AT&T may seek however that doesn't mean the Supreme Court will oblige. If they decline then that's that. If they hear the case then their job is to find it constitutional if at all possible. There job isn't to see if it is illegal but to see if it is not illegal. There's a huge difference there.
I see nothing positive in making Linux a subsystem of Windows. When talking to people in the future Linux will be referred to as something that is part of Windows.
Microsoft has not changed and Shuttleworth knows it.
You don't need to sell it like that. You can go with any number of non Microsoft cloud servers for testing or otherwise and you'll get billed and a better product for less.
Those that do may not know not to use it. Microsoft is using their monopoly power to basically hide these issues from businesses which are the major users of that platform.
And it is a politics, albeit one that really matters to the health of the industry, and businesses will just want to stay out of them.
That makes the abstinence argument putrid shit.
The community needs to scream wildly about this stuff.
Today all free support is pretty much done by the communities regardless of the product. The attitude of holding you responsible for doing your work yourselves is not new. There has been a small vocal minority that alienated people with rtfm. Certainly that was the case.
Open source today is massively massive with a hundred million installs of linux worldwide. Support is far better and in fact has been lauded that the community support is top notch.
On the other side of things it is getting harder and harder to get solid free support from the windows and osx communities. The reason is that everyone is willing to help but few actually have the requisite knowledge to actually help and lead you down the rabbit hole wasting your time--just to read the replies.
Well, just kidding, but maybe it is for the very same reason they bought and sold Motorola. They wanted the patents. I doubt Google has a need for more manufacturing capacity, that is, unless they have a plan for far greater production or of production of new products.
They added their own by submitting their proposed changes to the standards organization. Microsoft did the same thing. The standards organization agreed on both. However, Microsoft then pushed their browser on the desktop and made it costly to those OEMs that wanted to put something other than Microsoft's products on the computer by default. That's what they got in trouble for.
A better example of EEE is Java, where Microsoft embraced java by signing a license that prohibited platform specific extensions, and then implemented platform specific extensions which had the impact of having developers write for it instead of writing for the platform agnostic version. That's embrace, extend, extinguish.
Microsoft's embrace will follow with extend and then finally they'll extinguish the official Linux as most corporations accepting Linux will consider it a subset of Windows.
To anyone that has been involved in the industry and also paid attention to what happened in the 90s they know that this is nothing but embrace, extend, extinguish. This needs to be shouted loudly so that those that seem to think that Microsoft is benovelent these days get the message. All the work done and progress accomplished could be destroyed because the younger generation wasn't around and aren't aware that this is what Microsoft does.
Anyone that followed Microsoft in the 90s knows that they are copycats rarely themselves creating new technology. Maybe there have been a couple products that were invented by Microsoft but we must admit that Microsoft is not capable of new and innovative ideas.
If Microsoft can't come up with new innovative ideas and they are mostly a company bent on dominating all markets then we can only conclude that Microsoft's participation in Linux is not going to be a positive thing.
I would say also that all code submitted by Microsoft should be reviewed and vetted for not just privacy issues but directional impact.
This sort of misrepresents what a troll is, or rather, how it is applied. People are sometimes, often times, censored due to their conflicting view rather than for a behavior of saying things that are racist or harassing.
Censorship is often disguised as de-trolling a site. It happens all over reddit.
Here's an example: People on Reddit in/r/worldnews have been attacking Trump left and right with a lot of people saying that he should be executed. Some saying Trumps son is guilty of treason and should be executed. That has been let slide by the moderators. Another person says that they don't feel comfortable with a Washington Post writer doing an AMA in/r/worldnews on a topic that would obviously degenerate into an anti-Trump hatefest. That person was banned.
Here's another example: Are you a here because you were banned for being a troll elsewhere? Someone in this thread made that observation about voat.co. If it isn't true and voat.co is a legit site isn't what they implied a trolling event? If you speak against it and are banned isn't that censorship?
They can only identify the known observable universe. However, it is unlikely that they have identified the habitable zone for the entire universe. It would be near impossible for them to identify the habitable zone for our galaxy. This is because we have no idea what is habitable because we only know about our life. Maybe that should say the like-human habitable zone of any given galaxy rather than the habitable zone of the universe.
I have several 10" tablets. I have one 7" tablet. The 7" tablet is about perfect. It's the Nexus 7. The issue with the Nexus 7 is the poor camera and lack of flash. The problem with the 10" tablet is the weight.
You are absolutely correct. When the Scientologists wanted to get church status and hence tax exempt status, after years of trying they finally figured out that they needed to put their own people into the positions that would make the decision to grant them what they wanted.
The telecomm industry is the same. Wheeler is there to further the telecomm's agenda. No amount of upset or anger at the messenger will change that. Wheeler is there to push through the agenda of the telecomm industry. He was their top lobbyist in at least two of their top lobbying groups. He came from them and he will return to them when he is done fulfilling their agenda.
This is not paranoia. That's what his hiring was all about, even if it seems like the Whitehouse is seemingly (half heartedly) promoting net neutrality.
We all know that the telecomm and even to a certain extent the tech industry is very short-sighted. What I mean is that they predict things that only partially happen, that in reality the things that do happen happen well beyond what they expect.
Saying that 10mbs is the bare minimum for subsidies means 1) they are freaking still subsidizing the telecomm industry even though those companies are making record profits while providing some of the worst customer service and the lowest bandwidth rating of most of the literate world while charging us the highest prices nearly anywhere in the world, and 2) they should be talking 200mbs + because they have a history of being short-sighted. Give them an out for 10mbs and that's all we'll get because they went through this shit that forced it upon them.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there anything but?
I tried that stick on my Linux deskop and nothing happened. Why? Inquiring minds want to know.
Those two groups are least likely to use it.
It isn't a good testbed.
It implies everyone else is less important.
It won't change hacker's mentality toward hacking.
CEOs shouldn't be using Gmail.
It is from a far too untrustworthy company.
Hell fucking no they haven't changed and never will. Period!!!
AT&T may seek however that doesn't mean the Supreme Court will oblige. If they decline then that's that. If they hear the case then their job is to find it constitutional if at all possible. There job isn't to see if it is illegal but to see if it is not illegal. There's a huge difference there.
Not liking that at all. Suggesting sites can be used as agenda based advertising. I don't want to see any of it. Ever.
I see nothing positive in making Linux a subsystem of Windows. When talking to people in the future Linux will be referred to as something that is part of Windows.
Microsoft has not changed and Shuttleworth knows it.
There is no net gain here for open source.
You don't need to sell it like that. You can go with any number of non Microsoft cloud servers for testing or otherwise and you'll get billed and a better product for less.
In a general sense he's right. Microsoft lost it in certain markets. Server and cloud is dominated by linux. Microsoft Windows is a desktop product.
Those that do may not know not to use it. Microsoft is using their monopoly power to basically hide these issues from businesses which are the major users of that platform.
And it is a politics, albeit one that really matters to the health of the industry, and businesses will just want to stay out of them.
That makes the abstinence argument putrid shit.
The community needs to scream wildly about this stuff.
They can do that with their product but keep it out of mine. Linux isn't their product. This is blatantly embrace extend extinguish.
There'll be a lot of those kernels recompiled with the code removed, guaranteed. Such is the nature of open source.
Yet another stage of embrace extend extinguish.
Atypical.
That attitude prevailed in every market.
Today all free support is pretty much done by the communities regardless of the product. The attitude of holding you responsible for doing your work yourselves is not new. There has been a small vocal minority that alienated people with rtfm. Certainly that was the case.
Open source today is massively massive with a hundred million installs of linux worldwide. Support is far better and in fact has been lauded that the community support is top notch.
On the other side of things it is getting harder and harder to get solid free support from the windows and osx communities. The reason is that everyone is willing to help but few actually have the requisite knowledge to actually help and lead you down the rabbit hole wasting your time--just to read the replies.
At 200 to 500% the cost of the market's average repair costs that's rich and outrageous.
Revisionism. They created 3 keys together to keep people from issuing the command by mistake.
The three finger salute is not complex and not a difficult thing to do.
Well, just kidding, but maybe it is for the very same reason they bought and sold Motorola. They wanted the patents. I doubt Google has a need for more manufacturing capacity, that is, unless they have a plan for far greater production or of production of new products.
They added their own by submitting their proposed changes to the standards organization. Microsoft did the same thing. The standards organization agreed on both. However, Microsoft then pushed their browser on the desktop and made it costly to those OEMs that wanted to put something other than Microsoft's products on the computer by default. That's what they got in trouble for.
A better example of EEE is Java, where Microsoft embraced java by signing a license that prohibited platform specific extensions, and then implemented platform specific extensions which had the impact of having developers write for it instead of writing for the platform agnostic version. That's embrace, extend, extinguish.
Microsoft's embrace will follow with extend and then finally they'll extinguish the official Linux as most corporations accepting Linux will consider it a subset of Windows.
To anyone that has been involved in the industry and also paid attention to what happened in the 90s they know that this is nothing but embrace, extend, extinguish. This needs to be shouted loudly so that those that seem to think that Microsoft is benovelent these days get the message. All the work done and progress accomplished could be destroyed because the younger generation wasn't around and aren't aware that this is what Microsoft does.
Anyone that followed Microsoft in the 90s knows that they are copycats rarely themselves creating new technology. Maybe there have been a couple products that were invented by Microsoft but we must admit that Microsoft is not capable of new and innovative ideas.
If Microsoft can't come up with new innovative ideas and they are mostly a company bent on dominating all markets then we can only conclude that Microsoft's participation in Linux is not going to be a positive thing.
I would say also that all code submitted by Microsoft should be reviewed and vetted for not just privacy issues but directional impact.
This sort of misrepresents what a troll is, or rather, how it is applied. People are sometimes, often times, censored due to their conflicting view rather than for a behavior of saying things that are racist or harassing.
Censorship is often disguised as de-trolling a site. It happens all over reddit.
Here's an example: People on Reddit in /r/worldnews have been attacking Trump left and right with a lot of people saying that he should be executed. Some saying Trumps son is guilty of treason and should be executed. That has been let slide by the moderators. Another person says that they don't feel comfortable with a Washington Post writer doing an AMA in /r/worldnews on a topic that would obviously degenerate into an anti-Trump hatefest. That person was banned.
Here's another example: Are you a here because you were banned for being a troll elsewhere? Someone in this thread made that observation about voat.co. If it isn't true and voat.co is a legit site isn't what they implied a trolling event? If you speak against it and are banned isn't that censorship?
They can only identify the known observable universe. However, it is unlikely that they have identified the habitable zone for the entire universe. It would be near impossible for them to identify the habitable zone for our galaxy. This is because we have no idea what is habitable because we only know about our life. Maybe that should say the like-human habitable zone of any given galaxy rather than the habitable zone of the universe.
I have several 10" tablets. I have one 7" tablet. The 7" tablet is about perfect. It's the Nexus 7. The issue with the Nexus 7 is the poor camera and lack of flash. The problem with the 10" tablet is the weight.
You are absolutely correct. When the Scientologists wanted to get church status and hence tax exempt status, after years of trying they finally figured out that they needed to put their own people into the positions that would make the decision to grant them what they wanted.
The telecomm industry is the same. Wheeler is there to further the telecomm's agenda. No amount of upset or anger at the messenger will change that. Wheeler is there to push through the agenda of the telecomm industry. He was their top lobbyist in at least two of their top lobbying groups. He came from them and he will return to them when he is done fulfilling their agenda.
This is not paranoia. That's what his hiring was all about, even if it seems like the Whitehouse is seemingly (half heartedly) promoting net neutrality.
We all know that the telecomm and even to a certain extent the tech industry is very short-sighted. What I mean is that they predict things that only partially happen, that in reality the things that do happen happen well beyond what they expect.
Saying that 10mbs is the bare minimum for subsidies means 1) they are freaking still subsidizing the telecomm industry even though those companies are making record profits while providing some of the worst customer service and the lowest bandwidth rating of most of the literate world while charging us the highest prices nearly anywhere in the world, and 2) they should be talking 200mbs + because they have a history of being short-sighted. Give them an out for 10mbs and that's all we'll get because they went through this shit that forced it upon them.
Of course they can read it. They may not make a habit of it, but they do have the capability. If they didn't they would be worthless.