Insulting the poster when you're clearly simply not understanding what is going on just shows you're not open to truth, just your vision and your narrative.
you should watch this 1.5 minute video from Trump's FCC chairman, as he reveals he has no idea what Net Neutrality is, and also that he is a massive fuckwit
Yet you're here mad he's not regulating the Internet. How do you reconcile that position ?
You were doing great until you got here; this is total and complete bullshit.
How ? If you discriminite positively towards women, you're still discriminating based on sex/gender and thus you are being sexist. That it's positive towards the gender you prefer to give affirmative action for doesn't change the fact.
Affirmative action is systemic discrimination and thus is sexist and racist.
You need help. Or you need to work with different people or something. What you are describing, that shit is not normal. That people actually vote this shit "insightful", holy crap, you guys need to grow the hell up and become men (real men, not boys with a need to thump your chest like capuchin monkeys pretending to be gorillas.)
The fact you had to resort to name calling to belittle his point shows he's right and you're wrong. It's why he's voted up, and you're not.
Males and Females interact differently. "Bro culture" is not bad, "Bros" are not a negative. Trying to paint it as so, and trying to paint people who are more upfront and frank about their positions and who aren't afraid of a little conflict to get stuff done quicker are not bad, as much as your ilk tries to make them out to be.
The more PC society gets, the less stuff actually gets done, the more processes are put in place, and the more people argue about people instead of ideas. The less PC society is, the more actual ideas are discussed, based on the idea's merits, rather than who put them forth, and whether they are "Acceptable" or not.
Try it sometimes, discuss an idea you think is "unacceptable" based on its sole merit. You might find that it's your perceived societal norm that's flawed, not the "unacceptable" idea.
It just keeps everyone perpetually in poverty, debt slaves to the state, with no hope or drive to move forward. Communism doesn't work. Communism without workers would be even worse, stripping people of their meaning on top of their earnings.
The solution to automation is not to do it. "Because we can doesn't mean we should".
There are plenty of liberals that have demonetized. I know a few left leaning folks (that are not left enough) that don't buy into the whole SJW ideology and have made critique videos that have had their ads turned off.
Anything right of Yvette Felarca is considered a conservative these days.
They do a great job demonetizing conservatives almost instantly. They also do a great job at redirecting search requests and making sure to insert Pro-progressive content into suggestions. Oh and they also do a great job randomly unsubscribing people from conservative channels, as well as simply not providing notifications.
It's funny how Youtube is so efficient when it comes to defending their CEO's "Progressive" ideology, but are so inept at making Youtube Kids simply a curated list of channels instead of a free-for-all that requires monitoring.
No. And I really don't understand how people can persistently misunderstand net neutrality so badly.
Cloudflare is a CDN, not an ISP.
You're confused. No one "misunderstands" Net Neutrality, we just think selectively applying it only to ISPs is a bad notion and doesn't result in Net Neutrality at all, only a subset of it. If you push for Neutrality from ISPs, you should also expect it from CDNs and Content Hosts.
Only Content creators should be absolved of Neutrality.
That, or get ready for Anti-trust action that breaks up the many content host monopolies out there. You think Microsoft was bad in the 90s ? Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are just as bad now, if not worse (at least Windows, as bad as it was, was content agnostic).
It's exactly the problem that Capitalism won't solve.
If Capitalism won't solve your problem, it's because there's no market.
Again, what do you want made and how much are you paying ? Hint : Pay more. The more specific the need, the more custom the software, the more expensive it will be.
I can help. Again I ask : What skin color specific software do you need made and how much are you willing to pay ?
No, it results in more diverse code. The mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-young, mostly-upper-middleclass, mostly-Apple-using coders of Silicon Valley produce products that serve their own needs (and the needs of people like them) very well, but that doesn't represent the needs of the country (or world) as a whole.
And what is preventing non-white, non-male, non-young, non-upper-middleclass, non-Apple coders from picking up a book on programming and solving their own needs ? Sounds like a problem Capitalism can solve.
What skin color specific software do you need made ? And how much are you paying ?
The best developer on my team is a girl from Vietnam.
Is the only reason she's the best because she's both a girl and from Vietnam ? Because if so, all programmers should now be Vietnamese Girls and thus diversity is bad.
Or is it because she's simply the best programmer, regardless of her sex and nationality ? Because if so, then diversity of skin color, nationhood, and sex don't matter.
So which is it, is diversity bad or does it simply not matter ?
Use Discord [discordapp.com]? Skype? One of the other free chat services? Unless you're playing on console in which case you knew exactly the environment you were living in already.
And... that's the problem with Destiny 2 in a nutshell. That also only works with your Clan, not for trying to find people to do an activity at 4:00 a.m. if none of your Clan is on. See people running around ? Can't actual talk to them.
Trust me, you don't want that.
I'm not a thin skin PC snowflake. If I can pug Heroic raids in WoW and do LFR without blinking, I can suffer 2 other guys for a Nightfall Strike.
Heck, I can probably do the Leviathan with a squeaker on voice chat with no issue. If you hang out around the Mythic raiding crowd in WoW, you're basically immunized to any and all drama in the pug arena.
In short if you want government out of your internet, then you should support Net Neutrality, because without it, they will be a bunch of complex set of laws behind it.
The problem is that the 2015 are already much more than the 3 "Bright line rules" of Net Neutrality. They already are a bunch of complex set of "not even laws" (which is another issue with them, they literally are just agency regulations, never codified as actual law, which is why the FCC can now just repeal them).
Want actual Net Neutrality ? Codify the 3 Bright line rules into Consumer Protection law. By the Legislative branch. You know, the proper way to do it. Shoehorning Title II unto ISPs with all the broad regulations it brings, and then trying to carve out specific exemptions for a particular type of carrier, is just an exercise in massive governement over-regulation.
142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case, ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509 We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon argues, âoe[i]f broadband service providersâ(TM) conduct falls outside [the FTCâ(TM)s] grant of jurisdictionâ"that is,if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptiveâ"then the conduct should not be banned in the first place.â510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws proscribing deceptive trade practices.513
AKA : FTC should take care of it, and Transparency rules should be in place.
No Throttling ? Prior paragraph, page 81 (para. 141).
Again, it seems clear that the FCC here is not saying "No Net Neutrality" as people are attempting to depict this order as. They are simply saying that it should be taken care of by the FTC, as it was prior to 2015, and successfully at that.
The Comcast Bit Torrent case often sighed by the "FCC should enforce Net Neutrality" camp ? 2009, prior to the 2015 regulations. Solved by the courts, outside the scope of Wheeler's regulations.
How many liars will come out of the woodwork this time to support the NN repeal by sharing 'alternate facts' and tell us history didn't happen the way it's documented?
Even though your post is just flamebait, how about you address the actual timeline, stop pretending the repeal is about "long standing rules", and stop pretending that they are as black and white as you put it. There's a lot wrong with the 2015 FCC regulations, and the FCC Commissioner of the time, appointed by Barack Obama, wrote a long dissent against them.
The current proposal is also not exactly a Net Neutrality repeal as people put it disingenuously, it's a return of power to the FTC, and contains language against Blocking and Throttling (part of the 3 "Bright Line rules" of No Blocking, No Throttling and No Paid Prioritization).
This discussion would be much less polarized if one side wasn't so much into spinning up Drama and making everything into a catastrophe for the Internet, and we stuck to actually discussing the policies being repealed and the replacement being suggested, which are much more nuanced than the "FCC should regulate ISPs under Title II" Camp is letting on.
The only lies being told here are Lies by Omission by the camp going bonkers over this.
How about the lack of a chat system with your Clan or just the general populace ? Lack of a match-making system, even just a manual one, to create Fireteams for Trial of the Nine, the Leviathan raid or even just Nightfall Strikes. Heck, there's a Exotic weapon quest, that you get at the end of a solo campaign quest, that requires doing Patrols, a solo activity, in a Fireteam. How about a Group Finder tool ?
But yeah, please keep talking about XP, which is barely visible in game (not like you can even tell how much you need) and only rewards Shaders and other cosmetics and doesn't affect gameplay at all.
I'm going back to World of Warcraft. (I kid of course, I never left World of Warcraft to begin with -_-).
You are imparting meaning to Trump's words where none exists. And it's not whether or not I "think" his words are factually incorrect,, but the evident fact that his words are indeed factually incorrect.
Trump derangement syndrome is an ugly thing.
No matter what you think about his words, they were still specifically addressing the Net Neutrality regulation. Your opinion on their correctness doesn't change the scope of his tweet as linked.
Because sometimes repealing regulations is not legally justified or proper or handled appropriately.
Justified or not is not a legal matter, it's purely an opinion. Handled Approprietly would be a legal matter, but it seems that the FCC is going the proper legal route with a public commentary period prior to passing a vote on repealing. Tim Wu's premise is not really on the method used to repeal, so I fail to see what legal argument, within the current lawful framework, as to why the FCC couldn't repeal regulations.
The courts absolutely can, do, and should force regulating agencies to enforce specific policies
Yes, enforce specific legislation. They cannot create legislation, nor can they force legislation to be kept on the books. They also can't make up new legislation.
Regulators don't get to enforce and/or ignore and/or undermine rules as they see fit without limits.
It's funny you say that, because that's what happened in 2015, and is what the FCC is attempting to correct now.
If the FCC makes regulations that they were authorized to make and people depend on those regulations then it is entirely reasonable and proper for a court to hold the FCC to keeping those regulations in place.
Courts cannot and should not be able to force an entity to keep around rules that said entity made in the first place. If they can make it without rule of law (and without the legislative branch), then they can repeal it without rule of law.
You want the judicial to force regulations ? Make the legislative pass law about it.
You're clearly a fucking industry shill. Perhaps you forget Comcast getting caught throttling bittorrent? Comcast forcing Netflix to pay for access? Verizon charging extra for privacy? Wheeler stepped in and put the brakes on that bullshit before it got even worse. Now Pai wants to undo that *and more*. No way.
I also remember all those things getting resolved without Governement intervention. And then Wheeler came in and tried to impose More Big Governement where none was required. The fact is, the previous rules were already sufficient and adequate at preventing the kind of shenanigans that were tried over the years, as proved multiple times.
ow you can say that Trump's tweet addresses anything "SPECIFICALLY"
He's not talking about the vague concept of "regulations" in a general sense, he's talking directly about the Net Neutrality policies that are about to pass (when the tweet was written in 2014). So regardless of whether you think he got the finer details right or wrong doesn't change the fact that he's addressing the subject specifically.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "specifically"...
He promised it in his campaign and is now delivering on his promises. He was voted into office. I know you're not used to Politicians keeping their campaign promises, but this is what is happening now, and yes, he wasn't voted into office based only on his stance on Net Neutrality, but the fact remains : He is the sitting President of the United States and he is fulfilling his campaign promises.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean documents stored on google servers. Did you even read the article?
You mean packets traversing your ISP's network ?
Funny how you give a pass to 1 private entity, but you want governement intervention for the other.
You are a lying sack of shit.
Here is the video of Ajit Pai being a dumbass.
Because the Daily Caller did the leg work to get it restored following the Harlem Shake copyright notice :
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12...
Insulting the poster when you're clearly simply not understanding what is going on just shows you're not open to truth, just your vision and your narrative.
you should watch this 1.5 minute video from Trump's FCC chairman, as he reveals he has no idea what Net Neutrality is, and also that he is a massive fuckwit
Yet you're here mad he's not regulating the Internet. How do you reconcile that position ?
You were doing great until you got here; this is total and complete bullshit.
How ? If you discriminite positively towards women, you're still discriminating based on sex/gender and thus you are being sexist. That it's positive towards the gender you prefer to give affirmative action for doesn't change the fact.
Affirmative action is systemic discrimination and thus is sexist and racist.
You need help. Or you need to work with different people or something. What you are describing, that shit is not normal. That people actually vote this shit "insightful", holy crap, you guys need to grow the hell up and become men (real men, not boys with a need to thump your chest like capuchin monkeys pretending to be gorillas.)
The fact you had to resort to name calling to belittle his point shows he's right and you're wrong. It's why he's voted up, and you're not.
Males and Females interact differently. "Bro culture" is not bad, "Bros" are not a negative. Trying to paint it as so, and trying to paint people who are more upfront and frank about their positions and who aren't afraid of a little conflict to get stuff done quicker are not bad, as much as your ilk tries to make them out to be.
The more PC society gets, the less stuff actually gets done, the more processes are put in place, and the more people argue about people instead of ideas. The less PC society is, the more actual ideas are discussed, based on the idea's merits, rather than who put them forth, and whether they are "Acceptable" or not.
Try it sometimes, discuss an idea you think is "unacceptable" based on its sole merit. You might find that it's your perceived societal norm that's flawed, not the "unacceptable" idea.
Just sayin'.
You define your "meaning" and worth by your work and the money you have?
Your work doesn't advance your community and society towards a better future ?
It's you that needs pity.
I never equated meaning and money. Read my post again. I specifically mentionned "earnings" seperately.
It just keeps everyone perpetually in poverty, debt slaves to the state, with no hope or drive to move forward. Communism doesn't work. Communism without workers would be even worse, stripping people of their meaning on top of their earnings.
The solution to automation is not to do it. "Because we can doesn't mean we should".
There are plenty of liberals that have demonetized. I know a few left leaning folks (that are not left enough) that don't buy into the whole SJW ideology and have made critique videos that have had their ads turned off.
Anything right of Yvette Felarca is considered a conservative these days.
They do a great job demonetizing conservatives almost instantly. They also do a great job at redirecting search requests and making sure to insert Pro-progressive content into suggestions. Oh and they also do a great job randomly unsubscribing people from conservative channels, as well as simply not providing notifications.
It's funny how Youtube is so efficient when it comes to defending their CEO's "Progressive" ideology, but are so inept at making Youtube Kids simply a curated list of channels instead of a free-for-all that requires monitoring.
No. And I really don't understand how people can persistently misunderstand net neutrality so badly.
Cloudflare is a CDN, not an ISP.
You're confused. No one "misunderstands" Net Neutrality, we just think selectively applying it only to ISPs is a bad notion and doesn't result in Net Neutrality at all, only a subset of it. If you push for Neutrality from ISPs, you should also expect it from CDNs and Content Hosts.
Only Content creators should be absolved of Neutrality.
That, or get ready for Anti-trust action that breaks up the many content host monopolies out there. You think Microsoft was bad in the 90s ? Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are just as bad now, if not worse (at least Windows, as bad as it was, was content agnostic).
It's exactly the problem that Capitalism won't solve.
If Capitalism won't solve your problem, it's because there's no market.
Again, what do you want made and how much are you paying ? Hint : Pay more. The more specific the need, the more custom the software, the more expensive it will be.
I can help. Again I ask : What skin color specific software do you need made and how much are you willing to pay ?
No, it results in more diverse code. The mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-young, mostly-upper-middleclass, mostly-Apple-using coders of Silicon Valley produce products that serve their own needs (and the needs of people like them) very well, but that doesn't represent the needs of the country (or world) as a whole.
And what is preventing non-white, non-male, non-young, non-upper-middleclass, non-Apple coders from picking up a book on programming and solving their own needs ? Sounds like a problem Capitalism can solve.
What skin color specific software do you need made ? And how much are you paying ?
The best developer on my team is a girl from Vietnam.
Is the only reason she's the best because she's both a girl and from Vietnam ? Because if so, all programmers should now be Vietnamese Girls and thus diversity is bad.
Or is it because she's simply the best programmer, regardless of her sex and nationality ? Because if so, then diversity of skin color, nationhood, and sex don't matter.
So which is it, is diversity bad or does it simply not matter ?
There is no explanation that can support a "not a consensual relationship that ended badly";
You missed the word "Either". That a good explanation ? ;)
If you are discussing your top secret plans with Alexa you're doing it wrong.
You mean in the vicinity of an Alexa. Because you know that thing is in "listen" mode all the time right ?
"NO! IT JUST REPLIES WHEN YOU SAY ALEXA FIRST!".
Ok. Fine. How does it know you said Alexa if it's not listening to everything you say ?
Checkmate. Anyway, it's disingenuous to pretend that privacy is always about hiding nefarious things.
Use Discord [discordapp.com]? Skype? One of the other free chat services? Unless you're playing on console in which case you knew exactly the environment you were living in already.
And... that's the problem with Destiny 2 in a nutshell. That also only works with your Clan, not for trying to find people to do an activity at 4:00 a.m. if none of your Clan is on. See people running around ? Can't actual talk to them.
Trust me, you don't want that.
I'm not a thin skin PC snowflake. If I can pug Heroic raids in WoW and do LFR without blinking, I can suffer 2 other guys for a Nightfall Strike.
Heck, I can probably do the Leviathan with a squeaker on voice chat with no issue. If you hang out around the Mythic raiding crowd in WoW, you're basically immunized to any and all drama in the pug arena.
There are several very useful LFG web sites
BZZZZZZZT. Failed game design.
In short if you want government out of your internet, then you should support Net Neutrality, because without it, they will be a bunch of complex set of laws behind it.
The problem is that the 2015 are already much more than the 3 "Bright line rules" of Net Neutrality. They already are a bunch of complex set of "not even laws" (which is another issue with them, they literally are just agency regulations, never codified as actual law, which is why the FCC can now just repeal them).
Want actual Net Neutrality ? Codify the 3 Bright line rules into Consumer Protection law. By the Legislative branch. You know, the proper way to do it. Shoehorning Title II unto ISPs with all the broad regulations it brings, and then trying to carve out specific exemptions for a particular type of carrier, is just an exercise in massive governement over-regulation.
Sure thing.
No Blocking is discussed on page 83 (para 142) :
142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal
content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers
without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case,
ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon
argues, âoe[i]f broadband service providersâ(TM) conduct falls outside [the FTCâ(TM)s] grant of jurisdictionâ"that is,if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptiveâ"then the conduct should not
be banned in the first place.â510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any
concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or
throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the
Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws
proscribing deceptive trade practices.513
AKA : FTC should take care of it, and Transparency rules should be in place.
No Throttling ? Prior paragraph, page 81 (para. 141).
Again, it seems clear that the FCC here is not saying "No Net Neutrality" as people are attempting to depict this order as. They are simply saying that it should be taken care of by the FTC, as it was prior to 2015, and successfully at that.
The Comcast Bit Torrent case often sighed by the "FCC should enforce Net Neutrality" camp ? 2009, prior to the 2015 regulations. Solved by the courts, outside the scope of Wheeler's regulations.
How many liars will come out of the woodwork this time to support the NN repeal by sharing 'alternate facts' and tell us history didn't happen the way it's documented?
Even though your post is just flamebait, how about you address the actual timeline, stop pretending the repeal is about "long standing rules", and stop pretending that they are as black and white as you put it. There's a lot wrong with the 2015 FCC regulations, and the FCC Commissioner of the time, appointed by Barack Obama, wrote a long dissent against them.
The current proposal is also not exactly a Net Neutrality repeal as people put it disingenuously, it's a return of power to the FTC, and contains language against Blocking and Throttling (part of the 3 "Bright Line rules" of No Blocking, No Throttling and No Paid Prioritization).
This discussion would be much less polarized if one side wasn't so much into spinning up Drama and making everything into a catastrophe for the Internet, and we stuck to actually discussing the policies being repealed and the replacement being suggested, which are much more nuanced than the "FCC should regulate ISPs under Title II" Camp is letting on.
The only lies being told here are Lies by Omission by the camp going bonkers over this.
Who cares about Bright Engrams. Seriously.
How about the lack of a chat system with your Clan or just the general populace ? Lack of a match-making system, even just a manual one, to create Fireteams for Trial of the Nine, the Leviathan raid or even just Nightfall Strikes. Heck, there's a Exotic weapon quest, that you get at the end of a solo campaign quest, that requires doing Patrols, a solo activity, in a Fireteam. How about a Group Finder tool ?
But yeah, please keep talking about XP, which is barely visible in game (not like you can even tell how much you need) and only rewards Shaders and other cosmetics and doesn't affect gameplay at all.
I'm going back to World of Warcraft. (I kid of course, I never left World of Warcraft to begin with -_-).
You are imparting meaning to Trump's words where none exists. And it's not whether or not I "think" his words are factually incorrect,, but the evident fact that his words are indeed factually incorrect.
Trump derangement syndrome is an ugly thing.
No matter what you think about his words, they were still specifically addressing the Net Neutrality regulation. Your opinion on their correctness doesn't change the scope of his tweet as linked.
Because sometimes repealing regulations is not legally justified or proper or handled appropriately.
Justified or not is not a legal matter, it's purely an opinion. Handled Approprietly would be a legal matter, but it seems that the FCC is going the proper legal route with a public commentary period prior to passing a vote on repealing. Tim Wu's premise is not really on the method used to repeal, so I fail to see what legal argument, within the current lawful framework, as to why the FCC couldn't repeal regulations.
The courts absolutely can, do, and should force regulating agencies to enforce specific policies
Yes, enforce specific legislation. They cannot create legislation, nor can they force legislation to be kept on the books. They also can't make up new legislation.
Regulators don't get to enforce and/or ignore and/or undermine rules as they see fit without limits.
It's funny you say that, because that's what happened in 2015, and is what the FCC is attempting to correct now.
If the FCC makes regulations that they were authorized to make and people depend on those regulations then it is entirely reasonable and proper for a court to hold the FCC to keeping those regulations in place.
Courts cannot and should not be able to force an entity to keep around rules that said entity made in the first place. If they can make it without rule of law (and without the legislative branch), then they can repeal it without rule of law.
You want the judicial to force regulations ? Make the legislative pass law about it.
You're clearly a fucking industry shill. Perhaps you forget Comcast getting caught throttling bittorrent? Comcast forcing Netflix to pay for access? Verizon charging extra for privacy? Wheeler stepped in and put the brakes on that bullshit before it got even worse. Now Pai wants to undo that *and more*. No way.
I also remember all those things getting resolved without Governement intervention. And then Wheeler came in and tried to impose More Big Governement where none was required. The fact is, the previous rules were already sufficient and adequate at preventing the kind of shenanigans that were tried over the years, as proved multiple times.
Solved in 2009 :
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Prior to actual 2015 rules. Funny dat. But I guess I'm just an "industry shill", whatever that means.
ow you can say that Trump's tweet addresses anything "SPECIFICALLY"
He's not talking about the vague concept of "regulations" in a general sense, he's talking directly about the Net Neutrality policies that are about to pass (when the tweet was written in 2014). So regardless of whether you think he got the finer details right or wrong doesn't change the fact that he's addressing the subject specifically.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "specifically"...
He promised it in his campaign and is now delivering on his promises. He was voted into office. I know you're not used to Politicians keeping their campaign promises, but this is what is happening now, and yes, he wasn't voted into office based only on his stance on Net Neutrality, but the fact remains : He is the sitting President of the United States and he is fulfilling his campaign promises.