Why do you presume I'm asking to give my life over to the gov't when I support regulation of ISPs?
Are you deliberately missing the point when you say "corporations [will restrict] customers to the point where it is a net loss on their end" when that's not what I said at all? Corporations will do whatever it takes to make a profit regardless of whose rights they trample, that's the point.
There's no one boogey-man. If you let either one get too powerful you'll end up losing rights.
f you limit the power the government has over your life, then it doesn't matter who "controls" the government.
Except the gov't isn't the only one who can hold power over you. The market holds just as much sway over your life. The market has no incentive to protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness beyond making money from those three things. Indeed, breaking net neutrality is inevitable under current regulations because there is profit to be gained by breaking it. Freedom of speech a problem for your companies product? Just pay us extra for those pages to be "undeliverable". Hey it's not illegal, we're not the gov't, you still have your freedom of speech. Just because Rupert Murdoch bought NYC's major ISPs and foxnews.com now loads 10 times as fast as any other news site(if at all) because they paid for premium access doesn't mean you've lost your freedoms because we're not the gov't. You're free to move to another area if you want to find an ISP that's different(even though it probably does the same things to remain competitive).
There's top down bias, and then there's bottom up bias.
The original bias of Wikipedia was mostly bottom up bias. Lots of users could edit Wikipedia, but only certain demographics are actually interested editing a given article.
Lots of people don't like the new editing system because it can introduce a top down bias. A small group of editors or even a single editor and effectively control the tone of an article. The goal of this is to be slanted towards encyclopedia-style objectivity, but it is a bias that didn't exist previously.
People fear that advertising could introduce another top-down bias as it has in other organizations. The higher ups at Wikipedia might be worried about an advertiser pulling income from the site if it disagreed with one of their articles.
Michael Moore spins highly sensationalized versions of the truth and uses them to imply massive corruption. This is exactly Glenn Beck's Modus Operandi. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Glenn Beck told more outright falsehoods than Michael Moore, but it's clear he tells his share as well. Hence my interest in a comparison.
Also, your post (intentionally?) is a perfect example of making a point badly. You're attempting to point out I provided no evidence previously, which is true. But the way you do it is by using what most would consider a personal attack that makes it sounds as if you view Michael Moore as an idol and Glenn Beck as a demon drawing the focus away from any fault of mine and onto yours.
You are either one of the most partisan-blinded people I have ever responded to, or an elaborate and subtle troll that was somehow modded insightful.
Calm down foamy. Michael Moore makes it his job to be controversial, it's how he makes money. In that way he's very similar to Glenn Beck. I wonder if you compared a Michael Moore movie to two hours of Glenn Beck's T.V. what the fact/exaggeration/falsehood ratio would be for each.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, I'm just confused as to why you're classifying it as libertarian, big 'L' or small 'l'. What you're talking about is a fair market rather than a laissez faire market which is what libertarian generally means.
Nice troll. Here are some helpful points in case you ever actually read my post:
legally =!= morally
"Righthaven... doesn't deserve a cent"
"Images in the news industry have a precedent of being licensed "
From a Libertarian's perspective, "meaningful" means all of those in addition to axing the health insurance industry. That system is the biggest part of the cancer that is killing us. Once healthcare providers have no choice but to make services affordable or run out of customers, they will find a way. As long as health insurance exists, they will have no need to make services affordable.
How is "axing the health insurance industry" Libertarian? Health insurance is the free market alternative to a single payer system.
And I don't exactly see the time before health insurance as a golden age for doctors or patients.
While I think that Righthaven(nice doublethink name right there) is just a huge troll and doesn't deserve a cent, it's possible they have a leg to stand on legally here. Images in the news industry have a precedent of being licensed so if one that was owned by Righthaven was used without authorization by the Drudge Report then that's different from their attempting to claim that they "owned" a news story.
If you plan on reading more books on this subject I recommend The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It can explain the point I'm trying to make much better than I can.
Right, the reply to your post was asking why the male organelles were discarded. The answer is that the nuclear DNA is persisting at the expense of the mitochondrial DNA and that this relationship came about because it is beneficial to the offspring.
There's another aspect to credibility though, and that's credibility of protecting the whistle-blowers. I can think of no faster way of preventing 10 more Wiki-Leaks than by setting up one successful honeypot to chill potential leakers.
It's a bit of both. In order to prevent the more independent organelles which have DNA from fighting for the right to live on in the successor and thereby potentially damage the cell, one of the sets of organelles must be discarded from the sex cells. The descendants of the genes that do this are more likely to have healthy offspring and pass it on to the next generation. This is the theory why in most organisms that have sex, one of the genders' sex cells will discard the organelles. Once this convention is established, genes that can gain numbers or other advantages at the cost of the healthiness of the organelles are selected for because there is no detriment to the offspring.
"I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc)."
You cannot know how much of the shorter lifespan is because of gender roles. (Be macho, binge drinking etc.)
Actually increased testosterone has been shown to decrease lifespan due to stresses on the body. But that also doesn't support the OP's argument because there's no reason for a two father child to produce more testosterone than a one father child.
Wow the rhetoric really is that extreme with appeals to current events like Afghanistan or is that one of the things you changed? I honestly thought you made it up, hence the comment about satire.
What are you saying about projection? That I'm attributing subtlety to your comment that doesn't exist or just the way the rhetoric works within the DPRK?
I take issue with calling that speech a joke. It is finely tuned satire pointing out both the hypocrisy of communist propaganda AND of American 'Not-Imperialism' while still trying to police the world.
It'd be nice if Julian could WikiLeak his own sexual assault information. As far as I've seen he's said it's a frame job but admits having sex with two women. Why not just have this out in the open and not leave people worried that backing WikiLeaks is backing a rapist?
Put what "out into the open" exactly, his penis? Unless he video-taped that time he had sex there is nothing for him to leak. I doubt he has the prosecutor's documents; he and his lawyer didn't actually know the details of the accusation until the Nov. 18th hearing for the international warrant, and I find it hard that the prosecutor would suddenly become forthcoming about this information. He offered to cooperate while he was there but the charges were "withdrawn". The Swedish authorities said they've been "trying to contact Mr Assange, but have not yet been able to" while Wiki-Leaks says "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police". This would be an easy charge for the police to refute if they had made efforts to contact Wiki-Leaks.
In short I don't think the burden of proof here is on Mr. Assange. I think the burden of proof is on the Swedish Police and INTERPOL to explain why an organization usually reserved for mass murders and other war criminals is suddenly issuing a "Red Notice" for a suspected rape case, even before the appeals process in Sweden is exhausted.
I did read your post and while my response was a bit trite it cut to the heart of the matter. Equating Network Neutrality to Fairness Doctrine is mistaken at best, deliberately obfuscating the issue at worst.
This would be insightful except it's wrong. McCain announced his choice right before the DNC. Obama had won the primaries by that point, and the only chance of Hillary being nominated was if a bunch of Democrats ignored their constituency and put their votes toward Hillary instead of Obama. While it was possible it seemed highly unlikely at that point.
I think McCain picked Palin in order to add charisma to a campaign that was sorely lacking it.
When talking about the Tea Party I think it's helpful to think of it in two ways. There's an amorphous "the Tea Party Movement" which many Americans project their generic anger at gov't spending and corruption on to, and then there's The Tea Party Express. This is the most public, legislatively powerful, and well funded entity of the Tea Party. It's mainly funded by the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch and is the entity that supported most(if not all) of the "Tea Party Candidates" that ran in the primaries and elections. It also has Sarah Palin as one of its spokespersons.
This is why many observers consider "The Tea Party Movement" to be co-opted. Its most powerful entities are the same ones that helped neo-conservative Republicans get elected in the past, and its spokespeople are cut from the same mold.
I've never understood the "derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism" for Pelosi or Reid. Can you give me some examples of initiatives, legislation, or comments that describe what you're talking about?
And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.
They're ignored because the first is a personal attack unrelated to policy, "guilt by association" style. The second is an unverifiable claim. The third is a trick of words because Obama has not had more "czars" than past presidents.
The scariest thing about him is that he's done hardly anything to change the course on 4th amendment rights. We still have the Patriot Act, he's expanded the attacks using drones to include U.S. citizens, and right would rather talk about the stuff you bring up and "death panels" than have substantive discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you presume I'm asking to give my life over to the gov't when I support regulation of ISPs?
Are you deliberately missing the point when you say "corporations [will restrict] customers to the point where it is a net loss on their end" when that's not what I said at all? Corporations will do whatever it takes to make a profit regardless of whose rights they trample, that's the point.
There's no one boogey-man. If you let either one get too powerful you'll end up losing rights.
f you limit the power the government has over your life, then it doesn't matter who "controls" the government.
Except the gov't isn't the only one who can hold power over you. The market holds just as much sway over your life. The market has no incentive to protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness beyond making money from those three things. Indeed, breaking net neutrality is inevitable under current regulations because there is profit to be gained by breaking it. Freedom of speech a problem for your companies product? Just pay us extra for those pages to be "undeliverable". Hey it's not illegal, we're not the gov't, you still have your freedom of speech. Just because Rupert Murdoch bought NYC's major ISPs and foxnews.com now loads 10 times as fast as any other news site(if at all) because they paid for premium access doesn't mean you've lost your freedoms because we're not the gov't. You're free to move to another area if you want to find an ISP that's different(even though it probably does the same things to remain competitive).
There's top down bias, and then there's bottom up bias.
The original bias of Wikipedia was mostly bottom up bias. Lots of users could edit Wikipedia, but only certain demographics are actually interested editing a given article.
Lots of people don't like the new editing system because it can introduce a top down bias. A small group of editors or even a single editor and effectively control the tone of an article. The goal of this is to be slanted towards encyclopedia-style objectivity, but it is a bias that didn't exist previously.
People fear that advertising could introduce another top-down bias as it has in other organizations. The higher ups at Wikipedia might be worried about an advertiser pulling income from the site if it disagreed with one of their articles.
That alt-text is win.
Why does no one actually ever calm down when you tell them to calm down ;-)
Example 1
Example 2
Michael Moore spins highly sensationalized versions of the truth and uses them to imply massive corruption. This is exactly Glenn Beck's Modus Operandi. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Glenn Beck told more outright falsehoods than Michael Moore, but it's clear he tells his share as well. Hence my interest in a comparison.
Also, your post (intentionally?) is a perfect example of making a point badly. You're attempting to point out I provided no evidence previously, which is true. But the way you do it is by using what most would consider a personal attack that makes it sounds as if you view Michael Moore as an idol and Glenn Beck as a demon drawing the focus away from any fault of mine and onto yours.
You are either one of the most partisan-blinded people I have ever responded to, or an elaborate and subtle troll that was somehow modded insightful.
Calm down foamy. Michael Moore makes it his job to be controversial, it's how he makes money. In that way he's very similar to Glenn Beck. I wonder if you compared a Michael Moore movie to two hours of Glenn Beck's T.V. what the fact/exaggeration/falsehood ratio would be for each.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, I'm just confused as to why you're classifying it as libertarian, big 'L' or small 'l'. What you're talking about is a fair market rather than a laissez faire market which is what libertarian generally means.
Nice troll. Here are some helpful points in case you ever actually read my post: ... doesn't deserve a cent"
legally =!= morally
"Righthaven
"Images in the news industry have a precedent of being licensed "
From a Libertarian's perspective, "meaningful" means all of those in addition to axing the health insurance industry. That system is the biggest part of the cancer that is killing us. Once healthcare providers have no choice but to make services affordable or run out of customers, they will find a way. As long as health insurance exists, they will have no need to make services affordable.
How is "axing the health insurance industry" Libertarian? Health insurance is the free market alternative to a single payer system.
And I don't exactly see the time before health insurance as a golden age for doctors or patients.
While I think that Righthaven(nice doublethink name right there) is just a huge troll and doesn't deserve a cent, it's possible they have a leg to stand on legally here. Images in the news industry have a precedent of being licensed so if one that was owned by Righthaven was used without authorization by the Drudge Report then that's different from their attempting to claim that they "owned" a news story.
If you plan on reading more books on this subject I recommend The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It can explain the point I'm trying to make much better than I can.
Right, the reply to your post was asking why the male organelles were discarded. The answer is that the nuclear DNA is persisting at the expense of the mitochondrial DNA and that this relationship came about because it is beneficial to the offspring.
There's another aspect to credibility though, and that's credibility of protecting the whistle-blowers. I can think of no faster way of preventing 10 more Wiki-Leaks than by setting up one successful honeypot to chill potential leakers.
It's a bit of both. In order to prevent the more independent organelles which have DNA from fighting for the right to live on in the successor and thereby potentially damage the cell, one of the sets of organelles must be discarded from the sex cells. The descendants of the genes that do this are more likely to have healthy offspring and pass it on to the next generation. This is the theory why in most organisms that have sex, one of the genders' sex cells will discard the organelles. Once this convention is established, genes that can gain numbers or other advantages at the cost of the healthiness of the organelles are selected for because there is no detriment to the offspring.
"I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc)."
You cannot know how much of the shorter lifespan is because of gender roles. (Be macho, binge drinking etc.)
Actually increased testosterone has been shown to decrease lifespan due to stresses on the body. But that also doesn't support the OP's argument because there's no reason for a two father child to produce more testosterone than a one father child.
Wow the rhetoric really is that extreme with appeals to current events like Afghanistan or is that one of the things you changed? I honestly thought you made it up, hence the comment about satire.
What are you saying about projection? That I'm attributing subtlety to your comment that doesn't exist or just the way the rhetoric works within the DPRK?
I take issue with calling that speech a joke. It is finely tuned satire pointing out both the hypocrisy of communist propaganda AND of American 'Not-Imperialism' while still trying to police the world.
It'd be nice if Julian could WikiLeak his own sexual assault information. As far as I've seen he's said it's a frame job but admits having sex with two women. Why not just have this out in the open and not leave people worried that backing WikiLeaks is backing a rapist?
Put what "out into the open" exactly, his penis? Unless he video-taped that time he had sex there is nothing for him to leak. I doubt he has the prosecutor's documents; he and his lawyer didn't actually know the details of the accusation until the Nov. 18th hearing for the international warrant, and I find it hard that the prosecutor would suddenly become forthcoming about this information. He offered to cooperate while he was there but the charges were "withdrawn". The Swedish authorities said they've been "trying to contact Mr Assange, but have not yet been able to" while Wiki-Leaks says "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police". This would be an easy charge for the police to refute if they had made efforts to contact Wiki-Leaks.
In short I don't think the burden of proof here is on Mr. Assange. I think the burden of proof is on the Swedish Police and INTERPOL to explain why an organization usually reserved for mass murders and other war criminals is suddenly issuing a "Red Notice" for a suspected rape case, even before the appeals process in Sweden is exhausted.
I did read your post and while my response was a bit trite it cut to the heart of the matter. Equating Network Neutrality to Fairness Doctrine is mistaken at best, deliberately obfuscating the issue at worst.
This would be insightful except it's wrong. McCain announced his choice right before the DNC. Obama had won the primaries by that point, and the only chance of Hillary being nominated was if a bunch of Democrats ignored their constituency and put their votes toward Hillary instead of Obama. While it was possible it seemed highly unlikely at that point.
I think McCain picked Palin in order to add charisma to a campaign that was sorely lacking it.
Why did you link to the fairness doctrine in a thread about network neutrality?
Who knew? I didn't think this generation's attention span lasted longer than 3 minutes.
Who knew? I didn't think any old people could use the internet.
When talking about the Tea Party I think it's helpful to think of it in two ways. There's an amorphous "the Tea Party Movement" which many Americans project their generic anger at gov't spending and corruption on to, and then there's The Tea Party Express. This is the most public, legislatively powerful, and well funded entity of the Tea Party. It's mainly funded by the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch and is the entity that supported most(if not all) of the "Tea Party Candidates" that ran in the primaries and elections. It also has Sarah Palin as one of its spokespersons.
This is why many observers consider "The Tea Party Movement" to be co-opted. Its most powerful entities are the same ones that helped neo-conservative Republicans get elected in the past, and its spokespeople are cut from the same mold.
I've never understood the "derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism" for Pelosi or Reid. Can you give me some examples of initiatives, legislation, or comments that describe what you're talking about?
And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.
They're ignored because the first is a personal attack unrelated to policy, "guilt by association" style. The second is an unverifiable claim. The third is a trick of words because Obama has not had more "czars" than past presidents.
The scariest thing about him is that he's done hardly anything to change the course on 4th amendment rights. We still have the Patriot Act, he's expanded the attacks using drones to include U.S. citizens, and right would rather talk about the stuff you bring up and "death panels" than have substantive discussion.