|
You worry that the FCC isn't all elected? Who the ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) elected the corporate money grubbers?
Congress has a say in anything it wants - the legislative branch makes the laws. The industrial shill in the White House may not sign it, or the Supreme Court could decide it's unconstitutional, but Congress has a say in whatever it wants. Unfortunately, the current majorities have been well paid by big business interests and want to keep it that way. In the case of the internet, now their opponents messages can be legally blocked. Probably will be.
Questionable about whether the FCC had authority - a BS Red-Herring argument.
Mike Mullikin wrote: If your government really cared about this stuff congress would have made actual laws to cover it - you know like the right-wingers drafted in 2014 only to have it killed by left-wingers.
You live in a world where only Breitbart will have internet access. The "Left Wingers" who killed it were (all three) GOP shills; the Left wingers, in fact, were the two votes against it.
Remember - in my previous post I gave you a link to show you just how this latest atrocity will play out. All you have is empty rhetoric and distractions from the reality that the purpose of these businesses is to empty your pockets into theirs.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: You worry that the FCC isn't all elected?
You missed my point. I'm not worried that the FCC isn't elected. I was pointing it out to you who seemed to think government regulation is wonderful because we elect them.
Quote: Congress has a say in anything it wants - the legislative branch makes the laws
Yet... here we are without Net neutrality laws. 
W∴ Balboos wrote: Unfortunately, the current majorities have been well paid by big business interests and want to keep it that way
Did you miss the part about the GOP drafting Net Neutrality laws in 2014 and the Democrats killing it?
W∴ Balboos wrote: a BS Red-Herring argument.
Why?
W∴ Balboos wrote: You live in a world where only Breitbart will have internet access.
 Paranoid much?
W∴ Balboos wrote: The "Left Wingers" who killed it were (all three) GOP shills; the Left wingers, in fact, were the two votes against it.
What are you talking about? You seem to be confusing a 2014 law drafted by GOP congressmen and the latest FCC commissioners vote. These are 2 completely different animals.
|
|
|
|
|
But the Internet was Net Neutrality free since 1993* and it was fine, right?
Why, after Net Neutrality only in place for 2 years is everything suddenly bad without it? 
I honestly don't understand how that could be.
*Yes, I know the Internet was around before that, but you get what I mean
|
|
|
|
|
That's what cracks me up. Whatever the FCC tried to do was invalidated by the courts so the rules never went into effect and were, regardless, never enforced. So, in fact, nothing has changed. Yet, the sky is falling.
I've wondered if it's me just getting older and crankier or if people really are freaking out more about change. (Suggest dropping the process-of-the-week and half your listeners will have a coronary, as though actually talking to people affected by your project or those affecting you is an impossible task. Turns out good managers can actually manage projects by just talking to each underling every two to three days. Who'd of thought?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I lived in a Net Neutrality free environment since I purchased the 300 baud modem for my VIC20 in '83.
At that time, I paid an amount directly proportional to my traffic.
My internet speed before the so called Net Neutrality was consistently in the 105/10 area on cable, and there was no limit on content.
Over the last 2 years, I have noticed no changes.
Real world analogs- I would like some examples of where a parallel to Net Neutrality could or has been applied, and what (if any) results there have been.
My original thought was a toll-road. Big Trucks pay more to use the same road, yet they often have reduced speed limits.
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft’s Brendan Burns, who literally wrote the book on how to manage distributed cloud systems, now wants to give developers the tools to write apps with distributed cloud computing in mind from the first keystroke. "Take me to the clouds above"
|
|
|
|
|
Because long ago we received our very own C: drive. Remember the grin? That was because now you had all the power. And like a good boy or girl, if you did your backups then that stuff was yours forever. Now kiddies, in the name of both safety of your data and access anywhere they are systematically going to take that away from you and leave you with a 24bit color vt-100 again . Albeit on your lap or in your hand. What's more is now they will have the data and the apps that you used to possess and control. Unless you say no and like a good boy or girl, do your backups and forgo access anywhere, their going to charge you whatever they want, whenever they want for things that used to be right there behind a humble yet all powerful C: drive.
Those who have no control over you love to marginalize you as someone who is dangerous to yourself to get more control over you. - Nuts to that.
Clouds are great. As long as it's your cloud box somewhere on your static ip or dynamic dns ip. I have a server in my house on a dynamic dns ip. I can access that data from anywhere.
You can do this too. And call it the cloud if you wish. 
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed - that's also why I don't sign up for streaming services (music etc). IF I want something, I'll buy a DVD or obtain a download I can store and play independently.
When I buy something, I like to own it.
|
|
|
|
|
Many people still have to attend those soul-sucking, brain-draining, pointless recurring meetings. You know the ones — they’re usually filed under euphemisms like “stand-ups”, “status”, and “check ins” and happen on a daily or weekly basis. Maybe we should set up a meeting to discuss?
|
|
|
|
|
The last AOB item in any meeting should be "should we have this meeting again". The first time the vote is "no" the meeting (and all going forward) is cancelled.
You can easily spin up a new meeting if/when you need it.
|
|
|
|
|
A stand-up meeting is not a status meeting, at least that's what I've been told.. but it is because people don't want to follow the processes put in place.
Like.. when the process owner defines the priority list, but others disagree and complain to management who then brings pressure to rearrange your schedule. Just let the process play out and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
I would gladly have a weekly meeting... but that would require some form of management, which we don't have - we have only managers.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Hold on, you can't just jump into this discussion with a pre-meeting planning session.
|
|
|
|
|
if you have daily reccuring meetings, you should just quit.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
The most dramatic cybersecurity story of 2016 came to a quiet conclusion Friday in an Anchorage courtroom, as three young American computer savants pleaded guilty to masterminding an unprecedented botnet—powered by unsecured internet-of-things devices like security cameras and wireless routers—that unleashed sweeping attacks on key internet services around the globe last fall. Beware of more than the creeper
|
|
|
|
|
In working life it's now almost expected that employees answer work-related emails after hours, or take their laptops with them on holiday. But the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life can affect people's sense of well-being and lead to exhaustion. Unless your business is pleasure
|
|
|
|
|
New research shows the power of research to point out the bleeding obvious.
Maybe, just maybe, if some of the multitude involved in these studies devoted themselves to useful activities they could help out the poor people who aren't getting a good work/life balance and there would be no need for these studies.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Internet download speeds grew more than 30 percent this year for both wireline and mobile connections as compared to a year earlier, according to new data from internet speed-test company Ookla. That makes the average download speed 40 Mbps for broadband and 20 Mbps for mobile. Not at my house, it didn't
Oh, sure. I could pay for a faster speed, but where's the fun in that?
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how developers feel about JavaScript, one thing is for certain: the programming language keeps evolving year after year. It's true! 'Boring' is not the word I use to describe JavaScript
I can't use the actual word here.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I can't use the actual word here.
Something that's 'Boring' through your colon?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty close to it, yes. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I can't use the actual word here.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
After seven years of development, Avast open-sources its machine-code decompiler for platform-independent analysis of executable files. "There are no secrets except the secrets that keep themselves."
|
|
|
|
|
Well that seems wrong. / Got mine! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
