There's not a single "left-right" dimension to politics. Libertarianism is pro-liberty, both "individual" liberties (abortion, legalized drug use, gun rights, free speech) and "business" liberties. (Hard-core libertarians often act as if those two dimensions are enough to categorize or decide practically all politics; I disagree.) If libertarianism is stringently opposed to any -ism, that thing is totalitarianism, not progressivism or conservatism as practiced in the US today.
I'm not sure what part of this comment applies to what I wrote. The GP claimed that the NSA shirts and the cops beating on people shirt were "clearly mocking the right." They're not. They're criticism of BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans, which, combined with the context of criticism of specific left wing politicians (Trump, Sanders, and Clinton) and none of right wing politicians, makes it obvious who these guys are.
It's true that left-vs-right is a simplification of the views of whoever you're describing, but usually business liberties and individual liberties are put on the same left-to-right axis. However, the two main parties aren't the extreme side of either spectrum. Republicans are to the right of center, but they mostly don't take the libertarian view on drug legalization or certain business practices. (There are no angels in terms of cronyism.) Democrats are to the left of center, but there's plenty of them arguing to close Guantanamo Bay or that that drug penalties are too harsh.
An example of a different axis that really doesn't work in terms of left-to-right is isolationism vs. interventionalism. For example, Rand Paul is pretty libertarian for a member of the Republican party. He's pretty close to an isolationist. John McCain is pretty liberal for a Republican, but he's an interventionist. Plenty of the "Blue Dog" (conservative by Democrat standards) opposed the Iraq War. President Obama, who is pretty far to their left, ordered interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as drone strikes throughout the Middle East. You can pretty clearly make a spectrum there, but you can't draw the straight line that Republican == Conservative == Interventionist or Democrat == Liberal == Isolationist.
The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.
That's an insane and terrible position. People should be able to criticise politicians. That's the reason the First Amendment codifies protections for freedom of speech, of the press, and of petition. Also, generally speaking, anything you are allowed to do, you are allowed to pay someone else to do on your behalf. So if you're allowed to design and make a shirt signaling your opposition to politician X, you're also allowed to buy a shirt criticising X from someone else. (And obviously, they're allowed to sell it to you.)
Also, it may be tantamount to defamation in the US. After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.
Uh... Supporting communist organizations isn't illegal. Sanders had been registered with the government as a member of a communist-related organization (the Socialist Party) for over 30 years. Registering with a political party is registering with the government, but statistically speaking, nobody cares. (In part this is because jackbooted thugs don't show up at your door if you register as a Socialist.)
Joining organizatons that support overthrowing the government by force can get you banned from some government jobs. But as long as you're not committing otherwise-illegal acts, it's not a crime. (The Vermont Socalist party supports making the government more Socalist by peacefully electing Socalists to office. There's nothing illegal about that.)
You're also unclear on how defamation works. Saying "In my opinion, X has similar beliefs to Y" isn't defamation, even if it's not true. (The "in my opinion" part is implied by the fact that it's on a T-shirt and not a serious work of journalism or scholarship.)
I think you missed that the "I'm Ready for Oligarcy" logo is a parody of the "Ready for Hillary" logo that Hillary Clinton was using before she officially announced her campaign. Also, "Free Shit 2016" in the same font and with the same graphics as the Sanders logo. (Also, these guys have Trump lumped in as a liberal, so the anti-Trump stuff is anti-liberal too.)
The American Indian stuff depicts people who got screwed by both parties. So does the cop beating on people one. So does the NSA one.
These guys are libertarians.They're to the right of the Republican party. They criticize the right for being too authoritarian, and the left for being WAY TOO authoritarian. It's kind of weird that you think that their criticism is coming from the left.
As I understand it, Laissez-faire capitalists understood the need for taxation to implement things like national defense and a working court system to enforce criminal and contract law. Conservatives (in the modern sense) believe in these things too. As noted, both factions are also in favor of a small government with few patronage opportunities.
Where conservatives and Laissez-faire capitalists part ways is that conservatives believe that there should be some small amount of regulation of commercial products. Safety regulations and whatnot, but only those that are absolutely necessary.
The distinction is necessary because in the American education system, at least, Laissez-faire capitalism is usually portrayed as "Greed above all other concerns." Like so many other things, it's substantially more complicated than that.
The law forbids whatever municipality PayPal is operating in from establishing a city-wide bathroom policy.
What do you think about discriminating against NON-LBGT and getting as much media coverage as possible for the sole purpose of attempting to draw attention to the issue, that the new law allows discrimination, and expediting public outrage against LBGT/Non-LBGT discrimination and legal challenges which are likely to result in court orders against discrimination?
Listen. English clearly isn't your first language, although this was a much better attempt at putting together a sentence than I could do in whatever your native language is.
For one thing, the North Carolina law has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Gay or bisexual men who identify as men should use the male restroom, and lesbian or bisexual women who identify as women should use the ladies' restroom. Charlotte's law allowed for discrimination against all women (straight, gay, or bisexual) because a non-transgender man could claim to be transgender and enter the ladies' room to assault or harass the women using the restroom. The state then stepped in and put a stop to Charlotte's law, such that private businesses could set their own bathroom policies and not be preempted by the city.
The only political philosophy which opposes patronage as a matter of principal is laissez-faire capitalism.
The reason that conservatism, as a philosophy, favors smaller government, is because a large government has more opportunity to hand out patronage. (Unlike laissez-faire, conservatism recognizes the need for some regulation and a government to implement the regulation.)
The law forbids whatever municipality PayPal is operating in from establishing a city-wide bathroom policy. PayPal is explicitly allowed to set its own policies (including "All bathrooms are unisex") in its own buildings.
Unless you're suggesting PayPal send its employees into government offices to use the wrong bathroom, I'm not sure how PayPal could violate this law.
Hell, businesses should be able to pick and choose their customers as they wish. If they discriminate (and don't they all, beginning with the ability to pay?), then people who disagree can vote with their dollars and go elsewhere.
This confusion is on Slashdot, which is reporting the story inaccurately. Government-run bathrooms and locker rooms (e.g. in schools and other government run buildings) are the only ones subject to the birth-gender rule under the law. The law ALSO forbids municipalities from instituting unisex bathroom ordinances, reserving that right for the operator of the bathroom. So if PayPal wanted to make all their bathrooms at their facilities unisex, they would be free to do so. (The city of Charlotte was about to pass a law demanding all bathrooms, including in private businesses, be unisex. The state law would forbid Charlotte's law.)
the developers always got in trouble when they ported the code base from the Sony PlayStation 2 to the Nintendo GameCube without adapting the look-and-feel of the game. Nintendo kicked back the game for being a PS2 port, which they hated with a passion. It got so bad that Nintendo threaten to reject every submission out of hand. The developers fell in line â" and Nintendo soon became irrelevant.
What? In the developer certification rules that I've seen, the difference between the "look and feel" of a GameCube game and that of a PS2 game is that GameCube controllers have buttons labeled "A, B, X, Y" but PS2 controllers have buttons labeled "X, Square, Circle, Triangle." If you were submitting games to Nintendo with in game prompts that reference the PS2 control scheme, you deserved to get kicked back.
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion... [I]f you dissolve the separation of Church and State, don't count on it being your sect in charge.
None of the three things you quoted ("Freedom OF religion," "Freedom FROM religion," or "separation of Church and State") are actually law or in the Constitution or anything like that.
The First Amendment ACTUALLY says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
You don't get to demand that the government use its force to suppress religious practices that you don't like any more than you get to demand that they suppress speech or printed opinions that you don't like. "Freedom from religion," "Freedom of worship," and similar slogans are intended to trick people into thinking that exercising religious liberty is something you can only do in your house of worship. It's not. The government is expressly prohibited from interfering with The People living a life guided by the tenets of their religion. Even in scenarios where the government disagrees.
That's not how it works. Nobody will buy Gawker with this case hanging over it, (because then THEY would be liable for the damages), so if there is a high enough judgement, Gawker will be forced into bankruptcy. If Denton et al. can't get enough money from selling Gawker to pay the judgement, Hogan would have to approve any sale of any parts. If Dentom cant do that, Hogan can demand to take over the site. If he wanted to, he could fire everyone and have the site just display the Gawker logo with "nWo" spray painted over it.
For comparison, Erin Andrews got $55 million for being spied on and recorded
Andrews was awarded $55 for negligence that allowed someone else to record her and distribute the recording.. Marriott didn't solicit a recording of Andrews nor did they obtain and distribute the recording.
Gawker isn't being punished for negligence. They're being punished for deliberately soliciting and distributing a sex tape without the consent of either party in the sex act.
Is there some kind of distance requirement how many networks you have to transition before it is considered the Internet? If so can you point me to that definition?...
The customers network is a LAN which interconnects with Comcast's network just like every other node on the Internet interconnects with each other... One gigantic WAN.
No. The Internet is a series of interconnected networks. It isn't centrally managed. A WAN is a single network (that is centrally managed) with nodes in multiple geographic locations. (A LAN is a single network (centrally managed) with nodes in a single geographic location.)
Comcast's WAN includes connections to customer LANs using cable modems. Comcast manages the cable modems, even though they are located at the customer site. (Even in cases where the customer OWNS the cable modem, only Comcast and not the customer is able to configure the cable modem.) Comcast's network ALSO includes a bunch of servers that can only be accessed from certain locations within their network. (This means that other ISPs customers' can't access these servers.) Finally, it includes interconnections to commercial networks. These connections are managed on Comcast's end by a router or switch which Comcast owns. Comcast can't manage anything past the router or switch. Comcast's WAN includes the switch or router that leads to the interconnect, anything past there is "on the Internet."
Once you travel outside Comcast's network, then you're on the Internet.
Customer network is outside Comcast network.
Right. But the customer network isn't the Internet either. Dumbass.
To get to the Internet, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to the Internet. To get to this service, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to a different server on Comcast's network. It doesn't forward them to the Internet because the server that streams this stuff isn't on the Internet.
Global federation - Yes, from same network address customer uses to access stream they can access any peer in the global federation.
If they use NAT, that might not be true because they will have internal and external addresses. Also, the SERVER isn't globally federated (because you can't access it from another ISP.)
I don't think you understand what active and passive voice are. (Hint: both statements are active voice. "To respond," "to travel," and "to say" are active verbs.) Also, Comcast isn't quoted directly; they are paraphrased. Thus, you can't split hairs about the active voice/passive voice of the statement you're reading because it's not what Comcast actually said.
Comcast's argument is that this comes from a server on Comcast's network. It's not on the public Internet (because you can't get to the server if you're on another ISP.) Once you travel outside Comcast's network, then you're on the Internet.
their agreement with the FCC for the approval of the merger with Time Warner. They just figured: "we can do whatever we want
They CAN do whatever they want. The government banned Comcast from merging with Time Warmer, EVEN IF they followed the restrictions. Since they weren't allowed to merge, why should they have to follow the restrictions?
Thanks for spouting off and misinforming people. For the record, the restrictions were put in place as a condition of Comcast merging with NBC (a merger that the government allowed to go through). However, those Net Neutrality restrictions were a paid prioritization ban, NOT a ban on zero-rating*. Comcast lobbied to have the paid prioritization ban extended to everyone as part of the FCC's unilateral Title II order.
*One of the problems with the phrase "Net Neutrality" is that it doesn't actually mean anything other than "Something the speaker thinks is good." I've heard it used to refer to a kind of internet Fairness Doctrine that would have forced web browsers to randomly redirect you from one news site to another (e.g. from Fox to CNN) so you didn't hear too much information from any one biased source. The Title II rule, the only Net Neutrality rule currently in force, includes limited paid prioritization bans and extremely limited zero rating bans.
However, it also allows the FCC to punish violations of "the spirit of the law," so zero rating might not be kosher depending on who reviews it and how they're feeling that day. Expect that part to get struck down within minutes of somebody's lawyer pointing out that if the Constitution bans Congess from making ex post facto laws, the Executive branch can't do it unilaterally either.
The Black Panthers are an example of such a group.
Except the Black Panthers never hung white people from trees.
Do you have any evidence of Black Panthers using "violence and intimidation"? Ever? Anywhere?
They used guns, jackass. And plenty of them. I already told you about the intimidation part. (In 2008, they were "guarding" Philadelphia polling stations to keep white people out.) As for violence, they led ambushes on the police, robbed armored cars, tortured and murdered informants, and executed their accountant after she threatened to go public about financial irregularities. That's just what a quick scan of Wikipedia turned up.
But because they are racist against white people, they're not True Scotsmen. Got it.
You started this thread? Jesus, Rat, do you do anything other than sit around and wait for a topic tangentially related to race to show up so you can accuse Republicans of being racists? Two weeks ago, when it was the Daytona 500 and opening day of NASCAR, did you walk around going,
Hey everyone, while we're on the topic of race, REPUBLICANS HATE BLACK PEOPLE.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Dickhead. Keep throwing swastikas around. Al Sharpton is a prominent DEMOCRAT. On multiple occasions, he incited race riots where a bunch of black people killed Jewish people. There is NO ONE in the Republican Party at a similar level of prominence as Al Sharpton that's done that.
You're a miserable human being. I wish I could figure out how to keep my cell phone logged into Slashdot so it would consistently hide your low grade trolling bullshit. Hey Whiplash, if you're reading this, that's a feature request.
[Trump is] also not a True Scotsman, from what I hear.
Actually, he is. Apparently, if your mother was born in a country, you're entitled to citizenship in that country. Trump's mother is from Scotland, and so he's not eligible to be president. Because he's a True Scotsman. I think I did that right.
More to what I assume to be your point, the problem with the KKK isn't that their name is the Ku Klux Klan. It's that they're a bunch of racists and general bigots and they use violence and intimidation to attain their evil ends.. Plenty of violent racists/bigots both support Democrats and attain evil ends through violence and intimidation. The Black Panthers are an example of such a group. They hate white people, Jews, and Catholics. They're no better or worse than the KKK, who hates black people, Jews, and Catholics. And the Black Panthers were convicted of standing in front of polling places in Philadelphia in 2008 and scaring off white people who came to vote. Just like the KKK used to do to black people.
It's not fair to say that every Democrat is a racist because the Black Panthers showed up at polling places to intimidate people into voting for a black guy who happened to be a Democrat*. In campaigns, the right to free speech overrides the right to free association, which means that shitty groups like the KKK or the Black Panthers or the Nazis or whoever are allowed to endorse candidates and parties even if the party or candidate doesn't want their name associated with the hate group.
*It's also fair to say that President Obama probably agrees with THE NON-RACIST goals that the Black Panthers have, such as their economic goals. He would probably have their support even if he wasn't black. (If he gets the nomination, expect to see Bernie Sanders in a similar spot.) Agreeing with the non-racist parts of the Black Panthers' platform, of course, does NOT make either politician a racist.
Slashdot Mirror
Signed, Everyone that's not a Republican.
Note that this includes Trump.
There's not a single "left-right" dimension to politics. Libertarianism is pro-liberty, both "individual" liberties (abortion, legalized drug use, gun rights, free speech) and "business" liberties. (Hard-core libertarians often act as if those two dimensions are enough to categorize or decide practically all politics; I disagree.) If libertarianism is stringently opposed to any -ism, that thing is totalitarianism, not progressivism or conservatism as practiced in the US today.
I'm not sure what part of this comment applies to what I wrote. The GP claimed that the NSA shirts and the cops beating on people shirt were "clearly mocking the right." They're not. They're criticism of BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans, which, combined with the context of criticism of specific left wing politicians (Trump, Sanders, and Clinton) and none of right wing politicians, makes it obvious who these guys are.
It's true that left-vs-right is a simplification of the views of whoever you're describing, but usually business liberties and individual liberties are put on the same left-to-right axis. However, the two main parties aren't the extreme side of either spectrum. Republicans are to the right of center, but they mostly don't take the libertarian view on drug legalization or certain business practices. (There are no angels in terms of cronyism.) Democrats are to the left of center, but there's plenty of them arguing to close Guantanamo Bay or that that drug penalties are too harsh.
An example of a different axis that really doesn't work in terms of left-to-right is isolationism vs. interventionalism. For example, Rand Paul is pretty libertarian for a member of the Republican party. He's pretty close to an isolationist. John McCain is pretty liberal for a Republican, but he's an interventionist. Plenty of the "Blue Dog" (conservative by Democrat standards) opposed the Iraq War. President Obama, who is pretty far to their left, ordered interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as drone strikes throughout the Middle East. You can pretty clearly make a spectrum there, but you can't draw the straight line that Republican == Conservative == Interventionist or Democrat == Liberal == Isolationist.
Profit != Speech
The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.
That's an insane and terrible position. People should be able to criticise politicians. That's the reason the First Amendment codifies protections for freedom of speech, of the press, and of petition. Also, generally speaking, anything you are allowed to do, you are allowed to pay someone else to do on your behalf. So if you're allowed to design and make a shirt signaling your opposition to politician X, you're also allowed to buy a shirt criticising X from someone else. (And obviously, they're allowed to sell it to you.)
Also, it may be tantamount to defamation in the US. After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.
Uh... Supporting communist organizations isn't illegal. Sanders had been registered with the government as a member of a communist-related organization (the Socialist Party) for over 30 years. Registering with a political party is registering with the government, but statistically speaking, nobody cares. (In part this is because jackbooted thugs don't show up at your door if you register as a Socialist.)
Joining organizatons that support overthrowing the government by force can get you banned from some government jobs. But as long as you're not committing otherwise-illegal acts, it's not a crime. (The Vermont Socalist party supports making the government more Socalist by peacefully electing Socalists to office. There's nothing illegal about that.)
You're also unclear on how defamation works. Saying "In my opinion, X has similar beliefs to Y" isn't defamation, even if it's not true. (The "in my opinion" part is implied by the fact that it's on a T-shirt and not a serious work of journalism or scholarship.)
The American Indian stuff depicts people who got screwed by both parties. So does the cop beating on people one. So does the NSA one.
These guys are libertarians.They're to the right of the Republican party. They criticize the right for being too authoritarian, and the left for being WAY TOO authoritarian. It's kind of weird that you think that their criticism is coming from the left.
Where conservatives and Laissez-faire capitalists part ways is that conservatives believe that there should be some small amount of regulation of commercial products. Safety regulations and whatnot, but only those that are absolutely necessary.
The distinction is necessary because in the American education system, at least, Laissez-faire capitalism is usually portrayed as "Greed above all other concerns." Like so many other things, it's substantially more complicated than that.
The law forbids whatever municipality PayPal is operating in from establishing a city-wide bathroom policy.
What do you think about discriminating against NON-LBGT and getting as much media coverage as possible for the sole purpose of attempting to draw attention to the issue, that the new law allows discrimination, and expediting public outrage against LBGT/Non-LBGT discrimination and legal challenges which are likely to result in court orders against discrimination?
Listen. English clearly isn't your first language, although this was a much better attempt at putting together a sentence than I could do in whatever your native language is.
For one thing, the North Carolina law has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Gay or bisexual men who identify as men should use the male restroom, and lesbian or bisexual women who identify as women should use the ladies' restroom. Charlotte's law allowed for discrimination against all women (straight, gay, or bisexual) because a non-transgender man could claim to be transgender and enter the ladies' room to assault or harass the women using the restroom. The state then stepped in and put a stop to Charlotte's law, such that private businesses could set their own bathroom policies and not be preempted by the city.
The only political philosophy which opposes patronage as a matter of principal is laissez-faire capitalism.
The reason that conservatism, as a philosophy, favors smaller government, is because a large government has more opportunity to hand out patronage. (Unlike laissez-faire, conservatism recognizes the need for some regulation and a government to implement the regulation.)
Unless you're suggesting PayPal send its employees into government offices to use the wrong bathroom, I'm not sure how PayPal could violate this law.
Hell, businesses should be able to pick and choose their customers as they wish. If they discriminate (and don't they all, beginning with the ability to pay?), then people who disagree can vote with their dollars and go elsewhere.
This confusion is on Slashdot, which is reporting the story inaccurately. Government-run bathrooms and locker rooms (e.g. in schools and other government run buildings) are the only ones subject to the birth-gender rule under the law. The law ALSO forbids municipalities from instituting unisex bathroom ordinances, reserving that right for the operator of the bathroom. So if PayPal wanted to make all their bathrooms at their facilities unisex, they would be free to do so. (The city of Charlotte was about to pass a law demanding all bathrooms, including in private businesses, be unisex. The state law would forbid Charlotte's law.)
Where do you live that you don't have to pay for water?
the developers always got in trouble when they ported the code base from the Sony PlayStation 2 to the Nintendo GameCube without adapting the look-and-feel of the game. Nintendo kicked back the game for being a PS2 port, which they hated with a passion. It got so bad that Nintendo threaten to reject every submission out of hand. The developers fell in line â" and Nintendo soon became irrelevant.
What? In the developer certification rules that I've seen, the difference between the "look and feel" of a GameCube game and that of a PS2 game is that GameCube controllers have buttons labeled "A, B, X, Y" but PS2 controllers have buttons labeled "X, Square, Circle, Triangle." If you were submitting games to Nintendo with in game prompts that reference the PS2 control scheme, you deserved to get kicked back.
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion... [I]f you dissolve the separation of Church and State, don't count on it being your sect in charge.
None of the three things you quoted ("Freedom OF religion," "Freedom FROM religion," or "separation of Church and State") are actually law or in the Constitution or anything like that.
The First Amendment ACTUALLY says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
You don't get to demand that the government use its force to suppress religious practices that you don't like any more than you get to demand that they suppress speech or printed opinions that you don't like. "Freedom from religion," "Freedom of worship," and similar slogans are intended to trick people into thinking that exercising religious liberty is something you can only do in your house of worship. It's not. The government is expressly prohibited from interfering with The People living a life guided by the tenets of their religion. Even in scenarios where the government disagrees.
That's not how it works. Nobody will buy Gawker with this case hanging over it, (because then THEY would be liable for the damages), so if there is a high enough judgement, Gawker will be forced into bankruptcy. If Denton et al. can't get enough money from selling Gawker to pay the judgement, Hogan would have to approve any sale of any parts. If Dentom cant do that, Hogan can demand to take over the site. If he wanted to, he could fire everyone and have the site just display the Gawker logo with "nWo" spray painted over it.
For comparison, Erin Andrews got $55 million for being spied on and recorded
Andrews was awarded $55 for negligence that allowed someone else to record her and distribute the recording.. Marriott didn't solicit a recording of Andrews nor did they obtain and distribute the recording.
Gawker isn't being punished for negligence. They're being punished for deliberately soliciting and distributing a sex tape without the consent of either party in the sex act.
Is there some kind of distance requirement how many networks you have to transition before it is considered the Internet? If so can you point me to that definition?...
The customers network is a LAN which interconnects with Comcast's network just like every other node on the Internet interconnects with each other... One gigantic WAN.
No. The Internet is a series of interconnected networks. It isn't centrally managed. A WAN is a single network (that is centrally managed) with nodes in multiple geographic locations. (A LAN is a single network (centrally managed) with nodes in a single geographic location.)
Comcast's WAN includes connections to customer LANs using cable modems. Comcast manages the cable modems, even though they are located at the customer site. (Even in cases where the customer OWNS the cable modem, only Comcast and not the customer is able to configure the cable modem.) Comcast's network ALSO includes a bunch of servers that can only be accessed from certain locations within their network. (This means that other ISPs customers' can't access these servers.) Finally, it includes interconnections to commercial networks. These connections are managed on Comcast's end by a router or switch which Comcast owns. Comcast can't manage anything past the router or switch. Comcast's WAN includes the switch or router that leads to the interconnect, anything past there is "on the Internet."
In fact, both axis powers are still today under occupation.
There were three Axis powers. Although if you want to count Germany and Japan as occupied by the US, Italy is occupied as well.
Once you travel outside Comcast's network, then you're on the Internet.
Customer network is outside Comcast network.
Right. But the customer network isn't the Internet either. Dumbass.
To get to the Internet, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to the Internet. To get to this service, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to a different server on Comcast's network. It doesn't forward them to the Internet because the server that streams this stuff isn't on the Internet.
Also, the SERVER isn't globally federated (because you can't access it from another ISP
Customer is accessing server from the Internet thus stream is delivered over the Internet.
The customer isn't accessing the server from the Internet. The server and the customer are on the same WAN.
Global federation - Yes, from same network address customer uses to access stream they can access any peer in the global federation.
If they use NAT, that might not be true because they will have internal and external addresses. Also, the SERVER isn't globally federated (because you can't access it from another ISP.)
I don't think you understand what active and passive voice are. (Hint: both statements are active voice. "To respond," "to travel," and "to say" are active verbs.) Also, Comcast isn't quoted directly; they are paraphrased. Thus, you can't split hairs about the active voice/passive voice of the statement you're reading because it's not what Comcast actually said.
Comcast's argument is that this comes from a server on Comcast's network. It's not on the public Internet (because you can't get to the server if you're on another ISP.) Once you travel outside Comcast's network, then you're on the Internet.
their agreement with the FCC for the approval of the merger with Time Warner. They just figured: "we can do whatever we want
They CAN do whatever they want. The government banned Comcast from merging with Time Warmer, EVEN IF they followed the restrictions. Since they weren't allowed to merge, why should they have to follow the restrictions?
Thanks for spouting off and misinforming people. For the record, the restrictions were put in place as a condition of Comcast merging with NBC (a merger that the government allowed to go through). However, those Net Neutrality restrictions were a paid prioritization ban, NOT a ban on zero-rating*. Comcast lobbied to have the paid prioritization ban extended to everyone as part of the FCC's unilateral Title II order.
*One of the problems with the phrase "Net Neutrality" is that it doesn't actually mean anything other than "Something the speaker thinks is good." I've heard it used to refer to a kind of internet Fairness Doctrine that would have forced web browsers to randomly redirect you from one news site to another (e.g. from Fox to CNN) so you didn't hear too much information from any one biased source. The Title II rule, the only Net Neutrality rule currently in force, includes limited paid prioritization bans and extremely limited zero rating bans.
However, it also allows the FCC to punish violations of "the spirit of the law," so zero rating might not be kosher depending on who reviews it and how they're feeling that day. Expect that part to get struck down within minutes of somebody's lawyer pointing out that if the Constitution bans Congess from making ex post facto laws, the Executive branch can't do it unilaterally either.
Except the Black Panthers never hung white people from trees.
Do you have any evidence of Black Panthers using "violence and intimidation"? Ever? Anywhere?
They used guns, jackass. And plenty of them. I already told you about the intimidation part. (In 2008, they were "guarding" Philadelphia polling stations to keep white people out.) As for violence, they led ambushes on the police, robbed armored cars, tortured and murdered informants, and executed their accountant after she threatened to go public about financial irregularities. That's just what a quick scan of Wikipedia turned up.
But because they are racist against white people, they're not True Scotsmen. Got it.
Hey everyone, while we're on the topic of race, REPUBLICANS HATE BLACK PEOPLE.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Dickhead. Keep throwing swastikas around. Al Sharpton is a prominent DEMOCRAT. On multiple occasions, he incited race riots where a bunch of black people killed Jewish people. There is NO ONE in the Republican Party at a similar level of prominence as Al Sharpton that's done that.
You're a miserable human being. I wish I could figure out how to keep my cell phone logged into Slashdot so it would consistently hide your low grade trolling bullshit. Hey Whiplash, if you're reading this, that's a feature request.
[Trump is] also not a True Scotsman, from what I hear.
Actually, he is. Apparently, if your mother was born in a country, you're entitled to citizenship in that country. Trump's mother is from Scotland, and so he's not eligible to be president. Because he's a True Scotsman. I think I did that right.
More to what I assume to be your point, the problem with the KKK isn't that their name is the Ku Klux Klan. It's that they're a bunch of racists and general bigots and they use violence and intimidation to attain their evil ends.. Plenty of violent racists/bigots both support Democrats and attain evil ends through violence and intimidation. The Black Panthers are an example of such a group. They hate white people, Jews, and Catholics. They're no better or worse than the KKK, who hates black people, Jews, and Catholics. And the Black Panthers were convicted of standing in front of polling places in Philadelphia in 2008 and scaring off white people who came to vote. Just like the KKK used to do to black people.
It's not fair to say that every Democrat is a racist because the Black Panthers showed up at polling places to intimidate people into voting for a black guy who happened to be a Democrat*. In campaigns, the right to free speech overrides the right to free association, which means that shitty groups like the KKK or the Black Panthers or the Nazis or whoever are allowed to endorse candidates and parties even if the party or candidate doesn't want their name associated with the hate group.
*It's also fair to say that President Obama probably agrees with THE NON-RACIST goals that the Black Panthers have, such as their economic goals. He would probably have their support even if he wasn't black. (If he gets the nomination, expect to see Bernie Sanders in a similar spot.) Agreeing with the non-racist parts of the Black Panthers' platform, of course, does NOT make either politician a racist.