With nothing but common sense to support my claim I suspect their declining viewer numbers have way more to do with people cutting the cord, doing other activities, losing interest, or maybe, just maybe they are so tired of the stupid commercials that occupy more time then the actual game and they've decided they have better things to do.
Nice. It used to be that people would say cord-cutting didn't work with sports entertainment. But now, maybe it's that sports entertainment doesn't work with cord-cutting.
People who watch this stuff, are watching other stuff too. They're getting constantly exposed to TV-done-better, and going back to an NFL game might be enjoyable as far as the "content" goes, but they rest of it, what used to be normal is now finally perceived as a freakish nightmare. THE ADS!
The ads were always there, of course, but people could ignore it because the ads were everywhere. But now they're just a sports thing.
The kneeling issue actually ties into this. The only reason the NFL might actually show their weakness by firing the kneelers, is because some advertiser doesn't like it. They can't do a thing about the kneelers without their image becoming even more associated with ads-instead-of-sports.
we subscribe to service that uses the very same cable, except in a way for which it was not designed (unicast vs. broadcast) and is ill-suited.
That problem was already solved in the late 1990s. [Amakai]
It was solved before that. My mid-1990s ISP had Usenet, just like most everyone else's ISP back then. But now Usenet servers are just run by a small handful of companies, so I'm going through the whole internet instead of just downloading from a building a few miles away.
I'm sure there's a business case for them not doing it; apparently using more bandwidth is cheaper than running a computer and some disks. Or not enough customers use it, or the binaries groups make "some disks" be a fuckton more expensive than I'm imagining, or.. something.
1. Too many services. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon are the big ones. But CBS has a service, HBO has a service, even WWE has a service. Even Disney and Stargate?!?!?! are soon to have a streaming service. At least Amazon throws other perks in with it. 2. Convenience, this relates to #1, but I really want to be able to go into one app. It has gotten worse than cable with ease of access.
This is why the video industry so desperately needs to standardize, immediately. Pirates' tools search for releases by many competing groups, can source from many different locations and protocols, but because there's no DRM and the content is standardized, it gets thrown into one collection with one front end, chosen from many competing front ends. Some people might use something as "spartan" as file manager and mpv, and some people use something as "fancy" as Kodi, and there are a shitload of choices in between. From a user point of view, this is a great situation. You have simplicity and diversity.
It's ok if there are lots of competing services as long as they're standardized. But if instead, you have to use their app, then it's dead in the water. I'll use my app (whatever that may be this year), thanks. Your service doesn't work with my app? Then your service doesn't exist.. except as some release group's source. They have the time and inclination to endure your app; I don't.
I suppose you could argue that NO retail copyright license is enforceable, but that seems overboard.
You can have an enforceable license, but it has to be an actual informed agreement and be done at the time of sale. Printing things on the box doesn't do that. Handing someone a piece of paper and saying "sign this" and they're not allowed to take the product out of the store until after they've signed, is how you do that.
That's not overboard, is it? Isn't that pretty much what all the consumer advocates in the thread are asking for? And isn't it already a well-established way to do business? I'm not describing something weird here; we all have handled some transactions like that. It's so normal, so well understood, and makes all the flamefest here go away. It's the obvious right thing to do, if the seller is convinced they need to get a contract. Instead of debating shrinkwrap, someone just pulls out a document and smugly says "is this your signature?"
And if the seller thinks sign-this-before-you-have-it is too much burden, well, we still have copyright. Those kinds of sellers don't need licenses. Licensing should pretty rare, anyway. It's certainly not normal for a vast majority of IP products. Movies don't need to be a weird exception.
Not that they can't be! If someone really does want to try licensing movies, they can. Say "sign this." That's all we gotta do to fix the problems here.
If they aren't using the license, then there is no reason to care about whatever the license may prohibit or allow.
It's like a EULA that says "by opening this, you agree to this license." But if you don't agree to it before that, then you don't ever become bound by the "by opening this" condition. It doesn't apply until after you agree.
Even if most people are still gullible enough to buy into the "by agreeing to this, you agree to this" tautology, Redbox's professional lawyers shouldn't be.
I want almost exactly the opposite of you. IMHO, nearly every single "bundle" in my life is a scam, where someone is using something I like to get me to subsidize something I think is lame and worthless. WTF do I care if I'm paying multiple entities? That's easy; we have computers now. The total is probably going to be less, and even if it weren't less, I would almost certainly get more of what I want.
What you are proposing is to lose all progress made in the last couple decades, and it sounds like I'd fund the people I like less than I do now.
I want everything as fine-grained and micro-managed by me, as possible. (And just like the billing "problem"(?), we have computers now so what's-possible is going to be damn impressive.) When I "vote with my wallet" I do not want to fucking vote party ticket!! Every time I'm manipulated into doing otherwise, it's with resentment.
I don't even know why Mozilla even bothers with FF for Android
I don't know their motive, but from a user point of view, the reason FireFox is the best mainstream browser for Android, is that it can run all the usual extensions (except for some recent API changes). So there's no ads and a lot of the slow-down-your-computer-by-running-lots-of-weird-javascript goes away.
That said, the API change has been a little rough and I've lost a few other non ad/privacy related extensions that I like, but maybe they'll get updated or replaced later. Even with the API change "scandal" it still utterly crushes and embarrasses Chrome, though.
Chrome-for-Android isn't anywhere near in the same league, and is hopelessly crippled. From my PoV, the only way I would be able to stand Chrome on Android, would be if I fanatically loved looking at ads all the time. I guess there are people like that.
That's particularly disappointing, because the non-Android versions of Chrome and Chromium have all the usual extensions. It's only on Android that Google crippled Chrome. And people aren't screaming about it. I just don't get it, and I find it utterly mysterious that people flame Firefox on Android, since it's the one that doesn't overwhelmingly suck. The web in 2017 needs filtering.
Anyone who has tried Edge for Android: does it block ads? Can you make it block ads without running a proxy?
That's old news; RTFA about the Madison River/Vonage case from 2005. Lack of network neutrality proved itself a disaster because it enabled anti-competitive practices. This isn't speculation; it's what happened. And the FCC got involved to address that. That's when NN started to become a more formal (but still unpolished) policy (rather than merely a theoretically good idea).
People seem to think the recent change is just a reversal of some recent Obama thing. It's true that reversing the 2015 under-Obama order is probably the motivation for the president wanting this, but the overall policy being reversed is a decade older.
On one hand, 2005 still wasn't really a long time ago. OTOH, it's a long time in "internet years." I'd normally laugh the internet-years thing away, but it happens to be relevant when you're looking at the histories of the large companies involved in both the ISP and information services businesses (and hell yes, those are two totally different things). The last 12 years have been a big deal, and the 2005-2015 period happened under incompletely-formalized NN.
So the problem we're looking at, is what if we go back to 2004-like uncertainty where lack of NN enables anti-competitive practices again, like what Madison River was caught doing. There were a lot of businesses that we take for granted now, that couldn't start back then due to ISPs being seen as a threat, where the FCC's action opened things up. (I tend to think of 2004's internet as being very similar to today's, but it's not really true. There wasn't even such thing as Youtube, if that helps put things into historical context. And it makes sense, since things like Youtube would be severely threatened without NN or expectation of NN soon coming up in the FCC's docket. Would you put money into something like that, if you might be shook down by ISPs? And most people weren't walking around with little handheld internet terminals in their pockets, either.)
If America decides to back what Pai is trying to do (and elsewhere in this discussion, someone makes a case that this is part of what a Trump vote was for) then they're saying they're not so sure all this Youtube/Netflix/Spotify and VoIP and smartphones-running-whatever-app-you-want stuff is a good idea; you should be purchasing these services through your ISP. I think it's not so much a view that information services and ISPs are the same thing (that would be a blatantly stupid denial of reality), but rather, that we want to make them be the same thing. If you accept that a vote for Trump was a vote for repealing NN, then it follows that vote for Trump was a vote for turning the internet into AOL, Compuserve, etc.
(I'm not sure anyone could even characterize NN-repeal as pro-business with a straight face! It's very pro-ISP, though.)
I won't claim to have gotten into Trump voters' heads, but I kind of doubt that's really what they want. (e.g. they probably wouldn't even be able to keep up with their favorite president on Twitter anymore, if this happens.) But maybe? Any Trump supporters wanna share your opinion on that? Would you reverse the FCC's 2005 decision on Madison River vs Vonage (where an ISP blocked access to a competing VoIP service and the FCC slapped them for it), if you could?
none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear and read.
Those are opt-in.
If your ISP decides to filter you, then unless you take measures to prevent that (e.g. VPN) then you're fucked or else have to change ISPs, assuming that's even possible where you live.
If Facebook filters their users, then unless you use Facebook you give 0.00 fucks. You have to go to the extra trouble of using Facebook for them to change what you see, hear and read. Google and Facebook could do all sorts of things, and my TV shows will continue to download just as quickly. Slashdot won't load any slower. My email will continue to work. Every single site I use, won't be even slightly affected.
Yes, they "track" me, assuming I use browser defaults and therefore remain compatible with the tracking. But even that still doesn't change what I'm able to access.
Ok, so you might say that ever people who don't opt into Facebook's filtering, have to live in a society with the rest of the people who do. For example, I heard we have a childish president and I have to live in that world because of the people who submitted. But you can say that about anything. The fact that I live in a world with so many religious people, or people who are convinced that New Kids on the Block is a cool band, is all just part of life. That's still nothing like having your own access filtered.
That involves trusting someone to honestly operate the aircraft and believe them when they claim to have reached that altitude. He wants to actually see from a verified high altitude, not look at the simulated imagery that the airlines show outside the un-openable windows inside of their sealed little theaters.
Yes, it is. To believe in science is to believe that we can learn from our senses and experience; it's the belief that the world you see is the world that exists. And to not believe in science, is to believe that you can't learn (or can't learn the truth or the whole truth) from experience, because senses and experience are all a sham. (e.g. senses always fail to detect gods.) Which is why...
He is also nuts, but that is hardly relevant.
.. you've got that exactly wrong. It's extremely relevant.
Yes, he can "build on science" in the sense that he can use knowledge that was acquired through science, while ignoring how that knowledge was acquired and why that knowledge is believed to be true. You can still do that, even if you think science is bullshit. And I bet it's especially easy and lacking in contradictions, if you're nuts. Being nuts really helps a lot with stuff like this.
Technically it's misadventure, not suicide. Just like how "it's not a lie, if you believe it", it's not a suicide, if you believe you'll survive. And this guy is very good at believing things! Stop doubting his conviction and sincerity, and start supporting your fellow human being. What kind of misanthropic monster are you?
Ok, this is damn embarrassing. This reminds me of some kind of science fiction story I read many years ago, but I can't remember if it's Larry Niven or Terry Pratchett. And I feel like I shouldn't be lumping those two authors together, no matter how much I love them both.
Let's hope not. I think this guy is awesome and I'm somewhat interested in helping to fund his suicide. Is there anywhere we can donate, to help this person more messily kill himself in the goriest "I don't believe in science" way possible? I'm thinking in terms of some relationship where increasing funds causes an increase in fuel energy, which causes an increase in the overall spread of the smear made by this guy's viscera. Then we hurry to the crash site, spray some kind of clear plastic on what's left of his mutilated corpse-shake, and around it, build a museum where all his beliefs are published.
DOCUMENT this guy; don't try to stop him. He needs all the encouragement we can give him. Let him make an example of himself and his conviction.
In fact one of the first times I've ever run into a keylogger running on a server was hacked version of bash running on Solaris (but it could have been any OS running bash) back in the early 90s.
Did that developer share his bash modifications, so that you could maintain the keylogger?
Or were you unable to, due to it being proprietary?
You can use open source software for just as much spying and lack of privacy.
If you were to try to do that, eventually one of your users would decide they don't like it, fix the software, and their fork would become more popular than yours.
The amazing thing is that you can say something like that, while living in a world where all the malware just happens to be proprietary, and there isn't any Free malware at all. It's like you didn't even notice reality. Even if you lacked the ability to reason out why Free malware wouldn't take off, you had empirical evidence all up in your face, showing you that it simply hasn't. 100 out of 100 malware authors choose to make their malware proprietary. You don't even have to know why; it simply is. (But yes, if you really think about it, then you can pretty easily come up with some great reasons why granting maintenance rights to malware victims would be an extremely stupid idea.)
We arenÃ(TM)t allowed to question why someone votes a particular way,
Seriously, this is the very first time I have heard of this. I have been questioning why other people voted like they did, and they question why I voted like I did, for decades. If there's some rule that you're not supposed to talk about this, I think about 95% of the people I've met have never heard about your new rule.
I think you made it up.
Don't expect your idea to catch on. I don't even wanna say "nice try," because it's so silly.
verification has long been perceived as an endorsement
Twitter won't be a useful platform, until they get over this.
I understand: they think they are just adapting to their users' perceptions. But they are actually setting their platform's policy by legitimizing that perceived perception.
In other words, their statement and actions cause it to be true, that on Twitter, verification is endorsement. Most people probably don't think that, but Twitter thought some people did, and they decided to let those peoples' opinion shape their verification policy.
Twitter now agrees with everything being said by every verified user. This very story is evidence that they verify or un-verify based on their agreement or disagreement.
And that's stupid, of course. What they should have done, instead of pretending that the nazis hadn't been correctly identified, was to remind people that verification isn't endorsement.
Why are you using a wifi router provided by your ISP?
If that seems like a strange question, then maybe this'll help you figure it out: why does your ISP provide a wifi router?
Oh, right: they do it to fuck you. So why do you use it? Oh, right: you don't.
Think about what you just suggested. You think your wifi router may be a trojan horse, a deliberate attack by a hostile party whose job is to exfiltrate data from you. This is your opinion, not mine (though I think you might be right). WTF ARE YOU DOING, LETTING THAT THING ON YOUR NETWORK?/
If your TV and wifi router are conspiring against you, and if you also happen to know about this, then you're responsible. You're not getting spied on; you are knowingly leaking.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice. It used to be that people would say cord-cutting didn't work with sports entertainment. But now, maybe it's that sports entertainment doesn't work with cord-cutting.
People who watch this stuff, are watching other stuff too. They're getting constantly exposed to TV-done-better, and going back to an NFL game might be enjoyable as far as the "content" goes, but they rest of it, what used to be normal is now finally perceived as a freakish nightmare. THE ADS!
The ads were always there, of course, but people could ignore it because the ads were everywhere. But now they're just a sports thing.
The kneeling issue actually ties into this. The only reason the NFL might actually show their weakness by firing the kneelers, is because some advertiser doesn't like it. They can't do a thing about the kneelers without their image becoming even more associated with ads-instead-of-sports.
It was solved before that. My mid-1990s ISP had Usenet, just like most everyone else's ISP back then. But now Usenet servers are just run by a small handful of companies, so I'm going through the whole internet instead of just downloading from a building a few miles away.
I'm sure there's a business case for them not doing it; apparently using more bandwidth is cheaper than running a computer and some disks. Or not enough customers use it, or the binaries groups make "some disks" be a fuckton more expensive than I'm imagining, or .. something.
This is why the video industry so desperately needs to standardize, immediately. Pirates' tools search for releases by many competing groups, can source from many different locations and protocols, but because there's no DRM and the content is standardized, it gets thrown into one collection with one front end, chosen from many competing front ends. Some people might use something as "spartan" as file manager and mpv, and some people use something as "fancy" as Kodi, and there are a shitload of choices in between. From a user point of view, this is a great situation. You have simplicity and diversity.
It's ok if there are lots of competing services as long as they're standardized. But if instead, you have to use their app, then it's dead in the water. I'll use my app (whatever that may be this year), thanks. Your service doesn't work with my app? Then your service doesn't exist .. except as some release group's source. They have the time and inclination to endure your app; I don't.
You can have an enforceable license, but it has to be an actual informed agreement and be done at the time of sale. Printing things on the box doesn't do that. Handing someone a piece of paper and saying "sign this" and they're not allowed to take the product out of the store until after they've signed, is how you do that.
That's not overboard, is it? Isn't that pretty much what all the consumer advocates in the thread are asking for? And isn't it already a well-established way to do business? I'm not describing something weird here; we all have handled some transactions like that. It's so normal, so well understood, and makes all the flamefest here go away. It's the obvious right thing to do, if the seller is convinced they need to get a contract. Instead of debating shrinkwrap, someone just pulls out a document and smugly says "is this your signature?"
And if the seller thinks sign-this-before-you-have-it is too much burden, well, we still have copyright. Those kinds of sellers don't need licenses. Licensing should pretty rare, anyway. It's certainly not normal for a vast majority of IP products. Movies don't need to be a weird exception.
Not that they can't be! If someone really does want to try licensing movies, they can. Say "sign this." That's all we gotta do to fix the problems here.
If they aren't using the license, then there is no reason to care about whatever the license may prohibit or allow.
It's like a EULA that says "by opening this, you agree to this license." But if you don't agree to it before that, then you don't ever become bound by the "by opening this" condition. It doesn't apply until after you agree.
Even if most people are still gullible enough to buy into the "by agreeing to this, you agree to this" tautology, Redbox's professional lawyers shouldn't be.
Redbox sells code to download. User uses code to download file from .. where? Are they downloading from Disney or from Redbox?
If they're just selling Disney downloads, I don't understand what Disney's claim would be.
If they're selling their own pirated copies of Disney movies, then I'm surprised this is merely a civil action.
What is bad about having multiple subscriptions?
I want almost exactly the opposite of you. IMHO, nearly every single "bundle" in my life is a scam, where someone is using something I like to get me to subsidize something I think is lame and worthless. WTF do I care if I'm paying multiple entities? That's easy; we have computers now. The total is probably going to be less, and even if it weren't less, I would almost certainly get more of what I want.
What you are proposing is to lose all progress made in the last couple decades, and it sounds like I'd fund the people I like less than I do now.
I want everything as fine-grained and micro-managed by me, as possible. (And just like the billing "problem"(?), we have computers now so what's-possible is going to be damn impressive.) When I "vote with my wallet" I do not want to fucking vote party ticket!! Every time I'm manipulated into doing otherwise, it's with resentment.
Do u cyber?
I don't know their motive, but from a user point of view, the reason FireFox is the best mainstream browser for Android, is that it can run all the usual extensions (except for some recent API changes). So there's no ads and a lot of the slow-down-your-computer-by-running-lots-of-weird-javascript goes away.
That said, the API change has been a little rough and I've lost a few other non ad/privacy related extensions that I like, but maybe they'll get updated or replaced later. Even with the API change "scandal" it still utterly crushes and embarrasses Chrome, though.
Chrome-for-Android isn't anywhere near in the same league, and is hopelessly crippled. From my PoV, the only way I would be able to stand Chrome on Android, would be if I fanatically loved looking at ads all the time. I guess there are people like that.
That's particularly disappointing, because the non-Android versions of Chrome and Chromium have all the usual extensions. It's only on Android that Google crippled Chrome. And people aren't screaming about it. I just don't get it, and I find it utterly mysterious that people flame Firefox on Android, since it's the one that doesn't overwhelmingly suck. The web in 2017 needs filtering.
Anyone who has tried Edge for Android: does it block ads? Can you make it block ads without running a proxy?
There are degrees of peopleness. Perhaps Uber's degree can be increased, through application of pain, fear, sensory deprivation, or crushed dreams.
Twitter did a thing, and they're in favor of NN, therefore ISPs should control which sites you can visit. It's an airtight argument.
Don't be silly, that was just a TV show.
That's old news; RTFA about the Madison River/Vonage case from 2005. Lack of network neutrality proved itself a disaster because it enabled anti-competitive practices. This isn't speculation; it's what happened. And the FCC got involved to address that. That's when NN started to become a more formal (but still unpolished) policy (rather than merely a theoretically good idea).
People seem to think the recent change is just a reversal of some recent Obama thing. It's true that reversing the 2015 under-Obama order is probably the motivation for the president wanting this, but the overall policy being reversed is a decade older.
On one hand, 2005 still wasn't really a long time ago. OTOH, it's a long time in "internet years." I'd normally laugh the internet-years thing away, but it happens to be relevant when you're looking at the histories of the large companies involved in both the ISP and information services businesses (and hell yes, those are two totally different things). The last 12 years have been a big deal, and the 2005-2015 period happened under incompletely-formalized NN.
So the problem we're looking at, is what if we go back to 2004-like uncertainty where lack of NN enables anti-competitive practices again, like what Madison River was caught doing. There were a lot of businesses that we take for granted now, that couldn't start back then due to ISPs being seen as a threat, where the FCC's action opened things up. (I tend to think of 2004's internet as being very similar to today's, but it's not really true. There wasn't even such thing as Youtube, if that helps put things into historical context. And it makes sense, since things like Youtube would be severely threatened without NN or expectation of NN soon coming up in the FCC's docket. Would you put money into something like that, if you might be shook down by ISPs? And most people weren't walking around with little handheld internet terminals in their pockets, either.)
If America decides to back what Pai is trying to do (and elsewhere in this discussion, someone makes a case that this is part of what a Trump vote was for) then they're saying they're not so sure all this Youtube/Netflix/Spotify and VoIP and smartphones-running-whatever-app-you-want stuff is a good idea; you should be purchasing these services through your ISP. I think it's not so much a view that information services and ISPs are the same thing (that would be a blatantly stupid denial of reality), but rather, that we want to make them be the same thing. If you accept that a vote for Trump was a vote for repealing NN, then it follows that vote for Trump was a vote for turning the internet into AOL, Compuserve, etc.
(I'm not sure anyone could even characterize NN-repeal as pro-business with a straight face! It's very pro-ISP, though.)
I won't claim to have gotten into Trump voters' heads, but I kind of doubt that's really what they want. (e.g. they probably wouldn't even be able to keep up with their favorite president on Twitter anymore, if this happens.) But maybe? Any Trump supporters wanna share your opinion on that? Would you reverse the FCC's 2005 decision on Madison River vs Vonage (where an ISP blocked access to a competing VoIP service and the FCC slapped them for it), if you could?
Those are opt-in.
If your ISP decides to filter you, then unless you take measures to prevent that (e.g. VPN) then you're fucked or else have to change ISPs, assuming that's even possible where you live.
If Facebook filters their users, then unless you use Facebook you give 0.00 fucks. You have to go to the extra trouble of using Facebook for them to change what you see, hear and read. Google and Facebook could do all sorts of things, and my TV shows will continue to download just as quickly. Slashdot won't load any slower. My email will continue to work. Every single site I use, won't be even slightly affected.
Yes, they "track" me, assuming I use browser defaults and therefore remain compatible with the tracking. But even that still doesn't change what I'm able to access.
Ok, so you might say that ever people who don't opt into Facebook's filtering, have to live in a society with the rest of the people who do. For example, I heard we have a childish president and I have to live in that world because of the people who submitted. But you can say that about anything. The fact that I live in a world with so many religious people, or people who are convinced that New Kids on the Block is a cool band, is all just part of life. That's still nothing like having your own access filtered.
That involves trusting someone to honestly operate the aircraft and believe them when they claim to have reached that altitude. He wants to actually see from a verified high altitude, not look at the simulated imagery that the airlines show outside the un-openable windows inside of their sealed little theaters.
Were you insane, you would have thought of this.
Yes, it is. To believe in science is to believe that we can learn from our senses and experience; it's the belief that the world you see is the world that exists. And to not believe in science, is to believe that you can't learn (or can't learn the truth or the whole truth) from experience, because senses and experience are all a sham. (e.g. senses always fail to detect gods.) Which is why...
.. you've got that exactly wrong. It's extremely relevant.
Yes, he can "build on science" in the sense that he can use knowledge that was acquired through science, while ignoring how that knowledge was acquired and why that knowledge is believed to be true. You can still do that, even if you think science is bullshit. And I bet it's especially easy and lacking in contradictions, if you're nuts. Being nuts really helps a lot with stuff like this.
Technically it's misadventure, not suicide. Just like how "it's not a lie, if you believe it", it's not a suicide, if you believe you'll survive. And this guy is very good at believing things! Stop doubting his conviction and sincerity, and start supporting your fellow human being. What kind of misanthropic monster are you?
Ok, this is damn embarrassing. This reminds me of some kind of science fiction story I read many years ago, but I can't remember if it's Larry Niven or Terry Pratchett. And I feel like I shouldn't be lumping those two authors together, no matter how much I love them both.
Let's hope not. I think this guy is awesome and I'm somewhat interested in helping to fund his suicide. Is there anywhere we can donate, to help this person more messily kill himself in the goriest "I don't believe in science" way possible? I'm thinking in terms of some relationship where increasing funds causes an increase in fuel energy, which causes an increase in the overall spread of the smear made by this guy's viscera. Then we hurry to the crash site, spray some kind of clear plastic on what's left of his mutilated corpse-shake, and around it, build a museum where all his beliefs are published.
DOCUMENT this guy; don't try to stop him. He needs all the encouragement we can give him. Let him make an example of himself and his conviction.
Cool, you found a pothead. But are you going to vote for him yet? Or do we have to have things get a little more fucked up before you finally switch?
Did that developer share his bash modifications, so that you could maintain the keylogger?
Or were you unable to, due to it being proprietary?
If you were to try to do that, eventually one of your users would decide they don't like it, fix the software, and their fork would become more popular than yours.
The amazing thing is that you can say something like that, while living in a world where all the malware just happens to be proprietary, and there isn't any Free malware at all. It's like you didn't even notice reality. Even if you lacked the ability to reason out why Free malware wouldn't take off, you had empirical evidence all up in your face, showing you that it simply hasn't. 100 out of 100 malware authors choose to make their malware proprietary. You don't even have to know why; it simply is. (But yes, if you really think about it, then you can pretty easily come up with some great reasons why granting maintenance rights to malware victims would be an extremely stupid idea.)
Seriously, this is the very first time I have heard of this. I have been questioning why other people voted like they did, and they question why I voted like I did, for decades. If there's some rule that you're not supposed to talk about this, I think about 95% of the people I've met have never heard about your new rule.
I think you made it up.
Don't expect your idea to catch on. I don't even wanna say "nice try," because it's so silly.
Twitter won't be a useful platform, until they get over this.
I understand: they think they are just adapting to their users' perceptions. But they are actually setting their platform's policy by legitimizing that perceived perception.
In other words, their statement and actions cause it to be true, that on Twitter, verification is endorsement. Most people probably don't think that, but Twitter thought some people did, and they decided to let those peoples' opinion shape their verification policy.
Twitter now agrees with everything being said by every verified user. This very story is evidence that they verify or un-verify based on their agreement or disagreement.
And that's stupid, of course. What they should have done, instead of pretending that the nazis hadn't been correctly identified, was to remind people that verification isn't endorsement.
Why are you using a wifi router provided by your ISP?
If that seems like a strange question, then maybe this'll help you figure it out: why does your ISP provide a wifi router?
Oh, right: they do it to fuck you. So why do you use it? Oh, right: you don't.
Think about what you just suggested. You think your wifi router may be a trojan horse, a deliberate attack by a hostile party whose job is to exfiltrate data from you. This is your opinion, not mine (though I think you might be right). WTF ARE YOU DOING, LETTING THAT THING ON YOUR NETWORK?/
If your TV and wifi router are conspiring against you, and if you also happen to know about this, then you're responsible. You're not getting spied on; you are knowingly leaking.