They have gutted their proposed legislation, yes, and you admit they have. Verizon does not have veto powers over proposed US laws. Google could continue to advocate for consumer's rights, but they would rather pen a profitable deal with Verizon.
How is a well protected cartel the same as real competition? What real choices do those companies offer consumers? You get the choice of which cartel member screws you over, yay!
Google used weasel wording to obfuscate their intent, which is to gut any proposed legislation on wireless network neutrality. They did not have to give in to Verizon, and we, the voters, do not either.
This is about proposed legislation. Google does not own Verizon, but we own our government and we, the people, can enact legislation forcing Verizon to enact network neutrality on their wireless network. Most of us here at Slashdot think net neutrality is a good thing, and we feel it is wrong for Google to switch their position. Clear enough for you?
I don't hate Google, and they certainly aren't the most evil corporation out there, but they were being dishonest. Why have a FACT/MYTH pair when your FACT confirms your MYTH? To confuse the issue. Here is how it should look:
MYTH: Google supports wireless network neutrality. FACT: Google opposes wireless network neutrality in order to gain Verizon's support.
Because Google presented a MYTH/FACT pairing where the FACT actually confirmed the MYTH, which is the opposite of how the MYTH/FACT pairing is supposed to work. MYTH: we do not want wireless network neutrality. FACT: No really, we don't want it!
The weasel wording and disingenuous use of the MYTH/FACT trope are dishonest, and dishonesty, especially regarding proposed legislation, is evil.
Dishonesty is evil. Google is backtracking from it's previous support of wireless network neutrality and attempting to obfuscate that decision with weasel wording.
That is utter bullshit. Free from regulation does mean no network neutrality. Network neutrality is only enforceable through regulation. Without regulation, service providers can easily lie about whether they are actually providing a neutral network. You are not saying we will have neutral wireless networks, you are saying we don't need neutrality on wireless networks because we have competition. Although I disagree, that is still a clear cut position. Google is NOT presenting their walk-back from wireless net neutrality in the same clear fashion, they are obscuring it deliberately.
There is little or no competition in wireless, anyhow.
Your response is exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about. There is no net neutrality anywhere, yet. So nothing could 'eliminate' net neutrality. But Google apparently wants less careful readers to come away from that paragraph with the idea that Google still supports wireless net neutrality, which they do not.
Get it? Google used to support wireless net neutrality. Now they don't Their Myth/Fact section is designed to obscure this issue.
Basically, you are saying that this section actually parses to this: MYTH: this proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: there is no network neutrality to eliminate, so stop whining already!
I thought I was illustrating the answer: dishonesty is evil. A FACT that confirms your MYTH section, but confusingly, is dishonest. Advocating for wireline net neutrality is not evil, but Google is now advocating for NO net neutrality for wireless, reversing their previous position.
Why is it evil to recognize the reality that wireless networks have different capacity constraints than wired ones?
It isn't. It is evil to lie or dissimulate. When you present a MYTH that is the confirmed (but confusingly) in your FACT section, that is dishonest and dishonesty is evil
I remember as a young kid being vaguely scared that, if I ate watermelon seeds, a watermelon would grow in my stomach. Of course, by the time I was six I realized that plants would not grow inside a human. Turns out I was wrong.
MYTH: Google has gone evil. FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
Everything else? I like a balanced budget. And I support states' rights: if it isn't in the constitution, it should be up to the states, and the commerce clause is not a trump card. So I'm guessing we have that in common, too. Of course, I want states' rights so all us hippies can take over California and turn it into a pot-smoking socialist worker's paradise, but let's not quibble over details.
I was just on a roll. I do that sometimes. If you read further down a bit, you'll find where I write, and I quote, "Fuck Obama, fuck him right in the ear." And I believe I also mock liberals who defend him from the criticism of other liberals, when the man has said, "If you want it, make me do it. Hold my feet to the fire."
It's just that, right now, petty, affronted snarky, whining fearmongering is all I see from conservatives, not even an attempt at rational discourse. They've doubled down on the crazy. I don't even know what Republican policy positions are besides "If Obama wants it, we won't do it." They certainly loudly denounce what they don't like, but I have not heard what their alternatives are.
No, no, I'm even more surprised by the argumentation of liberals because I expect more from them. Perhaps most disappointing is their emotion laden appeals for other liberals to stop picking on poor president Obama for not doing what he promised to do, he's just a man not a miracle worker, how can you expect him to do everything he promised in just two years? You know what I say to those "LEeeaaave Brittany Alone!" liberals? I say, fuck that corporate toady Obama, fuck him right in the ear.
You get cheap oil subsidized by our military adventures around the globe. Look at any other non-oil-producing country and see if they have gas as cheap as we do.
But you are making a very basic mistake. You are somehow operating under the illusion that any so called American Empire must operate to benefit the average citizen. You do not see the benefit, therefore, by your argument, there must not be an empire.
This Empire is not for you. This is not your Empire. It exists to benefit people who would never even give you the time of day. You are as much a victim of the Empire as any Dickensian factory worker of Victorian ere England.
Hmm, what point WAS I traying to make? We give less than other first world nations, per capita. Now, what are the categories on that page? Total Offical Development Assistance, Official Development Assistance by country as a percentage of GNI, Humanitarian donation in absolute terms, Humanitarian donation by country as a percentage of GNI, and Most Generous Countries in 2008 as donation per citizen.
Now, we can't count the first two because of this:
To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements: 1.) be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency); 2.) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and 3.) at concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.)
You see, the first two categories on that page do not cover giving, but lending at reasonable terms.
So, we are really talking about the last three categories, where we do not even rank in the top ten in the first one, seventh in the next and ninth in the last. Okay, you got me. There may be one or two first world countries who are as stingy as us. Mea culpa.
Oh my goodness. Look to the right side of your browser window. Do you see the thing with the 3D looking bar and the two arrows? That's called a scroll bar. Now, go back to that page and scroll down.
Ever watch the "Debbie Downer" skits on SNL? As the skits go on, the sad trombone sound gets longer and sadder. "WWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHH Wah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
Maybe this was meant as a reply to someone else? I'm just saying because I really want whoever this was meant for to actually see it, it's a good post.
Slashdot Mirror
They have gutted their proposed legislation, yes, and you admit they have. Verizon does not have veto powers over proposed US laws. Google could continue to advocate for consumer's rights, but they would rather pen a profitable deal with Verizon.
How is a well protected cartel the same as real competition? What real choices do those companies offer consumers? You get the choice of which cartel member screws you over, yay!
Google used weasel wording to obfuscate their intent, which is to gut any proposed legislation on wireless network neutrality. They did not have to give in to Verizon, and we, the voters, do not either.
This is about proposed legislation. Google does not own Verizon, but we own our government and we, the people, can enact legislation forcing Verizon to enact network neutrality on their wireless network. Most of us here at Slashdot think net neutrality is a good thing, and we feel it is wrong for Google to switch their position. Clear enough for you?
I don't hate Google, and they certainly aren't the most evil corporation out there, but they were being dishonest. Why have a FACT/MYTH pair when your FACT confirms your MYTH? To confuse the issue. Here is how it should look:
MYTH: Google supports wireless network neutrality. FACT: Google opposes wireless network neutrality in order to gain Verizon's support.
Because Google presented a MYTH/FACT pairing where the FACT actually confirmed the MYTH, which is the opposite of how the MYTH/FACT pairing is supposed to work. MYTH: we do not want wireless network neutrality. FACT: No really, we don't want it!
The weasel wording and disingenuous use of the MYTH/FACT trope are dishonest, and dishonesty, especially regarding proposed legislation, is evil.
Nope, you don't understand, even though I have clearly stated the problem: dishonesty is evil.
Dishonesty is evil. Google is backtracking from it's previous support of wireless network neutrality and attempting to obfuscate that decision with weasel wording.
The evil part is that the FACT does not negate the MYTH, it confirms it. Plain and simple: Google is backtracking on it's previous stance.
That is utter bullshit. Free from regulation does mean no network neutrality. Network neutrality is only enforceable through regulation. Without regulation, service providers can easily lie about whether they are actually providing a neutral network. You are not saying we will have neutral wireless networks, you are saying we don't need neutrality on wireless networks because we have competition. Although I disagree, that is still a clear cut position. Google is NOT presenting their walk-back from wireless net neutrality in the same clear fashion, they are obscuring it deliberately.
There is little or no competition in wireless, anyhow.
Your response is exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about. There is no net neutrality anywhere, yet. So nothing could 'eliminate' net neutrality. But Google apparently wants less careful readers to come away from that paragraph with the idea that Google still supports wireless net neutrality, which they do not.
Get it? Google used to support wireless net neutrality. Now they don't Their Myth/Fact section is designed to obscure this issue.
Basically, you are saying that this section actually parses to this: MYTH: this proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: there is no network neutrality to eliminate, so stop whining already!
That is also dishonest and evil.
I thought I was illustrating the answer: dishonesty is evil. A FACT that confirms your MYTH section, but confusingly, is dishonest. Advocating for wireline net neutrality is not evil, but Google is now advocating for NO net neutrality for wireless, reversing their previous position.
Why is it evil to recognize the reality that wireless networks have different capacity constraints than wired ones?
It isn't. It is evil to lie or dissimulate. When you present a MYTH that is the confirmed (but confusingly) in your FACT section, that is dishonest and dishonesty is evil
I remember as a young kid being vaguely scared that, if I ate watermelon seeds, a watermelon would grow in my stomach. Of course, by the time I was six I realized that plants would not grow inside a human. Turns out I was wrong.
MYTH: Google has gone evil. FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
Everything else? I like a balanced budget. And I support states' rights: if it isn't in the constitution, it should be up to the states, and the commerce clause is not a trump card. So I'm guessing we have that in common, too. Of course, I want states' rights so all us hippies can take over California and turn it into a pot-smoking socialist worker's paradise, but let's not quibble over details.
Here, let me google that for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+funds+missing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
My scolding demonstrates that infantile ad hominems are not acceptable in adult discourse. And why should I go away?
I was just on a roll. I do that sometimes. If you read further down a bit, you'll find where I write, and I quote, "Fuck Obama, fuck him right in the ear." And I believe I also mock liberals who defend him from the criticism of other liberals, when the man has said, "If you want it, make me do it. Hold my feet to the fire."
It's just that, right now, petty, affronted snarky, whining fearmongering is all I see from conservatives, not even an attempt at rational discourse. They've doubled down on the crazy. I don't even know what Republican policy positions are besides "If Obama wants it, we won't do it." They certainly loudly denounce what they don't like, but I have not heard what their alternatives are.
No, no, I'm even more surprised by the argumentation of liberals because I expect more from them. Perhaps most disappointing is their emotion laden appeals for other liberals to stop picking on poor president Obama for not doing what he promised to do, he's just a man not a miracle worker, how can you expect him to do everything he promised in just two years? You know what I say to those "LEeeaaave Brittany Alone!" liberals? I say, fuck that corporate toady Obama, fuck him right in the ear.
You get cheap oil subsidized by our military adventures around the globe. Look at any other non-oil-producing country and see if they have gas as cheap as we do.
But you are making a very basic mistake. You are somehow operating under the illusion that any so called American Empire must operate to benefit the average citizen. You do not see the benefit, therefore, by your argument, there must not be an empire.
This Empire is not for you. This is not your Empire. It exists to benefit people who would never even give you the time of day. You are as much a victim of the Empire as any Dickensian factory worker of Victorian ere England.
Hmm, what point WAS I traying to make? We give less than other first world nations, per capita. Now, what are the categories on that page? Total Offical Development Assistance, Official Development Assistance by country as a percentage of GNI, Humanitarian donation in absolute terms, Humanitarian donation by country as a percentage of GNI, and Most Generous Countries in 2008 as donation per citizen.
Now, we can't count the first two because of this:
To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements: 1.) be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency); 2.) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and 3.) at concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.)
You see, the first two categories on that page do not cover giving, but lending at reasonable terms.
So, we are really talking about the last three categories, where we do not even rank in the top ten in the first one, seventh in the next and ninth in the last. Okay, you got me. There may be one or two first world countries who are as stingy as us. Mea culpa.
Oh my goodness. Look to the right side of your browser window. Do you see the thing with the 3D looking bar and the two arrows? That's called a scroll bar. Now, go back to that page and scroll down.
Ever watch the "Debbie Downer" skits on SNL? As the skits go on, the sad trombone sound gets longer and sadder. "WWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHH Wah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
Maybe this was meant as a reply to someone else? I'm just saying because I really want whoever this was meant for to actually see it, it's a good post.
I'm in the business of giving you headaches, sport. Conservative brain pains are my bread and butter, you just paid me in my favorite coin.