You forgot that they're the fucking fire department, and under title II would have meant Verizon's obligations to their service quality would have been very different than Verizon's obligations to your mom's basement.
Wow, you're a horribly shitty person, and also a liar who came here to muddy the waters. Congrats on the sock-puppet moderation, but it doesn't make you right.
Well obviously confusion is part of YOUR game, because this is PRECISELY what net neutrality has always been about. (And no, it has nothing to do with Twitter and Facebook censoring hate speech or Hillary Clinton's mother fucking emails.)
But I've seen the ads, so I know you're a paid liar. Let's just get that out up front so you can absorb this next part unfiltered:
I see no evidence of the figure $50,000. That appears to have been pulled out of your ass just as clearly as you claim all the other real evidence was. Literally only you Russian trolls are harping over and over on this nonsensical figure. What do you think that tells me about your entire statement here, and in fact your entire chain of statements going back to well before the election?
I'll give you a hint; It doesn't make you look very smart.
It kills me that only now, at long last, someone actually spending money on the ads decided to do the math to see if they're getting what they paid for.
Yes, they're cheaping out on security at every level, from staffing to decision making. This is often reported on as "ageism" but it's not just about age. It's about malleability. The technology exists, but can't be deployed safely or maintained reasonably by the type of fresh-faced college grads who won't notice that their CEO is selling backdoor access to customer data on the black market.
It's the poorest generation in centuries. When they round people like you up to cook and eat because they're legitimately starving, don't say I didn't warn you.
Why bother to quote my post only to prove you didn't even read it? I'm not gonna respond to any of this drivel, because most of it is arguments you are making, not me, and the rest is just factually incorrect.
... seeing as how fewer than half of them will ever be able to pay off their college loans. Maybe if we want to prove capitalism can work for everyone we should stop letting rich people write all the laws?
Oh I'm not arguing against the labels. In fact, I don't think they go far enough. It doesn't protect consumers from products that tangentially use GMOs in their processing (think GM peanut allergies), and it doesn't put any reasonable amount of info on the package about what types of modifications were made, nor does it place any restrictions or reasonable oversight on what type of modifications are allowed.
Exactly. If the history of how new technology has been used is any indication, we'd better be ready for "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" to become a serious problem in addition to a bad movie.
Slashdot Mirror
The International Space Station has been an unqualified success.
While many might argue that it has been unqualified, I'm fairly certain he meant unmitigated here.
You can follow him. Try not to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
You're posting to a comment thread about Venmo.
You forgot that they're the fucking fire department, and under title II would have meant Verizon's obligations to their service quality would have been very different than Verizon's obligations to your mom's basement.
STFU troll he didn't prove shit.
Wow, you're a horribly shitty person, and also a liar who came here to muddy the waters. Congrats on the sock-puppet moderation, but it doesn't make you right.
Correct, this is a perfect example of what the parent poster is talking about.
Well obviously confusion is part of YOUR game, because this is PRECISELY what net neutrality has always been about. (And no, it has nothing to do with Twitter and Facebook censoring hate speech or Hillary Clinton's mother fucking emails.)
And there would have been, if the FCC had not already been infiltrated by saboteurs.
Google: No it's not!
Everyone: Well how did you know about the article then?
Google: No comment.
But I've seen the ads, so I know you're a paid liar. Let's just get that out up front so you can absorb this next part unfiltered:
I see no evidence of the figure $50,000. That appears to have been pulled out of your ass just as clearly as you claim all the other real evidence was. Literally only you Russian trolls are harping over and over on this nonsensical figure. What do you think that tells me about your entire statement here, and in fact your entire chain of statements going back to well before the election?
I'll give you a hint; It doesn't make you look very smart.
It kills me that only now, at long last, someone actually spending money on the ads decided to do the math to see if they're getting what they paid for.
This will just become the next attack vector hackers use to compromise the systems.
As a society, we can't even agree that lying constitutes "harm" so, this already fails.
god
strawman
crowded theater: "Fire!"
G.F.Y.S.
By not having an internet connection.
Yes, they're cheaping out on security at every level, from staffing to decision making. This is often reported on as "ageism" but it's not just about age. It's about malleability. The technology exists, but can't be deployed safely or maintained reasonably by the type of fresh-faced college grads who won't notice that their CEO is selling backdoor access to customer data on the black market.
It's the poorest generation in centuries. When they round people like you up to cook and eat because they're legitimately starving, don't say I didn't warn you.
Why bother to quote my post only to prove you didn't even read it? I'm not gonna respond to any of this drivel, because most of it is arguments you are making, not me, and the rest is just factually incorrect.
Your straw man argument is as worthless as your understanding of college curriculum. What's the weather like in Siberia right now? I'm just curious.
... seeing as how fewer than half of them will ever be able to pay off their college loans. Maybe if we want to prove capitalism can work for everyone we should stop letting rich people write all the laws?
It's an obvious boondoggle. Declaring obvious boondoggles as not sinister is in itself also sinister.
... that Trump has made for America!
Oh I'm not arguing against the labels. In fact, I don't think they go far enough. It doesn't protect consumers from products that tangentially use GMOs in their processing (think GM peanut allergies), and it doesn't put any reasonable amount of info on the package about what types of modifications were made, nor does it place any restrictions or reasonable oversight on what type of modifications are allowed.
Exactly. If the history of how new technology has been used is any indication, we'd better be ready for "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" to become a serious problem in addition to a bad movie.