|
Lambert posted:That's meaningless when your local provider is the one that controls access to his customers. It's absolutely possible to slow down or shut down access to specific services, has nothing to do with "principles of global network connectivity". That has nothing to do with net neutrality, censored/filtered ISPs never were illegal in the US. An ISP in that business - typically "Christian Family" providers - simply has to inform you that they're going to be doing such stuff.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
That is net neutrality. A censored/filtered ISP isn't providing equal and non-discriminatory access to the internet. Also, this was a thing hotly debated when EU net neutrality rules were being discussed: If the way to get around those regulations is simply saying "we're not providing universal access", net neutrality rules are pretty much meaningless considering the general lack of consumer choice in ISPs. There are no "principles of global network connectivity" that guarantee net neutrality. Lambert fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Lambert posted:That is net neutrality. A censored/filtered ISP isn't providing equal and non-discriminatory access to the internet. You're free to rant like that, it's simply not true. Net neutrality itself was never guaranteed and will never be guaranteed yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
I mean, big blocks of the internet enforcing net neutrality certainly does help. Yes, there will always be segments you won't be able access in a non-discriminatory way because they're outside of the FCC's jurisdiction. And even with net neutrality, there are still dirty tricks to be played in terms of not upgrading interconnects or not using public exchanges and the like. But that doesn't mean net neutrality legislation isn't necessary and useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Lambert posted:I mean, big blocks of the internet enforcing net neutrality certainly does help. Yes, there will always be segments you won't be able access in a non-discriminatory way because they're outside of the FCC's jurisdiction. And even with net neutrality, there are still dirty tricks to be played in terms of not upgrading interconnects or not using public exchanges and the like. But that doesn't mean net neutrality legislation isn't necessary and useful. The FCC never banned ISPs that filtered or blocked internet services in the first place my dude. Exactly what part of this are you not comprehending? They sure as poo poo never banned the practice of paying for private connections to avoid the constraints of public bandwidth. Also not using public exchanges for all your data isn't a fuckin "dirty trick" it's core to how every very high bandwidth service has existed online for going on 20 years now. Microsoft themselves was among the first to lean heavily on it when building out Windows Update for mass usage in the late 90s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The FCC never banned ISPs that filtered or blocked internet services in the first place my dude. Exactly what part of this are you not comprehending? They sure as poo poo never banned the practice of paying for private connections to avoid the constraints of public bandwidth. What part of this paragraph am I misunderstanding here? quote:... the FCC in 2015 issued the Open Internet Order which reclassified ISPs as Title II services and giving them authority to enforce net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Volguus posted:What part of this paragraph am I misunderstanding here? This did nothing to ban anything he mentioned. Did you read it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
 fishmech posted:The FCC never banned ISPs that filtered or blocked internet services in the first place my dude. Exactly what part of this are you not comprehending? They sure as poo poo never banned the practice of paying for private connections to avoid the constraints of public bandwidth. What are you even arguing for. That FCC regulation was always inadequate and, therefore, it being gone isn't a big problem? Then why did cable lobbyists push for this so hard? Also, I never said that they banned paying for public connections? If your argument is that the regulation was insufficient, I'd agree. And yes, avoiding public exchanges is absolutely a "dirty trick" providers use, as it can force other ISPs to use your interconnects they have to pay for, depending on location. That doesn't mean all data should flow over public exchanges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Lambert posted:
I'm saying you have no clue about net neutrality and you keep proving it by this flailing. Net neutrality is, once again, not something that was brought in by the FCC nor is it something they ever tried to keep up. It's a global gentlemen's agreement my dude. I also never accused you of saying anyone "banned paying for public connections" so not sure what you're on about there. You are arguing against fundamental structures of the internet at this point and it's not clear why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
I think you said something really dumb and are doubling down in an even dumber way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Lambert posted:I think you said something really dumb and are doubling down in an even dumber way. That would be precisely what you're doing. For example, by you accusing a basic principle of how services like Windows Update work of being a "dirty trick".
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Acting like providers aren't playing politics with interconnects is simply denying reality. You're the one that brought Windows Update into this for some reasons. Something can be used for good while also being used for bad.fishmech posted:Net neutrality is, once again, not something that was brought in by the FCC nor is it something they ever tried to keep up. It's a global gentlemen's agreement my dude. I also never accused you of saying anyone "banned paying for public connections" so not sure what you're on about there. This is meaningless word salad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I also never accused you of saying anyone "banned paying for public connections" so not sure what you're on about there. A simple mistype, should be obvious. But: Never argue with someone that double-spaces like that person is still writing on a typewriter still rings true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Acting like providers aren't playing politics with interconnects is simply denying reality. You're the one that brought Windows Update into this for some reasons. Something can be used for good while also being used for bad. And what politics would that be? Windows Update's global infrastructure relies heavily on private communication links to ISPs instead of transiting public internet exchanges though so not sure why you're trying to act like it doesn't. You make word salad complaints about "net neutrality" so don't get mad about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Unless you start making an actual point, I'm not sure why I should keep responding? Your position seems to be that it's impossible to implement net neutrality through laws and that the FCC has never tried it through regulation. No reason to argue if that's the ridiculous premise you're going with. Private links can be necessary and they can be problematic. Not sure why you keep bringing up Windows Update? Lambert fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Mar 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Unless you start making an actual point, I'm not sure why I should keep responding? Your position seems to be that it's impossible to implement net neutrality through laws and that the FCC has never tried it through regulation. No reason to argue if that's the ridiculous premise you're going with. I made the point ages ago, you insisted on coming up things unrelated to net neutrality to complain about. That point was there was never anything preventing Microsoft from making an "xbox live gold for windows" thing that would restrict you. And once again: net neutrality is not something imposed by laws. It was something invented by a bunch of gentlemen's agreements in the 90s, despite the fact that some people keep trying to assign nonsense to it like "private peering hurts my feelings". I keep bringing up Windows Update because you kept complaining about private peering, dude. We could also bring up any truly large scale data download and streaming service ever as well of course. There's nothing problematic about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Net neutrality isn't just about private peering, that's nonsense. And yes, it absolutely is about laws as well - just look at all those zero-rating offers. But I guess you should tell the EFF about your great new insights. And the FCC. And the EU. Just because net neutrality existed before laws on it doesn't mean it shouldn't be encouraged and protected by laws? Do you ever make any actual point? Also, "Xbox Live Gold for Windows" is something MS has already tried and that has nothing to do with net neutrality at all. Net neutrality doesn't mean every service on the internet has to be free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Net neutrality isn't just about private peering, that's nonsense. And yes, it absolutely is about laws as well - just look at all those zero-rating offers. But I guess you should tell the EFF about your great new insights. And the FCC. And the EU. You keep talking about things unrelated to net neutrality, why is that? I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to comprehend here, other than you seem to insist on lumping everything you don't like together as "not net neutrality". Suggestion: go back and read the start of the conversation. Here's a hint: it was a person making a false claim that net neutrality was "killed off" and therefore things would now be possible!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Just because you have your own private definition of net neutrality doesn't mean everyone else has to accept your narrow definition.
Lambert fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Mar 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Yes, NN used to be an agreement, then Obama instructed the FCC to do partial enforcement, then that was repealed by Trump admin, and then some states decided to do their own local laws and some dem candidates have it as part of their platform. Washington state is one that doesn't allow prioritized traffic, not sure how the enforcement is going, but there are real laws in places for NN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Just because you have your own private definition of net neutrality doesn't mean everyone else has to accept your narrow definition. It's not a private definition, it is the definition. Randomly declaring net neutrality is dead and private peering is evil is your own problem dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
It is absolutely not "the definition", something you would know had you ever followed the political discussion on this. Also, I never said "private peering is evil", just that it sometimes can be. Stop incessantly arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Lambert posted:It is absolutely not "the definition". Feel free to believe net neutrality is dead if you want, it simply won't be true. Just like it wasn't true that there were rules preventing a "live gold for windows internet" thing like the start of the conversation was on about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
 fishmech posted:Feel free to believe net neutrality is dead if you want, it simply won't be true. Just like it wasn't true that there were rules preventing a "live gold for windows internet" thing like the start of the conversation was on about. I never argued either of these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Lambert posted:I never argued either of these things. Then why did you flip out in defense of those ideas? Seriously, did you even read the conversation before you jumped in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Lambert posted:But: Never argue with someone that double-spaces like that person is still writing on a typewriter still rings true. [Joke]
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Lambert posted:I think you said something really dumb and are doubling down in an even dumber way. https://forums.somethingawful.com/stats.php?statid=4&all=#jump Same user is on there twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Wow I didn't know Pick annoyed more people than fishmech
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/6/18253474/microsoft-windows-calculator-open-source-github Finally, the REAL problems can be addressed. First step: Roll back to pre-windows 10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Great, can we now fix that one-pixel misalignment bug?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:Great, can we now fix that one-pixel misalignment bug? That's probably why they open-sourced it: so someone else could!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Don't worry, I've increased it to two pixels and put in the pull request e- drat they accepted it already, looks like they're really on top of this project baka kaba fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Don't worry, I've increased it to two pixels and put in the pull request  if true
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
From the latest fast ring insider build notes:quote:We fixed an issue in memcpy that caused some drivers to hard-hang the system on load; this could manifest as a hang on upgrade, depending on the system. - How complicated/convoluted is their memcpy? - How does it make it past testing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
But it didn't make it past testing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Im just surprised they are screwing around with memcpy after all these years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:From the latest fast ring insider build notes: Maybe their memcpy behaved like memmove, they decided to "optimize" it (in a way that made it behave not like memmove) which broke drivers which were using memcpy when they really needed memmove, and had to revert it. There's even a Linus Torvalds rant about this from when Fedora pulled this exact same maneuver with a glibc patch that broke a whole bunch of stuff. Mr.Radar fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Im just surprised they are screwing around with memcpy after all these years. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Should I update to 1809 now? I've read online that it can break things after updating and I'm running an older system (i5-2500K, P67 chipset, GTX1070).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
spasticColon posted:Should I update to 1809 now? I've read online that it can break things after updating and I'm running an older system (i5-2500K, P67 chipset, GTX1070). I've been considering the same thing myself, but decided I'd give it another month or so to see how the new Retpoline Spectre v2 mitigation shakes out. edit to elaborate: from what I understand, it's currently available to 'seekers' (people who manually click the 'Check for Updates' button) on 1809. Haven't gotten around to checking if/when it'll be generally rolled out. astral fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Mar 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 22:56
|
|