The conservative perspective is get rid of the government regulations that allow a few mega-corporations to have effective control over the Internet. The liberal perspective is "Well, that made things worse. Obviously, we need more of it."
Obama is not turning out to be a "pretty solid Republican president". He is turning out to be a solidly Democratic President, loudly proclaiming his fealty to the "little guy", while strongly expanding government regulations to favor the wealthy. Why do you think the highest per capita income counties and states are the most consistently Deomcratic?
The more the government regulates the more powerful corporations become. It's really easy, fight government regulation. Work to reduce the amount that government regulates economic activity. Government regulations always favor larger companies over smaller companies. I am not arguing for no government regulation, but for minimal government regulation.
There are too many people who agitate for government regulation to fix problems created by government regulation. The solution to problems created by the government is to get rid of whatever element of government caused the problem, not by creating new government regulations.
What do you mean? Obama isn't interested in fighting this. This has been what he has meant by "net neutrality" all along. The people who supported the outcome of the recent election have been trying to tell you that this was what a "net neutrality" regulation would look like. The current political climate means that there is a chance that this will get undone. If the last election had gone the other way, this would be much worse.
It's inefficient to have multiple companies covering the news, why don't we start granting news monopolies?
The only reason we have cable monopolies is because the government said there could only be one cable provider in a region. There were many companies that were interested in running cable to compete in certain areas. They, for the most part, weren't allowed. The only thing they were allowed to compete for was the local franchise. Once they had it, your only choice was them or nobody.
It is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, among others, who have been warning you idiots that this was what you were going to get when the FCC created a "Net Neutrality" regulation. They keep telling you that the big corporations like regulation because it lets them get stronger control of the market and you keep telling them to stop shilling for the corporations. Then when new regulations are passed that give more power to the corporations, you blame the people who told you that was going to happen if you kept pushing for more regulations.
This happened because people who are in favor of net neutrality believed the government when it told them that it was going to regulate the Internet to ensure "net neutrality". People kept tryin to tell them that the government was not going to enforce what those individuals meant by "net nuetrality", but was instead going to start the process of regulating Internet content using the term "net neutrality" as cover. The supporters of net neutrality replied with "What's wrong with net neutrality?" This is what's wrong with "net neutrality". "Net neutrality" enforced by the government is never going to be what you mean by "net neutrality".
Yeah, when it came out in the cables that the Swedish government was working more closely with the U.S. government than they would like to admit. You don't think that gives the Swedish government motive to act without any additional pressure?
As to me thinking that the U.S. government is the good guys, no such thing. I just don't think they are competent enough to orchestrate this. Personally, I'm not sure why Julian Assange is still walking around.
I am a stickler that if you say "very clearly" you have evidence to back it up. If the original poster had expressed their opinion in less absolutist language, I would have had no problem with that. There is reason to believe that the U.S. government would be harrassing Julian Assange. However, reasonable people can conclude that they are not doing so in this particular case since the Swedish government has sufficient motive to be after him all on their own.
The OP's phrasing came across as if they felt that reasonable people could not possibly disagree with his/her conclusion.
What do you mean that you would like to hear a success story regarding these filterings? You referred to one in your post. Finland's is a great success. It filters out those who express ideas the government does not approve of (such as the critic of the filter).
Oh, you mean successful at filtering out kiddie porn without filtering out legal content. Well, that wasn't the purpose, that was just the excuse.
The governments have already figured this out. They are just trying to figure out what catch phrases will allow them to do it without people noticing. They've been trying "blocking kiddie porn" for awhile and while that hasn't been a success yet, it also hasn't been a failure. However, in the U.S. they have figured out that "net neutrality" seems to work better. The FCC is in the process of putting controls on Internet content in the name of "net neutrality" and for the most part they have the support of the people who oppose controls that are "intended to block kiddie porn". If the FCC pulls it off, expect to see other countries start to use "net neutrality" in place of "block kiddie porn" soon.
As others have pointed out, ".kid" would be far more useful to parents than ".sex".
Actually, this is the first time I have seen this suggestion. It is one I think is a great idea. I would suggest two or three such TLDs for various age ranges. The only problem I see is with defining the limits of what is allowed to be in such a "domain". However, segregating off sites that are explicitly child appropriate seems a much safer (and saner) approach than trying to segregate off sites that are "adult only". One problem with the latter is that kids are going to want to see what's on the "adult only" sites. If you segregate out the kid friendly sites, when kids crack whatever blocking their parents have put up most of what they find in the not "kid" sites will bore them.
I would not want someone who had an arm or leg electively amputated in the military either.
I read an article by a man who was one of the initial proponents of "gender reassignment" surgery. His observation was that those who have such surgery continue to have the same psychological problems after surgery that they had before surgery. He no longer believes that "gender reassignment" surgery is in the best interests of the patient, even though he was one of those who first championed the idea.
Joe Lieberman stating that the U.S. intends to seek extradition from the U.K. does not show the U.S. is an active participant. Joe Lieberman does not work in the Administration, let alone the Justice Department or the State Department (the two Departments that would be involved with an extradition request).
The U.S. might be playing a role, but the evidence does not support "very clearly". The evidence supports the suspicion that the U.S. is involved, but not the certainty.
That supporting government regulation in the name of "Net Neutrality" is a sure fire way to help those in government who wish to expand government power.
You have successfully made the case for this being unusual. However, you have failed to show how this means that the U.S. is playing a role. Again, there is a distinct difference between "possibly" and "very clearly".
Someone else has already posted a comment that shows that the Swedish government has sufficient reason to be out to get Julian Assange without any U.S. pressure. That doesn't mean that the U.S. didn't apply pressure in this case. It just means that there is insufficient evidence to say it "very clearly" did (or at least, I have yet to see such evidence).
I'm sorry, "gender reassignment" surgery is no different than elective amputations. I don't believe that someone should have surgery because of their mental problems, they should have counseling.
However, how is a male-to-female transexual, after the operation, different from someone who was born female?
Perhaps you should study some biology. I am not going to go into all of the ways that biological science shows that physical and mental characteristics are determined by biological gender starting in the womb. Once these variations have occurred most of them are irreversible.
Being a woman or a man is not a social construct. Woman is word we use to refer to an adult female human. Man is a word we use to refer to an adult male human. Whether one is male or female is almost always determined at conception. I have nothing but sympathy for those few individuals whose biology is so messed up as to result in ambiguous gender (ambiguous gender is obvious at birth). I feel sorry for those people whose physical gender is not ambiguous who have been lead to believe that somehow they can actually change it.
I believe that men who surgically make themselves appear to be women are no less mutilating themselves than people who amputate their limbs for no medically necessary reason.
Actually, for the most part, conservatives don't trust the government not to impose control over Internet content under the guise of "net neutrality". In the beginning the regulations will be very subtle, but they will establish the precedent for government regulation of the Internet. Then bit by bit the government will extend its regulation so that it will be harder and harder to get information from anyone other than the approved mega-corporations.
That may be what you mean by Net Neutrality, but is that what the various government agents mean by Net Neutrality? Have you looked at some of the stuff that is coming out about what the FCC means by Net Neutrality?
Just because someone uses a term you understand for something doesn't mean that they are talking about the same thing you would be if you used that term.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you appear to think that Julian Assange is in the same class as Che Guevera. I don't think Julian is anywhere near that evil.
The conservative perspective is get rid of the government regulations that allow a few mega-corporations to have effective control over the Internet. The liberal perspective is "Well, that made things worse. Obviously, we need more of it."
Obama is not turning out to be a "pretty solid Republican president". He is turning out to be a solidly Democratic President, loudly proclaiming his fealty to the "little guy", while strongly expanding government regulations to favor the wealthy. Why do you think the highest per capita income counties and states are the most consistently Deomcratic?
The more the government regulates the more powerful corporations become. It's really easy, fight government regulation. Work to reduce the amount that government regulates economic activity. Government regulations always favor larger companies over smaller companies. I am not arguing for no government regulation, but for minimal government regulation.
There are too many people who agitate for government regulation to fix problems created by government regulation. The solution to problems created by the government is to get rid of whatever element of government caused the problem, not by creating new government regulations.
What do you mean? Obama isn't interested in fighting this. This has been what he has meant by "net neutrality" all along. The people who supported the outcome of the recent election have been trying to tell you that this was what a "net neutrality" regulation would look like. The current political climate means that there is a chance that this will get undone. If the last election had gone the other way, this would be much worse.
It's inefficient to have multiple companies covering the news, why don't we start granting news monopolies?
The only reason we have cable monopolies is because the government said there could only be one cable provider in a region. There were many companies that were interested in running cable to compete in certain areas. They, for the most part, weren't allowed. The only thing they were allowed to compete for was the local franchise. Once they had it, your only choice was them or nobody.
It is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, among others, who have been warning you idiots that this was what you were going to get when the FCC created a "Net Neutrality" regulation. They keep telling you that the big corporations like regulation because it lets them get stronger control of the market and you keep telling them to stop shilling for the corporations. Then when new regulations are passed that give more power to the corporations, you blame the people who told you that was going to happen if you kept pushing for more regulations.
This happened because people who are in favor of net neutrality believed the government when it told them that it was going to regulate the Internet to ensure "net neutrality". People kept tryin to tell them that the government was not going to enforce what those individuals meant by "net nuetrality", but was instead going to start the process of regulating Internet content using the term "net neutrality" as cover. The supporters of net neutrality replied with "What's wrong with net neutrality?" This is what's wrong with "net neutrality". "Net neutrality" enforced by the government is never going to be what you mean by "net neutrality".
Yeah, when it came out in the cables that the Swedish government was working more closely with the U.S. government than they would like to admit. You don't think that gives the Swedish government motive to act without any additional pressure?
As to me thinking that the U.S. government is the good guys, no such thing. I just don't think they are competent enough to orchestrate this. Personally, I'm not sure why Julian Assange is still walking around.
I am a stickler that if you say "very clearly" you have evidence to back it up. If the original poster had expressed their opinion in less absolutist language, I would have had no problem with that. There is reason to believe that the U.S. government would be harrassing Julian Assange. However, reasonable people can conclude that they are not doing so in this particular case since the Swedish government has sufficient motive to be after him all on their own.
The OP's phrasing came across as if they felt that reasonable people could not possibly disagree with his/her conclusion.
What do you mean that you would like to hear a success story regarding these filterings? You referred to one in your post. Finland's is a great success. It filters out those who express ideas the government does not approve of (such as the critic of the filter).
Oh, you mean successful at filtering out kiddie porn without filtering out legal content. Well, that wasn't the purpose, that was just the excuse.
The governments have already figured this out. They are just trying to figure out what catch phrases will allow them to do it without people noticing. They've been trying "blocking kiddie porn" for awhile and while that hasn't been a success yet, it also hasn't been a failure. However, in the U.S. they have figured out that "net neutrality" seems to work better. The FCC is in the process of putting controls on Internet content in the name of "net neutrality" and for the most part they have the support of the people who oppose controls that are "intended to block kiddie porn". If the FCC pulls it off, expect to see other countries start to use "net neutrality" in place of "block kiddie porn" soon.
As others have pointed out, ".kid" would be far more useful to parents than ".sex".
Actually, this is the first time I have seen this suggestion. It is one I think is a great idea. I would suggest two or three such TLDs for various age ranges. The only problem I see is with defining the limits of what is allowed to be in such a "domain". However, segregating off sites that are explicitly child appropriate seems a much safer (and saner) approach than trying to segregate off sites that are "adult only". One problem with the latter is that kids are going to want to see what's on the "adult only" sites. If you segregate out the kid friendly sites, when kids crack whatever blocking their parents have put up most of what they find in the not "kid" sites will bore them.
I would not want someone who had an arm or leg electively amputated in the military either.
I read an article by a man who was one of the initial proponents of "gender reassignment" surgery. His observation was that those who have such surgery continue to have the same psychological problems after surgery that they had before surgery. He no longer believes that "gender reassignment" surgery is in the best interests of the patient, even though he was one of those who first championed the idea.
Have you seen the FCC proposals that they are calling "net neutrality" proposals?
Joe Lieberman stating that the U.S. intends to seek extradition from the U.K. does not show the U.S. is an active participant. Joe Lieberman does not work in the Administration, let alone the Justice Department or the State Department (the two Departments that would be involved with an extradition request).
The U.S. might be playing a role, but the evidence does not support "very clearly". The evidence supports the suspicion that the U.S. is involved, but not the certainty.
That supporting government regulation in the name of "Net Neutrality" is a sure fire way to help those in government who wish to expand government power.
You have successfully made the case for this being unusual. However, you have failed to show how this means that the U.S. is playing a role. Again, there is a distinct difference between "possibly" and "very clearly".
Someone else has already posted a comment that shows that the Swedish government has sufficient reason to be out to get Julian Assange without any U.S. pressure. That doesn't mean that the U.S. didn't apply pressure in this case. It just means that there is insufficient evidence to say it "very clearly" did (or at least, I have yet to see such evidence).
So perhaps we should be working to reduce the power of government instead of expanding it?
I'm sorry, "gender reassignment" surgery is no different than elective amputations. I don't believe that someone should have surgery because of their mental problems, they should have counseling.
However, how is a male-to-female transexual, after the operation, different from someone who was born female?
Perhaps you should study some biology. I am not going to go into all of the ways that biological science shows that physical and mental characteristics are determined by biological gender starting in the womb. Once these variations have occurred most of them are irreversible.
Being a woman or a man is not a social construct. Woman is word we use to refer to an adult female human. Man is a word we use to refer to an adult male human. Whether one is male or female is almost always determined at conception. I have nothing but sympathy for those few individuals whose biology is so messed up as to result in ambiguous gender (ambiguous gender is obvious at birth). I feel sorry for those people whose physical gender is not ambiguous who have been lead to believe that somehow they can actually change it.
I believe that men who surgically make themselves appear to be women are no less mutilating themselves than people who amputate their limbs for no medically necessary reason.
Actually, for the most part, conservatives don't trust the government not to impose control over Internet content under the guise of "net neutrality". In the beginning the regulations will be very subtle, but they will establish the precedent for government regulation of the Internet. Then bit by bit the government will extend its regulation so that it will be harder and harder to get information from anyone other than the approved mega-corporations.
How do you "prevent corporations from controlling things" without giving the government the power to do so instead?
That may be what you mean by Net Neutrality, but is that what the various government agents mean by Net Neutrality? Have you looked at some of the stuff that is coming out about what the FCC means by Net Neutrality?
Just because someone uses a term you understand for something doesn't mean that they are talking about the same thing you would be if you used that term.
You know there is a version of this that doesn't require any fossil fuels or electricity. One brand is called Sheep, another is called Goat.