If I were a Mayor of a city that AT&T serves; I would respond by saying that this will mean the city will need to start rolling out it's own gigabit network now.
AT&T can't complain that the city is competing with them, if AT&T isn't providing the service in the first place.
No, no one knows whats going on now legally speaking, that's why we're having this discussion. The Verizon vs FCC decision removed that certainty. They know what the regulatory regime might be, but they don't know what it is going to be. The FCC chair is looking at splitting the baby which doesn't really sound like a clear indicator of what he's going to do from a legal perspective. It appears that the FCC chair wants to allow ISPs to prioritize certain traffic for security and use (e.g. e-mail traffic doesn't need the kind of priority as streaming video) because not all traffic deserves the same level of attention from the ISP, but not do so for business reasons (e.g. Time Warner shouldn't be allowed to hobble Netflix streaming service). But at the same time, he appears to be distancing himself from Obama's plea for Title II.
Writing this into law is more complex than simply saying what the FCC chair said he wanted: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business."
Oh my. Title II classification worked quite well until 2002 when the FCC reclassified broadband providers as "Information Services" under Title I. Which was so obviously a great move, because we had so much less competition then. Not only that, the big broadband providers were so poor before that, they were going out of business. Thank goodness for that! Otherwise, the Internet would have failed completely and we'd all be using punched cards and telexes again by now. Not.
The last twelve years have seen increasing consolidation, local monopolies and duopolies, less competition, higher prices for basic consumer connectivity, more abusive Terms of Service for consumer connections, throttling of competitive content providers who threaten the media content distribution strangleholds that the big broadband providers have.
Title II reclassification isn't the whole of the answer, just a small part. But it's a start at least. Unfortunately, if you tell the same lies over and over again ("we're so poor that reclassification will stop us from upgrading our networks" and "Forcing us to be common carriers will destroy all innovation on the Internet") people start to believe it.
It's just a smokescreen for the big ISPs to keep protecting their abusive business model and maintain their huge profits in a non-competitive marketplace. These big ISPs are holding back innovation in last-mile technologies, despite being given USD$200 Billion in subsidies over the past 18 years to do otherwise.
"Did I miss anything important?" just the part where | ATT Good, net neutrality BAD|
My mistake. Thanks for the clarification. I keep forgetting that unfettered crony capitalism good, gub'mint bad.
I guess we should get going and abolish the EPA, the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the IRS, the Departments of Justice, Education, HUD, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, HHS, Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs and Interior, sell all the National Parks, privatize the Interstate Highway system, amend the constitution to allow only the Federal government to "regulate" business. That will leave much more funding for DHS, DOD and the various "intelligence" agencies.
Once that's done, we'll finally have the freedom and prosperity promised by our glorious Constitution -- well, we will once we repeal the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th, 14th and 16th amendments. "What a beautiful world this will be! What a glorious time to be free." With apologies to Donald Fagan.
While it is very easy to poke at AT&T for this decision, it is also a very understandable position to take. AT&T doesn't know what the laws or rules are going to be after the fact.
Actually, they know exactly what the laws and rules are. Until 2002, they were covered under TItle II and some portions of their network still are.
We are probably not going to get true Title II net neutrality, and quite frankly, 80 year old law really shouldn't apply to something that is fundamentally more complex than a telco or OTA network, and applying the same kinds of laws to the internet providers is legally and technically stupid.
Saying that the law setting up the FCC is 80 years old is like saying that the 27th Amendment is 225 years old. The law has been amended numerous times to address technological change, the latest of which was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with numerous additional amendments proposed since then, but never enacted.
There are a variety of very good reasons why Title II, or Title II-like laws are a very, very bad idea for the internet.
Please tell us what those "good reasons" are. I'd love to hear them. I will admit that further entrenching existing service providers and media content providers and allowing them to block potential competitors and degrade the services those potential competitors provide, aren't what I'd consider "good reasons." Educate me. Please.
But basically AT&T's logic is sound. They don't want to roll out a huge upgrade when they have no idea of the legal regime they will be operating under. And there decision is understandable and rational.
Again, They already know what the regulatory regime is -- their ISP unit was subject to Title II until 2002. And several other units are still classified as Title II.
You can foresee the pig fuck that 'net neutrality' will become in the hands of the clueless federal bureaucrats?
Seriously, we can define QOS so it's not in violation of net neutrality. What do you figure the odds of DC morons getting it right? What damage will the misregulations cause?
Please give me the name of just one ISP/transit provider/Tier 1 provider/etc. that honors QoS tags from networks other than their own. Just one. I'd love to hear about it. But I won't, because it doesn't exist.
AT&T doesn't want re-classification, so they're making it seem like infrastructure costs will be increased by it.
It seems to me that by remaining under TItle I and being able to throttle user data for arbitrary reasons, they would incur higher operational costs to support that capability. Re-classification under Title IIcould require them to allow packet transit without throttling or other arbitrary "management." It would also require them to sell (not give away) service in non-discriminitory ways.
So, this is just sowing FUD to get those who really want decent (read: Gbit connections) internet access to yell at the politicians, who are bought and paid for by the lobbyists, that pretend to represent their electorate, rather than those they consider their constituents (the ones who pay to keep them in office).
Wow... what a waste. Now they can notify in seconds the police who will be there in minutes. Amazing.
Take that $100k per school and add those auto-closing door that they have for fire separation to every classroom.Have them be locked for outside access. And throw a layer of ballistic material down the inside. Add some ballistic material to the walls.
When someone pulls the "shooter" alarm, just like a "fire" alarm, the doors will close and the sirens will sound.
Now, this wont stop all deaths, but it will prevent the shooter from moving from room to room. And it will make the "bunker in place" method that most schools employ actually viable.
But no, instead some podunk school district gets suckered in by a scam of a system in SDS/ShotSpotter.
Absolutely. Then an assailant can set off the alarms, then set off the pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and other incendiary devices without any interference, trapping students and teachers in classrooms to die of smoke inhalation and other fire related injuries. Very smooth.
So what? At least this is not some sleazy datamining trick, but a system to protect general safety. It can save lives.
You're absolutely correct, and since Fox News says there were 12 gun murders (this includes K-12 and colleges/universities) in school settings per year in the past five years, we can certainly save lives. By the same token, there were ~1500 domestic violence murders in 2005. By your logic, we should install monitoring devices in every home. It can save lives!
Maybe, but it almost certainly would create a much bigger problem. Teenagers as a group are somewhat less than stable emotionally. Some good studies have shown that simply having access to guns escalates aggression among adults. We don't really need petty squabbles that might result in hallway fights turning into shootings instead.
An excellent point. When I was in school, there were no metal detectors or searches or "gunshot detectors" or anything of the sort. I lived in one of the biggest cities in the US where crime was rampant (due to demographics, lead in gasoline and the fact that the cops were seen as just the best armed gang), but there were no shootings at any school I attended, even the ones that served the housing projects. If someone was getting bullied or had a problem with another student, that was for the schoolyard at the end of the school day. No weapons, just fistfights and then it was done. I wonder why? It could be because everyone carried a gun (no, that's not it) or that we were all mentally well-balanced (do I really need to address that?) or that it just never occurred to us that killing people was a good thing (yeah, right).
It was because we had outlets and the liberty to address these problems ourselves. These days, it seems that we try to wrap our kids in a protective blanket which limits their ability to adapt to stressful situations and learn important social skills. Those skills allow people to assess a situation and act appropriately and accordingly, rather than having the issues fester until they explode. Just sayin'.
Alternatively we could spend money on mental health and outreach programs for troubled children. But spending all the money on a reactive system is probably better than a proactive approach...
I agree completely. But that doesn't go anywhere close to making sure our precious babies are safe!
We need hourly strip searches with body cavity probes of all students starting in kindergarten. There's no other way to stop the epidemic of school violence that has taken the lives of dozens of our most precious snowflakes.
No, that doesn't really go far enough. An hour is a long time, anything can happen. We need permanent body cavity probes implanted in our kids, with miniature cameras implanted on their retinas monitored 24 hours a day by those with the same high-level, compassionate training as the tough, smart, patriotic members of the TSA!
That will also make things much easier as the kids get older, as we won't have to spend so much money on wiretaps, surveillance cameras and the like as that capability will already be implanted on every one. It's a win/win!
No more school shootings. Reduced spending on stopping the filthy terrorists who hate us because we're so awesome, and much better tools for law enforcement to keep us safe!
Yes, it costs money, but you need to think of the children! We can't let anything get in the way of that. Privacy, liberty and human dignity are nothing in comparison with making sure our special snowflakes don't skin their knees or, gasp!, smoke pot.
We're Americans! We do whatever is necessary to make sure we have the best. That's why there are only ~30,000+ automobile deaths per year. We knew we had a problem and we put massive amounts of resources into stopping automobile deaths.
That's why only 70 Million Americans have medical debt and why the most common cause of personal bankruptcy is medical debt. Because we know healthcare is so important to our productivity and the living standards of our citizens, so we created the most effective healthcare system ever devised! But there are some who are trying (with communist ObamaCare) to take that away from us. They are the enemy and should be summarily executed for killing the American dream.
We always focus on the most important issues and make sure that our limited resources are used to address the biggest problems. Because we're American. Because we're smart. Because we're better than everyone else. We don't need any of that scientific stuff like data and statistics to tell us what poses the most risk.
What we need (and have) are smart, tough businessmen who will step up and sell us exactly what we need when we're panicked, supply-chain permitting, of course.
Those are the most important members of society and should be treated as such.
We need constitutional amendments protecting your betters from all legal action, civil and criminal, and exemption from all taxes, because without those folks we can't protect our children.
They work hard to make sure that profits are up, and that only helps everyone who matters. So go out and thank a corporate CEO today. Insist that he fuck your wife and daughters -- their genes are better than yours anyway. Again, it's a win/win!
I guess these sensors are completely pointless in a school situation unless you're a small-town cop with too much time and surplus military equipment on your hands.
Untrue? Let me quote your sig, it's a good one: "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr"
This is what happened to you man:
--------point------------>
O/|\
<--- you
|
/ \
The point is, the proofreading was so bad, it wasn't worth to be called proofreading. It's hilarious, and it shows what a lousy job everyone involved did. Furthermore, you say "there is nothing to see here," but you are wrong, there most certainly is something to see here. You can't see it because of your cognitive biases. So fix that. Relax and accept that sometimes scientific processes go hilariously wrong.
Firstly. Proofreading isn't a scientific process. Secondly, as I and several others pointed out (as we *actually* read TFA) that the "comment" was added bery late in the process, after initial proofing, after peer review and, apparently, shortly before the article went to press.
As for my "cognitive bias," I said:
The authors of the paper will face consequences for this. Hopefully, they'll learn from them.
What is more, a minor error in editing (albeit an embarrassing one) isn't a "failure of the scientific process." The eror made the author(s) look foolish and unkind, but had zero impact on the science done to develop and analyze the collected data.
So. presumably the authors are pretty upset that this got through, and worse, that what got through was a an unkind comment about someone else in their field. The subject of said comment is likely nonplussed as well. Beyond that, there isn't a whole lot of relevance to this in the context of the larger scientific community or the population at-large. In fact, if it had been typos or grammar/usage issues, rather than making an obnoxious comment, no one (except those involved in that specific research area, and damn few of those) would have cared.
But since it was something that could be hyped because of the nature of the comment, it allows small-minded (because you never, ever make mistakes do you? I know, it's always someone else's fault isn't it? Every single time. It sucks when the entire world is useless and you are the only one who has any brains at all. I know, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it.) So it's extremely important that everyone in the world pile on these guys, because if it isn't absolutely perfect, we're all going to die slow, painful deaths.
All that said, keep trolling. One day you might actually get good at it. Oh, and your stick figure and proofreading skills need some work too, friend.
But do people really expect Slashdot articles to be proofread? For that we'd need to employ editors to replace the scripts currently posting stories.
My point was more about the headline. Which was copied verbatim from the awful TFA. The titles of both completely misrepresent the situation. As for/.'s editors, I make not comment. Their work speaks for itself.
The point is, if that's the quality of proofreading, peer review, and copyediting, then none of those were very effective.
That's kind of obvious. The fact that you're trying to defend it shows you might have some cognitive biases to fix.
Please tell me if anything I said was untrue. And I'm not exactly sure what cognitive bias you're ascribing to me. Please explain.
and the articles they reference are wildly inaccurate. From TFA:
Not sure how this made it through proofreading, peer review, and copyediting. Via http://t.co/sWaswaM2X4 #addedvalue pic.twitter.com/8krLlvthAr
— Dave Harris (@davidjayharris) November 10, 2014
[Emphasis Added]
So the paper was proofread, peer-reviewed and copyedited. Sigh.
People make mistakes. Life is like that sometimes. The authors of the paper will face consequences for this. Hopefully, they'll learn from them.
Nothing to see here, unless you wrote the paper or are the person referenced.. The post and the linked TFA are a waste of time.
No matter when it passes, who passes it, or what the wording is, any new rules put in place by the FCC are beholden to political pressure which is powered by lobbyists.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002 [fcc.gov] , or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?
So. No new regulations. No new laws. Nothing needs to "pass."
This is probably good news. Obama makes a public statement urging the FCC to step in and enforce net neutrality, and the FCC suddenly delays a decision they were about to make. That means the decision had already been made and it was that the FCC was not going to intervene. Now they are reconsidering and thus they want more time to figure out what all Obama's request entails.
Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002, or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?
So. No new regulations. No new laws.
This is not a new issue, nor is on that requires "further study." The FCC's owners (the cable/media corporations) are just giving their lobbyists and owned politicians more time to ramp up for a fight.
Yeah we agreed about everything except for what label to put on it. There's no need to convince me to call it socialism if we already agree on what the policy should be! That's a high level of agreement, more than I normally get even from friends! I'd say we could start a political party and just avoid using the word "socialism" since that's the one thing we disagree on.
Actually, I have no issue with the word "socialism." Actually, I don't really have a problem with a single-payer system like the UK's NHS either.
Frankly, I consider the ACA to be the legislative version of BTNS, except less useful. ACA provides a number of positive changes (limits on profit-taking by insurers, eliminating pre-existing condition restrictions, minimum standards for insurance plans, etc.), but it does little or nothing to resolve the systemic issues (procedure based treatment, insurance and healthcare providers driven by a profit motive, medical bill bankruptcies, lack of cost transparency and a host of other things) in our healthcare system.
As for starting a political party, why not? I have a big jar of silver change we can use as start-up funds. Truth be told, given the current political climate (driven by unlimited political contributions -- wherein our "representatives" are only representing the monied interests), I don't see us getting anywhere better. Until we get the sewer of filthy lucre out of our political system, we will be hamstrung by the greedy monied interests whose only motto is, "Fuck you, Jack! I got mine."
I wish I wasn't so cynical, but given the current situation, I can't really blame me.
That the lead will be a woman. It's 2014, you can't have things like plain old men as the primary lead, they have to "shake things up". Now "Hari" will be a broad.
I suppose so. Although unless they make "Hari" Five or six *decades* younger than the character in "Foundation" I'm not sure why it matters.
Also, while I find your vitriolic ramblings to be annoying, I can handle them just fine, thanks. You keep trying and maybe, one day, you'll get a bridge all your own. Kisses, lover!
Slashdot Mirror
If I were a Mayor of a city that AT&T serves; I would respond by saying that this will mean the city will need to start rolling out it's own gigabit network now.
AT&T can't complain that the city is competing with them, if AT&T isn't providing the service in the first place.
Of course. Which is why they (among others) support blocking municipal broadband networks.
No, no one knows whats going on now legally speaking, that's why we're having this discussion. The Verizon vs FCC decision removed that certainty. They know what the regulatory regime might be, but they don't know what it is going to be. The FCC chair is looking at splitting the baby which doesn't really sound like a clear indicator of what he's going to do from a legal perspective. It appears that the FCC chair wants to allow ISPs to prioritize certain traffic for security and use (e.g. e-mail traffic doesn't need the kind of priority as streaming video) because not all traffic deserves the same level of attention from the ISP, but not do so for business reasons (e.g. Time Warner shouldn't be allowed to hobble Netflix streaming service). But at the same time, he appears to be distancing himself from Obama's plea for Title II. Writing this into law is more complex than simply saying what the FCC chair said he wanted: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business."
Oh my. Title II classification worked quite well until 2002 when the FCC reclassified broadband providers as "Information Services" under Title I. Which was so obviously a great move, because we had so much less competition then. Not only that, the big broadband providers were so poor before that, they were going out of business. Thank goodness for that! Otherwise, the Internet would have failed completely and we'd all be using punched cards and telexes again by now. Not.
The last twelve years have seen increasing consolidation, local monopolies and duopolies, less competition, higher prices for basic consumer connectivity, more abusive Terms of Service for consumer connections, throttling of competitive content providers who threaten the media content distribution strangleholds that the big broadband providers have.
Title II reclassification isn't the whole of the answer, just a small part. But it's a start at least. Unfortunately, if you tell the same lies over and over again ("we're so poor that reclassification will stop us from upgrading our networks" and "Forcing us to be common carriers will destroy all innovation on the Internet") people start to believe it.
It's just a smokescreen for the big ISPs to keep protecting their abusive business model and maintain their huge profits in a non-competitive marketplace. These big ISPs are holding back innovation in last-mile technologies, despite being given USD$200 Billion in subsidies over the past 18 years to do otherwise.
"Did I miss anything important?" just the part where | ATT Good, net neutrality BAD|
My mistake. Thanks for the clarification. I keep forgetting that unfettered crony capitalism good, gub'mint bad.
I guess we should get going and abolish the EPA, the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the IRS, the Departments of Justice, Education, HUD, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, HHS, Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs and Interior, sell all the National Parks, privatize the Interstate Highway system, amend the constitution to allow only the Federal government to "regulate" business. That will leave much more funding for DHS, DOD and the various "intelligence" agencies.
Once that's done, we'll finally have the freedom and prosperity promised by our glorious Constitution -- well, we will once we repeal the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th, 14th and 16th amendments. "What a beautiful world this will be! What a glorious time to be free." With apologies to Donald Fagan.
While it is very easy to poke at AT&T for this decision, it is also a very understandable position to take. AT&T doesn't know what the laws or rules are going to be after the fact.
Actually, they know exactly what the laws and rules are. Until 2002, they were covered under TItle II and some portions of their network still are.
We are probably not going to get true Title II net neutrality, and quite frankly, 80 year old law really shouldn't apply to something that is fundamentally more complex than a telco or OTA network, and applying the same kinds of laws to the internet providers is legally and technically stupid.
Saying that the law setting up the FCC is 80 years old is like saying that the 27th Amendment is 225 years old. The law has been amended numerous times to address technological change, the latest of which was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with numerous additional amendments proposed since then, but never enacted.
There are a variety of very good reasons why Title II, or Title II-like laws are a very, very bad idea for the internet.
Please tell us what those "good reasons" are. I'd love to hear them. I will admit that further entrenching existing service providers and media content providers and allowing them to block potential competitors and degrade the services those potential competitors provide, aren't what I'd consider "good reasons." Educate me. Please.
But basically AT&T's logic is sound. They don't want to roll out a huge upgrade when they have no idea of the legal regime they will be operating under. And there decision is understandable and rational.
Again, They already know what the regulatory regime is -- their ISP unit was subject to Title II until 2002. And several other units are still classified as Title II.
Did I miss anything important?
You can foresee the pig fuck that 'net neutrality' will become in the hands of the clueless federal bureaucrats?
Seriously, we can define QOS so it's not in violation of net neutrality. What do you figure the odds of DC morons getting it right? What damage will the misregulations cause?
Please give me the name of just one ISP/transit provider/Tier 1 provider/etc. that honors QoS tags from networks other than their own. Just one. I'd love to hear about it. But I won't, because it doesn't exist.
This money.
And that money.
AT&T doesn't want re-classification, so they're making it seem like infrastructure costs will be increased by it.
It seems to me that by remaining under TItle I and being able to throttle user data for arbitrary reasons, they would incur higher operational costs to support that capability. Re-classification under Title II could require them to allow packet transit without throttling or other arbitrary "management." It would also require them to sell (not give away) service in non-discriminitory ways.
So, this is just sowing FUD to get those who really want decent (read: Gbit connections) internet access to yell at the politicians, who are bought and paid for by the lobbyists, that pretend to represent their electorate, rather than those they consider their constituents (the ones who pay to keep them in office).
Wow... what a waste. Now they can notify in seconds the police who will be there in minutes. Amazing.
Take that $100k per school and add those auto-closing door that they have for fire separation to every classroom.Have them be locked for outside access. And throw a layer of ballistic material down the inside. Add some ballistic material to the walls.
When someone pulls the "shooter" alarm, just like a "fire" alarm, the doors will close and the sirens will sound.
Now, this wont stop all deaths, but it will prevent the shooter from moving from room to room. And it will make the "bunker in place" method that most schools employ actually viable.
But no, instead some podunk school district gets suckered in by a scam of a system in SDS/ShotSpotter.
Absolutely. Then an assailant can set off the alarms, then set off the pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and other incendiary devices without any interference, trapping students and teachers in classrooms to die of smoke inhalation and other fire related injuries. Very smooth.
So what? At least this is not some sleazy datamining trick, but a system to protect general safety. It can save lives.
You're absolutely correct, and since Fox News says there were 12 gun murders (this includes K-12 and colleges/universities) in school settings per year in the past five years, we can certainly save lives. By the same token, there were ~1500 domestic violence murders in 2005. By your logic, we should install monitoring devices in every home. It can save lives!
Heck, armed teenagers would solve this problem.
Maybe, but it almost certainly would create a much bigger problem. Teenagers as a group are somewhat less than stable emotionally. Some good studies have shown that simply having access to guns escalates aggression among adults. We don't really need petty squabbles that might result in hallway fights turning into shootings instead.
An excellent point. When I was in school, there were no metal detectors or searches or "gunshot detectors" or anything of the sort. I lived in one of the biggest cities in the US where crime was rampant (due to demographics, lead in gasoline and the fact that the cops were seen as just the best armed gang), but there were no shootings at any school I attended, even the ones that served the housing projects. If someone was getting bullied or had a problem with another student, that was for the schoolyard at the end of the school day. No weapons, just fistfights and then it was done. I wonder why? It could be because everyone carried a gun (no, that's not it) or that we were all mentally well-balanced (do I really need to address that?) or that it just never occurred to us that killing people was a good thing (yeah, right).
It was because we had outlets and the liberty to address these problems ourselves. These days, it seems that we try to wrap our kids in a protective blanket which limits their ability to adapt to stressful situations and learn important social skills. Those skills allow people to assess a situation and act appropriately and accordingly, rather than having the issues fester until they explode. Just sayin'.
The people that get picked on year after year and finally stand up to the bullys are the bad guys and the bullys are the future LEOs.
There. FTFY.
3 - 2 - 1 .. Some kid brings a speaker plugged in to a cellphone/whatever plays gunfire gets school shut down for the day...
Then punish that kid for setting off a false alarm, just like you would someone messing with the fire alarm system with fake cues.
Better yet, punish the "public servant" getting the kickbacks for wasting the town's money.
Alternatively we could spend money on mental health and outreach programs for troubled children. But spending all the money on a reactive system is probably better than a proactive approach...
I agree completely. But that doesn't go anywhere close to making sure our precious babies are safe!
We need hourly strip searches with body cavity probes of all students starting in kindergarten. There's no other way to stop the epidemic of school violence that has taken the lives of dozens of our most precious snowflakes.
No, that doesn't really go far enough. An hour is a long time, anything can happen. We need permanent body cavity probes implanted in our kids, with miniature cameras implanted on their retinas monitored 24 hours a day by those with the same high-level, compassionate training as the tough, smart, patriotic members of the TSA!
That will also make things much easier as the kids get older, as we won't have to spend so much money on wiretaps, surveillance cameras and the like as that capability will already be implanted on every one. It's a win/win!
No more school shootings. Reduced spending on stopping the filthy terrorists who hate us because we're so awesome, and much better tools for law enforcement to keep us safe!
Yes, it costs money, but you need to think of the children! We can't let anything get in the way of that. Privacy, liberty and human dignity are nothing in comparison with making sure our special snowflakes don't skin their knees or, gasp!, smoke pot.
We're Americans! We do whatever is necessary to make sure we have the best. That's why there are only ~30,000+ automobile deaths per year. We knew we had a problem and we put massive amounts of resources into stopping automobile deaths.
That's why only 70 Million Americans have medical debt and why the most common cause of personal bankruptcy is medical debt. Because we know healthcare is so important to our productivity and the living standards of our citizens, so we created the most effective healthcare system ever devised! But there are some who are trying (with communist ObamaCare) to take that away from us. They are the enemy and should be summarily executed for killing the American dream.
We always focus on the most important issues and make sure that our limited resources are used to address the biggest problems. Because we're American. Because we're smart. Because we're better than everyone else. We don't need any of that scientific stuff like data and statistics to tell us what poses the most risk.
What we need (and have) are smart, tough businessmen who will step up and sell us exactly what we need when we're panicked, supply-chain permitting, of course.
Those are the most important members of society and should be treated as such.
We need constitutional amendments protecting your betters from all legal action, civil and criminal, and exemption from all taxes, because without those folks we can't protect our children.
They work hard to make sure that profits are up, and that only helps everyone who matters. So go out and thank a corporate CEO today. Insist that he fuck your wife and daughters -- their genes are better than yours anyway. Again, it's a win/win!
I guess these sensors are completely pointless in a school situation unless you're a small-town cop with too much time and surplus military equipment on your hands.
There. FTFY.
Untrue? Let me quote your sig, it's a good one: "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr" This is what happened to you man: --------point------------> O /|\
<--- you
|
/ \
The point is, the proofreading was so bad, it wasn't worth to be called proofreading. It's hilarious, and it shows what a lousy job everyone involved did. Furthermore, you say "there is nothing to see here," but you are wrong, there most certainly is something to see here. You can't see it because of your cognitive biases. So fix that. Relax and accept that sometimes scientific processes go hilariously wrong.
Firstly. Proofreading isn't a scientific process. Secondly, as I and several others pointed out (as we *actually* read TFA) that the "comment" was added bery late in the process, after initial proofing, after peer review and, apparently, shortly before the article went to press.
As for my "cognitive bias," I said:
What is more, a minor error in editing (albeit an embarrassing one) isn't a "failure of the scientific process." The eror made the author(s) look foolish and unkind, but had zero impact on the science done to develop and analyze the collected data.
So. presumably the authors are pretty upset that this got through, and worse, that what got through was a an unkind comment about someone else in their field. The subject of said comment is likely nonplussed as well. Beyond that, there isn't a whole lot of relevance to this in the context of the larger scientific community or the population at-large. In fact, if it had been typos or grammar/usage issues, rather than making an obnoxious comment, no one (except those involved in that specific research area, and damn few of those) would have cared.
But since it was something that could be hyped because of the nature of the comment, it allows small-minded (because you never, ever make mistakes do you? I know, it's always someone else's fault isn't it? Every single time. It sucks when the entire world is useless and you are the only one who has any brains at all. I know, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it.) So it's extremely important that everyone in the world pile on these guys, because if it isn't absolutely perfect, we're all going to die slow, painful deaths.
All that said, keep trolling. One day you might actually get good at it. Oh, and your stick figure and proofreading skills need some work too, friend.
But do people really expect Slashdot articles to be proofread? For that we'd need to employ editors to replace the scripts currently posting stories.
My point was more about the headline. Which was copied verbatim from the awful TFA. The titles of both completely misrepresent the situation. As for /.'s editors, I make not comment. Their work speaks for itself.
The point is, if that's the quality of proofreading, peer review, and copyediting, then none of those were very effective. That's kind of obvious. The fact that you're trying to defend it shows you might have some cognitive biases to fix.
Please tell me if anything I said was untrue. And I'm not exactly sure what cognitive bias you're ascribing to me. Please explain.
A more useful article than TFA is over at retractionwatch.
It certainly is. Thanks!
and the articles they reference are wildly inaccurate. From TFA:
[Emphasis Added]
So the paper was proofread, peer-reviewed and copyedited. Sigh.
People make mistakes. Life is like that sometimes. The authors of the paper will face consequences for this. Hopefully, they'll learn from them.
Nothing to see here, unless you wrote the paper or are the person referenced.. The post and the linked TFA are a waste of time.
No matter when it passes, who passes it, or what the wording is, any new rules put in place by the FCC are beholden to political pressure which is powered by lobbyists. https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002 [fcc.gov] , or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?
So. No new regulations. No new laws. Nothing needs to "pass."
This is probably good news. Obama makes a public statement urging the FCC to step in and enforce net neutrality, and the FCC suddenly delays a decision they were about to make. That means the decision had already been made and it was that the FCC was not going to intervene. Now they are reconsidering and thus they want more time to figure out what all Obama's request entails.
Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002 , or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?
So. No new regulations. No new laws.
This is not a new issue, nor is on that requires "further study." The FCC's owners (the cable/media corporations) are just giving their lobbyists and owned politicians more time to ramp up for a fight.
Yeah we agreed about everything except for what label to put on it. There's no need to convince me to call it socialism if we already agree on what the policy should be! That's a high level of agreement, more than I normally get even from friends! I'd say we could start a political party and just avoid using the word "socialism" since that's the one thing we disagree on.
Actually, I have no issue with the word "socialism." Actually, I don't really have a problem with a single-payer system like the UK's NHS either.
Frankly, I consider the ACA to be the legislative version of BTNS, except less useful. ACA provides a number of positive changes (limits on profit-taking by insurers, eliminating pre-existing condition restrictions, minimum standards for insurance plans, etc.), but it does little or nothing to resolve the systemic issues (procedure based treatment, insurance and healthcare providers driven by a profit motive, medical bill bankruptcies, lack of cost transparency and a host of other things) in our healthcare system.
As for starting a political party, why not? I have a big jar of silver change we can use as start-up funds. Truth be told, given the current political climate (driven by unlimited political contributions -- wherein our "representatives" are only representing the monied interests), I don't see us getting anywhere better. Until we get the sewer of filthy lucre out of our political system, we will be hamstrung by the greedy monied interests whose only motto is, "Fuck you, Jack! I got mine."
I wish I wasn't so cynical, but given the current situation, I can't really blame me.
That the lead will be a woman. It's 2014, you can't have things like plain old men as the primary lead, they have to "shake things up". Now "Hari" will be a broad.
I suppose so. Although unless they make "Hari" Five or six *decades* younger than the character in "Foundation" I'm not sure why it matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXx2YNrrz6o
I see. So, please provide appropriate taxonomic classifications as I'm confused. Thanks.
Also, while I find your vitriolic ramblings to be annoying, I can handle them just fine, thanks. You keep trying and maybe, one day, you'll get a bridge all your own. Kisses, lover!