This is also why Pvt Manning continues to be held incommunicado at the special torture facility in Kuwait.
This sentence might be considered true if by incommunicado you mean talking to his lawyer, and by special torture facility you mean Marine Corps Base, and by Kuwait you mean Virginia...
Wouldn't prioritizing, by definition, degrade someone else's service?
It's easy to get that impression, but I don't think so. Your question seems very semantic to me.
A major QoS benchmark is latency. Let's say your average latency to a given server is 13ms. As a gamer I want an average latency to my game server of 9ms. As long as your average latency remains at 13ms, while giving me the 9ms I desire, there's no problem. The problem occurs when the content providers (say, Time Warner) prioritize their media content over their network at the expense of their customer's connection to non Time Warner servers.
Simple fallacies of Ad Hominem, Hypocrisy, and What if.
The funny part is I was not even arguing whether he should have lost his job if he had been caught when he was AG (he didn't.) My argument is that you cannot judge all of a man by one deed, after the fact. I fully acknowledge what he did was wrong, and COULD HAVE had wider ramifications. But the main point of my post was to correct the misinformation being spread, and point out that he did some good things, and that in actuality the good he did for the public way overshadowed any ACTUAL harm.
If he had, would it have detracted from his accomplishments? I think not. You had your facts wrong, and when confronted, you fell back into the fallacies of Ad Hominem and Hypocrisy.
Is there any evidence that what would actually be enacted is this way, or are you like most Net Neutrality proponents who make up their own rules and decide that must be what NN means?
It's still very much up for debate, and will be until it get's passed by the Congress, at least in the US. I think there are two pertinent points to be discussed here in regards to NN:
1. Does prioritizing traffic compromise the spirit and principal behind NN if it does not degrade others service?
2. Would it possibly be better to implement a QOS scheme that allows customers to prioritize whichever traffic is most important to them?
My personal answers are:
1. Not necessarily. 2. Yes
I will be contacting my elected representatives and the EFF with my views. I recommend you do the same.
Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.
Unless you were there, I don't see how you can make that claim: " the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said."
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this
There is a time and a place for everything.
The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
Interesting how you left out the caveat I included that was clearly part of the sentence...
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it.
That said, I guess to me it goes back to the basic tenet that you have the freedom to exercise your rights as long as the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon others' rights. Whenever there is a conflict of rights that cannot be resolved by the people involved, the next logical step is to take it to agents of the law who will resolve the issue as best they can within the framework of the minor laws while attempting to hold true to the greater principals. Must compromises be made when fundamental rights are at odds? Yes. Is this the same as "The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn"? I don't think so, but of course I am a mere interested layman. My main point was that the issue is not as one-sided as the poster seemed to be indicating.
I strongly urge people to read the background information in the links before knee jerking. Here are some pertinent lines:
“In fact, a large percentage of the posts in some Kentucky forums contain explicit, vulgar, obscene and defamatory posts about citizens, including children.”
According to a press release from Conway’s office, the tools provided by Topix.com to remove the abusive posts are ineffective unless consumers agree to pay a $19.99 fee.
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it. That said, freedom and anarchy are not the same. People also have the right to protect themselves and their children from being defamed or slandered. Charging someone who might not otherwise access your site if they were not being slandered seems quite ridiculous to me.
I completely disagree. No offensive scheme or technique on it's own is a match for a good linebacker or DB who can read offenses. And no defensive scheme or technique on it's own is a match for a good quarterback and skilled players who can read defenses and adjust on the fly. Linemen need to be able to make split second decisions and reads and adjust accordingly. I cannot reconcile your statement with reality at all.
Tracking one person around a city with RFID would be a nuisance. You'd need multiple points, signal quality would vary wildly, it'd be painful in a way.
My problem with the whole concept of: "They're secure now," is that technology often makes leaps. Especially when such a system becomes more widespread and people have more reason to develop, for example, a long distance surreptitious reader. What's painful and impractical today very well might not be so tomorrow. How many systems have seemed secure in a controlled environment and then get cracked shortly after release into the wild?
>>>Do they do knowingly do it habitually with forethought and malice?
Yes. When the MSNBC producer tells the video editor to cut-off the head of the black guy, and then overlaps that video with "white racist" in the voiceover, it's obviously down forethought and malice.
It's propaganda. There's no other word that applies.
So you have a link to the unedited clip or some other evidence that it was done purposefully or that they weren't looking for stock footage and found that clip, not realizing that the person that was in the close up (surrounded by all the white men with guns) was black?
Your assertion make so many specious assumptions as to be ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that one instance on one show is nowhere near a whole network doing it on all shows for OVER A DECADE!
While I think the author brings up many good points (especially the sequence to protein folding problem,) I believe is is a huge mistake to completely discount large intuitive leaps out of hand. Someone has to make the large intuitive leaps before getting to the hard science, which would not progress without small intuitive leaps. Remember the electric light "woo?"
Have they done it? I don't doubt it. Do they do knowingly do it habitually with aforethought and malice? No, not even close. Does Fox, Limbaugh et al, ad nauseum? Yes. Has Fox been proven without a doubt to do so? Yes. Has MSNBC and NBC? Not even close. You can show 3 or 4 clips all day, but anyone who has paid attention at all (which is unfortunately not many) in the last ten years know the difference between 3 or 4 potentially fishy isolated incidents and a clearly demonstrated habitual practice.
And again, I have yet to see one clear and undeniable instance anyway, and you have failed multiple times to produce even one. You are all hat and no cattle.
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda? The other channels do as well (especially MSNBC which has been caught doing it).
First, he clearly never claimed that only Fox spews propaganda. And then you make the fallacious bare assertion that MSNBC was CAUGHT doing it. Friendlylurker presented some good links to support his assertion. Fox was caught dictating spin from the top. On the other hand, the only thing I have seen from about MSNBC was ONE instance (that gets repeated ad nauseum) where an idiot host tried to talk about the white dominated tea party movement and the radical right while showing a black man carrying a gun who was protesting at a health care rally. Were they stupid? Yes. Should they have checked their stock footage better? Yes. But it takes a giant leap to somehow assume from that that they meant to do it, and it was ordered from on high.
Which brings us to the next fallacy that even if it was ordered by MSNBC management and knowingly perpetrated by the host (which would be stupid, because obviously the fact that the protester was black did not do much to further their claim that there are racist elements in the Tea party) it STILL nowhere near balances out ten years of top-down propaganda from Fox news that has been well documented.
But then for neoconservatives, logic obviously doesn't enter into the equation.
Please explain to me how the additional context changed anything about that interview. Bush equated negotiation with appeasement. The interviewer was asking whether he was referring to Obama. Not only did bush NOT answer the question, he started some weasly lie about how he actually said it was important to talk to people, when it was an ESTABLISHED FACT that he had clearly equated negotiation with appeasement. Here is what he actually said in the speech:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said.
Without mentioning Obama by name, Bush compared "this foolish delusion" to the prelude to World War Two.
"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he said.
Again, the part they cut out was literally irrelevant BULLSHIT. They were being kind to cut it out, because anyone who was up on current events would have howled in laughter at his weasling. This was your great example of left wing propaganda? REALLY?
Yeah, like Mobsters were enough to convince Americans to exercise temperance. (not) I'm not sure if this is a straw man or a red herring but no matter what it is, I believe it is wrong. America failed to learn from history, and so was doomed to repeat it. We have long passed the point where the negative effects of marijuana prohibition have eclipsed the regulated legalized sale of the drug. And as far as the likelihood of decriminalization goes, it has already been largely decriminalized when it comes to use and between MMJ and other legalization initiatives around the US, there is a pretty large grass roots (ha-ha) movement already in progress to further legalize and regulate it's growth and sale.
A pseudo-budget surplus. It was really just playing the numbers around, and including other monies (e.g. Social Security) in ways to make it look like a surplus. Yeah for fudging the numbers.
That is a dishonest and misleading statement. First it implies that the numbers came from the Clinton administration. They didn't they came from the CBO, which is NONPARTISAN. The CBO has never changed it's methods for reporting the deficit.
Add to that the fact that there were many jobs that were split in two, each with half the salary of the original
Poverty was hardly at an all time low; and thanks to the dotCom boom it seemed to be at an all-time high.
You are right that poverty was not at an all time low, I'm not sure why I was thinking that(although there was a huge drop) but you are dead wrong about the all time high.
Then again, we went from manageable debt levels in the 1980's and early 1990's to the drowning levels of debt we have now - at all levels: federal, state, business, and personal - even before the recession started (so no, the recession is not to blame!).
I'll spell it out for you. I was expressing surprise and disgust that people are acting so outraged about this Wikileaks issue, and yet there was basically no public outcry or real consequences when our own government compromised people and operations for political reasons.
While I think Wikileaks should have made more and better attempts to protect people before they released the documents, at least they released them for principled reasons.
The very clear example of this ignorance being rated 5 and insightful is clear demonstration that this site is now just a mouthpiece for the right wing astro turf. If not. it is merely a clear example of how ignorant the readers are.
Slashdot Mirror
This is also why Pvt Manning continues to be held incommunicado at the special torture facility in Kuwait.
This sentence might be considered true if by incommunicado you mean talking to his lawyer, and by special torture facility you mean Marine Corps Base, and by Kuwait you mean Virginia...
Wouldn't prioritizing, by definition, degrade someone else's service?
It's easy to get that impression, but I don't think so. Your question seems very semantic to me.
A major QoS benchmark is latency. Let's say your average latency to a given server is 13ms. As a gamer I want an average latency to my game server of 9ms. As long as your average latency remains at 13ms, while giving me the 9ms I desire, there's no problem. The problem occurs when the content providers (say, Time Warner) prioritize their media content over their network at the expense of their customer's connection to non Time Warner servers.
Simple fallacies of Ad Hominem, Hypocrisy, and What if.
The funny part is I was not even arguing whether he should have lost his job if he had been caught when he was AG (he didn't.) My argument is that you cannot judge all of a man by one deed, after the fact. I fully acknowledge what he did was wrong, and COULD HAVE had wider ramifications. But the main point of my post was to correct the misinformation being spread, and point out that he did some good things, and that in actuality the good he did for the public way overshadowed any ACTUAL harm.
If he had, would it have detracted from his accomplishments? I think not. You had your facts wrong, and when confronted, you fell back into the fallacies of Ad Hominem and Hypocrisy.
Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times
It wasn't a correction. You went by the accusations, not by what was proven. There's a big difference.
Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.
Do you know about anything you say, or do you just say whatever nonsense comes to mind?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003960-5,00.html
(starts at paragraph 2)
He headed the three year investigation, and masterminded the operation that brought him down. He was a modern day Eliot Ness.
As far as whether anything he did affected you, I recommend you read the whole Time article. It's titled: Eliot Spitzer: Wall Street's Top Cop
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003960-1,00.html
Is there any evidence that what would actually be enacted is this way, or are you like most Net Neutrality proponents who make up their own rules and decide that must be what NN means?
It's still very much up for debate, and will be until it get's passed by the Congress, at least in the US. I think there are two pertinent points to be discussed here in regards to NN:
1. Does prioritizing traffic compromise the spirit and principal behind NN if it does not degrade others service?
2. Would it possibly be better to implement a QOS scheme that allows customers to prioritize whichever traffic is most important to them?
My personal answers are:
1. Not necessarily.
2. Yes
I will be contacting my elected representatives and the EFF with my views. I recommend you do the same.
Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.
Unless you were there, I don't see how you can make that claim:
" the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?_r=1&hp
And it's interesting how you left out all the good things he did in his career, not the least of which was taking on the Gambino crime family.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2002/jun/jun04a_02.html
Does anyone REALLY care that he got down with some hookers? Are we really still so prude?
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this
There is a time and a place for everything.
The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
Interesting how you left out the caveat I included that was clearly part of the sentence...
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it.
That said, I guess to me it goes back to the basic tenet that you have the freedom to exercise your rights as long as the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon others' rights. Whenever there is a conflict of rights that cannot be resolved by the people involved, the next logical step is to take it to agents of the law who will resolve the issue as best they can within the framework of the minor laws while attempting to hold true to the greater principals. Must compromises be made when fundamental rights are at odds? Yes. Is this the same as "The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn"? I don't think so, but of course I am a mere interested layman. My main point was that the issue is not as one-sided as the poster seemed to be indicating.
"...no one has the right to not be offended..."
Fuck you.
lol... exactly
I strongly urge people to read the background information in the links before knee jerking. Here are some pertinent lines:
“In fact, a large percentage of the posts in some Kentucky forums contain explicit, vulgar, obscene and defamatory posts about citizens, including children.”
According to a press release from Conway’s office, the tools provided by Topix.com to remove the abusive posts are ineffective unless consumers agree to pay a $19.99 fee.
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it. That said, freedom and anarchy are not the same. People also have the right to protect themselves and their children from being defamed or slandered. Charging someone who might not otherwise access your site if they were not being slandered seems quite ridiculous to me.
I was going to say what you said, but you said it better.
I completely disagree. No offensive scheme or technique on it's own is a match for a good linebacker or DB who can read offenses. And no defensive scheme or technique on it's own is a match for a good quarterback and skilled players who can read defenses and adjust on the fly. Linemen need to be able to make split second decisions and reads and adjust accordingly. I cannot reconcile your statement with reality at all.
Tracking one person around a city with RFID would be a nuisance. You'd need multiple points, signal quality would vary wildly, it'd be painful in a way.
My problem with the whole concept of: "They're secure now," is that technology often makes leaps. Especially when such a system becomes more widespread and people have more reason to develop, for example, a long distance surreptitious reader. What's painful and impractical today very well might not be so tomorrow. How many systems have seemed secure in a controlled environment and then get cracked shortly after release into the wild?
Support the environment. Drink more whiskey!
>>>Do they do knowingly do it habitually with forethought and malice?
Yes. When the MSNBC producer tells the video editor to cut-off the head of the black guy, and then overlaps that video with "white racist" in the voiceover, it's obviously down forethought and malice.
It's propaganda. There's no other word that applies.
So you have a link to the unedited clip or some other evidence that it was done purposefully or that they weren't looking for stock footage and found that clip, not realizing that the person that was in the close up (surrounded by all the white men with guns) was black?
Your assertion make so many specious assumptions as to be ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that one instance on one show is nowhere near a whole network doing it on all shows for OVER A DECADE!
You are fooling yourself.
And then there's the skepticism "woo."
While I think the author brings up many good points (especially the sequence to protein folding problem,) I believe is is a huge mistake to completely discount large intuitive leaps out of hand. Someone has to make the large intuitive leaps before getting to the hard science, which would not progress without small intuitive leaps. Remember the electric light "woo?"
Have they done it? I don't doubt it. Do they do knowingly do it habitually with aforethought and malice? No, not even close. Does Fox, Limbaugh et al, ad nauseum? Yes. Has Fox been proven without a doubt to do so? Yes. Has MSNBC and NBC? Not even close. You can show 3 or 4 clips all day, but anyone who has paid attention at all (which is unfortunately not many) in the last ten years know the difference between 3 or 4 potentially fishy isolated incidents and a clearly demonstrated habitual practice.
And again, I have yet to see one clear and undeniable instance anyway, and you have failed multiple times to produce even one. You are all hat and no cattle.
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda? The other channels do as well (especially MSNBC which has been caught doing it).
First, he clearly never claimed that only Fox spews propaganda. And then you make the fallacious bare assertion that MSNBC was CAUGHT doing it. Friendlylurker presented some good links to support his assertion. Fox was caught dictating spin from the top. On the other hand, the only thing I have seen from about MSNBC was ONE instance (that gets repeated ad nauseum) where an idiot host tried to talk about the white dominated tea party movement and the radical right while showing a black man carrying a gun who was protesting at a health care rally. Were they stupid? Yes. Should they have checked their stock footage better? Yes. But it takes a giant leap to somehow assume from that that they meant to do it, and it was ordered from on high.
Which brings us to the next fallacy that even if it was ordered by MSNBC management and knowingly perpetrated by the host (which would be stupid, because obviously the fact that the protester was black did not do much to further their claim that there are racist elements in the Tea party) it STILL nowhere near balances out ten years of top-down propaganda from Fox news that has been well documented.
But then for neoconservatives, logic obviously doesn't enter into the equation.
Please explain to me how the additional context changed anything about that interview. Bush equated negotiation with appeasement. The interviewer was asking whether he was referring to Obama. Not only did bush NOT answer the question, he started some weasly lie about how he actually said it was important to talk to people, when it was an ESTABLISHED FACT that he had clearly equated negotiation with appeasement. Here is what he actually said in the speech:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said.
Without mentioning Obama by name, Bush compared "this foolish delusion" to the prelude to World War Two.
"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0839956720080515
Again, the part they cut out was literally irrelevant BULLSHIT. They were being kind to cut it out, because anyone who was up on current events would have howled in laughter at his weasling. This was your great example of left wing propaganda? REALLY?
Yeah, like Mobsters were enough to convince Americans to exercise temperance. (not) I'm not sure if this is a straw man or a red herring but no matter what it is, I believe it is wrong. America failed to learn from history, and so was doomed to repeat it. We have long passed the point where the negative effects of marijuana prohibition have eclipsed the regulated legalized sale of the drug. And as far as the likelihood of decriminalization goes, it has already been largely decriminalized when it comes to use and between MMJ and other legalization initiatives around the US, there is a pretty large grass roots (ha-ha) movement already in progress to further legalize and regulate it's growth and sale.
Sorry, this reply was meant for a different post. Not sure if I had some kind of cookie issue or I just screwed up. Regardless please disregard.
You were right to call me on my assumptions.I'm not sure why I knee-jerked so hard on that one. My bad.
A pseudo-budget surplus. It was really just playing the numbers around, and including other monies (e.g. Social Security) in ways to make it look like a surplus. Yeah for fudging the numbers.
That is a dishonest and misleading statement. First it implies that the numbers came from the Clinton administration. They didn't they came from the CBO, which is NONPARTISAN. The CBO has never changed it's methods for reporting the deficit.
Add to that the fact that there were many jobs that were split in two, each with half the salary of the original
What?! I don't know what you're talking about, and I guessing you don't either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BeforetaxfamilyincomemeanUS1989-2004.gif
Poverty was hardly at an all time low; and thanks to the dotCom boom it seemed to be at an all-time high.
You are right that poverty was not at an all time low, I'm not sure why I was thinking that(although there was a huge drop) but you are dead wrong about the all time high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif
Then again, we went from manageable debt levels in the 1980's and early 1990's to the drowning levels of debt we have now - at all levels: federal, state, business, and personal - even before the recession started (so no, the recession is not to blame!).
Wow, what world are you living in?
http://images.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/household-debt-vs-savings.png
I'll spell it out for you. I was expressing surprise and disgust that people are acting so outraged about this Wikileaks issue, and yet there was basically no public outcry or real consequences when our own government compromised people and operations for political reasons.
While I think Wikileaks should have made more and better attempts to protect people before they released the documents, at least they released them for principled reasons.
The very clear example of this ignorance being rated 5 and insightful is clear demonstration that this site is now just a mouthpiece for the right wing astro turf. If not. it is merely a clear example of how ignorant the readers are.