Yes, I remember you having problems maintaining coherent conversations, but this is a new low. Whatever ails you, it is progressing... Sad, really sad...
So you really are outraged, that a company disobeying a legal order is being punished. Ok, can you answer the question in the very title of this thread? If a judge shall not be able to compel a company to comply with his legal orders, who can? "No one" would be a valid answer too, BTW — we can explore that venue...
Yes, the law notwithstanding, we shouldn't allow the authorities to shut down communications
Well, the judge's target was not communications, but a particular company. Communications between people remain perfectly possible — even if they are more expensive now.
Consider the example of AT&T instead of WhatsApp — or Comcast or what have you — should they be above the law, simply because they are providing communications?
No, actually, the secret FISA courts are not Ok with me. But the judge in TFA is an ordinary member of the Judiciary — even the/. write-up describes his court as "minor".
That's true. Because it was not a definition at all. Which is why I put the word into quotes. PopeRazo tried to "win" this argument by Equivocation — a fallacy. He got called on it, and had the grace to shut up instead of proceeding with spit-splatter like you did:
[...] try something a little more than a dictionary
That's not, how debates work. If you believe, there is something about Fascism in encyclopedia, that would support the accusation of favoring Fascism against Donald Trump, then you have to dig it up and quote it.
What brought on all the bile over such a simple suggestion expressed politely?
Maybe, the fact that you told me to do it in response to my offering the actual definition of the term — rather than to PopeRazo, who attempted to insert his very own "definition" so as to smear Trump better?
First of all, there is nothing "dumbed down" about dictionary. It provides a definition. Looking at examples may help get a better feeling for the term, but the definition remains. Italian example, Spanish example, German example — what's relevant and what is not?
Hitler was a vegetarian — are vegetarians fascists? No. Mussolini was a journalist — are journalists all crypto-fascists? No.
Hitler, Mussolini, Franco all valued the State (the Collective, the Community) above the Individual — are all such Collectivists Fascists? Yes, actually — so long as they also favor forcible suppression of opposition and long for a dictatorial leader. Not because I hate them and use "fascist" as simply a dirty word, but by definition.
Has Trump indicated a preference for any such Collectivism? Apparently, not — despite bombastic accusations, the actual quotes are yet to appear.
Where do you differ with the professor's more thorough definition of "fascism"?
Copy/paste the two definitions into two files and run diff(1) against them. You'll see some differences.
But, if you think, the two definitions are the same, let's use mine...
Please support your statement that Trump is an "Individualist" with some evidence
Touche. I retract the statement. The burden of proof, that Trump has made Fascist statements, is still on you, however...
It's the part about consulting with industry leaders to "close up the Internet" that does it.
Nope, not "close up the Internet", but "close up the Internet in some way" (emphasis mine) — he then elaborated, that it meant disconnecting parts of the world (such as parts of Iraq and Syria), where our our enemies operate. What's Fascist about that?
We know quite well, that FBI and other countries' police have been closing up various servers and disconnecting networks. Right or wrong, it is not automatically Fascist.
in this case the government agencies are exactly not competing with each other
The write-up (and, likely, TFA as well) clearly implies, travel to Moon is NASA's prerogative, which FAA took over. There is obviously competition — at least, in the perception of the two agencies' missions.
Sorry, but neither you, nor some Professor Emeritus get to redefine terms. Fascism has a perfectly clear definition in the dictionary already:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Trump is, quote obviously, an Individualist, which is the very antithesis of Fascism and other forms of Collectivism (such as Socialism). You were saying?
marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood
So, Trump's pointing out, that our enemies use the Internet to organize attacks against us, is, in your mind, equivalent to "preoccupation with community decline"?! Wow...
Can truth really be "fascist", or would you like to pick a different quote?
Thank you for the citation. Now, how about the other part of my request: explain, why you feel this is fascist of him? Not just wrong, but fascist? And why it was not "fascist" of Ted Kennedy to do the same? Thanks.
Yep, obviously not much of a reader... Let's try this one more time:
The claim made by Bert64 above was, taxpayers paid for the infrastructure.
Bert64 would not substantiate that claim. Can you?
No, they did not
Your link describes, how the US government forced Bell Labs to allow other companies to connect to their network. It says nothing to substantiate your earlier claim:
It was the evil government that standardized the network.
Which is not surprising, because the standards were Bell Labs', not the government's — contrary to your earlier statements.
If you need citations to tell you that these networks are built on public rights of ways, you really shouldn't be involved in this discussion.
The claim made by Bert64 above was, taxpayers paid for the infrastructure. Allowing the use of land for wires is not the same as paying. Bert64's remains unsubstantiated.
It was the evil government that standardized the network
False. AT&T did that. But you are welcome to offer proof of your words, however circumstantial...
While NASA remains fixated on its Journey to Mars, quietly, the FAA is positioning itself as the lead United States Government agency for a return to the moon.
When you see government agencies competing with each other, you know, you have too many of them.
As a start, you do understand that the entire infrastructure is built on rights of ways and every single one of the central offices
So, no citations. As expected...
[...] what good a regulated monopoly can be when the free market ideologues get out of the way
Actually, I have a very good idea. And, had you been more of reader than a writer, the history of AT&T getting a monopoly in exchange for submitting to "regulation", and the subsequent break-up of the company, would've been an eye-opener.
Our very problems today stem from this idiotic myth of "natural monopoly". Allowing the government to offer Internet-service will worsen the problem from the current "too little competition" to "no competition". Only a Socialist ideologue would want that.
And most of these large telcos were started with government support
Whether that's true or not, it is not relevant. A child may be born with government support (such as when his mother is poor) — this does not mean, he owes anything to the taxpayers or is a slave of the state.
The infrastructure they now make huge profits off was paid for by the tax payers originally.
Citations? Please, give one or two examples of such companies listing the total cost of their infrastructure and the portion of it, that was paid by the taxpayers.
The government does many things better than the free markets.
If there really were many such things, you would've listed a few. You didn't. Therefore, you lied.
it is because the free market doesnt work when there are extreme startup costs.
Bullshit. Free market is the only thing, that works. Even in the not-so-free market we currently have in this country. Witness Google-fiber as just one example.
I'd like to see how Bain Capital would build an interstate highway system.
Very good example, Señor Guevara, very good — once a government starts doing it, nobody else will touch it. You can't fight cityhall, as the saying goes. And this is exactly, what will happen to the Internet, once the government starts doing it — complete with police enforcing "traffic" laws.
But to answer your question, consider the rail-roads built across this nation by private concerns...
Call me when a private corporation can get a human into orbit without killing him.
It will happen, when there is something useful for him to do there.
You are an idiot.
You are an asshole, PopeRatzo. As are all statists.
So, you'd rather have the real monopoly of the townhall running Internet-services, than the quasi monopolies? Considering, it is the local governments, who are impeding Internet-service provision competition to begin with, your stance is not just foolish, it even seems malign.
when the people want to band together and do something
Such people form a private company. Whatever government does, is done poorly. Internet-service included — 15 years ago we were arguing on these very pages about the wonderful "municipal Wi-Fi"...
Illiberals used to be rather smug about Academia being Left-leaning — as if it validated their claims of being intellectually superior to their opponents.
Well, folks, you own this professor. And this one too.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I remember you having problems maintaining coherent conversations, but this is a new low. Whatever ails you, it is progressing... Sad, really sad...
So you really are outraged, that a company disobeying a legal order is being punished. Ok, can you answer the question in the very title of this thread? If a judge shall not be able to compel a company to comply with his legal orders, who can? "No one" would be a valid answer too, BTW — we can explore that venue...
Well, the judge's target was not communications, but a particular company. Communications between people remain perfectly possible — even if they are more expensive now.
Consider the example of AT&T instead of WhatsApp — or Comcast or what have you — should they be above the law, simply because they are providing communications?
My point is not about nuances of the legal process, but whether or not there is a cause for outrage... I don't see it (yet) — do you?
No, actually, the secret FISA courts are not Ok with me. But the judge in TFA is an ordinary member of the Judiciary — even the /. write-up describes his court as "minor".
It makes me nervous too, but...
Whenever such cases appear in the US, our complaint usually is, police demands data from companies, without a judge-signed warrant.
In this case, a judge made the order — not the prosecution. So, if he can not force a company to comply, who can?
Or is the legal system in Brazil so different from ours, that our terminology and standards do not apply?
And here's dywolf, with nothing to add but a flaccid personal attack. Real sad...
That's true. Because it was not a definition at all. Which is why I put the word into quotes. PopeRazo tried to "win" this argument by Equivocation — a fallacy. He got called on it, and had the grace to shut up instead of proceeding with spit-splatter like you did:
Please, don't hate.
That's not, how debates work. If you believe, there is something about Fascism in encyclopedia, that would support the accusation of favoring Fascism against Donald Trump, then you have to dig it up and quote it.
Maybe, the fact that you told me to do it in response to my offering the actual definition of the term — rather than to PopeRazo, who attempted to insert his very own "definition" so as to smear Trump better?
First of all, there is nothing "dumbed down" about dictionary. It provides a definition. Looking at examples may help get a better feeling for the term, but the definition remains. Italian example, Spanish example, German example — what's relevant and what is not?
Hitler was a vegetarian — are vegetarians fascists? No. Mussolini was a journalist — are journalists all crypto-fascists? No.
Hitler, Mussolini, Franco all valued the State (the Collective, the Community) above the Individual — are all such Collectivists Fascists? Yes, actually — so long as they also favor forcible suppression of opposition and long for a dictatorial leader. Not because I hate them and use "fascist" as simply a dirty word, but by definition.
Has Trump indicated a preference for any such Collectivism? Apparently, not — despite bombastic accusations, the actual quotes are yet to appear.
Copy/paste the two definitions into two files and run diff(1) against them. You'll see some differences.
But, if you think, the two definitions are the same, let's use mine...
Touche. I retract the statement. The burden of proof, that Trump has made Fascist statements, is still on you, however...
Nope, not "close up the Internet", but "close up the Internet in some way" (emphasis mine) — he then elaborated, that it meant disconnecting parts of the world (such as parts of Iraq and Syria), where our our enemies operate. What's Fascist about that?
We know quite well, that FBI and other countries' police have been closing up various servers and disconnecting networks. Right or wrong, it is not automatically Fascist.
The write-up (and, likely, TFA as well) clearly implies, travel to Moon is NASA's prerogative, which FAA took over. There is obviously competition — at least, in the perception of the two agencies' missions.
Sorry, but neither you, nor some Professor Emeritus get to redefine terms. Fascism has a perfectly clear definition in the dictionary already:
Trump is, quote obviously, an Individualist, which is the very antithesis of Fascism and other forms of Collectivism (such as Socialism). You were saying?
So, Trump's pointing out, that our enemies use the Internet to organize attacks against us, is, in your mind, equivalent to "preoccupation with community decline"?! Wow...
Can truth really be "fascist", or would you like to pick a different quote?
Thank you for the citation. Now, how about the other part of my request: explain, why you feel this is fascist of him? Not just wrong, but fascist ? And why it was not "fascist" of Ted Kennedy to do the same? Thanks.
Bert64 would not substantiate that claim. Can you?
Your link describes, how the US government forced Bell Labs to allow other companies to connect to their network. It says nothing to substantiate your earlier claim:
Which is not surprising, because the standards were Bell Labs', not the government's — contrary to your earlier statements.
Ouch, that was so sexist, bigoted, hurtful and hateful, I must retreat to my safe zone. Fuck you, hater!
Could you cite the particular examples of fascist statements made by Donald Trump — and explain, why you feel so about them?
Be sure to offer full verifiable quotes, rather than paraphrases, however... Thank you!
The claim made by Bert64 above was, taxpayers paid for the infrastructure. Allowing the use of land for wires is not the same as paying. Bert64's remains unsubstantiated.
False. AT&T did that. But you are welcome to offer proof of your words, however circumstantial...
When you see government agencies competing with each other, you know, you have too many of them.
So, no citations. As expected...
Actually, I have a very good idea. And, had you been more of reader than a writer, the history of AT&T getting a monopoly in exchange for submitting to "regulation", and the subsequent break-up of the company, would've been an eye-opener.
Our very problems today stem from this idiotic myth of "natural monopoly". Allowing the government to offer Internet-service will worsen the problem from the current "too little competition" to "no competition". Only a Socialist ideologue would want that.
Whether that's true or not, it is not relevant. A child may be born with government support (such as when his mother is poor) — this does not mean, he owes anything to the taxpayers or is a slave of the state.
Citations? Please, give one or two examples of such companies listing the total cost of their infrastructure and the portion of it, that was paid by the taxpayers.
Of course, the incumbent ISPs are involved in the corruption! But that does not change the fact, that the government is the problem, not the solution.
Once the government starts running its own ISP, the competition will vanish completely.
If there really were many such things, you would've listed a few. You didn't. Therefore, you lied.
Bullshit. Free market is the only thing, that works. Even in the not-so-free market we currently have in this country. Witness Google-fiber as just one example.
Very good example, Señor Guevara, very good — once a government starts doing it, nobody else will touch it. You can't fight cityhall, as the saying goes. And this is exactly, what will happen to the Internet, once the government starts doing it — complete with police enforcing "traffic" laws.
But to answer your question, consider the rail-roads built across this nation by private concerns...
It will happen, when there is something useful for him to do there.
You are an asshole, PopeRatzo. As are all statists.
Thanks be to the local governments.
Allowing the townhalls to run Internet-service will not improve things — it will kill off, what little competition there is.
Ah, and your online behavior will be subject to the town's laws — written by the same folks, who set up speed-limits and school lunches.
So, you'd rather have the real monopoly of the townhall running Internet-services, than the quasi monopolies? Considering, it is the local governments, who are impeding Internet-service provision competition to begin with, your stance is not just foolish, it even seems malign.
Such people form a private company. Whatever government does, is done poorly. Internet-service included — 15 years ago we were arguing on these very pages about the wonderful "municipal Wi-Fi"...
Illiberals used to be rather smug about Academia being Left-leaning — as if it validated their claims of being intellectually superior to their opponents.
Well, folks, you own this professor. And this one too.
And, of course, this whole bunch as well.