Remember when their used to be one link to The Fucking Article? (If you don't, get off my lawn.) Is there any reason for three links, when one is the real story, and the other two are fluff pieces glossing the story?
Why do you care that I care? Are you bitching just because you feel like bitching? Is it unreasonable that language should be used meaningfully and not stupidly?
No, I just copy and pasted snippets blindly... Of course I did! The question is why you lack reading comprehension to pick up on the contrast I made a point to include in each snippet. What's really either willfully ignorant or dishonest on your part is to then quote only the parts that don't talk about the landline.
For example:
As pay phones and landlines disappear, we might be moving toward a wireless future. [..] While some people still use their landlines for their Internet access, "dial-up is antiquated," one of his co-workers said in the background.
and this is one:
Ready to cut the cordsnipping your landline could save you some serious cash, it's not for everyone. [..] Hanging on to your solo landline solely for the Internet connection? Be sure to weigh the costs of other Internet options, such as cable modems.
It's stupid easy to find the same kind of pattern in the rest of the examples. I'm really tired of arguing with obstinate assholes on Slashdot who will say anything to avoid admitting when they are wrong, especially after I do all the work to put the evidence right in front of their face. Fuck off.
About three years ago, Brandy Johnson cut the cord. "We had a landline and had some trouble with it," she said. After that, she and her husband decided to make the jump to wireless. [..] As pay phones and landlines disappear, we might be moving toward a wireless future. [..] While some people still use their landlines for their Internet access, "dial-up is antiquated," one of his co-workers said in the background.
Ready to cut the cord? While it's clear that snipping your landline could save you some serious cash, it's not for everyone. [..] Hanging on to your solo landline solely for the Internet connection? Be sure to weigh the costs of other Internet options, such as cable modems.
The decision by federal regulators to let consumers move their home number to a mobile phone represented a defeat for carriers concerned about losing more lines. [..] "After today it's easier than ever to cut the cord," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. [..] Verizon also said canceling a landline may also disable alarm reporting services, TiVo, satellite TV, cable pay-per-view and Internet access that depends on a phone line, including dial-up and DSL access.
In fact, an estimated 2 to 3 million consumers are expected to drop their landlines over the next 18 to 24 months [..] People who rely mostly on cell phones cite cost and convenience as the main motivation for cutting the cord. [..] "If I was going online with a dial-up, then I would have a landline, but since they have the cable connection and the wireless connections, that negates the reason for having a landline," she added. Others are abandoning once fancy features on their landlines and maintaining the line's bare bones service.
Those are clear demarcations between people "cutting the cord" and keeping a landline around for Internet. How about that, a term that makes sense?
Clearly the solution is to provide the content in a couple of formats, enough to serve THE USERS. Unless that is, you don't give a shit about users, in which case I don't see why you need a web presence at all...
Wikipedia is big enough that it can and should value its core principles over the short-term convenience of a subset of its users. From the summary:
"Current community requirements are that free/open standards should be used at all times to encode and store video files on the servers that house our data, so that both our content and software can be redistributed without any restrictions." (bold mine)
Wikipedia is using long-term thinking, and I applaud the decision.
I wish they would stop misusing the term "cord cutting" for not subscribing to television while still getting Internet via cable, as it is confusing and stupid. The term originally came about as people stopped paying for land-lines and used their cell phones exclusively instead, and there it made sense.
In this case, as the article points out, "In most American households, the cable cord is the fastest conduit for broadband service. This suggests the canny strategy by which those once-inescapable cable providers might combat the rise of cord cutters: The cable giants will simply become even-more-inescapable Internet giants."
Well duh, it's been that way for a long time. You aren't "cutting the cord" by saving a few bucks by not paying for television but still getting Internet over cable. Even 10 year ago, it was like a $10 difference to not get basic cable. Where cable is losing the big money is on all the premium bundles.
I looked at my posts from that period, and found my last post to you right before you foe'd. I also read the thread around it, and nothing in it was like you claimed. I did see the same patterns of you making up stuff and being unable to substantiate your claims. The same pattern of staking out a stupid position (and this one was a doozy, which I've bolded below) and trying every lame attempt possible to salvage it. Here's my last post before rightfully ignoring you:
More lies that have already been addressed. I said torture can work, not that it should be done.
Who's the evil one here? It was you who took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to get information is not torture, aligning yourself with the "enhanced interrogation" position of the Bush administration post 9/11.
Who has failed to respond to actual dictionary definitions and quotes from the UN convention against torture? Who has ludicrously claimed that Amnesty International would not define such as torture?
You.
Who has lied repeatedly with no response when called out on it? Who has levied charges of lying, but refuses to quote the actual lie?
You.
Who was either so stupid or attempting to obfuscate that when asked for a dictionary definition, claims they don't want to make up their own instead of just providing the dictionary definition?
You.
Who is so stupid or trying to obfuscate that when asked to "quote my lie", comes back with his own generality instead quoting my "lie"?
You.
You're a piece of shit, and I'm tired of talking to you.
You think seven months later I would purposefully respond to you to go through a repeat of this? You're pathetic. I probably should mark you as a foe and make sure it displays in my client, because talking to pieces of shits like you is a complete waste of time.
similar unlikely thing like your "I browse without Javascript and no background colors" which doesn't appear to hide that spot at all - funny about that isn't it?
I tell you what, if you find that alleged post of mine, I'll find the post where you admitted to being into child porn. One baseless charge is as good as another, isn't it?
We both know what I'm talking about and nobody else cares.
Yes, we both know you're full of shit and have dragged this out to an embarrassing level, all because your fragile ego can't handle being wrong. I'm done wrestling with the pig.
Yes, if you make a claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. Since you haven't, it falls under the file of either making shit up or confusing me with somebody else. You really have stooped to a new low here.
they don't focus on what makes characters alive - how they move and how they react
Probably because it's the hardest thing to get right. One of the principles behind uncanny valley is that an animated character that isn't quite right is perceived much worse than a picture (which is the biggest thing that put me off Heavy Rain -- really stiff character animations).
*laugh* I'm guessing you're making that up, but sure, link away if you're not. Sounds like you're getting more desperate with each post to salvage something out of this thread. Poor, fragile ego.
It's the same old story, prosecutors and police railroading anyone they can. Have you already forgotten about what they did to Aaron Schwartz?
Poor example. While Aaron Schwartz had good intentions, and the punishment far exceeded the crime, there's no doubt he was guilty. In this case (based on the comments, I haven't fact checked), two innocent people had already confessed.
so you've got that little spot that means "freak" above every post of mine you see
No, I don't. I browse without Javascript and no background colors, so if it does show you a spot, it doesn't under my settings. The simple truth is I don't give two shits about you as a person. I replied to your post solely on the content. I'm sorry your fragile ego can't handle it and you have to try and invent reasons for it, but there is no other reason.
Also it's obvious that the little spot with a different color you see on my posts attracted your attention.
I guess this means you think I foe'd you? Sorry, wrong again. I don't foe or friend anybody -- both lists are empty. I see you under "Freaks", meaning you foe'd me, but that doesn't give me any indicator. Get over yourself. All I did was pick up on your hypocrisy and throw it back in your face, deservedly.
missing the "I think" and other obvious signs that it's an opinion and not an assertion of fact
We've been over this. It doesn't save you from your naive statement, and trying to pin a naive statement on Assange is just a dumb and clumsy way on your part to save face.
before putting in the pointless insults [..] What is your damage?
Apply these to yourself. Lots of insults, all because your fragile ego can't handle being wrong. You feel free to call somebody else's view naive, but can't take it when you are called out on your own naive statements.
If you'll forgive others for doing the same because they profited on the backs of other's hard work, like Apple did with Webkit, and your only beef is that they aren't being as transparent as you'd like, then who am I to argue?
What does this have anything to do with Apple? First off, they are a for-profit company. That's never been in dispute. Second, when did I "forgive" Apple? I've said nothing about them. This is about Mozilla and the issues that have been brought up in this thread. You can't deflect away from that by pointing to for-profit companies and other cases.
I still think you're being childish as hell about it.
That's ok, because I think you're being childish in your naive defense and faith in some pretty awful corporate behavior under the guise of still being about users and not profits.
Nobody cares about Mozilla, they just care that Mozilla isn't exactly what they want it to be. I can understand that. There's nothing more fun than a good witch-hunt, especially where money is involved.
Right, nothing childish about these statements, huh? If people didn't care about Mozilla the browser, as based in open source and non-profit roots, then why are we here speaking up? It has nothing to do with a witch hunt. It's been about the specifics, which you want to just give them a free pass on.
It's obviously nothing other than a failed attempt to insult me because you recognised my handle from an earlier discussion.
Sorry, I've debated many people here and did not recognize you. What I picked up on was you calling somebody naive and then making your own naive statement.
we both know you are just ineptly playing a very childish game here.
I think you are, in that you can't admit when you are wrong. Not a single thing in your most recent post addresses anything I said, as in how would it make sense to describe a naive hope to Assange? It goes even further than that, because to sum up the releases by Wikileaks as "leaks that embarrassed Hillary" would no doubt piss of Assange.
So what you've done is make your own naive statement, and then try to salvage it by saying it's something Assange is hoping for. Keep on digging that hole.
So you're trying to impose a naive view of "hope" onto Assange? No, that sounds stupid. If you accuse somebody else of being naive, don't get upset when it gets thrown back in your face when you act naive. It's nothing about "shooting the messenger".
Slashdot Mirror
PROTIP: When you correct someone's grammar, usage, or mechanics, it's more polite to add a topical comment as well.
I'd rather not see a pro forma comment.
Remember when their used to be one link to The Fucking Article? (If you don't, get off my lawn.) Is there any reason for three links, when one is the real story, and the other two are fluff pieces glossing the story?
you pledge your soul to serve in our undead army against God in the end days...
Sorry Valve, that one has to be signed in blood.
Why do you care that I care? Are you bitching just because you feel like bitching? Is it unreasonable that language should be used meaningfully and not stupidly?
Did you even bother reading those?
No, I just copy and pasted snippets blindly... Of course I did! The question is why you lack reading comprehension to pick up on the contrast I made a point to include in each snippet. What's really either willfully ignorant or dishonest on your part is to then quote only the parts that don't talk about the landline.
For example:
As pay phones and landlines disappear, we might be moving toward a wireless future. [..] While some people still use their landlines for their Internet access, "dial-up is antiquated," one of his co-workers said in the background.
and this is one:
Ready to cut the cordsnipping your landline could save you some serious cash, it's not for everyone. [..] Hanging on to your solo landline solely for the Internet connection? Be sure to weigh the costs of other Internet options, such as cable modems.
It's stupid easy to find the same kind of pattern in the rest of the examples. I'm really tired of arguing with obstinate assholes on Slashdot who will say anything to avoid admitting when they are wrong, especially after I do all the work to put the evidence right in front of their face. Fuck off.
Try all you want, the term was never used the way you're insisting it was.
Gee, if only there was some way of proving otherwise. Like maybe I can look at old news articles from years ago?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... :
About three years ago, Brandy Johnson cut the cord. "We had a landline and had some trouble with it," she said. After that, she and her husband decided to make the jump to wireless. [..] As pay phones and landlines disappear, we might be moving toward a wireless future. [..] While some people still use their landlines for their Internet access, "dial-up is antiquated," one of his co-workers said in the background.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/ne... :
Ready to cut the cord? While it's clear that snipping your landline could save you some serious cash, it's not for everyone. [..] Hanging on to your solo landline solely for the Internet connection? Be sure to weigh the costs of other Internet options, such as cable modems.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.... :
The decision by federal regulators to let consumers move their home number to a mobile phone represented a defeat for carriers concerned about losing more lines. [..] "After today it's easier than ever to cut the cord," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. [..] Verizon also said canceling a landline may also disable alarm reporting services, TiVo, satellite TV, cable pay-per-view and Internet access that depends on a phone line, including dial-up and DSL access.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... :
In fact, an estimated 2 to 3 million consumers are expected to drop their landlines over the next 18 to 24 months [..] People who rely mostly on cell phones cite cost and convenience as the main motivation for cutting the cord. [..] "If I was going online with a dial-up, then I would have a landline, but since they have the cable connection and the wireless connections, that negates the reason for having a landline," she added. Others are abandoning once fancy features on their landlines and maintaining the line's bare bones service.
Those are clear demarcations between people "cutting the cord" and keeping a landline around for Internet. How about that, a term that makes sense?
The 25% of cellphone users who had internet access through DSL didn't shut it off and switch to cable internet just to suit you.
The term was no more accurate back then than it is now.
Just because 100% didn't cord cut, it was accurate in the way it was used. This isn't very difficult to understand.
I have several options for internet access, and cable is just one. If they're cheapest, I'll go for them, but if not, the cable gets cut, entirely.
That's fine, but the term is being used much more broadly than that, to include people who get Internet via cable but don't pay for television.
How does that make any more sense, when many or most of them continued to get internet service via DSL over their same phone lines?
The term was for people who dropped their land lines all together. Internet was typically through cable. That's why it was called "cord cutting".
Clearly the solution is to provide the content in a couple of formats, enough to serve THE USERS. Unless that is, you don't give a shit about users, in which case I don't see why you need a web presence at all...
Wikipedia is big enough that it can and should value its core principles over the short-term convenience of a subset of its users. From the summary:
"Current community requirements are that free/open standards should be used at all times to encode and store video files on the servers that house our data, so that both our content and software can be redistributed without any restrictions." (bold mine)
Wikipedia is using long-term thinking, and I applaud the decision.
I wish they would stop misusing the term "cord cutting" for not subscribing to television while still getting Internet via cable, as it is confusing and stupid. The term originally came about as people stopped paying for land-lines and used their cell phones exclusively instead, and there it made sense.
In this case, as the article points out, "In most American households, the cable cord is the fastest conduit for broadband service. This suggests the canny strategy by which those once-inescapable cable providers might combat the rise of cord cutters: The cable giants will simply become even-more-inescapable Internet giants."
Well duh, it's been that way for a long time. You aren't "cutting the cord" by saving a few bucks by not paying for television but still getting Internet over cable. Even 10 year ago, it was like a $10 difference to not get basic cable. Where cable is losing the big money is on all the premium bundles.
Having lost the argument in every way imaginable, you fall back on the lame insult every yahoo on the Internet uses in lieu of an argument, "troll".
To put the final nail in your coffin, I will refute the slander you tossed out in a desperate attempt to salvage something in this thread:
"So you cannot remember the homosexual fantasy you shoved in my face that caused me to mark you as a foe? Do you do that a lot?"
You failed to substantiate your slanderous claims. I will now show you, for the final time, to be the horrible person and piece of shit that you are.
I searched my email, and found the Slashdot notification of when you foe'd me.:
From: slashdot@slashdot.org
Subject: [Slashdot] Relationship Change
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:16:51 +0000
dbIII (701233) has made you their foe.
I looked at my posts from that period, and found my last post to you right before you foe'd. I also read the thread around it, and nothing in it was like you claimed. I did see the same patterns of you making up stuff and being unable to substantiate your claims. The same pattern of staking out a stupid position (and this one was a doozy, which I've bolded below) and trying every lame attempt possible to salvage it. Here's my last post before rightfully ignoring you:
More lies that have already been addressed. I said torture can work, not that it should be done.
Who's the evil one here? It was you who took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to get information is not torture, aligning yourself with the "enhanced interrogation" position of the Bush administration post 9/11.
Who has failed to respond to actual dictionary definitions and quotes from the UN convention against torture? Who has ludicrously claimed that Amnesty International would not define such as torture?
You.
Who has lied repeatedly with no response when called out on it? Who has levied charges of lying, but refuses to quote the actual lie?
You.
Who was either so stupid or attempting to obfuscate that when asked for a dictionary definition, claims they don't want to make up their own instead of just providing the dictionary definition?
You.
Who is so stupid or trying to obfuscate that when asked to "quote my lie", comes back with his own generality instead quoting my "lie"?
You.
You're a piece of shit, and I'm tired of talking to you.
You think seven months later I would purposefully respond to you to go through a repeat of this? You're pathetic. I probably should mark you as a foe and make sure it displays in my client, because talking to pieces of shits like you is a complete waste of time.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Your bruised ego needs the rest.
Everyone is circlejerking on hackernews nowadays.
It's the subject matter. At the time of writing, there's 6 comments on this story, and 773 comments on, "Star Trek Economics".
similar unlikely thing like your "I browse without Javascript and no background colors" which doesn't appear to hide that spot at all - funny about that isn't it?
Once again, you are wrong.
I tell you what, if you find that alleged post of mine, I'll find the post where you admitted to being into child porn. One baseless charge is as good as another, isn't it?
We both know what I'm talking about and nobody else cares.
Yes, we both know you're full of shit and have dragged this out to an embarrassing level, all because your fragile ego can't handle being wrong. I'm done wrestling with the pig.
You want me to link to one of YOUR posts or your own memory?
Have you stop beating your wife?
Yes, if you make a claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. Since you haven't, it falls under the file of either making shit up or confusing me with somebody else. You really have stooped to a new low here.
Right, no link, as expected. You're making it up or have me confused with somebody else. Pretty pathetic way to end the thread on your part.
they don't focus on what makes characters alive - how they move and how they react
Probably because it's the hardest thing to get right. One of the principles behind uncanny valley is that an animated character that isn't quite right is perceived much worse than a picture (which is the biggest thing that put me off Heavy Rain -- really stiff character animations).
*laugh* I'm guessing you're making that up, but sure, link away if you're not. Sounds like you're getting more desperate with each post to salvage something out of this thread. Poor, fragile ego.
It's the same old story, prosecutors and police railroading anyone they can. Have you already forgotten about what they did to Aaron Schwartz?
Poor example. While Aaron Schwartz had good intentions, and the punishment far exceeded the crime, there's no doubt he was guilty. In this case (based on the comments, I haven't fact checked), two innocent people had already confessed.
so you've got that little spot that means "freak" above every post of mine you see
No, I don't. I browse without Javascript and no background colors, so if it does show you a spot, it doesn't under my settings. The simple truth is I don't give two shits about you as a person. I replied to your post solely on the content. I'm sorry your fragile ego can't handle it and you have to try and invent reasons for it, but there is no other reason.
Also it's obvious that the little spot with a different color you see on my posts attracted your attention.
I guess this means you think I foe'd you? Sorry, wrong again. I don't foe or friend anybody -- both lists are empty. I see you under "Freaks", meaning you foe'd me, but that doesn't give me any indicator. Get over yourself. All I did was pick up on your hypocrisy and throw it back in your face, deservedly.
missing the "I think" and other obvious signs that it's an opinion and not an assertion of fact
We've been over this. It doesn't save you from your naive statement, and trying to pin a naive statement on Assange is just a dumb and clumsy way on your part to save face.
before putting in the pointless insults [..] What is your damage?
Apply these to yourself. Lots of insults, all because your fragile ego can't handle being wrong. You feel free to call somebody else's view naive, but can't take it when you are called out on your own naive statements.
If you'll forgive others for doing the same because they profited on the backs of other's hard work, like Apple did with Webkit, and your only beef is that they aren't being as transparent as you'd like, then who am I to argue?
What does this have anything to do with Apple? First off, they are a for-profit company. That's never been in dispute. Second, when did I "forgive" Apple? I've said nothing about them. This is about Mozilla and the issues that have been brought up in this thread. You can't deflect away from that by pointing to for-profit companies and other cases.
I still think you're being childish as hell about it.
That's ok, because I think you're being childish in your naive defense and faith in some pretty awful corporate behavior under the guise of still being about users and not profits.
Nobody cares about Mozilla, they just care that Mozilla isn't exactly what they want it to be. I can understand that. There's nothing more fun than a good witch-hunt, especially where money is involved.
Right, nothing childish about these statements, huh? If people didn't care about Mozilla the browser, as based in open source and non-profit roots, then why are we here speaking up? It has nothing to do with a witch hunt. It's been about the specifics, which you want to just give them a free pass on.
It's obviously nothing other than a failed attempt to insult me because you recognised my handle from an earlier discussion.
Sorry, I've debated many people here and did not recognize you. What I picked up on was you calling somebody naive and then making your own naive statement.
we both know you are just ineptly playing a very childish game here.
I think you are, in that you can't admit when you are wrong. Not a single thing in your most recent post addresses anything I said, as in how would it make sense to describe a naive hope to Assange? It goes even further than that, because to sum up the releases by Wikileaks as "leaks that embarrassed Hillary" would no doubt piss of Assange.
So what you've done is make your own naive statement, and then try to salvage it by saying it's something Assange is hoping for. Keep on digging that hole.
So you're trying to impose a naive view of "hope" onto Assange? No, that sounds stupid. If you accuse somebody else of being naive, don't get upset when it gets thrown back in your face when you act naive. It's nothing about "shooting the messenger".