The KKK is "a KKK group" and they're supporting Donald Trump. (Trump is a Democrat who is currently lying and claiming to be a Republican.)
Melissa Harris-Perry, the former MSNBC host, isn't a group, but she is a racist. She has a problem with interracial adoption, specifically criticizing Mitt Romney's son and daughter-in-law for adopting an African-American child. Harris-Perry supports Bernie Sanders, a Socialist who is currently lying and claiming to be a Democrat.
The NEA wants to keep inner city minority kids in failing schools, rather than send them to the kind of private schools that rich white people send their kids too. I'm not sure if Bull Connor was formally a Klansman, but his policy on school choice ("Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!") was certainly not a high point in American history. The NEA supports Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who is currently lying, although about matters unrelated to her party affiliation. (It's not fair to hang Connor around the necks of the modern Democratic party, but Connor was, of course, a Democrat.)
Did you know that the KKK hates Jewish people? It's true. You know who else is an anti-Semite? Al Sharpton, MSNBC host and special advisor to President Obama on race. On two different occasions, Sharpton incited race riots where a mob killed Jewish people. Sharpton routinely supports Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. Clinton is probably telling a different lie than the last time we checked in with her.
Now, find me a racist organization supporting Cruz, Rubio, or the other guy, you duplicitous piece of shit.
Leaking the name of Valerie Plame a CIA agent led to a long investigation with Scooter Libby going to prison.
Worth noting: Scooter Libby was NOT the leaker. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, confessed almost immediately and was never charged. After Armitage confessed, Libby was caught with an inconsequential lie that the prosecutors ran with. Also worth noting: Libby did NOT go to prison. President Bush commuted his sentence. (Bush removed the jail time but left the fines intact.)
The regular [unclassified] office server was no more special or vetted than her home server.
The regular office server was backed up so, among other things, the State Department could respond to FOIA requests. Evading oversight was the obvious goal of the secret server.
There are laws against hiding things from FOIA that predate the law you're referring to. Also, the laws around Secret, Top Secret, and more classified material have been around for a long time.
If this was anyone except the presumptive Democrat nominee, they'd be in handcuffs already.
No one has even suggested that Hillary handed anything top secret to a source outside the government.
This is false. Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal, who President Obama specifically ordered Hillary not to hire for the State Department, received Top Secret intelligence material pertaining to Libya and the business interests he was cultivating there.
I think it is well established the Exxon is not "neutral" in any sense of the word on climate change. They directly fund deniers and have been doing this for years.
Exxon also apparently directly funds the AGU, which promotes CAGW. They've been doing this for years. Follow the money.
The answer is actually that "They aren't silent. Apple's two biggest competitors in the smartphone market are Google and Microsoft. Both have put out statements supporting Apple's position."
I pay Comcast $2/month for a Cablecard. I plug that card into my primary TiVo and get TV on my main TV that way. (My primary TiVo shares the Cablecard over the network with the TiVo Minis hooked up to other TVs in my house.) In addition to cable TV, any TiVo in my house can get over the top services like Netflix and Amazon. (There's a bunch more, but those are the two I subscribe to.) I can also get Comcast Pay Per View over my TiVo.
This isn't the FCC's utopian future. I bought all this stuff last year. The technology for this is already available to consumers. TiVo evidently already has all the information they need to build the boxes because they already built one and sold it to me.
What are you talking about? The rates for a cablecard are ALREADY strictly regulated. Comcast charges $2/month for a cablecard, compared to $20 per DVR-enabled cable box. (Also, you can watch six channels at a time per cable card, but one channel at a time per cable box.)
To me that is Microsoft harking back to the introduction of XB1 and basically having a no second hand games policy but this time they are doing it by stealth.
Worth noting: the original plan is a better deal for the customer. MS was talking about how people who owned games could share them with a certain number of friends. So you'd need one copy among 5 friends, and two of them could be playing simultaneously. (MS gave the specific example of two friends playing online against each other.)
By contrast, you don't get shit for the trade in value of a game.
IMHO, that is a LOT worse than simply (and ridiculously) attempting to "ban" certain emojis.
The thing about emojis is that they're intended to be symbols that convey ideas.
If all the words for "homosexual" were banned, homosexuals wouldn't be able to identify each other for the purpose of being in a relationship. This is literally the idea behind newspeak in 1984. Trying to ban people from talking about "gay stuff" is trying to ban being gay. That's sinister.
By contrast, gay marriage bans weren't bans on gay people. Especially when coupled with civil union laws, they were an attempt to protect both sides of the argument from the loudest and most over-litigative from each faction.
You and the new management team seem to be doing right by the community so far. Article quality has improved on Slashdot, and you guys announced the end of that stupid affiliate program that SourceForge had.
I clicked on the link to this Slashdot story after seeing the title in my RSS feed. Since I was already familiar with the bill, I waited for the tab to load thinking "I bet Slashdot is going to be all gung ho for sales taxes on e-commerce purchases, despite the fact that the bill deals with something else entirely." Obviously, the Slashdot community didn't disappoint.
When there's stories like this where there's an OBVIOUS confusion opportunity, it would be helpful if you guys could put the clarification in the story's TITLE. It's ALWAYS been a part of Slashdot culture to not read the article, and the amount of people who read the summary has been in steady decline for a while. That's an easy fix that would make Slashdot better, and "Making Slashdot better" seems like it's a goal of your team.
I didn't think that businesses had a sexual orientation, or beliefs for that matter... but perhaps this is an implication of the Citizen's United ruling?
You're a crappy troll, but you're actually right. Citizens United said that businesses (and other groups including PACs and labor unions) are groups of people, and people don't lose their rights by joining a group.
I can't reach through the WiFi and read your mind. All I know about you is what you type into the post window. Here, let's try this another way. Forget anything I said before this post.
Hey Gr8Apes, you're in favor of the FCC regulating ISPs under Title II instead of a Congressional Net Neutrality law, right? These 6 Democratic Senators support that position. So you know, Comcast has the same position as the 6 Senators and has been lobbying in Washington for Title II. Comcast isn't your enemy on Title II.
Are you sure this happened? At least from the 360 era on, MS bans modded consoles from Xbox Live, but otherwise leaves them alone. And given that XBMC was a thing you could run on original Xbox at the time, I don't think MS bricked consoles then either.
There is a big difference between allowing homosexuals to marry and forcing heterosexuals to enter homosexual marriage.
There's plenty of places in the US where certain heterosexuals have to surrender thier own beliefs and participate in homosexual marriage. Not as one of the brides/grooms, but there's a lot of supporting roles that government can and had made people perform. Somehow I doubt you're really opposed to that.
Sorry, I don't buy the Republicans doing anything positive for the general populace at the cost of business.
No kidding. I had already figured out that you just wanted to shill for your team and shit on the guys with the other jersey on. Normal people realize that neither political party is perfect and recognize when politicians they support make mistakes. But you're a shill and I understand that.
My comment was directed at serious people who give a shit about what actually happened.
Title II is good for Comcast and bad for their competition, so Comcast lobbied a bunch of Democrats, including these guys, to have it pushed through.
The Republican bill was a ban on paid prioritization. The left wants to do more than ban paid prioritization, which is why they need Title II.
All your references are lefty sources arguing in favor of Title II instead of a paid prioritization ban. Thanks for finding a bunch of articles that support my point.
I've been on/. a long time and only ever used one account. I made plenty of posts about Net Neutrality and Title II, but they are all on this account. You can check my post history if you want.
As the minority party, Democrats can slow down Senate consideration of a bill through several procedural tactics, most famously the filibuster. President Obama also threatened to veto the Republican NN bill. Republicans never moved the bill past committee because Democrats would have made it too big a fight over too small of an issue.
That doesn't change the fact that Republicans proposed passing an actual law to ban paid prioritization and Democrats stopped it because they wanted Title II instead.
You're the one who is wrong. Republicans had a bill that would have banned paid prioritization (i.e. actual Net Neutrality) without implementing Title II. (It would also have the benefit of being an actual law as opposed to a regulation passed by the FCC outside its jurisduction.) Democrats held it up because they didn't actually want NN, they wanted Title II... because Title II is the only one that's a handout to their corporate buddies.
Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)...
None of them are [known] for being shills or fair-weather friends on this sort of thing, and they've proven more than willing to put action and effort behind their words.
Unfortunately, you're wrong here. All 6 of the Senators you named pushed the FCC ON BEHALF OF COMCAST to have the FCC implement Title II on Comcast's competitors. (Comcast agreed to hinder itself with the Title II restrictions as a condition of their purchase of NBC, then promptly started lobbying to have the restrictions added to the other cable companies as well.)
The Title II plan, which all 6 of these guys support, ISN'T a pay-to-play ban (and thus isn't Net Neutrality), but instead mandates settlement free peering, something that only megacorps like Comcast can afford to do.
These guys took action to FURTHER ENTRENCH the Comcast oligopoly. This letter is a scam to pull the wool over your eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, you're right. The State Department itself is ALSO accused of screwing with their email systems to thwart FOIA requests.
Melissa Harris-Perry, the former MSNBC host, isn't a group, but she is a racist. She has a problem with interracial adoption, specifically criticizing Mitt Romney's son and daughter-in-law for adopting an African-American child. Harris-Perry supports Bernie Sanders, a Socialist who is currently lying and claiming to be a Democrat.
The NEA wants to keep inner city minority kids in failing schools, rather than send them to the kind of private schools that rich white people send their kids too. I'm not sure if Bull Connor was formally a Klansman, but his policy on school choice ("Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!") was certainly not a high point in American history. The NEA supports Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who is currently lying, although about matters unrelated to her party affiliation. (It's not fair to hang Connor around the necks of the modern Democratic party, but Connor was, of course, a Democrat.)
Did you know that the KKK hates Jewish people? It's true. You know who else is an anti-Semite? Al Sharpton, MSNBC host and special advisor to President Obama on race. On two different occasions, Sharpton incited race riots where a mob killed Jewish people. Sharpton routinely supports Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. Clinton is probably telling a different lie than the last time we checked in with her.
Now, find me a racist organization supporting Cruz, Rubio, or the other guy, you duplicitous piece of shit.
Leaking the name of Valerie Plame a CIA agent led to a long investigation with Scooter Libby going to prison.
Worth noting: Scooter Libby was NOT the leaker. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, confessed almost immediately and was never charged. After Armitage confessed, Libby was caught with an inconsequential lie that the prosecutors ran with. Also worth noting: Libby did NOT go to prison. President Bush commuted his sentence. (Bush removed the jail time but left the fines intact.)
The regular [unclassified] office server was no more special or vetted than her home server.
The regular office server was backed up so, among other things, the State Department could respond to FOIA requests. Evading oversight was the obvious goal of the secret server.
If this was anyone except the presumptive Democrat nominee, they'd be in handcuffs already.
No one has even suggested that Hillary handed anything top secret to a source outside the government.
This is false. Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal, who President Obama specifically ordered Hillary not to hire for the State Department, received Top Secret intelligence material pertaining to Libya and the business interests he was cultivating there.
I think it is well established the Exxon is not "neutral" in any sense of the word on climate change. They directly fund deniers and have been doing this for years.
Exxon also apparently directly funds the AGU, which promotes CAGW. They've been doing this for years. Follow the money.
The answer is actually that "They aren't silent. Apple's two biggest competitors in the smartphone market are Google and Microsoft. Both have put out statements supporting Apple's position."
This isn't the FCC's utopian future. I bought all this stuff last year. The technology for this is already available to consumers. TiVo evidently already has all the information they need to build the boxes because they already built one and sold it to me.
What is the FCC mandating here?
What are you talking about? The rates for a cablecard are ALREADY strictly regulated. Comcast charges $2/month for a cablecard, compared to $20 per DVR-enabled cable box. (Also, you can watch six channels at a time per cable card, but one channel at a time per cable box.)
To me that is Microsoft harking back to the introduction of XB1 and basically having a no second hand games policy but this time they are doing it by stealth.
Worth noting: the original plan is a better deal for the customer. MS was talking about how people who owned games could share them with a certain number of friends. So you'd need one copy among 5 friends, and two of them could be playing simultaneously. (MS gave the specific example of two friends playing online against each other.)
By contrast, you don't get shit for the trade in value of a game.
You're a crazy person.
IMHO, that is a LOT worse than simply (and ridiculously) attempting to "ban" certain emojis.
The thing about emojis is that they're intended to be symbols that convey ideas.
If all the words for "homosexual" were banned, homosexuals wouldn't be able to identify each other for the purpose of being in a relationship. This is literally the idea behind newspeak in 1984. Trying to ban people from talking about "gay stuff" is trying to ban being gay. That's sinister.
By contrast, gay marriage bans weren't bans on gay people. Especially when coupled with civil union laws, they were an attempt to protect both sides of the argument from the loudest and most over-litigative from each faction.
You and the new management team seem to be doing right by the community so far. Article quality has improved on Slashdot, and you guys announced the end of that stupid affiliate program that SourceForge had.
I clicked on the link to this Slashdot story after seeing the title in my RSS feed. Since I was already familiar with the bill, I waited for the tab to load thinking "I bet Slashdot is going to be all gung ho for sales taxes on e-commerce purchases, despite the fact that the bill deals with something else entirely." Obviously, the Slashdot community didn't disappoint.
When there's stories like this where there's an OBVIOUS confusion opportunity, it would be helpful if you guys could put the clarification in the story's TITLE. It's ALWAYS been a part of Slashdot culture to not read the article, and the amount of people who read the summary has been in steady decline for a while. That's an easy fix that would make Slashdot better, and "Making Slashdot better" seems like it's a goal of your team.
Thanks for listening.
How is the christianist wing of the Republican Party (AOT,K) any different than any other fundamentalist sect of a religion?
Well for one thing, the people behind this are trying to pass a law banning gay emojis. Can you point to a Republican that's trying to ban gay emojis?
I didn't think that businesses had a sexual orientation, or beliefs for that matter... but perhaps this is an implication of the Citizen's United ruling?
You're a crappy troll, but you're actually right. Citizens United said that businesses (and other groups including PACs and labor unions) are groups of people, and people don't lose their rights by joining a group.
Hey Gr8Apes, you're in favor of the FCC regulating ISPs under Title II instead of a Congressional Net Neutrality law, right? These 6 Democratic Senators support that position. So you know, Comcast has the same position as the 6 Senators and has been lobbying in Washington for Title II. Comcast isn't your enemy on Title II.
Are you sure this happened? At least from the 360 era on, MS bans modded consoles from Xbox Live, but otherwise leaves them alone. And given that XBMC was a thing you could run on original Xbox at the time, I don't think MS bricked consoles then either.
There is a big difference between allowing homosexuals to marry and forcing heterosexuals to enter homosexual marriage.
There's plenty of places in the US where certain heterosexuals have to surrender thier own beliefs and participate in homosexual marriage. Not as one of the brides/grooms, but there's a lot of supporting roles that government can and had made people perform. Somehow I doubt you're really opposed to that.
Sorry, I don't buy the Republicans doing anything positive for the general populace at the cost of business.
No kidding. I had already figured out that you just wanted to shill for your team and shit on the guys with the other jersey on. Normal people realize that neither political party is perfect and recognize when politicians they support make mistakes. But you're a shill and I understand that.
My comment was directed at serious people who give a shit about what actually happened.
Title II is good for Comcast and bad for their competition, so Comcast lobbied a bunch of Democrats, including these guys, to have it pushed through.
All your references are lefty sources arguing in favor of Title II instead of a paid prioritization ban. Thanks for finding a bunch of articles that support my point.
I've been on /. a long time and only ever used one account. I made plenty of posts about Net Neutrality and Title II, but they are all on this account. You can check my post history if you want.
That doesn't change the fact that Republicans proposed passing an actual law to ban paid prioritization and Democrats stopped it because they wanted Title II instead.
This was all covered on Slashdot at the time.
Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)...
None of them are [known] for being shills or fair-weather friends on this sort of thing, and they've proven more than willing to put action and effort behind their words.
Unfortunately, you're wrong here. All 6 of the Senators you named pushed the FCC ON BEHALF OF COMCAST to have the FCC implement Title II on Comcast's competitors. (Comcast agreed to hinder itself with the Title II restrictions as a condition of their purchase of NBC, then promptly started lobbying to have the restrictions added to the other cable companies as well.)
The Title II plan, which all 6 of these guys support, ISN'T a pay-to-play ban (and thus isn't Net Neutrality), but instead mandates settlement free peering, something that only megacorps like Comcast can afford to do.
These guys took action to FURTHER ENTRENCH the Comcast oligopoly. This letter is a scam to pull the wool over your eyes.