Actually, rational evaluation of the actions of the "critics" is what labels them as "deniers". If you aren't interested in the truth or the facts, but only in advancing a political position that denies the existence of facts and knowledge, what else should we call you?
And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos [dailykos.com] article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier [thepeoplescube.com]).
Talk about lying out of your ass. She wrote "It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable" and you change that into "It is impossible to falsify any climate science". Child, that is what we call a strawman argument. You changed what someone you disagree with said, to make it easier for you to "win". Climate models are not equivalent to all climate science, and the difficulty with determining a falsifiable test before the model has been built does not mean the model can not be falsified after it has been created.
Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.
Yes it is very interesting that you do exactly that, while claiming others are doing it to you.
Also, page 7 doesn't contain "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access". In fact, your contention is nowhere to be found in the entire document. I guess you also fail basic reading comprehension.
I want to be legally able to contract with whoever I want for whatever Internet services I want instead of having the FCC cost me money and features by subjecting my ISP to a bunch of bureaucratic rules and paperwork to "prove" they're complying with whatever restrictions the FCC has decided to set around Internet service based on their non-technical outdated understanding of how some committee member thinks the Internet "should work" informed by the large incumbents in the Industry who most recently or best lobbied them.
Ok, I get it. You're just really, really stupid. You don't want real internet access, you want what your ISP is willing to give you at the lowest possible price.
not only couldn't you list where your meaning was in the FCC rules, you couldn't get past the non-binding summary of the rules, let alone the actual law in Title II
I literally didn't have to go beyond the summary to prove that you were wrong. However, re-read page 7 of the PDF of the rules if you think the summary is incorrect.
All the best information I can get, says that the "crime" that she committed isn't really. As I understand it, the usual result for someone who made a similar error would be a lecture and maybe a weekend refresher course on the proper handling of classified materials, which is why the FBI did not recommend charges be laid. Because the harshest penalty they could realistically hope for would be a minor fine.
Oh, he's definitely contributing. Sure, he's contributing at your expense by taking your foolishness down a notch. You might not like it, but other people are enjoying it.
Here's the full 400 pages of the rules [npr.org]. Feel free to point out the page which contains "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access" as part of the rules.
Ha. I thought you knew nothing and understood less. I guess I overestimated your intelligence.
Title II is a reference to the Communications Act of 1934. It's the section specifically designed to relate to common carriers. I've actually read the section, have you?
If you read it, which I strongly doubt. You haven't understood it.
For heaven's sake you haven't even understood the summary:
Ban Paid Prioritization: "Fast lanes" will not divide the Internet into "haves" and "have nots."
Ban Blocking: Consumers must get what they pay for — unfettered access to any lawful content on the Internet.
Ban Throttling: Degrading access to legal content and services can have the same effect as blocking and will not be permitted.
Now tell me again, why do you want your internet access and the internet access of millions of other people to be subject to paid prioritization, blocking and throttling?
For example, "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access" may or may not be a good rule, but it's also not anywhere in the regulations the FCC enacted under Title II, so that makes it pretty irrelevant to what the FCC actually would do or not.
Really? Do you even understand what common carrier (title 2) regulations are? Because that's exactly what it means.
It's pretty clear you don't know as much as you think you know and you're perfectly willing to ignore the people who know a hell of a lot more than you.
You don't understand that "The FCC should mandate that your ISP" is literally an example of the FCC controlling my ISP?
I understand it, but some laws are good like "Don't murder people", I presume you can agree that that is a good law, right? "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access" is another good rule. What part of that don't you understand?
Also, Comcast has no impact on my Internet access, so why would they be a benevolent dictator for it or not? They can't force me to use their service.
You're lucky then. There are literally millions of Americans who aren't so lucky, so why are you trying to ensure they can be fucked over? Also, whoever your ISP is, if you're American and Comcast and Verizon start fucking their customers over this way, then you are going to get fucked too.
The two philosophical sides are in part:
1. We trust the FCC to benignly regulate Internet access to benefit people instead of large companies.
2. We don't trust the FCC to regulate Internet access because they'll over time be captured by those they regulate, so leaving it to the market is a better idea.
Sorry, that's just wrong. The two sides are this:
1) The FCC should mandate that your ISP provide the service you pay them for and keep their god damned corporate fucking noses out your communications.
or
2) Comcast (et al) is such a swell company that it wouldn't ever abuse it's power to make more money for itself, so we should just trust them to the benevolent dictators over the internet access for millions of Americans.
Your paranoid fantasies about government control over internet access would itself be a violation of net neutrality. So no, the net neutrality rules do not in any way, shape or form allow the censoring of internet content by the government. In fact, it explicitly bans that. As shocking as this may seem to the many mental midget libertarians on Slashdot, repealing net neutrality actually enables government sponsored interference in your network connection. But that's ok, right? Because they'll be paying a private company to censor you, it's totally ok then, right?
My god you people are either fucking stupid or somebody is paying a lot of monkeys to post this drivel to Slashdot.
Do Net Neutrality advocates seem open to compromise?
There's simply no room for compromise on some things. Net neutrality is one of them, either you are allowed to communicate with the internet freely, or you allow your ISP to be your busy-body nanny who decides what you are allowed to do on the internet.
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. But there really needs to be, and not just in the bedroom. Good thing there is a means to amend the Constitution. I remember when we used to use that.
Yeah, you guys totally need another 18th amendment, am I right?
As usual, you seem to be talking out of your ass. The Martin Shkreli case is about a 64 year old drug, Dataprim, which has a small pool of users. Shkreli relied mostly on market inefficiency to raise the price. Basically, they bought Dataprim with the intention of raising the price, so they targeted a medically necessary drug that had no currently available alternatives. In their purchase agreement they required the previous owner to shut down 2nd party distribution to make sure no one could undercut their price. They knew since the user pool was so small, there would be limited incentive for other drug manufacturers to invest in producing a generic alternative.
The only role the FDA played was that they would require that a new dug actually be tested to ensure that it does what it's supposed to do, so they would have increased the cost to produce a new version of the drug by requiring quality control.
Results. The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the NMEs. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, and a few other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to GDP or prescription drug spending, whereas Japan, South Korea, and a few other countries innovated less.
Conclusions. Higher prescription drug spending in the United States does not disproportionately privilege domestic innovation, and many countries with drug price regulation were significant contributors to pharmaceutical innovation.
Humor aside, that's a very reductionist argument. The problem isn't with voting or not voting, it's that the people voted into office these days will invariably become a member of one of two tribes that are locked in mortal opposition to one another. They will let the country burn without a second thought if it means they can score political points against the other tribe.
The problem seems to be, in fact, that only one of the two parties will let the country burn to get their way. From an outside perspective, it certainly seems like the Democrats can be counted on to do the right thing (most of the time), and the Republicans can be counted on to take advantage of that fact.
Voting in new people doesn't really help, because unless there's a clean sweep nationwide, they will just become corrupted by the same system.
The system is definitely corrupting. I saw an article a while that explained why politicians actually tend to listen to donors more than average citizens, and the article claimed it was because they spend so much time talking to donors to raise donations. According to that article, the average member of the house, who faces election every 2 years, tends to spend at least 3-4 hours every day on the phone with potential donors. That's half of an average work day spent on just raising money for the next election. Understanding bills, committee work, listening to constituents, meetings, attending the house and everything else they need to do comes out of the other half of their day. Is it any wonder they pay attention to the people with the money, when they spend at least half of their time begging them for money?
You have no goddamn idea what Godwin's Law is. PROTIP: It is not a 'lose the argument automatically' card, because that is stupid and childish.
Sorry, it actually is an automatic loss. Of course, there's a reason that it's an automatic loss, and that's to discourage hyperbolic ad hominem arguments. So basically, we're telling you that you are "stupid and childish", and we'd like you to shut up now.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, rational evaluation of the actions of the "critics" is what labels them as "deniers". If you aren't interested in the truth or the facts, but only in advancing a political position that denies the existence of facts and knowledge, what else should we call you?
And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos [dailykos.com] article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier [thepeoplescube.com]).
Talk about lying out of your ass. She wrote "It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable" and you change that into "It is impossible to falsify any climate science". Child, that is what we call a strawman argument. You changed what someone you disagree with said, to make it easier for you to "win". Climate models are not equivalent to all climate science, and the difficulty with determining a falsifiable test before the model has been built does not mean the model can not be falsified after it has been created.
Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.
Yes it is very interesting that you do exactly that, while claiming others are doing it to you.
It's funny when propagandists have to label skeptics as deniers. They spout dogma, not science.
Of course. The fact that "they spout dogma, not science" is exactly why they are called deniers, and not skeptics.
I doubt it. If I showed you several scientific papers, you would immediately try to explain them away. What you believe in is scientism.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
Here's an article explaining why your "climate models are inaccurate" assertion is wrong.
Here's a paper for CMIP5 and here's the Chapter of the AR5 assessment on climate-model agreement.
I don't expect you'll actually read them, though.
Also, page 7 doesn't contain "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access". In fact, your contention is nowhere to be found in the entire document. I guess you also fail basic reading comprehension.
Pedantic fucking moron.
I want to be legally able to contract with whoever I want for whatever Internet services I want instead of having the FCC cost me money and features by subjecting my ISP to a bunch of bureaucratic rules and paperwork to "prove" they're complying with whatever restrictions the FCC has decided to set around Internet service based on their non-technical outdated understanding of how some committee member thinks the Internet "should work" informed by the large incumbents in the Industry who most recently or best lobbied them.
Ok, I get it. You're just really, really stupid. You don't want real internet access, you want what your ISP is willing to give you at the lowest possible price.
not only couldn't you list where your meaning was in the FCC rules, you couldn't get past the non-binding summary of the rules, let alone the actual law in Title II
I literally didn't have to go beyond the summary to prove that you were wrong. However, re-read page 7 of the PDF of the rules if you think the summary is incorrect.
All the best information I can get, says that the "crime" that she committed isn't really. As I understand it, the usual result for someone who made a similar error would be a lecture and maybe a weekend refresher course on the proper handling of classified materials, which is why the FBI did not recommend charges be laid. Because the harshest penalty they could realistically hope for would be a minor fine.
Pro-tip: The Associated Press is a thing that exists. News organizations will often buy stories from the AP when they need filler.
Now that you know a little bit more about how the press works, maybe you too can be a little less of a conspiracy nut.
Oh, he's definitely contributing. Sure, he's contributing at your expense by taking your foolishness down a notch. You might not like it, but other people are enjoying it.
Here's the full 400 pages of the rules [npr.org]. Feel free to point out the page which contains "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access" as part of the rules.
Ha. I thought you knew nothing and understood less. I guess I overestimated your intelligence.
Title II is a reference to the Communications Act of 1934. It's the section specifically designed to relate to common carriers. I've actually read the section, have you?
If you read it, which I strongly doubt. You haven't understood it.
For heaven's sake you haven't even understood the summary:
Now tell me again, why do you want your internet access and the internet access of millions of other people to be subject to paid prioritization, blocking and throttling?
For example, "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access" may or may not be a good rule, but it's also not anywhere in the regulations the FCC enacted under Title II, so that makes it pretty irrelevant to what the FCC actually would do or not.
Really? Do you even understand what common carrier (title 2) regulations are? Because that's exactly what it means.
It's pretty clear you don't know as much as you think you know and you're perfectly willing to ignore the people who know a hell of a lot more than you.
You don't understand that "The FCC should mandate that your ISP" is literally an example of the FCC controlling my ISP?
I understand it, but some laws are good like "Don't murder people", I presume you can agree that that is a good law, right? "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access" is another good rule. What part of that don't you understand?
Also, Comcast has no impact on my Internet access, so why would they be a benevolent dictator for it or not? They can't force me to use their service.
You're lucky then. There are literally millions of Americans who aren't so lucky, so why are you trying to ensure they can be fucked over? Also, whoever your ISP is, if you're American and Comcast and Verizon start fucking their customers over this way, then you are going to get fucked too.
The two philosophical sides are in part: 1. We trust the FCC to benignly regulate Internet access to benefit people instead of large companies. 2. We don't trust the FCC to regulate Internet access because they'll over time be captured by those they regulate, so leaving it to the market is a better idea.
Sorry, that's just wrong. The two sides are this:
1) The FCC should mandate that your ISP provide the service you pay them for and keep their god damned corporate fucking noses out your communications.
or
2) Comcast (et al) is such a swell company that it wouldn't ever abuse it's power to make more money for itself, so we should just trust them to the benevolent dictators over the internet access for millions of Americans.
Your paranoid fantasies about government control over internet access would itself be a violation of net neutrality. So no, the net neutrality rules do not in any way, shape or form allow the censoring of internet content by the government. In fact, it explicitly bans that. As shocking as this may seem to the many mental midget libertarians on Slashdot, repealing net neutrality actually enables government sponsored interference in your network connection. But that's ok, right? Because they'll be paying a private company to censor you, it's totally ok then, right?
My god you people are either fucking stupid or somebody is paying a lot of monkeys to post this drivel to Slashdot.
Do Net Neutrality advocates seem open to compromise?
There's simply no room for compromise on some things. Net neutrality is one of them, either you are allowed to communicate with the internet freely, or you allow your ISP to be your busy-body nanny who decides what you are allowed to do on the internet.
Which do you want?
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. But there really needs to be, and not just in the bedroom. Good thing there is a means to amend the Constitution. I remember when we used to use that.
Yeah, you guys totally need another 18th amendment, am I right?
As usual, you seem to be talking out of your ass. The Martin Shkreli case is about a 64 year old drug, Dataprim, which has a small pool of users. Shkreli relied mostly on market inefficiency to raise the price. Basically, they bought Dataprim with the intention of raising the price, so they targeted a medically necessary drug that had no currently available alternatives. In their purchase agreement they required the previous owner to shut down 2nd party distribution to make sure no one could undercut their price. They knew since the user pool was so small, there would be limited incentive for other drug manufacturers to invest in producing a generic alternative.
The only role the FDA played was that they would require that a new dug actually be tested to ensure that it does what it's supposed to do, so they would have increased the cost to produce a new version of the drug by requiring quality control.
That's a load of bull shit.
Only in criminal court. Elsewhere, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
And that's why you believe that I have a dragon in my garage, right? After all the absence of proof is not proof of absence, right?
Since you don't understand what Net Neutrality is, why should we care whether you think other people do?
Humor aside, that's a very reductionist argument. The problem isn't with voting or not voting, it's that the people voted into office these days will invariably become a member of one of two tribes that are locked in mortal opposition to one another. They will let the country burn without a second thought if it means they can score political points against the other tribe.
The problem seems to be, in fact, that only one of the two parties will let the country burn to get their way. From an outside perspective, it certainly seems like the Democrats can be counted on to do the right thing (most of the time), and the Republicans can be counted on to take advantage of that fact.
Voting in new people doesn't really help, because unless there's a clean sweep nationwide, they will just become corrupted by the same system.
The system is definitely corrupting. I saw an article a while that explained why politicians actually tend to listen to donors more than average citizens, and the article claimed it was because they spend so much time talking to donors to raise donations. According to that article, the average member of the house, who faces election every 2 years, tends to spend at least 3-4 hours every day on the phone with potential donors. That's half of an average work day spent on just raising money for the next election. Understanding bills, committee work, listening to constituents, meetings, attending the house and everything else they need to do comes out of the other half of their day. Is it any wonder they pay attention to the people with the money, when they spend at least half of their time begging them for money?
He was totally trustworthy until he refused something Trump requested, then suddenly he's completely untrustworthy. Convenient thinking isn't it?
Where's the straight, heterosexual celebration parades? We need some equality.
Isn't that every parade that isn't a Gay Pride parade?
You have no goddamn idea what Godwin's Law is. PROTIP: It is not a 'lose the argument automatically' card, because that is stupid and childish.
Sorry, it actually is an automatic loss. Of course, there's a reason that it's an automatic loss, and that's to discourage hyperbolic ad hominem arguments. So basically, we're telling you that you are "stupid and childish", and we'd like you to shut up now.