Personally, I don't. A healthy economy needs two things: Stability and to be left alone. An incompetent government that can't pass any legislation is generally a good thing.
What has society come to when these poor people aren't allowed to quit and find better employment. We should be ashamed of ourselves for forcing slavery on to our own citizens.
That it was even published should be a huge indication that they're biased, just like the rest.
It's a requirement to be suspicious of any news source as a rational human being. What's most amusing about that to me is that it's so far outside people's "normal experience" that they simply can't fathom what that means. Take the most biased news source you can imagine. Now read an article that wildly disagrees with something you believe to be true. Feel that skepticism? That disbelief? That's how I read all news articles.
Mind you, that's only half the equation, but I hope you are starting to comprehend just how naive you might be.
CNN has already retracted..what? One story about Trump and Russia? Yes, you can argue that by retracting it they are maintaining their integrity, but that they published it in the first place kind of gives lie to it.
Huffpo is no better than Breitbart in my book, it's laughable you'd include it even the same sentence as CNN.
Point being, no news source is balanced. Accepting a 'balanced viewpoint' is effectively surrendering your own critical thinking skills in favor of theirs. That's why you read all of them. You learn to see their bias, and you learn how to correct for it.
As far as my "political compass"; I've been horrified by politics ever since I started voted ( before really ). That's really the only rational response to the insanity that plays out every couple years across the country.
I understand that. My point being; there is little difference between shaping to the edge of your network or to the next hop; the edge of the ISP's network ( bufferbloat aside ). We could realize real gains by accurate and appropriate QoS flowing from end point on a client's network all the way to the server on the remote network, without dropping ( too many ) packets, and certainly nothing noticeable. At the very least, it would allow ISPs to more fully utilize their infrastructure which, in my dreamland, would result in cost savings being passed on to the consumer.
If QoS were used correctly and appropriately. Which of course, we can't trust ISPs to do. Nor can we trust the ISPs to do either.
Mind you; I'm not advocating for or against net neutrality here. Due to the trust issues I lean towards being pro-neutrality, but it bothers my net admin bone in that it wastes capability.
>Translation: "We must strike a balance between truth and lies."
Is that what you got from his post? It was actually pretty insightful ( no mod points, sorry ), and it's precisely what I do. It helps counter the bias inherent in each source where you result in actual information.
Do it long enough the weasel words media outlets like to use really start jumping out at you.
Allowing end points to set their own QoS is just as bad as letting the ISPs do it. We need an intermediate authority which sets the QoS for end users but who doesn't stand any chance for profit from prioritizing one data stream provider over another.
That's not my understanding of net neutrality at all. I always thought it was more a packet / host level prioritization thing. Blocking is, arguably, different, and does not fall under net neutrality. Nor does end point firewall and filtering.
QoS has only limited usefulness if it's stripped at the ISP's edge, and that's the problem.
In an ideal world, I think we'd all love to have QoS control over our traffic from it's origin to termination ( my phone server to digium's SIP gateway, for instance ). However, the problem is as I mentioned; while I might follow the rules, I'd be in the minority. The ISPs are the only ones in the right position to affect and implement appropriate QoS.
Which of course they wouldn't. No one believes that. Which is where we are today. Internet wide QoS would be ideal, but there's no effective way to implement because doing so would rely on trust.
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust. Ie: in actual practice every one would set inappropriate priorities, and the system would be much the same as it is now ( all traffic "equal" ).
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it. Network Admins prioritize traffic on their networks, after all, in order to deliver better service. It's not unreasonable for internet carriers to have the same goals. Where it goes off the rails is that every single person involved knows that the carriers can't be trusted to appropriately prioritize traffic, instead leveraging it to the point of breaking the internet all to make a few bucks.
I'd be interested in a Internet Prioritization solution which did not allow carriers to blackmail service providers but instead were forced to apply and respect appropriate QoS flags.
Take this a step further, require them to report your last day of employment as the last day of the non-compete. Ie: no employment gaps on your resume.
I don't even care about the chrome. I'm talking about UI flow. Don't "upgrade" and make the same task take more clicks in the newer version, for instance. Or split control panels. Or hide power buttons. Or about 100 other stupid little UI changes.
Don't make your operating system HARDER to use in newer versions, basically. How you dress it doesn't mean squat to me; sure, go flat retrograde UI. But make it easier to use or don't change it if you can't.
What MS should do is hire an actual User Interface Designer. I know they haven't had one since at the latest 2002. Vista, 7, 8 and now 10 are all progressively more painful to use and hostile to the user, so it's obvious they don't have one on staff.
I'm not even talking about the crap they try to shove down our throats for marketing purposes, but even down to the little things. The login screen in xp/2000 era was simple: username, password, domain. Then you got vista, where you had to click a button to get the login interface, or click another to change the default user, then hit the right button to login ( instead of the more obvious button which allowed you to change your login account ).
It's absurd. So much so I don't know an admin who doesn't cringe with each new release of windows and office. We know they changed some small UX thing that's going to confuse our users and will result in untold hours in support.
I was/am that guy, and while much of what you say has merit there is a bonus; my work ethic has exposed me to virtually every system out there and because I took responsibility for it, I've had to become a passable expert in it. This has tremendously increased my worth in a field where the only way to make the big bucks is to jump ship. Several times.
That obviously doesn't apply to someone who doesn't want to play that game, so take it for what it's worth.
The Doctor was never about his gender, so switching it up shouldn't be cause for alarm.
However, as another poster mentioned, let's just hope this doesn't result in the writers going on a full "Patriarchy" writing binge, where the Doctor saves women from the evils of men in every episode.
There's so much potential for fun with the gender switch, I just hope they exploit that instead of going all "WOMENZ RULEZ THE WORLDSS!@!!!!1".
I realize this won't be a popular opinion, but perhaps the bias is warranted? If the data being fed in is accurate, I don't see how we can treat that bias as anything other than a rational response.
Of course I recognize there are a thousand other possible culprits here, but we should not dismiss possibilities out of hand simply because they make us feel embarrassed.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we really want our government thriving?
Personally, I don't. A healthy economy needs two things: Stability and to be left alone. An incompetent government that can't pass any legislation is generally a good thing.
..if his proposals go through, I'm looking at a refund about 10x what I was anticipating, with my obligation falling from 14,500 to ~10,000.
As I loathe giving this government a single dime, I have to say I'm quite pleased with this potential outcome.
An End To Phone Pranking
Challenge accepted.
There's no need for you to resort to name calling, I already know your argument is flawed.
Oh I know this one! A world where there is unemployment and even having a job isn't a given!
Welp,I'm convinced; slavery is a much better system.
What has society come to when these poor people aren't allowed to quit and find better employment. We should be ashamed of ourselves for forcing slavery on to our own citizens.
Seems as those "not finishing" might be right in this dude's wheel house.
I'd like to know the answer to this question, too.
That it was even published should be a huge indication that they're biased, just like the rest.
It's a requirement to be suspicious of any news source as a rational human being. What's most amusing about that to me is that it's so far outside people's "normal experience" that they simply can't fathom what that means. Take the most biased news source you can imagine. Now read an article that wildly disagrees with something you believe to be true. Feel that skepticism? That disbelief? That's how I read all news articles.
Mind you, that's only half the equation, but I hope you are starting to comprehend just how naive you might be.
CNN has already retracted..what? One story about Trump and Russia? Yes, you can argue that by retracting it they are maintaining their integrity, but that they published it in the first place kind of gives lie to it.
Huffpo is no better than Breitbart in my book, it's laughable you'd include it even the same sentence as CNN.
Point being, no news source is balanced. Accepting a 'balanced viewpoint' is effectively surrendering your own critical thinking skills in favor of theirs. That's why you read all of them. You learn to see their bias, and you learn how to correct for it.
As far as my "political compass"; I've been horrified by politics ever since I started voted ( before really ). That's really the only rational response to the insanity that plays out every couple years across the country.
I understand that. My point being; there is little difference between shaping to the edge of your network or to the next hop; the edge of the ISP's network ( bufferbloat aside ). We could realize real gains by accurate and appropriate QoS flowing from end point on a client's network all the way to the server on the remote network, without dropping ( too many ) packets, and certainly nothing noticeable. At the very least, it would allow ISPs to more fully utilize their infrastructure which, in my dreamland, would result in cost savings being passed on to the consumer.
If QoS were used correctly and appropriately. Which of course, we can't trust ISPs to do. Nor can we trust the ISPs to do either.
Mind you; I'm not advocating for or against net neutrality here. Due to the trust issues I lean towards being pro-neutrality, but it bothers my net admin bone in that it wastes capability.
>Translation: "We must strike a balance between truth and lies."
Is that what you got from his post? It was actually pretty insightful ( no mod points, sorry ), and it's precisely what I do. It helps counter the bias inherent in each source where you result in actual information.
Do it long enough the weasel words media outlets like to use really start jumping out at you.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I read your comment as implying that blocking traffic on end user networks violates net neutrality. This is false.
I think you're missing my point.
Allowing end points to set their own QoS is just as bad as letting the ISPs do it. We need an intermediate authority which sets the QoS for end users but who doesn't stand any chance for profit from prioritizing one data stream provider over another.
That's not my understanding of net neutrality at all. I always thought it was more a packet / host level prioritization thing. Blocking is, arguably, different, and does not fall under net neutrality. Nor does end point firewall and filtering.
QoS has only limited usefulness if it's stripped at the ISP's edge, and that's the problem.
In an ideal world, I think we'd all love to have QoS control over our traffic from it's origin to termination ( my phone server to digium's SIP gateway, for instance ). However, the problem is as I mentioned; while I might follow the rules, I'd be in the minority. The ISPs are the only ones in the right position to affect and implement appropriate QoS.
Which of course they wouldn't. No one believes that. Which is where we are today. Internet wide QoS would be ideal, but there's no effective way to implement because doing so would rely on trust.
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust. Ie: in actual practice every one would set inappropriate priorities, and the system would be much the same as it is now ( all traffic "equal" ).
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it. Network Admins prioritize traffic on their networks, after all, in order to deliver better service. It's not unreasonable for internet carriers to have the same goals. Where it goes off the rails is that every single person involved knows that the carriers can't be trusted to appropriately prioritize traffic, instead leveraging it to the point of breaking the internet all to make a few bucks.
I'd be interested in a Internet Prioritization solution which did not allow carriers to blackmail service providers but instead were forced to apply and respect appropriate QoS flags.
Take this a step further, require them to report your last day of employment as the last day of the non-compete. Ie: no employment gaps on your resume.
I don't even care about the chrome. I'm talking about UI flow. Don't "upgrade" and make the same task take more clicks in the newer version, for instance. Or split control panels. Or hide power buttons. Or about 100 other stupid little UI changes.
Don't make your operating system HARDER to use in newer versions, basically. How you dress it doesn't mean squat to me; sure, go flat retrograde UI. But make it easier to use or don't change it if you can't.
Once again, being a responsible adult who pays their bills leaves you fucked.
I think I'm doing this adulting thing wrong.
Oh don't worry, none of you all could afford me.
What MS should do is hire an actual User Interface Designer. I know they haven't had one since at the latest 2002. Vista, 7, 8 and now 10 are all progressively more painful to use and hostile to the user, so it's obvious they don't have one on staff.
I'm not even talking about the crap they try to shove down our throats for marketing purposes, but even down to the little things. The login screen in xp/2000 era was simple: username, password, domain. Then you got vista, where you had to click a button to get the login interface, or click another to change the default user, then hit the right button to login ( instead of the more obvious button which allowed you to change your login account ).
It's absurd. So much so I don't know an admin who doesn't cringe with each new release of windows and office. We know they changed some small UX thing that's going to confuse our users and will result in untold hours in support.
I was/am that guy, and while much of what you say has merit there is a bonus; my work ethic has exposed me to virtually every system out there and because I took responsibility for it, I've had to become a passable expert in it. This has tremendously increased my worth in a field where the only way to make the big bucks is to jump ship. Several times.
That obviously doesn't apply to someone who doesn't want to play that game, so take it for what it's worth.
The Doctor was never about his gender, so switching it up shouldn't be cause for alarm.
However, as another poster mentioned, let's just hope this doesn't result in the writers going on a full "Patriarchy" writing binge, where the Doctor saves women from the evils of men in every episode.
There's so much potential for fun with the gender switch, I just hope they exploit that instead of going all "WOMENZ RULEZ THE WORLDSS!@!!!!1".
I realize this won't be a popular opinion, but perhaps the bias is warranted? If the data being fed in is accurate, I don't see how we can treat that bias as anything other than a rational response.
Of course I recognize there are a thousand other possible culprits here, but we should not dismiss possibilities out of hand simply because they make us feel embarrassed.