There's an Ars Technica article where a guy points out that the cable companies have a 97% profit margin on Internet. Not 100% it's true, but it sounds about right...

Alex, your multiple repostings of identical content is spam.

I have used your software. It works as advertised. However, it doesn't justify multiple copies of the same message in the same thread. That doesn't do anything except make people tune you out as "mere noise" even if what you have to contribute might not be.

Honestly.

And you don't have to talk about yourself in the third person. OK?

Peace.

--
BMO/Dan

>clarityray

Is dead.

Acquired by Yahoo.

Just so you can update your spam. HTH.

--
BMO

They feel entitled to make a profit by any means necessary, while you feel entitled to their content or service by any means necessary.

The former is true

The latter isn't. If the "content providers" suddenly put all their stuff behind paywalls, I'd ignore them. I wouldn't even bother trying to "subvert" such paywalls. You know that "you've used up your free views for this month" BS that you run into with the NYT and such? My panties don't get in a twist, I just close the window and go elsewhere. I don't use bugmenot even today. I'm one of very many people who feel this way.

Let me reiterate: I block ads. They post their content and they take their chances. If they put up the paywalls, they "disappear" for me and I'm fine with it.

So let's ask the "what if everyone did that" evaluation of human behavior to examine what damage might be done if all that revenue disappeared from the Internet: Many "content providers" that depend purely on ad revenue would close (like Gawker Media, Dice, etc.,) and it would wind up like it was back in the mid 1990s shortly before the explosion of commercial "content."

Please, please let this happen.

--
BMO

That's the problem isn't it?

Collect everything means that all your intelligence is hidden by piles and piles of cat memes.

Because the Internet isn't a series of tubes, it's a single cat with infinite meowing heads and infinite tails to pull.

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." -- Attributed to Albert Einstein.

--
BMO

But the reality is, most sites with ads are infested with literally dozens of third party crapware, places which sideload junk into your system (specifically through crap like Flash), and which want to collect collate and sell your private information.

This.

And you know what I've found out? The "serve ads" and "collate demographics to sell" industries have merged completely. There is probably nobody left that merely serves ads and doesn't track across websites. Go ahead and delete Adblock Plus and run /only/ Ghostery and Privacy Badger. You get nearly the exact same results as if you ran an adblocker that uses a popular list.

Why Privacy Badger on top of Ghostery? Because it gets the things whitelisted by Ghostery. You didn't think that Ghostery was pure as the driven snow, did you?

--
BMO

Get in line.

Technically that is correct, which was the point of this whole topic. But that is the basic intent and they are about as close as it comes.

Just two comments here, though there are many I could make.

First, income inequality is NOT the real issue. Why should you care who is or is not rich? The PROBLEM is poverty.

Second, my whole point was that it is very easy to show that income inequality has become WORSE, the more statist the U.S has become. I'm not saying that correlation proves causation, but the existence of a correlation is indisputable.

Waze wasn't bad about collecting information until it was acquired by Google.

This is a patently ridiculous assertion. A copyright holder can voluntarily place a work in the public domain (that's what GPL and Creative Commons are all about, for example). In fact that's what this whole discussion is ABOUT. Have you read any of it?

Another patently ridiculous assertion. There doesn't have to be a law "allowing" it. That's not how the law works. It would not be possible only if there were a law against it.

The FACT is, not many years ago Congress passed a law that put millions of works that were formerly in the public domain back under copyright. That is the incident that caused EFF to start pushing for a law that would make that no longer possible.

So you are WAY out in left field.

Don't be a jerk. The question is whether all drones should be restricted just because the President is a candy-ass.

A Federal court has already ruled that the FAA does not have authority to regulate drones, except those that enter "navigable airways". REGARDLESS of whether their use is commercial. Their regulatory authority is limited to interstate commerce, which is the basis for the definition of navigable airways.

The solution to the Whitehouse problem is simply to make it illegal to fly drones THERE. Not to regulate them everywhere else.

The FAA has appealed the court's ruling, but based on evidence and precedent it is pretty clear the FAA will lose that appeal.

I have nothing against people being rich, if they got there honestly and without coercion. Government lobbying, for example, is one form of coercion because it influences regulation of others via money.

But let's face it: most of them did not get there quite honestly or without resorting to coercion. And in fact, regulations helped to get them there. Not only is that obvious on its face, you can see it in the statistics: the more "statist" and regulatory governments have been, the less well economies have done and the more income inequality we've seen.

Now they're proposing to try to fix the problem they created, by doing more of what created it. Typical government idiocy.

And as for "unrest", they aren't going to be able to regulate that away. On the contrary: at least here in the U.S., if they don't start lightening up on Federal regulation, they're going to see far worse problems and more unrest than they have so far.

The only way it would put cops in danger were if someone were out there with the sole intention of killing cops... and not some particular cop, but any cop. Because the app just says "cop", not who.

So either this sherriff's association has their heads completely up their asses, or what they're really doing is boo-hooing over the fact that people are interfering with their daily traffic ticket quota. Which means they have their heads up their asses, because what they should be doing is solving crimes.

Pascal might be underrated but it doesn't matter. There is no place for Pascal in the modern programming world.

When I went to college, Pascal was the standard teaching language. I have studied it pretty thoroughly and I understand it pretty well.

Pascal was designed as a teaching language. There are features in Pascal that are stripped-down, and I think it was just to make the teaching easier. In particular, why must all goto labels be integers rather than strings? I'd much rather write goto cleanup_after_fatal_error than goto 1000. It was a tiny bit simpler to write a Pascal compiler because of this limitation.

If you know C and really want to understand why Pascal didn't win over C, get a copy of Software Tools in Pascal. Look at all the places they had to work around limitations in Pascal, and consider how to write similar code in C. In all the cases, I realized that they simply wouldn't have had a problem in C.

Also, after writing the above book, Brian Kernaghan wrote an essay Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Programming Language and if you have rose-colored glasses for Pascal I suggest you read it.

C really is the king of the "third-generation languages". In its earliest form it had dangerously little type-checking, but in its modern form (where you use function prototypes so the compiler can check types) it has type checking similar to Pascal, with all the benefits that provides. And it has all the little things I appreciate, such as terminating a loop early using break. In Pascal, to terminate a loop early you needed to either clutter up the loop conditionals with an extra flag variable (early_exit or some such) or else you had to use goto to break out (with a numeric label target, of course).

"But wait," some of you are muttering. "I used to write Pascal programs and I remember using break..." No, you didn't used to write Pascal programs: you used to write Turbo Pascal programs. When Borland created Turbo Pascal they fixed all of the worst problems of Pascal, pretty much by just doing whatever C did first. I wrote a lot of Turbo Pascal and I liked it very much.

But this points out the biggest problem of Pascal: it was not well specified, and as a result it didn't work a lot of the time. Where a spec is weak, you tend to get different implementations doing different things, which is horrible for portability. The wonderful book Oh, Pascal! discusses the brokenness of the I/O in Standard Pascal, and the various ways that Pascal implementations work around the problem, and summarizes with Cooper's Law of Standards: "If it doesn't work, it doesn't stay standard."

For Pascal to have a niche, it should do something a lot better than C, for it is C that it needs to displace. But IMHO there really isn't anything it does very much better than C, and there are numerous areas where it's a non-starter unless it copies features from C.

Given the massive installed base of C, C isn't going anywhere, and that leaves no room for Pascal; Pascal does the same sort of things as C does, but not as well.