1165 posts • joined 4 Nov 2010
That doesn't quite work, though, because *even in major metropolitan areas* in the US, choice of providers is very limited. This is mainly because the incumbents fight like hell to prevent it being practical for anyone to compete with them; you can go back a couple of years and read the stories about all the wheezes the incumbent ISPs came up with to make it absolutely as difficult as possible for Google Fiber to enter new markets.
Hell, I'm on the Western Canadian direct equivalent of Comcast (Shaw), and I get 150/15 business service with static IP and no transfer cap for C$126/month. That's less than US$100, I think.
Unfortunately we are currently lacking a way to include all the people who were killed in crashes involving insanely dangerous cars in the conversation, but we're working on it.
See, this is where you and I actually disagree:
"just don't expect everywhere else to adhere to your "personal" point of view"
You keep insisting that one person has the right, in some way, to pass judgment on another person's sexual identity or choices or whatever. That's just *not right*. The only remotely coherent justification for it that has ever existed is religion: if you live in a religious state and the state religion is opposed to homosexuality, there is at least a logical justification for the state suppressing homosexuality. Obviously I'd still say it's entirely wrong, but on its *own merits*, the situation is consistent.
If you live in a non-religious state (or, you know, a modern state like the UK which technically still has a state religion but clearly doesn't use it as a basis for legal policy), there just *is no such place to stand*. You just don't get to have some kind of opinion on other people's sexuality. If the idea of sleeping with other people of the same sex makes you uncomfortable, then you get to exercise your freedom of choice to *not do that*. But it doesn't somehow give you the right to talk about "agreeing with" or "adhering to" other people's views of their own sexuality. I can think of a couple of limited exceptions to this:
i) you and the other person are both members of some sort of organization whose moral superiority/guidance you accept; on that basis you can possibly exercise some sort of 'judgment' over the other person's behaviour on the basis of that organization's moral principles.
ii) the other person is in some way attempting to dictate *your* sexual choices; in this case you get to push back against them to whatever degree is necessary to pursue your own freedom of choice
But that's it. If it's just a case of you and some random stranger - like me - you just don't have any kind of logical position to talk about whether you "agree with" or "adhere to" my sexuality. It's inherently an absurd thing to say. Imagine you said "Well, I like Doctor Who but I don't like Game of Thrones", and someone else said "No, I don't agree. Actually you like Game of Thrones and you don't like Doctor Who. You just don't understand it yet", or "No, I don't agree. You ought to like Game of Thrones. Liking Doctor Who is bad and you should feel bad". Are you gonna take that person seriously? Do they have any right whatsoever to dictate to you what it is you like and don't like?
You can of course say "Huh, really? I don't like Doctor Who, but I do like Game of Thrones". Because then you're just expressing your *own* preferences. You're not telling the other person that their preferences are somehow morally wrong, or that they actually don't know what their own preferences are. So you can of course say "me, I'm not attracted to people of the same sex at all!" and that's totally fine. What you don't get to say is "...and I don't agree with or approve of or 'adhere to' people who do!" or anything along those lines. That's just not something you have any logical basis for doing. You don't *have to* 'adhere to' or 'not adhere to' my sexuality. It doesn't reflect upon you at all. It's my business. It's not your business. Just like my liking Doctor Who (or not) has absolutely no bearing on you.
See longer reply below, but: I didn't say anything about whether sexuality is inherent or chosen. I said it wasn't a lifestyle. I don't think the two are *remotely* the same question.
There are a bunch of problems with talking about a "gay lifestyle" or whatever - it's extremely trivializing and belittling, it implicitly supports the pernicious idea that all gay people are some sort of mincing lisping limp-wristed stereotype from a 1970s sitcom, it implies that anyone who identifies as anything other than 'straight' is just sort of trying it on and causing trouble, and it similarly suggests that, because it's "just a lifestyle choice", it's acceptable to pressure people to consciously *change* their conception of their sexuality when they themselves are perfectly comfortable with it. That's just for starters.
But I don't equate it directly with the question of whether sexuality is inherent, environmental, cultural, a conscious or unconscious choice or some sort of messy combination of all of the above at all.
"Every gay person i have known, will categorically state that it is not a choice."
I...think you're going slightly too far, there.
Note, I was actually rather careful not to wade into the extremely charged and somewhat toxic debate about whether sexuality is chosen. What I said is that it's not a "lifestyle", because it isn't.
This is not going to go anywhere good, but oh well. I identify as gay, because it's much easier than trying to express anything more complex without getting lynched. But if you gave me a safe space, a beer and half an hour, what I'd actually tell you is that I'm *mostly* attracted to guys, and have been since a very early age (about 10). I don't walk around with a limp wrist, I'm not a hairdresser, I don't have a high-pitched voice or lisp, I don't wiggle my hips all over the damn place when I walk, or any other thing tiresome people like the OP would presumably consider to be indicators of a "gay lifestyle" or whatever.
I also would say I can't absolutely tell you that I was "born gay" or that I "chose to be gay". Honestly they seem like rather weird phrasings of a false dichotomy, to me.
Frankly, I'd say not-entirely-straight people stick to very simple descriptors of sexuality (like "gay") and insist very hard that you're "born gay" (or "born straight") because it's a nice simple and unequivocal position from which you can derive a pretty convincing argument in favour of sexual tolerance. Which obviously is the end goal.
If you got some social scientists into the safe space with me and gave *them* beers too, they'd point out that there are some awkward truths that complicate the nice simple narrative; fr'instance, people are a lot more likely to have sex with another person of the same sex if they're somehow placed in an institution where they *only* encounter other people of the same sex for a long time. Like prison. Or the navy. This is *both* an ugly stereotype *and* demonstrably true, which is a much more subtle thing than you can sensibly debate on twitter without getting your ass flamed into oblivion by both sides of the Morally Certain Brigade. (This is also why health workers, who generally get a pass from demonstrating their Ideological Purity, tend to target health campaigns at groups like "men who have sex with men" - MSM - rather than using terms like 'gay'; they know there are men who have sex with other men and don't consider themselves to be gay. Life is complicated.)
The *problem* with bringing all this up, as a 'gay' person, is that it tends to open lots of doors for the "BURN ALL THE QUEERS" brigade. Which, frankly, in some contexts, is a pretty *good* reason not to bring this stuff up. But since we were going there anyway, hey, I felt like writing about it.
Personally I actually think sexuality is a hell of a lot more fluid than people are at all comfortable thinking about, which is why we invent convenient and comfortable lies and labels to deal with it instead. (I've read about an interesting study/survey people have done with late high school / university students in some places, asking them to place themselves on a *scale* where 1 is 'entirely straight' and 5 is 'entirely gay'; apparently, quite often responses between 1 and 5 are more common than either 1 or 5).
Everyone's a lot more comfortable if I just say I'm gay than if I say "well, I'm almost exclusively attracted to men, and I'm married to one, but I don't find women intrinsically sexually repugnant and I do actually occasionally think one's pretty cute. If I'd been born in 1935 I'd probably have just married a woman and made the best of it cos that would've been easier than the alternative. If all the other men on earth died out tomorrow I'd probably be happier having sex with women than not having sex at all. I quite honestly don't think I can tell you 100% for certain if I was "born this way", whatever "this way" actually is, but it certainly isn't hurting anyone and it's certainly not anyone else's business trying to decide what "way" I am or should be. What's the label for that?"
But no, it's definitely not a bloody "lifestyle", whatever it is.
I don't think your comment should have resulted in any kind of ban, but it *is* both incorrect and mildly intolerant. Sexuality is not a "lifestyle" and you don't get to "agree" or "disagree" with anyone else's: it's none of your damn business.
"The way you get followers and likes? Well, the easy way is just telling people what they want to hear."
I note that at time of writing this post has 18 upvotes. :P
Well, yes, it is, but possibly not in the way you think: isn't it interesting that *even someone who saw the hands of Google in the previous NN regulations* thinks the current FCC administration is an utter shitshow?
At last count there were about 20 state attorneys general lined up to sue the FCC, so apparently at least they think there is.
That's a *state* decision. What does that have to do with, as you phrased it, "the last administration"?
"What the heck, here's another, because that's California, after all:
That's a *city* decision - the city of Chicago. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with federal policy. In fact, it explicitly makes clear that the affected people weren't eligible for *federal* funds:
"more than one out of five of the 3,015 Star Scholarship winners who enrolled at the city colleges this fall were directed to fill out an alternative to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) because they were ineligible to apply for federal aid"
So no, neither of those links proves that "the last administration" - by which you clearly meant *federal* administration, i.e. Obama's government - did this. The second one, in fact, explicitly states that it didn't.
Also note that the FCC initially introduced NN regulations without using Title II powers *expressly as a sop to the ISPs who didn't want to be regulated under Title II*. At which point the ISPs *sued the FCC*, their argument literally being "you can only impose NN under Title II". In other words...the ISPs literally *dared* the FCC to put them under Title II.
The fact that since then they've been arguing "oh no no no we're not opposed to net neutrality, we're only opposed to Title II!" would be funny if it weren't so astonishingly awful.
Let me help you out a bit: there's this bizarre argument that runs approximately like this. Facebook and Google are the ones who *really* have too much power - apparently, in this worldview, there can only ever be precisely *one* problematic concentration of market-distorting power at a time, all the other monopolists have to line up and take a number - and net neutrality isn't, you know, a perfectly sensible framing of the principles on which the internet was built, it's a cunning plot by Facebook and Google to...I dunno, take over the world or something, hands generally start getting waved pretty hard right around this point.
In this view of the world, by heroically refusing to regulate monopoly-abusing ISPs while - well, no, that's about it, actually, that's all they're doing - Pai's FCC is somehow saving the world from Facebook and Google. Apparently if we could go live to Sergey Brin's house right now he'd be crying into the fifth reserve swimming pool, or something.
Well there's that, but there's also: the US is one of the biggest sources of and markets for internet services. It's not like only Americans use Netflix or Amazon video, is it? So if America screws up its market conditions sufficiently that it, e.g., heavily discriminates against new market entrants, that affects everyone else too.
Of course, it won't be long before America is done fking everything up so badly it'll be about as relevant to the rest of the world as the UK is today, so there is *that* silver lining.
Well, no, technically it doesn't "take effect", no. But you get one guess as to exactly how enthusiastic Pai's FCC is going to be about enforcing the NN regulation that is still technically on the books.
In other words, if Comcast sets up paid prioritization tomorrow, who do you think is going to do something about it?
"example: free college educations to illegal immigrants"
um. This is quite clearly utter and total bullshit. Do you have the slightest shred of factual evidence that this actually happened?
You...er...know there is an EU regulation mandating net neutrality, right?
Here. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120&rid=2 . It's Article 3.
"A stake was driven through bipartisanship seven years ago."
Christ on a bike, do you actually *believe* this garbage? The Obama FCC ran like...a regulator should. They ran a public comment period, and actually read the comments. They ran public meetings. They listened to ISPs...*and* other tech companies, *and* subject matter experts. They debated their proposals in good faith, and actually modified them (the final NN rules contained several compromises from the initial proposal).
By comparison, Pai decided what he was going to do before he ever got the job, doesn't consult anyone but ISPs, makes *video skits with ISP executives*, trolls anyone who disagrees with him, and explicitly states that his FCC ignores public feedback.
Also during that time, there hadn't been a major concentration of ownership of media creation and delivery companies. And the end of that period is *precisely* when ISPs started fucking around with people's traffic - there are many good articles detailing this, if you're actually interested in facts - which is precisely where the whole concept of net neutrality originated: we only had to define it, give it a name and start pushing for it to be public policy *when ISPs started fucking with it*. Before that, there was no need.
"To sum it up, Mr. Battistelli made reforms to make EPO more efficient."
This is only the case if you define "more efficient" as "approve more patents". But that's not actually the job of a patent office. If we just wanted to approve all patent applications, we wouldn't need a patent office at all - just a big red APPROVED stamp and a conveyor belt to run the applications past it.
Funny, you'd think highly-paid Google and Microsoft staffers would've heard the old line about security through obscurity.
If your algorithm is subject to gaming once someone knows how it works, *it's a bad algorithm*. Because someone knows how it works, so someone knows how to game it.
The right answer is to build algorithms that aren't practical to game *even when you know how they work*. This is not impossible, or even very difficult (or else open source would just be flat out *stuffed*), though sometimes it does involve making the choice "we're not going to handle this algorithmically because any algorithmic handling of it is fundamentally gameable", which is certainly a bit of a mindset shift for...certain people.
I suspect the real reason they don't want to tell anyone how they do stuff is that they don't want anyone to know how many weird random hacks are in there that were made up by some random Joe on a Friday afternoon and now can't be removed because no-one knows what would happen if they were, or just how many special cases there are in there to handle specific embarrassing outcomes that were dredged up by journalists...
"I haven't noticed anything different that I thought I could attribute to net neutrality that impacted how I use the internet since the rules went into effect"
Well, no, you weren't *supposed* to. The whole point of the rules was to preserve the status quo, not to somehow magically make things suddenly better.
There's a subtlety here which (quelle surprise) seems to be commonly missed in these arguments. One of the anti-NN faction's stock arguments is often phrased as "we didn't have net neutrality before 2015 and everything was fine!"
But that's not really true. The US more or less *did* "have net neutrality" then. What it didn't have was net neutrality *regulation*. This might seem like nitpicking, but it really isn't, it's rather important. The main reason there was no NN regulation before 2015 is because there hadn't been any perceived need for it. For a long time, ISPs generally treated traffic neutrally just because that was the service they were providing and they didn't have any motivation to do something else. There is generally no need to enact regulation to tell entities to do what they're already doing anyway. So of course you didn't have NN regulations, because there was no *need* for them.
The reason NN regulations showed up in 2015 - after a lengthy process of debate and review, you know, the way regulatory bodies are *supposed* to operate - is precisely that US ISPs started *not* treating traffic neutrally, and the structure of major ISP ownership changed such that now the ISPs clearly *did* now have very strong motivations to discriminate, and there were clear signs that they intended to be ever more egregious about doing so in future.
So the whole point of introducing the regulations was simply to try and require that ISPs stop the slide towards discrimination and behave the way they had all been behaving anyway up until about 2007 (the gap between 2007 and 2015 being exactly the period in which the concept of NN was formalized, propagated, formulated into proposed regulations and debated). Despite what Pai keeps trying to claim, there was never any intent to start suddenly making demands for ISPs to behave differently than they had before they started experimenting with discrimination; it was purely about requiring them to stop doing that and go back to how they had been operating previously.
Oh, sure, I absolutely agree. The 'someone' you outsource it to should be someone vaguely fking competent. And you should certainly be paying them, and have a damn good service agreement.
Sure, it's easy. Just stand up your server and install nextcloud on it. Well, of course, then you should automate the deployment somehow just in case you need to do it again. Then you're gonna have to figure out how to scale it if you have a significant number of users, of course.
Oh, well, and then set up some kinda access control system, of course. No problem, you can just maintain a list in the admin interface by hand. Now who was the person who looked after the list again? We need to add someone new. Why are they on vacation? Sigh. I guess we need some sort of maintenance rota for this thing. Oh, someone *did* remember to take that disgruntled guy we had to fire last month off of the list of folks approved for access? Right? right?
What's that you say, the hard disk in the file sharing server died and now everyone's lost all their data? Well, crap. Now we're bankrupt. For my new company, I guess we'd better think about redundancy and backups for the shared file server...
...okay, now NewCorp has its file server complete with expensive enterprise-level redundant storage, regular scheduled and tested backups, a rock solid access control policy and a team of five to maintain it. Great. Problem solved. Oh crap, now we need to let remote folks access it. Better hire some network admins to figure out all the necessary networking policy. Make sure nothing is exposed to people who don't work for the company. Maybe put it behind a VPN? But then we have to maintain the VPN and everyone hates dealing with access to a VPN. Also, crap, we'd best make sure this server has a solid TLS configuration. And make sure its certificates are kept up to date. And make sure the software is kept secure. What's that you say, Nextcloud is written in PHP and has a record of security vulns as long as your arm just like everything else that's ever been written in PHP? Well, crap.
tl;dr: running servers (file servers, mail servers, web servers, whatever servers) is superficially easy. Doing it in a safe, sustainable, secure way is absolutely not and it very often *is* the best idea to pay someone else who does it at scale to do it for you.
I think a nuance being missed here is that devops isn't really appropriate for all scenarios. As the article - which is actually really good! - explains, it really originated in *one specific* area: the provision of hosted web services at large scale.
If you think about it, this area has some attributes that others really don't. Most importantly for my argument here, it doesn't involve "releases" to "customers", exactly. No-one thinks in terms of "deploying Facebook 5.6". They just go to Facebook. There isn't a clear "you are a customer of BobCorp running BobSoft 3.4" relationship going on there. Also, there is - to a reasonable approximation - only *one* Facebook. There aren't 50,000 Facebook deployments in the world, with 50,000 on-site Facebook admins who each have their own concerns that might affect when they want to deploy Facebook 5.6.
If you're dealing with *this specific model* - where there's only a very small number of deployments of the codebase you're working on, and your organization has a high degree of control over them - full-fat devops, fully understood, makes an awful lot of sense. It would be rather silly for Facebook to have a Facebook Development Team cutting conventional releases of the Facebook Software, and an entirely separate ops team deploying and maintaining a Facebook Deployment using the Facebook Software. *It's all one thing*.
I think a lot of the cognitive dissonance and misunderstanding comes from people working in very different contexts not recognizing that that's what they're doing. You can't really reasonably apply the full set of devops practices if you're not working for Facebook but for BobCorp, where you deal with those 50,000 customer admins of BobSoft deployments, because *you at BobCorp don't actually do the 'ops' part*. Your customers do. So if this is your situation, naturally devops is going to seem like bullshit to you.
Then there's the more complex cases - like maybe BobCorp has its own internal deployment of BobSoft. Should BobCorp follow devops principles for its own deployment, but also have a process for cutting releases and supporting external customers with conventional releases? Or should it treat its own internal deployment as just another customer?
Bottom line, devops only really works/makes sense when there can be a single process with control over all the significant deployments of the software being developed, and the development of the software can be integrated into that process such that you can have a very high degree of confidence that any code which passes the commit tests can be sent out to all those significant deployments immediately and will not break anything.
Golf's a bit like skiing, in that the most expensive outfits and equipment either look a) extremely dull or b) hideous.
Depends what you paid for. It seems like you get a pretty cool-looking, ridiculously fast car with extremely good battery range compared to other EVs. But it does indeed seem like you *don't* necessarily get something very reliable and well-built.
So, I mean, it probably depends a lot on whether you're comparing it to something else fast, sporty and stylish (but probably also quite fragile, and possibly more expensive), or to some kind of very mature-platform-based German/Swedish sedan that'll run for ten thousand miles on chip grease and crossed fingers.
If I was buying an EV I'd probably be looking for something duller and more reliable, and it sounds like you would too, but not everyone has the same requirements / desires...
"Electric cars are not a solution, they don't cut emissions as they simply transfer the emissions from the exhaust pipe to the power stations."
Well, no, not really. Even ignoring clean power (where I live, for e.g., 97% of power generation is hydroelectric), power stations can generate the power rather more efficiently than tiny powerplants in cars can, and the emissions can also be controlled more effectively at scale. Not to mention that power plants tend to be placed such that far fewer humans are exposed to their emissions than are exposed to the emissions from vehicle exhausts. Yes, for things like greenhouse gases this doesn't really matter, but for e.g. particulate emissions that cause lung damage, it matters *a lot*.
"Range anxiety, slow charging and so forth are of no use to anyone who is required to travel any reasonable distance in an expected time... I'm sure employers would love to hear how your shiny new environmentally friendly vehicle took you an extra 2hrs to get to the site and begin work.. because you had to charge it up halfway there... Or for those who make multiple visits to multiple clients, often in places with no access to chargers at all.. meaning yet another stop to recharge your vehicle enough to make it to the next needed mini top up."
These are all reasonable reasons why existing electric vehicles aren't suitable for *some* people, sure. I don't think anyone's suggested they are. No-one's telling people who drive their pickup 500 miles a day to replace it with a Nissan Leaf. But lots of people have cars and don't actually drive them hundreds of miles a day, they drive them fifty or fewer miles a day and just about never drive them more than a couple hundred miles. For these people, existing electric cars are already a great option.
"Fuel cells on the other hand ARE a decent and viable solution"
The market doesn't appear to agree with you there, since just about no-one is building them. They have their own issues, which you seem to just ignore entirely in favour of a blanket statement that they're "a decent and viable solution" with exactly no supporting evidence.
"as a short term fix, hybrid cars should be what people are looking to purchase until such a time as govt/business gets of their arse and puts the infrastructure in place to refuel fuel cell vehicles."
This seems weirdly prescriptive. If an all-electric car is suitable to someone's needs, who are you to tell them they "should be...looking to purchase" a hybrid instead? If you are one of the people who drives hundreds of miles a day in such a way that charging an all-electric car is impractical, sure, a hybrid may be a good choice (though they have downsides, being as how you're basically paying for two separate powertrains and the extra maintenance that results from that complexity).
"All electric vehicles are a con and the intention is to convince people to BUY MORE CARS and prop up a floundering economy caused by Labours incompetence and the Tories greed and desire to punish any one who's not rich... and god help you if you are sick or disabled... because they really loathe those types and want to see them suffer more and more each day."
This just seems to be a wild rant that's rather disconnected from reality. Plus...in the rest of your comment you seem (so far as I can make out) to be advocating incentivising the purchase of fuel cell and/or hybrid vehicles instead...so how would that be any different? They're still cars...
That, also, I'm not sure the article author entirely thought through his own timeline. If the alleged images date from before the law against "extreme pornography" (which is a crap law, but anyway), couldn't the officer potentially be describing them as "legal" on the grounds that they do meet the "extreme pornography" definition, but that wasn't illegal *at the time*?
This whole thing feels like a hell of a storm in a teacup, to me, to be honest. Is anyone really that bothered if the guy actually did look at some porn at work, assuming there was nothing else to the story? Big freakin' whoop. I can even honestly forgive him lying about it, because what else do you do? Admit it and be faced with a giant and massively hypocritical "scandal"? *Everyone* lies about looking at porn.
The error in that argument is it somehow supposes you can regulate ISPs *or* ad networks, but not both. Which is clearly not at all true.
It's perfectly reasonable to point out that Google et. al. are hardly *disinterested* backers of NN. And it's perfectly reasonable to point out that there are areas of behaviour by Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. that are highly questionable.
But the reasonable conclusion is not "...therefore we must not regulate ISPs", it's "therefore we must regulate all problematic cases of anti-competitive behaviour".
If Pai's position was "look, there's a bigger picture here, it's not OK to regulate ISP behaviour while ignoring how Google, Amazon and Facebook abuse their dominance in their markets, so we're forming a partnership with the FTC and anti-trust regulators to come up with a comprehensive plan for defending the interests of the consumer when dealing with all these Internet giants", *THAT* would be an interesting and supportable position.
"None of this would matter if there wasn't this vertical integration via merger. IMO if you don't like the way it is, that's perhaps worth a look. If content creation and ownership were separate from the pipes that push the content around, there wouldn't be much issue...There'd be no reason for AT&T or Comcast to prefer one content source over another. That's the real source of problems the way I see things."
Welp, good news on that, as Pai is also systematically loosening rules intended to prevent such consolidation of ownership of content and transmission companies!
...is that it doesn't work if only one side is interested in discoursing rationally.
The pro-NN side has *attempted* rational discourse. The response from Pai and his allies has not been "OK, let's have a reasonable discussion about this and try to lay aside our biases and come to a reasonable conclusion". It has been "LALALALAL WE CAN'T HEAR YOU AND WHATEVER YOU'RE SAYING IS WRONG ANYWAY". Rational NN discourse like "your argument that NN rules discourage investment in network infrastructure is poorly supported by real-world data" and "ISP positions on this debate are clearly self-contradictory, like arguing that they're opposed to Title II regulation not NN, but litigating against attempts to implement NN without Title II regulation, or claiming to the FCC that NN rules are a threat to business but not doing so in their legally-mandated statements to shareholders" has not been accepted and treated seriously by the FCC. It's just been completely ignored.
Note for instance that the FCC *specifically said* that it ignored all public feedback on NN which did not involve some kind of novel legal argument. Despite the fact that this has never ever been the qualifying bar for public comment in any other case I can think of.
If the FCC were actually even remotely interested in just *appearing* like it was actually doing its job of representing the public interest in telecommunications regulation, then rational discourse might be a useful choice. But it isn't, so it isn't.
Yep, there's more and more of this. I quite like my city council in a lot of ways, but one thing that drives me up the wall about them is their cheerful willingness to use foreign hosted services in critical online processes. I can't file my property tax without doing some unpaid labor teaching Google how to identify cars (thanks, reCAPTCHA, for nothing). Whenever they run any kind of survey it's inevitably done through some third-party US company. Grr.
Um. You seem to have forgotten the part where you draw any kind of logical link between your tired, stereotypical "snowflake" argument and your response to this article.
Meanwhile back in the real world, all the empirical data I've seen suggests that younger people are as concerned as, or more concerned than, older people about privacy.
I've not used either phone so I don't know what the camera quality difference really is, but there are plenty of other obvious differences between this and the 5T that you'd think should be involved in a comparison.
Most obviously, the 5T gets a 6" screen into a slightly larger body, at 80% screen-to-body ratio; the Honor's 5.15" screen is only at 70% screen-to-body ratio. i.e., it's got giant bezels. Possibly more significantly, though, there's this:
Honor 9: LTE band 1(2100), 3(1800), 5(850), 7(2600), 8(900), 20(800), 38(2600), 40(2300), 41(2500)
5T: LTE band 1(2100), 2(1900), 3(1800), 4(1700/2100), 5(850), 7(2600), 8(900), 12(700), 17(700), 18(800), 19(800), 20(800), 25(1900), 26(850), 28(700), 29(700), 30(2300), 34(2000), 38(2600), 39(1900), 40(2300), 41(2500), 66(1700/2100)
that's....really lots more LTE band coverage. If you travel a lot, having a phone which covers a lot of LTE bands is super useful. It also makes it easier to switch providers. To me this is one of the bigger features of the 5T, and it's odd it doesn't seem to get much attention.
Yes. It goes in my tennis bag. And now when I'm done playing tennis I can eat a banana, rather than trying to scrape the mushy remnants of one out from under my water bottle.
...Tesla is a *technology company*. Specifically, a battery and charger company which sticks some of its batteries in cars. You could have made similar silly objections to the original Roadster, by talking about "existing" battery and charger technology - because the whole point of what Tesla did was to introduce *new* battery and charger technology.
Tesla is selling trucks because it has new battery and charger technology to put in them. If all it had to put in them were someone else's "existing" technology, it wouldn't be selling them, because it's not a company that buys "existing" battery and charging technologies and builds vehicles around them. It's a battery and charging technology company.
The main point of replaceable batteries isn't being able to carry extras around (though that's nice too). It's being able to replace the battery when it inevitably dies. The battery technologies in current phone batteries are only good for 3-5 years before their capacity drops to unusable levels. If your phone's battery is replaceable, when this happens, you can...replace it. If it isn't, when this happens, it's time to buy a new phone.
Of course, us horrible cynics can't quite shake the notion that the manufacturers see this as a feature, not a bug.
Yeah, I have a G3, and have compared it to every significant phone that's come out since and gone 'meh'. The first that actually looks like an unarguable upgrade (aside from the non-replaceable battery, but that seems like a thing that's never coming back :/) is the Oneplus 5T, but even then all I'd really be getting is a bunch more LTE frequencies (which *would* be handy) and a fingerprint sensor. Technically it's "faster", but phones hit that point around the time of the G3 that PCs hit a bit earlier: for most typical usage, you don't actually notice any practical impact from "faster" hardware any more. Still a bit hard to justify dropping $500 on those two things as opposed to $20 on a new battery.
Oh man, I hate those too. Outside of internet connections, I saw an absolutely magnificent example of the form in a shop window recently...
* - exclusions apply"
(of course, the text in caps being gigantic, the other text being microscopically tiny). A more perfect example of an utterly meaningless ad it would be hard to find.
This is entirely true, but it still doesn't mean Firefox users are customers. You're someone's customer if you bought something from them, end of.
Looking at the count in the Add-Ons page isn't really accurate. Many addons are already ported but aren't being updated in the official store until release day or just before it. If you look up each addon that's shown as 'legacy' you may well find there's actually a ported version, or a better alternative.
The only addon I actually lost entirely without replacement in the transition was Calomel.
I don't think the removal of old extension interfaces has a lot to do directly with the performance enhancements. Removing codepaths always makes things simpler, of course, but I don't think that's the *main* reason. The main reasons the old extension interfaces are going away, AIUI, are the burden of maintaining them, and their security and reliability consequences - some of the things they allow addons to do are fundamentally not safe, and can result in instability and/or security problems.
An old blog post - https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/ - has some details on why the deprecation happened.
Customers, eh? How much are you paying for Firefox then?
NoScript and Lastpass are both ported already.
Lastpass and HTTPS Everywhere both have web extension versions already. They were made available outside of the official addon site initially, but both have stated they would be available from the official addon site by the day Firefox 57 is officially released.
I just checked, and HTTPS Everywhere was updated to the WebExtension version in the official store on 2017-10-30: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/https-everywhere/ . Lastpass was updated to the WebExtension version yesterday: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lastpass-password-manager/ . (It's also worth looking at Bitwarden, which is a fully F/OSS password manager...)
"I think you need to open up a dictionary and see what the definition of terror is:"
Why? The word in question was terrorism, not terror. They have six letters in common, but they're not the same word.
(To be very clear: not everything that causes terror is terrorism. Otherwise we'd be struggling to cope with a prison population which had suddenly swollen to include all the world's horror movie directors (at least, the good ones) and haunted house operators.)
...why are you assuming he's a 'jihadist' exactly? If I were gonna make any cases, based on the name and mugshot, I'd guess he was a Sikh.
And no, wanting a car bomb doesn't make you a terrorist. Terrorism is violence with a political objective. Thus the Las Vegas shooting, for instance, wasn't terrorism. Plenty of people have been blown up with car bombs for non-political reasons.
"The secure boot "golden key" was found a year ago as reported by this very esteemed organ."
That's not...actually what that was at all.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017