Yes, there is nothing worse than fairness in reporting
So, carefully naming a government program is all that's needed for your approval? TSA is fine with you, right? You can't possibly be opposed to secure transportation! And the NSA — who can say "No" to National Security?
it stops billionaires from
Please, cite the part of the First Amendment, which excludes the speech of billionaires from protection.
He wants government to make sure Facebook can't censor your content.
Whatever the clever Anonymous Troll wants, you, quite obviously, want a resurrection of the infamous "Fairness Doctrine". Not that it was not obvious already.
Scanning or no scanning, they already know everything about each passenger. So, what additional privacy invasion can happen due to facial recognition?
Maybe, it is a waste of time/money — or, perhaps, a valid tool to catch frauds and cheaters flying with fake documents. But in either case it does not threaten the privacy of ordinary people (Americans or otherwise) any more, than it being impossible to fly anonymously already did...
Bitcoin's Rise May Reflect a Monumental Transfer of Trust From Human Institutions Backed By Gov't
Such naivette, professor... Ask a random person on the street, whether they'd trust the government or a private corporation to do anything not immediately affecting him — and he will pick the government. Because KKKorporation$ are greedy and some such.
To Systems Reliant on Well-Tested Code
Yeah, right. And 20xx was the "Year of Linux on Desktop"...
And that's why you believe that I have a dragon in my garage
Not until you prove its presence.
After all the absence of proof is not proof of absence, right?
That is certainly is a correct statement, but you are mocking it... I thought I have seen the depths of the intellectual dishonesty, but the Illiberals keep falling through to new levels. I'll bookmark your post as evidence, proponents of Net Neutrality would seriously contend, absence of proof is equivalent to proof of absence.
I strongly suspect that most congress critters don't understand what the term "net neutrality" means
They do. They may not be technical, but they aren't dumb either. Any law and regulation, that gives the government an extra means of control over private corporations is always welcomed by the Statists (primarily Democrats) and opposed by the Libertarians (primarily Republicans).
TFA confuses the concepts of "absence of proof" and "proof of absence". The claim the "Republican narrative is refuted", while their citations show merely absence of proof (emphasis mine): "We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission".
These people aren't dumb — which means, their mixing up the two concepts is deliberate. In other words, they are lying.
Now, as to the original claim — by the evil RethugliKKKans — what evidence could they present to back up their accusation? The President doesn't need to explicitly instruct his appointees to the FCC (or any other Executive-branch agency) to adopt this or that regulation. It is enough for him to simply appoint the people who already sincerely agree with him in the first place.
Just my thoughts too. THe Kaspersky thing may happen again. Heck, the ongoing farce of "Russia collusion" may, bucking the proverbial trend, come back as a real tragedy next time — because Chinese, generally, have their excrement together much more than Russians these days.
It's a non-issue. You can start with all paid transit. It's $1500/10Gbps/month of dedicated bandwidth through Hurricane Electric at major internet exchanges.
Or you nationalize Hurricane Electric and the rest of the Internet infrastructure and watch the costs go up to and subsidies become necessary.
as soon as they repeal Net Neutrality ill upgrade to the 'haggard burro" tier where they feed a flash drive to an old donkey and drive it mercilessly across the Oregon trail.
Is that what you were using before 2015, when the "Net Neutrality" rules went into effect?
Only because you've never tried it. As bad as Fascism is, Socialism/Communism is much worse — which is why I can't sympathize with the "Antifa" assholes, who "fight Fascism" with hammer-and-sickle.
Consider the example of Spain — ruled by Fascism for decades. For all their Collectivism-induced troubles, they were always better off than the USSR and, when they abolished the Fascism, they were able to recover pretty quick. Recover to the levels, that Russia could only dream about even during the height of its gas-fueled boom.
Please explain how a local government catering to a single provider by preventing all others from hanging/sharing cables and thus providing service, in exchange for kickbacks from that single provider is anything but fascism.
It certainly is Fascism — or, maybe, just "unofficial" corruption.
Nationalizing the infrastructure doesn't work if [...]
Nationalizing infrastructure does not work. Period.
But, no less important, such confiscation is also tyrannical. Even if it did work, you can not do that — not in a free country — unless it is a punishment for a crime and you have jury's decision to the effect.
It is the only objective measurement. Subject to only to subversion by outright lies.
rather than the spending power and economic freedom of the poorest of the poor.
Because these are entirely subjective and thus unverifiable. You don't even need to lie to get the results you want — just alter the definition of all of these vague terms you offered.
Socialized medicine frees.
Sounds like something from a bumper sticker. No, it does not. One of us in this conversation have tried "socialized medicine" in person...
I save citations for research papers and extreme claims.
Right, right. You have citations, you just would not show them... Well, to close this match with actual facts and historical perspective, consider the following examples that recent history gives us:
South Korea vs. North Korea
West Germany vs. East Germany
Finland vs. Estonia
All have had identical culture and people before one part went Socialist... Another example would be Chile vs. Cuba — both had dictators, except the Chilean honcho had the wisdom to adopt just the policies you dismiss. For all the snotty dismissals of it, Chile remains the Latin America's #1 economy today, prosperous and free.
The fact that you believe the U.S. is an example of a laissez-faire country
We aren't. We are just the closest to that among industrialized nations.
Laissez-faire is a myth. It's never existed and never will. Just like communism. All countries are socialist,
"Socialism" is nothing but Communism-lite. It is a matter of degree. And my warning stands — I will not stand passively aside, if you, Commie assholes, start moving this country in the wrong direction again. Long before the nightmare of Stalin and Kim, comes the devastation of Chavez — I will not let you do that.
Your equivocation of all collectivism and the U.S.S.R. is a silly fallacy.
Is it? You aren't offering proof...
That's why no serious intellectuals take Ayn Rand seriously.
Another empty claim... Maybe, you should get out of your echo-chamber once a week?
... and yet for the average citizen they're much better places to live.
Citation missing.
There's nothing inherently wrong with such an economic model.
Yeah. Nothing inherently wrong with Communism — except, wherever implemented in earnest, it leaves millions of dead and the survivors with neither material wealth nor human rights.
But neither does the opposite extreme of laissez-faire.
Statist lies.
Some things work better when the government controls them
Fortunately, very few things are done by the government in the US. Unfortunately, that makes comparisons difficult. There are but a few things... Do you really prefer TSA over the old private security in the airports? Or do you like the public schools, which quadrupled in the per-pupil cost over 50 years without improving the results one bit?
But the reason America had a free market capitalism is not because it "works" — for some definition of "works". We have (had) it, because it is the only way to live without oppression and tyranny. The second you decide to value the Collective over the Individual (what Socialism/Communism are all about), all things become possible: like killing and robbing a minority for "the greater good".
You claimed earlier about USA being the last to abolish slavery. The uncited claim was bogus, but did you know, that USSR has re-enslaved the peasants freed by the Tsars? Yes, they could not leave the collective farm without the farm chairman's permission? In the 20th century. They had to starve millions of people to death to get that sort of obedience, but they did it — for the Greater Good[tm].
When you become an absolutist when it comes to economic models, you cease to search for pragmatic solutions. That's when economies tank.
Yes, I am an absolutist, when it comes to personal rights. Not sorry. But if you are calling yourself "pragmatic" (a.k.a. without principles), do tell, what would President Sanders do differently from El Presidente Chavez? Bet, you were a big fan of the latter — all of you, Illiberals, adored him.
their education system is so much better
Citation missing.
Oh, yeah, because we spend like a third of our budget on that stupid military
Whether that military is "stupid" or not, we do spend considerable money on it. And yet, we are still richer than most of those Socialist paradises you listed.
And Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Canada...
Not sure, why you listed these, but all all of them (with the possible exception of Norway, which has vast oil deposits) are barely at the America's wealth — despite not maintaining a military worth a damn.
you have a poor grasp on what communism really is
Collective ownership of the means of production — that's what it means. And every time you nationalize something — as the asshole above proposed — you get closer and closer towards that.
I'm glad America's worked out for you, but it doesn't work out for everyone.
It remains the magnet — and the lifetime dream — for millions of people. Millions, who come here (legally and otherwise) and manage to not only prosper, but also support extended families back whence they came from — remittances from the US are a major portion of the GDP in some countries.
Seriously? You are going to bleat, how US "does not work for everyone"? Venezuela beckons for you...
Slashdot Mirror
So, carefully naming a government program is all that's needed for your approval? TSA is fine with you, right? You can't possibly be opposed to secure transportation! And the NSA — who can say "No" to National Security?
Please, cite the part of the First Amendment, which excludes the speech of billionaires from protection.
Whatever the clever Anonymous Troll wants, you, quite obviously, want a resurrection of the infamous "Fairness Doctrine". Not that it was not obvious already.
Can only be done once. No visa for the same smart traveler ever again...
Scanning or no scanning, they already know everything about each passenger. So, what additional privacy invasion can happen due to facial recognition?
Maybe, it is a waste of time/money — or, perhaps, a valid tool to catch frauds and cheaters flying with fake documents. But in either case it does not threaten the privacy of ordinary people (Americans or otherwise) any more, than it being impossible to fly anonymously already did...
Is that why government's enforcement of Net Neutrality is so popular on Slashdot?
Such naivette, professor... Ask a random person on the street, whether they'd trust the government or a private corporation to do anything not immediately affecting him — and he will pick the government. Because KKKorporation$ are greedy and some such.
Yeah, right. And 20xx was the "Year of Linux on Desktop"...
A sure sign of a bullshitter.
And a Fascist bullshitter to boot.
Not until you prove its presence.
That is certainly is a correct statement, but you are mocking it... I thought I have seen the depths of the intellectual dishonesty, but the Illiberals keep falling through to new levels. I'll bookmark your post as evidence, proponents of Net Neutrality would seriously contend, absence of proof is equivalent to proof of absence.
Only in criminal court. Elsewhere, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
We do know, he was not always for it and changed his mind.
Maybe, he is sincere. Maybe, he fears for his ongoing business and political interests.
They do. They may not be technical, but they aren't dumb either. Any law and regulation, that gives the government an extra means of control over private corporations is always welcomed by the Statists (primarily Democrats) and opposed by the Libertarians (primarily Republicans).
TFA confuses the concepts of "absence of proof" and "proof of absence". The claim the "Republican narrative is refuted", while their citations show merely absence of proof (emphasis mine): "We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission".
These people aren't dumb — which means, their mixing up the two concepts is deliberate. In other words, they are lying.
Now, as to the original claim — by the evil RethugliKKKans — what evidence could they present to back up their accusation? The President doesn't need to explicitly instruct his appointees to the FCC (or any other Executive-branch agency) to adopt this or that regulation. It is enough for him to simply appoint the people who already sincerely agree with him in the first place.
The "innocent until proven guilty" principle makes sense only in a court of law.
When dealing with foreign adversaries — and outright enemies — the opposite principle should be used.
Then you better assume, they are doing it.
Just my thoughts too. THe Kaspersky thing may happen again. Heck, the ongoing farce of "Russia collusion" may, bucking the proverbial trend, come back as a real tragedy next time — because Chinese, generally, have their excrement together much more than Russians these days.
Or you nationalize Hurricane Electric and the rest of the Internet infrastructure and watch the costs go up to and subsidies become necessary.
WikiLeaks did.
Unless you work for Trump and access WikiLeaks...
Is that what you were using before 2015, when the "Net Neutrality" rules went into effect?
Not sure, what "cannibals" have to do with this, but it sure sounds like LinkedIn newsfeed became better because of it...
Yes, and the cited opinion states exactly that.
Only because you've never tried it. As bad as Fascism is, Socialism/Communism is much worse — which is why I can't sympathize with the "Antifa" assholes, who "fight Fascism" with hammer-and-sickle.
Consider the example of Spain — ruled by Fascism for decades. For all their Collectivism-induced troubles, they were always better off than the USSR and, when they abolished the Fascism, they were able to recover pretty quick. Recover to the levels, that Russia could only dream about even during the height of its gas-fueled boom.
It certainly is Fascism — or, maybe, just "unofficial" corruption.
Nationalizing infrastructure does not work. Period.
But, no less important, such confiscation is also tyrannical. Even if it did work, you can not do that — not in a free country — unless it is a punishment for a crime and you have jury's decision to the effect.
It is the only objective measurement. Subject to only to subversion by outright lies.
Because these are entirely subjective and thus unverifiable. You don't even need to lie to get the results you want — just alter the definition of all of these vague terms you offered.
Sounds like something from a bumper sticker. No, it does not. One of us in this conversation have tried "socialized medicine" in person...
Right, right. You have citations, you just would not show them... Well, to close this match with actual facts and historical perspective, consider the following examples that recent history gives us:
All have had identical culture and people before one part went Socialist... Another example would be Chile vs. Cuba — both had dictators, except the Chilean honcho had the wisdom to adopt just the policies you dismiss. For all the snotty dismissals of it, Chile remains the Latin America's #1 economy today, prosperous and free.
We aren't. We are just the closest to that among industrialized nations.
"Socialism" is nothing but Communism-lite. It is a matter of degree. And my warning stands — I will not stand passively aside, if you, Commie assholes, start moving this country in the wrong direction again. Long before the nightmare of Stalin and Kim, comes the devastation of Chavez — I will not let you do that.
Is it? You aren't offering proof...
Another empty claim... Maybe, you should get out of your echo-chamber once a week?
Citation missing.
Yeah. Nothing inherently wrong with Communism — except, wherever implemented in earnest, it leaves millions of dead and the survivors with neither material wealth nor human rights.
Statist lies.
Fortunately, very few things are done by the government in the US. Unfortunately, that makes comparisons difficult. There are but a few things... Do you really prefer TSA over the old private security in the airports? Or do you like the public schools, which quadrupled in the per-pupil cost over 50 years without improving the results one bit?
But the reason America had a free market capitalism is not because it "works" — for some definition of "works". We have (had) it, because it is the only way to live without oppression and tyranny. The second you decide to value the Collective over the Individual (what Socialism/Communism are all about), all things become possible: like killing and robbing a minority for "the greater good".
You claimed earlier about USA being the last to abolish slavery. The uncited claim was bogus, but did you know, that USSR has re-enslaved the peasants freed by the Tsars? Yes, they could not leave the collective farm without the farm chairman's permission? In the 20th century. They had to starve millions of people to death to get that sort of obedience, but they did it — for the Greater Good[tm].
Yes, I am an absolutist, when it comes to personal rights. Not sorry. But if you are calling yourself "pragmatic" (a.k.a. without principles), do tell, what would President Sanders do differently from El Presidente Chavez? Bet, you were a big fan of the latter — all of you, Illiberals, adored him.
Citation missing.
Whether that military is "stupid" or not, we do spend considerable money on it. And yet, we are still richer than most of those Socialist paradises you listed.
Not sure, why you listed these, but all all of them (with the possible exception of Norway, which has vast oil deposits) are barely at the America's wealth — despite not maintaining a military worth a damn.
Collective ownership of the means of production — that's what it means. And every time you nationalize something — as the asshole above proposed — you get closer and closer towards that.
It remains the magnet — and the lifetime dream — for millions of people. Millions, who come here (legally and otherwise) and manage to not only prosper, but also support extended families back whence they came from — remittances from the US are a major portion of the GDP in some countries.
Seriously? You are going to bleat, how US "does not work for everyone"? Venezuela beckons for you...
I'd very very much like to stop that "glut". Yes. For years I've been reposting this link
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
WTF? FCC comments are open to anyone and searchable.