This is Trump's way of saying that he doesn't care if T-Mobile employees literally stay at his hotel, but they damn well better pay for more of those rooms.
Well, that's the point. By going after him, they're indicating that they believe he did more than be full of himself. They're saying they have proof of a crime. But now they're saying they don't have evidence of a crime. So they have proof without evidence, according to them.
I think this is the DoJ's say of saying they're becoming a faith-based organization, and this little story about some random foreigner is how you start to accept it. That way, when they decide to defend Trump instead of prosecute him, you'll have already been acclimated.
That nola.com page contains iframes which reference washingtonpost.com videos. Some people just see a blank white box there, some people see an error message about not being able to show on that "domain" (which I think really just means the DRM failed), and some people get to see an embedded video.
So this is our world, huh? Oscars. I think I now see how Trump is going to go down.
Trump & family's criminal conspiracy with foreign governments against America will be proven, but no action will be taken. Campaign finance violations will be proven, but no action will be taken. Massive tax fraud has already been proven and more will be proven, but no action will be taken except for financial penalties. Multiple counts of obstruction of justice have already been proven and more will be, but no action will be taken. Direct theft from the treasury will be proven ("wall money" laundered through contractors into Trump's pocket), but no action will be taken. Then we'll find out in the Mueller report that the conspiracy with Russia wasn't to interfere with the election, but it was to buy sex slaves children from Russia using the money obtained by selling nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, but Barr will say "I've got experience with this" and he'll successfully protect everyone.
And then Trump will be arrested, convicted and sentenced to federal prison for life, for cheating at golf.
Their parents not only get to play video games, but they drink a sixpack every night, take various legal opioids, possibly semi-legal pot, and an occasional treat of coke or meth, go to church on Sunday, have one-night-stands to prove to themselves that they're desirable, collect porn by the Terabyte that they'll never have time to watch, blow paychecks at casinos, overeat, check slashdot/reddit/facebook 20 times per day each, and occasionally start a fire or steal something for a little excitement on the side.
I wouldn't show the ads on my real home screen or give them access to my real coordinates/camera/etc, but sure, in exchange for internet access I might be willing to run their malware inside of some kind of container, if I had confidence in the container really being secure.
If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need.
Wrong, it needs one more thing. It needs to be legalized.
It's currently illegal to repair things that you own, if the manufacturer uses a technological measure to limit access (i.e. DRM). Until we repeal DMCA, a lot of everyone's common sense will remain legally incorrect. It's a corrupt law, purely motivated by corruption and nothing else.
I'd ask Warren, though, why tractors are a special case.
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
"Let's talk about something else. Please, please think of us as actual big-talking, big-spending politicians, not merely as criminals. There has got to be something other than government corruption for you people to be thinking and talking about." [Leaving out "Oh, and a few of us might have personal investments in an aerospace contractor," in order to stay within the constraints of the question.]
Are you asking if the internet/entertainment industries (basically every dollar that Google-to-Netflix-to-Facebook-to-Disney is fighting for) should be legalized? Yes, I think the people who are trying to turn us into wireheads are just trying to give us what we want. Liberty and the endless monetized pursuit of happiness is what we come here to Slashdot to talk about every day. If that conflicts with Life, oh well, two out of three ain't bad.
"That's because my new social network is an email newsletter."
You made sense (though in a very out-of-date way) until that very last word (newsletter). It's just email, and newsletters are an obscure niche within. And newsletters are probably the least social, since it's usually just one entity shouting at a bunch of others, without replies. Newsletters are nearly asocial, a great example of taking "socialness" to the absolute, barest minimum without be totally disqualified (still technically "social" since a person is talking to others). Get away from newsletters, though, and email gets a lot more social.
But for many (granted, not all!) people, email is one of their old social networks (other popular ones being Usenet, CompuServe/AOL forums, etc), and over the last 25 years a lot of people have transitioned to WWW-based social networks.
I think anyone who thinks people are generally moving from the web to email for social networks is just plain wrong. But there are signs that some people are moving from the web to proprietary messaging protocols. They're not email, though.
Yeah, but I read in another thread that, within a class of stuff, people only want to deal with one or two suppliers at most. So that means each person can only read up to two websites for their news, or else they'll suffer from website fatigue.
I wouldn't need their set-top box, just publish the APIs and developers can all work it into their media players. If it requires their box, then it's still "just cable."
Let me get this straight: you're anticipating or fearing, that Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu will decide to "fire" over half of their paying customers, telling them that unless you switch to an iOS device, we don't want your fucking money anymore?
I'd laugh at you if Hollywood didn't already have such a great track record of telling people they'd prefer to not have customers. Ok, so maybe Hulu will decide they don't want to be a for-profit company with customers anymore.
But Netflix? I really don't think so; they're already in bed with a lot of hardware manufacturers (doesn't pretty much every "smart TV" come with a built-in Netflix client?).
And Amazon? Amazon?! Fuck no. They are not going to tell all their customers to fuck off. They're a serious business, Walmart serious. They're there to make money from customers.
Yeah, pretty much that, plus the fact that they don't even really sell it yet, so there aren't downsides to make things more nuanced or cause there to be another "side."
(What else you gonna do, run their software on your computers? That'd be silly; it's not happening. If everyone did that, we'd be living in a world full of malware and unreliable compu.. hey, waitaminute.)
If the people who made it want money, they can run a business, just like the media companies did up until the late 1990s. Back then I spent so much money on movies it was almost embarrassing, so we know that selling playable media is a practical business model. It just hasn't been among Hollywood's priorities yet.
Anyway, I don't have any 4k hardware, so relax. The blu-ray rips are still just fine for all the screens I have. By the time I get around to upgrading any of my hardware, I'm sure Hollywood will finally be selling standard mp4 or mkv files by then. It's inconceivable that Hollywood's loud and clear "you really should be pirating our stuff instead of buying it" message has gone overlooked in all the board rooms. The chance that everyone in California is a communist, is absurdly low. We'll probably read about them opening for business on/. next week and this whole thread will be forgotten.
Easy to say, but have you considered the practical ramifications? If I stop, one strain of malware will gain dominance. It's better to keep installing different malwares over each other, to prevent any of them from getting too powerful. They're already recording video of my most private moments; the last thing I want is for things to get worse.
People who actually see their spam (i.e. don't have fully automated filtering) have known that Facebook stores plaintext passwords, and that their database has been stolen, for quite some time.
I get about 10-20 (it varies) of the "I infected you with malware when you were jacking off to porn and recorded you jacking off" spams per day, where the spammer tells you an actual password that you used (for credibility when they claim they've compromised your machine), along with the email address that goes with that password. Among those, it's not unusual to see the address and the password that I had used for Facebook. Of course, there are plenty of others (I use a different email address and password for each website) but Facebook is definitely one of them.
For several months, I'm pretty sure it's been widely known by most email users (or at least the ones who occasionally glance at their spam) that Facebook got caught with their pants down.
(Or if not all email users who look at their spam knew this, at least it's the subset of us who always remember to install a user-facing camera and also install malware, whenever we're jacking off to porn. Maybe I should stop doing that.)
Pretty sure the number of surprised people is around 0.
I suppose this is good news for people who want 4k content but can't use proprietary stores or players. They might as well just pirate the stuff until/unless the industry starts selling standard files. (Who the fuck wants to have to use iTunes?)
Unless those arguments came with a campaign contribution check, they were irrelevant arguments.
Along those lines, the best argument in favor of using government force to prevent people from repairing the things that they own, is: "here's my check; hope your ad gets seen by lots of people before the election."
If the plastic can only be recycled at a financial loss, that suggests to me that you had even more downsides caused by recycling it, than you eliminated. It might be additional pollution caused by the recycling process, or higher energy requirements (which also may come with additional pollution) or something else I haven't thought of. What, exactly, caused the recycling to be more expensive than using raw materials? That will tell you what price you paid that you measured as being worse than the consequences of tossing it into a landfill.
(A toxic piece of plastic sitting around for a thousand years might sound bad, but it's not as bad as two toxic pieces of plastic sitting around for two thousand years.)
The only way this doesn't add up, would be if you're subsidizing something. If you're undercharging for the landfill (e.g. you consider the plastic sitting there to be very bad (i.e. high cost) but then you also let people dump there for "free" or nearly so, much less than what you consider to be the cost) then subsidizing the pollution can appear to make the recycling not pay. If that's what's going on, well, don't do that.
while many people may want to recycle in theory, they don't want to pay the true cost of recycling.
The easiest way to identify real recycling (as opposed to bullshit) is when the net "true cost" is negative.
People are willing to literally pay me for my aluminum cans. Or I can be a "nice guy" and give them to my city, and they can take the cans to the people who pay them.
But if no one is willing to pay for your trash, then there's a good chance that it's probably really trash (not effectively recyclable).
There is significant processing to be done if we want it to actually work, but we seem to think it should be no more expensive than just tossing stuff into the landfill
If the processing costs more than tossing it into the landfill, it doesn't "actually work." You should toss it into a landfill, because the processing is just another form of energy waste or pollution which didn't save anyone money compared to using raw materials.
Why would I buy something that comes with arbitrary limits?
I think one of the more popular reasons people give for buying equipment that enforces DRM is that people want the TV shows, the movies and of course all the popular games and apps. Maybe that is why you'll buy yet another one of these types of things: because it'll match your phone and your streaming entertainment service.
Slashdot Mirror
This is Trump's way of saying that he doesn't care if T-Mobile employees literally stay at his hotel, but they damn well better pay for more of those rooms.
Well, that's the point. By going after him, they're indicating that they believe he did more than be full of himself. They're saying they have proof of a crime. But now they're saying they don't have evidence of a crime. So they have proof without evidence, according to them.
I think this is the DoJ's say of saying they're becoming a faith-based organization, and this little story about some random foreigner is how you start to accept it. That way, when they decide to defend Trump instead of prosecute him, you'll have already been acclimated.
Yes, the era of people not knowing how to infer has just ended. Congrats on the new era's first post! That was exquisite timing; I'm jealous.
That nola.com page contains iframes which reference washingtonpost.com videos. Some people just see a blank white box there, some people see an error message about not being able to show on that "domain" (which I think really just means the DRM failed), and some people get to see an embedded video.
So this is our world, huh? Oscars. I think I now see how Trump is going to go down.
Trump & family's criminal conspiracy with foreign governments against America will be proven, but no action will be taken. Campaign finance violations will be proven, but no action will be taken. Massive tax fraud has already been proven and more will be proven, but no action will be taken except for financial penalties. Multiple counts of obstruction of justice have already been proven and more will be, but no action will be taken. Direct theft from the treasury will be proven ("wall money" laundered through contractors into Trump's pocket), but no action will be taken. Then we'll find out in the Mueller report that the conspiracy with Russia wasn't to interfere with the election, but it was to buy sex slaves children from Russia using the money obtained by selling nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, but Barr will say "I've got experience with this" and he'll successfully protect everyone.
And then Trump will be arrested, convicted and sentenced to federal prison for life, for cheating at golf.
Their parents not only get to play video games, but they drink a sixpack every night, take various legal opioids, possibly semi-legal pot, and an occasional treat of coke or meth, go to church on Sunday, have one-night-stands to prove to themselves that they're desirable, collect porn by the Terabyte that they'll never have time to watch, blow paychecks at casinos, overeat, check slashdot/reddit/facebook 20 times per day each, and occasionally start a fire or steal something for a little excitement on the side.
They ought to be experts!
I wouldn't show the ads on my real home screen or give them access to my real coordinates/camera/etc, but sure, in exchange for internet access I might be willing to run their malware inside of some kind of container, if I had confidence in the container really being secure.
Wrong, it needs one more thing. It needs to be legalized.
It's currently illegal to repair things that you own, if the manufacturer uses a technological measure to limit access (i.e. DRM). Until we repeal DMCA, a lot of everyone's common sense will remain legally incorrect. It's a corrupt law, purely motivated by corruption and nothing else.
I'd ask Warren, though, why tractors are a special case.
So you're saying it's about the consumer?
I didn't watch it, but I suspect the Freemasons weren't mentioned either. WTF is the world coming to, that people could be so blind?!
"Let's talk about something else. Please, please think of us as actual big-talking, big-spending politicians, not merely as criminals. There has got to be something other than government corruption for you people to be thinking and talking about." [Leaving out "Oh, and a few of us might have personal investments in an aerospace contractor," in order to stay within the constraints of the question.]
Are you asking if the internet/entertainment industries (basically every dollar that Google-to-Netflix-to-Facebook-to-Disney is fighting for) should be legalized? Yes, I think the people who are trying to turn us into wireheads are just trying to give us what we want. Liberty and the endless monetized pursuit of happiness is what we come here to Slashdot to talk about every day. If that conflicts with Life, oh well, two out of three ain't bad.
You made sense (though in a very out-of-date way) until that very last word (newsletter). It's just email, and newsletters are an obscure niche within. And newsletters are probably the least social, since it's usually just one entity shouting at a bunch of others, without replies. Newsletters are nearly asocial, a great example of taking "socialness" to the absolute, barest minimum without be totally disqualified (still technically "social" since a person is talking to others). Get away from newsletters, though, and email gets a lot more social.
But for many (granted, not all!) people, email is one of their old social networks (other popular ones being Usenet, CompuServe/AOL forums, etc), and over the last 25 years a lot of people have transitioned to WWW-based social networks.
I think anyone who thinks people are generally moving from the web to email for social networks is just plain wrong. But there are signs that some people are moving from the web to proprietary messaging protocols. They're not email, though.
Yeah, but I read in another thread that, within a class of stuff, people only want to deal with one or two suppliers at most. So that means each person can only read up to two websites for their news, or else they'll suffer from website fatigue.
I wouldn't need their set-top box, just publish the APIs and developers can all work it into their media players. If it requires their box, then it's still "just cable."
Let me get this straight: you're anticipating or fearing, that Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu will decide to "fire" over half of their paying customers, telling them that unless you switch to an iOS device, we don't want your fucking money anymore?
I'd laugh at you if Hollywood didn't already have such a great track record of telling people they'd prefer to not have customers. Ok, so maybe Hulu will decide they don't want to be a for-profit company with customers anymore.
But Netflix? I really don't think so; they're already in bed with a lot of hardware manufacturers (doesn't pretty much every "smart TV" come with a built-in Netflix client?).
And Amazon? Amazon?! Fuck no. They are not going to tell all their customers to fuck off. They're a serious business, Walmart serious. They're there to make money from customers.
Yeah, pretty much that, plus the fact that they don't even really sell it yet, so there aren't downsides to make things more nuanced or cause there to be another "side."
(What else you gonna do, run their software on your computers? That'd be silly; it's not happening. If everyone did that, we'd be living in a world full of malware and unreliable compu.. hey, waitaminute.)
If the people who made it want money, they can run a business, just like the media companies did up until the late 1990s. Back then I spent so much money on movies it was almost embarrassing, so we know that selling playable media is a practical business model. It just hasn't been among Hollywood's priorities yet.
Anyway, I don't have any 4k hardware, so relax. The blu-ray rips are still just fine for all the screens I have. By the time I get around to upgrading any of my hardware, I'm sure Hollywood will finally be selling standard mp4 or mkv files by then. It's inconceivable that Hollywood's loud and clear "you really should be pirating our stuff instead of buying it" message has gone overlooked in all the board rooms. The chance that everyone in California is a communist, is absurdly low. We'll probably read about them opening for business on /. next week and this whole thread will be forgotten.
Easy to say, but have you considered the practical ramifications? If I stop, one strain of malware will gain dominance. It's better to keep installing different malwares over each other, to prevent any of them from getting too powerful. They're already recording video of my most private moments; the last thing I want is for things to get worse.
People who actually see their spam (i.e. don't have fully automated filtering) have known that Facebook stores plaintext passwords, and that their database has been stolen, for quite some time.
I get about 10-20 (it varies) of the "I infected you with malware when you were jacking off to porn and recorded you jacking off" spams per day, where the spammer tells you an actual password that you used (for credibility when they claim they've compromised your machine), along with the email address that goes with that password. Among those, it's not unusual to see the address and the password that I had used for Facebook. Of course, there are plenty of others (I use a different email address and password for each website) but Facebook is definitely one of them.
For several months, I'm pretty sure it's been widely known by most email users (or at least the ones who occasionally glance at their spam) that Facebook got caught with their pants down.
(Or if not all email users who look at their spam knew this, at least it's the subset of us who always remember to install a user-facing camera and also install malware, whenever we're jacking off to porn. Maybe I should stop doing that.)
Pretty sure the number of surprised people is around 0.
I suppose this is good news for people who want 4k content but can't use proprietary stores or players. They might as well just pirate the stuff until/unless the industry starts selling standard files. (Who the fuck wants to have to use iTunes?)
Unless those arguments came with a campaign contribution check, they were irrelevant arguments.
Along those lines, the best argument in favor of using government force to prevent people from repairing the things that they own, is: "here's my check; hope your ad gets seen by lots of people before the election."
If the plastic can only be recycled at a financial loss, that suggests to me that you had even more downsides caused by recycling it, than you eliminated. It might be additional pollution caused by the recycling process, or higher energy requirements (which also may come with additional pollution) or something else I haven't thought of. What, exactly, caused the recycling to be more expensive than using raw materials? That will tell you what price you paid that you measured as being worse than the consequences of tossing it into a landfill.
(A toxic piece of plastic sitting around for a thousand years might sound bad, but it's not as bad as two toxic pieces of plastic sitting around for two thousand years.)
The only way this doesn't add up, would be if you're subsidizing something. If you're undercharging for the landfill (e.g. you consider the plastic sitting there to be very bad (i.e. high cost) but then you also let people dump there for "free" or nearly so, much less than what you consider to be the cost) then subsidizing the pollution can appear to make the recycling not pay. If that's what's going on, well, don't do that.
The easiest way to identify real recycling (as opposed to bullshit) is when the net "true cost" is negative.
People are willing to literally pay me for my aluminum cans. Or I can be a "nice guy" and give them to my city, and they can take the cans to the people who pay them.
But if no one is willing to pay for your trash, then there's a good chance that it's probably really trash (not effectively recyclable).
If the processing costs more than tossing it into the landfill, it doesn't "actually work." You should toss it into a landfill, because the processing is just another form of energy waste or pollution which didn't save anyone money compared to using raw materials.
Then we can bust the robot driver every time we see traffic in wireshark.
I think one of the more popular reasons people give for buying equipment that enforces DRM is that people want the TV shows, the movies and of course all the popular games and apps. Maybe that is why you'll buy yet another one of these types of things: because it'll match your phone and your streaming entertainment service.