
Because it seems like those two things get conflated quite often around here.
I want the first thing. But it seems like most everyone nowadays wants their content protected, but the ones they disagree with/find abhorrent/feel cognitive dissonance from or feel "uncomfortable" from to be blocked wholesale.
Why are we not continuing to forcing a private entity to support deprecated technology because people refuse to move on?
While we're at it, let's force Microsoft to continue to support MS-DOS and Windows 3.1.
Linus should be regulated into supporting Version 1.0 of the kernel.
Let's get some legislation to make it illegal for Google to stop supporting my Motorola Droid running Gingerbread.
Wireless and fiber services are shit. Let's get that copper back up and running post haste! I need my 768/128 DSL line back online immediately! Because I'm positive Verizon, et al. are not going to ever be fixing any of the cellphone towers knocked out by the worst hurricane to hit the gulf in 60 years! I mean, it's been over a fucking week! Because in my dream utopia....you know, if only the government were in charge of the infrastructure, I'm sure it would be number one on Orange Hitler(tm)'s list!
The carriers, by and large, already don't own many towers. There might be a few legacy locations where they still do, but companies like American Tower and Crown Castle own the vast majority of them at this point, and the carriers just lease space on them for their antennas. Anyone with a spectrum license and money for the antennas/base stations can rent some position on most any tower.
I don't claim to know the magic number, either. I don't even claim to know that it isn't less than four. Parts of me would agree that a higher number is better, parts of me would think a lower number is better.
What I really don't understand, however, is how the same people who will point to the European model of a single company owning and maintaining last-mile infrastructure for wireline ISPs as a model for telecom Utopia will scream bloody murder when any hint of consolidation actually happens.
Or is it only good if the government steps in and commandeers the infrastructure, you know, "for the people".
Jesus fucking Christ, how naive can you be? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't already know that every smartphone, fuck, every piece of communications/data equipment in modern existence is compromised six ways to Sunday?
No one is "sitting on intel", it's a known fucking fact. The military brass obviously have the exact same concerns I would have about using those devices: that the Chinese government is getting all of my information. I wouldn't expect stores on Chinese military bases to sell Apple or any other US-based outfit's phones for the exact same reason, because the US government would be getting all of their information.
I'm sure you could even make an argument that Motorola (Lenovo) phones shouldn't be sold on base, either. But at least Lenovo isn't literally an arm of the Chinese government like ZTE. Letting any military information, no matter how trivial, pass over these compromised devices is indeed an issue of national security. I suppose you could also argue that by letting the rank and file use ZTE/Huawei phones that they are evading the domestic spy grids, in which case the higher-ups want them back on their own compromised plantation to they can know their every word and thought.
But at any rate I mean, seriously, grow up into the real fucking world. Would you expect any military to allow its members to use comms that are literally manufactured by their enemy's government? Do you honestly think any device, foreign, domestic, or in between isn't just a minor backdoor away from being a (if not already a direct) conduit to some intelligence agency of some sort? For fuck's sake. It's not a secret anymore.
Apple is just flat-out wrong to do this without telling people. Period.
What has happened is this: Apple's batteries don't last as long as they should. They've always used undersized batteries to keep the phones size down, thinking they can make up for it with better hardware/software management. And for the most part, they're right. Until the battery's capacity starts running low (prematurely in many cases, I would say, due to the batteries being so small to begin with), at which point they can't accurately measure the amount of charge it has left in it. If the phone can't run up to specification with the battery it has, it needs to be replaced, and that's that.
This means that big warnings should pop up on the screen to let the user know the battery is going to shit (which they don't want, because then people would scream bloody murder when their batteries start to fail after a year, and people with Apple Care start demanding battery replacements all the time).
This was an underhanded measure to both keep warranty repairs down, keep bad press about their batteries out of the media, and get people to buy new phones because theirs is slow and they don't know why. I exclusively have used iPhones and the entire Apple ecosystem in the past, and even I think this is a low point for them. So underhanded while acting like they're doing people a favor. Fucking ridiculous.
At the very least, when the huge warnings pop up when the phone is rebooted, give the user the OPTION to enter low-performance mode to conserve the battery. If the user accepts, the battery meter icon should flash non-stop until it's replaced to let the user know it's faulty. If the user declines, the battery meter icon should disappear, because there is really no good way to measure the capacity and this would definitely force people to get a repair or new phone.
But again, anything that actually brings to light the battery being faulty is bad for Apple, because they don't want people to know how shitty they really are, and they also don't want to have to replace ones that are covered by Apple Care. Positively underhanded.
Whenever you go hiking way out in the woods, always be sure to carry a length of fiber along with you, in case you get lost. This way when the backhoe operator arrives to dig it up, you just follow him home.
The only important part of Net Neutrality is Free Speech. Neither the republicans nor the democrats seem to feel it's important to focus like a laser beam on that issue.
They'd love to focus, like, a laser beam on Free Speech, both parties. Or any other kind of weapon they can get their hands on.
I get the whole private property vs. public property thing as far as things go like video recording and such. You don't have an expectation of privacy in public because there are other people physically there who can see what you're doing.
But, for fuck's sake, I should be able to drive up to the gas station to get a 6-pack without the government knowing I did so.
Sure, the gas station knows I went there. And the people at the gas station can see me there. If any of those people even know who I am, or care. And if I drive past my friend Tom's house on 4th Street to get there, he might see me driving down 4th street. But I still have my privacy to a great extent. None of those individual pieces of information are worth much to anyone.
The government, if they want to find out, can see that I left my house because my phone disconnected from Wi-Fi, they can tell I got in my car and started it because it connected to the bluetooth, they can track me either through location services or cell towers to pretty much figure out exactly where I went, what route I took to get there, how long it took, and then can see from my debit card that I bought a 6-pack and a Slim Jim. It's just all a little too much. Sure, the convenience is nice but at what cost?
As for why I should expect all that information to be private? Because keeping historical records of everywhere I go and everything thing I do is not the service I signed up for. I signed up for a mobile telephone and debit card. In the case of the debit card, I understand that records need to be kept for a certain period of time. Not indefinitely, mind you, but for a fixed period of time that should be agreed upon by the cardholder and the bank.
As for telephones? With the advent of unlimited cellular plans, there really isn't any logical excuse for telephone companies to keep personally identifiable records of really anything at this point. Sure, the cellular network needs to know where I am *right now* in order to route calls to the correct cell tower and to deliver data to any open sessions I may have. It doesn't need to know where I was on January 22, 2009 at 5:37PM in order to route calls to my phone today, and they don't need to know I texted my brother to tell him happy birthday in March of 2013 in order to deliver SMS messages today.
They don't need that data for network management, either. They can keep historical records of the load on given sites for purposes like that, to know what cells are over or underutilized, etc. But to keep a detailed historical record of my location, every call I made and to whom, every data session, and the contents of every message I've sent going back literally years or decades is obviously nefarious.
There is no legitimate reason for a service provider to keep any records for any longer than necessary to complete the business end of the service I've signed up for. In the days of metered plans and overages, there was at least a reason to keep the information until the close of the billing cycle and maybe a few more in the case of bill disputes. Today, the record of what I did should be deleted at the end of the session. Meaning this: I've closed the data connection or terminated the phone call or successfully sent or received an SMS? Then the service I asked for was completed, and the records of it should be purged.
I just tried it too. You have to go out of your way to do things fast enough to beat the animation, and even then if you type 1+2+3 fast enough, it will just show "23" on the screen so you'll know there was an error.
It's not like the display shows 1, then 2, then 3 but still adds 1+23. It's a minor annoyance I suppose, and should be fixed in an update, but not at all worthy of an article on Slashdot.
Actually, the newer car (2006 Lexus) does indeed have traction control. The 19-year old Acura has the rest of the safety features you mentioned minus the traction control (meaning it's actually a lot more fun to drive!) but I digress.
My argument isn't even about the safety features, sure, most idiots nowadays can't look up from their phone long enough to successfully pilot the automobile. I'm just talking about the pure carbon-cost of crushing old used cars to force people into a $500 a month payment for a new one to prop up the domestic automakers! How many "Carbon"-MPG does that subtract from the overall cost of operation just because we had to manufacture a whole new automobile?
But you're 100% correct. I know how to deal with a drunk weaving around the road when I come across one. You overtake and get way ahead before he can fuck you up! I have a pretty good idea what a drunk is going to do, but I have no idea what the failure mode of the "Hal 9000" is going to be.
Nevermind, the link is showing up for me now, I swear it wasn't there when I tried to click on it before! But I still wonder how keeping a highly-efficient, well-made vehicle for way more than just a few years compares to new diesels every few.
Where's the link to the Guardian article? I want to read it...
Also, let's compare keeping an old Japanese gasoline 4-cylinder for 25 years rather than some diesels. I'm on years 19 and 11 with mine, and neither show any signs of dying soon. And they get better mileage than most of the new models from both of their manufacturers.
I suppose ending is better than mending though, good thing we crushed metric shit-tons of perfectly usable already manufactured (the carbon-cost to make them was already sunk) cars under the guise of environmentalism to prop up the auto industry during the recession.
Slashdot Mirror
one day you will wake up stuck in an ISP walled garden like AOL, paying extra to reach the outside.
You do realize that's what the government's brand of Net Neutrality will bring us? Versus actual plain old network neutrality, which is good and what everyone wants.
Go read the actual rules. It opens the door wide for ISPs to legally censor any content they want. It was written by the media, Hollywood, and the telecoms, and this dog and pony show about repealing it (Note: it never got implemented in the first place so there was nothing to repeal) got everyone to buy into it hook, line and sinker. Think of other brands of legislation we've been sold by the government, and what it brought us. What did the Patriot act do for patriots? That's what Net Neturality will do for network neutrality.
My internet connection works fine, leave it the fuck alone. I don't need a bunch of leeching bureaucrats getting involve in it.
I think an ex-CEO of Qwest told the FBI or someone to go fuck themselves once. IIRC, a year later he was doing time for some "completely unrelated" trumped up insider trading charge or something. Pretty much set the example for everyone else to play ball.
Would you care to explain how "knowledge", "expertise", or even "Fake News" have anything to do with Instagram censoring their users for their own protection?
Oh, that's right, anyone who doesn't bow down to today's lesson in political correctness from the technocratic elite is obviously a trailer-dwelling toothless prole who JustDoesn'tGetIt(tm) and should JustShutUp(tm) and let the chosen ones rule over them without any guff.
But there's exactly the problem, if someone is so weak-minded that they base their self-worth on what a bunch of whores on Instagram say is important, why is it anyone else's job to protect them from themselves.
When I was growing up, it was a common thing in my house to hear about how everything on TV is fake, Hollywood is made of wax and plastic, and not to put too much stock into anything you see or hear in the media. These exact same lessons apply to the internet and social media. It's all fake, and it's all bullshit, and no one should take it very seriously at all.
The socially-responsible thing for any of the companies to do is let these people learn their lessons on their own and stop trying to protect everyone from themselves so we don't end up with yet another generation of adults with the brains of children trying to bubble-wrap the world for everyone.
So it's fat hate if you point out that there are people who promote how healthy it is to weigh 400+ pounds, who are not being targeted for their eating disorders by the nanny-statists, right?
Yep, just another slide down the "progressive" fetish of being saved from yourself by people who just absolutely, positively know better than you.
And as other have said, I'm sure this is only going to be selectively applied to skinny people, but that's not even the biggest problem. The fact that any company would censor their users (obviously unless it's illegal content) and the users put up with it proves exactly how spineless and sheeplike the people who use these kinds of services are in the first place.
If you kill yourself from not eating because you base your self-worth on what an "influencer" or someone else on these cesspits of narcissism think of you, well, here's your fucking Darwin award. I don't give a single fuck.
Pai is a liar and is doing to the FCC exactly what Trump is doing to the country. But hey, he's got a big cool mug he drinks from.
Because your life has changed so much for the worse in the last two years, amirite?
I can only assume, based on your comment, that the fixed-line broadband companies were just beating down your door to run a cable a hundred kilometers out into the woods before November of 2016, but that dag-nabbed Pai and the BadOrangeMan came along and forced them to stop, right?
For fuck's sake, not everything is political. Some things make little economic sense regardless of who is currently the government figurehead. Unless you're asking for someone else to subsidize your connection. Let me know when you convince the city water and sewer departments to run pipes out your way, then we can quabble about your choices in ISPs.
Do you want a truly neutral internet? Or do you want Net Neutrality(tm) loaded with loopholes and allowances for ISPs to censor speech and block unpopular content?
Because it seems like those two things get conflated quite often around here.
I want the first thing. But it seems like most everyone nowadays wants their content protected, but the ones they disagree with/find abhorrent/feel cognitive dissonance from or feel "uncomfortable" from to be blocked wholesale.
So much edge in one post. Aren't there some midterms you need to be studying for?
Why are we not continuing to forcing a private entity to support deprecated technology because people refuse to move on?
While we're at it, let's force Microsoft to continue to support MS-DOS and Windows 3.1.
Linus should be regulated into supporting Version 1.0 of the kernel.
Let's get some legislation to make it illegal for Google to stop supporting my Motorola Droid running Gingerbread.
Wireless and fiber services are shit. Let's get that copper back up and running post haste! I need my 768/128 DSL line back online immediately! Because I'm positive Verizon, et al. are not going to ever be fixing any of the cellphone towers knocked out by the worst hurricane to hit the gulf in 60 years! I mean, it's been over a fucking week! Because in my dream utopia....you know, if only the government were in charge of the infrastructure, I'm sure it would be number one on Orange Hitler(tm)'s list!
I'd love to go back to the days where I drive a county over and have to pay $0.89 a minute to roam (or in todays terms, $0.89/MB), wouldn't you?
Already done.
The carriers, by and large, already don't own many towers. There might be a few legacy locations where they still do, but companies like American Tower and Crown Castle own the vast majority of them at this point, and the carriers just lease space on them for their antennas. Anyone with a spectrum license and money for the antennas/base stations can rent some position on most any tower.
https://www.fool.com/investing...
Now, if you mean that cell carriers shouldn't own spectrum licenses, that's an entirely different animal.
I don't claim to know the magic number, either. I don't even claim to know that it isn't less than four. Parts of me would agree that a higher number is better, parts of me would think a lower number is better.
What I really don't understand, however, is how the same people who will point to the European model of a single company owning and maintaining last-mile infrastructure for wireline ISPs as a model for telecom Utopia will scream bloody murder when any hint of consolidation actually happens.
Or is it only good if the government steps in and commandeers the infrastructure, you know, "for the people".
Jesus fucking Christ, how naive can you be? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't already know that every smartphone, fuck, every piece of communications/data equipment in modern existence is compromised six ways to Sunday?
No one is "sitting on intel", it's a known fucking fact. The military brass obviously have the exact same concerns I would have about using those devices: that the Chinese government is getting all of my information. I wouldn't expect stores on Chinese military bases to sell Apple or any other US-based outfit's phones for the exact same reason, because the US government would be getting all of their information.
I'm sure you could even make an argument that Motorola (Lenovo) phones shouldn't be sold on base, either. But at least Lenovo isn't literally an arm of the Chinese government like ZTE. Letting any military information, no matter how trivial, pass over these compromised devices is indeed an issue of national security. I suppose you could also argue that by letting the rank and file use ZTE/Huawei phones that they are evading the domestic spy grids, in which case the higher-ups want them back on their own compromised plantation to they can know their every word and thought.
But at any rate I mean, seriously, grow up into the real fucking world. Would you expect any military to allow its members to use comms that are literally manufactured by their enemy's government? Do you honestly think any device, foreign, domestic, or in between isn't just a minor backdoor away from being a (if not already a direct) conduit to some intelligence agency of some sort? For fuck's sake. It's not a secret anymore.
At creating basket-cases who like to go on mass-murdering sprees, that's for sure.
Antidepressants should be banned.
Apple is just flat-out wrong to do this without telling people. Period.
What has happened is this: Apple's batteries don't last as long as they should. They've always used undersized batteries to keep the phones size down, thinking they can make up for it with better hardware/software management. And for the most part, they're right. Until the battery's capacity starts running low (prematurely in many cases, I would say, due to the batteries being so small to begin with), at which point they can't accurately measure the amount of charge it has left in it. If the phone can't run up to specification with the battery it has, it needs to be replaced, and that's that.
This means that big warnings should pop up on the screen to let the user know the battery is going to shit (which they don't want, because then people would scream bloody murder when their batteries start to fail after a year, and people with Apple Care start demanding battery replacements all the time).
This was an underhanded measure to both keep warranty repairs down, keep bad press about their batteries out of the media, and get people to buy new phones because theirs is slow and they don't know why. I exclusively have used iPhones and the entire Apple ecosystem in the past, and even I think this is a low point for them. So underhanded while acting like they're doing people a favor. Fucking ridiculous.
At the very least, when the huge warnings pop up when the phone is rebooted, give the user the OPTION to enter low-performance mode to conserve the battery. If the user accepts, the battery meter icon should flash non-stop until it's replaced to let the user know it's faulty. If the user declines, the battery meter icon should disappear, because there is really no good way to measure the capacity and this would definitely force people to get a repair or new phone.
But again, anything that actually brings to light the battery being faulty is bad for Apple, because they don't want people to know how shitty they really are, and they also don't want to have to replace ones that are covered by Apple Care. Positively underhanded.
Whenever you go hiking way out in the woods, always be sure to carry a length of fiber along with you, in case you get lost. This way when the backhoe operator arrives to dig it up, you just follow him home.
Remember, these are the same kinds of people that think Shouting at the Sky is an effective tool to get Trump impeached.
The only important part of Net Neutrality is Free Speech. Neither the republicans nor the democrats seem to feel it's important to focus like a laser beam on that issue.
They'd love to focus, like, a laser beam on Free Speech, both parties. Or any other kind of weapon they can get their hands on.
I get the whole private property vs. public property thing as far as things go like video recording and such. You don't have an expectation of privacy in public because there are other people physically there who can see what you're doing.
But, for fuck's sake, I should be able to drive up to the gas station to get a 6-pack without the government knowing I did so.
Sure, the gas station knows I went there. And the people at the gas station can see me there. If any of those people even know who I am, or care. And if I drive past my friend Tom's house on 4th Street to get there, he might see me driving down 4th street. But I still have my privacy to a great extent. None of those individual pieces of information are worth much to anyone.
The government, if they want to find out, can see that I left my house because my phone disconnected from Wi-Fi, they can tell I got in my car and started it because it connected to the bluetooth, they can track me either through location services or cell towers to pretty much figure out exactly where I went, what route I took to get there, how long it took, and then can see from my debit card that I bought a 6-pack and a Slim Jim. It's just all a little too much. Sure, the convenience is nice but at what cost?
As for why I should expect all that information to be private? Because keeping historical records of everywhere I go and everything thing I do is not the service I signed up for. I signed up for a mobile telephone and debit card. In the case of the debit card, I understand that records need to be kept for a certain period of time. Not indefinitely, mind you, but for a fixed period of time that should be agreed upon by the cardholder and the bank.
As for telephones? With the advent of unlimited cellular plans, there really isn't any logical excuse for telephone companies to keep personally identifiable records of really anything at this point. Sure, the cellular network needs to know where I am *right now* in order to route calls to the correct cell tower and to deliver data to any open sessions I may have. It doesn't need to know where I was on January 22, 2009 at 5:37PM in order to route calls to my phone today, and they don't need to know I texted my brother to tell him happy birthday in March of 2013 in order to deliver SMS messages today.
They don't need that data for network management, either. They can keep historical records of the load on given sites for purposes like that, to know what cells are over or underutilized, etc. But to keep a detailed historical record of my location, every call I made and to whom, every data session, and the contents of every message I've sent going back literally years or decades is obviously nefarious.
There is no legitimate reason for a service provider to keep any records for any longer than necessary to complete the business end of the service I've signed up for. In the days of metered plans and overages, there was at least a reason to keep the information until the close of the billing cycle and maybe a few more in the case of bill disputes. Today, the record of what I did should be deleted at the end of the session. Meaning this: I've closed the data connection or terminated the phone call or successfully sent or received an SMS? Then the service I asked for was completed, and the records of it should be purged.
I just tried it too. You have to go out of your way to do things fast enough to beat the animation, and even then if you type 1+2+3 fast enough, it will just show "23" on the screen so you'll know there was an error.
It's not like the display shows 1, then 2, then 3 but still adds 1+23. It's a minor annoyance I suppose, and should be fixed in an update, but not at all worthy of an article on Slashdot.
Thanks.
Actually, the newer car (2006 Lexus) does indeed have traction control. The 19-year old Acura has the rest of the safety features you mentioned minus the traction control (meaning it's actually a lot more fun to drive!) but I digress.
My argument isn't even about the safety features, sure, most idiots nowadays can't look up from their phone long enough to successfully pilot the automobile. I'm just talking about the pure carbon-cost of crushing old used cars to force people into a $500 a month payment for a new one to prop up the domestic automakers! How many "Carbon"-MPG does that subtract from the overall cost of operation just because we had to manufacture a whole new automobile?
But you're 100% correct. I know how to deal with a drunk weaving around the road when I come across one. You overtake and get way ahead before he can fuck you up! I have a pretty good idea what a drunk is going to do, but I have no idea what the failure mode of the "Hal 9000" is going to be.
Nevermind, the link is showing up for me now, I swear it wasn't there when I tried to click on it before! But I still wonder how keeping a highly-efficient, well-made vehicle for way more than just a few years compares to new diesels every few.
Where's the link to the Guardian article? I want to read it...
Also, let's compare keeping an old Japanese gasoline 4-cylinder for 25 years rather than some diesels. I'm on years 19 and 11 with mine, and neither show any signs of dying soon. And they get better mileage than most of the new models from both of their manufacturers.
I suppose ending is better than mending though, good thing we crushed metric shit-tons of perfectly usable already manufactured (the carbon-cost to make them was already sunk) cars under the guise of environmentalism to prop up the auto industry during the recession.
As I typed it, I knew this response was coming.
Bravo!