My biggest conplaint with AMP is that it doesn't work. For example, I dearch and get a hit on resdit and click on the result. I get an amp page that looks like reddit, but I am not logged-in, and images don't work, and the link to see the users other posts isn't a link, it is just text. Sometimes I get a special AMP header with an icon that takes me to the actual page. Other times I have to hand edit the URL to dind the actual page. Basically, Google search results are broken for some sites. I think they should be concerned about that!
These announcements about electric car investments mean that big players are scared that Tesla might succeed in shifting the market. The shareholders want a plan. For now, these announcements are probably mostly PR. But if Tesla can hang on a few years, then even if the company dies it might spring up an entire electric car industry simply by scaring other players into investing. So ultimately the human race wins even if Tesla Motors dies.
ALTERNATE FUTURE: Tesla becomes a company that sells solar panels, builds batteries, and runs an electric car charging network. We all drive electric cars built by Toyota, Volkswagon, Ford, etc. We all win here too, and Tesla doesn't even need to make cars.
We do that. The limitations are: 1) Money 2) It is voluntary. 3) It is not terribly effective when the person is mentally handicapped or has no education or job skills. It's tough.
The only way to find out what works is to try things. I find the statement about accountability ironic, because The Gates Foundation is highly data driven. The linked summary there demonstrates it.
Bill Gates has a(nother) plan for K-12 public education. The others didn't go so well, but the man, if anything, is persistent.
Isn't that exactly what you are supposed to do if your first plan doesn't go well? The fact that you know it didn't go well means they are keeping account!
Are private preschool chains really the path we want to pursue, particularly if we believe that access to excellent early childhood education is so incredibly crucial?
New ideas are always tried privately first.
"use the same set of principles that have driven Amazon" might look like, considering Amazon's own labor practices.
That's an ad-hominem attack. If there is a specific problem with the plan, bring it up. In all fairness though, the statement about using the same principles as Amazon is marketing hype. So it's garbage on both sides.
I bet if I asked Rwandan nursing home worker, she would have an equally dire view of her own poor relations that I have of mine.
*facepalm* They don't HAVE nursing homes in Rwanda.
To a Rwandan, the idea of putting your elderly parents in a facility is abhorrent. They love their parents, and they would go poor rather than give them to someone else to care for. The idea of a "nursing home" as you might see in the US would be alien to them. You imagine a place where professional nurses change elderly diapers, take them to the hospital upon emergencies, give them their medication, and resuscitate 70-year-old grandma if they have a heart attack. In Rwanda, children clean their parents soiled clothes, don't have hospitals nearby, or medication to give them, and since their life expectancy is 15 years shorter than in the US they don't spend a fortune resuscitating grandma and giving her heart stent so she lives another 5 years.
People aren't any different just because they are on the other side of the planet.
I recommend traveling to the other side of the planet and finding out. Things are more different than you seem to realize.
I think avoiding cash is based on people's general tendency to want to control others.
We used to (and still do) give people lots of cash. The problem is that it isn't spent sustainably. The idea behind giving them livestock is that livestock can create a sustainable source of income. This study found that neither approach actually addressed the thing that they are actually trying to solve. The study doesn't conclude that we should just give people cash. It concludes that neither approach solves the underlying problems, so we need to try something else.
Give a third worlder $100 worth of food aid, you are transferring that much food from the US.
That statement sounds logical, but it isn't what this study was about. They were not buying food at US prices then sending it over to Rwanda. They were buying things like livestock and seeds, at overseas prices, and giving them to the participants, along with training on how to use them.
Anything you do give them just gets sold, and you're just making it less efficient for everyone else.
If the government gives an addict money, the addict buys drugs. No question here really. But what if you pay their rent instead?
If the government pays an addicts rent, then at least the addict has a house. To your point, the individual could rent that house out and use the money for drugs, but at least the addict has a house, and there is a resident, and the landlord gets rent. So now the landlord can afford to maintain the house, which maintains the housing value in that area. You also generally know where the addict is so you can keep an eye on them and you have an address to send them other assistance. You haven't done anything to stop the drug problem, but at least you didn't bring other people down.
The worst-case is if you setup the addict with a lease, then pay them cash, then they don't pay the landlord. Now the landlord has a lease with no rent. So they don't maintain the house since they don't have money to do so, plus have to incur the legal costs of evicting the tenant. Then they sour to the entire process and they don't want to deal with government assistance programs. The unmaintained house loses value so the landlord can't rent it out to someone else. And the nearby houses lose value, so the entire neighborhood is affected. Ironically, if the house gets boarded up or repossessed by the bank then homeless people move into it and crime ensues. It's a negative spiral that goes out of control.
The biggest opponents of this kind of thing are the puritanical folks who don't want a single charitable dollar to be used for any non-necessary (in their opinion) expenses.
The biggest opponents of this kind of thing are people who have worked with homeless, or mentally handicapped individuals who don't know how to handle money, or are taken advantage of. The modern welfare systems in the US and Europe do this because experience shows that if you want someone to have a roof over their head, the best way to do that is to put a roof over their head.
That said - this kind of thing does need to be implemented thoughtfully, because it's easy to imagine that organized-crime types will find ways to exploit this to enrich themselves off of charitable giving. As with most things, it all comes down to diligence in the implementation.
Well said. People need to realize that this study wasn't about the welfare system in the US. The situation on the ground in Rwanda is very different from the situation in New York City and the solutions will not be the same. We don't want a knee-jerk reaction that says "replace all welfare with cash" because we've been there before and that doesn't work.
Be careful applying the results of this study to the welfare situation in Europe and America. This money was a one-time payment to very poor nations with limited infrastructure. The temptation to oversimplify this into "just give welfare recipients cash instead of assistance programs" ignores the reality of the situation on the ground in these nations.
I used to believe that just giving people money directly was better. I assumed that welfare recipients were mostly people who got stuck in a rut, and just need help getting out, and they can make better decisions about how to spend their money than some big a government organization. Then, I met actually poor and homeless people, talked to the councilors who work with them, and realized how naive I was. The situation is much more complex than the politically-charged stories of someone whose job was replaced by automation. Those are great for putting politicians in office but not for helping people on the street.
There are lots of people who, given a sum of money, have no idea what to do with it. They don't have sufficient math skills to budget, or sufficient literacy to read and understand and pay their bills. A significant portion of welfare recipients have poor education, mental health problems, or drug addiction. As such they are "reactive" with money. They throw it at the thing that has the most short term benefit. So, for example, they might pay their electric bill, then by a new TV, then some drugs, then fall behind on their rent. To help with this, lots of these programs pay the bill directly, or take the form of discounts by paying the bills partially. That way, the person can't choose to spend the money on a TV since the check went straight to the landlord. Or if the rent appears to be so much cheaper, so they are more likely to pay it. Some people take checks to check cashing locations that take 10% off the top. If you live on the poverty level, a 10% hit like that id destructive! So instead the programs give them bank accounts or ATM cards or specialty welfare cards. In Europe and the US much of the welfare state is aimed at these individuals with mental health problems who really can't manage the cash on their own. Giving them cash is disastrous.
An example of this that doesn't involve mental health problems is with young NFL players. The NFL realized that when someone comes straight out of college and gets a multi-million dollar salary, they tend to spend it on hookers and blow. So the NFL began a program of training players how to save and invest. If that seems obvious, consider the humor of walking into the local tax office with a 1040EZ form that shows income of $1 million, showing that you owe the government 20% of that. That's a holy !@#$ wake-up moment that most people don't think about. Similar problems happen with child actors or young musicians.
It's good that we are doing these studies, but I see a lot of responses say "See, we knew all along that giving people cash was better." BUI FTW! But that isn't really what this study is showing us, and we have lots of experience that got us to the system we have today.
The analog hole is now dead. There's few of us left who care.
This isn't just happening with cell phones. Browsing motherboards on newegg I keep finding ones that support 5.1 or 7.1 surround but only have a stereo out jack, instead of the usual 3 or 4. I guess they figure on using HDMI for audio?
I think that is a actually a registered Slashdot user. He goes around making these really insightful posts then ending them with an irrelevant anti-Semitic remark. I'm trying to search my post history because I know I've replied to him before. It exactly fits the pattern. I just can't seem to find the post. There is a part of me that wants to make a bot that re-posts his posts but without the last sentence. I bet it would get quite a lot of karma, and bring some of the intelligent points back into the conversation.
How would you work that out? There have been proposals that government-backed research would have to be public domain. But I've never heard anyone suggest that the taxpayers should get a cut of it. I can't see how to work that out logistically. Suppose the university patented it then sold the patent for a few million dollars. That would be less than a penny per taxpayer.
The reality is that this is not a profitable venture, which is why we the government is involved in the first place. While Slashdot will report on a success like this, but for every one that happens with there are 100 that are money down the drain. So in truth, the only profit here is in the progress of science. You just can't make money this way. The intent here is to subsidize academia so the country has a good education system that produces scientists and researchers.
Don't blame tech literacy or misplaced trust here. Those people committing violence were already going to do so, they are just looking for any excuse to do it. If Whatsapp goes away, the violence will continue, they will just use a different excuse for what incited them.
Did any of those who committed these atrocities say "Oh, you mean that person was a really nice guy? I didn't know! I trusted NICEGUY47 on Whatsapp! It is total coincidence that the victim was Rohingya, and that I've been spitting on those people for decades and calling for their lynchings is total coincidence."
Is there any other country with modern infrastructure (stable government, ID cards, functioning postal system), other than the US, where you don't have to provide ID to vote? I have voted for decades and it still strikes me as odd every single time. I've never understood how requiring proof of identification disenfranchises anyone.
Creating a rule like "All services are lower priority than phone and emergency services" is quite reasonably and is a good neutral QOS rule. If this is all they've done they we are in good shape. Hopefully we will not see rules like "My competitors streaming services are throttled but mine aren't."
I am pretty sure that death threats are a criminal offense, so we should be be prosecuting those individuals. I assume the moderators haven't the time to spend or the knowledge to pursue that, and I am not sure the local police would know what to do. But stopping this kind of behavior would pay probably have a positive payback because it would curb future abuses. Reddit should be helping out with that.
Just this morning I heard a woman called-in to a radio show clarify that the media uses the term Socialism incorrectly, that Socialism means government control of the means of production. I thought she was wrong, and for the zillionth time I looked this up on Wikipedia and it seems she was correct.
But most importantly: Being ignorant on this does not mean you are an idiot. This is actually quite complex and the terms are used inconsistently in the public space.
Actually, it isn't That distinction goes to the 6th and 11th. Read the article for a more detailed analysis, based on the different ways these rates are calculated. 6th Circuit - 87 percent; 11th Circuit - 85 percent; 9th Circuit - 79 percent; 3rd Circuit - 78 percent; 2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent; 8th Circuit - 67 percent; 5th Circuit - 66 percent; 7th Circuit - 48 percent; DC Circuit - 45 percent; 1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent; 10th Circuit - 42 percent.
Bottom line: Jack Wallen doesn't know what he is talking about. Nothing to see here, move along.
First of all: the premise of the article is completely wrong: Dropbox isn't actually dropping support for Linux! The author wrote this entire nonsense article, then when "cvoltz" commented and pointed this out, they added an UPDATE to the top clarifying. The update completely undermines the point of the article. Also, the article provides "reasons" that are just generalizations with no technical backing. I won't rebut them because other posters have already done so. Also note that this author does not represent DropBox. So really, there's no substance here.
While there are differences between Linux distros, and yes it can be a pain sometimes (mostly dealing with installation and dependencies, in my experience), none of the items listed are valid examples of those difficulties. The entire article should just be retracted.
Everybody has their own rules and guidelines around responsible disclosure. We need an organization like like the IEEE or ACM or CERT to make standard practices for this. This is important because there is always a question of liability. I'd like to know that if I followed the IEEE rules for responsible disclosure that I can be reasonably sure that someone can't sue me.
We should also remind Mr. Wyden that the parts of the CDA that actually tried to restrict indecent speech were unanimously struck down by the supreme court as was it's successor the COPA. The only law that they have managed to get past the courts is is the CIPA, which merely limits funding to libraries if they don't install their own filters. And the law doesn't even say that the feds can audit the libraries anyway, so the law does nothing.
This law was a legal bait-and-switch setup. Step 1: Pass a law that mirrors something the constitution already guarantees. Step 2: Claim that the protection is statutory not constitutional. Step 3: Remove or amend the law and now you can claim that you can regulate that thing.
I want them to get rid of the CDA because this was never something congress should have had the power to legislate. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram - none of them are liable for what their users post any more than the owner of a building is liable for the graffiti that is placed on it, or the newspaper is liable for the opinions in the letters to the editor. This is a cornerstone of democracy.
You can't reasonably argue that the 1st amendment prevents congress from passing law that inhibits freedom of speech, but also claim that manufacturers of pens are liable for the speech, or manufacturers of loudspeakers are liable for the sounds that come out of them, or web site hosts are responsible for what people post on them, or bulletin boards are responsible for the notes people tack onto them, or that telephone companies liable for the content of calls people make, etc.
Remember that the CDA set the legal stage for the DMCA, which is what makes it possible for the RIAA and MPAA to start using ISPs as copyright police. With the DMCA, these new "statutory protections" that we didn't ever need now had limits. ISPs are now only protected from liability if they cooperate with copyright holders demands, and if they take down "hacking" or circumvention tools.
Wyden is claiming that section 230 is a free-speech clause, but it really isn't. It's called the Commications Decency Act for a reason! They wanted to regulate what is "decent." Section 230 also grants ISPs immunity from liability if they *restrict* someone's free speech. Without section 230, they might be legally liable if they block someone's speech! We are better off without it.
Go ahead, try to stop Americans from cursing online, or posting porn, or posting whatever you want to call "indecent." Does Mr. Wyden really think that is even possible?
Just bear in mind that in this case, a developer will likely still answer "JavaScript" in a survey, since JavaScript is involved. So from a statistical standpoint it would still look like JavaScript was king. Maybe one day it will be treated more like machine code, and developers won't bother to learn it.
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest conplaint with AMP is that it doesn't work. For example, I dearch and get a hit on resdit and click on the result. I get an amp page that looks like reddit, but I am not logged-in, and images don't work, and the link to see the users other posts isn't a link, it is just text. Sometimes I get a special AMP header with an icon that takes me to the actual page. Other times I have to hand edit the URL to dind the actual page. Basically, Google search results are broken for some sites. I think they should be concerned about that!
These announcements about electric car investments mean that big players are scared that Tesla might succeed in shifting the market. The shareholders want a plan. For now, these announcements are probably mostly PR. But if Tesla can hang on a few years, then even if the company dies it might spring up an entire electric car industry simply by scaring other players into investing. So ultimately the human race wins even if Tesla Motors dies.
ALTERNATE FUTURE: Tesla becomes a company that sells solar panels, builds batteries, and runs an electric car charging network. We all drive electric cars built by Toyota, Volkswagon, Ford, etc. We all win here too, and Tesla doesn't even need to make cars.
We do that. The limitations are:
1) Money
2) It is voluntary.
3) It is not terribly effective when the person is mentally handicapped or has no education or job skills.
It's tough.
The only way to find out what works is to try things. I find the statement about accountability ironic, because The Gates Foundation is highly data driven. The linked summary there demonstrates it.
Bill Gates has a(nother) plan for K-12 public education. The others didn't go so well, but the man, if anything, is persistent.
Isn't that exactly what you are supposed to do if your first plan doesn't go well? The fact that you know it didn't go well means they are keeping account!
Are private preschool chains really the path we want to pursue, particularly if we believe that access to excellent early childhood education is so incredibly crucial?
New ideas are always tried privately first.
"use the same set of principles that have driven Amazon" might look like, considering Amazon's own labor practices.
That's an ad-hominem attack. If there is a specific problem with the plan, bring it up. In all fairness though, the statement about using the same principles as Amazon is marketing hype. So it's garbage on both sides.
I bet if I asked Rwandan nursing home worker, she would have an equally dire view of her own poor relations that I have of mine.
*facepalm* They don't HAVE nursing homes in Rwanda.
To a Rwandan, the idea of putting your elderly parents in a facility is abhorrent. They love their parents, and they would go poor rather than give them to someone else to care for. The idea of a "nursing home" as you might see in the US would be alien to them. You imagine a place where professional nurses change elderly diapers, take them to the hospital upon emergencies, give them their medication, and resuscitate 70-year-old grandma if they have a heart attack. In Rwanda, children clean their parents soiled clothes, don't have hospitals nearby, or medication to give them, and since their life expectancy is 15 years shorter than in the US they don't spend a fortune resuscitating grandma and giving her heart stent so she lives another 5 years.
People aren't any different just because they are on the other side of the planet.
I recommend traveling to the other side of the planet and finding out. Things are more different than you seem to realize.
I think avoiding cash is based on people's general tendency to want to control others.
We used to (and still do) give people lots of cash. The problem is that it isn't spent sustainably. The idea behind giving them livestock is that livestock can create a sustainable source of income. This study found that neither approach actually addressed the thing that they are actually trying to solve. The study doesn't conclude that we should just give people cash. It concludes that neither approach solves the underlying problems, so we need to try something else.
Give a third worlder $100 worth of food aid, you are transferring that much food from the US.
That statement sounds logical, but it isn't what this study was about. They were not buying food at US prices then sending it over to Rwanda. They were buying things like livestock and seeds, at overseas prices, and giving them to the participants, along with training on how to use them.
Anything you do give them just gets sold, and you're just making it less efficient for everyone else.
If the government gives an addict money, the addict buys drugs. No question here really. But what if you pay their rent instead?
If the government pays an addicts rent, then at least the addict has a house. To your point, the individual could rent that house out and use the money for drugs, but at least the addict has a house, and there is a resident, and the landlord gets rent. So now the landlord can afford to maintain the house, which maintains the housing value in that area. You also generally know where the addict is so you can keep an eye on them and you have an address to send them other assistance. You haven't done anything to stop the drug problem, but at least you didn't bring other people down.
The worst-case is if you setup the addict with a lease, then pay them cash, then they don't pay the landlord. Now the landlord has a lease with no rent. So they don't maintain the house since they don't have money to do so, plus have to incur the legal costs of evicting the tenant. Then they sour to the entire process and they don't want to deal with government assistance programs. The unmaintained house loses value so the landlord can't rent it out to someone else. And the nearby houses lose value, so the entire neighborhood is affected. Ironically, if the house gets boarded up or repossessed by the bank then homeless people move into it and crime ensues. It's a negative spiral that goes out of control.
Better to pay the rent than give them cash.
The biggest opponents of this kind of thing are the puritanical folks who don't want a single charitable dollar to be used for any non-necessary (in their opinion) expenses.
The biggest opponents of this kind of thing are people who have worked with homeless, or mentally handicapped individuals who don't know how to handle money, or are taken advantage of. The modern welfare systems in the US and Europe do this because experience shows that if you want someone to have a roof over their head, the best way to do that is to put a roof over their head.
That said - this kind of thing does need to be implemented thoughtfully, because it's easy to imagine that organized-crime types will find ways to exploit this to enrich themselves off of charitable giving. As with most things, it all comes down to diligence in the implementation.
Well said. People need to realize that this study wasn't about the welfare system in the US. The situation on the ground in Rwanda is very different from the situation in New York City and the solutions will not be the same. We don't want a knee-jerk reaction that says "replace all welfare with cash" because we've been there before and that doesn't work.
Be careful applying the results of this study to the welfare situation in Europe and America. This money was a one-time payment to very poor nations with limited infrastructure. The temptation to oversimplify this into "just give welfare recipients cash instead of assistance programs" ignores the reality of the situation on the ground in these nations.
I used to believe that just giving people money directly was better. I assumed that welfare recipients were mostly people who got stuck in a rut, and just need help getting out, and they can make better decisions about how to spend their money than some big a government organization. Then, I met actually poor and homeless people, talked to the councilors who work with them, and realized how naive I was. The situation is much more complex than the politically-charged stories of someone whose job was replaced by automation. Those are great for putting politicians in office but not for helping people on the street.
There are lots of people who, given a sum of money, have no idea what to do with it. They don't have sufficient math skills to budget, or sufficient literacy to read and understand and pay their bills. A significant portion of welfare recipients have poor education, mental health problems, or drug addiction. As such they are "reactive" with money. They throw it at the thing that has the most short term benefit. So, for example, they might pay their electric bill, then by a new TV, then some drugs, then fall behind on their rent. To help with this, lots of these programs pay the bill directly, or take the form of discounts by paying the bills partially. That way, the person can't choose to spend the money on a TV since the check went straight to the landlord. Or if the rent appears to be so much cheaper, so they are more likely to pay it. Some people take checks to check cashing locations that take 10% off the top. If you live on the poverty level, a 10% hit like that id destructive! So instead the programs give them bank accounts or ATM cards or specialty welfare cards. In Europe and the US much of the welfare state is aimed at these individuals with mental health problems who really can't manage the cash on their own. Giving them cash is disastrous.
An example of this that doesn't involve mental health problems is with young NFL players. The NFL realized that when someone comes straight out of college and gets a multi-million dollar salary, they tend to spend it on hookers and blow. So the NFL began a program of training players how to save and invest. If that seems obvious, consider the humor of walking into the local tax office with a 1040EZ form that shows income of $1 million, showing that you owe the government 20% of that. That's a holy !@#$ wake-up moment that most people don't think about. Similar problems happen with child actors or young musicians.
It's good that we are doing these studies, but I see a lot of responses say "See, we knew all along that giving people cash was better." BUI FTW! But that isn't really what this study is showing us, and we have lots of experience that got us to the system we have today.
The analog hole is now dead. There's few of us left who care.
This isn't just happening with cell phones. Browsing motherboards on newegg I keep finding ones that support 5.1 or 7.1 surround but only have a stereo out jack, instead of the usual 3 or 4. I guess they figure on using HDMI for audio?
I think that is a actually a registered Slashdot user. He goes around making these really insightful posts then ending them with an irrelevant anti-Semitic remark. I'm trying to search my post history because I know I've replied to him before. It exactly fits the pattern. I just can't seem to find the post. There is a part of me that wants to make a bot that re-posts his posts but without the last sentence. I bet it would get quite a lot of karma, and bring some of the intelligent points back into the conversation.
How would you work that out? There have been proposals that government-backed research would have to be public domain. But I've never heard anyone suggest that the taxpayers should get a cut of it. I can't see how to work that out logistically. Suppose the university patented it then sold the patent for a few million dollars. That would be less than a penny per taxpayer.
The reality is that this is not a profitable venture, which is why we the government is involved in the first place. While Slashdot will report on a success like this, but for every one that happens with there are 100 that are money down the drain. So in truth, the only profit here is in the progress of science. You just can't make money this way. The intent here is to subsidize academia so the country has a good education system that produces scientists and researchers.
Don't blame tech literacy or misplaced trust here. Those people committing violence were already going to do so, they are just looking for any excuse to do it. If Whatsapp goes away, the violence will continue, they will just use a different excuse for what incited them.
Did any of those who committed these atrocities say "Oh, you mean that person was a really nice guy? I didn't know! I trusted NICEGUY47 on Whatsapp! It is total coincidence that the victim was Rohingya, and that I've been spitting on those people for decades and calling for their lynchings is total coincidence."
Is there any other country with modern infrastructure (stable government, ID cards, functioning postal system), other than the US, where you don't have to provide ID to vote? I have voted for decades and it still strikes me as odd every single time. I've never understood how requiring proof of identification disenfranchises anyone.
Creating a rule like "All services are lower priority than phone and emergency services" is quite reasonably and is a good neutral QOS rule. If this is all they've done they we are in good shape. Hopefully we will not see rules like "My competitors streaming services are throttled but mine aren't."
Could it be Personal observations on
the reliability of the Shuttle, by R.P. Feynman
I am pretty sure that death threats are a criminal offense, so we should be be prosecuting those individuals. I assume the moderators haven't the time to spend or the knowledge to pursue that, and I am not sure the local police would know what to do. But stopping this kind of behavior would pay probably have a positive payback because it would curb future abuses. Reddit should be helping out with that.
Socialism is in free market economies with democracy. However there are more regulations and wider government funding for public good initiatives.
Listening to the US media this is what I began to think too, but that is not what the word means. Socialism specifically refers to some form of social ownership of the "means of production" and various authors over the last 2 centuries have argued if it should be municipal, or shared by the workers, or various other solutions.
Just this morning I heard a woman called-in to a radio show clarify that the media uses the term Socialism incorrectly, that Socialism means government control of the means of production. I thought she was wrong, and for the zillionth time I looked this up on Wikipedia and it seems she was correct.
But most importantly: Being ignorant on this does not mean you are an idiot. This is actually quite complex and the terms are used inconsistently in the public space.
Actually, it isn't That distinction goes to the 6th and 11th. Read the article for a more detailed analysis, based on the different ways these rates are calculated.
6th Circuit - 87 percent;
11th Circuit - 85 percent;
9th Circuit - 79 percent;
3rd Circuit - 78 percent;
2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;
8th Circuit - 67 percent;
5th Circuit - 66 percent;
7th Circuit - 48 percent;
DC Circuit - 45 percent;
1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;
10th Circuit - 42 percent.
Bottom line: Jack Wallen doesn't know what he is talking about. Nothing to see here, move along.
First of all: the premise of the article is completely wrong: Dropbox isn't actually dropping support for Linux! The author wrote this entire nonsense article, then when "cvoltz" commented and pointed this out, they added an UPDATE to the top clarifying. The update completely undermines the point of the article. Also, the article provides "reasons" that are just generalizations with no technical backing. I won't rebut them because other posters have already done so. Also note that this author does not represent DropBox. So really, there's no substance here.
While there are differences between Linux distros, and yes it can be a pain sometimes (mostly dealing with installation and dependencies, in my experience), none of the items listed are valid examples of those difficulties. The entire article should just be retracted.
Everybody has their own rules and guidelines around responsible disclosure. We need an organization like like the IEEE or ACM or CERT to make standard practices for this. This is important because there is always a question of liability. I'd like to know that if I followed the IEEE rules for responsible disclosure that I can be reasonably sure that someone can't sue me.
We should also remind Mr. Wyden that the parts of the CDA that actually tried to restrict indecent speech were unanimously struck down by the supreme court as was it's successor the COPA. The only law that they have managed to get past the courts is is the CIPA, which merely limits funding to libraries if they don't install their own filters. And the law doesn't even say that the feds can audit the libraries anyway, so the law does nothing.
Wyden is is lying about what the CDA is designed to do.
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory.
Civil libertarians have waiting 20 years for this shoe to drop. Back when the CDA was being debated we predicted that this is *EXACTLY* what would happen. It was never meant to protect freedom of speech. Stop pretending it was. The Communications Decency Act was passed with the goal of protecting minors from online exposure to indecent material.
This law was a legal bait-and-switch setup. Step 1: Pass a law that mirrors something the constitution already guarantees. Step 2: Claim that the protection is statutory not constitutional. Step 3: Remove or amend the law and now you can claim that you can regulate that thing.
I want them to get rid of the CDA because this was never something congress should have had the power to legislate. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram - none of them are liable for what their users post any more than the owner of a building is liable for the graffiti that is placed on it, or the newspaper is liable for the opinions in the letters to the editor. This is a cornerstone of democracy.
You can't reasonably argue that the 1st amendment prevents congress from passing law that inhibits freedom of speech, but also claim that manufacturers of pens are liable for the speech, or manufacturers of loudspeakers are liable for the sounds that come out of them, or web site hosts are responsible for what people post on them, or bulletin boards are responsible for the notes people tack onto them, or that telephone companies liable for the content of calls people make, etc.
Remember that the CDA set the legal stage for the DMCA, which is what makes it possible for the RIAA and MPAA to start using ISPs as copyright police. With the DMCA, these new "statutory protections" that we didn't ever need now had limits. ISPs are now only protected from liability if they cooperate with copyright holders demands, and if they take down "hacking" or circumvention tools.
Wyden is claiming that section 230 is a free-speech clause, but it really isn't. It's called the Commications Decency Act for a reason! They wanted to regulate what is "decent." Section 230 also grants ISPs immunity from liability if they *restrict* someone's free speech. Without section 230, they might be legally liable if they block someone's speech! We are better off without it.
Go ahead, try to stop Americans from cursing online, or posting porn, or posting whatever you want to call "indecent." Does Mr. Wyden really think that is even possible?
Just bear in mind that in this case, a developer will likely still answer "JavaScript" in a survey, since JavaScript is involved. So from a statistical standpoint it would still look like JavaScript was king. Maybe one day it will be treated more like machine code, and developers won't bother to learn it.