I am american and %100 opposed to job killing net neutrality. Anything that allows for job killing net neutrality to exist is bad for country.
It's okay, Ajit, it won't kill your job. It'll just slow down the passage of fragrant grease to you and yours. You'll still have your phoney-balony job .
All this fuss over the FCC, FTC, and Net neutrality is stupid
Yeah, the public keeps electing the rich people the parties put in front of them to public office, and acting surprised when these same people keep making law that favors the rich, and keep selecting agency officials that favor the rich, and keep further enriching themselves through the system.
So, yeah, it's stupid. Because the voters are stupid. It's been this way since I've been paying attention (the 1960's, and likely long before that.)
This isn't getting fixed by saying "FCC, FTC, and Net neutrality is stupid", though.
Simply eliminate all local monopolies on internet access and you will see all manner of companies jumping into the fray.
Sigh. No, it's not getting fixed by that, either, even if we could do what you say, which we can't, first because we don't make the laws, and second, because we are, as we have demonstrated repeatedly and consistently, utterly unable to get worthy individuals elected who will actually represent the people for public office.
Acetaldehyde is the primary hangover poison. But that's a key you can pay attention to. If your not feeling sick in the morning, your not exceeding your livers capacity to metabolize acetaldehyde, at least not by much.
From TFS:
The study builds on previous work that had pinpointed a breakdown product of alcohol, called acetaldehyde, as a toxin that can damage the DNA within cells.
Those who turn red in the face after drinking (Asians often have a genetic issue that causes this, btw) should pay particular attention to this symptom; the reason for the red face is an acetaldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, which results in an accumulation of acetaldehyde, which in turn has been associated with an increased risk of esophageal cancer.
You're not getting my point. I'm sure it's my fault for not being clear. I wasn't saying it wasn't possible to design such a lousy power supply that a phone would not collapse under load, or that there weren't such badly/cheaply designed phones out there; On the contrary, I was saying there are phones out there that don't do this, so this unequivocally demonstrates the opposite (to the non-engineers... we engineering types already know very well it's possible to make sure adequate power is available if the battery isn't on its very last legs): It's 100% possible to design and emplace a power supply that won't collapse under load when the battery is not fully charged.
Bottom line: either the iPhone would collapse and required this slowdown, in which case Apple put an under-par power supply in their very-expensive-phone and tried to hide it, or it's propaganda to cover up the fact that they were trying to drive customers to a new phone, or it is both.
It looks like either they did a really poor job of power supply design (other phones don't "suddenly shut down" and they don't have this "feature"), or that they're just throttling for the obvious reason: they want you to buy a new phone.
As for their protest, quoted verbatim here from their letter:
First and foremost, we have never — and would never — do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades.
...this is utter bullshit. They constantly stop allowing their OS upgrades to run on hardware that is perfectly capable of running those upgrades. They've been caught at this multiple times. My 3 GHz, 12/24 core, 64 GB Mac Pro "can't" be upgraded to MacOS 10.13, so says Apple. But in fact, if you flash the bios to say that it's a machine made one year later, it'll upgrade perfectly. And why shouldn't it? It's little, if any, different than that machine. Even if it was slightly different (other than the date flashed into the hardware), this is a company with many, many billions of dollars in the bank that made a decision to obsolete this hardware for only one reason: So that it would go long in the tooth before its time and put buying pressure on the owner. There's no other possible reason.
They threw the PPC emulation out the window for just as little reason (no, probably less.) They let all those user's software suddenly go obsolete for a reason that boils down to "weren't going to pay for the emulation any longer", again, when they had tons of cash to maintain the tech and users had tons of PPC software. I still support PPC software running on (very) old machines, specifically because there is no reasonable in-OS upgrade path that lets that stuff keep running. The irony is that the massive power of the machines we have now would make those apps run very well indeed — and we know Apple did this as a choice, not a need.
I have more examples. From apps they took out of the store because they had integrated the tech into a new phone, thereby removing the possibility of users of an older phone having the tech unless they upgraded — to severe bugs they leave mouldering in old versions of the OS while not allowing upgrades to the new version of the OS, Apple is a known serial offender of the "let's pressure the customer."
Apple is lying here. Flat-out lying. And caught at it.
They throttled the headphone jack too. And they throttled the icons until they were flat and ugly as lack of sin. And they throttled the very idea of storage cards and replaceable batteries. And you know, since they didn't give anyone FM radio anyway, losing that headphone jack wasn't quite the blow it would have otherwise been. Because they'd already landed on us once.
And with the mac, they turned the Mac Pro into trash. Er, can. And they lamed up the mini.
They have a lot of courage. Respeeeec.
That's why I have a Samsumg S7. With a headphone jack. And a memory card. and FM radio.
Although they did follow Apple most ill-advisedly down the frustrated interior designer rabbit-hole with the flat icons, sigh. On the plus side, I was allowed to replace the desk(phone)top manager and I no longer care what they did to the icons, since I'm not using most of them any longer anyway.
The problem isn't just the mouse. Not the movie theater's problem, anyway.
The problem with movie theaters is the onslaught of ads, the uncomfortable jammed-in seating, the stunningly overpriced snackage and tickets, and the lack of great new movies in favor of Yet Another Retread Idea.
Some of this comes from outside pressure: the constant devaluation of currency and increases in taxation, demands for more and more income from the movie producers, the conversion of the stock market into a "must increase profitability" hammer.
Or in other words, pretty much on every front, greed.
For the first two decades of life in this country, reading *is* a chore.
Wasn't a chore for me at all. It was like a bright light shining on the mysteries of the world for non-fiction, and an infinite stage for fiction, one far superior to the movies or television. Your experience was apparently different. And no, I still don't understand it.
Books are easily obtainable. Libraries are everywhere, including in most schools. Schools put them right in front of student's faces in classes. They're chock full of information and entertainment.
If that doesn't appeal, okay, but still, it's just a bunch of WTF to me.
That's how it strikes me as well. I read about three books a week; and I feel like I'm slacking. When I was younger (as in, about 40 years ago when I was 20 or so) I easily read one a day. Lately, that's rare. I'm re-reading David Wingrove's Chung Kuo now, and those are going more-or-less at about 2/days per volume, barring interruptions like Festivus and Saturnalia.:)
But my life is much more demanding now. I just don't have the time to read like I did when I was a young man. I would like to have the time, but it's just not in the cards. People depend on me — what I want as compared to what I must do have diverged a bit.
I do know some folks who, according to them, "don't read books." They do speak of it as if it's some kind of chore. I don't understand why, but honestly... I don't think I want to understand why.
All that is needed is 5 justices agreeing with a state law that life begins at conception, or some point very soon thereafter.
Life, yes. But that's not the same as humanity. The grass you walk on is alive. Still, you mow it, crush it, kill it, doesn't rise to the level of any particular level of notice.
The reason that pre-birth humans matter is because - when - they're human... not because they're alive.
And humanity cannot be present prior to the development of a nervous system.
Somewhere during pregnancy there is a fuzzy line that all of us here crossed, where the nervous system formed up sufficiently, and pain and suffering and previously unrealized potential potential becomes an actual thing. That's the line to draw, if indeed one is to be drawn at all, IMHO, but you'd better check with the female half of humanity before you decide even that is a done deal.
This business of "life begins at conception" is addled nonsense. It does, sure enough, but it's completely irrelevant. Any such law is just codified stupidity.
I think a set of very pro-Constitution Justices is the only long-term hope for the US.
So what you're saying is... there's no hope at all. I agree, at least for the next 50 years or so.
There isn't a single one of those justices that wouldn't tie themselves and their clerks into a sophist knot getting 'round what the actual, obvious intent of the constitution is, much less require an actual amendment to implement legitimate change.
I totally support this idea; it'll come to fruition sooner or lacer, we'll simply have to take the plunge. Our cup will truly runneth over. When historians discuss among themselves of when metallurgy went all soft and rounded, they will naturally cleave to our age, +5 insightful, politely asking each other, "a nipple for your thoughts, good sir?" It is virtually certain that some will make some excellent points, erecting fine impressions upon the cloth of history.
Or just think what someone would think of a modern CPU given to a physicist from the Manhatten project. Itâ(TM)s[sic] just a piece of silicone after all.
Yes. Yes. It's difficult to stay abreast of all the enhancement technologies. Even those of us who are not fans of silicone enhancement will agree that analysis would find it different from NaCl-infused H2O enhancement, but this would be very confusing to analysts of yore.
At typical sizes and viewing distances, 20/20 vision means you have maybe 1080p eyes.
Are you aware of how many hifi systems process data at far more than the data density of a CD? And are you aware that like 20-20 vision applied to a 1920x1080 image, the odds of anyone actually being able to hear anything that far down (or deal with anything that loud) are pretty much zero? And even if they could, the amplifiers that drive the output transducers don't have that kind of dynamic range anyway, nor do the transducers themselves.
Yet... this stuff sells, and it sells very well.
And that's without even getting into the details of people buying tube gear because "reasons."
All indicators say that the broader market will bite on higher resolution pretty much as soon as they can work it into their budgets. If these folks don't have a budget issue, they'll bite right away.
It isn't always about the quality you can use; it's about the quality you can feel smug about. Not that any of that stops confirmation bias and pure imagination from stepping in and bringing out the "oh, sure I can tell the difference, you betcha" from the happy owners of such tech.
Good thing that the cost is essentially zero on modern hardware, then.
You know what cost isn't zero?
Changing the billions of http:links on billions of web pages to billions of other web pages, that's what.
Firefox - and Google, for that matter - are damaging the very integrity of the net, ironically, while claiming to improve it. They're not improving it. This is anal-retentive nonsense. Not everything needs to be encrypted. If something does need to be encrypted, that falls into the realm of the reasonable decision of the page owner, not the web browser author or the search engine.
We've gotten along just fine without this nonsense thus far; I see no reason - other than the use of force by these bad actors - that we should have to arbitrarily change huge portions of the Internet.
You want to encrypt, go ahead. You can if you want. And of course, if you do, it'll be fine. But using force to make you do it... no. That's just evil.
And we know that browser warnings will put people off. This isn't an "otherwise-harmless" act. It'll do real damage.
I have a 204" inch screen and I'm perfectly happy with many of the DVDs in our library, which are about (hand-waving) 1/4 res against 1080p. Many movies have been made where detail just isn't really a core issue of viewer appreciation.
But you and I both have 1080p anyway. Because for some things, it does matter. As does frame rate for action movies.
Marketing will bring 4K into households, just as it did 1080p. And many will upgrade, and many will elect to try 4K streams. And many movies will be made that take advantage of this, and then we will see what happens - death as with stereo pseudo-3D, or life as with 1080p.
IMHO, it's not about "what's enough"; It's about what the masses end up accepting. It seems to me that 4K is going to be something they accept pretty quickly.
As an aside: I used to have a video (as in, NTSC, or Never Twice the Same Color) security system. When 1080p video security systems came out, I upgraded, and I have to tell you, it was more than worth it. When 4K security systems come out, I'll be all over that. Detail matters hugely in that application; and there are movies, particularly SF movies, where details also matter. That's the hook. And unlike the psuedo-3d stuff, no one will need special glasses and all that annoyance to see the difference. 8K too.
They cannot make "Human Rights". The Government is irrelevant to such rights.
In reality - you know, where we all actually live - the only rights of any kind that exist are those rights for which someone(s) will impose force to ensure the availability thereof.
It's all very fine to talk about what should be; for instance, IMO, no government should impose on informed, adult personal / consensual choices - but they fact is, they do, and they can't be stopped from doing so by any practical means. Because this, although it should be a thing, is not a thing, because there is no force behind it. Which demotes it down to the status of fantasy.
And because they are not short of money, they are not short of time, except inasmuch as they aren't taking care of business. They have a bug list. They don't address it anywhere near the way they should.
Slashdot Mirror
No?
It's okay, Ajit, it won't kill your job. It'll just slow down the passage of fragrant grease to you and yours. You'll still have your phoney-balony job
.
Yeah, the public keeps electing the rich people the parties put in front of them to public office, and acting surprised when these same people keep making law that favors the rich, and keep selecting agency officials that favor the rich, and keep further enriching themselves through the system.
So, yeah, it's stupid. Because the voters are stupid. It's been this way since I've been paying attention (the 1960's, and likely long before that.)
This isn't getting fixed by saying "FCC, FTC, and Net neutrality is stupid", though.
Sigh. No, it's not getting fixed by that, either, even if we could do what you say, which we can't, first because we don't make the laws, and second, because we are, as we have demonstrated repeatedly and consistently, utterly unable to get worthy individuals elected who will actually represent the people for public office.
Well, the question at hand is, are they $850k (including enough margin to survive) non-trivial?
If they are, fine. If not... then there's plenty of room for looking askance at the pricing.
From TFS:
Those who turn red in the face after drinking (Asians often have a genetic issue that causes this, btw) should pay particular attention to this symptom; the reason for the red face is an acetaldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, which results in an accumulation of acetaldehyde, which in turn has been associated with an increased risk of esophageal cancer.
cite
under-rated
You're not getting my point. I'm sure it's my fault for not being clear. I wasn't saying it wasn't possible to design such a lousy power supply that a phone would not collapse under load, or that there weren't such badly/cheaply designed phones out there; On the contrary, I was saying there are phones out there that don't do this, so this unequivocally demonstrates the opposite (to the non-engineers... we engineering types already know very well it's possible to make sure adequate power is available if the battery isn't on its very last legs): It's 100% possible to design and emplace a power supply that won't collapse under load when the battery is not fully charged.
Bottom line: either the iPhone would collapse and required this slowdown, in which case Apple put an under-par power supply in their very-expensive-phone and tried to hide it, or it's propaganda to cover up the fact that they were trying to drive customers to a new phone, or it is both.
It certainly is.
It looks like either they did a really poor job of power supply design (other phones don't "suddenly shut down" and they don't have this "feature"), or that they're just throttling for the obvious reason: they want you to buy a new phone.
As for their protest, quoted verbatim here from their letter:
They threw the PPC emulation out the window for just as little reason (no, probably less.) They let all those user's software suddenly go obsolete for a reason that boils down to "weren't going to pay for the emulation any longer", again, when they had tons of cash to maintain the tech and users had tons of PPC software. I still support PPC software running on (very) old machines, specifically because there is no reasonable in-OS upgrade path that lets that stuff keep running. The irony is that the massive power of the machines we have now would make those apps run very well indeed — and we know Apple did this as a choice, not a need.
I have more examples. From apps they took out of the store because they had integrated the tech into a new phone, thereby removing the possibility of users of an older phone having the tech unless they upgraded — to severe bugs they leave mouldering in old versions of the OS while not allowing upgrades to the new version of the OS, Apple is a known serial offender of the "let's pressure the customer."
Apple is lying here. Flat-out lying. And caught at it.
They throttled the headphone jack too. And they throttled the icons until they were flat and ugly as lack of sin. And they throttled the very idea of storage cards and replaceable batteries. And you know, since they didn't give anyone FM radio anyway, losing that headphone jack wasn't quite the blow it would have otherwise been. Because they'd already landed on us once.
And with the mac, they turned the Mac Pro into trash. Er, can. And they lamed up the mini.
They have a lot of courage. Respeeeec.
That's why I have a Samsumg S7. With a headphone jack. And a memory card. and FM radio.
Although they did follow Apple most ill-advisedly down the frustrated interior designer rabbit-hole with the flat icons, sigh. On the plus side, I was allowed to replace the desk(phone)top manager and I no longer care what they did to the icons, since I'm not using most of them any longer anyway.
You can have too much courage, that's my take.
I'm not likely to forget. :)
The problem isn't just the mouse. Not the movie theater's problem, anyway.
The problem with movie theaters is the onslaught of ads, the uncomfortable jammed-in seating, the stunningly overpriced snackage and tickets, and the lack of great new movies in favor of Yet Another Retread Idea.
Some of this comes from outside pressure: the constant devaluation of currency and increases in taxation, demands for more and more income from the movie producers, the conversion of the stock market into a "must increase profitability" hammer.
Or in other words, pretty much on every front, greed.
Wasn't a chore for me at all. It was like a bright light shining on the mysteries of the world for non-fiction, and an infinite stage for fiction, one far superior to the movies or television. Your experience was apparently different. And no, I still don't understand it.
Books are easily obtainable. Libraries are everywhere, including in most schools. Schools put them right in front of student's faces in classes. They're chock full of information and entertainment.
If that doesn't appeal, okay, but still, it's just a bunch of WTF to me.
That's how it strikes me as well. I read about three books a week; and I feel like I'm slacking. When I was younger (as in, about 40 years ago when I was 20 or so) I easily read one a day. Lately, that's rare. I'm re-reading David Wingrove's Chung Kuo now, and those are going more-or-less at about 2/days per volume, barring interruptions like Festivus and Saturnalia. :)
But my life is much more demanding now. I just don't have the time to read like I did when I was a young man. I would like to have the time, but it's just not in the cards. People depend on me — what I want as compared to what I must do have diverged a bit.
I do know some folks who, according to them, "don't read books." They do speak of it as if it's some kind of chore. I don't understand why, but honestly... I don't think I want to understand why.
One hump, or two?
Life, yes. But that's not the same as humanity. The grass you walk on is alive. Still, you mow it, crush it, kill it, doesn't rise to the level of any particular level of notice.
The reason that pre-birth humans matter is because - when - they're human... not because they're alive.
And humanity cannot be present prior to the development of a nervous system.
Somewhere during pregnancy there is a fuzzy line that all of us here crossed, where the nervous system formed up sufficiently, and pain and suffering and previously unrealized potential potential becomes an actual thing. That's the line to draw, if indeed one is to be drawn at all, IMHO, but you'd better check with the female half of humanity before you decide even that is a done deal.
This business of "life begins at conception" is addled nonsense. It does, sure enough, but it's completely irrelevant. Any such law is just codified stupidity.
So what you're saying is... there's no hope at all. I agree, at least for the next 50 years or so.
There isn't a single one of those justices that wouldn't tie themselves and their clerks into a sophist knot getting 'round what the actual, obvious intent of the constitution is, much less require an actual amendment to implement legitimate change.
I totally support this idea; it'll come to fruition sooner or lacer, we'll simply have to take the plunge. Our cup will truly runneth over. When historians discuss among themselves of when metallurgy went all soft and rounded, they will naturally cleave to our age, +5 insightful, politely asking each other, "a nipple for your thoughts, good sir?" It is virtually certain that some will make some excellent points, erecting fine impressions upon the cloth of history.
I have to go take my meds now, sorry.
Yes. Yes. It's difficult to stay abreast of all the enhancement technologies. Even those of us who are not fans of silicone enhancement will agree that analysis would find it different from NaCl-infused H2O enhancement, but this would be very confusing to analysts of yore.
Yore with me on this, right?
Are you aware of how many hifi systems process data at far more than the data density of a CD? And are you aware that like 20-20 vision applied to a 1920x1080 image, the odds of anyone actually being able to hear anything that far down (or deal with anything that loud) are pretty much zero? And even if they could, the amplifiers that drive the output transducers don't have that kind of dynamic range anyway, nor do the transducers themselves.
Yet... this stuff sells, and it sells very well.
And that's without even getting into the details of people buying tube gear because "reasons."
All indicators say that the broader market will bite on higher resolution pretty much as soon as they can work it into their budgets. If these folks don't have a budget issue, they'll bite right away.
It isn't always about the quality you can use; it's about the quality you can feel smug about. Not that any of that stops confirmation bias and pure imagination from stepping in and bringing out the "oh, sure I can tell the difference, you betcha" from the happy owners of such tech.
You know what cost isn't zero?
Changing the billions of http: links on billions of web pages to billions of other web pages, that's what.
Firefox - and Google, for that matter - are damaging the very integrity of the net, ironically, while claiming to improve it. They're not improving it. This is anal-retentive nonsense. Not everything needs to be encrypted. If something does need to be encrypted, that falls into the realm of the reasonable decision of the page owner, not the web browser author or the search engine.
We've gotten along just fine without this nonsense thus far; I see no reason - other than the use of force by these bad actors - that we should have to arbitrarily change huge portions of the Internet.
You want to encrypt, go ahead. You can if you want. And of course, if you do, it'll be fine. But using force to make you do it... no. That's just evil.
And we know that browser warnings will put people off. This isn't an "otherwise-harmless" act. It'll do real damage.
I have a 204" inch screen and I'm perfectly happy with many of the DVDs in our library, which are about (hand-waving) 1/4 res against 1080p. Many movies have been made where detail just isn't really a core issue of viewer appreciation.
But you and I both have 1080p anyway. Because for some things, it does matter. As does frame rate for action movies.
Marketing will bring 4K into households, just as it did 1080p. And many will upgrade, and many will elect to try 4K streams. And many movies will be made that take advantage of this, and then we will see what happens - death as with stereo pseudo-3D, or life as with 1080p.
IMHO, it's not about "what's enough"; It's about what the masses end up accepting. It seems to me that 4K is going to be something they accept pretty quickly.
As an aside: I used to have a video (as in, NTSC, or Never Twice the Same Color) security system. When 1080p video security systems came out, I upgraded, and I have to tell you, it was more than worth it. When 4K security systems come out, I'll be all over that. Detail matters hugely in that application; and there are movies, particularly SF movies, where details also matter. That's the hook. And unlike the psuedo-3d stuff, no one will need special glasses and all that annoyance to see the difference. 8K too.
In reality - you know, where we all actually live - the only rights of any kind that exist are those rights for which someone(s) will impose force to ensure the availability thereof.
It's all very fine to talk about what should be; for instance, IMO, no government should impose on informed, adult personal / consensual choices - but they fact is, they do, and they can't be stopped from doing so by any practical means. Because this, although it should be a thing, is not a thing, because there is no force behind it. Which demotes it down to the status of fantasy.
4k streaming is beginning to be a thing, and the displays and associated hardware are trending down in price, as per usual for newish tech.
10 mb/s isn't going to cut it indefinitely.
The important thing here isn't the 10 mb/s; it's the idea that connectivity is so important that equality depends on access.
Apple is not short of money.
And because they are not short of money, they are not short of time, except inasmuch as they aren't taking care of business. They have a bug list. They don't address it anywhere near the way they should.
What they are short of is competence.
And yes, I'm a Mac user.
Ive isn't going to change how it works; he has no skills in that area. He's going to change how it looks.