"The big companies want the FCC to regulate them."
Oh, is that why we watched them struggle for years to argue that internet service isn't the FCC's jurisdiction? Comcast demanding that netflix specifically pay up for potential Level 3 cdn traffic, on top of wanting a "fast lane" as it's called, is absolutely the sort of shit that is within scope of concern for net neutrality.
If they were deatha from legally prescribed pills, of which there are thousands in this country every year, would anyone care? The problem isn't that people die, it's that pharma isn't the one making money in this case.
Intelligence agencies now have the right to hack you if you use Tor, a VPN, or have been infected with malware. Would any of us then be justified to hack the FBI?
1. Your own article fingers opioids--read, mostly LEGAL drugs--as the top killer.
2. Drugs are a viable form of profit to gangs and cartels due to their *illegality*, which you are a proponent of.
3. The volume of deaths from drunk driving dwarfs that of impaired driving from just about all other drugs combined.
Were you a nixon voter? How does it feel to be living half a century in the past ideogically? How's that drug war going for you? Give me a call when you think we're winning it.
That's silly, virtually no one who first complains about inefficient regulators rather than momopolistic ISPs will go on to say that there are too few regulations. They will always complain that there are too many, and that that's why american broadband sucks.
And how exactly is it the regulators' fault when two monopolies agree not to compete? Or when an ISP influences state legislatures to kill municipal wifi projects?
The regulation boogeyman is such bullshit here.
I think shills are on overtime trying to make anyone who mentions seth rich seem crazy. Maybe their bosses finally figured out that getting smart people to hate assange / manning / snowden / greenwald isn't going to work.
"You're complaining that someone doesn't give legal guarantees about a case that hasn't even been brought to the prosecutor."
What difference does the status of the case matter to the US when everyone knows the case is an excuse to go after him for something totally different?
Whether the case case had been brought to prosecution is irrelevant, as the matters little to those who really want Assange: the US. The sexual assault case is just convenient cover to go after a declared enemy that is considered a threat. Don't play dumb.
The israel-based SITE intelligence group, which was the source for all those weirdly well-produced "ISIS" videos in 2014, was the source of the claim that Farook's wife was radicalized in a private jihadist Facebook group that SITE had magically joined and had happened to be monitoring before the San Bernadino attack. SITE never provised evidence for this claim, but the media ran it, anyway.
Anyone claiming ISIS has an effective social media front is full of shit.
You're claiming WL had something on trump that wasn't released. What's your proof? You realize WL didn't acquire the clinton emails to begin with? So "y u no hack trump wikileaks!! " is pretty silly.
Giving examples as to how other people may be targeted due to the kinds of things they listen to does not mean that you want to target them yourself, nor does it mean that those examples should receive some sort of "special expectation of privacy" compared to any other example. Unless I'm misunderstanding, a group like the ACLU must be the most stigmatizing group of all in your mind.
It operates on the low level activity of the brain, which happens to be experienced as the manifest content of the dream.. bottom up rather than top down, still focusing on areas recently or intermittantly written to.
That's my hunch, amyway
So let me get this straight: 15 years ago was "a differemt time", but six of the seven countries the pentagon wanted to invade back then just miraculously happened to all entail vetting issues now, in thos very different time 15 years later, such that we could still justify banning their people? Where did you even read about this vetting issue that you're so attached to it?
I love how you keep getting vaguer as to precisely what our definition of countries worth banning would be, all the while acting more and more certain about the rationale. Just today there were terrorist bombings of Coptic cathedrals in Egypt. I repeat--why then is Egypt not on the list as well? Oh, that's right, you didn't have a response to that question the first time. It makes me wonder, are these your talking points, or someone else's?
I didn't acknowledge anything, my point was that your excuse as to why we exempt Saudi Arabia is bullshit. Now you're backpedaling to implying that we once didn't have good background checks back then? "It was a different time" my ass, we had six of the seven banned countries on the list for destruction right after 9/11.
Oh, that's right, I mentioned that elsewhere and you failed to even respond to it--actually addressing what the other person says is a good technique if you like to win arguments, otherwise your talking points look paid.
It's been shown in multiple studies that black-looking names on school and work applications result in lower response rates, so it's more than a bit paranoid to think the deck is stacked against you because of affirnative action.
How has your speech been limited in real life? Have you been harassed, taunted or threatened for things you say due to race differences?
Slashdot Mirror
"The big companies want the FCC to regulate them." Oh, is that why we watched them struggle for years to argue that internet service isn't the FCC's jurisdiction? Comcast demanding that netflix specifically pay up for potential Level 3 cdn traffic, on top of wanting a "fast lane" as it's called, is absolutely the sort of shit that is within scope of concern for net neutrality.
So on top of shilling for coal and AGW junk, now you're doing cleanup for the food industry? Damn dude, who isn't paying you?
If they were deatha from legally prescribed pills, of which there are thousands in this country every year, would anyone care? The problem isn't that people die, it's that pharma isn't the one making money in this case.
Intelligence agencies now have the right to hack you if you use Tor, a VPN, or have been infected with malware. Would any of us then be justified to hack the FBI?
1. Your own article fingers opioids--read, mostly LEGAL drugs--as the top killer. 2. Drugs are a viable form of profit to gangs and cartels due to their *illegality*, which you are a proponent of. 3. The volume of deaths from drunk driving dwarfs that of impaired driving from just about all other drugs combined. Were you a nixon voter? How does it feel to be living half a century in the past ideogically? How's that drug war going for you? Give me a call when you think we're winning it.
Many of the people imprisoned in the US are there for nonviolent drug charges. Pile of dead bodies, my ass.
That's silly, virtually no one who first complains about inefficient regulators rather than momopolistic ISPs will go on to say that there are too few regulations. They will always complain that there are too many, and that that's why american broadband sucks.
And how exactly is it the regulators' fault when two monopolies agree not to compete? Or when an ISP influences state legislatures to kill municipal wifi projects? The regulation boogeyman is such bullshit here.
Cable companies don't care that they're hemmorrhaging millions of customers? wtf are you smoking
I think shills are on overtime trying to make anyone who mentions seth rich seem crazy. Maybe their bosses finally figured out that getting smart people to hate assange / manning / snowden / greenwald isn't going to work.
... because Google AMP fucking sucks for everyone, and is just an ad revenue scheme on google's part.
"You're complaining that someone doesn't give legal guarantees about a case that hasn't even been brought to the prosecutor." What difference does the status of the case matter to the US when everyone knows the case is an excuse to go after him for something totally different?
Whether the case case had been brought to prosecution is irrelevant, as the matters little to those who really want Assange: the US. The sexual assault case is just convenient cover to go after a declared enemy that is considered a threat. Don't play dumb.
The israel-based SITE intelligence group, which was the source for all those weirdly well-produced "ISIS" videos in 2014, was the source of the claim that Farook's wife was radicalized in a private jihadist Facebook group that SITE had magically joined and had happened to be monitoring before the San Bernadino attack. SITE never provised evidence for this claim, but the media ran it, anyway. Anyone claiming ISIS has an effective social media front is full of shit.
You're claiming WL had something on trump that wasn't released. What's your proof? You realize WL didn't acquire the clinton emails to begin with? So "y u no hack trump wikileaks!! " is pretty silly.
1. you use Tor 2. you use a VPN 3. you've been infected with any sort of malware (!) This is public knowledge, google it if you don't believe me
Supposedly so they can be located if stolen, but it sounds pretty sketch to me. i think the functionality is branded vPro.
Giving examples as to how other people may be targeted due to the kinds of things they listen to does not mean that you want to target them yourself, nor does it mean that those examples should receive some sort of "special expectation of privacy" compared to any other example. Unless I'm misunderstanding, a group like the ACLU must be the most stigmatizing group of all in your mind.
It operates on the low level activity of the brain, which happens to be experienced as the manifest content of the dream.. bottom up rather than top down, still focusing on areas recently or intermittantly written to. That's my hunch, amyway
So let me get this straight: 15 years ago was "a differemt time", but six of the seven countries the pentagon wanted to invade back then just miraculously happened to all entail vetting issues now, in thos very different time 15 years later, such that we could still justify banning their people? Where did you even read about this vetting issue that you're so attached to it?
I love how you keep getting vaguer as to precisely what our definition of countries worth banning would be, all the while acting more and more certain about the rationale. Just today there were terrorist bombings of Coptic cathedrals in Egypt. I repeat--why then is Egypt not on the list as well? Oh, that's right, you didn't have a response to that question the first time. It makes me wonder, are these your talking points, or someone else's?
I didn't acknowledge anything, my point was that your excuse as to why we exempt Saudi Arabia is bullshit. Now you're backpedaling to implying that we once didn't have good background checks back then? "It was a different time" my ass, we had six of the seven banned countries on the list for destruction right after 9/11.
Oh, that's right, I mentioned that elsewhere and you failed to even respond to it--actually addressing what the other person says is a good technique if you like to win arguments, otherwise your talking points look paid.
It's been shown in multiple studies that black-looking names on school and work applications result in lower response rates, so it's more than a bit paranoid to think the deck is stacked against you because of affirnative action.
How has your speech been limited in real life? Have you been harassed, taunted or threatened for things you say due to race differences?
We sure performed great background checks on the hijackers, didn't we? Oh, but that was just a boo boo, right?
The countries were supposedly decided under Obama, but had been chosen for destruction since the early 2000s.