Just cut them off completely. We don't need a global internet. It's just not worth the trouble. US should cut off every other country from their free and open internet. If backward countries without proper free speech laws on their books don't wanna play nice. If greedy countries wanna tax links and pictures.. go for it.. on your intranet.
I've been hearing about containerized Apps, basically everything needed to run an app all standalone.
I have admittedly not toyed with this technology first hand, but from a purely theoretical standpoint, this feels like the direction to go. It sounds promising at least.
I think asking the core Linux community to standardize something that inherently rejects standardization beyond the very basic foundations of the kernel and system tools is a non-starter.
A solution like containers seems like a good way to have the best of both worlds. Linux can stay fragmented, which is just part of what Linux is, for better or for worse. But containerized Apps can rely on very basic core system functionality that should already be standardized.
Considering how often during my MERE 10 minute commute from home to work and back again, and I see people screwing with their phones at nearly every light.
It's a major problem. Enforcement of laws needs to take it up a notch and the fines need to be severe. People are not learning a goddamn thing.
Maybe a truly devastating fine of some ferocious amount will get people to think twice. They're not right not.
Toppling Windows dominance is default installs. Users don't give a shit. Period.
Wish this were true, but it's not. When I attempt to sell Linux laptops to customers, the very first question they ask me is "Can I use Microsoft Word? Excel? Can I browse the web with Firefox?"
Despite my sample size being fairly small, I can conclude it's definitely the Apps. Not the OS, not the default installed OS, people don't wanna buy Linux laptops if it can't do what they want to do. And what they want to do is run their favorite Apps: Microsoft Office, Firefox, Photoshop.
If the computer can't do it, they don't want it. If I can convince a customer LibreOffice is just as good as M$ Office, boom, SALE. So yeah. It's the Apps, man.
But it's basic issue with toppling Windows dominance over the desktop is Apps. Plain and simple.
Until developers start pushing out major Apps for Linux, it's going to remain in the shadows, running all the backend stuff like it always has. Linux simply has no hope on the desktop until it gets the App support from major companies, like Windows enjoys now.
Which leads to the second problem for Linux. Fragmentation and poor compatibility from distro to distro. There's just no standard for developers to follow, that would ensure their stuff will run as desired on any given Linux desktop. There's ton of different UIs, different display servers, different system tools, different locations for common stuff. Even the basic libraries installed on any given Linux desktop are rarely the same as they are for another one. Different versions of just about everything plagues Linux's viability for big corporation's developers.
Even Steam can be a bit of a chore to get working properly on a Linux desktop install. You gotta make sure the right libraries are in. And even when you get it working, there's absolutely no guarantee any of your games will work. They might. They might not. Windows does not suffer from this issue. You buy a piece of software/game for Windows. It will work. Period.
Don't get me wrong, Linux's various distros have come a long way in addressing compatibility and dependency issues for their software repositories. But, from my view, it's still too much of a disaster for big corps to make the investment in developing their big App suites for Linux.
Once big name corps, like Adobe and Microsoft for example, start pushing out Linux versions of their flagship products, Linux will have arrived. But until then... we're stuck with Windows.
Deadnaming and misgendering trans folk is violence, you fucking Nazi.
To be 100% clear, if it's just words, it's not violence. Sorry about that. Come back when someone threatens to beat you up with a baseball bat. That's violence.
Words are NEVER violence, no matter how offended they make you, or how hurtful they might be.
Violence is a physical act (or threat of physical act) against your person.
Please learn the use your words correctly before you post again. Thanks.
Actually we have good policy for what should be banned, a tangible and realistic threat of violence.
So where does so called 'hate groups' fit in to this? Banned or allowed?
Espousing hatred toward a group of people for whatever reasons doesn't necessarily include threats of violence, afterall.
This is where we get in trouble. A majority of people think 'hate groups' should be banned. But in my view, as abhorrent as these groups are, they probably should be protected speech, as long as there's no encouragements of violence within that speech.
A goodly portion (majority for sure) probably think 'hate groups' and their associated speech (websites, publications, etc) should be outright banned. Just look at what happened to Daily Stormer's website. Blackballed from the internet, probably running on a.onion site now, not that I would know. But it's a good example.
I could go on, racists, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, etc etc.. all these forms of speech are opinions and don't necessarily include threats or encouragement of violence. Banned or allowed?
What about hatred of political parties? The can of worms we're opening here goes quite deep, and it's all pretty gray and difficult.
The problem seems to be that folks have become reluctant to protect that most important free speech; the one you disagree with.
I think the real problem here is we can't even decide which speech should be protected, and which should be banned. I mean, most of us agree some things are so heinous we should not speak about them/promote them.. but even then, the people who want to espouse those ideas a majority might find completely unacceptable will scream free speech if we try to do anything about it.
It's a completely losing battle. Free speech cuts both ways, and it's kind of annoying at times that it does.
I'm all for banning plastic bags where it makes sense.
But to do this at the same time?
The plan also calls for allowing local governments the option to impose a 5-cent fee on paper bags
This is just stupid. Why would you do this? Ban one item and tax the other? STUPID!
Should be more like 25 cent tax on using a plastic bag and no tax on the paper bag. That would achieve behavior change. But this plan? I'm not sure what it's trying to do, ban one item and discourage use of the alternative?
We've been down this road already. We know where it leads.
It leads to exclusivity contracts. Ie: Netflix will colo with an ISP to ease the burden, if the ISP agrees not to colo anyone else's services.
You just know that's what's going to happen. No one wins but the big corps raking in the cash and creating artificial shortages.
I am HUGE on efficiency, myself, I don't like we have to organize this in an inefficient way, but the only way it's going to be fair is if no one can colo.
Net Neutrality is part of what makes this all fair and level. Without NN, you can bet colo contracts are being signed, along with the exclusivity attached to that. And taking from another poster's reply, most of these big ISP's are also in the content business, a direct conflict with entities like Netflix, whom are directly competing with the content division of an ISP. No business I know of is interested in assisting their competitors.
With NN cooling it's heels in a back closet, you can bet your panties, ISPs and content providers are scrambling to set up all sorts of non-neutral contracts and business arrangements, to make it that much harder for NN to come back out of the closet.
No one wins but the big corps in this scenario. We will all pay more, get less and get it slower and at lower quality.
The smart solution is that Netflix colocates a server in my ISP's small local data center which they send the popular shows to just once over the backbone, and this server sends it to the 1000 local customers.
...
For the smart solution to happen, there have to be incentives for Netflix and the ISP to do it.
This is a leap. Since when is this the smart solution? It's more efficient, yes, but that doesn't make it smart.
The seemingly inefficient way of doing it encourages the ISPs to up their game, build out more infrastructure to handle the loads.
Your smart solution just seems to encourage paid promotion of one streaming service over another, and that's bad.
And if you're concerned about price increases.. well, news flash, what they build or don't build has NO BEARING on the price they keep jacking it up by every year.
Why are we wasting our efforts storing this crap on this planet? Get it out of here.
Put it on the moon, shoot it into interstellar space. Surely the low risk of a rocket explosion is worth just getting that crap out of here forever, since it's going to be hazardous effectively forever.
Please don't ban anti-vaxxers. You're hindering evolution.
People stupid enough to get on board with that don't deserve to continue to contribute to the gene pool. Let them have their cake, and eat it too, right out of the gene pool.
Censorship of stupidity will render the internet a blank page, ok?
I would recommend if you're discarding a device, you donate it to a reputable recycler in your area.
I know in my case, as a recycler, we destroy all data on all devices we receive before repurposing them.
You should pick a recycler whom is committed to customer privacy and has certifications for data destruction practices.
Ask your recycler about how they handle data on received devices. Probe deeper if you want, ask to see the procedures taken.
Not every consumer is savvy enough to properly erase devices. Some devices can be tricky to erase, especially phones. Even the savvy group of people discarding devices, they may have busy schedules. May not have time/energy to devote to properly erasing devices. They like everyone else should choose a reputable recycler, for peace of mind and time savings.
But don't claim that everyone does that and therefore EV's are unusable.
More reading comprehension failure.
I said in my original post:
There is a very limited use-case for EVs: Commute to/from work, run errands around town. That's it folks. If that's all you need from your car, get an EV.
Obviously I'm promoting using an EV in cases where they make sense. Derp?
Clearly, the other 95% need to hold off on EVs because of that.
Clearly, I said in my original comment:
There is a very limited use-case for EVs: Commute to/from work, run errands around town. That's it folks. If that's all you need from your car, get an EV.
Just so we're clear, you're logic there is completely broken.
I for one love to go on road trip vacations, and the time spent behind the wheel is more like 14-16 hours, if want to get to where I'm going reasonably quickly.
I'm sorry, but there is no EV on the market at the moment that's going to last 14 hours. Or even 12 hours, or even 3. Not at highway speeds.
So you're going to be stopping a LOT to recharge. This why I'm still staying away from EVs. They don't make sense if you like to road trip vacation, or do any road trip, or any prolonged driving (EV's are worthless for taxi's for example. And police cars, and buses, tractor-trailers, etcetc.)
There is a very limited use-case for EVs: Commute to/from work, run errands around town. That's it folks. If that's all you need from your car, get an EV. If you wanna drive half a day to get to a national park, forget EVs.
Slashdot Mirror
Just cut them off completely. We don't need a global internet. It's just not worth the trouble. US should cut off every other country from their free and open internet. If backward countries without proper free speech laws on their books don't wanna play nice. If greedy countries wanna tax links and pictures.. go for it.. on your intranet.
Get off our network.
I've been hearing about containerized Apps, basically everything needed to run an app all standalone.
I have admittedly not toyed with this technology first hand, but from a purely theoretical standpoint, this feels like the direction to go. It sounds promising at least.
I think asking the core Linux community to standardize something that inherently rejects standardization beyond the very basic foundations of the kernel and system tools is a non-starter.
A solution like containers seems like a good way to have the best of both worlds. Linux can stay fragmented, which is just part of what Linux is, for better or for worse. But containerized Apps can rely on very basic core system functionality that should already be standardized.
Considering how often during my MERE 10 minute commute from home to work and back again, and I see people screwing with their phones at nearly every light.
It's a major problem. Enforcement of laws needs to take it up a notch and the fines need to be severe. People are not learning a goddamn thing.
Maybe a truly devastating fine of some ferocious amount will get people to think twice. They're not right not.
Toppling Windows dominance is default installs. Users don't give a shit. Period.
Wish this were true, but it's not. When I attempt to sell Linux laptops to customers, the very first question they ask me is "Can I use Microsoft Word? Excel? Can I browse the web with Firefox?"
Despite my sample size being fairly small, I can conclude it's definitely the Apps. Not the OS, not the default installed OS, people don't wanna buy Linux laptops if it can't do what they want to do. And what they want to do is run their favorite Apps: Microsoft Office, Firefox, Photoshop.
If the computer can't do it, they don't want it. If I can convince a customer LibreOffice is just as good as M$ Office, boom, SALE. So yeah. It's the Apps, man.
Linux is wonderful for sure.
But it's basic issue with toppling Windows dominance over the desktop is Apps. Plain and simple.
Until developers start pushing out major Apps for Linux, it's going to remain in the shadows, running all the backend stuff like it always has. Linux simply has no hope on the desktop until it gets the App support from major companies, like Windows enjoys now.
Which leads to the second problem for Linux. Fragmentation and poor compatibility from distro to distro. There's just no standard for developers to follow, that would ensure their stuff will run as desired on any given Linux desktop. There's ton of different UIs, different display servers, different system tools, different locations for common stuff. Even the basic libraries installed on any given Linux desktop are rarely the same as they are for another one. Different versions of just about everything plagues Linux's viability for big corporation's developers.
Even Steam can be a bit of a chore to get working properly on a Linux desktop install. You gotta make sure the right libraries are in. And even when you get it working, there's absolutely no guarantee any of your games will work. They might. They might not. Windows does not suffer from this issue. You buy a piece of software/game for Windows. It will work. Period.
Don't get me wrong, Linux's various distros have come a long way in addressing compatibility and dependency issues for their software repositories. But, from my view, it's still too much of a disaster for big corps to make the investment in developing their big App suites for Linux.
Once big name corps, like Adobe and Microsoft for example, start pushing out Linux versions of their flagship products, Linux will have arrived. But until then... we're stuck with Windows.
However, I'm pretty sure there are a number of TED talks along these lines.
Naw. TED talks can sometimes be alarmist, but they always got some message of hope in there. Mine would have no such thing.
My talk about be about how we're all pretty much screwed and humanity is on the path of extinction, so may as well go full anarchy now.
Sort of reminds me of Brazil, the movie, where everyone will just have a 'terminal' into some cloud.
None of us will have GP computing devices. Everything will be locked down, you'll be charged by the minute for using anything.
Not a good direction folks. Turn it around before you're locked in.
I absolutely detest modern "social media" -- Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. It's a disease. It seems to encourage bad behavior.
Couldn't have been said any better. This 100% on the mark. Now let's start discussing the cure.
I don't think taking away anonymity for everyone is going to help very much. So let's just skip that thought.
Quite frankly, my only idea is to just shut all that stuff down. It's ills far outweigh it's benefits.
Deadnaming and misgendering trans folk is violence, you fucking Nazi.
To be 100% clear, if it's just words, it's not violence. Sorry about that. Come back when someone threatens to beat you up with a baseball bat. That's violence.
Words are NEVER violence, no matter how offended they make you, or how hurtful they might be.
Violence is a physical act (or threat of physical act) against your person.
Please learn the use your words correctly before you post again. Thanks.
Actually we have good policy for what should be banned, a tangible and realistic threat of violence.
So where does so called 'hate groups' fit in to this? Banned or allowed?
Espousing hatred toward a group of people for whatever reasons doesn't necessarily include threats of violence, afterall.
This is where we get in trouble. A majority of people think 'hate groups' should be banned. But in my view, as abhorrent as these groups are, they probably should be protected speech, as long as there's no encouragements of violence within that speech.
A goodly portion (majority for sure) probably think 'hate groups' and their associated speech (websites, publications, etc) should be outright banned. Just look at what happened to Daily Stormer's website. Blackballed from the internet, probably running on a .onion site now, not that I would know. But it's a good example.
I could go on, racists, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, etc etc.. all these forms of speech are opinions and don't necessarily include threats or encouragement of violence. Banned or allowed?
What about hatred of political parties? The can of worms we're opening here goes quite deep, and it's all pretty gray and difficult.
The problem seems to be that folks have become reluctant to protect that most important free speech; the one you disagree with.
I think the real problem here is we can't even decide which speech should be protected, and which should be banned. I mean, most of us agree some things are so heinous we should not speak about them/promote them.. but even then, the people who want to espouse those ideas a majority might find completely unacceptable will scream free speech if we try to do anything about it.
It's a completely losing battle. Free speech cuts both ways, and it's kind of annoying at times that it does.
I'm all for banning plastic bags where it makes sense.
But to do this at the same time?
The plan also calls for allowing local governments the option to impose a 5-cent fee on paper bags
This is just stupid. Why would you do this? Ban one item and tax the other? STUPID!
Should be more like 25 cent tax on using a plastic bag and no tax on the paper bag. That would achieve behavior change. But this plan? I'm not sure what it's trying to do, ban one item and discourage use of the alternative?
This sounds like it'd be a bit hard on the batteries themselves, like as in, shorten their usable life.
Possibly increased risk of catastrophic failures?
We've been down this road already. We know where it leads.
It leads to exclusivity contracts. Ie: Netflix will colo with an ISP to ease the burden, if the ISP agrees not to colo anyone else's services.
You just know that's what's going to happen. No one wins but the big corps raking in the cash and creating artificial shortages.
I am HUGE on efficiency, myself, I don't like we have to organize this in an inefficient way, but the only way it's going to be fair is if no one can colo.
Net Neutrality is part of what makes this all fair and level. Without NN, you can bet colo contracts are being signed, along with the exclusivity attached to that. And taking from another poster's reply, most of these big ISP's are also in the content business, a direct conflict with entities like Netflix, whom are directly competing with the content division of an ISP. No business I know of is interested in assisting their competitors.
With NN cooling it's heels in a back closet, you can bet your panties, ISPs and content providers are scrambling to set up all sorts of non-neutral contracts and business arrangements, to make it that much harder for NN to come back out of the closet.
No one wins but the big corps in this scenario. We will all pay more, get less and get it slower and at lower quality.
The smart solution is that Netflix colocates a server in my ISP's small local data center which they send the popular shows to just once over the backbone, and this server sends it to the 1000 local customers.
...
For the smart solution to happen, there have to be incentives for Netflix and the ISP to do it.
This is a leap. Since when is this the smart solution? It's more efficient, yes, but that doesn't make it smart.
The seemingly inefficient way of doing it encourages the ISPs to up their game, build out more infrastructure to handle the loads.
Your smart solution just seems to encourage paid promotion of one streaming service over another, and that's bad.
And if you're concerned about price increases.. well, news flash, what they build or don't build has NO BEARING on the price they keep jacking it up by every year.
Why are we wasting our efforts storing this crap on this planet? Get it out of here.
Put it on the moon, shoot it into interstellar space. Surely the low risk of a rocket explosion is worth just getting that crap out of here forever, since it's going to be hazardous effectively forever.
Please don't ban anti-vaxxers. You're hindering evolution.
People stupid enough to get on board with that don't deserve to continue to contribute to the gene pool. Let them have their cake, and eat it too, right out of the gene pool.
Censorship of stupidity will render the internet a blank page, ok?
This is a great use-case for casual device encryption.
Phone, tablet, desktop PC, on all of these you should consider full device encryption for your storage.
Once an encrypted device is no longer needed, you can discard it safely without worry if was encrypted all along to begin with.
This also helps mitigate the consequences of device theft.
I would recommend if you're discarding a device, you donate it to a reputable recycler in your area.
I know in my case, as a recycler, we destroy all data on all devices we receive before repurposing them.
You should pick a recycler whom is committed to customer privacy and has certifications for data destruction practices.
Ask your recycler about how they handle data on received devices. Probe deeper if you want, ask to see the procedures taken.
Not every consumer is savvy enough to properly erase devices. Some devices can be tricky to erase, especially phones. Even the savvy group of people discarding devices, they may have busy schedules. May not have time/energy to devote to properly erasing devices. They like everyone else should choose a reputable recycler, for peace of mind and time savings.
Don't get too used to this. Google will retire it in 2021.
But don't claim that everyone does that and therefore EV's are unusable.
More reading comprehension failure.
I said in my original post:
There is a very limited use-case for EVs: Commute to/from work, run errands around town. That's it folks. If that's all you need from your car, get an EV.
Obviously I'm promoting using an EV in cases where they make sense. Derp?
Clearly, the other 95% need to hold off on EVs because of that.
Clearly, I said in my original comment:
There is a very limited use-case for EVs: Commute to/from work, run errands around town. That's it folks. If that's all you need from your car, get an EV.
Reading comprehension much?
EVs have ranges of 200-300 miles. Just like gas cars.
And my hybrid has a range of 400-450 miles. And it takes less than 10 minutes to get a 'full charge' again. How about your EV charge time?
Just so we're clear, you're logic there is completely broken.
I for one love to go on road trip vacations, and the time spent behind the wheel is more like 14-16 hours, if want to get to where I'm going reasonably quickly.
I'm sorry, but there is no EV on the market at the moment that's going to last 14 hours. Or even 12 hours, or even 3. Not at highway speeds.
So you're going to be stopping a LOT to recharge. This why I'm still staying away from EVs. They don't make sense if you like to road trip vacation, or do any road trip, or any prolonged driving (EV's are worthless for taxi's for example. And police cars, and buses, tractor-trailers, etcetc.)
There is a very limited use-case for EVs: Commute to/from work, run errands around town. That's it folks. If that's all you need from your car, get an EV. If you wanna drive half a day to get to a national park, forget EVs.
Disclosure: I own a Prius.