Net Neutrality has been about an OPEN INTERNET. That means ISPs cannot throttle traffic.
If that's all it was, it would not have required 300+ pages to spell the rules out. Nor would it be necessary to keep the new regulations secret — despite repeated attempts to publicize them before the voting took place.
Now that Federal Government is, once again, judging, what content is fair, a Department of Fairness can not be far behind. And who can possibly be against fairness?
And why not just call it Ministry of Truth? Nobody can be against truth either...
Funny how changing one word (cost -> value) can change the whole intention of your post, isn't it?
Not at all. Because the intention of my post was to expose yet another bit of an orchestrated campaign in support of mass immigration.
And not by people like myself, who are attracted by Americans' freedoms and seek to escape oppressive regimes at home. No, those folks are rather inconvenient — for they tend to argue and fight for preservation of those freedoms that they found so attractive in the first place.
No, our overlords in Washington (one party only slight more so than the other) are happy with docile people from poor countries coming here for purely economic reasons. These immigrants don't love America (some outright hate it), they root for foreign sports-teams and can not be trusted to defend the country.
But they come from corrupt poor countries, where government is the primary source of wealth, and are not bothered by the same becoming the accepted state of affairs here. Which suits our prosperous elites perfectly...
Anyone who thinks that the US has spent less than 7 trillion dollars on war, total, and adjusted for inflation, is cherry-picking from a very conservative data set.
Yes, yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron, right.
One would have thought, Hans Christian Andersen took care of this kind of argument, but an opinion of a long-dead White dude does not matter to you, does it?
No wonder the linked article doesn't give a citation for that figure.
Well, this one does — and though it disputes a number of claims (referred to as "zombie lies" with the site's usual politeness), it disputes neither the $22 trillion figure nor the "triple the cost of real wars" part.
If you want to quibble, offer your own citations. You can start right here.
Dear Cthulhu, I just noticed that he cited/Infowars/ and expected people to take it seriously.
Seriously? You are disputing the figure, because I cited Infowars? Ok, how about these guys? True to form, and with the customary wit and sophistication, the DailyKos are "killing the zombie lies about the war on poverty" — but even they cite and do not dispute the cost of the war: $22 trillion in today's (well, last year's) dollars.
Government spending money on anything is terrible except for the military, naturally
Exactly. Because military is one of the very few things, which is the government's actual responsibility per the Constitution.
Most of the rest is just that — unconstitutional:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
WTF? Law enforcement is not about just costs — it is also a deterrent. If 9 out of 10 illegals got caught and promptly deported, the word would spread around very quickly and the attempts would cease to a trickle compared to the ongoing flood.
But the sitting President's Party, facing such a severe disillusionment of existing Americans, desperately needs new ones — hoping for their votes based on sheer gratitude...
I'll admit I am disappointed to find discrimination in hiring due to medical status can be legal
Why are you "disappointed"? Would you like for it to be illegal for you to prefer an able-bodied babysitter for your child over someone, for whom you'd have to install wheelchair railings and lifts throughout your house?
There are cases where lenders will get burned because of something they don't know
A lender getting "burned" will have to recoup his losses by charging the rest of us slightly more. If you want to help others dealing with a financial crisis, you are welcome to spend your own money on this charity. But instead you argue for the power of government to be used to that end. Talk about ethics...
an ethical rabbit hole that I feel is best avoided
I'm pretty sure all those "whites only" and "Irish need not apply" signs were hung by businesses.
For better or worse such thoughtcrimes are currently illegal — we certainly aren't as free as we like to think of ourselves.
But most of other discrimination remains perfectly legal — especially based on increased risk of a disease. Ever heard of "quarantine"? Of unvaccinated children barred from schools?..
So, if kids, who are — in somebody's opinion — higher-risk, may be left without education — or forcibly vaccinated against their parents' will — why can't a carrier of actual debilitating disease of some kind be asked for a higher mortgage downpayment (or some other risk-mitigating measure)?
protecting people from medical discrimination is in the spirit of why HIPPA exists
No, it is not. HIPPA is about privacy, not discrimination.
There is no reliable way to know that the person doing the searching is the subject of the search
In that case, no would-be lender will be basing a decision on such flimsy item.
You can't legally discriminate in hiring based on medical info
I'm going to guess, you are referring to the Americans With Disabilities Act here (ADA), but, contrary to your understanding, it does allow "discrimination". One can, for example, reject a quadriplegic's application for a ballerina's position... An employer has to provide "reasonable accommodations" to a disabled employee, but if that's not sufficient, the employee is leaving (or not getting hired in the first place).
creditors shouldn't ever be allowed to use that data either, especially not unsubstantiated data collected without the individual's knowledge.
Why? Suppose for a second, the knowledge of one's medical problem is established beyond reasonable doubt — why are you against this information being used in estimation of his creditworthiness even in this case of absolute certainty?
What happens when they decide being a minority carries a higher risk? (even if it doesn't)
Well, that very much depends on whether it does or does not, does not it? The very item you chose to put into parentheses as an afterthought...
Many corporations have an unhealthy interest in people's personal lives whether the information is objectively relevant or not.
You aren't offering any citations, so it is safe to presume, you don't have any.
And for a good reason — corporations are about making money. They aren't going to pay for irrelevant information and, consequently, no one will be collecting the irrelevant information, which they would not be able to sell.
Except librarians typically are of the freedom loving kind
Except researching symptoms of syphilis will totally destroy your chances with the cutest among them, whereas the worst a KKKorporation can do with the information is try to sell you a treatment.
- they see the government intrusions are doing what they can to stop them.
They work for the government. If they are instructed to retain records tomorrow, they'll start retaining them.
after a bunch of government requests on lender history, libraries started routinely destroying the record after the book is returned.
That was an excellent opportunity for you to offer citations, but, even if you have any, it may be smoke up your (and mine) eyes to make us believe, library computers are saf — because of the heroic librarians. I'd just use tor.
There is a risk of non-financial data creeping into financial evaluation of borrowers and job seekers and that has a lot of potential for harm.
What "harm"? If a syphilis-infection, for example, increases one's danger of bankruptcy, his credit score should reflect that. And if it does not have such an effect, nobody would care for that particular attribute of a profile, and thus the information brokers will not be paid for it.
It's basically impossible to have a normal existence in the U.S. without allowing these companies to have your personal information.
That's only because our understanding of "normal" is so high. And we've achieved that thanks to (in part) it being easy for creditors to check, whether a debtor is credit-worthy.
none of us can be safe from fraud and unreasonable discrimination
Fraud is an evil to be fought — to the point of chopping-off arms of the repeat offenders.
But what "unreasonable discrimination" are you talking about?
I don't think so. In university some pharmacy or chemistry guys could scrounge pure ethanol. (98 or 99%.) Screwdrives with that were nasty.
But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.
I, for one, find web-browsing without AdBlock to be suffocating nowadays. Upon coming to an unfamiliar site I usually spend a few minutes to add its stable of 1x1 "images", anal ytics, and new relics to the black list. I then remove the elements (divs, headers, footers, and sections), of cruft, as well as the site's own spelling of "social sharebar".
Once only the article's text and, possibly, article-specific illustrations remain, can I get down to reading it — a luxury rarely obtained on a government-provided computer.
Besides, whatever you may think of corporate efforts to pierce through your anonymity online, you are certainly not anonymous to the nice librarian ladies — without any efforts on their part.
Companies are tracking you. Period. Whatever you do, on whatever site. That site and its partners are tracking you — as much as you can be identified, that is. And before you blame "KKKorporations", ask yourself, why a page like this has elements from AddThis and Google Analytics...
Slashdot Mirror
If that's all it was, it would not have required 300+ pages to spell the rules out. Nor would it be necessary to keep the new regulations secret — despite repeated attempts to publicize them before the voting took place.
Haterz gonna hate...
Now that Federal Government is, once again, judging, what content is fair, a Department of Fairness can not be far behind. And who can possibly be against fairness?
And why not just call it Ministry of Truth? Nobody can be against truth either...
If both sides cite the same figure without disputing it, it may, actually, be correct...
The approach works for courts, it might work for you. Think about it...
There aren't any.
Love you too!
How will I even know? Will you be reminding me once in a while?
Not at all. Because the intention of my post was to expose yet another bit of an orchestrated campaign in support of mass immigration.
And not by people like myself, who are attracted by Americans' freedoms and seek to escape oppressive regimes at home. No, those folks are rather inconvenient — for they tend to argue and fight for preservation of those freedoms that they found so attractive in the first place.
No, our overlords in Washington (one party only slight more so than the other) are happy with docile people from poor countries coming here for purely economic reasons. These immigrants don't love America (some outright hate it), they root for foreign sports-teams and can not be trusted to defend the country.
But they come from corrupt poor countries, where government is the primary source of wealth, and are not bothered by the same becoming the accepted state of affairs here. Which suits our prosperous elites perfectly...
Works every time on assholes, who think their hate is uniquely justified, whereas everybody else needs to "stop being a hater".
Yes, yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron, right.
One would have thought, Hans Christian Andersen took care of this kind of argument, but an opinion of a long-dead White dude does not matter to you, does it?
Well, this one does — and though it disputes a number of claims (referred to as "zombie lies" with the site's usual politeness), it disputes neither the $22 trillion figure nor the "triple the cost of real wars" part.
If you want to quibble, offer your own citations. You can start right here.
Seriously? You are disputing the figure, because I cited Infowars? Ok, how about these guys? True to form, and with the customary wit and sophistication, the DailyKos are "killing the zombie lies about the war on poverty" — but even they cite and do not dispute the cost of the war: $22 trillion in today's (well, last year's) dollars.
Ah, so it is not about "compassion" or "children", after all, is it? Interesting way for the truth to come out...
Exactly. Because military is one of the very few things, which is the government's actual responsibility per the Constitution.
Most of the rest is just that — unconstitutional:
The lost "War on Poverty", which we've been fighting for the last 50 years, has cost us — inflation-adjusted — $22 trillion or, roughly three times more than all actual wars combined since founding of the Republic .
Please, don't hate.
Seems like another carefully-planted article meant to dissuade Americans from the idea of protecting the country's borders:
WTF? Law enforcement is not about just costs — it is also a deterrent. If 9 out of 10 illegals got caught and promptly deported, the word would spread around very quickly and the attempts would cease to a trickle compared to the ongoing flood.
But the sitting President's Party, facing such a severe disillusionment of existing Americans, desperately needs new ones — hoping for their votes based on sheer gratitude...
That's a little vague... Is "food grade" plastic as good as glass or ceramics, or merely almost as good?
As in "Only a little", or as in "Not at all"? And, in either case, why weren't you more explicit?
Though a lot of cheaper honey ends up in plastic containers anyway, I try to buy it in glass jars (or wrapped in paper).
Will keeping it in "plastic cells" from the very beginning — before it is even harvested — not affect the taste at all?
Right. And human soldiers may only be allowed, once all risk of desertions, insurrections, and other military crimes is likewise zeroed.
Why are you "disappointed"? Would you like for it to be illegal for you to prefer an able-bodied babysitter for your child over someone, for whom you'd have to install wheelchair railings and lifts throughout your house?
A lender getting "burned" will have to recoup his losses by charging the rest of us slightly more. If you want to help others dealing with a financial crisis, you are welcome to spend your own money on this charity. But instead you argue for the power of government to be used to that end. Talk about ethics...
So much for "information wants to be free"...
For better or worse such thoughtcrimes are currently illegal — we certainly aren't as free as we like to think of ourselves.
But most of other discrimination remains perfectly legal — especially based on increased risk of a disease. Ever heard of "quarantine"? Of unvaccinated children barred from schools?..
So, if kids, who are — in somebody's opinion — higher-risk, may be left without education — or forcibly vaccinated against their parents' will — why can't a carrier of actual debilitating disease of some kind be asked for a higher mortgage downpayment (or some other risk-mitigating measure)?
No, it is not. HIPPA is about privacy, not discrimination.
In that case, no would-be lender will be basing a decision on such flimsy item.
I'm going to guess, you are referring to the Americans With Disabilities Act here (ADA), but, contrary to your understanding, it does allow "discrimination". One can, for example, reject a quadriplegic's application for a ballerina's position... An employer has to provide "reasonable accommodations" to a disabled employee, but if that's not sufficient, the employee is leaving (or not getting hired in the first place).
Why? Suppose for a second, the knowledge of one's medical problem is established beyond reasonable doubt — why are you against this information being used in estimation of his creditworthiness even in this case of absolute certainty?
Well, that very much depends on whether it does or does not, does not it? The very item you chose to put into parentheses as an afterthought...
You aren't offering any citations, so it is safe to presume, you don't have any.
And for a good reason — corporations are about making money. They aren't going to pay for irrelevant information and, consequently, no one will be collecting the irrelevant information, which they would not be able to sell.
Except researching symptoms of syphilis will totally destroy your chances with the cutest among them, whereas the worst a KKKorporation can do with the information is try to sell you a treatment.
They work for the government. If they are instructed to retain records tomorrow, they'll start retaining them.
That was an excellent opportunity for you to offer citations, but, even if you have any, it may be smoke up your (and mine) eyes to make us believe, library computers are saf — because of the heroic librarians. I'd just use tor.
What "harm"? If a syphilis-infection, for example, increases one's danger of bankruptcy, his credit score should reflect that. And if it does not have such an effect, nobody would care for that particular attribute of a profile, and thus the information brokers will not be paid for it.
That's only because our understanding of "normal" is so high. And we've achieved that thanks to (in part) it being easy for creditors to check, whether a debtor is credit-worthy.
Fraud is an evil to be fought — to the point of chopping-off arms of the repeat offenders.
But what "unreasonable discrimination" are you talking about?
But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.
I, for one, find web-browsing without AdBlock to be suffocating nowadays. Upon coming to an unfamiliar site I usually spend a few minutes to add its stable of 1x1 "images", anal ytics, and new relics to the black list. I then remove the elements (divs, headers, footers, and sections), of cruft, as well as the site's own spelling of "social sharebar".
Once only the article's text and, possibly, article-specific illustrations remain, can I get down to reading it — a luxury rarely obtained on a government-provided computer.
Besides, whatever you may think of corporate efforts to pierce through your anonymity online, you are certainly not anonymous to the nice librarian ladies — without any efforts on their part.
Companies are tracking you. Period. Whatever you do, on whatever site. That site and its partners are tracking you — as much as you can be identified, that is. And before you blame "KKKorporations", ask yourself, why a page like this has elements from AddThis and Google Analytics...
AdBlock to the rescue. Sort of.
Exactly. As long as there is competition, it is not any of our business, how much a particular party is paid.
In that case, an application of the anti-trust laws — which we've had for over a century now — is or, rather, would have been in order.
Countryside not dying is valuable because the countryside doesn't die. I see...
In more ways than one.