That's a nice false choice between a straw man and just giving in to corporate control.
OTOH, opponents of Net Neutrality seem to think it means giving FCC control of internet access. It's a clue that they don't know what they are talking about.
It's not "anything", it's a right. It's the inability of Libertarians to recognize rights beyond those explicitly enumerated that will strip away protection from the government.
The only conflict with abortion is the question of whether the fetus also has rights. It's indisputable that a woman has a right to privacy and a right to make her own medical decisions.
I think you got OP backwards. He wants government to make sure Facebook can't censor your content. He's not talking about allowing government to control the content. If anything, this change would make it easier for foreign governments to manipulate it.
To say that there's a lot of gray area these days between communication channel, content provider, and aggragator is an understatement, however. We certainly don't want the government telling Google how to select stories for Google News.
OTOH he extracts great performances from actors, writes intelligent dialog, is a master at building tension and isn't afraid to make a left turn, all qualities sorely lacking in the current Trek movies.
You could have both. You don't need to give up on the idea of competition just because the government requires your ISP to serve the whole internet to you.
Obviously you haven't read Orwell, because a big part of his thesis is about language and how manipulating it can make people believe absurdities, like attacking rules that keep the Internet open will help to keep the internet open.
He makes another point, that repeating lies loud enough and often enough makes it difficult to discern the truth, such as "his whole thesis is about the dangers of GOVERNMENT."
Let's see, you have a loose social movement backed by powerful corporations dedicated to the theory that attacking internet openness will promote internet openness, vs. a loose social movement backed by a powerful government that until recently was dedicated to the theory that requiring internet openness is the best way to maintaining internet openness. I wonder which faction Orwell would find more disturbing?
It's not a left wing view that climate scientists are aware of the variability of the sun. Slashdot should not ban someone for disagreeing with that, but it is sad that such a post can get modded as insightful.
A movement to give women power over their own lives, such as the ability to decide who they want to screw, is "infantilizing". Slashdot: come for the tech stories, stay for the brain-dead comments. Thanks for coming through.
What the whoring commenters are not factoring in is Weinstein's willingness to destroy the careers of those who wouldn't sleep with him, or especially those who talked about it. It's not just about sleeping with him for the career boost.
Siberia is cold and nothing on TV. Let's rile up stupid American Trump supporters with inane arguments. Earn ruble and increase chance of warming Siberia.
Did you miss the whole rest of the thread? I presume so, since OP was just the tip of the iceberg. Slashdot has turned into a cesspool.
A decade ago, we would laugh at the guy who had "figured out global warming" because scientist hadn't taken the variability of solar output into account, somehow forgetting that he only knows about solar output variability because scientists told him it was a thing.
A decade ago, if a female programmer complained that she should be able to go work without fear of being raped, we would be disgusted at the guy who would be offended by her message. Not offended by the potential for rape, but offended by her voicing her concern, as if he stood personally accused.
Stupid, ignorant, selfish, mean. Now they seem to be a majority.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a nice false choice between a straw man and just giving in to corporate control.
OTOH, opponents of Net Neutrality seem to think it means giving FCC control of internet access. It's a clue that they don't know what they are talking about.
It's not "anything", it's a right. It's the inability of Libertarians to recognize rights beyond those explicitly enumerated that will strip away protection from the government.
The only conflict with abortion is the question of whether the fetus also has rights. It's indisputable that a woman has a right to privacy and a right to make her own medical decisions.
In this thread I see a bunch of "pro-constitution" posters ignoring the Ninth amendment.
I think you got OP backwards. He wants government to make sure Facebook can't censor your content. He's not talking about allowing government to control the content. If anything, this change would make it easier for foreign governments to manipulate it.
To say that there's a lot of gray area these days between communication channel, content provider, and aggragator is an understatement, however. We certainly don't want the government telling Google how to select stories for Google News.
Small to whom I wonder?
I'm born with the right to a sky without unregulated drones in it.
Do you really think someone's propensity to murder is determined by their skin pigmentation?
If you have any ounce of humanity left you should just shut up and listen for a few years.
OTOH he extracts great performances from actors, writes intelligent dialog, is a master at building tension and isn't afraid to make a left turn, all qualities sorely lacking in the current Trek movies.
These guys think they are Jesus.
It's not human greed that worries me, but laziness. The programs will be put in charge, and they will be granted increasing independence.
But calculating how many people should work at your company is.
Ironic, since Pai only has the job because of Russian manipulation of social media.
Hmm, I've seen a guy google bing so that he could bing his search.
Yes, and error-prone, hard to debug, and requires heroic efforts to do something truly complicated.
The libertarian troll position: "Regulation to prevent the control of internet content actually controls internet content".
I don't think your grasp on Orwell is too solid.
You could have both. You don't need to give up on the idea of competition just because the government requires your ISP to serve the whole internet to you.
Obviously you haven't read Orwell, because a big part of his thesis is about language and how manipulating it can make people believe absurdities, like attacking rules that keep the Internet open will help to keep the internet open.
He makes another point, that repeating lies loud enough and often enough makes it difficult to discern the truth, such as "his whole thesis is about the dangers of GOVERNMENT."
Let's see, you have a loose social movement backed by powerful corporations dedicated to the theory that attacking internet openness will promote internet openness, vs. a loose social movement backed by a powerful government that until recently was dedicated to the theory that requiring internet openness is the best way to maintaining internet openness. I wonder which faction Orwell would find more disturbing?
It's not a left wing view that climate scientists are aware of the variability of the sun. Slashdot should not ban someone for disagreeing with that, but it is sad that such a post can get modded as insightful.
"Feminism infantilize women."
A movement to give women power over their own lives, such as the ability to decide who they want to screw, is "infantilizing". Slashdot: come for the tech stories, stay for the brain-dead comments. Thanks for coming through.
What the whoring commenters are not factoring in is Weinstein's willingness to destroy the careers of those who wouldn't sleep with him, or especially those who talked about it. It's not just about sleeping with him for the career boost.
The US was created by and for lawyers, so good luck with that.
Actual train of thought generated by story:
Siberia is cold and nothing on TV. Let's rile up stupid American Trump supporters with inane arguments. Earn ruble and increase chance of warming Siberia.
I wonder why you think that? It's not borne out by the document.
Did you miss the whole rest of the thread? I presume so, since OP was just the tip of the iceberg. Slashdot has turned into a cesspool.
A decade ago, we would laugh at the guy who had "figured out global warming" because scientist hadn't taken the variability of solar output into account, somehow forgetting that he only knows about solar output variability because scientists told him it was a thing.
A decade ago, if a female programmer complained that she should be able to go work without fear of being raped, we would be disgusted at the guy who would be offended by her message. Not offended by the potential for rape, but offended by her voicing her concern, as if he stood personally accused.
Stupid, ignorant, selfish, mean. Now they seem to be a majority.
I guess that'll be it then.