"net neutrality is really important is the Netflix of 10 years ago."
The rule being so hotly debated was only introduced in 2015. It did not exist 10 years ago — if Netflix rose despite this "critical" rule being absent, so can others...
Ah, yes, the cars' engines aren't very efficient — true. But the powerplants also aren't very good — losing about 65% right there at generation. Add to that the listed transmission, distribution, and transition losses, and electric cars become a questionable proposition. One a sane, intelligent human (rather than an arrogant idiot pretending) may very well reject...
The fact that the diminishing of the treaty may affect world-wide popularity of electric cars would not affect Elon Musk's feelings on the subject. Not at all...
Being creepy is not enough. The creepiness must also a) be used as a cover for assault and other actual crimes; b) not be explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Glad to see, you have no other questions/objections.
Did you know that the Constitution prohibits pre-emptive prosecution?
Whether it is in the Constitution or wherever, you are right — we do not prosecute before they are committed. Which is why, absent a law like that being discussed, a decidedly creepy behavior remains legal.
If a State's legislature decides to criminalize a particular creepy behavior in public — that's up to them. The justification — that it can lead to an actual assault — is perfectly reasonable.
Isn't "pre-emptive prosecution" the ultimate nanny-state?
No, it is not. Nor is it "whale" or "strawberry".
If you are looking for inconsistencies, start with yourself. You are opposing a law, that would help men and women do their stuff in public bathrooms without the opposite sex present. Doing it separately is an overwhelming preference for the vast majority of people on the planet — but you object to this preference being codified into law. And why? Because it may affect the handful of delusional, who consider themselves one sex despite having the sex-organs of the other. Why should these people's preference be more important, than that of the rest of us? So much more important, you'd be Ok with the increased incidence of assault even?..
Most places already ban excretion on the streets — are such laws also unjust, oppressive, and "nanny-stating"?
arrest people under any of the hundreds of other laws that such behavior would violate (assault, indecent exposure
Neither of these two can be prosecuted pre-emptively.
loitering in a restroom with intent to commit lewd acts
It is not "loitering", if the offender follows the victim there. And that "intent" can not be proven until after the assault — there is no reliable mind-reading. With the law on the books, police can book the pervert. Without it, he can not be touched until an assault takes place.
1.6 gallons is actually plenty of water for flushing a toilet if the toilet is designed correctly and the drain pipes actually slope downwards at a sufficient angle
Yeah-yeah. And a man can go to a man's problem.
And trust me when I say
Nope, not trusting...
there were plenty of badly designed toilets before 1992
Maybe. But they were compensating for design flaws with the larger amount of water. But now that option is inexplicably removed — as if we're not in a free country...
What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms?
Every once in a while females getraped and otherwise assaulted there. No, not by actual transgender lunatics — by "regular" perverts.
For security and/or police to be able to prevent such assaults, a law explicitly banning men in women's bathrooms may be necessary — without it, such people can not be removed from there preemptively.
Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their [obsenity] bathrooms.
Not "their" — the law is about public (and otherwise publicly accessible) bathrooms. You can still pee however you want in yours, even if — thanks to certain Democrats — you aren't free to properly flush afterwards.
The corporations don't care either way, I'm sure. They are simply afraid of boycotts — and worse. Because, when you are fighting for the rights of the delusional to persist in their delusions, all means are just and noble...
Few companies' management have the testicles (sexist metaphore!) of the Chick-Fil-A's one — most are like Mozilla's...
Amtrak is quite up-front about the limits on the WiFi they provide and why.
So would've been Facebook's "Free Basics" Internet-service in poor countries — denounced by all the progressives and, indeed, banned by India's government already... Because KKKorporations are evil and mean only to enslave you, whereas government-provided services always have good reasons for their limitations...
They aren't intending to be a full service ISP.
However you justify its deficiencies, the "free WiFi" being discussed will use the same justifications for sucking...
If I told my boss that the system I designed to stop us from going belly-up has ~50% success rate
That "50%" figure only makes sense, if the successes/failures are random and independent.
If, on the other hand, lessons are learned after failures and subsequent attempts offer more and more successes, then there are reasons to celebrate improvements. And, indeed, the previous such test was in 2014 and was also successful...
Now, something about Slashdot... Someone spinning New Zealand's failure to launch a payload into orbit as "not a success" is at +5, whereas my mocking their spin and pointing out that "not a success" means simply "failure" is at -1. Yet in this discussion the roles are reversed: the actual success is mocked as "only 50%" and the mocking gets moderators' approval...
Why is Slashdot so defensive about and encouraging towards the Kiwis' space-launches and dismissive and ridiculing towards the Yanks'?
If my phone can get on WiFi for free, I will not need cellular services — Facetime/WhatsApp/Hangouts some other VoIP will kill cellular service.
Cellular carriers know this and are sitting on their hands. I predict one (or more of the following):
The free WiFi will suck
Though this goes without saying, because it will be government-managed, it will suck especially badly to keep people from cancelling their cell-plans the way they are already cancelling their "land" lines.
The free WiFi will be limited
Your ability to use it will be limited to, say, 2 hours per day — trying to evade the limit by changing your MAC-address will be illegal.
Joining such a WiFi will require explicit agreement to a giant "sign your rights away" sheet, which no one will read.
This means, the joining will not be automatic — when traveling from one municipality to another, you'll have to keep accepting the terms. And then someone will read it, find all sorts of potentially-troubling privacy implications and advise people to keep using their traditional cell-service.
The popular VoIP services will be blocked
Net-neutrality? What's that? No, that's only for the evil KKKorporations, that charge money. The benevolent government service-providers, that give you the service for free, will be exempt — the way Amtrak is already exempt in the US.
The existing carriers will be co-opted into building this infrastructure
Instead of competing with each other, however, and trying to attract customers, the carriers will divide the market and provide the service for "free" to captive tax-payers. And yet, considering the alternatives, this is the best EU-citizens can hope for if this stupid proposal gains any traction.
Fellow Americans can get a taste of the "free" government-provided WiFi by buying an Amtrak ticket and trying to use Amtrak's WiFi during their trip...
Requiring that a private security company carry appropriate licenses
What "appropriate licenses"?. For those posing under the "SLOW CHILDREN" sign. The very fact, that activities like surveillance and research of online posts by others require a license is an outrage.
These weren't uniformed guards — armed or not — who may be mistaken for official law-enforcement and for that reason can be subjected to licensing requirements. They served no warrants or documents — it was research and connecting the dots. This should not require a license.
Any attempts to limit research of anything online would be for EFF's to fight. The rest — for ACLU, if the two organizations really stood for liberty, rather than Left "progressivism".
not a violation of the Constitution, so the ACLU doesn't care
ACLU are full of shit — if they cared about the Constitution, they would've fought anti-weapon laws nation-wide. Forget "assault weapons" — you can't even possess a knife or a slingshot in some parts of the country. Pompous hypocritical assholes...
Thunderbird will migrate off Mozilla Corporation infrastructure
So, yeah, it is "going" somewhere...
It's true that Firefox is losing market share, but so is everyone else relative to Chrome.
Well, let's wait for Google to submit to external pressure and pick a few top executives to please SJWs, rather than based on actual technical merits. The sort of thing they are doing should get them the same sort of boycott from OkCupid as Mozilla got back then...
If the activities alleged to have been performed by the company by the write-up require a license, such requirement in itself is is the scandal that needs to be fought by ACLU, EFF (the social media parts), and others.
Though colloquially known as such, von Braun and others were not Nazis. Indeed, they were arrested by the Nazis in 1944 for expressing doubts about the war's progress and regretting having to work on weapons instead of space. The snitch was a young female dentist present at the party — not herself a rocket scientist, you bet.
The below ones seem perfectly genuine and drive the point home with well-reasoned arguments:
Hey, Indian cocksucker, you don't belong here. Leave the country now. Do not fuck with my Internet connectivity. You're a real jagoff.
I support strong net neutrality backed by Title 2 oversight of ISPs. Also, Ajit Pai, you're one weird little man. You seem like the Jehovah's witness that even the other Jehovah's witnesses find off-putting. You seem like the guy no one wanted in the Frat, but your dad was a legacy. Also, this is just a hunch, but I bet you're pretty doughy with your shirt off. Not, like, FAT fat, but just fat enough to be gross. Also, you talk with the cadence of a 90s valley girl, it's really weird. And stop quoting the Big Lebowski; you're not a freshman film student, you're a fucking adult. Anyway, to reitereate, I support net neutrality backed by Title 2 oversight of ISPs, and over-sized novelty mugs are for guys with small dicks.
No one gives a fuck about your giant coffee mug, you arrogant pencil-dick. I want the internet to remain neutral, and support net neutrality backed by title 2 oversight of ISP's. Go fuck your whore mother like everyone else has.
Just looked it up and Ajit Pai is married. Bless that woman's heart for being with him. Don't really know she allow's her body to fuck that guy. Really seems like a bad time. Please leave net neutrality alone and not block my shit. I like to see a specific types of dick and if that is slowed or blocked i'm just going to be really sad. I'm sure most of you have a liking to types of porn. Thanks
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU CUNTS THINKING!!!!! HOW CAN YOU MAKE INTERNET FREEDOM ABSOLUTE! DO YOU KNOW WHO DOES CONTROL THE INTERNET? CHINA!!! FUCK YOU PAI, I HOPE RUSTY FORK GETS JAMMED DOWN YOUR THROAT
One of us may be lost in the above-quoted triple negative... Last I heard such a construct was Pinocchio trying to answer a question while betraying Shreck by neither his words nor his nose...
in a "free" country the government wouldn't have the right to mandate wages or what an employer wants to pay a man vs a women for a contract that both parties enter into voluntarily
I would fully agree with this statement — had you not put "free" in quotes. Such mandates really do reduce freedom, and that was my point. But as long as these regulations remain on the books, the Illiberals who help keep them on the books, should be the first to suffer from their enforcement.
I agree with you 100%. Moreover, I don't think any such discrimination, that Google is being accused of, should be illegal in a free country.
But they went out for Hillary Clinton — donating not just money, which the entire Silicon Valley did, but engineering/logistics talent too. The ostensible "women's champion" would only have increased the anti-discrimination prosecutions like this against various companies. Something tells me, however, the prosecutors she would've appointed wouldn't be so harsh on and sarcastic of Google...
As long as these laws are on the books at all, the SJW-enablers should be prosecuted under them — until they stop with the enabling...
Slashdot Mirror
The Left world-wide are calling Trump a "murderer" over this. Even ACLU chimed in with a bizarre accusation, that the decision is somehow racist...
The melt-down of these guys continues to be as entertaining as it was on November 9th last year...
When?
The rule being so hotly debated was only introduced in 2015. It did not exist 10 years ago — if Netflix rose despite this "critical" rule being absent, so can others...
Because burning natural gas and coal to produce power, transmit it over wires (losing about 10% on the way), charge a battery (losing at least another 8%), and then discharge the battery, is better than burning oil on the spot?
Ah, yes, the cars' engines aren't very efficient — true. But the powerplants also aren't very good — losing about 65% right there at generation. Add to that the listed transmission, distribution, and transition losses, and electric cars become a questionable proposition. One a sane, intelligent human (rather than an arrogant idiot pretending) may very well reject...
The fact that the diminishing of the treaty may affect world-wide popularity of electric cars would not affect Elon Musk's feelings on the subject. Not at all...
Being creepy is not enough. The creepiness must also a) be used as a cover for assault and other actual crimes; b) not be explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Glad to see, you have no other questions/objections.
Whether it is in the Constitution or wherever, you are right — we do not prosecute before they are committed. Which is why, absent a law like that being discussed, a decidedly creepy behavior remains legal.
If a State's legislature decides to criminalize a particular creepy behavior in public — that's up to them. The justification — that it can lead to an actual assault — is perfectly reasonable.
No, it is not. Nor is it "whale" or "strawberry".
If you are looking for inconsistencies, start with yourself. You are opposing a law, that would help men and women do their stuff in public bathrooms without the opposite sex present. Doing it separately is an overwhelming preference for the vast majority of people on the planet — but you object to this preference being codified into law. And why? Because it may affect the handful of delusional, who consider themselves one sex despite having the sex-organs of the other. Why should these people's preference be more important, than that of the rest of us? So much more important, you'd be Ok with the increased incidence of assault even?..
Most places already ban excretion on the streets — are such laws also unjust, oppressive, and "nanny-stating"?
Neither of these two can be prosecuted pre-emptively.
It is not "loitering", if the offender follows the victim there. And that "intent" can not be proven until after the assault — there is no reliable mind-reading. With the law on the books, police can book the pervert. Without it, he can not be touched until an assault takes place.
Yeah-yeah. And a man can go to a man's problem.
Nope, not trusting...
Maybe. But they were compensating for design flaws with the larger amount of water. But now that option is inexplicably removed — as if we're not in a free country...
Every once in a while females get raped and otherwise assaulted there. No, not by actual transgender lunatics — by "regular" perverts.
For security and/or police to be able to prevent such assaults, a law explicitly banning men in women's bathrooms may be necessary — without it, such people can not be removed from there preemptively.
Not "their" — the law is about public (and otherwise publicly accessible) bathrooms. You can still pee however you want in yours, even if — thanks to certain Democrats — you aren't free to properly flush afterwards.
The corporations don't care either way, I'm sure. They are simply afraid of boycotts — and worse. Because, when you are fighting for the rights of the delusional to persist in their delusions, all means are just and noble...
Few companies' management have the testicles (sexist metaphore!) of the Chick-Fil-A's one — most are like Mozilla's...
So would've been Facebook's "Free Basics" Internet-service in poor countries — denounced by all the progressives and, indeed, banned by India's government already... Because KKKorporations are evil and mean only to enslave you, whereas government-provided services always have good reasons for their limitations...
However you justify its deficiencies, the "free WiFi" being discussed will use the same justifications for sucking...
That "50%" figure only makes sense, if the successes/failures are random and independent.
If, on the other hand, lessons are learned after failures and subsequent attempts offer more and more successes, then there are reasons to celebrate improvements. And, indeed, the previous such test was in 2014 and was also successful...
Now, something about Slashdot... Someone spinning New Zealand's failure to launch a payload into orbit as "not a success" is at +5, whereas my mocking their spin and pointing out that "not a success" means simply "failure" is at -1. Yet in this discussion the roles are reversed: the actual success is mocked as "only 50%" and the mocking gets moderators' approval...
Why is Slashdot so defensive about and encouraging towards the Kiwis' space-launches and dismissive and ridiculing towards the Yanks'?
If my phone can get on WiFi for free, I will not need cellular services — Facetime/WhatsApp/Hangouts some other VoIP will kill cellular service.
Cellular carriers know this and are sitting on their hands. I predict one (or more of the following):
The free WiFi will suck Though this goes without saying, because it will be government-managed, it will suck especially badly to keep people from cancelling their cell-plans the way they are already cancelling their "land" lines. The free WiFi will be limited Your ability to use it will be limited to, say, 2 hours per day — trying to evade the limit by changing your MAC-address will be illegal. Joining such a WiFi will require explicit agreement to a giant "sign your rights away" sheet, which no one will read. This means, the joining will not be automatic — when traveling from one municipality to another, you'll have to keep accepting the terms. And then someone will read it, find all sorts of potentially-troubling privacy implications and advise people to keep using their traditional cell-service. The popular VoIP services will be blocked Net-neutrality? What's that? No, that's only for the evil KKKorporations, that charge money. The benevolent government service-providers, that give you the service for free, will be exempt — the way Amtrak is already exempt in the US. The existing carriers will be co-opted into building this infrastructure Instead of competing with each other, however, and trying to attract customers, the carriers will divide the market and provide the service for "free" to captive tax-payers. And yet, considering the alternatives, this is the best EU-citizens can hope for if this stupid proposal gains any traction.Fellow Americans can get a taste of the "free" government-provided WiFi by buying an Amtrak ticket and trying to use Amtrak's WiFi during their trip...
What "appropriate licenses"?. For those posing under the "SLOW CHILDREN" sign. The very fact, that activities like surveillance and research of online posts by others require a license is an outrage.
These weren't uniformed guards — armed or not — who may be mistaken for official law-enforcement and for that reason can be subjected to licensing requirements. They served no warrants or documents — it was research and connecting the dots. This should not require a license.
Any attempts to limit research of anything online would be for EFF's to fight. The rest — for ACLU, if the two organizations really stood for liberty, rather than Left "progressivism".
ACLU are full of shit — if they cared about the Constitution, they would've fought anti-weapon laws nation-wide. Forget "assault weapons" — you can't even possess a knife or a slingshot in some parts of the country. Pompous hypocritical assholes...
From your link:
So, yeah, it is "going" somewhere...
Well, let's wait for Google to submit to external pressure and pick a few top executives to please SJWs, rather than based on actual technical merits. The sort of thing they are doing should get them the same sort of boycott from OkCupid as Mozilla got back then...
If the activities alleged to have been performed by the company by the write-up require a license, such requirement in itself is is the scandal that needs to be fought by ACLU, EFF (the social media parts), and others.
Are any of the dogs named "Incitatus", by chance?
How is it illegal? Free country, remember? Everything, that is not explicitly prohibited, is implicitly allowed. Not the other way around.
There is nothing mentioned in the write-up, that should required a license...
Firefox losing market-share, Thunderbird increasingly abandoned, but, at least, Mozilla — after squeezing out that no-good hater — is socially just.
Replacing the inventor of JavaScript with someone from marketing made the world a better place. Rejoice!
Though colloquially known as such, von Braun and others were not Nazis. Indeed, they were arrested by the Nazis in 1944 for expressing doubts about the war's progress and regretting having to work on weapons instead of space. The snitch was a young female dentist present at the party — not herself a rocket scientist, you bet.
Also known as failure.
Still a failure.
Oh, wow, this matters to, like, 11 people on the planet...
If the keep at it — and are as close as you claim they are — great, they'll have a successful launch soon. But so far they haven't...
The below ones seem perfectly genuine and drive the point home with well-reasoned arguments:
Browse FCC for more.
Not true — every country, including Tonga and the absurdities like Donetsk People's Republic have that potential already.
60 years and counting. Because the launch was a failure:
One of us may be lost in the above-quoted triple negative... Last I heard such a construct was Pinocchio trying to answer a question while betraying Shreck by neither his words nor his nose...
I would fully agree with this statement — had you not put "free" in quotes. Such mandates really do reduce freedom, and that was my point. But as long as these regulations remain on the books, the Illiberals who help keep them on the books, should be the first to suffer from their enforcement.
I agree with you 100%. Moreover, I don't think any such discrimination, that Google is being accused of, should be illegal in a free country.
But they went out for Hillary Clinton — donating not just money, which the entire Silicon Valley did, but engineering/logistics talent too. The ostensible "women's champion" would only have increased the anti-discrimination prosecutions like this against various companies. Something tells me, however, the prosecutors she would've appointed wouldn't be so harsh on and sarcastic of Google...
As long as these laws are on the books at all, the SJW-enablers should be prosecuted under them — until they stop with the enabling...