If push comes to shove, the public can defeat *any* government. No force can handle 10-50 times it's numbers. As the phrase goes "you're gonna run out of bullets".
Easier example: taser guns can be fired at max, 3 times. 500 angry people vs 10 angry cops? well gee, guess who's going to be running away first.
I'm guessing some Microsofties tried to push this under firefox. I sincerely hope they don't do this either, as this seems pretty stupid and the arguments seem kinda MS-ish. I also don't want this and anxiously wait for a theme to get rid of it, if this change even occurs.
I *think* they already let you know it can be crawled, now it's just being more explicit. When you press publish there is more than just a single confirmation to an extent too, so it's not like "whoops". The links pretty much say "only allow registered users to see this/anyone can see this/etc" so you can control whether your link is for all or for a specific person.
Thus, this "change" pretty much doesn't change anything.
I find it interesting that for once the FCC has to basically make a regulation that summarily like "hands off" to the ISPs in regards to network control.
Under a certain wage level, making more money can add substantially more happiness and freedom than simply being happy with what you're doing. YMMV of course, and being extremely unhappy with what you're doing can be exceptions too.
I think section 230 will make an issue of that - in that how does an ISP know what is lawful content/why should they even care? etc.
Meanwhile, if there is service degradation for what is considered unlawful content, that would be a violation of other codes. I don't remember the exact term but it's something akin to the "no tapping of internet lines" type stuff.
You and I understand that concept. However, how they interpret it, as said, matters.
Degradation of things due to copyright is something that the RIAA does when they put bad/false seeders on a torrent to make it look popular and track people/make it harder to download. So the question of is what they are doing net neutrality, etc, blurs these ideas quite a bit.
Actually, he is making a good point. Depending on how they define the "network discrimination" things such as copyright could be considered as network discrimination.
This is exactly what I was concerned of in my post, but also on a good level, that it sounds like interpretation will say a lot.
I thought this issue was who defines which protocol deserves better latency and/or bandwidth?
So far every example I've seen involves treating bittorrent and gaming as low priority/noncritical simply because they are upload/latency using (which costs the providers more due to upstream agreements) instead of what really uses the most bandwidth (streaming sites).
for the folks who have read this in detail, can anyone spot any omissions or areas that they might have failed to cover in their ideas? Does it open anything up to exploitation?
It sounded good to me but for some reason I got a vibe of "they'll use this to exclude things not covered" in some way. I'm thinking about the promises of "up to" as one thing that's not touched upon, or the forcing of people to purchase certain bundles by financial incentive (such as being cheaper for internet + cable than naked internet - aka comcast again).
Well, I can understand the emotional distress, but the value of a birth is what people choose to put into it, same as abortion.
The can't love back part, well, many people have had relationships like that. I mean Zooey Deschanel and Jennifer Love Hewitt still don't respond to my love letters and the requests for them to bear my children.
I agree with this, not to mention they are talking about things that are borderline instinctual. That is not the same as "learning" in the sense of the phrase. Reminds me of that fatal birth defect where a kid is born without the top of their skull so it doesn't form all of the brain, but enough for them to cry, smile, etc and causes people serious emotional stress because it appears to be cognition when it's not.
that tax break can *easily* in many instances add up to more than you would have if you received the money, if it can lower your taxes overall. Also makes for easier end of year tax planning.
The manufacturing process is indeed carbon neutral. It's in every paper manufacturing company's interest to do so as it actually diminishes their power usage. Go do some research before you simply label things "factually incorrect", as I was quite correct and happen to know well of the company that I mentioned, which was why I mentioned them.
I can add all sorts of extraneous situations to the kindle too, but then we wouldn't be truly comparing things, would we?
Shipping has something to do with it? Or how did I say that the books don't require shipping? What other words do you wish to put in my mouth?
using an electronic device is not even close to being greener than the cost of producing something from paper.
Difference: we grow the trees we use to make paper, thus the CO2 cost is only twice: negatively (loss) upon creation (growing the tree, not processing the paper), and upon recycling (positively (gain). Does this CO2 get released into the atmosphere? No. The paper manufacturers actually use a techniques to recycle the same CO2 back to power the machines used to produce the paper, net 0. KapStone paper is a company I can cite which does this. They are self sufficient and are carbon neutral.
With an ebook, your energy usage is shared with all your books, but you can infinitely go back and read an old book and add more energy cost/usage, not to mention the battery disposal issues. We have energy in great quantities in the world, but it is not all 100% efficient nor free.
Have you ever heard of producing the plastics in a kindle being carbon neutral or being environmentally friendly? Answer is, it's not. Ebooks are better at what they do. That doesn't mean green.
It is good to be green, but to do it in real ways and not simply feel good about it. Lots of people and companies are smart enough to realize that simply "getting rid" of a source of anything that has emissions in some form is not the right approach.
It's a natural reaction brought upon by years and years of, well, corruption guised as "governmental". On one hand allowing banks and big corps to control the government is their fault, but on the other, it is also the government's fault for allowing themselves to be controlled by the banks and big corporations. chicken vs egg argument to me?
Per the article considering their rationale for charging for it is that "only a truly elite group of people want, and to "cover costs of publishing", it's noted that PACER is supposed to be free as well, which is also law documentation.
So considering that the book charges for nothing, it's noted that it would be a legitimate government cost to ask the government to fund cost of any copies of the book requested and to provide it freely as they would any other book upon which is the basis of law.
Or they could I don't know, post it as a PDF or something and just move on. Whoops.
So would emulation be worse or would having some kind of northbridge interpreter or equivalent to a math coprocessor to translate from arm->x86 and vice versa be more efficient?
Slashdot Mirror
If push comes to shove, the public can defeat *any* government. No force can handle 10-50 times it's numbers. As the phrase goes "you're gonna run out of bullets".
Easier example: taser guns can be fired at max, 3 times. 500 angry people vs 10 angry cops? well gee, guess who's going to be running away first.
for those who are interested, this bear project has a twitter page : https://twitter.com/BEAR_HAB. (linked twice)
I'm guessing some Microsofties tried to push this under firefox. I sincerely hope they don't do this either, as this seems pretty stupid and the arguments seem kinda MS-ish. I also don't want this and anxiously wait for a theme to get rid of it, if this change even occurs.
Examples: there are already aero addons
Maybe because grammar is tough for windows users?
I *think* they already let you know it can be crawled, now it's just being more explicit. When you press publish there is more than just a single confirmation to an extent too, so it's not like "whoops". The links pretty much say "only allow registered users to see this/anyone can see this/etc" so you can control whether your link is for all or for a specific person.
Thus, this "change" pretty much doesn't change anything.
umm, how about what some ISP's do when you refuse a bundle, such as blocking services,downgrading them, or billing you extra?
oh right, lets go with your first response eh?
I find it interesting that for once the FCC has to basically make a regulation that summarily like "hands off" to the ISPs in regards to network control.
Under a certain wage level, making more money can add substantially more happiness and freedom than simply being happy with what you're doing. YMMV of course, and being extremely unhappy with what you're doing can be exceptions too.
I think section 230 will make an issue of that - in that how does an ISP know what is lawful content/why should they even care? etc.
Meanwhile, if there is service degradation for what is considered unlawful content, that would be a violation of other codes. I don't remember the exact term but it's something akin to the "no tapping of internet lines" type stuff.
You and I understand that concept. However, how they interpret it, as said, matters.
Degradation of things due to copyright is something that the RIAA does when they put bad/false seeders on a torrent to make it look popular and track people/make it harder to download. So the question of is what they are doing net neutrality, etc, blurs these ideas quite a bit.
Actually, he is making a good point. Depending on how they define the "network discrimination" things such as copyright could be considered as network discrimination.
This is exactly what I was concerned of in my post, but also on a good level, that it sounds like interpretation will say a lot.
I thought this issue was who defines which protocol deserves better latency and/or bandwidth?
So far every example I've seen involves treating bittorrent and gaming as low priority/noncritical simply because they are upload/latency using (which costs the providers more due to upstream agreements) instead of what really uses the most bandwidth (streaming sites).
for the folks who have read this in detail, can anyone spot any omissions or areas that they might have failed to cover in their ideas? Does it open anything up to exploitation?
It sounded good to me but for some reason I got a vibe of "they'll use this to exclude things not covered" in some way. I'm thinking about the promises of "up to" as one thing that's not touched upon, or the forcing of people to purchase certain bundles by financial incentive (such as being cheaper for internet + cable than naked internet - aka comcast again).
Well, I can understand the emotional distress, but the value of a birth is what people choose to put into it, same as abortion.
The can't love back part, well, many people have had relationships like that. I mean Zooey Deschanel and Jennifer Love Hewitt still don't respond to my love letters and the requests for them to bear my children.
I agree with this, not to mention they are talking about things that are borderline instinctual. That is not the same as "learning" in the sense of the phrase. Reminds me of that fatal birth defect where a kid is born without the top of their skull so it doesn't form all of the brain, but enough for them to cry, smile, etc and causes people serious emotional stress because it appears to be cognition when it's not.
good point, its 100% google benefit and I didn't think about that temporary investment idea like how a bank would do it. Makes sense.
that tax break can *easily* in many instances add up to more than you would have if you received the money, if it can lower your taxes overall. Also makes for easier end of year tax planning.
The manufacturing process is indeed carbon neutral. It's in every paper manufacturing company's interest to do so as it actually diminishes their power usage. Go do some research before you simply label things "factually incorrect", as I was quite correct and happen to know well of the company that I mentioned, which was why I mentioned them.
I can add all sorts of extraneous situations to the kindle too, but then we wouldn't be truly comparing things, would we?
Shipping has something to do with it? Or how did I say that the books don't require shipping? What other words do you wish to put in my mouth?
using an electronic device is not even close to being greener than the cost of producing something from paper.
Difference: we grow the trees we use to make paper, thus the CO2 cost is only twice: negatively (loss) upon creation (growing the tree, not processing the paper), and upon recycling (positively (gain). Does this CO2 get released into the atmosphere? No. The paper manufacturers actually use a techniques to recycle the same CO2 back to power the machines used to produce the paper, net 0. KapStone paper is a company I can cite which does this. They are self sufficient and are carbon neutral.
With an ebook, your energy usage is shared with all your books, but you can infinitely go back and read an old book and add more energy cost/usage, not to mention the battery disposal issues. We have energy in great quantities in the world, but it is not all 100% efficient nor free.
Have you ever heard of producing the plastics in a kindle being carbon neutral or being environmentally friendly? Answer is, it's not. Ebooks are better at what they do. That doesn't mean green.
It is good to be green, but to do it in real ways and not simply feel good about it. Lots of people and companies are smart enough to realize that simply "getting rid" of a source of anything that has emissions in some form is not the right approach.
Meanwhile google's doing the smartest move: they're donating their $1 to charity. So both a: doing a good cause and b: earning themselves a tax break.
That's what I call smart capitalism.
I do think the book deal needs to have some of the issues kinked out, but overall google is taking this in a very smart way.
It's a natural reaction brought upon by years and years of, well, corruption guised as "governmental". On one hand allowing banks and big corps to control the government is their fault, but on the other, it is also the government's fault for allowing themselves to be controlled by the banks and big corporations. chicken vs egg argument to me?
Per the article considering their rationale for charging for it is that "only a truly elite group of people want, and to "cover costs of publishing", it's noted that PACER is supposed to be free as well, which is also law documentation.
So considering that the book charges for nothing, it's noted that it would be a legitimate government cost to ask the government to fund cost of any copies of the book requested and to provide it freely as they would any other book upon which is the basis of law.
Or they could I don't know, post it as a PDF or something and just move on. Whoops.
haven't you see the family guy where quagmire sleeps with a woman in every state?
So would emulation be worse or would having some kind of northbridge interpreter or equivalent to a math coprocessor to translate from arm->x86 and vice versa be more efficient?
sorry, my own error, I meant interpreter - isn't there some way to do this at a hardware level underlying the operating systems themselves?