There was nothing in any of that video that looked remotely like a weapon. How about you show us those frames, hmmmm? Sorry, Mr. Propaganda Officer, your bullshit won't fly here.
Nobody in the group had RPGs or anything that looked remotely like them. Nobody made any kind of threatening move. No one was frightened of US military helicopters, because they were not enemy combatants and probably believed, up until the first bullet hit, that the US were there to help them.
Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What run up to the release? This was posted months before there was any kind of media frenzy. Rather than leave yourself open to charges of 'making shit up' or 'spreading misinformation,' you could post links to these sources.
And to be clear, what I saw on those tapes was not 'a mistake made in wartime' any more than My Lai was. It was a deliberate massacre of civilians.
I don't think we have to omit details, I think we could go with "Soldiers laugh while massacring innocents and then cover it up." I really feel for the soldiers, though. Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society. These guys are going to be tomorrow's homeless vets who can neither forget nor forgive themselves for what they have done. And neither the military nor the government will shed a tear for the lives they have ruined.
You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way. We would all be better off if everyone were happy, well adjusted, and could contribute to society, don't you think? Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?
Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object to
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So, it is this supposed 'bias' you object to, not the appeals for money. Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
The kid's grandparents have custody. But more importantly, there is never a good reason to write any human being off as 'trash.' Never. Not even Hitler. If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist. We human beings have empathy for a reason.
Wikilieaks have not been playing this up, the media has. And they should. This is what is known as 'an important news story.' The fact that wikileaks is asking for donations is irrelevant. They have always asked for donations, and they don't have control over how popular a leaked document becomes.
Ah, but you see, in a natural monopoly situation, there is no way for another company to compete with the first-mover in the market. You either accept government regulation of the monopoly, or you let the monopoly do what unregulated monopolies do: bend you over and rape you. Is that what you want? Fat rich bastards bending you over a fence and raping you?
In the US, it depends on the state, the locality, and the natural monopoly in question. Some are run as cooperatives, with the board elected by the members. These tend to work very well. Some are privately owned but well regulated by the respective agency. Some regulatory agencies are bought and paid for by the very people they are supposed to be regulating, but in those cases, I blame a less than diligent voting public. If the citizens wanted better regulation, they could fight for it. Who knows? Maybe they like being raped by rich people.
I did not say monopolies are more efficient. I said that in a natural monopolies situation, a monopoly is more efficient than multiple competing companies. There is a HUGE difference between a government granted monopoly and a natural monopoly, but natural monopolies should be government regulated.
My question is, who owns the wires from the boxes on the poles to the central telco?
So you have dozens of wires going to each building? Wasn't that disruptive? I mean, having installations going on like that, all the time, wasn't that a pain in the ass? How do the little ISPs compete with each other, when they all have so much invested in wire, it must be far more expensive than it needs to be. That is the problem with natural monopolies: it is plainly more efficient just to run one big wire than it is to run a dozen little ones.
If the people who run government are as benevolent or less than those who run corporations, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are not citizens of corporations, unless we pay to be. And even then it's one share, one vote.
I suggest you look at the actual definition of natural monopoly for an in depth explanation as to why your ideas of creating incentives for competition and chopping up these monopolies simply won't work. I tried to explain it, but obviously I have failed to communicate to you the core meaning of 'natural monopoly' and why it is different than a government created monopoly. Encouraging competition with, or chopping up a natural monopoly is counter-productive and leads to higher costs for everyone.
Okay, so the two definitions we have are 'no limits' and 'fair limits.' While this makes the GGP's statement technically true, I believe he was implying there was some sort of vast and mysterious difference in versions of net neutrality, and that we should therefore be afraid of it. There is NO vast difference between different formulations of network neutrality.
I'm for either one, really, but I think 'fair limits' is better, because there are legitimate reasons for tiered access. If I want to do video conferencing, for instance, I want to be able to buy a low latency plan. That requires traffic shaping and prioritization. It's not all about the GB/s, there are other parameters that define a network pipeline.
Ah, really? What alternative definitions, besides the common one, have you heard? It's really pretty simple and it boils down to this: you treat everyone's traffic on your network the same, whether any of the endpoints are in your network or not. You want to perform traffic shaping? Fine, you shape traffic the same for your customers as you do for your peers. What you can't do is say, "well, Google isn't paying me for hosting, so I'm going to slow down everyone's access to Google until Google pays me." See? Simple.
So prove to me that your comment isn't FUD and tell me what other definitions you've heard.
If what you say is true, then Comcast would be fighting FOR net neutrality. If you've noticed, they are fighting against it.
Government regulation occurs locally as a defense against a particular kind of market failure: natural monopoly. The monopoly is going to exist whether the government gets involved or not, so the best course of action is to regulate it. If another start-up came along and ran another set of cables to every house, they would go bankrupt. In this case of natural monopoly, having more than one set of wires running to each home is simply less efficient than having only one. Everyone loses if companies run more than one set of wires, as everything gets more expensive. It's a simple fact: a natural monopoly means that a monopoly is more efficient. So, we can either encourage a fake competition (which means everyone loses) or we regulate a single entity. Or, we wait the decades or more for technology to change the market, but an unregulated natural monopoly is going to do everything in its power to kill any technological change that threatens it. Regulation really is the best option. Only closed minded free market ideologues think the free market is always the best option. Reasonable people know that it fails sometimes, and then government must step in. As with most things in life, the middle ground is often the best.
As jo ham has schooled you before I got the chance, I'll just add 'what he said.' It's what I or any other knowledgeable person would have said. This stuff is quite well understood. Scientists are not idiots. If you can come up with a counterargument, they already have.
Yes, there is a huge conspiracy to sway the public regarding global warming, but it is the big polluters who control that conspiracy. All the FUD around global warming can be traced back, through the money chain, to the big energy companies, mining companies, and other polluters. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year go into denying global warming. If these chuckle heads could come up with some real science disproving it, that would have been done by now. They can't, so they took a page from the tobacco industry playbook and started dozens of little 'grass-roots' organizations to spread FUD about the science.
And you, Mr. Suckerfish, have taken their bait, hook, line and sinker. You are now a zombie in their bot-net, spewing out the lies they have programmed you to spew.
That is the dumbest, most ignorant thing I've read in a while. I mean, I'd read that people like you exist, but I never thought I'd meet one. Good luck with your mental illness. If you want to find reality, it's about 180 degrees from where you're currently looking.
Belief based on evidence is sanity. Belief based on fantasy is insanity. You ARE gambling the future of the planet on a belief, and an insane one to boot. What we propose will help the planet to continue to sustain us, at the same time it creates millions of new jobs. Your proposal is to let corporate polluters continue to put their costs onto us and future generations, your plan is to bend over further and spread wider for your corporate masters. Excuse me if I don't think that's a very good idea.
So that's your theory? A conspiracy keeping real science out of journals? Really? Do you know how science journals work? Who would be paying for this conspiracy? If this conspiracy is so powerful that it can overcome the billions of dollars that the corporate polluters have poured into climate change denial, why hasn't this conspiracy of yours just taken over the world?
Also, which 650+ climatologists are you referring to? The ones you just invented?
Slashdot Mirror
There was nothing in any of that video that looked remotely like a weapon. How about you show us those frames, hmmmm? Sorry, Mr. Propaganda Officer, your bullshit won't fly here.
Nobody in the group had RPGs or anything that looked remotely like them. Nobody made any kind of threatening move. No one was frightened of US military helicopters, because they were not enemy combatants and probably believed, up until the first bullet hit, that the US were there to help them.
What run up to the release? This was posted months before there was any kind of media frenzy. Rather than leave yourself open to charges of 'making shit up' or 'spreading misinformation,' you could post links to these sources.
And to be clear, what I saw on those tapes was not 'a mistake made in wartime' any more than My Lai was. It was a deliberate massacre of civilians.
I don't think we have to omit details, I think we could go with "Soldiers laugh while massacring innocents and then cover it up." I really feel for the soldiers, though. Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society. These guys are going to be tomorrow's homeless vets who can neither forget nor forgive themselves for what they have done. And neither the military nor the government will shed a tear for the lives they have ruined.
You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way. We would all be better off if everyone were happy, well adjusted, and could contribute to society, don't you think? Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?
So, it is this supposed 'bias' you object to, not the appeals for money. Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
The kid's grandparents have custody. But more importantly, there is never a good reason to write any human being off as 'trash.' Never. Not even Hitler. If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist. We human beings have empathy for a reason.
Wikilieaks have not been playing this up, the media has. And they should. This is what is known as 'an important news story.' The fact that wikileaks is asking for donations is irrelevant. They have always asked for donations, and they don't have control over how popular a leaked document becomes.
Sorry, but you've not thought through your objection. The plane isn't jumping straight up, for one thing, and for another, the winds generally blow in a given direction at a given latitude.
Ah, but you see, in a natural monopoly situation, there is no way for another company to compete with the first-mover in the market. You either accept government regulation of the monopoly, or you let the monopoly do what unregulated monopolies do: bend you over and rape you. Is that what you want? Fat rich bastards bending you over a fence and raping you?
In the US, it depends on the state, the locality, and the natural monopoly in question. Some are run as cooperatives, with the board elected by the members. These tend to work very well. Some are privately owned but well regulated by the respective agency. Some regulatory agencies are bought and paid for by the very people they are supposed to be regulating, but in those cases, I blame a less than diligent voting public. If the citizens wanted better regulation, they could fight for it. Who knows? Maybe they like being raped by rich people.
I did not say monopolies are more efficient. I said that in a natural monopolies situation, a monopoly is more efficient than multiple competing companies. There is a HUGE difference between a government granted monopoly and a natural monopoly, but natural monopolies should be government regulated.
My question is, who owns the wires from the boxes on the poles to the central telco?
So you have dozens of wires going to each building? Wasn't that disruptive? I mean, having installations going on like that, all the time, wasn't that a pain in the ass? How do the little ISPs compete with each other, when they all have so much invested in wire, it must be far more expensive than it needs to be. That is the problem with natural monopolies: it is plainly more efficient just to run one big wire than it is to run a dozen little ones.
If the people who run government are as benevolent or less than those who run corporations, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are not citizens of corporations, unless we pay to be. And even then it's one share, one vote.
I would bet your big carriers are required to lease out to small ISPs at their own internal rates. Ours aren't regulated like that anymore.
I suggest you look at the actual definition of natural monopoly for an in depth explanation as to why your ideas of creating incentives for competition and chopping up these monopolies simply won't work. I tried to explain it, but obviously I have failed to communicate to you the core meaning of 'natural monopoly' and why it is different than a government created monopoly. Encouraging competition with, or chopping up a natural monopoly is counter-productive and leads to higher costs for everyone.
Okay, so the two definitions we have are 'no limits' and 'fair limits.' While this makes the GGP's statement technically true, I believe he was implying there was some sort of vast and mysterious difference in versions of net neutrality, and that we should therefore be afraid of it. There is NO vast difference between different formulations of network neutrality.
I'm for either one, really, but I think 'fair limits' is better, because there are legitimate reasons for tiered access. If I want to do video conferencing, for instance, I want to be able to buy a low latency plan. That requires traffic shaping and prioritization. It's not all about the GB/s, there are other parameters that define a network pipeline.
Ah, really? What alternative definitions, besides the common one, have you heard? It's really pretty simple and it boils down to this: you treat everyone's traffic on your network the same, whether any of the endpoints are in your network or not. You want to perform traffic shaping? Fine, you shape traffic the same for your customers as you do for your peers. What you can't do is say, "well, Google isn't paying me for hosting, so I'm going to slow down everyone's access to Google until Google pays me." See? Simple.
So prove to me that your comment isn't FUD and tell me what other definitions you've heard.
If what you say is true, then Comcast would be fighting FOR net neutrality. If you've noticed, they are fighting against it.
Government regulation occurs locally as a defense against a particular kind of market failure: natural monopoly. The monopoly is going to exist whether the government gets involved or not, so the best course of action is to regulate it. If another start-up came along and ran another set of cables to every house, they would go bankrupt. In this case of natural monopoly, having more than one set of wires running to each home is simply less efficient than having only one. Everyone loses if companies run more than one set of wires, as everything gets more expensive. It's a simple fact: a natural monopoly means that a monopoly is more efficient. So, we can either encourage a fake competition (which means everyone loses) or we regulate a single entity. Or, we wait the decades or more for technology to change the market, but an unregulated natural monopoly is going to do everything in its power to kill any technological change that threatens it. Regulation really is the best option. Only closed minded free market ideologues think the free market is always the best option. Reasonable people know that it fails sometimes, and then government must step in. As with most things in life, the middle ground is often the best.
It's from The Onion. It isn't one of their best articles.
As jo ham has schooled you before I got the chance, I'll just add 'what he said.' It's what I or any other knowledgeable person would have said. This stuff is quite well understood. Scientists are not idiots. If you can come up with a counterargument, they already have.
Yes, there is a huge conspiracy to sway the public regarding global warming, but it is the big polluters who control that conspiracy. All the FUD around global warming can be traced back, through the money chain, to the big energy companies, mining companies, and other polluters. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year go into denying global warming. If these chuckle heads could come up with some real science disproving it, that would have been done by now. They can't, so they took a page from the tobacco industry playbook and started dozens of little 'grass-roots' organizations to spread FUD about the science.
And you, Mr. Suckerfish, have taken their bait, hook, line and sinker. You are now a zombie in their bot-net, spewing out the lies they have programmed you to spew.
Yeah, weird, huh? People forget, fascism was a world wide movement.
That is the dumbest, most ignorant thing I've read in a while. I mean, I'd read that people like you exist, but I never thought I'd meet one. Good luck with your mental illness. If you want to find reality, it's about 180 degrees from where you're currently looking.
Belief based on evidence is sanity. Belief based on fantasy is insanity. You ARE gambling the future of the planet on a belief, and an insane one to boot. What we propose will help the planet to continue to sustain us, at the same time it creates millions of new jobs. Your proposal is to let corporate polluters continue to put their costs onto us and future generations, your plan is to bend over further and spread wider for your corporate masters. Excuse me if I don't think that's a very good idea.
So that's your theory? A conspiracy keeping real science out of journals? Really? Do you know how science journals work? Who would be paying for this conspiracy? If this conspiracy is so powerful that it can overcome the billions of dollars that the corporate polluters have poured into climate change denial, why hasn't this conspiracy of yours just taken over the world?
Also, which 650+ climatologists are you referring to? The ones you just invented?
So, you are saying there is a conspiracy to cover up evidence refuting global warming? Is that what you are claiming?