You will then refer to the standard to find U+1F351 PEACH and U+1F346 AUBERGINE (Eggplant), and be amazed at the bountiful harvest your friends have had this year.
> The term "real-time" is often misused or misunderstood. We'll define it as "a provable guarantee of meeting an execution deadline when scheduling a task". In this sense, no, it is not a real-time system. If you have hard deadlines like controlling the robotic arm in an assembly line, this is not the OS for you. On the other hand, if by real time you mean "snappy performance", that we've got in spades. Our interrupt overhead is next to nothing, and there is so little background activity going on that our response time might often rival that of a real-time system.
Yeah, but isn't it in the private roads' owners benefit to reduce congestion, so they create HOV lanes? And what if they want to promote certain kinds of cars like electric and hybrid and therefore allow them to drive in the HOV lanes? Shouldn't they be allowed to?
Edit: Not that I necessarily agree, but this seems like a flaw in the analogy.
FWIW HOV lanes actually increase congestion in practice, because the benefit from getting a small number of additional people to carpool is less than the efficiency loss from operating the lane at less than its carrying capacity during congestion.
And the correct analogy for what they want to do is that the road company also owns a car company and is restricting the lanes you can use and charging higher tolls for not buying one of their cars, because they want to monopolize the car market.
> Only sites whitelisted by the device can even request permission to connect because the device is integrated into the web security model.
> Shady sites cannot even request permission to interact with the device.
It seems like a giant flaw in this model is that once the service goes away for any reason your device is completely useless. You don't have the 'driver' any more and the device won't connect to a RE'd or alternate free 'driver'.
> That was the major point of dispute, since taxi drivers usually get loans to buy these plates knowing that they can re-sell then anytime. Uber changed that.
So fundamentally their complaint is: "My investment carried a risk"
Why the hell not? It's a proper noun, and we capitalize them. The proper noun "Internet" refers to a specific instance of an "internet", a common noun.
But in real-world usage the word "internet" always refers to the internet. You would never refer to "an internet"—more likely terminology would be "intranet," "LAN" or "corporate network," or, in a historical context, something along the lines of "internet precursor."
Going further, "internet" is wrong. There have been, and still are in some cases multiple internets. The Internet may dwarf the others in size, but the distinction is still an important technical point (AP rules be damned).
Technical correctness is moot when the majority already (mis)understands a word's meaning. Regardless, "internet" is just a laughably generic abbreviation of "interconnected (computer) network". On the technical front, I would think WAN/MAN/LAN would be the more proper technical terminology, right?
This whole conversation reminds me of the unwinnable fight to get popular media/culture to use "cracker", rather than the over-used and technically incorrect "hacker", when malicious black-hattery is afoot.
Technical correctness and precision language is what enables those of us who build the future to progress forward. Incorrect language and imprecise thinking holds back those who do not clear their minds, preventing them from contributing themselves to the global project of progress. These things do matter.
Sensible defaults are not a harm to technical correctness or precision. It's not like anyone would be able to refer to any of the other internets without at least a qualifying adjective, and it would likely require much more context than that.
1 - I'm torn on how to handle the evolution of language. On the one hand, language evolves and mutates. To complain that people use "literally" wrong is to shout at the tide. On the other hand, words have specific meanings, and if we discard those for different meanings, what takes up the slack? If "literally" now means "emphasized figuratively", what then would I say to use the old meaning? If "meme" now means captioned pic, how do I refer to a concept transferred between people? I really don't mind language evolving, but the loss of precision bothers me.
2 - Re: the "unwinnable" fight to promote "cracker" over "hacker". I'd argue that this fight had some success! Not that anyone says "cracker", but that the definition of "hacker" moved from "treacherous programmer" to "skilled computer programmer, which allows for the possibility of threat". No idea what the dictionary says, but when I hear "hacker" used in the media these days, it _feels_ different than it did in the late-90s, early-aughts. Perhaps that change would've happened without the attempt to emphasis a difference, but I'm inclined to believe the effort had some payoff.
I fear that today, most people's understanding of the Internet is the Web or, worse, Facebook. This isn't necessarily a misconception we want to promote either.
Which "things" constitute proper nouns is at least a bit ambiguous. In general, there's a tendency to capitalize new terms that haven't entered the broad lexicon. So, at various times, it's been common to see the Web, Big Data, Open Source, and so forth. The problem with doing things this way is that you either 1.) End up dropping the caps semi-arbitrarily at some point or 2.) you end up with sentences like "I commonly use Open Source Software on the Web to do my Big Data analyses."
My usage of the internet really isn't that much different from my usage of the automobile. I don't know why you think it's a proper noun. It's just the name of the thing.
I would be in favor of any new technology for the web requiring TLS. It provides both a carrot (of new features) and a stick (of falling behind competitors) for people to get off their asses and secure the web from a whole host of attacks.
Even if your page doesn't have sensitive information on it, an insecurely loaded page provides an attacker the avenue to inject potentially malicious code. This will be the case until the entire web is HTTPS-enabled.
