Um, regulatory capture refers to the process by which *regulators* (not regulations) start acting in the interests of the institutions they are supposed to regulate, instead of the public interest. In this instance, when Ajit Pai pushes the FCC to deliver for Comcast, rather than delivering for US citizens. One way that a regulator might act in the interests of producers is by changing regulations, but there are many other ways, including public advocacy and attacking opposing commercial interests. That is the essence of what Pai is doing here.
If you don't know what a term means, best not to complain about someone else's use of it.
Not it would not reduce the carbon level. It would reduce the amount of new CO2e being pumped into the atmosphere. But what the OP is referring to is that the models all assume we find an effective method for CCS, ie removing atmospheric CO2e and sequestrating it.
"We just move to higher ground and rebuild" Tens of millions of people, many of them with no resource whatsoever, moving to higher ground and rebuilding -- this is migration on a vast scale and will cause war. And building infrastructure to look after tens of millions of people is a gigantic undertaking.
We might be able to "adapt to the change" -- what matters is how shitty the process is, and it's shaping up to be pretty fucking awful.
Why do you think that option is available? There are countless stories about existing ISPs shutting down new competitors with the force of law, whether municipal or cooperatives or otherwise.
You say "70%" as though it's a good thing and evidence there's not much of a problem. But that figure means that nearly 100 million Americans are stuck with a single wired ISP providing 10Mbps service, or have no options at all. 100 million!
That is an absurdly shitty situation.
And of course, 10Mbps is pathetically slow. Let's look at the figures for 25Mbps, which is better but hardly good: for 25Mbps, fully 63% of the US population has only a single wired ISP offering the service, or have no option at all. That translates to more than 200m people!
If we talk about what actual fast broadband looks like -- 100Mbps, the numbers are much much worse. Almost everyone is limited to just a single option or has no option at all: 92% of the population, 290m+ people.
This sounds right. It also explains why the top programs are more thriving than ever: essentially there are proper MBAs that have real value in the market (HBS is the quintessential example) and then there are MBAs from second-tier places that have dramatically less value.
City kids gain loads from growing up in a city: typically, this includes better education, better healthcare, better access to culture, better transport infrastructure etc. But of course, they lose some things too.
And almost all of humanity has lost the nightly experience of the numinous that our ancestors had.
Or alternatively, they succeeded, and so did I! What a shame the truth doesn't match your razor-sharp put-down. Still, at least you got to show your bantz skillz, eh?
Can you do me a favour? I'd love a really good laugh. Can you go and film yourself telling a couple of robust FN party members that you think they're communists? I'd love to see what happens.
Le Pen is not a Communist, ffs. She's engaged in what she calls "de-demonisation", which entails her moving her party from its Poujadist origins as a socially, politically and culturally right wing party that espoused anti-egalitarianism in every aspect of its policies towards a different set of policies that are more appealing to its new base of the economically vulnerable. Hence, a focus on secularism, republicanism, protectionism.
She remained well to the right of Macron on law and order, the display of religious symbols, same-sex marriage, and any number of other issues.
In this case, the echo chamber being "scholars of Nazism", "politicians of almost every stripe" and "generally, just about everyone in the civilised world".
That's not a quote from him, you muppet! It's a quote from the blurb!
The arguments the book makes are rather more profound. It describes the success of an idea of populist nationalism that was focused on the aspirations of the working and middle classes, laced with vitriolic hatred of those perceived to stand in its way -- which sometimes included traditional conservatives alongside Jews et al.
How about you actually read it, instead of pretending to.
Your statements are internally incoherent. It's really not at all clear what you're arguing. I guess the use of "liberal" means you're on the right politically, but it's pretty much impossible to tell what point you think you're making. You appear to be saying that I disagree with the scholarly consensus. I don't.
In British terms, the argument "ooh the Nazis were National *Socialists* and they had collectivist ideas and thus were completely pragmatic and took ideas from the left and the right" would be considered good for a B in your A levels. It wouldn't even get you a 3rd in a degree course at an ex-poly. The scholarly consensus is quite clear that fascism is right wing.
Did you really just say that suffrage for women and abolishing slavery did more harm than good because they involved an expansion of the powers of the government beyond those set out in the Constitution?
Well, some of you have. The truth is the Nazis were fascists. Fascists adopt ideology from both the political left and right. For example they coopt both the workers and the industrialists, putting both under the control of an authoritarian nationalist state. You can't plot fascism on a left/right political line, the line is a flawed model.
If the truth were that trite, we'd all be twits. The scholarly consensus has been that Nazism was a far right form of politics. You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
So you are going to double-down on your historical ignorance and claim such things are the exclusive domain of the right?
Hey, I've had a really good idea for a political debate: how about you don't purposely reduce the points I make to trite straw men either-or statements that I didn't make, and I'll do the same for you? I already explained in the section you didn't quote what links there are between a strain of right wing thought and anti-egalitarianism. I didn't make any claim that this was exclusive. Stalin had antisemitic purges too.
That's one weird strawman windmill you're tilting at there!
1. Affirmative action is not the same thing as not promoting some opinions over others based on the physical attributes of the person uttering said opinion. Affirmative action is giving preferential access to candidate A over equally-qualified candidate B on the basis of some characteristic of candidate A such as their gender or religion or race. 2. Nor was I arguing for affirmative action. 3. And your use of "physical attribute" is a classic example of faux objective language: it's intended to give you a hint of authority, with its air of scientism, but it doesn't even adequately capture the groups you need it to capture: it leaves out gay people and Jewish people, for example. 4. Ignoring "that diversity" has quite a long history of meaning "if you tell us you've been maltreated on account of your difference from us, we will ignore you". So I'm not *quite* the optimist you are that we can just ignore "that diversity" and all the problems of bigotry will go away all by themselves.
Ohhhh, it's all been lies!!!! We've all been repeating lies to ourselves about the rightwing nature of Nazism for the last seven decades: the racism, the sexism, the homophobia, the virulent intolerance of any difference.
But fortunately, you're here to tell us the difference, cos you have the shining light of truth in your special 2012 edition textbook. I hope you hug it close at night in case the Nazi socialists come to take it away.
You would be hilarious if you weren't so sad. The amazing thing about the modern American right is its astounding parochialism, the way it assumes that left/right is to be understood solely in terms of large-state/small-state. That might be the Randian wank-fest that you're all obsessed with, but the rest of the world is aware of a broader history, in which right wing views are associated with conservatism, and thus oppose such changes as treating black people as equal with white people, treating Jews as equal with white people, treating women as equal with men, treating gay people as equal with heterosexual people, etc. And the rest of the world also noticed that some right wingers have used quite a lot of violence to ensure that black people, women, gay people, Jews, etc are not treated as equals of white men.
Funny that. I could swear I could see about half a dozen comments on here claiming that Nazi ideology is left wing, despite at least 70 years of it being commonly accepted that it was right wing. In other words, people on the right want the left to own not only the mass killings of Stalin and Mao, but those of Hitler as well. No doubt Franco and Mussolini too.
What was that saying about whose shit doesn't stink?
Guess what, sweetheart? I like living in a country where the police are there to help me, and where the chance of "shit going down" is really low compared to your life.
Also, have you any idea just how stupid you sound when you respond to my post by saying I'm not worth a response? Of course you don't! Because you are really really stupid. But we already knew that, didn't we? (The rest of us, I mean. Obviously, you have no chance of having insight into your own mental faculties)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, regulatory capture refers to the process by which *regulators* (not regulations) start acting in the interests of the institutions they are supposed to regulate, instead of the public interest. In this instance, when Ajit Pai pushes the FCC to deliver for Comcast, rather than delivering for US citizens. One way that a regulator might act in the interests of producers is by changing regulations, but there are many other ways, including public advocacy and attacking opposing commercial interests. That is the essence of what Pai is doing here.
If you don't know what a term means, best not to complain about someone else's use of it.
Not it would not reduce the carbon level. It would reduce the amount of new CO2e being pumped into the atmosphere. But what the OP is referring to is that the models all assume we find an effective method for CCS, ie removing atmospheric CO2e and sequestrating it.
How is this modded insightful?
"We just move to higher ground and rebuild" Tens of millions of people, many of them with no resource whatsoever, moving to higher ground and rebuilding -- this is migration on a vast scale and will cause war. And building infrastructure to look after tens of millions of people is a gigantic undertaking.
We might be able to "adapt to the change" -- what matters is how shitty the process is, and it's shaping up to be pretty fucking awful.
Why do you think that option is available? There are countless stories about existing ISPs shutting down new competitors with the force of law, whether municipal or cooperatives or otherwise.
You say "70%" as though it's a good thing and evidence there's not much of a problem. But that figure means that nearly 100 million Americans are stuck with a single wired ISP providing 10Mbps service, or have no options at all. 100 million!
That is an absurdly shitty situation.
And of course, 10Mbps is pathetically slow. Let's look at the figures for 25Mbps, which is better but hardly good: for 25Mbps, fully 63% of the US population has only a single wired ISP offering the service, or have no option at all. That translates to more than 200m people!
If we talk about what actual fast broadband looks like -- 100Mbps, the numbers are much much worse. Almost everyone is limited to just a single option or has no option at all: 92% of the population, 290m+ people.
You are way too complacent
Tech companies do appear to be really really shit at creating a favourable political environment for themselves.
This sounds right. It also explains why the top programs are more thriving than ever: essentially there are proper MBAs that have real value in the market (HBS is the quintessential example) and then there are MBAs from second-tier places that have dramatically less value.
City kids gain loads from growing up in a city: typically, this includes better education, better healthcare, better access to culture, better transport infrastructure etc. But of course, they lose some things too.
And almost all of humanity has lost the nightly experience of the numinous that our ancestors had.
Or alternatively, they succeeded, and so did I! What a shame the truth doesn't match your razor-sharp put-down. Still, at least you got to show your bantz skillz, eh?
Not only did I go to school, I am pretty confident I went to a better school than you.
Can you do me a favour? I'd love a really good laugh. Can you go and film yourself telling a couple of robust FN party members that you think they're communists? I'd love to see what happens.
Le Pen is not a Communist, ffs. She's engaged in what she calls "de-demonisation", which entails her moving her party from its Poujadist origins as a socially, politically and culturally right wing party that espoused anti-egalitarianism in every aspect of its policies towards a different set of policies that are more appealing to its new base of the economically vulnerable. Hence, a focus on secularism, republicanism, protectionism.
She remained well to the right of Macron on law and order, the display of religious symbols, same-sex marriage, and any number of other issues.
The world just isn't that binary.
In this case, the echo chamber being "scholars of Nazism", "politicians of almost every stripe" and "generally, just about everyone in the civilised world".
The count goes up all the time.
That's not a quote from him, you muppet! It's a quote from the blurb!
The arguments the book makes are rather more profound. It describes the success of an idea of populist nationalism that was focused on the aspirations of the working and middle classes, laced with vitriolic hatred of those perceived to stand in its way -- which sometimes included traditional conservatives alongside Jews et al.
How about you actually read it, instead of pretending to.
Your statements are internally incoherent. It's really not at all clear what you're arguing. I guess the use of "liberal" means you're on the right politically, but it's pretty much impossible to tell what point you think you're making. You appear to be saying that I disagree with the scholarly consensus. I don't.
I'm really not.
In British terms, the argument "ooh the Nazis were National *Socialists* and they had collectivist ideas and thus were completely pragmatic and took ideas from the left and the right" would be considered good for a B in your A levels. It wouldn't even get you a 3rd in a degree course at an ex-poly. The scholarly consensus is quite clear that fascism is right wing.
Did you really just say that suffrage for women and abolishing slavery did more harm than good because they involved an expansion of the powers of the government beyond those set out in the Constitution?
I can't see any other response to the parent.
And your statement is unclear: do you mean "right-wing" or "correct"?
Well, some of you have. The truth is the Nazis were fascists. Fascists adopt ideology from both the political left and right. For example they coopt both the workers and the industrialists, putting both under the control of an authoritarian nationalist state. You can't plot fascism on a left/right political line, the line is a flawed model.
If the truth were that trite, we'd all be twits. The scholarly consensus has been that Nazism was a far right form of politics. You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
So you are going to double-down on your historical ignorance and claim such things are the exclusive domain of the right?
Hey, I've had a really good idea for a political debate: how about you don't purposely reduce the points I make to trite straw men either-or statements that I didn't make, and I'll do the same for you? I already explained in the section you didn't quote what links there are between a strain of right wing thought and anti-egalitarianism. I didn't make any claim that this was exclusive. Stalin had antisemitic purges too.
That's one weird strawman windmill you're tilting at there!
1. Affirmative action is not the same thing as not promoting some opinions over others based on the physical attributes of the person uttering said opinion. Affirmative action is giving preferential access to candidate A over equally-qualified candidate B on the basis of some characteristic of candidate A such as their gender or religion or race.
2. Nor was I arguing for affirmative action.
3. And your use of "physical attribute" is a classic example of faux objective language: it's intended to give you a hint of authority, with its air of scientism, but it doesn't even adequately capture the groups you need it to capture: it leaves out gay people and Jewish people, for example.
4. Ignoring "that diversity" has quite a long history of meaning "if you tell us you've been maltreated on account of your difference from us, we will ignore you". So I'm not *quite* the optimist you are that we can just ignore "that diversity" and all the problems of bigotry will go away all by themselves.
Parochialism, cognitive dissonance and terrible education -- especially history.
Ohhhh, it's all been lies!!!! We've all been repeating lies to ourselves about the rightwing nature of Nazism for the last seven decades: the racism, the sexism, the homophobia, the virulent intolerance of any difference.
But fortunately, you're here to tell us the difference, cos you have the shining light of truth in your special 2012 edition textbook. I hope you hug it close at night in case the Nazi socialists come to take it away.
You would be hilarious if you weren't so sad. The amazing thing about the modern American right is its astounding parochialism, the way it assumes that left/right is to be understood solely in terms of large-state/small-state. That might be the Randian wank-fest that you're all obsessed with, but the rest of the world is aware of a broader history, in which right wing views are associated with conservatism, and thus oppose such changes as treating black people as equal with white people, treating Jews as equal with white people, treating women as equal with men, treating gay people as equal with heterosexual people, etc. And the rest of the world also noticed that some right wingers have used quite a lot of violence to ensure that black people, women, gay people, Jews, etc are not treated as equals of white men.
Spot on.
There's a lot of lovers of authoritarianism on Slashdot nowadays.
Funny that. I could swear I could see about half a dozen comments on here claiming that Nazi ideology is left wing, despite at least 70 years of it being commonly accepted that it was right wing. In other words, people on the right want the left to own not only the mass killings of Stalin and Mao, but those of Hitler as well. No doubt Franco and Mussolini too.
What was that saying about whose shit doesn't stink?
It's pathetic.
Guess what, sweetheart? I like living in a country where the police are there to help me, and where the chance of "shit going down" is really low compared to your life.
Also, have you any idea just how stupid you sound when you respond to my post by saying I'm not worth a response? Of course you don't! Because you are really really stupid. But we already knew that, didn't we? (The rest of us, I mean. Obviously, you have no chance of having insight into your own mental faculties)