The ISPs will not be able to discriminate based on content. They can still discriminate based on customer usage.
If my neighbor is downloading full blast 24/7 I don't care if it is Netflix, Linux distributions, Steam games, or just a horrendous number of regular web pages; data is data. The ISP can still just slow down the user that is eating up the bandwidth.
What they cannot do is throttle based on the source. Otherwise, you get a world where all the bandwidth goes to the streams from the cable company website that just happens to be the ISPs parent company, but limited bandwidth for everyone else because they are competitors.
I am a little surprised that most in the linked Stack Overflow comments seem to be losing their collective minds over a trivial naming problem. Unicode gives the names 'less than sign', 'single left-pointing angle quotation mark', 'left-pointing angle bracket', 'mathematical left angle bracket', and 'left angle bracket'. Take your pick and add the word 'double' to the front. I would shorten to 'double left bracket' if context clues make the outcome obvious. The same applies to the right-hand version of the symbol.
It is a shame that the various programming language authorities don't specify the appropriate language as it would improve accessibility and clarity. But this makes little to no difference in the described classroom setting.
Offline video, background playback, and music/audio only are features that are relatively trivial and are frequently implemented by third party YouTube players.
It seems they are launching this in a poor way by even including these as "features."
The best the US administration can hope for here is to shatter the US software industry into a thousand small associated companies with strict data sharing agreements to handle overseas data. Worst case they slowly succeed at destroying any ability to run a US business that handles overseas customer information.
What is the goal here? There is no way that demanding that kind of access will be sustainable (short of all out secrecy which has obviously failed in this instance.)
just charge an entry fee to get rid of anyone who isn't serious, and then run the first 1/10th of the track as a safety and reliability test to get down to a usefull number.
Slashdot Mirror
The ISPs will not be able to discriminate based on content. They can still discriminate based on customer usage. If my neighbor is downloading full blast 24/7 I don't care if it is Netflix, Linux distributions, Steam games, or just a horrendous number of regular web pages; data is data. The ISP can still just slow down the user that is eating up the bandwidth. What they cannot do is throttle based on the source. Otherwise, you get a world where all the bandwidth goes to the streams from the cable company website that just happens to be the ISPs parent company, but limited bandwidth for everyone else because they are competitors.
I am a little surprised that most in the linked Stack Overflow comments seem to be losing their collective minds over a trivial naming problem. Unicode gives the names 'less than sign', 'single left-pointing angle quotation mark', 'left-pointing angle bracket', 'mathematical left angle bracket', and 'left angle bracket'. Take your pick and add the word 'double' to the front. I would shorten to 'double left bracket' if context clues make the outcome obvious. The same applies to the right-hand version of the symbol.
It is a shame that the various programming language authorities don't specify the appropriate language as it would improve accessibility and clarity. But this makes little to no difference in the described classroom setting.
Offline video, background playback, and music/audio only are features that are relatively trivial and are frequently implemented by third party YouTube players. It seems they are launching this in a poor way by even including these as "features."
The best the US administration can hope for here is to shatter the US software industry into a thousand small associated companies with strict data sharing agreements to handle overseas data. Worst case they slowly succeed at destroying any ability to run a US business that handles overseas customer information. What is the goal here? There is no way that demanding that kind of access will be sustainable (short of all out secrecy which has obviously failed in this instance.)
you have to type it to the rhythm of 'shave and a haircut...' :-P
just charge an entry fee to get rid of anyone who isn't serious, and then run the first 1/10th of the track as a safety and reliability test to get down to a usefull number.
Here is a nice link about why they would be toxic: Toxicity