Ubuntu which is the most like Debian instead has a 6 months release cycle and they constantly have shit-tons of problems with every new release, same with Windows which also moved to a 6 months cycle now.
If you don't like how quickly things change in the normal Ubuntu releases, stick to the Long-Term Support releases, which are, like Debian, every 2 years.
Third-party stuff for Ubuntu is just as bad. "Use download link x if you're running Lounging Lizard, link y if you're running Moping Marmot." What the f--k is that? I've got 16.04. Do I need link x or link y?
Code names are cute and all, but come on, publishers, focus on something useful: cite version numbers.
That's more an issue with the third parties than with Ubuntu. For the most part, Ubuntu only uses version numbers on user-facing stuff, with version names used in things like the package repository names. They definitely aren't perfect about it, but they seem to be better than Apple.
Connecting names to numbers can be annoying, but the names are always in alphabetical order, so at least you know which version is newer than the other (unless you're going back 10+ years).
And I've completely given up trying to understand whether my red hat is a fedora or not
Those are two different products, not different versions of the same operating system. It's kind of like asking if Notepad is an earlier or later version than Visual Studio.
or whether peppermint comes before chocolate chip, or after.
If you mean Android, after. Android version names are in alphabetical order (same as Ubuntu). Maybe not quite as obvious as numbers, but not all that difficult for anyone who's literate.
It's a shame when your customers are faster and more adept at scanning merchandise than your paid employees.
There's probably a fair amount of selection bias in your conclusion. The people who know that the self-checkout system will have trouble with their items are more likely to go a regular checkout line, while people who don't expect any problems are more likely to use the self-checkout.
Not actually true. Any regulation can be undone without any justification given, that's pretty much the point of a regulation. Unless it's a regulation with regards to law, in which case it's a different beast.
I don't understand this. All regulations are with regards to the law that granted the agency the authority to enact regulations for the purpose of enforcing the law.
Also, you cannot unilaterally undue rules. There would need to be justification for the change. As yet, the FCC has yet to present evidence for the change.
You absolutely can unilaterally undue rules and regulations.
"Unilaterally", yes. The only party that is needed to undo a regulation is the agency that created it in the first place. I think what the GP meant was an agency cannot undo a regulation "at will". There is a defined process that must be followed, which, if I remember correctly, includes providing justification for the change. The justification being connected to reality, however, is probably not a requirement.
You absolutely cannot undue laws.
Huh? Congress repeals laws quite frequently. What do you think the whole argument this year about the ACA was?
Passing a law is the right way to do it. This way we'll have a stable requirement and not some 'regulation' that can be changed at the whim of any given administration. We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities, we simply need the right neutrality laws. If this happens, we'll all be in a better place.
Regulations can't be "changed at [a] whim". There's a well-defined process that an agency must follow before changing existing regulations (this has been in the news a few times this year, when agencies tried reversing policies from the previous administration without following the process defined by Congress).
It's not even a completely unreasonable argument to say that it's easier for Congress to repeal a law than it is for an executive agency to change a regulation.
The problem is that traditional utilities are pretty much stable. Water distributions systems haven't changed significantly in 80 years. Ditto the electrical system. The internet changes rapidly. Delivery systems change. Services change. Protocols change. The only thing that is significantly similar is TCP/IP, BGP and DNS.
When was the last time the physical infrastructure of the phone and cable system was changed? Certainly more recently than 80 years, but at this point it isn't significantly less stable than the electric lines.
If a provider is providing the speeds it claims, then Netflix should have no problems playing. Outside of that, if the provider wants to provide "fast" (or "faster") lanes for an upcharge, then I really have no problem with that as long as providers are providing the speeds they advertise to their customers.
Except that providing a "fast lane" for companies who pay is functionally the same as throttling companies that don't pay. That's a big part of what Net Neutrality is meant to prevent.
Net Neutrality is in the same way not as clear cut as you might think. That's not to say that I am not in favor of Net Neutrality. I am. Yet there are some things that clearly benefit from lower latency such as voice communications or video to video conversations or even remotely controlling devices from afar. Even electronic gaming and our own stock market would pay for a lower level ping if given the opportunity.
Fortunately, none of those things are a Net Neutrality issue. The principle doesn't prevent QoS rules, such as prioritizing traffic that requires lower latency; it only prevents discrimination based on source/destination, which would allow the ISP to use its monopoly position to damage other markets.
But 10Mbps seems decidedly on the average-to-slow side.
If 10 Mbps is "average", what's the problem? This isn't meant to be the legal right to download HD movies in 3 minutes; it's meant to be the bare minimum that a household needs to be part of modern society. 10 Mbps should be enough to do things like pay your bills and manage your bank accounts (considering what web pages are like these days, it may very well be the bare minimum).
I fully support this move, but even I think that there has to be a reasonable limit.
How can something that costs other people money and time be a legal right? This talk is insane.
In "ebil commie" places like the UK, the Internet is considered basic infrastructure, like roads, electricity, and running water. These things are considered necessary (at least by the vast majority of people) in order to be a part of modern society.
For some, the answer might be "abortion" - and I don't have a pithy slogan to convince an "abortion is murder" type that they have every right to persuade as many people as they can not to have abortions. Just that they don't have the right to legislate what is to some extent a religious position (depending on where you draw the gestational line between a bunch of cells and a person with a God-given soul...).
In theory, the best argument is the fact that the Bible all but explicitly says that abortion is not murder. The Bible says how much money is owed if a person strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. In other places, the Bible says that no amount of money can be enough to repay for the death of a person, even if the death is accidental. Put those two laws together, and the only logical conclusion is that causing a miscarriage is not the same as causing the death of a person.
I would have to spend a little time tracking down the exact chapters and verses, but I can if anyone cares enough for exact citations.
The San Francisco Bay Area is absolutely beautiful, though not what it was 20-30 years ago (imho). The weather is rarely too hot, or too cold. You almost never see anything close to a tornado, and definitely do not find hurricanes in that cold pacific water. The skies are blue, it rarely rains during the times of year that people want to be outside enjoying life. There is practically no humidity to deal with. It is one of the most beautiful and ideal places to live on the planet.
Obviously that can't be the reason. The area is all tech companies, and tech workers don't go outside if they don't have to.
All true democracies limit majority rule to protect the rights of minorities. For example, it is not possible to enact regulations so people of a given race are not allowed to live in a given area.
Technically, limits that prevent such racist laws are what make modern developed countries not "true" (i.e. pure) democracies. In a pure democracy, everything is simple majority rule, no matter how oppressive to the minority the rule would be. That's why we have constitutional democracies instead of pure democracies.
If a therapist is only interested in money, there are probably numerous other jobs they could do that pay more. While a therapist does have to avoid becoming overly emotionally attached to individual patients, many of them, like many other medical professionals, chose their careers because they want to help people.
Their mentality is, "If you are not perfect, there is no difference between the two candidates, I am going to stay home or vote for some useless candidate to send a message".
What state do they live in? In at least 40 out of 50 states, a person's vote doesn't count, since there's no question about which candidate will win in their state.
Improving the practical freedom of the average human has always involved adding laws to the books. Aimless minimization of laws only benefits the most powerful at the expense of the rest of society.
So by that logic if we pass an addition million laws we will somehow become more free. That doesn't ring true. A certain level of law is needed true but once the basics are covered you get less freedom with each additional law.
I don't think you understand how logic works. "A implies B" does not mean "B implies A".
You might want to brush up on your Boolean Algebra.
Slashdot Mirror
You generally do the username lookup first anyway so the logic could be short circuited.
Doesn't most software check username and password with a single query?
Ubuntu which is the most like Debian instead has a 6 months release cycle and they constantly have shit-tons of problems with every new release, same with Windows which also moved to a 6 months cycle now.
If you don't like how quickly things change in the normal Ubuntu releases, stick to the Long-Term Support releases, which are, like Debian, every 2 years.
Third-party stuff for Ubuntu is just as bad. "Use download link x if you're running Lounging Lizard, link y if you're running Moping Marmot." What the f--k is that? I've got 16.04. Do I need link x or link y?
Code names are cute and all, but come on, publishers, focus on something useful: cite version numbers.
That's more an issue with the third parties than with Ubuntu. For the most part, Ubuntu only uses version numbers on user-facing stuff, with version names used in things like the package repository names. They definitely aren't perfect about it, but they seem to be better than Apple.
Connecting names to numbers can be annoying, but the names are always in alphabetical order, so at least you know which version is newer than the other (unless you're going back 10+ years).
And I've completely given up trying to understand whether my red hat is a fedora or not
Those are two different products, not different versions of the same operating system. It's kind of like asking if Notepad is an earlier or later version than Visual Studio.
or whether peppermint comes before chocolate chip, or after.
If you mean Android, after. Android version names are in alphabetical order (same as Ubuntu). Maybe not quite as obvious as numbers, but not all that difficult for anyone who's literate.
It's a shame when your customers are faster and more adept at scanning merchandise than your paid employees.
There's probably a fair amount of selection bias in your conclusion. The people who know that the self-checkout system will have trouble with their items are more likely to go a regular checkout line, while people who don't expect any problems are more likely to use the self-checkout.
Not actually true. Any regulation can be undone without any justification given, that's pretty much the point of a regulation. Unless it's a regulation with regards to law, in which case it's a different beast.
I don't understand this. All regulations are with regards to the law that granted the agency the authority to enact regulations for the purpose of enforcing the law.
And if an agency can change regulations whenever it wants, how did a court block the EPA from delaying the implementation of a regulation?
Just because it isn't automatic that the loser pays, that doesn't mean that the judge can't award attorneys fees to the winner.
Also, you cannot unilaterally undue rules. There would need to be justification for the change. As yet, the FCC has yet to present evidence for the change.
You absolutely can unilaterally undue rules and regulations.
"Unilaterally", yes. The only party that is needed to undo a regulation is the agency that created it in the first place. I think what the GP meant was an agency cannot undo a regulation "at will". There is a defined process that must be followed, which, if I remember correctly, includes providing justification for the change. The justification being connected to reality, however, is probably not a requirement.
You absolutely cannot undue laws.
Huh? Congress repeals laws quite frequently. What do you think the whole argument this year about the ACA was?
Facebook and Twitter are susceptible to competition. Yes, they are. Watch.
You don't even really need to wait to find out. From what I've heard, they've both already been replaced in the teenager market.
Passing a law is the right way to do it. This way we'll have a stable requirement and not some 'regulation' that can be changed at the whim of any given administration. We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities, we simply need the right neutrality laws. If this happens, we'll all be in a better place.
Regulations can't be "changed at [a] whim". There's a well-defined process that an agency must follow before changing existing regulations (this has been in the news a few times this year, when agencies tried reversing policies from the previous administration without following the process defined by Congress).
It's not even a completely unreasonable argument to say that it's easier for Congress to repeal a law than it is for an executive agency to change a regulation.
The problem is that traditional utilities are pretty much stable. Water distributions systems haven't changed significantly in 80 years. Ditto the electrical system. The internet changes rapidly. Delivery systems change. Services change. Protocols change. The only thing that is significantly similar is TCP/IP, BGP and DNS.
When was the last time the physical infrastructure of the phone and cable system was changed? Certainly more recently than 80 years, but at this point it isn't significantly less stable than the electric lines.
If a provider is providing the speeds it claims, then Netflix should have no problems playing. Outside of that, if the provider wants to provide "fast" (or "faster") lanes for an upcharge, then I really have no problem with that as long as providers are providing the speeds they advertise to their customers.
Except that providing a "fast lane" for companies who pay is functionally the same as throttling companies that don't pay. That's a big part of what Net Neutrality is meant to prevent.
Net Neutrality is in the same way not as clear cut as you might think. That's not to say that I am not in favor of Net Neutrality. I am. Yet there are some things that clearly benefit from lower latency such as voice communications or video to video conversations or even remotely controlling devices from afar. Even electronic gaming and our own stock market would pay for a lower level ping if given the opportunity.
Fortunately, none of those things are a Net Neutrality issue. The principle doesn't prevent QoS rules, such as prioritizing traffic that requires lower latency; it only prevents discrimination based on source/destination, which would allow the ISP to use its monopoly position to damage other markets.
But 10Mbps seems decidedly on the average-to-slow side.
If 10 Mbps is "average", what's the problem? This isn't meant to be the legal right to download HD movies in 3 minutes; it's meant to be the bare minimum that a household needs to be part of modern society. 10 Mbps should be enough to do things like pay your bills and manage your bank accounts (considering what web pages are like these days, it may very well be the bare minimum).
I fully support this move, but even I think that there has to be a reasonable limit.
How can something that costs other people money and time be a legal right? This talk is insane.
In "ebil commie" places like the UK, the Internet is considered basic infrastructure, like roads, electricity, and running water. These things are considered necessary (at least by the vast majority of people) in order to be a part of modern society.
Moore's only real transgression is that he...
Was, on two separate occasions, removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for violating the Constitution of the United States.
For some, the answer might be "abortion" - and I don't have a pithy slogan to convince an "abortion is murder" type that they have every right to persuade as many people as they can not to have abortions. Just that they don't have the right to legislate what is to some extent a religious position (depending on where you draw the gestational line between a bunch of cells and a person with a God-given soul...).
In theory, the best argument is the fact that the Bible all but explicitly says that abortion is not murder. The Bible says how much money is owed if a person strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. In other places, the Bible says that no amount of money can be enough to repay for the death of a person, even if the death is accidental. Put those two laws together, and the only logical conclusion is that causing a miscarriage is not the same as causing the death of a person.
I would have to spend a little time tracking down the exact chapters and verses, but I can if anyone cares enough for exact citations.
About my only complaint is, that ever since Obamacare, my insurance prices have skyrocketed....
Obligatory reminder: Correlation does not imply causation
The San Francisco Bay Area is absolutely beautiful, though not what it was 20-30 years ago (imho). The weather is rarely too hot, or too cold. You almost never see anything close to a tornado, and definitely do not find hurricanes in that cold pacific water. The skies are blue, it rarely rains during the times of year that people want to be outside enjoying life. There is practically no humidity to deal with. It is one of the most beautiful and ideal places to live on the planet.
Obviously that can't be the reason. The area is all tech companies, and tech workers don't go outside if they don't have to.
So why is all that wasted on tech people?
All true democracies limit majority rule to protect the rights of minorities. For example, it is not possible to enact regulations so people of a given race are not allowed to live in a given area.
Technically, limits that prevent such racist laws are what make modern developed countries not "true" (i.e. pure) democracies. In a pure democracy, everything is simple majority rule, no matter how oppressive to the minority the rule would be. That's why we have constitutional democracies instead of pure democracies.
</pedant>
If a therapist is only interested in money, there are probably numerous other jobs they could do that pay more. While a therapist does have to avoid becoming overly emotionally attached to individual patients, many of them, like many other medical professionals, chose their careers because they want to help people.
Show of hands if you are tired of the bitcoin stories?
But not too tired to post a whiny complaint?
This discussion is about politics. You get out of here with your facts and logic.
Their mentality is, "If you are not perfect, there is no difference between the two candidates, I am going to stay home or vote for some useless candidate to send a message".
What state do they live in? In at least 40 out of 50 states, a person's vote doesn't count, since there's no question about which candidate will win in their state.
Improving the practical freedom of the average human has always involved adding laws to the books. Aimless minimization of laws only benefits the most powerful at the expense of the rest of society.
So by that logic if we pass an addition million laws we will somehow become more free. That doesn't ring true. A certain level of law is needed true but once the basics are covered you get less freedom with each additional law.
I don't think you understand how logic works. "A implies B" does not mean "B implies A".
You might want to brush up on your Boolean Algebra.