Netflix hates data caps. The on-demand movies and TV shows service has asked the US Federal Communications Commission to declare that home internet data caps are unreasonable
Yes, it is me — the guy, who debated you into a corner on the inexplicable failures of Blacks in America, which are in such sharp contrast to the successes of Asians, who, presumably, are (or recently were) just as much a target of "racism" of the Whites dominating the country...
People criticising the guy who was trying to harm them by denying them equal marriage are not "SJWs".
Yes, of course, they were. But, if you wish to talk semantics, let's see your definition of "Social Justice Warrior" — one, which does not cover 90% of folks calling for boycott of Firefox over Mr. Eich.
They are people who want the right to marry whomever they like
The above statement is wrong in itself, unless you think, "equal marriage" must also include incest. For better or worse, you stillcan not marry "whomever you like".
No, the case was explicitly about gay marriages — and that term is about as sensible as "low-sodium salt" or "meatless steak". You can market a product like that — freedom of speech and all that — but an attempt to legally require equating it to a real thing is a legitimate target of opposition.
because the only other option is to deny their freedom of speech rights.
At any rate, whether or not Brendan's position on "gay marriage" was valid or bogus, he was a fine programmer and software engineer. Ousting him for the "inkorrekt" opinion did a disservice to the Mozilla project, negatively affecting millions of users.
There is nothing that limits it to strictly military or police.
Ok, I'll throw in your beloved NSA and CIA to it — though, obviously, the agencies, despite being nominally civilian, are quite military in nature and modus operandi. You are wrong in insisting "there is nothing" limiting the term defense to "military" — it is the very meaning of the word "defence". The following three (related) meanings qualify:
an organization of defenders that provides resistance against attack; "he joined the defense against invasion"
a structure used to defend against attack; "the artillery battered down the defenses"
(military) military action or resources protecting a country against potential enemies; "they died in the defense of Stalingrad"; "they were developed for the defense program"
We are arguing semantics. Are you really of the opinion, that the authors of the Constitution — and the people voting to adopt it — meant anything other than armed forces, when the wrote and read the term "common Defence"?
We can and do obligate our government to take proper care of its citizens
No, we don't. The push comes the unholy alliance of rent-seeking government types seeking to justify their existence and expanding monopoly powers and bad-with-math do-gooders playing into the latters' hands. If you really are worried about someone, you can give the money to him or to a charity organization. But there is no justification for you to send an armed man to take my money for it.
All that said, my original point stands — bringing up police-spending in a debate on taxes is dishonest. Contrary to the AC's above allusion, there is no "hypocrisy" in calling 9-11 while objecting to having to pay for somebody else's education, food, and healthcare.
Which is exactly why I said "explicitly". As in "military and law enforcement are explicitly in the government's care", while trying to justify spending my money on some bum's food and healthcare requires turning the "general Welfare" clause into a blank check.
Common defense includes more than just the military and law enforcement
Nope, it does not. Stick to the "general Welfare" part — it worked fine for millions of Statists before you.
If adherence to Social Justice values becomes one of the deciding criteria, you begin to disqualify some otherwise best people. I would testify in front of any investigating committee, that Firefox started getting worse, when Brendan Eich was ousted — an achievement of SJWs and nobody else's. Memory consumption became worse and one of my FreeBSD computers lost the ability to play web-videos — because it runs a 32-bit firefox. Searching online confirms, this is neither an isolated case nor is it OS-specific.
Having been involved with Mozilla for many years, I don't blame all of their problems on the new, politically-correct, management. Yet, some things did get worse without appreciable improvements to compensate elsewhere.
Some things really are about SJWs — and none of them good. If you count yourself among them, you should consider improving this world by killing yourself. (Erynk, guvf ynfg bar jnf n gebyy...)
Domestic law-enforcement is a tiny fraction of tax expenditures. So tiny, bringing it up is a misnomer. Even public schools cost more ($620 billion) than police in the US (under $200 billion) — and parents still need to add hundreds of dollars on top of it. Which about matches the 640 billion spent collectively on Medicare.
But schools aren't the highest expenditure either — welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion every year (that's just the Federal government spending, BTW), for example, which is 10 times the spending on police by both Federal and local governments.
Military, the usual lighting rod of Leftists, is expensive too, but those expenditures (along with law enforcement) are explicitly in the government's care according to the Constitution. Nothing else is...
To even bring up "police" in any tax-discussion is dishonest. One can always tell a Statist by it.
If raising the cost of 20 million cars by 50 cent to save a lie is stupid, then your life is worth only these 50 cents.
No, you idiot. My life is worth 50 cents multiplied by 20 million — that is $10 million. That is, roughly, what the Statistical Value of American life is today. I gave you plenty of links to educate yourself on the subject, which you failed to do.
Sadly, you are not merely an idiot today, you are also, quite evidently, incurable.
black people are much more likely to still be suffering from the legacy of historic disadvantage
Why? Why are the Negros suffering and and Orientals — not any more? Or, actually, they do — as the above-cited college-admission standards testify — but don't blame their failures on it. But, in any case, the same "racist" Whites are happy to rent their rooms and houses to the Asians...
With black people it's largely still the same bullshit as 200+ years ago..
My point exactly, thank you — we agree on the fact. Would you care to speculate, what the reason(s) might be for the discrepancy?
As one Black girl pointed out to me recently, racism is not the cause, it is a result.
is partially anonymize their customers so that it was difficult or impossible to determine an applicant's race from his application
Anonymity will not help — there are very few obviously Black names. They need to disable photos — which were denounced as a major instrument of racism for almost a century already. But that would mean removal of an important feature of the system by making it impersonal...
My personal opinion is that while racism is regrettable, its impact is overrated and far less damaging than any heavy-handed (and freedom-trampling) efforts to fight it. Jews, for example, were targets of racism in Europe for centuries. And I mean real racism — the pogroms were far more tangible, than anything Blacks suffer from in the US today. Similarly to Blacks, Asians were victims of racism in the US since building the railroads (I just watched the Bruce Lee movie).
50 years ago we surrendered certain freedoms to the promise of racial harmony. The harmony remains as elusive as ever, but the freedoms continue withering away...
They are going to make it so that if they refuse to rent on certain dates they can't then rent them out to someone else later
Is one a racist only on certain dates?!.. I never knew about such a phenomenon — could you elaborate?
profit is a great motivator to overcome bigotry
It probably is. But there are two things to note:
The alleged racists are already turning down profit by rejecting certain customers — either profit is not such a great motivator after all, or the allegations aren't true.
AirBNB will be losing its share of profits too by doing this and profit may prove just as motivating to them in leaving the owners be.
If companies didn't have the ability to influence the actions of their customers then marketing as a discipline would not exist.
The owners of the real estate being rented aren't "customers". In the traditional scheme of things, they are more like "suppliers".
They aren't as feeble-minded as regular consumers and thus not as easily manipulated by marketing. Not to say, they can not be persuaded at all — indeed, persuasion is the only legitimate way of fighting real racism — but it will not be as easy as making you want a new phone...
They can rank the discriminatory hosts last so that most potential renters won't see them.
That will mean violating the customer's trust — if I am sorting by rankings, the site will be lying to me if they let (alleged) bigotry weight somebody down beyond the low rating the alleging party has left.
Maybe, they can add a separate criteria for "political correctness" or "adherence to Social Justice principles" — and see, how many will choose their next room based on that...
Perhaps more importantly, if the discrimination really is as widespread as is being alleged, your method simply will not help...
Whatever policies the company staff are subjected to, unless the renters are somehow compelled to rent to people against their will — however misguided, hateful, or bigoted that will might be — the complaints will not go away.
The government may compel a business-owner by threatening fines and withdrawal of license. Fortunately, AirBnB does not have the government's power and monopoly. Whatever they do is doomed to failure.
They know this and are going through the motions only to deflect criticism (and the government's wrath) against themselves.
In our trip to the country, we stayed in a semi-permanent camp on the Pacific shore, which was not wired. In fact, there was no proper road to it either — the only way to get there was by (small) plane.
The camp had a generator, of course — a noisy affair, which they fired for a few hours each day to power up/recharge the radio and phones. But, hey, there are still places in the world, where even those evil devices — made from poisonous materials by exploited workers toiling in polluting factories — aren't known...
Some times the spurning of civilization is explained simply by absence of civilization...
Yep, and this is why businesses rather pay for damages and lost lives than redesign faulty parts.
Sometimes this may be appropriate, yes. It is all about costs — and a cost of a Westerner's life is under $10 million today. So, for example, raising the cost of 20 million cars by 50 cents each to save one life is stupid, but may make sense for two or more lives.
Before you denounce "putting a price on human life", that is the criteria governmentagencies use to issue their rulings... They just aren't as good about it on average, as the business-owners themselves would be.
Dumbass.
Yes, you certainly seem to be... Read more, write less — there is hope for everyone...
had not been directed to ban the use of the phone by aviation authorities, but did so as a precaution
And that is, how things should be — competing businesses making their own decisions by weighting the damage from alienating customers against the risks to equipment and lives...
Americans are already uncomfortable with them. In a survey from Pew Research Center, almost half said they wouldn't want to edit their baby's genes -- whether it were to combat disease or shop for traits. Nearly 70 percent of survey participants also said they were more worried than enthusiastic about the possibility of synthetic-blood and brain-chip implants
By no means shall those uncomfortable be forced to do it — although I'd like the Social Justice Worriers to explain, how these gene-modifications and implants are different in principle from vaccinations, which, according to the same folks, must be mandatory.
But let's not stop the minority comfortable and enthusiastic about the technology from using it to better (or worsen) their lives — and kill this talk of the Third Prohibition before it settles.
And I am saying, you argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment issues involved in government trying to limit some speech as "hateful" or otherwise incorrect. And, of course, Trump is completely off-topic too.
We all are. This is not about Trump. Anybody — poor, well off, and super rich alike — can and do sue for defamation. These are all civil suits and have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Your misconception is common — fustakrakich above has posted the same stupidity, for example — but a misconception it is:
This freedom, however, does not immunize them from liability for what they publish. A newspaper that publishes false information about a person, for example, can be sued for libel. A television station similarly can be sued if it broadcasts a story that unlawfully invades a person’s privacy.
allows someone rich to bankrupt people they don't like
The assholes and bitches seeking to ban "hate speech" would not merely bankrupt people they don't like — they'd put them in prison by making such expressions a felony. And the assholes and bitches would not spend their own money on it either — crimes are prosecuted by the government.
even if they don't win
I keep saying, we ought to have the losers of lawsuits being automatically ordered to compensate the winners legal expenses...
Slashdot Mirror
The solution to a problem created by there being too much government regulation is more government regulation.
A drug-addict's logic.
Yes, it is me — the guy, who debated you into a corner on the inexplicable failures of Blacks in America, which are in such sharp contrast to the successes of Asians, who, presumably, are (or recently were) just as much a target of "racism" of the Whites dominating the country...
Yes, of course, they were. But, if you wish to talk semantics, let's see your definition of "Social Justice Warrior" — one, which does not cover 90% of folks calling for boycott of Firefox over Mr. Eich.
The above statement is wrong in itself, unless you think, "equal marriage" must also include incest. For better or worse, you still can not marry "whomever you like".
No, the case was explicitly about gay marriages — and that term is about as sensible as "low-sodium salt" or "meatless steak". You can market a product like that — freedom of speech and all that — but an attempt to legally require equating it to a real thing is a legitimate target of opposition.
Does not follow.
At any rate, whether or not Brendan's position on "gay marriage" was valid or bogus, he was a fine programmer and software engineer. Ousting him for the "inkorrekt" opinion did a disservice to the Mozilla project, negatively affecting millions of users.
Ok, I'll throw in your beloved NSA and CIA to it — though, obviously, the agencies, despite being nominally civilian, are quite military in nature and modus operandi. You are wrong in insisting "there is nothing" limiting the term defense to "military" — it is the very meaning of the word "defence". The following three (related) meanings qualify:
We are arguing semantics. Are you really of the opinion, that the authors of the Constitution — and the people voting to adopt it — meant anything other than armed forces, when the wrote and read the term "common Defence"?
No, we don't. The push comes the unholy alliance of rent-seeking government types seeking to justify their existence and expanding monopoly powers and bad-with-math do-gooders playing into the latters' hands. If you really are worried about someone, you can give the money to him or to a charity organization. But there is no justification for you to send an armed man to take my money for it.
All that said, my original point stands — bringing up police-spending in a debate on taxes is dishonest. Contrary to the AC's above allusion, there is no "hypocrisy" in calling 9-11 while objecting to having to pay for somebody else's education, food, and healthcare.
Which is exactly why I said "explicitly". As in "military and law enforcement are explicitly in the government's care", while trying to justify spending my money on some bum's food and healthcare requires turning the "general Welfare" clause into a blank check.
Nope, it does not. Stick to the "general Welfare" part — it worked fine for millions of Statists before you.
Not everything. But Mozilla getting worse — is.
If adherence to Social Justice values becomes one of the deciding criteria, you begin to disqualify some otherwise best people. I would testify in front of any investigating committee, that Firefox started getting worse, when Brendan Eich was ousted — an achievement of SJWs and nobody else's. Memory consumption became worse and one of my FreeBSD computers lost the ability to play web-videos — because it runs a 32-bit firefox. Searching online confirms, this is neither an isolated case nor is it OS-specific.
On other fronts, now Mozilla wants to drop Thunderbird...
Having been involved with Mozilla for many years, I don't blame all of their problems on the new, politically-correct, management. Yet, some things did get worse without appreciable improvements to compensate elsewhere.
Some things really are about SJWs — and none of them good. If you count yourself among them, you should consider improving this world by killing yourself. (Erynk, guvf ynfg bar jnf n gebyy...)
But, at least, that hateful homophobic bigot is no longer running Mozilla. If that's not a win, what can possibly be?
Domestic law-enforcement is a tiny fraction of tax expenditures. So tiny, bringing it up is a misnomer. Even public schools cost more ($620 billion ) than police in the US (under $200 billion) — and parents still need to add hundreds of dollars on top of it. Which about matches the 640 billion spent collectively on Medicare.
But schools aren't the highest expenditure either — welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion every year (that's just the Federal government spending, BTW), for example, which is 10 times the spending on police by both Federal and local governments.
Military, the usual lighting rod of Leftists, is expensive too, but those expenditures (along with law enforcement) are explicitly in the government's care according to the Constitution. Nothing else is...
To even bring up "police" in any tax-discussion is dishonest. One can always tell a Statist by it.
No, you idiot. My life is worth 50 cents multiplied by 20 million — that is $10 million. That is, roughly, what the Statistical Value of American life is today. I gave you plenty of links to educate yourself on the subject, which you failed to do.
Sadly, you are not merely an idiot today, you are also, quite evidently, incurable.
Why? Why are the Negros suffering and and Orientals — not any more? Or, actually, they do — as the above-cited college-admission standards testify — but don't blame their failures on it. But, in any case, the same "racist" Whites are happy to rent their rooms and houses to the Asians...
My point exactly, thank you — we agree on the fact. Would you care to speculate, what the reason(s) might be for the discrepancy?
As one Black girl pointed out to me recently, racism is not the cause, it is a result .
And how would AirBnB know, what really motivated a host to spurn a particular guest? They'd need DoJ-type investigations...
Anonymity will not help — there are very few obviously Black names. They need to disable photos — which were denounced as a major instrument of racism for almost a century already. But that would mean removal of an important feature of the system by making it impersonal...
My personal opinion is that while racism is regrettable, its impact is overrated and far less damaging than any heavy-handed (and freedom-trampling) efforts to fight it. Jews, for example, were targets of racism in Europe for centuries. And I mean real racism — the pogroms were far more tangible, than anything Blacks suffer from in the US today. Similarly to Blacks, Asians were victims of racism in the US since building the railroads (I just watched the Bruce Lee movie).
Yet, neither the Jews nor the Asians today need to explain their under-performance in our "White society" by the racism — because they perform better than the supposed tormentors. So much better, Asian college-applicants are advised to not answer the "Race" question on their applications — to avoid the penalty college boards impose on Asians in the name of "equality". Being presumed White instead of Asian is estimated to be an equivalent to extra 50 SAT-points...
50 years ago we surrendered certain freedoms to the promise of racial harmony. The harmony remains as elusive as ever, but the freedoms continue withering away...
Is one a racist only on certain dates?!.. I never knew about such a phenomenon — could you elaborate?
It probably is. But there are two things to note:
The owners of the real estate being rented aren't "customers". In the traditional scheme of things, they are more like "suppliers".
They aren't as feeble-minded as regular consumers and thus not as easily manipulated by marketing. Not to say, they can not be persuaded at all — indeed, persuasion is the only legitimate way of fighting real racism — but it will not be as easy as making you want a new phone...
That will mean violating the customer's trust — if I am sorting by rankings, the site will be lying to me if they let (alleged) bigotry weight somebody down beyond the low rating the alleging party has left.
Maybe, they can add a separate criteria for "political correctness" or "adherence to Social Justice principles" — and see, how many will choose their next room based on that...
Perhaps more importantly, if the discrimination really is as widespread as is being alleged, your method simply will not help...
Whatever policies the company staff are subjected to, unless the renters are somehow compelled to rent to people against their will — however misguided, hateful, or bigoted that will might be — the complaints will not go away.
The government may compel a business-owner by threatening fines and withdrawal of license. Fortunately, AirBnB does not have the government's power and monopoly. Whatever they do is doomed to failure.
They know this and are going through the motions only to deflect criticism (and the government's wrath) against themselves.
Notably, you do not offer any examples... Requirements, that are important and justifiable, but for which the customers do not care...
In our trip to the country, we stayed in a semi-permanent camp on the Pacific shore, which was not wired. In fact, there was no proper road to it either — the only way to get there was by (small) plane.
The camp had a generator, of course — a noisy affair, which they fired for a few hours each day to power up/recharge the radio and phones. But, hey, there are still places in the world, where even those evil devices — made from poisonous materials by exploited workers toiling in polluting factories — aren't known...
Some times the spurning of civilization is explained simply by absence of civilization...
I for one am grateful for learning about this after it was all over.
Heavens, my pretty little head would've been worried for three days, had it been publicized then...
Sometimes this may be appropriate, yes. It is all about costs — and a cost of a Westerner's life is under $10 million today. So, for example, raising the cost of 20 million cars by 50 cents each to save one life is stupid, but may make sense for two or more lives.
Before you denounce "putting a price on human life", that is the criteria government agencies use to issue their rulings... They just aren't as good about it on average, as the business-owners themselves would be.
Yes, you certainly seem to be... Read more, write less — there is hope for everyone...
And that is, how things should be — competing businesses making their own decisions by weighting the damage from alienating customers against the risks to equipment and lives...
By no means shall those uncomfortable be forced to do it — although I'd like the Social Justice Worriers to explain, how these gene-modifications and implants are different in principle from vaccinations, which, according to the same folks, must be mandatory.
But let's not stop the minority comfortable and enthusiastic about the technology from using it to better (or worsen) their lives — and kill this talk of the Third Prohibition before it settles.
Why would an AI be automatically any worse in interpreting its programming instructions, than humans are in interpreting theirs?
If anything, robots may be more observant — as humanity's history of atrocities and war-crimes shows, the bar is not set very high...
I know! Let's have the FCC create a new rule banning such apps. In the name of "net neutrality" or some kind of "equality".
And we'll denounce those opposing such a rule as being a corporate whore and a crazy Libertarian.
And I am saying, you argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment issues involved in government trying to limit some speech as "hateful" or otherwise incorrect. And, of course, Trump is completely off-topic too.
We all are. This is not about Trump. Anybody — poor, well off, and super rich alike — can and do sue for defamation. These are all civil suits and have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Your misconception is common — fustakrakich above has posted the same stupidity, for example — but a misconception it is:
The assholes and bitches seeking to ban "hate speech" would not merely bankrupt people they don't like — they'd put them in prison by making such expressions a felony. And the assholes and bitches would not spend their own money on it either — crimes are prosecuted by the government.
I keep saying, we ought to have the losers of lawsuits being automatically ordered to compensate the winners legal expenses...