Perhaps if Congress would have done it's job instead of playing political games.
Congress is doing it's job. There is no crisis on the border and what issues that are at the border are not affected by a wall.
First, border crossings are way, way, way down.
Second, Drugs and immigrants would not be stopped by a wall, because those are coming through the official ports of entry. Drugs are smuggled in other shipments (or using things like tunnels that aren't affected by a wall). The immigrants are refugees, and federal law (and treaty obligations) require that we let them into the country while investigating their claim. So they don't sneak in, they walk up to customs and say "I'm a refugee, please help". And before you declare this to be false, this is according to the Trump-run Department of Homeland Security. Also, those refugees show up to all of their court dates 96% of the time.
Third, immigrants, legal or not, commit violent crimes at a rate far lower than the native population. So no, there are not a massive wave of super predators streaming over the border.
So, why spend billions now and billions on maintenance for a wall that does not address the actual issues on the border, and requires the government to steal land from citizens? It seems like a really dumb waste of money and a violation of US some citizen's rights. Which means Congress is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing by not appropriating the money to build the wall.
Without the text of this specific bill, exact answers to your questions aren't possible.
That being said, here's the answers using the typical definitions of net neutrality.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
Nope. Net neutrality is about the behavior of ISPs. It has nothing to do with deplatforming.
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
ISPs have to treat similar data as the same. So they must treat all SMTP packets the same, or all streaming video packets the same. They would be allowed to use QoS-style techniques that prioritizes particular packets, as long as those techniques do not take into account the source or destination of the packets. For example, Netflix can have priority over email, but (Brand_new_video_streaming_service) will enjoy the same prioritization.
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu
It technically does not prevent such an agreement, but the ISP would have little to offer. Free data only for Netflix would not be allowed. Free data for video streaming in general would be allowed. Also ISPs could set up marketing tie-ins (Sign a 2 year contract, get a free year of Netflix!) as long as the packets are treated like any similar packets.
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
You need to learn about the structure of the government, and there reason why third parties are not able to wield power. For third parties to have any effect, you're going to need to completely restructure our government.
Yeah, I went through the same rose-colored-glasses thing when I was younger. Thankfully, things like GoG exist so I could play those titles I remembered as having so much more depth and fun....and figured out that >90% of them lacked substance too now that I was not longer a kid.
And the complaints about RDR2 are the opposite of your complaints. On-rails makes for a shorter, more directed game. The "slow" pace is because it's not on rails.
And there's a hell of a lot of people on both sides of that. See: Fallout New Vegas vs Fallout 3/4/76. There's a market for both, but playing a game from the "opposite" side will be significantly less fun.
If you think riding across the map is boring, don't do it. Use fast travel, or use it as an indicator it's not a game you find enjoyable.
We don't say there's a terrible problem in books today when someone who likes mysteries does not find an autobiography interesting.
An open-world RPG is going to have certain game elements, no matter what the setting. Like repetitive "chores", and a slow pace. If you don't like those elements in your video game, don't play an open-world RPG.
It's not like RDR1 was a frantic experience, so you should know this going in to RDR2.
There are no *different* jobs. At least, not without moving to a different state. And that's not all that easy to do when all you know how to do is mine.
but I haven't heard a single solution to the widespread unemployment that grips the rust belt.
That's because we're currently running the GOP plan for these areas. It's the same as their healthcare plan: Die quickly.
Less snarky, the plan, such as it is, is to do nothing and let market forces deplete the population of these areas. Those ex-miners will either 1) die and no longer be a problem, or 2) move to a city, most likely making that city and/or state more Republican. As an added bonus, it doesn't require voting to fund any government programs.
Now, odds are most of that would have gone to the mine owners, but there'd at least be jobs in the meantime.
Not really. Mining is far more automated than the "glory days" these miners want to return to. Remove all regulations and there still would be a massive unemployment problem, 'cause things like mountaintop removal just doesn't need that many people.
Actually pointing this out to miners is political suicide, so Trump and company left that bit out.
It's harder to charge organizations that are no longer function because even the democrats found the public opinion of them to be 'toxic' isn't it.
The charges would be filed against individuals, not the organization. And those individuals did not stop existing.
Also, Democratic politicians have a cowardice problem. Democrats fleeing from something is not evidence of much.
Too bad, that you can watch the fully unedited videos and they show that it was actually worse then that.
Uh....no they actually don't show it to be worse. Again, that's why there were no charges brought when Republicans investigated. But you need to tell yourself a story to avoid examining your beliefs, so I completely understand why you insist this is true.
You mean the case where people involved along with PP, tried to stop the release of the video and it being included in evidence?
Uh....Planned Parenthood filed the motion to force the release of the full video. How, exactly, were they trying to stop the release when they were the ones demanding the release?
To the point where the judge actively lashed out against the defense for attempting to suppress evidence?
[Citation Required]
You'll find it wasn't the Planned Parenthood side that was attempting to block the release.
Gee it's almost like you didn't even read the court transcripts in that case. Wow.
Well then, you'll have a very easy time providing that citation then!
Talking to reality, you might want to try it sometime.
The "reality" you are claiming to be true is that of a man literally convicted of lying (aka fraud). Perhaps you should spend some time digging into the public record of those you claim to be truthtellers.
California has 55 electoral votes, 7 of which are due to illegals(*). The US census counts people, not citizens, in an area to determine how many electoral votes a state gets.
Clearly we need to go back to some sort of 3/5ths compromise, right?
Also, the EC is what keeps California and NY from ganging up on all the other states.
If you eliminate the Electoral College, how does California and NY "gang up" on all the other states? They're both about 40% Republican, and those votes suddenly matter when you've eliminated the Electoral College.
There's 38.1 million people in the NYC, LA and San Francisco metropolitan areas. The other parts of both states lean heavily Republican. There's 157.6 million registered voters in the US. Let's pretend that every single person in those metro areas is a registered voter (they're nowhere close b/c kids and non-citizens). And let's pretend every single one of those 38.1 million vote for the Democrat. That would get the Democratic candidate 24% of the vote.
24% does not win an election....and to reach that we had to massively inflate the voters in those areas and give every single vote to the Democrat, something that isn't going to happen in states that are about 40% Republican.
All of which means California gets to dominate affairs in the US house of representatives and presidential elections out of proportion to their electorate.
Now you need to calculate the undocumented worker population in other states. 'Cause there's a whole lot of farm workers in middle America who don't quite have their papers in order.
A lot of jobs *were* created. Chrysler just opened an idled plant, creating 6500 more.
(please forget to count any layoffs when discussing this. Also, please ignore the massive wave of farm bankruptcies currently occurring thanks to Trump's Tariffs, one of his two significant economic changes from his predecessor. Otherwise my talking point looks a little weak. kthxbye)
The house just passed a law making private sale of guns illegal.
Hey look! You're lying. How surprising.
The bill passed in the House requires a background check when buying a gun. Private sales are still legal. Background checks do not require actually buying the gun from a licensed firearms dealer.
Assuming you are referring to the Republican party and the last presidential election:
No, the Republican party represents a majority of Electoral College voters.
That does not mean they do not represent a minority of voters. The Electoral College is the mechanism by which they can win while representing a minority of voters.
Also, you forgot Congress exists. The Republicans in the Senate represent a minority of voters, yet hold the majority.
Talking about the Electoral College (or Senate apportionment) does not change that. You are just talking about the mechanisms that enable minority rule.
Where this is going to end up highly unstable is the problem is getting worse. The lack of jobs in the "red" states mean more and more people are congregating in the "blue" states. Which will result in more and more lopsided minority rule. Which is going to be more and more unacceptable to the majority.
But our political system is built such that the minority can stop any efforts to fix this, and they'll have massive incentive to do so. So they will. Until things start really breaking down, and our government no longer derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed."
To give you another example: Project Veritas does a video on ACORN. Progressives flip their shit and call it fake, it's not.
Really? 'Cause those lovely folks at Veritas edited the videos so nicely to change the question that the ACORN person was responding to.
Also, good ol' James wore a different outfit when talking to the people at ACORN than he did in the video he released, in an attempt to bolster his argument by appearing outrageously dressed in the video. How truthful!
Also, every actual investigation of ACORN resulted in no charges, despite Veritas's claims. The vast majority of those investigations were done by Republicans. Almost like the folks at Veritas were lying....
But hey, it worked for you, so they'll keep lying to you. And you'll love them for it. See:
They then try the same with Planned Parenthood illegally selling tissues, organs and bodies
where the unedited video was released via lawsuit, and showed that the claims were completely false and the released video was selectively edited to create their case.
But hey, it worked again for you, so they'll continue to keep lying to you. And you'll love them for it.
People believe it, people then most likely refuse to look at a particular point of view because 'reasons' that sound good. In turn, people accept a falsehood because someone created a talking point that the truth was uncomfortable for "insert group."
I will admit that claim is an assumption of mine, but one I feel very safe about.
You really shouldn't feel safe about it. We've known vaccines are not 100% safe since vaccines were invented. If you're interested in the injury rate for any specific vaccine, that information is on the FDA and CDC web sites.
Vaccines will injure about one person in every 1.2M doses. The injury is usually an allergic reaction, which is easily countered in the small number of those reactions that turn out to be life threatening.
The diseases being vaccinated against cause something on the order of 1 death in every 1000 infections. You'll note that 1 in 1000 is quite a bit higher than 1 in 1,200,000. And death is a lot harder to counter than a severe allergic reaction.
Unfortunately, this isn't a choice that only affects them or their children. For example, some people want the vaccine, but are allergic to part of it. Or are immunocompromised. Or have made the horrible decision to be too young for the vaccine.
You should not get to decide to harm others without those others having a say in your decision.
Your analysis has a flaw. You forgot about herd immunity.
All those people who did get vaccinated reduced the number of infections in the unvaccinated, which then reduced the total number of people who died from infection.
You'd need to calculate how many would have died if no one got the vaccine in order to remove herd immunity. And the result of that is going to be extremely close to the mortality rate of those who were actually infected.
Vaccines are 95ish percent effective (varies by vaccine). And no, that isn't some big new discovery. We have always known that vaccines don't always work. Herd immunity protects the 5%ish where the vaccine just doesn't work.
As well as the immunocompromised and those too young to get the vaccine.
So no, antivaxxers are not just harming themselves....in fact they are usually vaccinated themselves so they're actually harming their children. In addition, there's a lot of other people put at risk when antivaxxers destroy herd immunity.
These zingers are how you help build a narrative that can be used in campaigns to change who gets elected to Congress.
From that, you can actually change things. If the elections go your way.
It's a slow and tedious process thanks to all the veto points in our political system. If you'd prefer something that could react more quickly, we'd need some major changes in the fundamentals of how our government works.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if Congress would have done it's job instead of playing political games.
Congress is doing it's job. There is no crisis on the border and what issues that are at the border are not affected by a wall.
First, border crossings are way, way, way down.
Second, Drugs and immigrants would not be stopped by a wall, because those are coming through the official ports of entry. Drugs are smuggled in other shipments (or using things like tunnels that aren't affected by a wall). The immigrants are refugees, and federal law (and treaty obligations) require that we let them into the country while investigating their claim. So they don't sneak in, they walk up to customs and say "I'm a refugee, please help". And before you declare this to be false, this is according to the Trump-run Department of Homeland Security. Also, those refugees show up to all of their court dates 96% of the time.
Third, immigrants, legal or not, commit violent crimes at a rate far lower than the native population. So no, there are not a massive wave of super predators streaming over the border.
So, why spend billions now and billions on maintenance for a wall that does not address the actual issues on the border, and requires the government to steal land from citizens? It seems like a really dumb waste of money and a violation of US some citizen's rights. Which means Congress is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing by not appropriating the money to build the wall.
Without the text of this specific bill, exact answers to your questions aren't possible.
That being said, here's the answers using the typical definitions of net neutrality.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
Nope. Net neutrality is about the behavior of ISPs. It has nothing to do with deplatforming.
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
ISPs have to treat similar data as the same. So they must treat all SMTP packets the same, or all streaming video packets the same. They would be allowed to use QoS-style techniques that prioritizes particular packets, as long as those techniques do not take into account the source or destination of the packets. For example, Netflix can have priority over email, but (Brand_new_video_streaming_service) will enjoy the same prioritization.
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu
It technically does not prevent such an agreement, but the ISP would have little to offer. Free data only for Netflix would not be allowed. Free data for video streaming in general would be allowed. Also ISPs could set up marketing tie-ins (Sign a 2 year contract, get a free year of Netflix!) as long as the packets are treated like any similar packets.
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
You need to learn about the structure of the government, and there reason why third parties are not able to wield power. For third parties to have any effect, you're going to need to completely restructure our government.
Yeah, I went through the same rose-colored-glasses thing when I was younger. Thankfully, things like GoG exist so I could play those titles I remembered as having so much more depth and fun....and figured out that >90% of them lacked substance too now that I was not longer a kid.
And the complaints about RDR2 are the opposite of your complaints. On-rails makes for a shorter, more directed game. The "slow" pace is because it's not on rails.
And there's a hell of a lot of people on both sides of that. See: Fallout New Vegas vs Fallout 3/4/76. There's a market for both, but playing a game from the "opposite" side will be significantly less fun.
Have you never returned an item to any store?
'Cause you get your sales tax back.
The web site indicates you can only do it once.
If you think riding across the map is boring, don't do it. Use fast travel, or use it as an indicator it's not a game you find enjoyable.
We don't say there's a terrible problem in books today when someone who likes mysteries does not find an autobiography interesting.
An open-world RPG is going to have certain game elements, no matter what the setting. Like repetitive "chores", and a slow pace. If you don't like those elements in your video game, don't play an open-world RPG.
It's not like RDR1 was a frantic experience, so you should know this going in to RDR2.
Why do the politicos always pitch a fit about an appointee, even before they have a chance to do anything good or bad?
Because time did not start today.
his former and future employers rich
FTFY
There are no *different* jobs. At least, not without moving to a different state. And that's not all that easy to do when all you know how to do is mine.
but I haven't heard a single solution to the widespread unemployment that grips the rust belt.
That's because we're currently running the GOP plan for these areas. It's the same as their healthcare plan: Die quickly.
Less snarky, the plan, such as it is, is to do nothing and let market forces deplete the population of these areas. Those ex-miners will either 1) die and no longer be a problem, or 2) move to a city, most likely making that city and/or state more Republican. As an added bonus, it doesn't require voting to fund any government programs.
Now, odds are most of that would have gone to the mine owners, but there'd at least be jobs in the meantime.
Not really. Mining is far more automated than the "glory days" these miners want to return to. Remove all regulations and there still would be a massive unemployment problem, 'cause things like mountaintop removal just doesn't need that many people.
Actually pointing this out to miners is political suicide, so Trump and company left that bit out.
It's harder to charge organizations that are no longer function because even the democrats found the public opinion of them to be 'toxic' isn't it.
The charges would be filed against individuals, not the organization. And those individuals did not stop existing.
Also, Democratic politicians have a cowardice problem. Democrats fleeing from something is not evidence of much.
Too bad, that you can watch the fully unedited videos and they show that it was actually worse then that.
Uh....no they actually don't show it to be worse. Again, that's why there were no charges brought when Republicans investigated. But you need to tell yourself a story to avoid examining your beliefs, so I completely understand why you insist this is true.
You mean the case where people involved along with PP, tried to stop the release of the video and it being included in evidence?
Uh....Planned Parenthood filed the motion to force the release of the full video. How, exactly, were they trying to stop the release when they were the ones demanding the release?
To the point where the judge actively lashed out against the defense for attempting to suppress evidence?
[Citation Required]
You'll find it wasn't the Planned Parenthood side that was attempting to block the release.
Gee it's almost like you didn't even read the court transcripts in that case. Wow.
Well then, you'll have a very easy time providing that citation then!
Talking to reality, you might want to try it sometime.
The "reality" you are claiming to be true is that of a man literally convicted of lying (aka fraud). Perhaps you should spend some time digging into the public record of those you claim to be truthtellers.
Before making your claim, you probably should have checked on China's CO2 emissions recently. 'Cause they're flat: https://www.google.com/search?...
California has 55 electoral votes, 7 of which are due to illegals(*). The US census counts people, not citizens, in an area to determine how many electoral votes a state gets.
Clearly we need to go back to some sort of 3/5ths compromise, right?
Also, the EC is what keeps California and NY from ganging up on all the other states.
If you eliminate the Electoral College, how does California and NY "gang up" on all the other states? They're both about 40% Republican, and those votes suddenly matter when you've eliminated the Electoral College.
There's 38.1 million people in the NYC, LA and San Francisco metropolitan areas. The other parts of both states lean heavily Republican. There's 157.6 million registered voters in the US. Let's pretend that every single person in those metro areas is a registered voter (they're nowhere close b/c kids and non-citizens). And let's pretend every single one of those 38.1 million vote for the Democrat. That would get the Democratic candidate 24% of the vote.
24% does not win an election....and to reach that we had to massively inflate the voters in those areas and give every single vote to the Democrat, something that isn't going to happen in states that are about 40% Republican.
All of which means California gets to dominate affairs in the US house of representatives and presidential elections out of proportion to their electorate.
Now you need to calculate the undocumented worker population in other states. 'Cause there's a whole lot of farm workers in middle America who don't quite have their papers in order.
A lot of jobs *were* created. Chrysler just opened an idled plant, creating 6500 more.
(please forget to count any layoffs when discussing this. Also, please ignore the massive wave of farm bankruptcies currently occurring thanks to Trump's Tariffs, one of his two significant economic changes from his predecessor. Otherwise my talking point looks a little weak. kthxbye)
The house just passed a law making private sale of guns illegal.
Hey look! You're lying. How surprising.
The bill passed in the House requires a background check when buying a gun. Private sales are still legal. Background checks do not require actually buying the gun from a licensed firearms dealer.
Assuming you are referring to the Republican party and the last presidential election:
No, the Republican party represents a majority of Electoral College voters.
That does not mean they do not represent a minority of voters. The Electoral College is the mechanism by which they can win while representing a minority of voters.
Also, you forgot Congress exists. The Republicans in the Senate represent a minority of voters, yet hold the majority.
Talking about the Electoral College (or Senate apportionment) does not change that. You are just talking about the mechanisms that enable minority rule.
Where this is going to end up highly unstable is the problem is getting worse. The lack of jobs in the "red" states mean more and more people are congregating in the "blue" states. Which will result in more and more lopsided minority rule. Which is going to be more and more unacceptable to the majority.
But our political system is built such that the minority can stop any efforts to fix this, and they'll have massive incentive to do so. So they will. Until things start really breaking down, and our government no longer derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed."
To give you another example: Project Veritas does a video on ACORN. Progressives flip their shit and call it fake, it's not.
Really? 'Cause those lovely folks at Veritas edited the videos so nicely to change the question that the ACORN person was responding to.
Also, good ol' James wore a different outfit when talking to the people at ACORN than he did in the video he released, in an attempt to bolster his argument by appearing outrageously dressed in the video. How truthful!
Also, every actual investigation of ACORN resulted in no charges, despite Veritas's claims. The vast majority of those investigations were done by Republicans. Almost like the folks at Veritas were lying....
But hey, it worked for you, so they'll keep lying to you. And you'll love them for it. See:
They then try the same with Planned Parenthood illegally selling tissues, organs and bodies
where the unedited video was released via lawsuit, and showed that the claims were completely false and the released video was selectively edited to create their case.
But hey, it worked again for you, so they'll continue to keep lying to you. And you'll love them for it.
People believe it, people then most likely refuse to look at a particular point of view because 'reasons' that sound good. In turn, people accept a falsehood because someone created a talking point that the truth was uncomfortable for "insert group."
Talking to a mirror?
I will admit that claim is an assumption of mine, but one I feel very safe about.
You really shouldn't feel safe about it. We've known vaccines are not 100% safe since vaccines were invented. If you're interested in the injury rate for any specific vaccine, that information is on the FDA and CDC web sites.
Vaccines will injure about one person in every 1.2M doses. The injury is usually an allergic reaction, which is easily countered in the small number of those reactions that turn out to be life threatening.
The diseases being vaccinated against cause something on the order of 1 death in every 1000 infections. You'll note that 1 in 1000 is quite a bit higher than 1 in 1,200,000. And death is a lot harder to counter than a severe allergic reaction.
Thiomersal was used in Pandemrix.
Check again. Pandemrix isn't a pediatric vaccine.
Unfortunately, this isn't a choice that only affects them or their children. For example, some people want the vaccine, but are allergic to part of it. Or are immunocompromised. Or have made the horrible decision to be too young for the vaccine.
You should not get to decide to harm others without those others having a say in your decision.
That information is available on the FDA's web site. And the CDC's web site. it's also published in several scientific journals.
It is not some secret information only kept by the high priests.
Your analysis has a flaw. You forgot about herd immunity.
All those people who did get vaccinated reduced the number of infections in the unvaccinated, which then reduced the total number of people who died from infection.
You'd need to calculate how many would have died if no one got the vaccine in order to remove herd immunity. And the result of that is going to be extremely close to the mortality rate of those who were actually infected.
Vaccines are 95ish percent effective (varies by vaccine). And no, that isn't some big new discovery. We have always known that vaccines don't always work. Herd immunity protects the 5%ish where the vaccine just doesn't work.
As well as the immunocompromised and those too young to get the vaccine.
So no, antivaxxers are not just harming themselves....in fact they are usually vaccinated themselves so they're actually harming their children. In addition, there's a lot of other people put at risk when antivaxxers destroy herd immunity.
These zingers are how you help build a narrative that can be used in campaigns to change who gets elected to Congress.
From that, you can actually change things. If the elections go your way.
It's a slow and tedious process thanks to all the veto points in our political system. If you'd prefer something that could react more quickly, we'd need some major changes in the fundamentals of how our government works.
I'm sorry, do you need a safe space in your movies?
Funny, that's what your grandparents said about you.
And their grandparents said about them.
And Plato's generation's grandparents said about Plato's.