Or any of a large number of other things that they would do were it not for the courts to stop some of it
So I'm going to go with this idea that you believe in legal recourse. If not then just skip the rest of this, we're just not going to go anywhere.
So the question remains: who do people who exhibit a complete distrust of the government suddenly accept promises at face value from the same government?
The thing is this. There have been at least three dozen cases but here's one for you 600 F.3d 642 that have established that there is not a legal recourse for network traffic manipulation without the following things. The FCC must approve of what those rules are for network traffic, which they did in 2007. The FCC may only apply those rules to those classified as Title II, which in 2010, Comcast was not classified as. So, lacking Title II classification the courts have ruled that there is no current legal recourse for network traffic manipulation.
So the question is, where does this all come from? PL104-104 passed by Congress in 1996. In this law Congress dictates in section 509 that section 230 of Title II of 47 USC 201 is amended that gives the FCC the power to dictate what is "fair" for "network traffic". That basically sets it up as, the word "fair" can be defined by the FCC. And after several legal battles between 1996 and 1998, the FCC commissioned a study to define what "fair" meant, because that's what Congress told them to do and judges really couldn't do much because the definition by law of fair was to be defined by the FCC.
They haven't shown that to me, and I don't accept the argument that they are no longer promising something they don't need to promise means they're going to do the opposite. But that's a personal decision.
You are right except when you walk into a court room. Which is the entire point here. We've all got different points of views on what "fair" is, that's why we have laws. It's sort of the axiom of what "fair" means except not agreeing with it means going to jail or fines. And that was the entire point, judges couldn't just magically whip up a definition of what fair meant back in 1996, but there wasn't really anything in the books to give them guidance. But I digress. The FCC in 1998 begins to make rules on what fair meant, and in 2002 they come forward with what those rules are in something with a horrible name called the "Cable Modem Order" here I'll save you a Google.. Here's a fun bit for you.
The Communications Act does not clearly indicate how cable modem service should be classified or regulated; the relevant statutory provisions do not yield easy or obvious answers to the questions at hand; and the case law interpreting those provisions is extensive and complex.
As you can see by this point (and we're only at 2002), there were so many lawsuits that you couldn't even make good rules based on case law, because I know a lot of us find it hard to remember this, but the Internet was literally fucked traffic wise back then. Now I should make it abundantly clear here, we're talking about traffic here. Case law had already established a clear distinction between "service" and "traffic". Basically, as long as your connection didn't go dark, you weren't in any violation of FTC rules and since the FCC hasn't spoken up yet about it. A connection to the Internet, even if it completely blocked email, was just a connection to the Internet, no harm/no foul. That's the difference that case law had at least agreed on by "service" versus "traffic". And so if you couldn't access Microsoft's website, there's no legal recourse, but if you just couldn't get on
Unless the prediction pipe can be patched in microcode. The prediction pipe uses a program stored within static memory inside the processor to try and predict the results based on cached previous runs in low level memory. The Spectre flaw requires training that pipe to pick the wrong answers in a "known" way and to do so in a very specific manner. I'm pretty sure that if Intel came out with a way to fix this, it would be to make the prediction less predicable to anything outside of that specific core and make some of the timing a bit more random perhaps by inserting random nop within the microcode program. Exploiting with spectre is a lot of dominoes lining up just perfectly and in a controlled experiment that's doable. Unsure of how easily it can be done on an actual production machine, especially if a process isn't locked to a specific core within the chip. Each core has it's own pipe for predictions, so if a program is being flopped around machines, there's less likely a chance that the program can successfully train the core incorrectly before the cache is flushed.
However, I don't know any of the deep internals into Intel's chips so it might just be them spinning, who knows.
Why is it that many slashdotters hold an inherent distrust of government, unless it is making promises to give you something you think should be cheap?
See that's where you have it all wrong. Comcast, AT&T, et al have shown that they cannot be trusted. I've got no problem with any of the big ISPs if they weren't being fucktards with Internet access. No, it's not that we run to the government because we see cheap. It's that we run from the big ISPs because they've fucked shit up, just happens that some local governments tend to be in the general vicinity of "away from" who we're running from. You think we're looking around going, "where's the government?" You've got your directions all mixed up on this topic.
stepped into a system that was working perfectly well with some occasional oversight by the FCC
Bullshit. They were classified as Title II by the pressuring of Verizon in court case after court case that the FCC took major ISPs to court over. Like seriously, the FCC IMHO gave ISPs every single chance they could to clean up their act and they just kept saying, "nope, we'll see you in court."
No, sir. No I will not. I will stand here forever, guarding against your toadying ilk that would destroy true freedom
You have zero clues. You lack so much knowledge on this topic, you literally have no clue what the term "freedom" means. You say these words with conviction and all I can say is that I'm glad you believe every word you speak but you have zero clue as to what you are talking about. There's no point in trying to show you where you are wrong, I've come across several zealots like yourself in this discussion and even when shown the court cases, the actions of the ISPs, and piece of evidence after piece of evidence that this claim that the Internet was "working great" before is purely false. It all falls back on the brain dead argument of "well I don't like the government telling me or companies what to do." To which I say, go fuck yourself and your uneducated arguments that lack any resemblance to actual fact.
In short, you've come to the wrong place on the Internet to spew this fiction that the Internet was "awesome and working perfectly" back in the day. Everyone here is well aware of what went down, we were all there. We all understand that once you peel the layers of your argument back it just reveals itself to be one of subjective matter on how you feel governments should work. No one gives a shit about how you FEEL things should work, we all saw ISPs give middle fingers to operators, protocols, networks, and other end nodes on the Internet that they felt just went against their business priorities. And that is the entire point. ISPs aren't created to make a business they're the gateway to the Internet, they are utilities not companies, but they want to convince folks that underneath they're businesses. They can all go suck a big cock with that idea. And then these companies bitch and moan about not being able to roll out because of regulation and how they welcome competition but when cities actually want to treat the gateway to the Internet like it should be treated "a utility" they start getting up in arms and suing the shit out of everyone, every where. That's the failure, that's the core point that people like you don't understand. Being an ISP is not a business. When you think of it like that, then you might as well privatize cops, fire departments, and the army itself. Because whatever made up line in the sand you want to create for why that isn't so, is just some subjective BS that a population of "just you" in that mindset.
That's a fair statement. Strictly speaking code-wise, there's no mystery. However, I'm pretty sure that a very limited number of folks have commit access to the code on the main branch, so if those individuals are being awfully quiet about what goals they're trying to reach with their code, it can be "mysterious" as to the purpose of the code (like what problem is it trying to solve or is this just some kind of wack-a-hack project, etc...). Not knowing what the point of the code is, makes it a bit difficult to know what the next move is. Maybe they want to add POSIX compatibility, maybe not, no one knows if POSIX compatibility missing is a bug or on purpose (and yes, I'm just pulling an example out of thin air, it really could be anything). However, not knowing the point makes it hard for a new coder to jump in with the main branch. Now if they wanted to start their own derived project, totes cool there. However, imagine if their some issue with libc compatibility that someone spots, they develop a patch for it and the devs with commit access are like, "nope we did that on purpose because the goal isn't to be compat with libc" or something like that (again, just random example pulling out of thin air here). The best we can do is guess at what the devs are ultimately trying to get at here or even if there is a point to all of this or if this is just some academic dumping ground project for them.
That's a critical thing with projects. You might have amazingly well written code, but if the communication between the programmers is crap, you're going to end up with crap. A project is more than just the codebase. A project is a multitude of things, of which, the codebase, the communication, and the leadership, among others, are major players in.
Mexico are paying for the wall, just not with cold hard cash. I hope you finally understand the actual plan here.
That's not how that even remotely works. Simple example for you. Say the US produces a toothbrush, they sell it to Mexico for $x. There's a tariff on that toothbrush that increases it to $x+$y. The US government only gets $y, the company that made it get $x. When you talk about balance of trade you are looking at $x, which is the company's, not the US government's. When you build something, unless Colgate is doing the building and buying, you look at $y.
So saying the trade deficit can pay for the wall only works if the intent is to extract that money from US companies, which is done via tariffs and taxes. You cannot turn money that is rightfully Colgate's into money that is used to build a wall. Trade is done by companies and regulated by government, not the other way around. Remove government and you still have trade because it's mostly done by companies. So when you say the word "trade" you should consider that money not available to the public for public works unless you are willing to start taxing that. Taxes, tariffs, bonds, etc are means to convert money that is a private company's into money that is the US government's.
Finally, when you talk about "trade" in general you have to remember that it is never a 1:1 conversion. Increasing tariffs on a product that's imported into Mexico would cause Mexico to raise tariffs on something they export to some other country. In turn that country increases tariffs on a product the export to the US which basically nullifies the entire increase to begin with. Chicken exports to China, Japanese made pickup trucks, European steel, and Russian natural gas is a good example of how complicated some of these intertwined contracts can get. Change a variable in anyone of those and you'll change the market dynamic in the others. There's not really a good way to predict how markets would react to any change in any of that (otherwise I wouldn't be shitposting on Slashdot but instead living it up on my yacht). So it really is a guessing game and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is just selling snake oil. But messing around with trade without a well thought out plan is like taking all the chips and placing it on 15-black and hoping for the best.
Point here is twofold. One, trade deficits don't work how you think they work. Two, when you actually apply how they do work it is risky business and the current POTUS hasn't had a lot of luck in casinos and hotel building, so I'm not so sure about his luck. Anything short of Mexico actually cutting a check to the US and taking the hit on their GDP is just a round about way of saying the US citizens will be paying for the wall. It's that simple. Folks keep trying to make this some complex chess game of trade and tariffs but really without direct funding from Mexico, US citizens are floating the bill. Those that want the wall built will come up with all kinds of snazzy ways of mystically making the money appear from Mexico, but when you peel all of those magic ways back down to their core, it usually falls on the US taxpayer at the heart of the plan. It really is not that complex.
Mexico. Must. Send. The. Money. Directly. To. The. United. States. Everything. Else. Is. The. United. States. Taxpayer. Paying. For. The. Wall.
by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, 2017 @02:34PM
You honestly shouldn't read AC posts. Slashdot has become absolute garbage with the AC dumping. I would dare say that 50%+ of the comments on Slashdot at this point are AC dumps of just random shit to stir pots. It's gotten out of hand how bad the AC shit is Swiss cheesing threads. I guess one day Slashdot will get its head out its ass and do something about it.
Just remember, if an AC posts something like that, 99.9999999% chance they don't care what you have to say and are posting it just to get you to say something back to them. So while you've given all that information to prove your point, you've proved it to one who cared in the first place.
This neck beard thing of being the first person to scream
Let me stop you there. This is Slashdot, apparently everything invented in the 70s is the only thing that matters around here. Anything past that is pure shit that eventually will be shown as the shit it truly is. Like literally, from politics to init to technology. If it wasn't invented in the 70s, it's shit and that's what Slashdot is best known for everywhere else on the Internet (which of course was invented in the 70s except for IPv6 which is shit).
Blah, blah, I can't make a valid argument so I'm going to run to the entire end of the spectrum to point out some sort of flaw.
Seriously your entire comment is shit, here's why. Eggs, basket, all of one in the other. Go back in your corner and rethink your argument because clearly there was none that went into this drivel.
When the value of bitcoins plummets, that trust will go away.
For idiots, yes. There's always going to be folks who jump on a bandwagon, just because the bandwagon exists. There's an obvious need for a pure fiat currency not controlled by any government, that was demonstrated long before all the crazy investors jumped on. I get everyone is salty now that they're here, but it literally happens to every new fad so at some point in your life you just have to stop getting angry at that kind of thing and just move on with your life. Yes, bankers and investor will do dumb stuff. No, no matter how many times we burn the rich peoples' house down, tar and feather them, draw and quarter them, it just opens up a spot for a new set of them to come along. Stop hating the player and hate the game because it hasn't gone away in the last 10k+ years, doubtful it'll go away in the next 10k+ years. Bitcoin has utility, but yeah its a fiat currency and its like every other fiat currency out there, it's just some made up hocus pocus that only has meaning because we say it does. Someone further down on this thread hit the nail on the head. Technically, the only thing that's going to give you real value is vast amounts of ammo and large caches of guns. But since we like not living in chaos we move to the next best thing, gold and then made up makebelieve money. As long as it serves some purpose, people are going to use it and as long as using it doesn't mean it requires you to blow someone's head off, people are going to tend to the less violent form of currency that best fits their situation. But yeah, we could totally go to an economy of C4 and AR-15s, it would be shit, but yeah totally doable and way more real than hocus pocus or inert metals.
So yes, captain obvious, the bubble will pop, people will loose money, and the idiot investors will be gone. At that point the people who see this as a tool can go back to using it the way they were using it before the twats on Wall Street got here.
I'll just say my two cents here. I'm not sure how many people are like me here but YouTube doesn't really appeal to me much anymore. I just don't see it having "good" content. Maybe CGP Grey and Kurzgesagt but that's about the end of it. Even then those two aren't regular publishers and leaving them alone for a year and then coming back, I can watch everything they've done in the in between in one sitting.
There's not really much a point to trying to "discover" anything on YouTube, because the vast majority is just trash or is content that has its own platform that's more tailored to its content, like Twitch. I think the strength of YouTube is its inertia and getting rid of it on a device is a sure fire way to wake folks up and have them realize how little value there is left in YouTube. Again, maybe that's just me.
I think the troubling thing here is that Facebook did actually go on record saying that they wouldn't do the very thing that they are doing now. If there was some sort of shakeup in management, I'd slightly understand it, but no, literally the people who told everyone that they wouldn't do this, decided to do the thing they said they wouldn't do. To me that's the highlight here. All the other stuff seems to be fluff and opinion, but this is a company that just basically said, "Yeah, we said that. Fuck it."
I won't outright say you are wrong, but there is a bit of a flaw there. Yes, folks willing to pay above retail do create a market and that market feels "unfair". However, it feeling "unfair" only goes as far as the person trying to buy the good. For everyone involved in the bot creation, the drop shipper, the logistics team that gets it from point A to point B and then from point B to point C. Those are avenues of income for different folks. So while end consumers are getting screwed, this is actually profitable for a whole slew of folks (yeah, maybe a few cents for this person, a few cents to this group, etc...). So I would just say, "NOT A VICTIM, they are their own PROBLEM." Everyone else doesn't see this as an issue. So I think it's fair that folks go into the argument knowing that the ONLY PERSON with the problem is the person creating the problem as well.
If they regulated it, I wouldn't care. If they don't regulate it, I wouldn't care. But I just can't stand folks screaming "IT IS UNFAIR!!" Fair and unfair is a matter of perspective, and who you favor depends deeply on what you think is important to you. So you get some conservative folks who feel the industry is important, some liberal folks who feel the consumer is important, and the correct answer is, there isn't one. It's just a matter of flavor of how you want to rule.
Ultimately, though, this is going to get regulated. Thinking otherwise is just missing the writing on the wall. StubHub is an excellent example of why I feel that no matter what is argued for the topic, it will get regulated. At some point the bots will just get so bad, that there literally is no way to find something on retail, except for maybe walking into a brick and mortar. Even if the government doesn't do it, if like say Amazon can't sell a single XYZ product because as soon as they have it a drop-shipper has already scooped it up, and that starts to cut into their ability to draw people away from brick and mortar; they'll end it, they'll drop a damn hammer on it if need be.
You say "but the locals"... shine a flash light on it.
You yourself are an incredible example of why that doesn't work. Literally, your reply is the exact reason why things like this don't work. If you cannot figure that out that's on you.
talk about what is actually the problem instead of being a tool for big ISPs
Your mom. That's basically what that whole waste of words gets.
big ISPs that WANT this solution because it means no one can compete with them for the low low price of doing what they're already doing
Your statement makes zero sense. The low price exists because they needn't share space with anyone. Start filling the poles or underground pipes holding the fiber with five or six different ISPs and suddenly you have a limited resource that drives prices up. You are looking at this like some strictly bandwidth issue, you are confusing hardware and bandwidth, or you just are hopping around to keep your point valid by relating to things that don't share the relationship you are trying to make.
NN is totally irrelevant. With or without it the internet will work exactly the same.
LOL, right. Other countries have shown that they have no problem leveling filtering at the application layer. How exactly do you think the Internet works? Do you seriously thing that by default everyone on this planet has their traffic treated equally? That's not a bandwidth thing, that's a which packets get sent before other packets thing, before we even hit talking about bandwidth. You just simply have to look at several other countries and how they're running things and see that your statement is outright false.
it would cause a riot.
No it won't. Because people like you normalize this kind of crap and sow uncertainty into the mix. People who speak out are basically told, "You're a tool!", "You don't understand the problem!", "This isn't what you want!". People like you are the reason companies steam roll over people with little resistance. I get that it's not a malice thing, I'm betting you are banking on the concept of capitalism to save us all from the evil. You can see how well that works by looking at how many food companies there exist. Or insurance companies. We have choices, they are limited and without well established regulations there's just never any room for small players. No one is asking for the government to be the end all, says all. I don't know why you keep running to the tee-total end of the spectrum of what is possible. The US ISPs have demonstrated that they don't have the public's interest in mind. Other countries show that the Internet isn't some homogeneous thing, so thinking that Comcast can't dictate exactly how their link to the Internet works is silly. They can so do whatever they choose and still work with what parts of the world at large they choose.
But all the other ISPs are not that stupid.
You keep using that word stupid and I seriously am wondering if you know what it means. ISPs will do it because they look at profits. It has nothing to do with smart/stupid/riot/peace, etc... ISPs are companies and companies are driven by a single thing, profit. If there is a chance to profit from something, then they will do it. Thinking that they won't flies in the face of the base reason a company exists. I thought you were all about free markets? Anyone who studies free markets knows that ultimately this is the end result of totally open, zero regulation, capitalism. Why are continually trying to act like it doesn't do this? Do you work for a big ISP or something?
All it does is give the Feds more leverage to regulate something that we all want to be free whilst at the same time ensuring our service will continue to suck by making competition less likely.
Just... No. Title II isn't a great fit considering how b
Ensure right of access to poles for other companies besides the big guys
Local governments set that. Any attempt at what you are purposing is literally the Federal government dictating what goes on what pole at the city level. I'm not sure anyone here could find something that would bring the "Don't tread on me" zealots out faster. No complaint on your proposal, but seriously that would incite a firestorm way larger than the whole "government death panels". Just saying, the uneducated are still a pretty powerful voting block and Comcast/AT&T do pretty much own the main ways those folks tend to get their FoxNe.., er, news.
lack of competition that is the actual issue
You are going to first inform folks why that's important to them, addressing the issue with terms like "competition" only works if folks know to shop around, or that shopping around is actually an option. Think about hospitals. People don't stop to think for a second that, "Oh hey, I can actually shop around for hospitals." ISPs are pretty much same game here, no one really understands why having multiple carriers in an area is a good thing, they just see "INTERNET". NN addresses the problem at the folks who "make" Internet. Now NN isn't a really good fit, but NN versus nothing, I'll take the first one.
Its not NN that is important
You're right, if folks were well informed and understood basic economics then this would be a no fuss issue. HOWEVER, we don't live in that world and addressing that problem is more than likely a multi decade thing and I'll be good and dead by that point, same for you more than likely. I get what you are saying, "trust the consumer..." Problem is that average rate consumer is an idiot and ISPs are really, really, really good at understanding and playing that to their advantage. So all things considered, I'll take the less impossible option to be implemented.
People are really going to get upset about the government enforcing anti-monopoly rules now, because it is Trump who is enforcing them?
This is the most infuriating part about his administration. His ego gets put in every conversation or topic and that gets us a magnified topic a million fold within two seconds. His bigger than life showmanship basically ensures that rationale debate just never happens. Pair that with his hyper thin skin, where anyone who says anything is instantly brought center stage. This combo basically takes anything he sets his eyes on, big or small, and immediately explodes it to a level where people are instantly taking sides with rabid fervor. So when he actually wants to uphold the law, everyone is confused as to what the intent is, or if there is an intent, or if his playing some game, or if he's too stupid to be playing a game. You could not ask for a more opaque administration on what their direction is, and this is an office where transparency is really needed. He did not get into office on the best of terms possible and that's a point that's bugged him visibly. No one has forgotten that part. His legitimacy is technical and that hasn't led to good first starts in any administration. Finally, he's constantly talking about things that aren't national level things. The national level things he does talk about, he's got no clue. And the only plan I've heard from him so far is that whatever it is, it's going to be great. GREAT! Any details on that plan is an instant deferment to Congress. So basically, not his plan if it fails, we've figured out the MO here.
Trump is quite literally his own worse enemy because even if his actions are genuine, you can't tell because of how bombastic and ostentatious he treats literally every other topic that crosses his desk. That's a super problem. Because the whole Time Warner thing shouldn't happen, but because the President has basically said, "I have a vendetta on CNN." He's given tank loads of ammo to an army of lawyers on AT&Ts side who will drag that very point through three dozen courts, leaving a trail of legal blood and fury if need be. Which then Trumpster's army will start hurling stones at them for being the corrupt media. All the while, the by-standards, people who actually report honest news and those who honestly just want to uphold the freaking law, will be in the crossfire. And this is all because Cheeto just couldn't check his damn ego when he turned on the TV. He just could not move past the things that everyone hurls at him, his is a position of power, yeah, there's going to be a group "somewhere" that doesn't like you and has a vendetta, everyone other person who held the position in the last 50ish years just basically blows it off, except maybe Nixon, and moves on with their damn life.
That's what kills me the most about this topic. This is honestly upholding the law, but the Spary-On Commander has basically burned any legitimacy going for him right now. And really fucking powerful folks with more lawyers than Arby's has roast beef, is quite literally the last group of folks you want to tangle with when your legitimacy is not at its most healthiest point.
Just wanted to say, if you run into this a lot and you happen to be in the south region of the US, just lie. If they test you on it, wing it or flip them off. I've personally been the other side of the desk, looked at what HR was forcing to be on the listing and ask why. Clearest answer I could get was, "Well we've always done that". Especially if they're asking $45k for a very specific skillset. Just fucking lie and call it a day. For $45k/yr there's absolutely zero reasons to be honest and I'm pretty sure they're less than honest themselves for that amount of cash.
Oh look, someone who is whining about their special case of Speed is more important then Functionality.
You'd have a point if it was just me harping about speed. But literally for the last upteen years folks have gotten on here and said "THE NUMBER ONE FUCKING REASON THEY DON'T USE FIREFOX WAS BECAUSE OF ALL THE FUCKING SHIT THEY FIXED." Now that it's fixed suddenly, everyone wants to whine about something else so kick rocks dude. Your functionality was broken at version 4 and needed a swift death. If your plugin or extension didn't port when they got the memo well ahead of time, then there's not much help for it. A whole lot of folks made the jump and had zero, ZERO problem.
Ignoring other people's reasons doesn't make yours magically "right" -- only "right for you."
I was totally cool with XUL and felt that there could be some tweaking that could be done in maybe around v60-v70 we'd have something, but now looking back. I'm pretty glad they just decided to not even go down that road. However, don't confuse my position as it being MY reason. At some point I just got tired of getting on here and hearing the same old shit over and over again. It's like when I get on here and hear shit about systemd. I'm so over the stupid knee jerk and then when people don't have that reason anymore, suddenly it's something else.
Ad Hominem and Straw Man fallacies much?
Pointing out a group of folks who swear off advancement because their afraid of advancement isn't me attacking any person's character. It's me point out something that actually exists. People have gotten on here and said shit like "UNIX or die", have made comments about the monolithic nature of Linux distros of the Microsofting of Linux. It would be Ad Hominem if I was trying to implicate something that wasn't explicitly known to everyone who visits Slashdot. And you aren't even using Straw Man correctly. Especially when you bring...
If you actually watched documentaries, such as the The True Cost, you would quickly see that modernization exploits MORE people.
For fucks sake dude, we're talking about modernizing web browsers, this isn't a fucking treatise on the perils of modernizing the world. You gotta pull it together and stop extrapolating.
Because anyone who is against "Change for the sake of Change" is "clearly" a Luddite.
Yeah, in the context we're talking about, because I feel like I need to clear that up for you since I wouldn't want you to take what I'm about to say and try it out on things like health care or politics or some shit like that, but in the context of web browsers it's a take the pasta and throw it on the wall, see what sticks kind of game. The sames true for Linux and the things that distros have been trying out lately. But I see people get on here and bitch about how shit slow X11 is, wonder why drivers are sort of on par with others, and then blow a full on gasket when someone says Wayland. You people said you wanted it fixed, they fucking fixed it, and now you all are saying "NOT LIKE THIS!!". WELL SHIT, it's OSS, get off your damn asses and get to coding. That way you can change it the way you want to change it.
Get off your fucking high horse already.
I'll give you that one, that one is true and perhaps I'm riding it a bit hard, but goddamn if it doesn't get old to hear nothing but bitching about something that everyone ASKED FOR. Yeah, it wasn't the exact way you (in the general sense not pointing you specifically out) wanted it to change but there was literally SIX YEARS between 4 and 57 for anyone feeling frisky to do something ANYTHING about it in a way that didn't kill the old cruft. No one took up the mantel, so here we are. If you don't like it, that's cool, you don't have to accept it. It's open source and Firefox clones are a dime a dozen, by all means port yo
Apparently the answer according to Slashdot is Mozilla can suck balls no matter what they do. They fix the slowness and now everyone bitches about broken extensions. I get it, everyone is butt hurt about Firefox 3.5 not lasting one hundred millions years. Seriously, FF 57 is faster, extensions, no wait let me correct that, NoScript is coming and it'll be even faster. It doesn't use the abomination that is XUL. But no, the massive tectonic changes that everyone wanted back in 3.5 days, those *finally* get done and (right now) everyone just bitches about NoScript. Color me unsurprised that the comment section over at Slashdot just becomes a "Why I hate _____" section. Because that's all Slashdot is now, a forum for people to tell other people why they hate whatever free technology they've been giving with zero effort on their part. How whatever this new shiny thing will never compare to whatever thing it was meant to replace that was invented oh so many moons ago. It's clearly a violation of whatever made up principals our Luddite collective deemed to be the gospel so many years ago.
I mean, dang. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't on Slashdot. Mods, I await your flamebait scores, but its like everyday this place descends further into old tech guys yelling at each other about the good old days.
You'll need to use #![no_std] and if you need to malloc you'll have to provide your own. Aside from that you should be able to target ATtiny25 with slicers, generics, traits and all with Rust. Additionally, you'll need to explicitly spell out any types on variables, if you stick to i8 etc, you should be fine. It really depends on what you need done, because obviously you're going to be limited, but the compiler will do a lot of the heavy lifting for you in this mode as opposed to trying to bring it with you in your binary.
But are not Rust, Go, and Swift essentially native-code versions of Java?
I can only speak for Rust in that the answer is no. If anything Rust resembles Haskell a lot more in form, function, and operation than Java.
are they not attempts to ditch the preprocessor, provide a module system and namespaces, properly define behavior and improve safety, in a native-code setting?
Rust does but that hardly equates it anywhere near Java. If anything its just any language that wants to avoid those things. It would be like calling a nutritionist a doctor on the merits that they want you to live a healthy life.
such a thing wouldn't be Java and they would sue your backside if you tried to call it Java.
There were indeed compilers for Java to native code back in Sun days. But you are right that you couldn't call it Java, but that had a lot to with copyrights and branding that anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
From my comment.
...previous runs in low level memory. The Spectre flaw requires training...
Yeah, that's what I was talking about. My bad if I didn't make that clear enough.
Let me focus in on something you got there...
Or any of a large number of other things that they would do were it not for the courts to stop some of it
So I'm going to go with this idea that you believe in legal recourse. If not then just skip the rest of this, we're just not going to go anywhere.
So the question remains: who do people who exhibit a complete distrust of the government suddenly accept promises at face value from the same government?
The thing is this. There have been at least three dozen cases but here's one for you 600 F.3d 642 that have established that there is not a legal recourse for network traffic manipulation without the following things. The FCC must approve of what those rules are for network traffic, which they did in 2007. The FCC may only apply those rules to those classified as Title II, which in 2010, Comcast was not classified as. So, lacking Title II classification the courts have ruled that there is no current legal recourse for network traffic manipulation.
So the question is, where does this all come from? PL104-104 passed by Congress in 1996. In this law Congress dictates in section 509 that section 230 of Title II of 47 USC 201 is amended that gives the FCC the power to dictate what is "fair" for "network traffic". That basically sets it up as, the word "fair" can be defined by the FCC. And after several legal battles between 1996 and 1998, the FCC commissioned a study to define what "fair" meant, because that's what Congress told them to do and judges really couldn't do much because the definition by law of fair was to be defined by the FCC.
They haven't shown that to me, and I don't accept the argument that they are no longer promising something they don't need to promise means they're going to do the opposite. But that's a personal decision.
You are right except when you walk into a court room. Which is the entire point here. We've all got different points of views on what "fair" is, that's why we have laws. It's sort of the axiom of what "fair" means except not agreeing with it means going to jail or fines. And that was the entire point, judges couldn't just magically whip up a definition of what fair meant back in 1996, but there wasn't really anything in the books to give them guidance. But I digress. The FCC in 1998 begins to make rules on what fair meant, and in 2002 they come forward with what those rules are in something with a horrible name called the "Cable Modem Order" here I'll save you a Google.. Here's a fun bit for you.
The Communications Act does not clearly indicate how cable modem service should be classified or regulated; the relevant statutory provisions do not yield easy or obvious answers to the questions at hand; and the case law interpreting those provisions is extensive and complex.
As you can see by this point (and we're only at 2002), there were so many lawsuits that you couldn't even make good rules based on case law, because I know a lot of us find it hard to remember this, but the Internet was literally fucked traffic wise back then. Now I should make it abundantly clear here, we're talking about traffic here. Case law had already established a clear distinction between "service" and "traffic". Basically, as long as your connection didn't go dark, you weren't in any violation of FTC rules and since the FCC hasn't spoken up yet about it. A connection to the Internet, even if it completely blocked email, was just a connection to the Internet, no harm/no foul. That's the difference that case law had at least agreed on by "service" versus "traffic". And so if you couldn't access Microsoft's website, there's no legal recourse, but if you just couldn't get on
It isn't possible
Unless the prediction pipe can be patched in microcode. The prediction pipe uses a program stored within static memory inside the processor to try and predict the results based on cached previous runs in low level memory. The Spectre flaw requires training that pipe to pick the wrong answers in a "known" way and to do so in a very specific manner. I'm pretty sure that if Intel came out with a way to fix this, it would be to make the prediction less predicable to anything outside of that specific core and make some of the timing a bit more random perhaps by inserting random nop within the microcode program. Exploiting with spectre is a lot of dominoes lining up just perfectly and in a controlled experiment that's doable. Unsure of how easily it can be done on an actual production machine, especially if a process isn't locked to a specific core within the chip. Each core has it's own pipe for predictions, so if a program is being flopped around machines, there's less likely a chance that the program can successfully train the core incorrectly before the cache is flushed.
However, I don't know any of the deep internals into Intel's chips so it might just be them spinning, who knows.
Why is it that many slashdotters hold an inherent distrust of government, unless it is making promises to give you something you think should be cheap?
See that's where you have it all wrong. Comcast, AT&T, et al have shown that they cannot be trusted. I've got no problem with any of the big ISPs if they weren't being fucktards with Internet access. No, it's not that we run to the government because we see cheap. It's that we run from the big ISPs because they've fucked shit up, just happens that some local governments tend to be in the general vicinity of "away from" who we're running from. You think we're looking around going, "where's the government?" You've got your directions all mixed up on this topic.
stepped into a system that was working perfectly well with some occasional oversight by the FCC
Bullshit. They were classified as Title II by the pressuring of Verizon in court case after court case that the FCC took major ISPs to court over. Like seriously, the FCC IMHO gave ISPs every single chance they could to clean up their act and they just kept saying, "nope, we'll see you in court."
No, sir. No I will not. I will stand here forever, guarding against your toadying ilk that would destroy true freedom
You have zero clues. You lack so much knowledge on this topic, you literally have no clue what the term "freedom" means. You say these words with conviction and all I can say is that I'm glad you believe every word you speak but you have zero clue as to what you are talking about. There's no point in trying to show you where you are wrong, I've come across several zealots like yourself in this discussion and even when shown the court cases, the actions of the ISPs, and piece of evidence after piece of evidence that this claim that the Internet was "working great" before is purely false. It all falls back on the brain dead argument of "well I don't like the government telling me or companies what to do." To which I say, go fuck yourself and your uneducated arguments that lack any resemblance to actual fact.
In short, you've come to the wrong place on the Internet to spew this fiction that the Internet was "awesome and working perfectly" back in the day. Everyone here is well aware of what went down, we were all there. We all understand that once you peel the layers of your argument back it just reveals itself to be one of subjective matter on how you feel governments should work. No one gives a shit about how you FEEL things should work, we all saw ISPs give middle fingers to operators, protocols, networks, and other end nodes on the Internet that they felt just went against their business priorities. And that is the entire point. ISPs aren't created to make a business they're the gateway to the Internet, they are utilities not companies, but they want to convince folks that underneath they're businesses. They can all go suck a big cock with that idea. And then these companies bitch and moan about not being able to roll out because of regulation and how they welcome competition but when cities actually want to treat the gateway to the Internet like it should be treated "a utility" they start getting up in arms and suing the shit out of everyone, every where. That's the failure, that's the core point that people like you don't understand. Being an ISP is not a business. When you think of it like that, then you might as well privatize cops, fire departments, and the army itself. Because whatever made up line in the sand you want to create for why that isn't so, is just some subjective BS that a population of "just you" in that mindset.
That's a fair statement. Strictly speaking code-wise, there's no mystery. However, I'm pretty sure that a very limited number of folks have commit access to the code on the main branch, so if those individuals are being awfully quiet about what goals they're trying to reach with their code, it can be "mysterious" as to the purpose of the code (like what problem is it trying to solve or is this just some kind of wack-a-hack project, etc...). Not knowing what the point of the code is, makes it a bit difficult to know what the next move is. Maybe they want to add POSIX compatibility, maybe not, no one knows if POSIX compatibility missing is a bug or on purpose (and yes, I'm just pulling an example out of thin air, it really could be anything). However, not knowing the point makes it hard for a new coder to jump in with the main branch. Now if they wanted to start their own derived project, totes cool there. However, imagine if their some issue with libc compatibility that someone spots, they develop a patch for it and the devs with commit access are like, "nope we did that on purpose because the goal isn't to be compat with libc" or something like that (again, just random example pulling out of thin air here). The best we can do is guess at what the devs are ultimately trying to get at here or even if there is a point to all of this or if this is just some academic dumping ground project for them.
That's a critical thing with projects. You might have amazingly well written code, but if the communication between the programmers is crap, you're going to end up with crap. A project is more than just the codebase. A project is a multitude of things, of which, the codebase, the communication, and the leadership, among others, are major players in.
Mexico are paying for the wall, just not with cold hard cash. I hope you finally understand the actual plan here.
That's not how that even remotely works. Simple example for you. Say the US produces a toothbrush, they sell it to Mexico for $x. There's a tariff on that toothbrush that increases it to $x+$y. The US government only gets $y, the company that made it get $x. When you talk about balance of trade you are looking at $x, which is the company's, not the US government's. When you build something, unless Colgate is doing the building and buying, you look at $y.
So saying the trade deficit can pay for the wall only works if the intent is to extract that money from US companies, which is done via tariffs and taxes. You cannot turn money that is rightfully Colgate's into money that is used to build a wall. Trade is done by companies and regulated by government, not the other way around. Remove government and you still have trade because it's mostly done by companies. So when you say the word "trade" you should consider that money not available to the public for public works unless you are willing to start taxing that. Taxes, tariffs, bonds, etc are means to convert money that is a private company's into money that is the US government's.
Finally, when you talk about "trade" in general you have to remember that it is never a 1:1 conversion. Increasing tariffs on a product that's imported into Mexico would cause Mexico to raise tariffs on something they export to some other country. In turn that country increases tariffs on a product the export to the US which basically nullifies the entire increase to begin with. Chicken exports to China, Japanese made pickup trucks, European steel, and Russian natural gas is a good example of how complicated some of these intertwined contracts can get. Change a variable in anyone of those and you'll change the market dynamic in the others. There's not really a good way to predict how markets would react to any change in any of that (otherwise I wouldn't be shitposting on Slashdot but instead living it up on my yacht). So it really is a guessing game and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is just selling snake oil. But messing around with trade without a well thought out plan is like taking all the chips and placing it on 15-black and hoping for the best.
Point here is twofold. One, trade deficits don't work how you think they work. Two, when you actually apply how they do work it is risky business and the current POTUS hasn't had a lot of luck in casinos and hotel building, so I'm not so sure about his luck. Anything short of Mexico actually cutting a check to the US and taking the hit on their GDP is just a round about way of saying the US citizens will be paying for the wall. It's that simple. Folks keep trying to make this some complex chess game of trade and tariffs but really without direct funding from Mexico, US citizens are floating the bill. Those that want the wall built will come up with all kinds of snazzy ways of mystically making the money appear from Mexico, but when you peel all of those magic ways back down to their core, it usually falls on the US taxpayer at the heart of the plan. It really is not that complex.
Mexico. Must. Send. The. Money. Directly. To. The. United. States. Everything. Else. Is. The. United. States. Taxpayer. Paying. For. The. Wall.
by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, 2017 @02:34PM
You honestly shouldn't read AC posts. Slashdot has become absolute garbage with the AC dumping. I would dare say that 50%+ of the comments on Slashdot at this point are AC dumps of just random shit to stir pots. It's gotten out of hand how bad the AC shit is Swiss cheesing threads. I guess one day Slashdot will get its head out its ass and do something about it.
Just remember, if an AC posts something like that, 99.9999999% chance they don't care what you have to say and are posting it just to get you to say something back to them. So while you've given all that information to prove your point, you've proved it to one who cared in the first place.
This neck beard thing of being the first person to scream
Let me stop you there. This is Slashdot, apparently everything invented in the 70s is the only thing that matters around here. Anything past that is pure shit that eventually will be shown as the shit it truly is. Like literally, from politics to init to technology. If it wasn't invented in the 70s, it's shit and that's what Slashdot is best known for everywhere else on the Internet (which of course was invented in the 70s except for IPv6 which is shit).
By all means sink you home equity into the market
Blah, blah, I can't make a valid argument so I'm going to run to the entire end of the spectrum to point out some sort of flaw.
Seriously your entire comment is shit, here's why. Eggs, basket, all of one in the other. Go back in your corner and rethink your argument because clearly there was none that went into this drivel.
When the value of bitcoins plummets, that trust will go away.
For idiots, yes. There's always going to be folks who jump on a bandwagon, just because the bandwagon exists. There's an obvious need for a pure fiat currency not controlled by any government, that was demonstrated long before all the crazy investors jumped on. I get everyone is salty now that they're here, but it literally happens to every new fad so at some point in your life you just have to stop getting angry at that kind of thing and just move on with your life. Yes, bankers and investor will do dumb stuff. No, no matter how many times we burn the rich peoples' house down, tar and feather them, draw and quarter them, it just opens up a spot for a new set of them to come along. Stop hating the player and hate the game because it hasn't gone away in the last 10k+ years, doubtful it'll go away in the next 10k+ years. Bitcoin has utility, but yeah its a fiat currency and its like every other fiat currency out there, it's just some made up hocus pocus that only has meaning because we say it does. Someone further down on this thread hit the nail on the head. Technically, the only thing that's going to give you real value is vast amounts of ammo and large caches of guns. But since we like not living in chaos we move to the next best thing, gold and then made up makebelieve money. As long as it serves some purpose, people are going to use it and as long as using it doesn't mean it requires you to blow someone's head off, people are going to tend to the less violent form of currency that best fits their situation. But yeah, we could totally go to an economy of C4 and AR-15s, it would be shit, but yeah totally doable and way more real than hocus pocus or inert metals.
So yes, captain obvious, the bubble will pop, people will loose money, and the idiot investors will be gone. At that point the people who see this as a tool can go back to using it the way they were using it before the twats on Wall Street got here.
Just saying, but I think that was the joke.
I'll just say my two cents here. I'm not sure how many people are like me here but YouTube doesn't really appeal to me much anymore. I just don't see it having "good" content. Maybe CGP Grey and Kurzgesagt but that's about the end of it. Even then those two aren't regular publishers and leaving them alone for a year and then coming back, I can watch everything they've done in the in between in one sitting.
There's not really much a point to trying to "discover" anything on YouTube, because the vast majority is just trash or is content that has its own platform that's more tailored to its content, like Twitch. I think the strength of YouTube is its inertia and getting rid of it on a device is a sure fire way to wake folks up and have them realize how little value there is left in YouTube. Again, maybe that's just me.
I think the troubling thing here is that Facebook did actually go on record saying that they wouldn't do the very thing that they are doing now. If there was some sort of shakeup in management, I'd slightly understand it, but no, literally the people who told everyone that they wouldn't do this, decided to do the thing they said they wouldn't do. To me that's the highlight here. All the other stuff seems to be fluff and opinion, but this is a company that just basically said, "Yeah, we said that. Fuck it."
For me? *shrug*
Fair enough. I can give a firm nod to that.
I won't outright say you are wrong, but there is a bit of a flaw there. Yes, folks willing to pay above retail do create a market and that market feels "unfair". However, it feeling "unfair" only goes as far as the person trying to buy the good. For everyone involved in the bot creation, the drop shipper, the logistics team that gets it from point A to point B and then from point B to point C. Those are avenues of income for different folks. So while end consumers are getting screwed, this is actually profitable for a whole slew of folks (yeah, maybe a few cents for this person, a few cents to this group, etc...). So I would just say, "NOT A VICTIM, they are their own PROBLEM." Everyone else doesn't see this as an issue. So I think it's fair that folks go into the argument knowing that the ONLY PERSON with the problem is the person creating the problem as well.
If they regulated it, I wouldn't care. If they don't regulate it, I wouldn't care. But I just can't stand folks screaming "IT IS UNFAIR!!" Fair and unfair is a matter of perspective, and who you favor depends deeply on what you think is important to you. So you get some conservative folks who feel the industry is important, some liberal folks who feel the consumer is important, and the correct answer is, there isn't one. It's just a matter of flavor of how you want to rule.
Ultimately, though, this is going to get regulated. Thinking otherwise is just missing the writing on the wall. StubHub is an excellent example of why I feel that no matter what is argued for the topic, it will get regulated. At some point the bots will just get so bad, that there literally is no way to find something on retail, except for maybe walking into a brick and mortar. Even if the government doesn't do it, if like say Amazon can't sell a single XYZ product because as soon as they have it a drop-shipper has already scooped it up, and that starts to cut into their ability to draw people away from brick and mortar; they'll end it, they'll drop a damn hammer on it if need be.
It's not a question of what you can do in a language, it's a question of what you can do without thinking.
I have no idea why you aren't scored higher.
You say "but the locals"... shine a flash light on it.
You yourself are an incredible example of why that doesn't work. Literally, your reply is the exact reason why things like this don't work. If you cannot figure that out that's on you.
talk about what is actually the problem instead of being a tool for big ISPs
Your mom. That's basically what that whole waste of words gets.
big ISPs that WANT this solution because it means no one can compete with them for the low low price of doing what they're already doing
Your statement makes zero sense. The low price exists because they needn't share space with anyone. Start filling the poles or underground pipes holding the fiber with five or six different ISPs and suddenly you have a limited resource that drives prices up. You are looking at this like some strictly bandwidth issue, you are confusing hardware and bandwidth, or you just are hopping around to keep your point valid by relating to things that don't share the relationship you are trying to make.
NN is totally irrelevant. With or without it the internet will work exactly the same.
LOL, right. Other countries have shown that they have no problem leveling filtering at the application layer. How exactly do you think the Internet works? Do you seriously thing that by default everyone on this planet has their traffic treated equally? That's not a bandwidth thing, that's a which packets get sent before other packets thing, before we even hit talking about bandwidth. You just simply have to look at several other countries and how they're running things and see that your statement is outright false.
it would cause a riot.
No it won't. Because people like you normalize this kind of crap and sow uncertainty into the mix. People who speak out are basically told, "You're a tool!", "You don't understand the problem!", "This isn't what you want!". People like you are the reason companies steam roll over people with little resistance. I get that it's not a malice thing, I'm betting you are banking on the concept of capitalism to save us all from the evil. You can see how well that works by looking at how many food companies there exist. Or insurance companies. We have choices, they are limited and without well established regulations there's just never any room for small players. No one is asking for the government to be the end all, says all. I don't know why you keep running to the tee-total end of the spectrum of what is possible. The US ISPs have demonstrated that they don't have the public's interest in mind. Other countries show that the Internet isn't some homogeneous thing, so thinking that Comcast can't dictate exactly how their link to the Internet works is silly. They can so do whatever they choose and still work with what parts of the world at large they choose.
But all the other ISPs are not that stupid.
You keep using that word stupid and I seriously am wondering if you know what it means. ISPs will do it because they look at profits. It has nothing to do with smart/stupid/riot/peace, etc... ISPs are companies and companies are driven by a single thing, profit. If there is a chance to profit from something, then they will do it. Thinking that they won't flies in the face of the base reason a company exists. I thought you were all about free markets? Anyone who studies free markets knows that ultimately this is the end result of totally open, zero regulation, capitalism. Why are continually trying to act like it doesn't do this? Do you work for a big ISP or something?
All it does is give the Feds more leverage to regulate something that we all want to be free whilst at the same time ensuring our service will continue to suck by making competition less likely.
Just... No. Title II isn't a great fit considering how b
Ensure right of access to poles for other companies besides the big guys
Local governments set that. Any attempt at what you are purposing is literally the Federal government dictating what goes on what pole at the city level. I'm not sure anyone here could find something that would bring the "Don't tread on me" zealots out faster. No complaint on your proposal, but seriously that would incite a firestorm way larger than the whole "government death panels". Just saying, the uneducated are still a pretty powerful voting block and Comcast/AT&T do pretty much own the main ways those folks tend to get their FoxNe.., er, news.
lack of competition that is the actual issue
You are going to first inform folks why that's important to them, addressing the issue with terms like "competition" only works if folks know to shop around, or that shopping around is actually an option. Think about hospitals. People don't stop to think for a second that, "Oh hey, I can actually shop around for hospitals." ISPs are pretty much same game here, no one really understands why having multiple carriers in an area is a good thing, they just see "INTERNET". NN addresses the problem at the folks who "make" Internet. Now NN isn't a really good fit, but NN versus nothing, I'll take the first one.
Its not NN that is important
You're right, if folks were well informed and understood basic economics then this would be a no fuss issue. HOWEVER, we don't live in that world and addressing that problem is more than likely a multi decade thing and I'll be good and dead by that point, same for you more than likely. I get what you are saying, "trust the consumer..." Problem is that average rate consumer is an idiot and ISPs are really, really, really good at understanding and playing that to their advantage. So all things considered, I'll take the less impossible option to be implemented.
People are really going to get upset about the government enforcing anti-monopoly rules now, because it is Trump who is enforcing them?
This is the most infuriating part about his administration. His ego gets put in every conversation or topic and that gets us a magnified topic a million fold within two seconds. His bigger than life showmanship basically ensures that rationale debate just never happens. Pair that with his hyper thin skin, where anyone who says anything is instantly brought center stage. This combo basically takes anything he sets his eyes on, big or small, and immediately explodes it to a level where people are instantly taking sides with rabid fervor. So when he actually wants to uphold the law, everyone is confused as to what the intent is, or if there is an intent, or if his playing some game, or if he's too stupid to be playing a game. You could not ask for a more opaque administration on what their direction is, and this is an office where transparency is really needed. He did not get into office on the best of terms possible and that's a point that's bugged him visibly. No one has forgotten that part. His legitimacy is technical and that hasn't led to good first starts in any administration. Finally, he's constantly talking about things that aren't national level things. The national level things he does talk about, he's got no clue. And the only plan I've heard from him so far is that whatever it is, it's going to be great. GREAT! Any details on that plan is an instant deferment to Congress. So basically, not his plan if it fails, we've figured out the MO here.
Trump is quite literally his own worse enemy because even if his actions are genuine, you can't tell because of how bombastic and ostentatious he treats literally every other topic that crosses his desk. That's a super problem. Because the whole Time Warner thing shouldn't happen, but because the President has basically said, "I have a vendetta on CNN." He's given tank loads of ammo to an army of lawyers on AT&Ts side who will drag that very point through three dozen courts, leaving a trail of legal blood and fury if need be. Which then Trumpster's army will start hurling stones at them for being the corrupt media. All the while, the by-standards, people who actually report honest news and those who honestly just want to uphold the freaking law, will be in the crossfire. And this is all because Cheeto just couldn't check his damn ego when he turned on the TV. He just could not move past the things that everyone hurls at him, his is a position of power, yeah, there's going to be a group "somewhere" that doesn't like you and has a vendetta, everyone other person who held the position in the last 50ish years just basically blows it off, except maybe Nixon, and moves on with their damn life.
That's what kills me the most about this topic. This is honestly upholding the law, but the Spary-On Commander has basically burned any legitimacy going for him right now. And really fucking powerful folks with more lawyers than Arby's has roast beef, is quite literally the last group of folks you want to tangle with when your legitimacy is not at its most healthiest point.
you need 10 years exp in 2 year old software
Just wanted to say, if you run into this a lot and you happen to be in the south region of the US, just lie. If they test you on it, wing it or flip them off. I've personally been the other side of the desk, looked at what HR was forcing to be on the listing and ask why. Clearest answer I could get was, "Well we've always done that". Especially if they're asking $45k for a very specific skillset. Just fucking lie and call it a day. For $45k/yr there's absolutely zero reasons to be honest and I'm pretty sure they're less than honest themselves for that amount of cash.
Oh look, someone who is whining about their special case of Speed is more important then Functionality .
You'd have a point if it was just me harping about speed. But literally for the last upteen years folks have gotten on here and said "THE NUMBER ONE FUCKING REASON THEY DON'T USE FIREFOX WAS BECAUSE OF ALL THE FUCKING SHIT THEY FIXED." Now that it's fixed suddenly, everyone wants to whine about something else so kick rocks dude. Your functionality was broken at version 4 and needed a swift death. If your plugin or extension didn't port when they got the memo well ahead of time, then there's not much help for it. A whole lot of folks made the jump and had zero, ZERO problem.
Ignoring other people's reasons doesn't make yours magically "right" -- only "right for you."
I was totally cool with XUL and felt that there could be some tweaking that could be done in maybe around v60-v70 we'd have something, but now looking back. I'm pretty glad they just decided to not even go down that road. However, don't confuse my position as it being MY reason. At some point I just got tired of getting on here and hearing the same old shit over and over again. It's like when I get on here and hear shit about systemd. I'm so over the stupid knee jerk and then when people don't have that reason anymore, suddenly it's something else.
Ad Hominem and Straw Man fallacies much?
Pointing out a group of folks who swear off advancement because their afraid of advancement isn't me attacking any person's character. It's me point out something that actually exists. People have gotten on here and said shit like "UNIX or die", have made comments about the monolithic nature of Linux distros of the Microsofting of Linux. It would be Ad Hominem if I was trying to implicate something that wasn't explicitly known to everyone who visits Slashdot. And you aren't even using Straw Man correctly. Especially when you bring...
If you actually watched documentaries, such as the The True Cost, you would quickly see that modernization exploits MORE people.
For fucks sake dude, we're talking about modernizing web browsers, this isn't a fucking treatise on the perils of modernizing the world. You gotta pull it together and stop extrapolating.
Because anyone who is against "Change for the sake of Change" is "clearly" a Luddite.
Yeah, in the context we're talking about, because I feel like I need to clear that up for you since I wouldn't want you to take what I'm about to say and try it out on things like health care or politics or some shit like that, but in the context of web browsers it's a take the pasta and throw it on the wall, see what sticks kind of game. The sames true for Linux and the things that distros have been trying out lately. But I see people get on here and bitch about how shit slow X11 is, wonder why drivers are sort of on par with others, and then blow a full on gasket when someone says Wayland. You people said you wanted it fixed, they fucking fixed it, and now you all are saying "NOT LIKE THIS!!". WELL SHIT, it's OSS, get off your damn asses and get to coding. That way you can change it the way you want to change it.
Get off your fucking high horse already.
I'll give you that one, that one is true and perhaps I'm riding it a bit hard, but goddamn if it doesn't get old to hear nothing but bitching about something that everyone ASKED FOR. Yeah, it wasn't the exact way you (in the general sense not pointing you specifically out) wanted it to change but there was literally SIX YEARS between 4 and 57 for anyone feeling frisky to do something ANYTHING about it in a way that didn't kill the old cruft. No one took up the mantel, so here we are. If you don't like it, that's cool, you don't have to accept it. It's open source and Firefox clones are a dime a dozen, by all means port yo
Apparently the answer according to Slashdot is Mozilla can suck balls no matter what they do. They fix the slowness and now everyone bitches about broken extensions. I get it, everyone is butt hurt about Firefox 3.5 not lasting one hundred millions years. Seriously, FF 57 is faster, extensions, no wait let me correct that, NoScript is coming and it'll be even faster. It doesn't use the abomination that is XUL. But no, the massive tectonic changes that everyone wanted back in 3.5 days, those *finally* get done and (right now) everyone just bitches about NoScript. Color me unsurprised that the comment section over at Slashdot just becomes a "Why I hate _____" section. Because that's all Slashdot is now, a forum for people to tell other people why they hate whatever free technology they've been giving with zero effort on their part. How whatever this new shiny thing will never compare to whatever thing it was meant to replace that was invented oh so many moons ago. It's clearly a violation of whatever made up principals our Luddite collective deemed to be the gospel so many years ago.
I mean, dang. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't on Slashdot. Mods, I await your flamebait scores, but its like everyday this place descends further into old tech guys yelling at each other about the good old days.
You'll need to use #![no_std] and if you need to malloc you'll have to provide your own. Aside from that you should be able to target ATtiny25 with slicers, generics, traits and all with Rust. Additionally, you'll need to explicitly spell out any types on variables, if you stick to i8 etc, you should be fine. It really depends on what you need done, because obviously you're going to be limited, but the compiler will do a lot of the heavy lifting for you in this mode as opposed to trying to bring it with you in your binary.
But are not Rust, Go, and Swift essentially native-code versions of Java?
I can only speak for Rust in that the answer is no. If anything Rust resembles Haskell a lot more in form, function, and operation than Java.
are they not attempts to ditch the preprocessor, provide a module system and namespaces, properly define behavior and improve safety, in a native-code setting?
Rust does but that hardly equates it anywhere near Java. If anything its just any language that wants to avoid those things. It would be like calling a nutritionist a doctor on the merits that they want you to live a healthy life.
such a thing wouldn't be Java and they would sue your backside if you tried to call it Java.
There were indeed compilers for Java to native code back in Sun days. But you are right that you couldn't call it Java, but that had a lot to with copyrights and branding that anything else.