Perhaps Britain's real failing - they did not grant the freedoms they coveted for themselves to those who they conquered...
A common failing. In fact, many nations seem determined to impose on their subjects, domestic and foreign, the same oppression they impose on their citizens..
And actually, we loved the tea. We sort of had a problem with being told to pay and pay and pay without benefit. Once this was understood as a lack of Common Sense, the solution was obvious.
Since I search for a new browser approximately every 3 years, or when I get a new workstation, this isn't much of an imposition. And I know how to click through. I do it on Facebook, Amazon, and a multitude of other services. Notice how YouTube, Pandora, Iheartradio, Google Play, etc. pester you to sign up for their paid services , sometimes even after you have? All annoyances, none fatal or truly any more devious than any other marketing and sales pitch. Feh. Grow thicker skin, you're gonna need it.
You see, when the media identifies a politician or public servant (not equivalent) by their political affiliation, we are being steered towards evaluating their actions, especially the ones being reported on, ans motivated by political affiliation.
Sometimes the media fails to identify a politician or public servant by political affiliation. I wonder why?
And so, for those of you interested in truth and journalism, this is an example of paying attention, considering the source, and evaluating a report based on its content. Recognizing that the reporter made a point of identifying political party affiliation is important. I'll leave it to you to determine if it is for you, and if so, why.
"plenty of opportunity to punish politicians who were too obviously on the take. "
Ah, all politicians are 'on the take'.
You probably want them to be 'on the take' from YOU. They are probably NOT.
Failing that, you hope they are 'on the take' from whatever philosophy you find most appealing or least offensive and damaging. Sadly, they are most likely not, but can be scared into not being so damned awful at the ballot box. Assuming it's not rigged, deceived, or muted by clever processes, like proportional election when you're actually choosing one thing.
Freedom's a bitch, ain't it? Being a European, sadly, you're losing your freedoms, such as they were, in the name of, well, what?
Only the British have a significant history of seeking and defending freedom, the Magna Carta being the first great manifestation of that. And that's an indicator of why Brexit is a thing.
I haven't read any of the law/bill/proposal, but does it also include any services delivered to EU consumers? That would make sense for these socialists, to force this not only on EU publishers, etc, but on ISPs and consumers, so there is no way to permit content to be delivered no matter the source unless it's compliant, and thereby maximize the impact. After all, this is about making the world a better, more just place.
As an aside, you aren't actually violating copyright for performing or even, with the permission of an artist, playing these works, they are long in the public domain.
However, you are probably violating copyright if you perform or play any of several arrangements, as these are re-arranged regularly to be published anew.
One of the quirks of public domain, if there's no financial reward to publishing it, then it is unlikely to be published. How much is a score for Ode to Joy worth? Such a great question, but of course it's never just *a* score, it's the entirety, at least what, 20 separate scores for orchestra. Me? I'd pay for Mahler's First, not so much for Mendelssohn, but that's just me.
ISPs have customers who request services outside the ISP network, same as it ever has been for end-user Internet access. Netflix etc don't get access for 'free', they pay for peering connections also.
God, these people sound like your typical peer. They would LOVE to offload the cost of connectivity to their 'customers', us, and if they could they would bypass the whole NN debate. We would, of course see this in our bills.
There is probably no way out of paying, but I'd like to know it, rather than have it crammed onto my provider bill, where it willb e buried, hidden, and marked up.
Oh, and if on Munjoy Hill your house burns and has to be torn down and replaced, the city will likely fight that, claiming current fire codes prevent reconstruction. As if the existing house wasn't tolerable. If the fire code is so important and critical, then start buying and tearing down nonconforming structures. Oh, wait. That seems fascist.
San Francisco seems to want to deny the fundamentals of economics, population, and human nature, or they just don't want to, well, just don't want to. One way to solve the housing crisis there is to deny any further commercial/office space construction or redevelopment that increases seats and jobs. Yeah, like that's gonna happen.
Hello my Anonymous Coward friend. You should declare your identity before posting here to improve on your credibility. It's only fair. Unless you prefer to be less credible, in which case, feel free to continue to hide your identity to avoid the slings and arrows of accountability. You are not alone.
IoT is going to end up a security sinkhole, with devices devoting 2/3 of their code to security, and 1/3 to actual functionality. Unfortunate but necessary.
But failed security won;y be solved by regulation. Small manufacturers will suffer because when they get it wrong they will be crushed. And consumers will suffer because they will be stuck with failed devices and lost money.
Ultimately regulation of IoT will look more like rent-seeking than protection, since punishing manufacturers for security failures has, in the past, only resulted in abandonment of failed devices. These things are so simple they are not work fixing most of the time.
Or will we see future IoT devices that can actually be maintained? Those attractive, simple, cheap-ish things like door locks have so far proven to be unable to be 'fixed' in most cases. I'm not hopeful. But there are going to be successful security models, probably based on local gateways, and will come with fully featured vendor lock-in and captivity to the whole infrastructure that is vendor dependent. Probably unavoidable, since security is a huge problem for everything Internet.
Had any of these essayists had direct observation of President Trump in private, out of the public eye? No, they had only their observations of his public behavior.
Seriously, Yale professors? I reject any claims of their objectivity. And such essays are indistinguishable from political attacks.
Nope. Fail. An Article 25 action would only be a coup. Unwise.
And this is why we don't employ political opposition to evaluate aberrant behavior. Your example is more easily described as political hyperbole than clinical evidence of, well, anything.
Seriously, this isn't much to hang your hat on. Remember when Obama declared that the Cambridge, Massachusetts police 'acted stupidly' when they arrested a college professor, at his own home front door? Recall the facts of that incident? That Obama actually admitted he didn't know all the facts?
What do you call someone who decides what the facts of an incident are when they shot they don't know all the facts, declares that one party 'acted stupidly', despite admittedly not having all the facts?
Stupid, themselves? That's actually the minimum, to me. No, not unstable, nut maybe narcissistic, as in loving the sound of their own voice so much, or believing their opinion on any subject is so important that they can make it up as they go along?
Yeah, Trump tried to make his inaugural crowd more than it was. Vanity. He's not the first president guilty of vanity. Elevating it to some clinically dangerous instance of narcissism is pure political theater. Buy your own popcorn.
Well we generally employ experts who examine individuals suspected of instability or dangerous states of mind to, well, evaluate and offer their educated opinion.
We don't ordinarily decide someone is unstable or dangerous based on their behavior in social media, and we don't ordinarily employ people who have made it clear they dislike, or hate, or merely oppose the subject. We normally would employ reasonably objective examiners. Certainly not their political opposition...
True that. Of course, if you identify as one or the other, for convenience, you may not be a member of the Deep State. It's your acceptance of and support for the Deep State that determines your membership...
"There have been many examples by Trump of erratic and/or aberrant behavior."
Oh, do provide some specific examples. Specific examples, please. I suspect what you will describe as 'erratic and/or aberrant' I will describe as impolitic, not quite the style we are used to from Presidents, and, most often, unimportant. You may not yet understand our President, but that doesn't make him erratic and/or aberrant.
"It is one thing to disagree with someones politics or policies. It is quite another to see someone behaving dangerously."
Again, specifics?
"Can you explain your reasons for supporting Trumps behavior? Can you explain how you think he is good for America?"
Actually, yes.
First, his public Twitter behavior isn't the most important thing. It's not what he says, but what he does that I'm most focused on. He has reduced federal regulations, challenged our allies to actually act in their own interest, for example NATO contributions. He has changed the relationship with North Korea, and while this will take time, he's prevailing more than not. This in particular isn't settled, but it's changed, and for the better for us I believe.
But back to your point, actually, I am not bothered by his 'behavior'. He's more plain spoken than some of our Presidents have been. this can be good.
You may want to try and understand his 'behavior'. Try Scott Adam's web site. He's not an obvious supporter, but he explains. That's a good first step for you to turn away from the abyss.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps Britain's real failing - they did not grant the freedoms they coveted for themselves to those who they conquered...
A common failing. In fact, many nations seem determined to impose on their subjects, domestic and foreign, the same oppression they impose on their citizens..
And actually, we loved the tea. We sort of had a problem with being told to pay and pay and pay without benefit. Once this was understood as a lack of Common Sense, the solution was obvious.
Since I search for a new browser approximately every 3 years, or when I get a new workstation, this isn't much of an imposition. And I know how to click through. I do it on Facebook, Amazon, and a multitude of other services. Notice how YouTube, Pandora, Iheartradio, Google Play, etc. pester you to sign up for their paid services , sometimes even after you have? All annoyances, none fatal or truly any more devious than any other marketing and sales pitch. Feh. Grow thicker skin, you're gonna need it.
You see, when the media identifies a politician or public servant (not equivalent) by their political affiliation, we are being steered towards evaluating their actions, especially the ones being reported on, ans motivated by political affiliation.
Sometimes the media fails to identify a politician or public servant by political affiliation. I wonder why?
And so, for those of you interested in truth and journalism, this is an example of paying attention, considering the source, and evaluating a report based on its content. Recognizing that the reporter made a point of identifying political party affiliation is important. I'll leave it to you to determine if it is for you, and if so, why.
Ditto, but that's the take from YOU.
And of course this requires constant vigilance.
"plenty of opportunity to punish politicians who were too obviously on the take. "
Ah, all politicians are 'on the take'.
You probably want them to be 'on the take' from YOU. They are probably NOT.
Failing that, you hope they are 'on the take' from whatever philosophy you find most appealing or least offensive and damaging. Sadly, they are most likely not, but can be scared into not being so damned awful at the ballot box. Assuming it's not rigged, deceived, or muted by clever processes, like proportional election when you're actually choosing one thing.
Freedom's a bitch, ain't it? Being a European, sadly, you're losing your freedoms, such as they were, in the name of, well, what?
Only the British have a significant history of seeking and defending freedom, the Magna Carta being the first great manifestation of that. And that's an indicator of why Brexit is a thing.
I haven't read any of the law/bill/proposal, but does it also include any services delivered to EU consumers? That would make sense for these socialists, to force this not only on EU publishers, etc, but on ISPs and consumers, so there is no way to permit content to be delivered no matter the source unless it's compliant, and thereby maximize the impact. After all, this is about making the world a better, more just place.
All legislation is someone's morality.
As an aside, you aren't actually violating copyright for performing or even, with the permission of an artist, playing these works, they are long in the public domain.
However, you are probably violating copyright if you perform or play any of several arrangements, as these are re-arranged regularly to be published anew.
One of the quirks of public domain, if there's no financial reward to publishing it, then it is unlikely to be published. How much is a score for Ode to Joy worth? Such a great question, but of course it's never just *a* score, it's the entirety, at least what, 20 separate scores for orchestra. Me? I'd pay for Mahler's First, not so much for Mendelssohn, but that's just me.
Alloys. They are often stronger than their components.
Correct, this is such a great point.
ISPs have customers who request services outside the ISP network, same as it ever has been for end-user Internet access. Netflix etc don't get access for 'free', they pay for peering connections also.
God, these people sound like your typical peer. They would LOVE to offload the cost of connectivity to their 'customers', us, and if they could they would bypass the whole NN debate. We would, of course see this in our bills.
There is probably no way out of paying, but I'd like to know it, rather than have it crammed onto my provider bill, where it willb e buried, hidden, and marked up.
There's no accounting for taste.
Really? I don't see any upvotes for my bits in this thread.
Great leap there.
Adding actual security features to your code inevitably increases code and complexity. It's both unavoidable and necessary.
Now, best practices in code may help with security. Sure, both efforts are necessary.
" Putin uses typewriters."
Like that's secure...
Sounds like Munjoy Hill. Look it up.
Oh, and if on Munjoy Hill your house burns and has to be torn down and replaced, the city will likely fight that, claiming current fire codes prevent reconstruction. As if the existing house wasn't tolerable. If the fire code is so important and critical, then start buying and tearing down nonconforming structures. Oh, wait. That seems fascist.
San Francisco seems to want to deny the fundamentals of economics, population, and human nature, or they just don't want to, well, just don't want to. One way to solve the housing crisis there is to deny any further commercial/office space construction or redevelopment that increases seats and jobs. Yeah, like that's gonna happen.
Some of the best entertainment I've read in years. Better even than Wired's unintentional satires from not-long-enough ago.
Hello my Anonymous Coward friend. You should declare your identity before posting here to improve on your credibility. It's only fair. Unless you prefer to be less credible, in which case, feel free to continue to hide your identity to avoid the slings and arrows of accountability. You are not alone.
Almost.
IoT is going to end up a security sinkhole, with devices devoting 2/3 of their code to security, and 1/3 to actual functionality. Unfortunate but necessary.
But failed security won;y be solved by regulation. Small manufacturers will suffer because when they get it wrong they will be crushed. And consumers will suffer because they will be stuck with failed devices and lost money.
Ultimately regulation of IoT will look more like rent-seeking than protection, since punishing manufacturers for security failures has, in the past, only resulted in abandonment of failed devices. These things are so simple they are not work fixing most of the time.
Or will we see future IoT devices that can actually be maintained? Those attractive, simple, cheap-ish things like door locks have so far proven to be unable to be 'fixed' in most cases. I'm not hopeful. But there are going to be successful security models, probably based on local gateways, and will come with fully featured vendor lock-in and captivity to the whole infrastructure that is vendor dependent. Probably unavoidable, since security is a huge problem for everything Internet.
You're familiar with the Goldwater Rule?
Had any of these essayists had direct observation of President Trump in private, out of the public eye? No, they had only their observations of his public behavior.
Seriously, Yale professors? I reject any claims of their objectivity. And such essays are indistinguishable from political attacks.
Nope. Fail. An Article 25 action would only be a coup. Unwise.
And this is why we don't employ political opposition to evaluate aberrant behavior. Your example is more easily described as political hyperbole than clinical evidence of, well, anything.
Seriously, this isn't much to hang your hat on. Remember when Obama declared that the Cambridge, Massachusetts police 'acted stupidly' when they arrested a college professor, at his own home front door? Recall the facts of that incident? That Obama actually admitted he didn't know all the facts?
What do you call someone who decides what the facts of an incident are when they shot they don't know all the facts, declares that one party 'acted stupidly', despite admittedly not having all the facts?
Stupid, themselves? That's actually the minimum, to me. No, not unstable, nut maybe narcissistic, as in loving the sound of their own voice so much, or believing their opinion on any subject is so important that they can make it up as they go along?
Yeah, Trump tried to make his inaugural crowd more than it was. Vanity. He's not the first president guilty of vanity. Elevating it to some clinically dangerous instance of narcissism is pure political theater. Buy your own popcorn.
Well we generally employ experts who examine individuals suspected of instability or dangerous states of mind to, well, evaluate and offer their educated opinion.
We don't ordinarily decide someone is unstable or dangerous based on their behavior in social media, and we don't ordinarily employ people who have made it clear they dislike, or hate, or merely oppose the subject. We normally would employ reasonably objective examiners. Certainly not their political opposition...
True that. Of course, if you identify as one or the other, for convenience, you may not be a member of the Deep State. It's your acceptance of and support for the Deep State that determines your membership...
"There have been many examples by Trump of erratic and/or aberrant behavior."
Oh, do provide some specific examples. Specific examples, please. I suspect what you will describe as 'erratic and/or aberrant' I will describe as impolitic, not quite the style we are used to from Presidents, and, most often, unimportant. You may not yet understand our President, but that doesn't make him erratic and/or aberrant.
"It is one thing to disagree with someones politics or policies. It is quite another to see someone behaving dangerously."
Again, specifics?
"Can you explain your reasons for supporting Trumps behavior? Can you explain how you think he is good for America?"
Actually, yes.
First, his public Twitter behavior isn't the most important thing. It's not what he says, but what he does that I'm most focused on. He has reduced federal regulations, challenged our allies to actually act in their own interest, for example NATO contributions. He has changed the relationship with North Korea, and while this will take time, he's prevailing more than not. This in particular isn't settled, but it's changed, and for the better for us I believe.
But back to your point, actually, I am not bothered by his 'behavior'. He's more plain spoken than some of our Presidents have been. this can be good.
You may want to try and understand his 'behavior'. Try Scott Adam's web site. He's not an obvious supporter, but he explains. That's a good first step for you to turn away from the abyss.
"This is news to push a political agenda, which seems to be what is taking over everything these days."
FTFY