Hey - don't be like the intolerant Antifa (now there's an oxymoron) anti-free speech people. Everyone should have their say, whether you agree or disagree. You have the option of ignoring it.
I miss the likes of Edgar R Murrow, Walter Cronkite, pre-60 Minutes Harry Reasoner, even Huntley and Brinkley, who didn't have the luxury of more than 30 minutes a day. Even written news sucks these days. You'd think CNN, Fox, etc. web "news" could afford to hire a few English majors away from McDonalds to do copy editing, but no, we have to live through really poor spelling, grammar, and a total absence of the 5 Ws so they have time to do stories about Obama not taking selfies anymore.
Now, get off my lawn and go watch The Daily Show for news.:)
Hey, add a bit more and you could have a self-driving car! And, if you have self-driving cars, they shouldn't be speeding, or running red lights, or doing any of the other bad things which V2V is supposed to detect.
So? The exclusivity of copyright isn't in any way a natural law - it's an artificial creation which society provides for a limited time to encourage creation, so that society can afterwards gains from unrestricted use of that work. Nobody writes a song assuming an ROI covering more than 20 years. Copyright doesn't need to be longer than that (or the original 14 + one 14 year renewal, which I support) in order to encourage creation of new works. Current term is life of the author plus 70 years. Would you at least agree that is too long?
There's no reason for Beatles songs to still be under copyright, either songwriting or performance. Same for Disney's Snow White. It's long past time for society to get paid for providing those exclusive rights to begin with.
Copyrights are automatic at the time of creation. A patent is much more effort to obtain, not just the idea but the documentation and process. Yet they last only 20 years. And there's no lack of new inventions because of it.
The problem is you simply don't understand copyright. When you get that hit at 35, the copyright for that recording would still last 20 years, even though the copyright on the tune and lyrics would expire in only two.
Think of Disney, and Snow White. There's no copyright on the Snow White story (Bros. Grimm), but Disney does have a copyright on their cartoon using that story. You can make your own Snow White cartoon, but you can't copy Disney's.
CNN hasn't been news for a long, long time. It's all editorial punditry about the news, which seems to be the only way they can find to fill a 24 hour channel. (same with Fox and MSNBC, and most others).
Yea. Who cares if a term is grammatically incorrect when it is more importantly factually incorrect. There is no time saving(s) - the numbers just shift.
"an advertising environment that's completely saturated with unregulated foreign propaganda, rubber-stamped with approval by an ostensibly loyal, United States citizen-owned publicly traded corporation."
So, if Facebook ads effect non-US politics, it's all fine, because "USA, fuck yeah!"
Disclosure rules? WTF? The filter should be on the receiving end. The Russians have their agenda (and it's more about trolling us than overpowering us), and the media has their agenda (which is more about indoctrinating us than educating us). F them all, it's not like any are trustworthy anymore. It's the info that matters, not the source.
Anyone who gets their information from the Bookface, or sucking at the media's (left or right) teat, deserves what they get. People need to take personal responsibility for educating themselves with diverse viewpoints, and using that to create a worldview based on knowledge and belief informed by root principles. If you can't filter disinformation from your inputs, you're doing it wrong.
nope. Your entire argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the bandwidth isn't distributed evenly between users (and the 4K user is allowed to burst when others aren't using their bandwidth). There's nothing that says a cell provider has to add more capacity to support multiple heavy traffic users.
Why should a person who streams an hour of 4K pay more than someone else who streams 4 hours of 1080p? They're ultimately equivalent in terms of network use. And, if the promise is "unlimited," any artificial limit breaks that promise.
You, of course, should be able to sign up for a cheaper limited plan, where you can choose to use it up in a day watching video, or spread it over a month streaming audio.
This move appears to violate that provision - it treats some content differently than other content. And before someone argues that they still offer to transport higher quality video content, I'll point out that it's a matter of degree. If they can charge $10/mo, how is that different than them charging $1,000,000 per connection and effectively blocking that content, other than in degree? The clear intent of the rules was to require VZW be blind to the content.
"assumes it's 200 people from a specific subdivision."
Everyone being laid off is part of the same subdivision (in the literal, not business, sense) of the company, the underperformers. Nothing in the meaning of "en masse" would even imply they would all have to be from, say, the accounting department. It's the firing of a specific group of people as a single action - i.e. "en masse."
Slashdot Mirror
Hey - don't be like the intolerant Antifa (now there's an oxymoron) anti-free speech people. Everyone should have their say, whether you agree or disagree. You have the option of ignoring it.
The GP is correct - the writer was wrong by a factor of 10000%.
I miss the likes of Edgar R Murrow, Walter Cronkite, pre-60 Minutes Harry Reasoner, even Huntley and Brinkley, who didn't have the luxury of more than 30 minutes a day. Even written news sucks these days. You'd think CNN, Fox, etc. web "news" could afford to hire a few English majors away from McDonalds to do copy editing, but no, we have to live through really poor spelling, grammar, and a total absence of the 5 Ws so they have time to do stories about Obama not taking selfies anymore.
:)
Now, get off my lawn and go watch The Daily Show for news.
"May as well just put cameras in the cars too."
Hey, add a bit more and you could have a self-driving car! And, if you have self-driving cars, they shouldn't be speeding, or running red lights, or doing any of the other bad things which V2V is supposed to detect.
If I'm not speeding, there's no need to monitor me.
So? The exclusivity of copyright isn't in any way a natural law - it's an artificial creation which society provides for a limited time to encourage creation, so that society can afterwards gains from unrestricted use of that work. Nobody writes a song assuming an ROI covering more than 20 years. Copyright doesn't need to be longer than that (or the original 14 + one 14 year renewal, which I support) in order to encourage creation of new works. Current term is life of the author plus 70 years. Would you at least agree that is too long?
There's no reason for Beatles songs to still be under copyright, either songwriting or performance. Same for Disney's Snow White. It's long past time for society to get paid for providing those exclusive rights to begin with.
Copyrights are automatic at the time of creation. A patent is much more effort to obtain, not just the idea but the documentation and process. Yet they last only 20 years. And there's no lack of new inventions because of it.
The problem is you simply don't understand copyright. When you get that hit at 35, the copyright for that recording would still last 20 years, even though the copyright on the tune and lyrics would expire in only two.
Think of Disney, and Snow White. There's no copyright on the Snow White story (Bros. Grimm), but Disney does have a copyright on their cartoon using that story. You can make your own Snow White cartoon, but you can't copy Disney's.
Rachel Maddow, is that you?
CNN hasn't been news for a long, long time. It's all editorial punditry about the news, which seems to be the only way they can find to fill a 24 hour channel. (same with Fox and MSNBC, and most others).
Yea. Who cares if a term is grammatically incorrect when it is more importantly factually incorrect. There is no time saving(s) - the numbers just shift.
"an advertising environment that's completely saturated with unregulated foreign propaganda, rubber-stamped with approval by an ostensibly loyal, United States citizen-owned publicly traded corporation."
So, if Facebook ads effect non-US politics, it's all fine, because "USA, fuck yeah!"
Disclosure rules? WTF? The filter should be on the receiving end. The Russians have their agenda (and it's more about trolling us than overpowering us), and the media has their agenda (which is more about indoctrinating us than educating us). F them all, it's not like any are trustworthy anymore. It's the info that matters, not the source.
Anyone who gets their information from the Bookface, or sucking at the media's (left or right) teat, deserves what they get. People need to take personal responsibility for educating themselves with diverse viewpoints, and using that to create a worldview based on knowledge and belief informed by root principles. If you can't filter disinformation from your inputs, you're doing it wrong.
I'm pained that all the work you put into copy/pasting a story didn't win you the robust accolades you so justly deserve.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
"it's a 20 year old strategy."
So, you're a millennial? Cause, grocery has always been low margin with price leaders.
And, Walmart.
Whole Foods is not where you go to save money.
Equifax should have been regularly checking freesecuritycheck.com.
So what? There's no guarantee of available bandwidth, and the carrier is not committed to adding infrastructure to create more.
nope. Your entire argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the bandwidth isn't distributed evenly between users (and the 4K user is allowed to burst when others aren't using their bandwidth). There's nothing that says a cell provider has to add more capacity to support multiple heavy traffic users.
Why should a person who streams an hour of 4K pay more than someone else who streams 4 hours of 1080p? They're ultimately equivalent in terms of network use. And, if the promise is "unlimited," any artificial limit breaks that promise.
You, of course, should be able to sign up for a cheaper limited plan, where you can choose to use it up in a day watching video, or spread it over a month streaming audio.
Probably not, with the new FCC boss.
When VZW won the auction for their new LTE bands back in 2008, one of the requirements was Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire
This move appears to violate that provision - it treats some content differently than other content. And before someone argues that they still offer to transport higher quality video content, I'll point out that it's a matter of degree. If they can charge $10/mo, how is that different than them charging $1,000,000 per connection and effectively blocking that content, other than in degree? The clear intent of the rules was to require VZW be blind to the content.
OK, if you prefer to use your understanding...
"assumes it's 200 people from a specific subdivision."
Everyone being laid off is part of the same subdivision (in the literal, not business, sense) of the company, the underperformers. Nothing in the meaning of "en masse" would even imply they would all have to be from, say, the accounting department. It's the firing of a specific group of people as a single action - i.e. "en masse."
"A few firings here and there, adding up to 200, isn't en masse."
Yes, it is, if done as part of a single action.
"Mass" as in "en masse" (i.e. as a group), not as in "massive."
The name alone - STD - tells you it's something best avoided.
I don't think they were testing on heads in jars.