in many cases with funding from the federal Department of Homeland Security
"I don't mind paying taxes", claim the Statists. With them, they say, "we are buying civilization". How about it? Civilized yet?
Me? I just try to ensure, my daughters grow up with good enough knowledge of Ukrainian to be able to hold a conversation in a language bound to remain unparsable by such equipment for decades to come... Celebrate diversity.
It was all about bashing Monsanto — the "evil" company, that specialized in GMO seeds and holds thousands of patents.
European competitors in particular were so afraid of it rising, they started a PR campaign to mongering fears of GMOs. The campaign created public's perception so negative, some countries (France, Germany) ban GMOs outright and vandals attack growers. Lately Monsanto (and DuPont) must've started fighting back, because American media began defending the technology — even calling its opponents "anti-Science" (where have I heard that before?).
GMO-haters have nothing but FUD — they've heard it is (or may be) dangerous, but don't know why — somebody told them... See also "chemtrails" and "Trump is racist".
versus the abuses that I'm already seeing from Comcast et al?
Comcast is in business for some decades now — and people have been complaining about its "abuses" for just as long. Maybe, that's because its CEO plays golf with the President — and is unlikely to suffer much from President-appointed FCC commissioners.
Or, maybe, because monopolies will always find a way of convincing the regulator, their ways and practices are "reasonable" — and TFA describes just such a case.
Monopolies suck and the regulations help the incumbents fend off challengers...
the Republican party has become so absolutely knee-jerk dogmatic
Yeah? Try mocking "gay marriage" in the presence of Democrats...
read what he wrote! He said SLASHDOT didn't have an article
Actually, no. The post I replied to lamented the talking heads not talking about it — and made no mention of Slashdot whatsoever. What color is the sky in your reality?
"So if your ISP is lazy, or wants to cut corners and save money, they can throttle BitTorrent, or VPNs, or Bitcoin, or Tor, or any class of traffic they can identify"
Of course, the regulated corporations will tend to outsmart the regulators.
The only thing that keeps businesses providing good services and offering quality goods is competition...
Maybe, Hillary will add fewer than Obama's record-setting 21,000, but her numbers will, no doubt, be comparable.
For instance, Net Neutrality isn't telling them in exacting detail how to manage their network
I said nothing about "exacting detail". But vagueness is often worse than that...
you can't abuse that by charging extra or degrading service based on whose traffic it is
How is that different, in principle, from telling you, you can not block certain callers (such as those exercising their First Amendment rights to pitch their services to you) on your telephone? How is it different from prohibiting you to install AdBlock on your dad's computer? It also blocks data based on whose it is — and that phone/computer is yours is, according to you, no defense...
What's good for the goose, is good for chicken — always test whatever regulation you'd like imposed on others on yourself first...
we could certainly do with removing regulations that serve solely as a barrier to competition or entry, such as those in the ISP market
Translation: such as those you are aware of. What makes you think, the ISP market is somehow unique in its amount of suspect regulations?
reducing regulatory barriers and supporting Net neutrality rules
Net neutrality — whether you like it or not — can only be achieved by a regulatory barrier. The government is telling owners of cables, routers and switches, what they can and can not do with their own equipment and data passing through it.
Clearly, some regulation is more equal than others and Hillary Clinton is, once again, talking from multiple sides of her very experienced mouth.
"It's sleep deprivation, basically," says Brandon Neely, a former Army MP who was posted at Guantanamo.
Yeah, and Windows is basically Unix. And humans are basically monkeys — I'm sure, you can find an ex MP to tell you any of that.
"Sometimes, said Tankersley, POI status inmates were found snoozing. "And we catch them and wake them back up," he said. "
Jailers may be assholes, but there just "no there there". Nothing happened to him, that would not happen to any inmate. It sucks, but that's what jail is about... Certainly nothing "far worse".
Solitary confinement IS torture
Not in my dictionary. Thousands of inmates are subjected to that regularly in prisons nation-wide. It is not pleasant, but it is perfectly justified.
"He was forced to sleep from 1 PM to 11 PM, naked, and was allowed to do so only when facing his lamp."
Ah yes, forcing someone to sleep facing a lamp--clearing a measure undertaken by those who care deeply about his health.
They aren't his parents. Their task was to make him survive to stand trial — so that no jerk ever claims, Manning was "killed in prison". Making him feel good was not part of the task.
put Manning on suicide risk, or SR, three times, despite the protests of his prison psychologist, Capt. William Hocter
Oh, wow, listening to the psychologist's protests must've been torturous indeed.
This guy put Manning back in solitary because Manning was being "disrespectful" by asking why Averhart was shouting.
Yes, an officer may impose punishment on a disrespectful underling. Welcome to military.
On top of this already being an example of torture
Darling, you can redefine studying Calculus as torture, but that will not make Math professors subject to prosecution. It is not torture.
that detail totally blows away your claim that none of this is punishment
I said nothing about solitary confinement — only the sleep-deprivation, which you alleged has taken place. That was imposed, because the traitor was deemed security risk — not as punishment.
Again, I'm sure none of this bothers you!
Conditions and treatment of prisoners in America's prisons bother me a great deal — but nothing happened to Manning (or may happen to Snowden), that is particularly out of the ordinary.
If it is acceptable to treat rapists and murderers that way, it is doubly acceptable for traitors.
I can recall several reasons — all of which I've encountered here on/. over the years and they've achieved acclaim and high moderations:
Information wants to be free!!
The leak exposes security flaws in the organizations — and it is their CIOs, who should be executed instead. The hacker needs to be hired as the CIO of all three.
The data exposes corruption and abuses at the organizations. The leaker may have broken the law, but Obama should pardon him.
Three U.S. healthcare organizations are reportedly being held to ransom by a hacker
Can't wait for there being a single-payer system. The job of hackers world-wide will be much easier as they wouldn't need to waste efforts coming up with different ingenious ways of hacking different organizations.
You mean like when you tell AirBnB all the same information and they post it publicly to advertise your rental?
AirBNB does not publish your name. Nor the exact address.
But you bring up an interesting point — just what is it, that the city needs to know in addition to what AirBNB tells everyone? Or is this registration requirement simply a way of collecting $50 fees?
AirBnB has no First Amendment claim here.
Freedom of Speech generally assumes freedom not to speak. There may also be 5th Amendment issues here.
And SF has a vested interest in making sure that the AirBnB renters are not commercial operations instead of private individuals.
The distinction you — and SF, according to you — are trying to make is without difference. Whether it is a small-time owner of a single apartment, or a larger entity, the rules ought to be the same. And they ought to be liberal and privacy-respecting.
Any government-registration requirement is highly suspect and the vast majority of them are unwarranted and provide no tangible benefit in exchange for the very real loss of privacy and other burdens.
Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon
Funny, how a registration requirement is Ok with people sometimes, whereas at other times it is an intolerable "invasion of privacy". Papers, please...
Did he get something "far worse" than jail time? He was sentenced to 35 years — instead of the 90, that were really due for all of the things he was found guilty of. He will be eligible for parole after serving one third of that.
So, how is America's treatment of him "far worse" than jail time?
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't mind paying taxes", claim the Statists. With them, they say, "we are buying civilization". How about it? Civilized yet?
Me? I just try to ensure, my daughters grow up with good enough knowledge of Ukrainian to be able to hold a conversation in a language bound to remain unparsable by such equipment for decades to come... Celebrate diversity.
What's your plan?
It was all about bashing Monsanto — the "evil" company, that specialized in GMO seeds and holds thousands of patents.
European competitors in particular were so afraid of it rising, they started a PR campaign to mongering fears of GMOs. The campaign created public's perception so negative, some countries (France, Germany) ban GMOs outright and vandals attack growers. Lately Monsanto (and DuPont) must've started fighting back, because American media began defending the technology — even calling its opponents "anti-Science" (where have I heard that before?).
But now that a German firm is seeking to buy Monsanto, Europeans need to be disabused of their misconceptions too.
GMO-haters have nothing but FUD — they've heard it is (or may be) dangerous, but don't know why — somebody told them... See also "chemtrails" and "Trump is racist".
Unfortunately, even in the US food can not be labeled "Organic", if it contains GMOs...
Comcast is in business for some decades now — and people have been complaining about its "abuses" for just as long. Maybe, that's because its CEO plays golf with the President — and is unlikely to suffer much from President-appointed FCC commissioners.
Or, maybe, because monopolies will always find a way of convincing the regulator, their ways and practices are "reasonable" — and TFA describes just such a case.
Monopolies suck and the regulations help the incumbents fend off challengers...
Yeah? Try mocking "gay marriage" in the presence of Democrats...
Actually, no. The post I replied to lamented the talking heads not talking about it — and made no mention of Slashdot whatsoever. What color is the sky in your reality?
Dozens? No. Two or three? Yes. Excluded middle much?
Citation needed.
Why? Because ad hominem is now a valid argument?
The article I linked to — by Thomas DiLorenzo — was written in 1996 and has been cited by economists quite often since then.
Surely you could have come up with a better rebuttal.
You're cordially invited to start an ISP. Preferably where the likes of Comcast have a monopoly. Please do.
Google already did. To wonderful results...
"Natural monopoly" is a myth. A very convenient myth — for both the monopolists and the government officials seeking to profit from them — but a myth nonetheless.
Of course, the regulated corporations will tend to outsmart the regulators.
The only thing that keeps businesses providing good services and offering quality goods is competition...
Unfortunately, with the Democrats — the Party of Government — the regulations are your only choice. Thousands new ones are added every year.
Maybe, Hillary will add fewer than Obama's record-setting 21,000, but her numbers will, no doubt, be comparable.
I said nothing about "exacting detail". But vagueness is often worse than that...
How is that different, in principle, from telling you, you can not block certain callers (such as those exercising their First Amendment rights to pitch their services to you) on your telephone? How is it different from prohibiting you to install AdBlock on your dad's computer? It also blocks data based on whose it is — and that phone/computer is yours is, according to you, no defense...
What's good for the goose, is good for chicken — always test whatever regulation you'd like imposed on others on yourself first...
Translation: such as those you are aware of. What makes you think, the ISP market is somehow unique in its amount of suspect regulations?
Net neutrality — whether you like it or not — can only be achieved by a regulatory barrier. The government is telling owners of cables, routers and switches, what they can and can not do with their own equipment and data passing through it.
Clearly, some regulation is more equal than others and Hillary Clinton is, once again, talking from multiple sides of her very experienced mouth.
Drudge Report was all over the Istanbul bombing almost as soon as it happened. CNN reported too. As did Fox News...
Today — the next day — New York Times had their article. And Washington Post.
Are you taking your talking points from these dimwits, perhaps?
You only deserve, what you paid for. Whether you have a job or not is irrelevant.
You don't deserve free emergency room treatment either.
Broken link.
Yeah, and Windows is basically Unix. And humans are basically monkeys — I'm sure, you can find an ex MP to tell you any of that.
Jailers may be assholes, but there just "no there there". Nothing happened to him, that would not happen to any inmate. It sucks, but that's what jail is about... Certainly nothing "far worse".
Not in my dictionary. Thousands of inmates are subjected to that regularly in prisons nation-wide. It is not pleasant, but it is perfectly justified.
They aren't his parents. Their task was to make him survive to stand trial — so that no jerk ever claims, Manning was "killed in prison". Making him feel good was not part of the task.
Oh, wow, listening to the psychologist's protests must've been torturous indeed.
Yes, an officer may impose punishment on a disrespectful underling. Welcome to military.
Darling, you can redefine studying Calculus as torture, but that will not make Math professors subject to prosecution. It is not torture.
I said nothing about solitary confinement — only the sleep-deprivation, which you alleged has taken place. That was imposed, because the traitor was deemed security risk — not as punishment.
Conditions and treatment of prisoners in America's prisons bother me a great deal — but nothing happened to Manning (or may happen to Snowden), that is particularly out of the ordinary.
If it is acceptable to treat rapists and murderers that way, it is doubly acceptable for traitors.
Woooosh...
I can recall several reasons — all of which I've encountered here on /. over the years and they've achieved acclaim and high moderations:
Can't wait for there being a single-payer system. The job of hackers world-wide will be much easier as they wouldn't need to waste efforts coming up with different ingenious ways of hacking different organizations.
AirBNB does not publish your name. Nor the exact address.
But you bring up an interesting point — just what is it, that the city needs to know in addition to what AirBNB tells everyone? Or is this registration requirement simply a way of collecting $50 fees?
Freedom of Speech generally assumes freedom not to speak. There may also be 5th Amendment issues here.
The distinction you — and SF, according to you — are trying to make is without difference. Whether it is a small-time owner of a single apartment, or a larger entity, the rules ought to be the same. And they ought to be liberal and privacy-respecting.
Any government-registration requirement is highly suspect and the vast majority of them are unwarranted and provide no tangible benefit in exchange for the very real loss of privacy and other burdens.
No citation for some reason... Maybe, because it is simply not true?
Stay in a hotel. Or start your own company — and see, if you can win the business of the people like yourself from AirBNB.
Filling out the form. Informing the government of your being one of AirBNB renters — with details about yourself and the apartment(s) being rented.
Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine — no warrant needed.
Because it was the government, the information is now public records and/or subject to FOIA-requests by anyone, not just law enforcement.
Privacy is not explicitly protected by its own Amendment, but by several of them combined — including the First.
Funny, how a registration requirement is Ok with people sometimes, whereas at other times it is an intolerable "invasion of privacy". Papers, please...
What if the City of San Francisco required renters to also register their social media accounts with the City Hall — a government's attempt we roundly condemned just yesterday?
How is this requirement to register different in principle? There being a $50 registration fee makes it worse, not better...
Wow, that's an idea... How about a /. rule forcing anonymous cowards to submit their drivel on paper as well? To discourage control-freaks from living?
Bullshit. He was a considered a suicide risk and ordered to — heavens! — sleep naked. That's not sleep deprivation, not torture, not cruel, not unusual, and certainly not punishment.
You are pushing for a record in the number of errors per word... Congratulations.
Did he get something "far worse" than jail time? He was sentenced to 35 years — instead of the 90, that were really due for all of the things he was found guilty of. He will be eligible for parole after serving one third of that.
So, how is America's treatment of him "far worse" than jail time?
Try again...