You're an argumentative person who insists on trying to be right, even when asked many times to provide sources. You don't provide sources because there aren't any.
Stop making up this stupid silly nonsense and go back to your ditch-digging. You're doing a wonderful job here so I'm guessing that's what you do for a living.
Also next time you want to play footloose with a dictionary, use a real one, not whatever you made up from EuroDictionary™.
Paul once again opened his talky-talky without engaging his thinky-thinky and said:
I am glad a lot of those actually in charge of the way the web works aren't as dumb or petty as you, but that doesn't change the fundamental issue being discussed.
No, the "Internet" is not "the way the web works." The Internet is not centralized. Neither is "the web."
Call me dumb -- that isn't the word you mean. Dumb means incapable of speech.
Call me petty -- that's just an ad hominem.
It doesn't change the fact that I've founded, participated, and sold Internet companies since before you even got on the net.
But hey, knock yourself out.
Good night,
E
P.S. I note you responded to nothing I wrote, provided no links, didn't fix your grammar, etc. That's telling! Don't call anyone "dumb" again. It's wrong and it's insulting to people who can't talk.
Me about the Internet: "It's a network of networks, and there's nothing centralized about it"
Idiot: Wrong
Idiot continues talking about AWS.
Idiot adds:
Well, calling me names doesn't help discuss the actual argument I was making
Right. You were making an idiotic argument that AWS/Google/Microsoft/Facebook is "the centralized Internet".
It's idiotic, indefensible, and you should stop there and repent.
Instead you should probably look up "it's" vs "its" and "dived" vs "dove" and reflect that when you're trying to appear intellectually superior (oh, SORRY, "superioUr") you should at least appear literate.
Best small-side-of-the-pond-wishes to you,
E
BTW The bible calls them doves... the symbols of peace, ass.
Me about the Internet: "It's a network of networks, and there's nothing centralized about it"
Idiot: Wrong
Idiot continues talking about AWS.
As I said before, the Internet is an interconnection of networks. AWS, Google Cloud Services, Microsoft Azure IS NOT THE INTERNET and NEVER WILL BE. They are services ON the Internet.
The Internet is not centralized. It never was, even in the DARPA days, and hopefully never will.
Your desire to pretend that YOUR reliance on some service requires that service be up is for you to deal with your choice of vendor. It has nothing to do with the Internet, isn't centralized, and for practical purposes has nothing do with one company's geolocated servers.
Just admit it. The Internet isn't centralized. The services you pretend ARE the Internet (e.g. "AWS, Microsoft") are neither the Internet nor are centralized... but may be under the control of one global company (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook). Nobody but a European fool thinks "that's the Internet".
To sum up: As I said before, the Internet is not centralized. I'm done attempting to discuss with those who don't care, don't listen, and continue to repeat their claim. Arguing with a pig is stupid -- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
The Internet is not AWS and it's not Google and it's not Microsoft and it's not DNS and it's not any one anything. It's a network of networks, and there's nothing centralized about it. Pretending otherwise has nothing to do with "what []I'd] wish to believe" nor reality.
There was a window of opportunity for cops following the George Floyd killing.
There was a window of opportunity for cops following MLK Jr.
This is just the latest example, and it comes on the tail of cops shooting an ice-cream eating Black man in his own home, a Black man selling a cigarette, a Black woman whose husband picked up a rifle because of a no-knock raid on the wrong address, a Black man with a knee on his neck.
Lots of "Windows of Opportunit[ies] for Cops" and they took none of them.
Way too many years.
Way too many "Windows of Opportunity".
Way too many people dead.
Nice article. I just disagree this was some "new" opportunity for a part of the US culture that ignores the fact that cops have been doing this for DECADES.
There are two types of cops. Bad cops. And those who stand by and let them be bad cops.
How did he hire a "professional" gamer that couldn't even beat other racers that aren't gamers?
I think your quotes are RIGHT ON. A true "professional gamer" would not stoop to doing this. This was perpetrating fraud on the team, sponsors, and fans.
And all the telcos and ISPs have been subsidized (directly and indirectly) to do just that, since forever.
If a school or a library needs Internet service, they apply for an E-rate grant from the USAC. USAC gets money from fees tacked on to every interstate telco bill.
That is indeed subsidizing. On the other hand that doesn't make it a "a bad thing" if kids have access to education on their [grant provided] iPads, or if libraries can do e-loans of books.
Shareholders get representation at the company's board. They can certainly decide what the company does or doesn't.
No. They don't. They can get together and form committees and get majority votes and try to influence the corporation.
At the end, it is the management that makes ALL the decisions. If there is a majority (or plurality depending on the documents) of the shareholders AT THE RIGHT TIME (usually that is at annual meeting time, although usually the corporation requires that issues be brought up 90 days in advance or forever hold your peace.)
If you are a shareholder, and you don't like management's decision, you can try a takeover (hostile or not). This has high barriers to entry.
But no, shareholders don't dictate company policies.
Thad, it gives me great joy to see you froth at the mouth.
Now unbunch your panties and get back to work.
You are at work, right? As in employed, contributing to society, not trying to check up on what I post?
I appreciate all the "hard work" you do to curate links, and telling me what to post. Perhaps you'd like to be my editor? I could send you posts before I post them and you could offer constructive criticism.
If it helps your blood pressure I'm all for it.
Ehud "My BP is 120/60, and I get tested for every FAA certificate renewal -- what's yours?" Gavron
...despite being owned by the wealthiest human being in the history of the planet...
Amazon is a public company and a corporation. Its shares of stock are owned by people, none of whom are responsible for the corporation's actions -- unless, of course, they are a director, officer, or executive.
Whether one of Amazon's shareholders is a homeless person in LA or a rich person in NYC doesn't change the calculus.
Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. So back to the point:
...despite being owned by the wealthiest human being in the history of the planet...
Your shareholders' wealth doesn't in any way require you to do anything. Your corporate governance board, documents, oversight, and managers do.
As a film creator with a clearly available online copyright with the Copyright office I am constantly trying to get one particular film of ours, which plays illegally on sites with our copyright line, taken off.
Can you clarify if the issue is that they're "distributing" your video, or "making available" your video... because what I see is you are saying "... our copyright line, taken off." Is that a watermark?
Can you clarify what exactly the legal violation is.
NOTE: I'm trying to understand what you mean from a legal perspective. I'm not "judging" your claim or your rights or your ability to defend yourself ... so there you go.
I tend to doubt it -- but only because GRUB owns DoorDash, and they are a public company.
If it weren't for that though... yes.
Here in Tucson, Arizona we have a "local chain" of Mexican drive-through restaurants. They're all in individual buildings - no strip malls - and are open 24 hours a day, and sell tacos, burritos, etc. for measly amounts. All are on primary arteries ... and there is no possible way 24 hours of selling $3 burritos will fund even the city tax load (let alone a mortgage or whatever).
We suspect they are money launderers for or by the drug cartel(s).
The original term "money laundering" came from the Italian mob in the US owning laundromats and running cash through the business to show a "source of income". I don't see DoorDash being a part of that.
On the post: The Decentralized Web Could Help Preserve The Internet's Data For 1,000 Years. Here's Why We Need IPFS To Build It.
I suppose when you go to the Paul T Dictionary of Stupid Definitions you can make it fit. Glad you found yourself.
In the real world the definition is
adjective
adjective: dumb; comparative adjective: dumber; superlative adjective: dumbest
1. temporarily unable or unwilling to speak. "they stood dumb while the attacker poured out a stream of abuse"https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+dumb
You're an argumentative person who insists on trying to be right, even when asked many times to provide sources. You don't provide sources because there aren't any.
Stop making up this stupid silly nonsense and go back to your ditch-digging. You're doing a wonderful job here so I'm guessing that's what you do for a living.
Also next time you want to play footloose with a dictionary, use a real one, not whatever you made up from EuroDictionary™.
E
On the post: The Decentralized Web Could Help Preserve The Internet's Data For 1,000 Years. Here's Why We Need IPFS To Build It.
Paul once again opened his talky-talky without engaging his thinky-thinky and said:
No, the "Internet" is not "the way the web works." The Internet is not centralized. Neither is "the web."
Call me dumb -- that isn't the word you mean. Dumb means incapable of speech.
Call me petty -- that's just an ad hominem.
It doesn't change the fact that I've founded, participated, and sold Internet companies since before you even got on the net.
But hey, knock yourself out.
Good night,
E
P.S. I note you responded to nothing I wrote, provided no links, didn't fix your grammar, etc. That's telling! Don't call anyone "dumb" again. It's wrong and it's insulting to people who can't talk.
On the post: The Decentralized Web Could Help Preserve The Internet's Data For 1,000 Years. Here's Why We Need IPFS To Build It.
Re: Re:
You really should reach up there and unbunch your panties. Oh, sorry, knickers.
E
On the post: The Decentralized Web Could Help Preserve The Internet's Data For 1,000 Years. Here's Why We Need IPFS To Build It.
Idiot adds:
Right. You were making an idiotic argument that AWS/Google/Microsoft/Facebook is "the centralized Internet".
It's idiotic, indefensible, and you should stop there and repent.
Instead you should probably look up "it's" vs "its" and "dived" vs "dove" and reflect that when you're trying to appear intellectually superior (oh, SORRY, "superioUr") you should at least appear literate.
Best small-side-of-the-pond-wishes to you,
E
BTW The bible calls them doves... the symbols of peace, ass.
On the post: The Decentralized Web Could Help Preserve The Internet's Data For 1,000 Years. Here's Why We Need IPFS To Build It.
Me about the Internet: "It's a network of networks, and there's nothing centralized about it"
Idiot: Wrong
Idiot continues talking about AWS.
As I said before, the Internet is an interconnection of networks. AWS, Google Cloud Services, Microsoft Azure IS NOT THE INTERNET and NEVER WILL BE. They are services ON the Internet.
The Internet is not centralized. It never was, even in the DARPA days, and hopefully never will.
Your desire to pretend that YOUR reliance on some service requires that service be up is for you to deal with your choice of vendor. It has nothing to do with the Internet, isn't centralized, and for practical purposes has nothing do with one company's geolocated servers.
Just admit it. The Internet isn't centralized. The services you pretend ARE the Internet (e.g. "AWS, Microsoft") are neither the Internet nor are centralized... but may be under the control of one global company (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook). Nobody but a European fool thinks "that's the Internet".
To sum up: As I said before, the Internet is not centralized. I'm done attempting to discuss with those who don't care, don't listen, and continue to repeat their claim. Arguing with a pig is stupid -- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Good morning, piggie.
E
On the post: The Decentralized Web Could Help Preserve The Internet's Data For 1,000 Years. Here's Why We Need IPFS To Build It.
AWS or Microsoft is no "the internet"
The Internet is not AWS and it's not Google and it's not Microsoft and it's not DNS and it's not any one anything. It's a network of networks, and there's nothing centralized about it. Pretending otherwise has nothing to do with "what []I'd] wish to believe" nor reality.
KTB
On the post: The Decentralized Web Could Help Preserve The Internet's Data For 1,000 Years. Here's Why We Need IPFS To Build It.
Utopia spam
The spam is just getting worse.
There is no such thing as a "centralized Internet", which necessarily means no such thing as a "decentralized Internet".
This is not "a very interesting opportunity to increase the security of your data" or anything.
There is nothing that will "ensure complete anonymity on the Internet".
E
On the post: No, California Law Review, Food Plating Does Not Deserve Copyright Protection
Fixed Medium
Yesterday I made white rice and chicken. I glued them onto the brand-new white plain Chinette (10 3/8") so they wouldn't move.
Then I used my woodworker spray lacquer to ensure they'd not only stay in place and not move, but also not age or spoil.
Then I took a picture.
I'm 100% sure I own the copyright on the picture ;-)
E
P.S. I deleted the picture. That stuff was inedible and I had to throw it out.
On the post: Wisconsin Court Dumps Conviction Of Middle School Kid Who Drew A Picture Of A Bomb
Quick question about the Constitution...
I haven't had a social studies class in a while so maybe someone can help refresh me.
Where in the Constitution does it say rights don't apply to students or that those rights are limited, and why would we beg that question?
E
On the post: Cops -- Newly Wary Of Looking Like Authoritarian Assholes -- Open Fire On, Arrest Journalists
The window of opportunity...
There was a window of opportunity for cops following MLK Jr.
This is just the latest example, and it comes on the tail of cops shooting an ice-cream eating Black man in his own home, a Black man selling a cigarette, a Black woman whose husband picked up a rifle because of a no-knock raid on the wrong address, a Black man with a knee on his neck.
Lots of "Windows of Opportunit[ies] for Cops" and they took none of them.
Way too many years.
Way too many "Windows of Opportunity".
Way too many people dead.
Nice article. I just disagree this was some "new" opportunity for a part of the US culture that ignores the fact that cops have been doing this for DECADES.
There are two types of cops. Bad cops. And those who stand by and let them be bad cops.
E
On the post: Professional Race Car Driver Hires Expert Gamer To Race His Video Game Car
Re: Poor investment
I think your quotes are RIGHT ON. A true "professional gamer" would not stoop to doing this. This was perpetrating fraud on the team, sponsors, and fans.
E
On the post: Last Minute Addition To Louisiana Bill Hamstrings Community Broadband
ISPs being subsidized
If a school or a library needs Internet service, they apply for an E-rate grant from the USAC. USAC gets money from fees tacked on to every interstate telco bill.
That is indeed subsidizing. On the other hand that doesn't make it a "a bad thing" if kids have access to education on their [grant provided] iPads, or if libraries can do e-loans of books.
https://www.usac.org/e-rate/
E
On the post: Local Broadcasters Forget Journalism Ethics, Air Amazon PR Fluff Instead
Shareholders don't dictate company policies
No. They don't. They can get together and form committees and get majority votes and try to influence the corporation.
At the end, it is the management that makes ALL the decisions. If there is a majority (or plurality depending on the documents) of the shareholders AT THE RIGHT TIME (usually that is at annual meeting time, although usually the corporation requires that issues be brought up 90 days in advance or forever hold your peace.)
If you are a shareholder, and you don't like management's decision, you can try a takeover (hostile or not). This has high barriers to entry.
But no, shareholders don't dictate company policies.
Ehud
On the post: Consumer Reports Finds Numerous Home Routers Lack Even Basic Security Protections
Re: Re: Re: Re: UDP is the new bad guy?
Thad, it gives me great joy to see you froth at the mouth.
Now unbunch your panties and get back to work.
You are at work, right? As in employed, contributing to society, not trying to check up on what I post?
I appreciate all the "hard work" you do to curate links, and telling me what to post. Perhaps you'd like to be my editor? I could send you posts before I post them and you could offer constructive criticism.
If it helps your blood pressure I'm all for it.
Ehud "My BP is 120/60, and I get tested for every FAA certificate renewal -- what's yours?" Gavron
On the post: Local Broadcasters Forget Journalism Ethics, Air Amazon PR Fluff Instead
Corporations, shareholders, and public companies
Amazon is a public company and a corporation. Its shares of stock are owned by people, none of whom are responsible for the corporation's actions -- unless, of course, they are a director, officer, or executive.
Whether one of Amazon's shareholders is a homeless person in LA or a rich person in NYC doesn't change the calculus.
Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. So back to the point:
Your shareholders' wealth doesn't in any way require you to do anything. Your corporate governance board, documents, oversight, and managers do.
Stick to IT.
E
On the post: AT&T Won't Stop Lying About 'Fake 5G'
Wireless carriers lie
Well said. These wireless carriers are lying to us and this should stop.
E
On the post: The Great Pizza Arbitrage Scheme Of 2020 Is Spotlighting The Strangeness Of Food Delivery Services
Racist much
Black cab drivers have no such rep in NYC.
Peace out.
E
On the post: The Great Pizza Arbitrage Scheme Of 2020 Is Spotlighting The Strangeness Of Food Delivery Services
Re: Re: Re: OMG Clever!
Licensing rules vary. AirBNB is legal. Uber is legal.
Party houses? Next you'll bring up child molestation or copyright infringement. Stop with this.
There's nothing unlawful about anything here. If there was, BIG HINT there'd be a lawsuit. D'oh.
E
On the post: Does The US Copyright Office Not Know That Copyright Policy's Main Stakeholders Are The Public?
Clarification request
California Animator: you wrote:
Can you clarify if the issue is that they're "distributing" your video, or "making available" your video... because what I see is you are saying "... our copyright line, taken off." Is that a watermark?
Can you clarify what exactly the legal violation is.
NOTE: I'm trying to understand what you mean from a legal perspective. I'm not "judging" your claim or your rights or your ability to defend yourself ... so there you go.
Happy Saturday,
Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ
On the post: The Great Pizza Arbitrage Scheme Of 2020 Is Spotlighting The Strangeness Of Food Delivery Services
Money laundering
I tend to doubt it -- but only because GRUB owns DoorDash, and they are a public company.
If it weren't for that though... yes.
Here in Tucson, Arizona we have a "local chain" of Mexican drive-through restaurants. They're all in individual buildings - no strip malls - and are open 24 hours a day, and sell tacos, burritos, etc. for measly amounts. All are on primary arteries ... and there is no possible way 24 hours of selling $3 burritos will fund even the city tax load (let alone a mortgage or whatever).
We suspect they are money launderers for or by the drug cartel(s).
The original term "money laundering" came from the Italian mob in the US owning laundromats and running cash through the business to show a "source of income". I don't see DoorDash being a part of that.
E
Next >>