But Title II did nothing to end this situation. In fact, it may have made it slightly worse. The freer the market, the faster (and typically cheaper and better) you will get a solution.
If BK actually had such a policy, their customers would shop elsewhere starting tomorrow -- obviously. The commercial unintentionally makes the free marketer's point for them.
To make matters worse, the old "neutrality" wasn't really neutral. The actual policy was more like BK could only sell burgers that the government let them sell.
The greatest thing about capitalism is that it fully embraces the unfairness of life, and in fact, uses it to produce something worthy.
There are haves and have-nots. This goes far beyond mere money. Life is completely unfair, top to bottom. But in a capitalist society, it doesn't have to stay that way. A have-not can become rich by mass-providing something that the rich have to all his fellow have-nots.
Just two generations ago, the ability to quickly research something and gain an insight that might give you a competitive edge was limited to people with access to research libraries and experts. Today we have the Internet. Yes, the Internet is full of sludge, but that's only on its bottom. What runs on top is extraordinarily valuable information. And all that value now rests in the palm of everyone's hand.
Government funded the research phase of the Internet, and it was a spectacularly good investment. But it's only in hindsight that we can say that, only after capitalism mass-produced it. Can you imagine what an Internet run by the government would look like?! I shudder to even think.
Embrace the unfairness of life and exploit it. Be creative and courageous. Don't rely on the government -- of all institutions! -- to make life "fair". Life in North Korea and Cuba is what government's idea of "fair" looks like.
"predictions made 30,50,80 years ago have been proven correct well within their error bars."
Which predictions are those? That we'd see the end of winter in the UK? That the glaciers in the Alps would all melt? That we'd see more and more hurricanes? That whole islands would disappear? That New York City would be underwater? That people would be fleeing from climate catastrophes and out-stripping our ability to feed them?
I have no idea if it's true or false. All I know is that claiming something is the EXTREME in HISTORY without mentioning the fact that the time scale of that history only covers 158 of the past 4.5 billion years is pure click-bait sensationalism.
With the exception of groups like Postmodern Jukebox and other live-recorded artists, most music today is written with software. Loop-based software. The way it works is you first define a "groove", a short, typically 4-bar pattern that's as catchy as you can make it. Now take those 4 bars and repeat them 32x, add 1 or 2-bar patterns as occasional transitions, and presto, you have a "pop" song.
The problem is that software makes it so easy it entices people without real skills to write. This is similar to when laser printers and WYSIWYG editors first came on the scene, and suddenly everyone was a typographer and a graphic artist. *shudder*
You still have to have real talent as a songwriter. The software makes it "easier", not "better". Stevie Wonder can do it, for example. The vast, vast majority of other people cannot.
The red state vs. blue state comparison is flawed because there are no purely red or blue states. What there is instead are urban and rural parts of the country. Urban areas are deeply blue and rural is deeply red.
To see the truth of this, just look at an election map by precinct for your state. Compare it to a map of urban vs. rural.
To truly compare, you need to cut across geographical boundaries. The Pew Research Center did that by correlating political party to food stamp usage. Democrats are TWICE as likely as Republicans to have taken food stamps.
This makes good common sense, too. Democrats in the urban core are obviously much more supportive of a large, active government, and Republicans in rural areas want smaller government.
Thanks for the link. FTA: "Individual coral records generally show a high level of fidelity in capturing seasonal to interannual climate variability in their geochemical signals [e.g., Felis et al., 2004; Giry et al., 2012]. Because coral extension rates are generally thought to be relatively constant throughout the year except under extreme conditions [Lough and Cooper, 2011], seasonal growth biases arising from uniform sampling of the archive are believed to be minimal at most locations. In locations where seasonally suboptimal conditions do have the potential to bias coral growth toward a particular season [e.g., DeLong et al., 2014], this can be ameliorated by using monthly to seasonal sampling and intraannual age modeling to yield records that are representative of the annual mean [Quinn et al., 1996; Leder et al., 1996; Quinn et al., 1998; Evans et al., 2000; Swart et al., 2002]."
Sounds like an el Nino event would definitely have a measurable impact, which I think pretty strongly argues for longitudinal studies.
A cyclic warm period in that exact location just ended. Re-run the study in 5 years and let's see what happens. You can't predict a trend from a single data point.
Name me a climate model that accounts for the 800,000 year-long record of cyclic periods of warming and cooling that we can see and measure with instruments from ice core samples. We are currently in the FIFTH such cycle.
If you are going to tell me that an 800,000 year-long record is being broken, by crickey you'd better have some fabulously overwhelming extraordinary EVIDENCE of such a fantastic claim.
Instead, we have what-if projections.
Thank you, but I'll trust my own eyes and physical evidence before I trust your what-if guesses.
If you voted by mail, I feel bad for you. The USPS is neither a guaranteed-delivery service nor a secure one. If you cannot guarantee the chain of custody of a ballot, you cannot guarantee the privacy of your vote.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
"Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.
No, you're not going to find evidence of "collusion" between the White House and the FCC, and no, that does not contradict the claim that the Obama administration got the FCC to pass net neutrality. Net neutrality was a huge goal of the Obama administration and a very big political win for them. It IS possible, you know, for like-minded people to work independently towards a common goal. I've heard that happens from time to time.
And, by the way, can we save everyone a huge amount of time and wasted expense and just assume that we won't find any evidence of "collusion" between this White House and the hacking of the DNC email servers or the purchase of Facebook advertisements? And, can we also just admit that like-minded people can be working independently towards a common goal in THIS instance, too?
Short answer: No. Why? Because a CRA is a Joint Resolution (that means it has to pass both the House and the Senate), and the President has to sign it into law.
Same experience here. I was camping near Ocean City, MD and had gotten out of my tent around 2AM to go see a man about a horse. I looked up into the night sky and saw a streak of phosphorescent gas that corkscrewed into a spiral perhaps dozens of miles long. I rushed back to my tent, grabbed a pad of paper and sketched it. Wow! A genuine UFO.
Um, no. A genuine high altitude rocket launch from the nearby Wallops Island, VA NASA launch site. D'oh.
Try to keep up. The guy didn't say he was redefining net neutrality, he said, and I quote, "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy."
So: he has CHANGED the topic on you. He's no longer talking about net neutrality, he's talking about regulatory capture.
moves the conversation to a broader scope, and then someone chimes in with a detailed critique of how the conversation no longer is about the smaller issue, so the speaker is obviously "wrong"?
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly. Take Apple and Android. According to your lights, we have no competition among smartphone makers. That's daft.
But Title II did nothing to end this situation. In fact, it may have made it slightly worse. The freer the market, the faster (and typically cheaper and better) you will get a solution.
And what part, exactly, of "regulate" do you not understand?
If BK actually had such a policy, their customers would shop elsewhere starting tomorrow -- obviously. The commercial unintentionally makes the free marketer's point for them.
To make matters worse, the old "neutrality" wasn't really neutral. The actual policy was more like BK could only sell burgers that the government let them sell.
The greatest thing about capitalism is that it fully embraces the unfairness of life, and in fact, uses it to produce something worthy.
There are haves and have-nots. This goes far beyond mere money. Life is completely unfair, top to bottom. But in a capitalist society, it doesn't have to stay that way. A have-not can become rich by mass-providing something that the rich have to all his fellow have-nots.
Just two generations ago, the ability to quickly research something and gain an insight that might give you a competitive edge was limited to people with access to research libraries and experts. Today we have the Internet. Yes, the Internet is full of sludge, but that's only on its bottom. What runs on top is extraordinarily valuable information. And all that value now rests in the palm of everyone's hand.
Government funded the research phase of the Internet, and it was a spectacularly good investment. But it's only in hindsight that we can say that, only after capitalism mass-produced it. Can you imagine what an Internet run by the government would look like?! I shudder to even think.
Embrace the unfairness of life and exploit it. Be creative and courageous. Don't rely on the government -- of all institutions! -- to make life "fair". Life in North Korea and Cuba is what government's idea of "fair" looks like.
"predictions made 30,50,80 years ago have been proven correct well within their error bars."
Which predictions are those? That we'd see the end of winter in the UK? That the glaciers in the Alps would all melt? That we'd see more and more hurricanes? That whole islands would disappear? That New York City would be underwater? That people would be fleeing from climate catastrophes and out-stripping our ability to feed them?
Tell us another one.
I have no idea if it's true or false. All I know is that claiming something is the EXTREME in HISTORY without mentioning the fact that the time scale of that history only covers 158 of the past 4.5 billion years is pure click-bait sensationalism.
It's not science. At all. Not even close.
Sensationalist was the point.
Here's how the Washington Post is reporting this: The planet just had its hottest 4 years in recorded history. Trump is dismantling efforts to fight climate change.
With the exception of groups like Postmodern Jukebox and other live-recorded artists, most music today is written with software. Loop-based software. The way it works is you first define a "groove", a short, typically 4-bar pattern that's as catchy as you can make it. Now take those 4 bars and repeat them 32x, add 1 or 2-bar patterns as occasional transitions, and presto, you have a "pop" song.
The problem is that software makes it so easy it entices people without real skills to write. This is similar to when laser printers and WYSIWYG editors first came on the scene, and suddenly everyone was a typographer and a graphic artist. *shudder*
You still have to have real talent as a songwriter. The software makes it "easier", not "better". Stevie Wonder can do it, for example. The vast, vast majority of other people cannot.
The red state vs. blue state comparison is flawed because there are no purely red or blue states. What there is instead are urban and rural parts of the country. Urban areas are deeply blue and rural is deeply red.
To see the truth of this, just look at an election map by precinct for your state. Compare it to a map of urban vs. rural.
To truly compare, you need to cut across geographical boundaries. The Pew Research Center did that by correlating political party to food stamp usage. Democrats are TWICE as likely as Republicans to have taken food stamps.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
This makes good common sense, too. Democrats in the urban core are obviously much more supportive of a large, active government, and Republicans in rural areas want smaller government.
Thanks for the link. FTA: "Individual coral records generally show a high level of fidelity in capturing seasonal to interannual climate variability in their geochemical signals [e.g., Felis et al., 2004; Giry et al., 2012]. Because coral extension rates are generally thought to be relatively constant throughout the year except under extreme conditions [Lough and Cooper, 2011], seasonal growth biases arising from uniform sampling of the archive are believed to be minimal at most locations. In locations where seasonally suboptimal conditions do have the potential to bias coral growth toward a particular season [e.g., DeLong et al., 2014], this can be ameliorated by using monthly to seasonal sampling and intraannual age modeling to yield records that are representative of the annual mean [Quinn et al., 1996; Leder et al., 1996; Quinn et al., 1998; Evans et al., 2000; Swart et al., 2002]."
Sounds like an el Nino event would definitely have a measurable impact, which I think pretty strongly argues for longitudinal studies.
A cyclic warm period in that exact location just ended. Re-run the study in 5 years and let's see what happens. You can't predict a trend from a single data point.
Name me a climate model that accounts for the 800,000 year-long record of cyclic periods of warming and cooling that we can see and measure with instruments from ice core samples. We are currently in the FIFTH such cycle.
If you are going to tell me that an 800,000 year-long record is being broken, by crickey you'd better have some fabulously overwhelming extraordinary EVIDENCE of such a fantastic claim.
Instead, we have what-if projections.
Thank you, but I'll trust my own eyes and physical evidence before I trust your what-if guesses.
If you voted by mail, I feel bad for you. The USPS is neither a guaranteed-delivery service nor a secure one. If you cannot guarantee the chain of custody of a ballot, you cannot guarantee the privacy of your vote.
Aren't you making the GP's point, then?
MOD parent up.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
"Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.
No, you're not going to find evidence of "collusion" between the White House and the FCC, and no, that does not contradict the claim that the Obama administration got the FCC to pass net neutrality. Net neutrality was a huge goal of the Obama administration and a very big political win for them. It IS possible, you know, for like-minded people to work independently towards a common goal. I've heard that happens from time to time.
And, by the way, can we save everyone a huge amount of time and wasted expense and just assume that we won't find any evidence of "collusion" between this White House and the hacking of the DNC email servers or the purchase of Facebook advertisements? And, can we also just admit that like-minded people can be working independently towards a common goal in THIS instance, too?
Short answer: No. Why? Because a CRA is a Joint Resolution (that means it has to pass both the House and the Senate), and the President has to sign it into law.
Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R...
Same experience here. I was camping near Ocean City, MD and had gotten out of my tent around 2AM to go see a man about a horse. I looked up into the night sky and saw a streak of phosphorescent gas that corkscrewed into a spiral perhaps dozens of miles long. I rushed back to my tent, grabbed a pad of paper and sketched it. Wow! A genuine UFO.
Um, no. A genuine high altitude rocket launch from the nearby Wallops Island, VA NASA launch site. D'oh.
and give them a MacBook Pro. Come back in a month. Problem solved.
Try to keep up. The guy didn't say he was redefining net neutrality, he said, and I quote, "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy."
So: he has CHANGED the topic on you. He's no longer talking about net neutrality, he's talking about regulatory capture.
moves the conversation to a broader scope, and then someone chimes in with a detailed critique of how the conversation no longer is about the smaller issue, so the speaker is obviously "wrong"?