The FCC has released things to the public before, and at the very least, Ajit Pai, one of the two 'no' votes, called to release the (then-proposed) rules, except doing that is at the chair's discretion.
The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.
And if it's really responding to public comments to the rules... WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET?
An "Open Internet" doesn't need 300+ pages of FCC Packet Police powers! All you have to do is go to a court and say "This person promised me 20Mbps to the Internet and I'm only seeing 1Mbps/nothing at all" and the court says "Yep, looks like fraud." Why have the courts been insufficent?
Can you point to ONE example of a "Net Neutrality" violation happening today? Ever? Can you then be so confident that the same people who brought you the Broadcast Flag are the right people to be enforcing this?
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
The FCC is, however, claiming a broad discretion to review non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers and force action. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Repeat after me: "The FCC is not my friend." These are not "Net Neutrality" regulations, these are Title II rules that claims the Internet is not an "information system." Ha. Haha.
So when do they release these 322 pages of new rules? With all this transparency, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?!/s
I mean, after the broadcast flag incident, how is it everyone so comfortable with letting the FCC become the packet police? The regular court system has proved to be inadequate... when?
There's a difference between Net Neutrality the voluntary routing rule (before the term was hijacked), and Internet regulations by force, >300 pages of which the FCC is proposing (and we can't even read, how are you enjoying that transparency?).
Net neutrality is fine, but don't let the FCC become the packet police.
Let's be sure that the existing court system can't handle problems BEFORE we go about adding to the pages of legal statute.
Who the hell keeps paying for a product if you don't get anything of value? Stop pretending you know what's good for a person more than they do.
That only happens when you're forced to buy insurance, like, oh, under Obamacare: where young people (by far and away the poorest of any demographic, more than race, education, and geographical location!) are forced to buy overpriced insurance, compared to their risk (and overpriced by law, not because of "Greedy" insurance companies).
No no no no no. What is right (or right, acceptable) isn't the same as what is condoned, or a good idea. The liberal (libertarian) position is "I'm not going to force them to stop." You know, keep your nose in your own business. Formally, this is called the non-aggression principle.
Now, FedEx is declining to ship the product because they're being spineless and afraid of legal action. (Or at least this employee, corporations tend to be less consistent about this stuff than the language would lead you to believe.)
Even if it was entirely internal, no DOJ pressure, sure they have a right to decline business for whatever reason they like (or none at all), and that'd be a bad idea.
And people have a right to protest (not necessarily on another person's property), or to boycott the product, but that'd be a bad idea too.
(Sometimes, people do have to say no for the sake of saying no. By all means, deny people a cake every once in a while for no reason at all, just to remind society yes, you can't be forced to bake a cake for someone just because they're a certain demographic. That's called slavery, slavery is bad, mkay?)
Git has the "stage", right. The stage is just the next commit. It's a little hidden filesystem (git tree, actually) that's already processed and ready to be attached to a commit message once you run `git commit`.
For example, discard changes on a single file: "git reset foo.bar". Discard changes on all files: "git checkout --.". WTF?
`git checkout` is about your working directory. Use "git checkout -- foo.bar" if you made a modification and you don't want to commit it, just erase it. Or better yet, `git checkout -p`
`git reset` is about unstaging changes, it doesn't touch the filesystem. (It also has `git reset -p`)
Just a few days ago, I wanted Git to give me the diff of specific commit, the equivalent to "svn diff -c revision" or "hg diff -c revision". In git? "git diff revision^ revision" or "git diff revision^!" (which I overread when I was reading the man page and needed to look it up on Ye Olde Interweb). Or "git diff-tree -p revision" or "git whatchanged -m -n 1 -p revision" since why not?
You want to see the changes that one commit introduced, so of course you ask git: "What were the changed from parent-of-'$revision' through '$revision'?"
You're probably looking for `git show $revision`
And "git add" both adds a new file to the repository but also picks a modified file to be included in the next commit (but only the parts that have not changed between add and commit.
`git add` copies a file from the working tree to the stage (index). What happens when you use `cp` and the target file doesn't exist? It gets created. (Since you can't copy a nonexistent file, there's also `git rm` to remove files from the stage.)
In math zero means 'nothing' in C and similar languages it means 'first position'.
You're conflating ordinal and cardinal numbering again. It's undefined to add two ordinal numbers, i.e. "first plus second".
Before you can add ordinal numbers, you have to convert them to cardinals, which start at zero because of the additive identity: First page of the chapter = zero pages past the chapter = pp0 + pp55 = page 55. Second page of the chapter = one page past the chapter = pp1 + pp55 = page 56. And so on.
How great it must be, to be in elementary school, not knowing about the additive identity... (See, I can be condescending too)
C and languages derived from it is an awful darn big number of languages. Take a look at http://mashable.com/2015/01/18... : 14 out of 15 use 0-indexing.
What if we started measuring things at 1? Try it, cut off the first inch/cm of your ruler/measuring tape. Now measure something in cm and convert it to meters.
We don't start counting ages at 1, one month after birth you're... one month old. Not one year, one month. Zero years, one month.
If you've ever had to paginate a result set, you know the pain of 1-indexing.
If you're flipping through a book and you want to take an excerpt, you don't say "It's one paragraph, one page into the chapter on page 55", you say "Zero pages, one paragraph into the chapter starting page 55." 1-indexing would call page 55 the "first page". Indexes aren't ordinal, they're cardinal, so stop treating them like that with 1-indexing.
The example you gave is just an example of API designers being stupid: You could call that -1 indexed, because there is a zeroth dimension (mathematically, it has the value of 1 (unitless)).
1-indexing has the problem of needing to subtract 1 from everything before it's useful for scaling, and much else. The 20th century is 1900...1999 inclusive because of 1-indexing. The year -0001 is also known as 2BC because of 1-indexing. And so on.
Anywhere your index is an offset (which is most indexes), it needs to be 0-indexed.
Diversity is great, diversity of opinions and such is good for a workplace. This is well known, and documented in The Wisdom of Crowds. And for tech companies with respect to gender, it means no more lines out the men's restrooms.
Except actually pulling it off means assuming a cost, giving up the next best alternative.
I'd love to hire genders more equally, except that might mean taking on less qualified people.
Or, I could offer a bonus and better salary to perfectly qualified women from other companies. Except, well, that's illegal. The very law that was supposed to do away with inequality is threatening me that I can't use salary to lure qualified minorities.
You'd better post some better examples ASAP and back up your rationale, because you're empty assertions aren't winning over any new friends and your anecdotes don't seem to be very typical.
As it stands now, goto is a perfectly legitimate way of breaking out of loops and skipping to cleanup after an error, without the necessity of bringing in (n+1) nested `if` blocks, and unreadability and unmaintainability that comes with it.
He does, which is why everything under the GPL is there voluntarily, placed there by the original author.
The GPL exists by playing right into copyright: "You're not allowed to distribute this software! Only when you promise us these certain things, will we let you distribute this software."
And copyright is most certainly not voluntary.
(You might be able to come up with a license that says "You will not distribute this copyrighted work or any derivatives unless you agree not to sue for any reason whatsoever." which is effectively the same thing as no copyright. But alas, this is not what the GPL does.)
It's called contract law. A contract is enforceable in a civil court. EULAs generally tend to not be very enforceable, but where they are, you'd be liable for damages. Which wouldn't be very much since you're not promising Facebook anything in return, they'd just get to terminate your account at worst.
What are they doing for the drivers, who pick up a hundred times more random strangers? Like, isn't the driver supposed to be the most trustworthy person on each of these rides?
This is a perfectly legitimate concern. Remember the Broadcast Flag? Yeah, that was the FCC.
The FCC claiming it can regulate the privately owned individual networks, and the peering agreements between them, that make up the Internet, is totally illegal and unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
FNC SAID IT SO IT MUST BE WRONG!
So what happens when FNC takes aim at against the NSA spy machine, does your little head implode?
Um, Net Neutrality is about dropping packets, with the effect of censoring or throttling service, based on source or destination.
Explain to me what Netflix's cache hardware has to do with Net Neutrality, and what the FCC Title II rules would do about it?
The FCC has released things to the public before, and at the very least, Ajit Pai, one of the two 'no' votes, called to release the (then-proposed) rules, except doing that is at the chair's discretion.
And the ISPs have "openly and brazenly fuck[d] over content producers"... when? Name an incident, and explain why the courts were inadequate.
Another FCC commissioner seems to disagree:
And if it's really responding to public comments to the rules... WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET?
Help, stop, the transparency, it's blinding me.
An "Open Internet" doesn't need 300+ pages of FCC Packet Police powers! All you have to do is go to a court and say "This person promised me 20Mbps to the Internet and I'm only seeing 1Mbps/nothing at all" and the court says "Yep, looks like fraud." Why have the courts been insufficent?
Can you point to ONE example of a "Net Neutrality" violation happening today? Ever? Can you then be so confident that the same people who brought you the Broadcast Flag are the right people to be enforcing this?
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
The FCC is, however, claiming a broad discretion to review non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers and force action. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Repeat after me: "The FCC is not my friend." These are not "Net Neutrality" regulations, these are Title II rules that claims the Internet is not an "information system." Ha. Haha.
So when do they release these 322 pages of new rules? With all this transparency, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?! /s
I mean, after the broadcast flag incident, how is it everyone so comfortable with letting the FCC become the packet police? The regular court system has proved to be inadequate... when?
There's a difference between Net Neutrality the voluntary routing rule (before the term was hijacked), and Internet regulations by force, >300 pages of which the FCC is proposing (and we can't even read, how are you enjoying that transparency?).
Net neutrality is fine, but don't let the FCC become the packet police.
Let's be sure that the existing court system can't handle problems BEFORE we go about adding to the pages of legal statute.
Who the hell keeps paying for a product if you don't get anything of value? Stop pretending you know what's good for a person more than they do.
That only happens when you're forced to buy insurance, like, oh, under Obamacare: where young people (by far and away the poorest of any demographic, more than race, education, and geographical location!) are forced to buy overpriced insurance, compared to their risk (and overpriced by law, not because of "Greedy" insurance companies).
No no no no no. What is right (or right, acceptable) isn't the same as what is condoned, or a good idea. The liberal (libertarian) position is "I'm not going to force them to stop." You know, keep your nose in your own business. Formally, this is called the non-aggression principle.
Now, FedEx is declining to ship the product because they're being spineless and afraid of legal action. (Or at least this employee, corporations tend to be less consistent about this stuff than the language would lead you to believe.)
Even if it was entirely internal, no DOJ pressure, sure they have a right to decline business for whatever reason they like (or none at all), and that'd be a bad idea.
And people have a right to protest (not necessarily on another person's property), or to boycott the product, but that'd be a bad idea too.
(Sometimes, people do have to say no for the sake of saying no. By all means, deny people a cake every once in a while for no reason at all, just to remind society yes, you can't be forced to bake a cake for someone just because they're a certain demographic. That's called slavery, slavery is bad, mkay?)
And that's just physics! Don't get me started on economics.
But perhaps biggest of all, science isn't a truth or set of facts (as you enumerate in part), it's the process by which we discover things.
Git has the "stage", right. The stage is just the next commit. It's a little hidden filesystem (git tree, actually) that's already processed and ready to be attached to a commit message once you run `git commit`.
For example, discard changes on a single file: "git reset foo.bar". Discard changes on all files: "git checkout -- .". WTF?
`git checkout` is about your working directory. Use "git checkout -- foo.bar" if you made a modification and you don't want to commit it, just erase it. Or better yet, `git checkout -p`
`git reset` is about unstaging changes, it doesn't touch the filesystem. (It also has `git reset -p`)
Just a few days ago, I wanted Git to give me the diff of specific commit, the equivalent to "svn diff -c revision" or "hg diff -c revision". In git? "git diff revision^ revision" or "git diff revision^!" (which I overread when I was reading the man page and needed to look it up on Ye Olde Interweb). Or "git diff-tree -p revision" or "git whatchanged -m -n 1 -p revision" since why not?
You want to see the changes that one commit introduced, so of course you ask git: "What were the changed from parent-of-'$revision' through '$revision'?"
You're probably looking for `git show $revision`
And "git add" both adds a new file to the repository but also picks a modified file to be included in the next commit (but only the parts that have not changed between add and commit.
`git add` copies a file from the working tree to the stage (index). What happens when you use `cp` and the target file doesn't exist? It gets created. (Since you can't copy a nonexistent file, there's also `git rm` to remove files from the stage.)
In math zero means 'nothing' in C and similar languages it means 'first position'.
You're conflating ordinal and cardinal numbering again. It's undefined to add two ordinal numbers, i.e. "first plus second".
Before you can add ordinal numbers, you have to convert them to cardinals, which start at zero because of the additive identity:
First page of the chapter = zero pages past the chapter = pp0 + pp55 = page 55.
Second page of the chapter = one page past the chapter = pp1 + pp55 = page 56.
And so on.
How great it must be, to be in elementary school, not knowing about the additive identity... (See, I can be condescending too)
C and languages derived from it is an awful darn big number of languages. Take a look at http://mashable.com/2015/01/18... : 14 out of 15 use 0-indexing.
What if we started measuring things at 1? Try it, cut off the first inch/cm of your ruler/measuring tape. Now measure something in cm and convert it to meters.
We don't start counting ages at 1, one month after birth you're... one month old. Not one year, one month. Zero years, one month.
If you've ever had to paginate a result set, you know the pain of 1-indexing.
If you're flipping through a book and you want to take an excerpt, you don't say "It's one paragraph, one page into the chapter on page 55", you say "Zero pages, one paragraph into the chapter starting page 55." 1-indexing would call page 55 the "first page". Indexes aren't ordinal, they're cardinal, so stop treating them like that with 1-indexing.
SEE WHAT I MEAN?
The example you gave is just an example of API designers being stupid: You could call that -1 indexed, because there is a zeroth dimension (mathematically, it has the value of 1 (unitless)).
1-indexing has the problem of needing to subtract 1 from everything before it's useful for scaling, and much else. The 20th century is 1900...1999 inclusive because of 1-indexing. The year -0001 is also known as 2BC because of 1-indexing. And so on.
Anywhere your index is an offset (which is most indexes), it needs to be 0-indexed.
Bullshit. Words don't make a person racist, actions do.
And stop pretending to get offended on other people's behalf. It's condesending.
Diversity is great, diversity of opinions and such is good for a workplace. This is well known, and documented in The Wisdom of Crowds. And for tech companies with respect to gender, it means no more lines out the men's restrooms.
Except actually pulling it off means assuming a cost, giving up the next best alternative.
I'd love to hire genders more equally, except that might mean taking on less qualified people.
Or, I could offer a bonus and better salary to perfectly qualified women from other companies. Except, well, that's illegal. The very law that was supposed to do away with inequality is threatening me that I can't use salary to lure qualified minorities.
You'd better post some better examples ASAP and back up your rationale, because you're empty assertions aren't winning over any new friends and your anecdotes don't seem to be very typical.
As it stands now, goto is a perfectly legitimate way of breaking out of loops and skipping to cleanup after an error, without the necessity of bringing in (n+1) nested `if` blocks, and unreadability and unmaintainability that comes with it.
He does, which is why everything under the GPL is there voluntarily, placed there by the original author.
The GPL exists by playing right into copyright: "You're not allowed to distribute this software! Only when you promise us these certain things, will we let you distribute this software."
And copyright is most certainly not voluntary.
(You might be able to come up with a license that says "You will not distribute this copyrighted work or any derivatives unless you agree not to sue for any reason whatsoever." which is effectively the same thing as no copyright. But alas, this is not what the GPL does.)
It's called contract law. A contract is enforceable in a civil court. EULAs generally tend to not be very enforceable, but where they are, you'd be liable for damages. Which wouldn't be very much since you're not promising Facebook anything in return, they'd just get to terminate your account at worst.
What are they doing for the drivers, who pick up a hundred times more random strangers? Like, isn't the driver supposed to be the most trustworthy person on each of these rides?
This is a perfectly legitimate concern. Remember the Broadcast Flag? Yeah, that was the FCC.
The FCC claiming it can regulate the privately owned individual networks, and the peering agreements between them, that make up the Internet, is totally illegal and unconstitutional.
What's the worst that happens when you say "No" to Comcast? What, they change your name to "Asshole McDouchebag"? Please.
What's the worst that happens when you say "No" to the government? Oh yeah, that's right, they kick in your door, armed to the teeth.