Though for some odd reason, whenever some politician can't weasel out of some sleazy sex allegation and has to make some sort of public statement, begging for forgiveness, it's some conservative.
Err... what ? Al Franken ? Conyers ? Ted Kennedy ? Bill Clinton ? Just off the top of my head.
Can we not pretend that this is even remotely partisan ?
What you people aren't told and don't research for yourselves is that MOBILE and FIXED deployments are followed seperately by the FCC.
The 2015 had seperate deployment maps for FIXED vs MOBILE. There's a reason there are 2 categorisations.
This allows companies to access grants and bid on projects meant to bring broadband to rural and under-served areas.
VS companies not bidding on the projets at all ? I don't see the downside. Unless you're against rural areas having access to at the very least mobile broadband ? Why are you so mean to rural areas ?
They are explicitly stating that 10mbps down is "more than adequate" for consumers, and even go a step further by trying to argue that 3mbps down is somehow good enough
I'm pretty sure that's not what even your quote says. Different people = different needs.
If 10/1 is considered broadband, they can claim 100% broadband coverage.
Only from MOBILE sources. Not FIXED sources. You'll never have 100% FIXED broadband coverage. It's just unfeasible in some areas, for economic and geographical reasons.
So having a set standard of 10/1 for MOBILE is a step up, not down.
So yes, you're gullible here when you try to claim the FCC are attempting to lower the standard. They are not.
And if they certify that mobile only is sufficient for the home, then the requirement of 25/3 becomes 10/1, because if you have 10/1 by mobile only, then all's fine.
It still won't change your cable/DSL/Fiber service. I don't think you understand quite what this applies to and what it'll change in your life.
AKA : nothing will change. Except people trying to sell MOBILE broadband will have to give you 10/1 service to call it mobile broadband.
They are not proposing lowering the limit to 10/1. FIXED broadband will remain defined as 25/3. They are proposing changing the MOBILE broadband limits to 10/1.
In your 2016 doc, there was no defined limit for mobile broadband:
but finds that the current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile service.
AKA : they are actually RAISING the limit from none to 10.
How can you people link these documents and not even bother to read them ? Astounding.
Funny, just last year, the standard to be met was 25 down / 3 up, and now it's going to be 10 down / 1 up. Sounds like 'down' rather than up to me, Mr. Fake News.
... making wrong assumptions. The FCC wants to classify mobile broadband as 10 mbps. They don't want to lower anything. Fake news is really starting to polute the minds of the gullible.
You know, instead of passing a law to order the FCC to enforce arbitrary policies set by a commission, they could use the opportunity to pass actual consumer protection type Net Neutrality rules.
I'm not sure how you're confusing the actions of Google and Facebook with the actions of Congress. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Neither of us is owed a platform. Setting up a printing press is more of a pain than setting up WordPress; if the Founders were okay with the onus of the former then I don't see what grounds we have to complain about the latter.
I'm not sure why you feel owed a network, if you don't feel you're owed a platform though ?
On the one side, you're asking the governement to force ISPs, very private organisations, to route every packet without discrimination.
On the other side, you're asking the governement to not force content hosters, very private organisations, to host all content without discrimination.
Also, I don't see how forcing Twitter to threat conservative voices equally to progressive voices is "abridging free speech". On the contrary, it is expanding it.
I know it's a favorite tactic of the left to paint anyone on the right as "White nationalists", but really you even have me confounded here.
All my posts are intensely anti-Identity politics.
. However, as long as conservative white males, the most privileged group of people on the planet, can feel themselves persecuted, discriminated against and trodden upon by people whose prospects of getting work and being as well paid for it as white males are is limited simply because of their gender and/or the colour of their skin then I'm not going to be to holding my breath
Ah I see, projection. You're the one that's being racist here and projecting on others.
The thing about trying to make a race a protected class : it applies to all races equally. Because that's equality. You seem to want "reparations". Hint : Affirmative Action is racist discrimination. So are reparations. Equality means white people get as much rights as others. So when they are discriminated against, it's just as valid as a form of discrimination and is actionable.
Yes I know you absolutely love James Damore. You seem to be so obsessed it's blinding you completely to the actual facts.
Says the guy who so absolutely hates James Damore that he didn't even read the memo and doesn't even know its content.
It's silly to accuse the papers of causing google bad press: they ARE the press,
That's the problem though : they are not the press. They are blogs disguised as "news" that offer non-journalistic content, but rather opinion pieces. No one reported on the memo. A lot of people offered their uninformed (by virtue of not having read it) on it, and ended up being wrong on its content, while trying to escalate the conflict.
Damore is not a good person. He's an extremist who knows how to couch his arguments in a cloak of faux-rationality. Those of us on the left have been trying to warn those of you susceptible to his arguments that he's not actually being honest. Maybe we shouldn't care, but I really don't actually want anyone fooled by this nonsense.
And those of us on the old left are trying to warn you that you're susceptible to indoctrination into extremism when you paint moderate folks as extremists and endorse violence against them because you happen to disagree with their viewpoint.
Maybe we shouldn't care, but you guys are now legitimately advocating physical assault and violence against opinions, even mild and moderate opinions, simply because then don't toe the line with extreme identity politics.
Trump's insistence that the White Supremacist's were damn fine folks whose statues to traitors are more important than something like disaater relief for Puerto Rico.
Except none of this happened, so your entire premise is wrong.
His opinion being that google shouldn't recruit women because they might have on average less aptitude than men for some tasks.
The actual quote:
Note, Iâ(TM)m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are âoejust.â Iâ(TM)m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we donâ(TM)t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and thereâ(TM)s significant overlap between men and women, so you canâ(TM)t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
So yes, you can disagree, you can argue the science he used and the studies he cited are wrong, or that he misunderstood them, but trying to depict the memo as vile while not having read it is malicious.
Funny, the group of white nationalists which usually echos those sentiments seems to think skin colour and gender is an excellent attribute to justify not hiring people
Because white nationalists are as bigoted as progressives. Identity politics is cancer, from both sides.
You know, a wise man once said:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
What if said bakery had no employees willing to bake the cake ? Because this is what happened here. We're not talking about a big bakery with hundreds of employees, this is a simple small business run by its 2 owners.
They also didn't refuse services or products. They offered the couple to purchase a pre-made cake, simply stating they would not do custom work that promoted beliefs outside their religious dogma.
I know this is hard for you to reconcile. You want businesses to be "private entities, free to discriminate" when it suits you and not when it doesn't, but that's not how the world works. When you pass a set of laws, it is blind to your side of the ideological spectrum, and applies equally to all. Even when that's not convenient to your narrative.
Is that why the KKK started out in the democratic party but vote republican now?
Senator Robert Byrd was a democrat to the end, in 2010. He was even the "mentor" of one very popular, losing, crooked, democrat presidential candidate, which you might remember from investigations such as "Benghazi" and "E-mail servers with classified material".
No, he did not. The leaker did. And then I dare argue not even the leaker. The memo itself is tame and sound. The progressive (aka regressive) press that libeled the memo to hell and pretended it was saying things it did not say at all is what caused Google bad press.
If anything, it's Salon's, The Verge's, Vox's and other progressive-leaning blogs and trashy "news" outlets that caused Google to get bad press. And if you want to argue "journalistic" freedom, well fine, then it's back to the leaker.
James Damore was provided a "training seminar" (the quotes are important, because the forced diversity propaganda speech he was forced to listen to was no seminar, and it certainly wasn't training) and provided feedback, as asked, on the company internal forums, which serve this purpose.
Do you still need further clarification of the events ?
I remember people claiming that DaMore was a liberal or democrat, but I guess that's clarified now.
He probably is. His memo was pretty liberal leaning after all and there is a very large difference from classic Liberals (pro free speech, pro meritocracy) and Progressives (anti-speech that hurts feelings, pro-affirmative action and quotas).
However, he was portrayed as conservative by media and probably perceived as such by his employer. As you know, classic liberals these days are being labeled conservatives simply for holding the belief that gender disparity in some occupations could be entirely the result of freewill and biological differences that may promote different interests that lead to different career paths.
Slashdot Mirror
Though for some odd reason, whenever some politician can't weasel out of some sleazy sex allegation and has to make some sort of public statement, begging for forgiveness, it's some conservative.
Err... what ? Al Franken ? Conyers ? Ted Kennedy ? Bill Clinton ? Just off the top of my head.
Can we not pretend that this is even remotely partisan ?
What you people aren't told and don't research for yourselves is that MOBILE and FIXED deployments are followed seperately by the FCC.
The 2015 had seperate deployment maps for FIXED vs MOBILE. There's a reason there are 2 categorisations.
This allows companies to access grants and bid on projects meant to bring broadband to rural and under-served areas.
VS companies not bidding on the projets at all ? I don't see the downside. Unless you're against rural areas having access to at the very least mobile broadband ? Why are you so mean to rural areas ?
Now the FCC wants to say that if you have Mobile of 10/1, even if you don't have 25/3, that is sufficient for home internet.
Quote the document where it adds mobile broadband as somehow sufficient for the home where it wasn't in prior years ?
Because until then, you're just part of the FUD brigade.
They are explicitly stating that 10mbps down is "more than adequate" for consumers, and even go a step further by trying to argue that 3mbps down is somehow good enough
I'm pretty sure that's not what even your quote says. Different people = different needs.
If 10/1 is considered broadband, they can claim 100% broadband coverage.
Only from MOBILE sources. Not FIXED sources. You'll never have 100% FIXED broadband coverage. It's just unfeasible in some areas, for economic and geographical reasons.
So having a set standard of 10/1 for MOBILE is a step up, not down.
So yes, you're gullible here when you try to claim the FCC are attempting to lower the standard. They are not.
And if they certify that mobile only is sufficient for the home, then the requirement of 25/3 becomes 10/1, because if you have 10/1 by mobile only, then all's fine.
It still won't change your cable/DSL/Fiber service. I don't think you understand quite what this applies to and what it'll change in your life.
AKA : nothing will change. Except people trying to sell MOBILE broadband will have to give you 10/1 service to call it mobile broadband.
So if I have a "fixed" connection that is 10/1--which would not be considered broadband--and this goes through, I now am considered to have broadband.
No.
If you have a FIXED connection (DSL, cable, fiber), which is not considered broadband, and this goes through, you still don't have broadband.
They are not changing the FIXED part. They are defining MOBILE broadband as 10/1.
And even worse : all this is still in CONSULTATION.
They are not proposing lowering the limit to 10/1. FIXED broadband will remain defined as 25/3. They are proposing changing the MOBILE broadband limits to 10/1.
In your 2016 doc, there was no defined limit for mobile broadband :
but finds that the current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile service.
AKA : they are actually RAISING the limit from none to 10.
How can you people link these documents and not even bother to read them ? Astounding.
That's not what the article summary says, and that's not what anybody in these comments is claiming
It's literally the article title, it's in the summary, and its on the activist website linked from the summary. I dunno how you missed it.
Yes, those people are gullible. They swallowed the fake news that standards are being lowered and are pushing that narrative themselves.
It is a false statement as that is not what is happening.
Funny, just last year, the standard to be met was 25 down / 3 up, and now it's going to be 10 down / 1 up. Sounds like 'down' rather than up to me, Mr. Fake News.
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
It is fake news. 25/3 is for FIXED broadband. 10/1 is for MOBILE broadband.
Nothing got lowered. People saying "FCC wants to lower broadband standards" are pushing literal Fake News.
25 mbps is for fixed broadband. This 10 mbps limit is for mobile broadband.
Nothing is getting lowered.
... making wrong assumptions. The FCC wants to classify mobile broadband as 10 mbps. They don't want to lower anything. Fake news is really starting to polute the minds of the gullible.
What about AMD ? They are vulnerable to Spectre too. What did they get right in this case exactly ?
You know, instead of passing a law to order the FCC to enforce arbitrary policies set by a commission, they could use the opportunity to pass actual consumer protection type Net Neutrality rules.
Leave it to Congress to not do anything right.
I'm not sure how you're confusing the actions of Google and Facebook with the actions of Congress. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Neither of us is owed a platform. Setting up a printing press is more of a pain than setting up WordPress; if the Founders were okay with the onus of the former then I don't see what grounds we have to complain about the latter.
I'm not sure why you feel owed a network, if you don't feel you're owed a platform though ?
On the one side, you're asking the governement to force ISPs, very private organisations, to route every packet without discrimination.
On the other side, you're asking the governement to not force content hosters, very private organisations, to host all content without discrimination.
Also, I don't see how forcing Twitter to threat conservative voices equally to progressive voices is "abridging free speech". On the contrary, it is expanding it.
Then why are you quoting from their playbook?
I know it's a favorite tactic of the left to paint anyone on the right as "White nationalists", but really you even have me confounded here.
All my posts are intensely anti-Identity politics.
. However, as long as conservative white males, the most privileged group of people on the planet, can feel themselves persecuted, discriminated against and trodden upon by people whose prospects of getting work and being as well paid for it as white males are is limited simply because of their gender and/or the colour of their skin then I'm not going to be to holding my breath
Ah I see, projection. You're the one that's being racist here and projecting on others.
The thing about trying to make a race a protected class : it applies to all races equally. Because that's equality. You seem to want "reparations". Hint : Affirmative Action is racist discrimination. So are reparations. Equality means white people get as much rights as others. So when they are discriminated against, it's just as valid as a form of discrimination and is actionable.
Yes I know you absolutely love James Damore. You seem to be so obsessed it's blinding you completely to the actual facts.
Says the guy who so absolutely hates James Damore that he didn't even read the memo and doesn't even know its content.
It's silly to accuse the papers of causing google bad press: they ARE the press,
That's the problem though : they are not the press. They are blogs disguised as "news" that offer non-journalistic content, but rather opinion pieces. No one reported on the memo. A lot of people offered their uninformed (by virtue of not having read it) on it, and ended up being wrong on its content, while trying to escalate the conflict.
Damore is not a good person. He's an extremist who knows how to couch his arguments in a cloak of faux-rationality. Those of us on the left have been trying to warn those of you susceptible to his arguments that he's not actually being honest. Maybe we shouldn't care, but I really don't actually want anyone fooled by this nonsense.
And those of us on the old left are trying to warn you that you're susceptible to indoctrination into extremism when you paint moderate folks as extremists and endorse violence against them because you happen to disagree with their viewpoint.
Maybe we shouldn't care, but you guys are now legitimately advocating physical assault and violence against opinions, even mild and moderate opinions, simply because then don't toe the line with extreme identity politics.
Trump's insistence that the White Supremacist's were damn fine folks whose statues to traitors are more important than something like disaater relief for Puerto Rico.
Except none of this happened, so your entire premise is wrong.
Reading the memo will only make you dumber,
If you read it, you wouldn't pretend things like :
His opinion being that google shouldn't recruit women because they might have on average less aptitude than men for some tasks.
The actual quote :
Note, Iâ(TM)m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these
differences are âoejust.â Iâ(TM)m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men
and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we donâ(TM)t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences
are small and thereâ(TM)s significant overlap between men and women, so you canâ(TM)t say anything
about an individual given these population level distributions.
So yes, you can disagree, you can argue the science he used and the studies he cited are wrong, or that he misunderstood them, but trying to depict the memo as vile while not having read it is malicious.
Funny, the group of white nationalists which usually echos those sentiments seems to think skin colour and gender is an excellent attribute to justify not hiring people
Because white nationalists are as bigoted as progressives. Identity politics is cancer, from both sides.
You know, a wise man once said :
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Maybe one day we'll be rid of Identity Politics.
What if said bakery had no employees willing to bake the cake ? Because this is what happened here. We're not talking about a big bakery with hundreds of employees, this is a simple small business run by its 2 owners.
They also didn't refuse services or products. They offered the couple to purchase a pre-made cake, simply stating they would not do custom work that promoted beliefs outside their religious dogma.
I know this is hard for you to reconcile. You want businesses to be "private entities, free to discriminate" when it suits you and not when it doesn't, but that's not how the world works. When you pass a set of laws, it is blind to your side of the ideological spectrum, and applies equally to all. Even when that's not convenient to your narrative.
Is that why the KKK started out in the democratic party but vote republican now?
Senator Robert Byrd was a democrat to the end, in 2010. He was even the "mentor" of one very popular, losing, crooked, democrat presidential candidate, which you might remember from investigations such as "Benghazi" and "E-mail servers with classified material".
He caused google to get bad press.
No, he did not. The leaker did. And then I dare argue not even the leaker. The memo itself is tame and sound. The progressive (aka regressive) press that libeled the memo to hell and pretended it was saying things it did not say at all is what caused Google bad press.
If anything, it's Salon's, The Verge's, Vox's and other progressive-leaning blogs and trashy "news" outlets that caused Google to get bad press. And if you want to argue "journalistic" freedom, well fine, then it's back to the leaker.
James Damore was provided a "training seminar" (the quotes are important, because the forced diversity propaganda speech he was forced to listen to was no seminar, and it certainly wasn't training) and provided feedback, as asked, on the company internal forums, which serve this purpose.
Do you still need further clarification of the events ?
INB4 "Party swap of 1960 something!". You know, the thing that never happened but that democrats try to push as true.
I remember people claiming that DaMore was a liberal or democrat, but I guess that's clarified now.
He probably is. His memo was pretty liberal leaning after all and there is a very large difference from classic Liberals (pro free speech, pro meritocracy) and Progressives (anti-speech that hurts feelings, pro-affirmative action and quotas).
However, he was portrayed as conservative by media and probably perceived as such by his employer. As you know, classic liberals these days are being labeled conservatives simply for holding the belief that gender disparity in some occupations could be entirely the result of freewill and biological differences that may promote different interests that lead to different career paths.