even better, permanently IP ban or shadow ban all off-topic commentators
Try as I might, I can't find any part of your argument to implement preventive censorship on/., that would not also apply to abolishing the First Amendment.
You can only milk the "whataboutism" defense for so much. USSR's approach to it was "but what about Negroes beaten in the US"? That was the pure "whataboutism" fallacy, because a) the racial strife in America had nothing — zilch — to do with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, their reckless experimentations in Chernobyl, or their prevention of immigration; b) the US actually was and remains concerned about the remnants of racism in itself.
But your attempts to portray GP's argument as "whataboutism" are bogus. Because — whatever it is — you can not object to X doing it any louder, than you did, when Y was doing it. And anyone calling you out on it is not a "whataboutist".
BTW, the principle works in the other temporal direction too. For example, whoever objected to Bush's incarcerating suspected terrorists, have exposed themselves as hypocrites, when they ignored Obama's flat-out killing the same suspects.
In a little less than three decades, Hawaii plans to be carbon neutral
Tamerlane was looking for someone to teach his donkey to talk. Nobody wanted the job. Finally the wise men of the dunes - Hodja Nasreddin took the position and promised to teach the donkey to talk in 10 years time.
- Are you crazy? — his friends asked him.
- Not really, — Hodja answered, — the money is good, the job is not hard, and in 10 years a lot might happen: I might die, or Tamerlane might die, or surely enough this old donkey might die.
Isn't the point of capitalism to allow failing companies to die?
I suppose, it is justified by the earlier un-Capitalistic punishment of them. The way unabashed racism of "affirmative actions" and racial quotas is justified by the past injustices towards minorities, subsidies for nuclear power are justified by the past punitive regulations and subsidies for solar.
7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work.
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest.
20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education... We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Lying is wrong, Murder is wrong. Intent may be important to determining the gravity of the wrongness. But it should not decide, whether it is wrong at all.
No, it does not. The thought of discrimination against an older person is the motivation behind your act, but it is the act itself that is illegal
It is not illegal to not hire an older person. It is precisely my thoughts about it, that may make the not-hiring illegal.
I didn't plan to kill them, therefore I am not guilty of murder because it wasn't my thought to kill them.
Bullshit. Such killing is a crime whether or not you thought of it in advance — although such thinking may make it premeditated, thus increasing the gravity of the offense.
But not hiring anyone is not a crime, unless it can be proven — and the standards of evidence conveniently vary depending on politics — that you had illegal thoughts.
When you ask your friends for recommendations do you say "no one that can remember the 70s?" If so, then quite possibly yes, you have violated the law.
In other words, whether or not your action is a crime depends on your thoughts during the act.
Which makes it a thought-crime. Anti-discrimination laws should be abolished. You are welcome to boycott companies discriminating based on any trait you find important, but it should not be illegal.
It is likely, old-time employees are paid better than the new ones, despite doing the same jobs. Intel may be able to explain the age disparity by that.
Of course, this Libertarian thinks, there should be no laws against discrimination — of any kind — at all...
What? Why? It's no secret that the ISPs are behind the change
It is not a secret, but nobody cares. You care, because you are an Authoritarian and wish to legally ban things you don't like. I care, because I am a Libertarian and don't want government to intervene into anything.
But no one else cares. Whatever it is, that lowered people's perception of their ISPs, could not have been the "net neutrality" abolition. The much denounced Ajit Pai, in particular, used to work for Verizon — had your fantasies of people rising up in support of your desire to tell ISPs how to do things been rooted in reality, his former employer would've been the worst hit.
Yet, according to TFA, it were some obscure brands (Suddenlink??) , that have fallen the most. Get a grip...
Why can't the customers be unhappy with the rule change?
They can be, but it wouldn't be reflect in their opinion of their ISP until the ISP has done something violating the abolished rule. Ergo, your harping over "the GOP" is off-topic.
the parent was claiming that these actions have emboldened the ISPs into believing that they can get away with worse customer support
Quality of customer support, as I pointed out, has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Say it with me: "absolutely nothing". There, see? Go try to be relevant in some other thread.
No, you've gathered wrong. My point is, their having done nothing with the new freedom from "net neutrality" rules proves, beyond any doubt, that "net neutrality" changes have nothing to do with the consumers' (dis)satisfaction.
In other words, "net neutrality" — as well as "the current administration" and the entire GOP, which you dragged into the conversation — are irrelevant to TFA and are otherwise off-topic.
only three Republicans voted to preserve network neutrality.
Which has precisely 0 to do with the cited figures of customer dissatisfaction. The rule only existed for about three years, was lifted April 23rd, and no ISP has yet done anything differently anyway. Certainly not FiOS.
The security of this hosted service is orders of magnitude beyond what I could do on my own
It is also a magnet for hackers and subpoenas... It also costs you money, or privacy, or both.
It is perfectly legitimate to not want any third parties involved...
Finally, if you are willing to have your mom involved in the tweaking process at all, instead of training her to use this 3rd-party, you can teach her to enable the WAN-access feature of the router — and disable it 30 minutes later.
Slashdot Mirror
Try as I might, I can't find any part of your argument to implement preventive censorship on /., that would not also apply to abolishing the First Amendment.
You can only milk the "whataboutism" defense for so much. USSR's approach to it was "but what about Negroes beaten in the US"? That was the pure "whataboutism" fallacy, because a) the racial strife in America had nothing — zilch — to do with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, their reckless experimentations in Chernobyl, or their prevention of immigration; b) the US actually was and remains concerned about the remnants of racism in itself.
But your attempts to portray GP's argument as "whataboutism" are bogus. Because — whatever it is — you can not object to X doing it any louder, than you did, when Y was doing it. And anyone calling you out on it is not a "whataboutist".
BTW, the principle works in the other temporal direction too. For example, whoever objected to Bush's incarcerating suspected terrorists, have exposed themselves as hypocrites, when they ignored Obama's flat-out killing the same suspects.
That's true about all computer-cooling, though...
Personally, I think, the headline should just read "Microsoft Sinks Data Centre".
It is all about watercooling, man...
Tamerlane was looking for someone to teach his donkey to talk. Nobody wanted the job. Finally the wise men of the dunes - Hodja Nasreddin took the position and promised to teach the donkey to talk in 10 years time.
- Are you crazy? — his friends asked him.
- Not really, — Hodja answered, — the money is good, the job is not hard, and in 10 years a lot might happen: I might die, or Tamerlane might die, or surely enough this old donkey might die.
I suppose, it is justified by the earlier un-Capitalistic punishment of them. The way unabashed racism of "affirmative actions" and racial quotas is justified by the past injustices towards minorities, subsidies for nuclear power are justified by the past punitive regulations and subsidies for solar.
Obligatory...
In denial much? Here:
Ringing any bells? American "Progressives" adored Hitler in the 30-ies...
You don't, eh? So much for the:
Lying is wrong, Murder is wrong. Intent may be important to determining the gravity of the wrongness. But it should not decide, whether it is wrong at all.
The contents of my thoughts determines, whether the very same action is a crime. Ergo, thought-crime.
It is not illegal to not hire an older person. It is precisely my thoughts about it, that may make the not-hiring illegal.
Bullshit. Such killing is a crime whether or not you thought of it in advance — although such thinking may make it premeditated, thus increasing the gravity of the offense.
But not hiring anyone is not a crime, unless it can be proven — and the standards of evidence conveniently vary depending on politics — that you had illegal thoughts.
In other words, whether or not your action is a crime depends on your thoughts during the act.
Which makes it a thought-crime. Anti-discrimination laws should be abolished. You are welcome to boycott companies discriminating based on any trait you find important, but it should not be illegal.
Actually, this can already happen. There is no law barring discrimination based on personal appearance. Nor should there be.
It is likely, old-time employees are paid better than the new ones, despite doing the same jobs. Intel may be able to explain the age disparity by that.
Of course, this Libertarian thinks, there should be no laws against discrimination — of any kind — at all...
It is not a secret, but nobody cares. You care, because you are an Authoritarian and wish to legally ban things you don't like. I care, because I am a Libertarian and don't want government to intervene into anything.
But no one else cares. Whatever it is, that lowered people's perception of their ISPs, could not have been the "net neutrality" abolition. The much denounced Ajit Pai, in particular, used to work for Verizon — had your fantasies of people rising up in support of your desire to tell ISPs how to do things been rooted in reality, his former employer would've been the worst hit.
Yet, according to TFA, it were some obscure brands (Suddenlink??) , that have fallen the most. Get a grip...
They can be, but it wouldn't be reflect in their opinion of their ISP until the ISP has done something violating the abolished rule. Ergo, your harping over "the GOP" is off-topic.
Quality of customer support, as I pointed out, has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Say it with me: "absolutely nothing". There, see? Go try to be relevant in some other thread.
No, you've gathered wrong. My point is, their having done nothing with the new freedom from "net neutrality" rules proves, beyond any doubt, that "net neutrality" changes have nothing to do with the consumers' (dis)satisfaction.
In other words, "net neutrality" — as well as "the current administration" and the entire GOP, which you dragged into the conversation — are irrelevant to TFA and are otherwise off-topic.
The jerks calling it should be punished — even if life in prison seems excessive — but the cop should not be allowed to just walk away either.
George Zimmermann went through hell, for example, and his shooting of Trayvon Martin was completely and perfectly justified.
Please, cite anything done against "net neutrality" by an ISP (and then by Verizon in particular) since April 23, 2018. I'll wait.
Which has precisely 0 to do with the cited figures of customer dissatisfaction. The rule only existed for about three years, was lifted April 23rd, and no ISP has yet done anything differently anyway. Certainly not FiOS.
Volcano eruptions - WAAAAAY up...
Poe's Law
Seldom is one's online-debate victory quite as complete, as this one is today... You made it adversarial, and then lost.
Not only are you bad at anything IT, you are, evidently, a bad person as well.
It is also a magnet for hackers and subpoenas... It also costs you money, or privacy, or both.
It is perfectly legitimate to not want any third parties involved...
Finally, if you are willing to have your mom involved in the tweaking process at all, instead of training her to use this 3rd-party, you can teach her to enable the WAN-access feature of the router — and disable it 30 minutes later.