3,510 karma · joined August 4, 2012
I'd show them this video: http://vimeo.com/71278954
Calling bull. MSIE has never been "entangled" with the OS and this has in fact been proven in court ( http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613g.pdf pages 283 through 288 are especially noteworthy). The integration was merely a scam to defeat Netscape.
Here's a bunch of standalone versions from 1996 to 2002 (made by MSFT themselves) which can all run side by side: http://browsers.evolt.org/browsers/archive/ie/win32/
On the same site, you can find MSIE for HP-UX and Solaris.
But not English, I can't make sense of them.
> There's also a rich syntax highlighting
> invokes vim
Durrrrr
If it has a remote code execution vulnerability, it's trivial to make it send spam (or do all kinds of things) whether a MUA was already present or not.
You're saying it as if it were a bad thing.
What I usually do is I copy the .git to another name before running zip, so it doesn't extract as .git :)
This is also one of the reasons you shouldn't commit binaries, especially large ones.
I've read this 10 times but I can't follow. In particular, who is this "you" exactly? And what kind of impact?
2) it might not be feasible to offer third-party colocation in every part of your network where there is bandwidth oversubscription.
This is not a concern for net neutrality but rather the individual ISPs. No ISP is obliged to offer any kind of hosting whatsoever.
That would be a sad state of affairs.
> So, when it comes to state action, "net neutrality" will mean whatever the government says it means
I'm no expert, but I don't think this accurately depicts how the legislative branch works.
> Your definitions won't matter once the bill is passed and/or the regulatory interpretation is promulgated.
Chillax, you appear to have a very grim view of your nations governance. That's fine and all, but it doesn't change what net neutrality is about so I'm not really sure how this is relevant. TFA opposes the FCC in the interests of net neutrality and more often than not, people have wildly varying ideas about what that means for service providers, content providers, and subscribers.
1) Net neutrality doesn't mean everyone gets the exact same speed. ISPs are free to offer a plethora of offerings each with their own price, speed and extras (if any). There are also no new guarantees to subscribers, i.e. if the wiring is crap deal with it.
2) CDNs have nothing to do with net neutrality. A typical large ISP will offer co-location services and content providers may use the service the same as any other customer. There can even be other arrangements as they see fit, but the important thing is that no one messes with the tubes.
3) Again, just in case because this is brought up a lot, ISPs can still offer filtered subscriptions. There's a market demand for filtered subscriptions and catering to that demand is fair game.
4) ISPs are still free to apply filters on traffic in the interests of maintaining their network. This is important for example when dealing with (D)DoS attacks or worm outbreaks.
Net neutrality levels the playing field for content providers, so if you get VoIP from your ISP the service may still be better than that of a given competitor by virtue of having less latency. But what the ISP cannot do is artificially inflate their advantage, as doing so would be in violation of a free market on the Internet.
EDIT: disambiguated things
And NodeJS is bad ass rock star tech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzkRVzciAZg