In ancient Rome, they would always say that food prices were too high, and there were ships full of Egyptian corn offshore, just waiting for the price in the marketplace to rise.
During the seventies the rumor was that Sixty Minutes had film of tank trucks of gasoline being dumped in the desert to keep prices high.
Now mobile providers are holding back on capacity in order to raise prices.
The choice not to take drugs for your own illnesses is really not equivalent to choosing to skip vaccinations. You only risk your own health when you decline drugs, but the community is put at risk when you turn down immunizations. Further, some of the immunizations for things you may consider minor (chicken pox or rubella for instance) can have a devastating impact when communicated to those with weaker health, or who, in the case of rubella, are not yet born.
I think your timeline is a little off here. The so-called Fairness Doctrine was started up in the late 1940's, which is before Rush Limbaugh was even born! The FCC stopped enforcing it in the 1980's which I think is a just after Rush started in radio.
Reporters without borders is about protecting the special prerogatives of professional journalists. It is their habit to conflate these privileges with freedom of expression. Really this is just an index of how free reporters are to thumb their noses at local law and custom, not the ability of the populace to publish dissenting views. Sometimes the two align, sometimes not.
It will be amusing to see how the "no waterboarding" crowd defends itself against this. Exactly how is waterboarding worse than remote control assassination of anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby a US target at the wrong time?
Here's a link to the filings in the case. When I look at the language that's the subject of the complaint, it looks like the kind of rant that goes on in many business disputes without usually going to court - read and judge for yourself. To me, it seems clear that the plaintiff is very touchy about third party payment issues as many chiropractors are and wants to intimidate his former patient into silence. Also, if you look at the history, it's clear that the defendant ignored multiple notifications about the action and had to back down in order to avoid a summary judgement against him - not a good move on his part.
It's unfortunate that the article didn't like to the "offending" post, so it's hard to say exactly what's alleged. That a chiropractor would respond harshly to criticism of practices around billing and insurance is hardly surprising though. Generally they're in a difficult spot - many chiropractors claim to cover a wide range of conditions but are only authorized to bill a narrow range of services. They need to retain patients, but can't unless they can bill all their services to insurance. As a result they have a lot of incentive to interpret the services they are authorized for very broadly. Going too far in this direction is billing fraud. The chiropractor's defense in these cases will sound a log like what's in the article - talk about disagreement about billing practices rather than dishonesty. It would be nice to have a link to the actual allegations to see what's going on in this case.
Chiropractors have had many detractors over the years and have a long history of using political manipulation and legal intimidation in response. They pursue a variety of goals including suppression of criticism of their questionable practices and mandating insurance coverage for chiropractic "care." They have generally been successful. That they try to suppress online criticism is a predictable continuation of longstanding behavior
It's not Slashdot that's pushing a narrative, it James Fowler the political scientist - and he's quoting that great bastion of conservative thought, the New York Times.
When the switchover occurs, those stuck with analog receivers will have to buy a $50 converter. It'll be no big deal.
The bigger picture is that broadcast TV is almost irrelevant now, and will be even more so in a few years. Why stick people with *any* cost for a receiver when few people use the built in receiver now and *nobody* will do so in 5 years.
It is in fact not at all like what the East German secret police (Stasi) did during the cold war. There was no legislative shell game to play because the legislature was a sham. The scope of individual liberty was so small that there was no comparable initiative from Stasi. There was no need to sift through large amounts of data about citizens to find out what they needed to know. Activities were all duly registered, and all records were available to them. Elaborate systems of informants kept tabs on any person of interest.
It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to remember the cold war would say something so ridiculous. American domestic intelligence activities take place in a society where individuals enjoy broad latitude of action outside of state control. Without that context, total information awareness or whatever it has become would not even be a dream in a spies mind.
If these scientists are so interested in making honest apolitical statements, why would they do it through an organization like the Union of Concerned Scientists? This organization has a reputation for cherry picking quotes that favor its political agenda and representing the result as the consensus of science.
Slashdot Mirror
In ancient Rome, they would always say that food prices were too high, and there were ships full of Egyptian corn offshore, just waiting for the price in the marketplace to rise.
During the seventies the rumor was that Sixty Minutes had film of tank trucks of gasoline being dumped in the desert to keep prices high.
Now mobile providers are holding back on capacity in order to raise prices.
Sound familiar?
It worked for Nina Sharp
The real mistake here is the idea that articles from AlterNet are likley to be remotely factual.
For example: The linked article has this bogus narrative about how Silicon Valley broke overtime taboos etc. Really? That's how it happened?
It's more likely they just make this stuff up.
I'm pretty sure that Navy ships have lots of passive firefighting features already.
Fire in the confined spaces of a warship is a truly terrifying prospect, and the Navy is always looking for the latest in fire suppression technology.
To be in a feature film is to volunteer for commercial use. Don't expect Hollywood to change its stripes to save the purity of the Lorax.
The choice not to take drugs for your own illnesses is really not equivalent to choosing to skip vaccinations. You only risk your own health when you decline drugs, but the community is put at risk when you turn down immunizations. Further, some of the immunizations for things you may consider minor (chicken pox or rubella for instance) can have a devastating impact when communicated to those with weaker health, or who, in the case of rubella, are not yet born.
When evils progress beyond what is sufferable, you pass a tipping point where there need be no rabble-rousers. The rabble become self-rousing.
And the rhetoric will be self-parodying.
You're right, Handel & Mozart aren't right.
I think they should try Wagner. It will be more effective.
I think your timeline is a little off here. The so-called Fairness Doctrine was started up in the late 1940's, which is before Rush Limbaugh was even born! The FCC stopped enforcing it in the 1980's which I think is a just after Rush started in radio.
Reporters without borders is about protecting the special prerogatives of professional journalists. It is their habit to conflate these privileges with freedom of expression. Really this is just an index of how free reporters are to thumb their noses at local law and custom, not the ability of the populace to publish dissenting views. Sometimes the two align, sometimes not.
Good grief - safety pins can be used for torture - maybe they should be banned!
It will be amusing to see how the "no waterboarding" crowd defends itself against this. Exactly how is waterboarding worse than remote control assassination of anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby a US target at the wrong time?
Just what is this supposed to stimulate and how?
Just thought I'd ask
Here's a link to the filings in the case. When I look at the language that's the subject of the complaint, it looks like the kind of rant that goes on in many business disputes without usually going to court - read and judge for yourself. To me, it seems clear that the plaintiff is very touchy about third party payment issues as many chiropractors are and wants to intimidate his former patient into silence. Also, if you look at the history, it's clear that the defendant ignored multiple notifications about the action and had to back down in order to avoid a summary judgement against him - not a good move on his part.
It's unfortunate that the article didn't like to the "offending" post, so it's hard to say exactly what's alleged. That a chiropractor would respond harshly to criticism of practices around billing and insurance is hardly surprising though. Generally they're in a difficult spot - many chiropractors claim to cover a wide range of conditions but are only authorized to bill a narrow range of services. They need to retain patients, but can't unless they can bill all their services to insurance. As a result they have a lot of incentive to interpret the services they are authorized for very broadly. Going too far in this direction is billing fraud. The chiropractor's defense in these cases will sound a log like what's in the article - talk about disagreement about billing practices rather than dishonesty. It would be nice to have a link to the actual allegations to see what's going on in this case.
Chiropractors have had many detractors over the years and have a long history of using political manipulation and legal intimidation in response. They pursue a variety of goals including suppression of criticism of their questionable practices and mandating insurance coverage for chiropractic "care." They have generally been successful. That they try to suppress online criticism is a predictable continuation of longstanding behavior
It's not Slashdot that's pushing a narrative, it James Fowler the political scientist - and he's quoting that great bastion of conservative thought, the New York Times.
Get a grip.
Does anybody else find the idea of transparency in spying to be an odd conception?
Your intellectual vanity is showing.
would reading an article by the dimmmest wit of the Kennedy family count as getting clued in.
When the switchover occurs, those stuck with analog receivers will have to buy a $50 converter. It'll be no big deal.
The bigger picture is that broadcast TV is almost irrelevant now, and will be even more so in a few years. Why stick people with *any* cost for a receiver when few people use the built in receiver now and *nobody* will do so in 5 years.
FYI: This is also why long term unemployment in Germany is so high.
It is in fact not at all like what the East German secret police (Stasi) did during the cold war. There was no legislative shell game to play because the legislature was a sham. The scope of individual liberty was so small that there was no comparable initiative from Stasi. There was no need to sift through large amounts of data about citizens to find out what they needed to know. Activities were all duly registered, and all records were available to them. Elaborate systems of informants kept tabs on any person of interest.
It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to remember the cold war would say something so ridiculous. American domestic intelligence activities take place in a society where individuals enjoy broad latitude of action outside of state control. Without that context, total information awareness or whatever it has become would not even be a dream in a spies mind.
Do you think that small corporate CEOs are more honest? What do you have against fat people anyway!?
If these scientists are so interested in making honest apolitical statements, why would they do it through an organization like the Union of Concerned Scientists? This organization has a reputation for cherry picking quotes that favor its political agenda and representing the result as the consensus of science.