Maybe they're not. My point was that voting for someone who supports X does not mean you support X, especially when you only have 2 choices. This was a response to someone making a claim about the sexism of voters for either candidate.
I don't know what Clinton knew. But other people certainly knew. Nate Silver (the guy who made a model that correctly predicted every state in 2012) has a blog called 538. His model categorized 10 states as swing states. These were states that could actually be conceivably won by either candidate. In 2012, his model predicted all swing states, but that was a fluke. You can't really accurately predict swing states (that's what makes them swing states). The polls indicated that Clinton was in the lead on 9/10 of those swing states, but a small polling error (well within normal polling errors) occurred and flipped 5 of those swing states to Trump. This is why 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, because swing states are easily flipped.
Why didn't Clinton stop in Minnesota? I have no idea. They had a plan. She was always *somewhere*, and I guarantee that that somewhere was the place she thought she needed to be at any given moment (She does care about winning). Maybe she thought other states were more important. Maybe she or her strategists made a mistake. Or maybe it wouldn't have mattered. Who knows.
The election was really close, which means there are lots of drastically different outcomes that are entirely possible. There are always bad pollsters and bad pundits making bad predictions in every election. But if you listened to the legitimate data analysts (like Nate silver/538), the had been warning that this was a realistic outcome for months.
I don't have a problem with Trump's stance. I have a problem with his ability to control himself. We are electing a child to the office of president. I have a 2 year old daughter. She is wonderful 95 % of the time. I would not trust her with the nuclear codes. Sometimes she doesn't want to take a bath and throws shit at me.
So yes, I think Trump will be non-interventionist, until someone insults him, and then instead of tweets it's aircraft carriers getting deployed.
I think it's the same media-driven syndrome that beat Hillary. The constant fear-mongering, lies, paranoia. "Trump can't win, he's *ist! why, if he wins it's nuclear war! Why, the stock market is going to crash! OMG he has a 1% chance of winning, it's Hillary for sure with 323 electoral votes!".
538 was predicting Trump had a 1 in 3 chance of winning before the election, and they were calling all the other people saying trump had a much smaller chance of winning stupid. I'm not sure why more people didn't believe them. And the stock market is at least starting to crash.
Being part of the "blue wall" doesn't mean that a state wasn't a swing state. In fact it means the opposite. The truly safe states aren't part of any walls, and no one talks about them because they don't matter.
538's model gave Minnesota a 15% chance of going to Trump. This is about a 1 in 6 chance (i.e. Russian Roulette). This was definitely a state that was known to be in play before the election. Same with Wisconsin and Michigan.
Overall, Trump had a 1 in 3 chance of winning the election according to 538. This is basically a tossup. And if Trump did win, this is pretty much exactly one of the ways it was predicted to go down.
Yes votes for third parties had an effect. All the votes in swing states had an effect. But some things had a much bigger effect (like voter turnout). And you can blame third parties if you want, but I suspect that if you removed all the third parties the outcome would very likely be the same considering they draw votes from both major parties. Post election analysis will tell us the answer, and it might turn out that 3rd parties made the difference.
Incidentally, contrary to popular belief, third parties did not make a difference in 2000 (to elect Bush) nor 1992 (to elect Clinton). Nader drew support from both major parties evenly, and More democrats voted for Bush in Florida than voted for Nader. Similarly, Perot drew about the same number of votes from democrats and republicans. It doesn't have to happen that way, but incidentally in the past it has. We will see if that remains true or not.
But if we are going to play the blame game (which I don't recommend), I would say the best argument is that the DNC lost the election in June when they elected Hillary over Bernie (who was widely popular among both democrats and even many republicans). That may or may not be true and we will never know for sure, but that seems much more convincing to me than the claim that 3rd parties cost Clinton the election. I think it was a terrible mistake to run an unpopular establishment candidate against Trump rather than a popular insurgent candidate that would deflate much of his appeal rather than bolster it. But like I said. I'm not blaming the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries, because I don't think it is fair to expect people to be able to predict the future.
What Trump indicates and what happens have no relation to each other. I am not concerned about a war with any specific country. I am worried that Trump is not capable of any sort of restraint, and will make his judgements as commander in chief based on emotion and ego. We are friends with Russia and China and Europe, etc until someone makes fun of him, and then there is nothing to stop this idiot man-child from unleashing our military on them, aside from shit like military officials refusing to obey orders.
Contrast with Clinton, who has repeatedly indicated she wants regime change is Syria, at the very least a No-Fly Zone in Syria....even though the airspace of the Syrian government is rather actively protected by the Russian military.
I was also very afraid of war under a Clinton presidency. I expect Clinton to start wars whenever they further her agenda. I expect Donald Trump to start wars randomly based on however his idiot mind works.
Did voting for Clinton mean that you support the Iraq War, the patriot act, death penalty, war on drugs, etc? No. People voted for her despite that stuff. Some people voted for Trump because he was sexist, and some voted for him despite it. Same shit.
It's not sexist to vote for Trump, but it is pretty clear that Trump himself is a sexist. Maybe you could argue that Clinton is also sexist (or at least tries to benefit from sexism), and I'd probably agree with you. Trump was probably hurt by his sexism (although not enough to prevent him from still winning a very close election).
It depends what state you voted in. If it was not a close state, your vote did not effect the outcome of the election. I am also a small "el" libertarian. I voted for Johnson in California. I am really worried that Trump will start WW3, but this was a carefully thought out vote that was contingent on the fact that California was not a swing state. I did my best to help democrats in congress in the event of a Trump presidency, and I even advocated for 3rd party supporters in swing states to vote for Clinton.
I don't think the number of emails deleted is significant at all. It's quite possible to delete a million benign emails and to delete only 1 super incriminating email. As far as I am concerned they are equally guilty in terms of trying to destroy information and being dishonest about it, although it is entirely possible that the information itself that Bush destroyed could be more incriminating. And once again, the number of emails deleted makes no difference. If Bush has intentionally deleted only 1 email he would be just as corrupt.
I don't think it would actually be that hard to prove that members of the Bush administration lied. It's not like you need to prove a intentional deception beyond any doubt, just beyond any reasonable doubt to a judge or jury.
Secondly, there are many more things that the Bush administration could be charged besides lying, such as violating the constitution by illegally spying on people and for engaging in torture.
That's not true. The republicans and democrats may fight over elections, but they are absolutely on the same side when it comes to insulating politicians of both affiliations from criminal prosecution. This is why none of the Bush administration was ever prosecuted under the Obama administration. Trump is breaking from tradition in calling for Hillary to be jailed.
But the middle of an election campaign isn't the best time to run this through the media grinder, every interesting tidbit end sup looking like a fresh scandal.
Best time for who? It seems like exactly the best time for the media. All this stuff is only exciting with an election looming.
You have a constitutional right to not be not advertised to because of your race/religion/gender/other protected status.
You definitely don't, because the constitution is a set of restrictions on what the government is allowed to do to its citizens.
Also, even if it were, then Hollywood would be constantly violating the constitution by only offering roles to actors that matched the race/sex of that role. Is it messed up that the role of Martin Luther King Jr. was offered to David Oyelowo as opposed to Angelina Jolie, because of Mr. Oyelowo's race and gender?
Frankly, I hate targeted ads, and would be quite happy with a law against targeted advertising. If for no other reason than it eliminates like 95% of the well-funded efforts to violate my privacy.
Why not just make a law against advertising in general?
Telling someone to go back to middle school to learn how to comprehend incoherent sentences is pretty laughable. I have a degree in computer science from a reputable university, but still I only know how to decipher properly formed sentences.
As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.
It is not triggered by congestion, but the purpose of it is congestion mitigation. Throttling people to 3G speeds when the network is not congested is dumb. But this practice is pretty much standard for all ISPs. If you have a 5 Mbps cable internet plan, it's not like they let you go at 100Mbps when there is no congestion.
Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan automatically terminated, all of which other providers are doing.
I agree. But I think the term "unlimited" is misleading, because all plans from every ISP are limited in some way. So seeing "unlimited data" in an advertisement, doesn't tell you anything. You have to look at what that means specifically.
Still, it would be really nice to see "unlimited" plans disappear completely. With the exception of the not-artificially-limited plans customers actually expect: No matter how much you download, you'll always be treated just like every other customer. Yeah, there's still technical limitations, but if you object to technical limitations, "unlimited" becomes a completely useless word in almost every context, not just phone plans.
I would love to see "unlimited" advertisements be replaced by a clear specification of what the limits are by all ISPs.
Yes words mean things. Unlimited means something. It means something that no ISP ever could possibly deliver.
Every ISP is going to reach network capacity at certain times and be required to make a decision about who gets throttled. T-Mobile decides to give a priority to people who have not already transmitted a lot of data. Another ISP may decide to throttle everyone on the network at any given time equally. Or maybe they will just always pre-throttle everyone to the point where they can basically guarantee that everyone can access their data without further throttling
Let's say you have capacity to transmit 6 packets a second. We have 2 customers A, and B that can transfer data at 4 packets a second (pps). If they never try to transfer at the same time, then they can always go at full speed. But what do you do when they want to transfer at the same time?
Scenario 1:
Fair throttling base don instantaneous rate
Both A and B are throttled to 3 pps whenever they are both transferring.
Scenario 2:
Fair throttling based on total data sent over time.
Throttle the person who has sent the most data to 2 pps
Let the other person go at 4 pps until they become the heavier user
Scenario 3:
Throttling based on ensuring consistent quality of service:
Throttle both A and B to 3pps at ALL times, even if they are the only one using the network.
Which one is more fair? It is subjective, but the point is that there is not way to deal with the demand on a network exceeding supply other than limiting the amount of data that some people can get.
None of them are "unlimited". They all employ some type of "throttling" strategy when at network capacity (although Scenario 2 is what is most associated with ISP throttling).
My point is not that T-Mobile is right in advertising "unlimited" data, but that a savvy customer should be skeptical of the term "unlimited data" and find out specifically what this means, because it certainly can't mean getting data any time you want at unlimited speed.
In the case of T-Mobile, I don't even think they ever specify data rates at all other than vague terms like 4G and 3G, which refer vaguely to the generation of network rather than the actual rates. You can have a really slow 4G connection.
You can have a throttled connection on a fast network that's faster than an unthrottled connection on a slower network.
It's not that T-Mobile advertised something and didn't deliver it. It's that they advertised something vague and/or impossible.
People are mad because they have an expectation of how fast/consistent their connection would be and their experience didn't match their expectation. I'm saying that terms like "unlimited" don't do anything to help clarify expectations in any scenario, with or without throttling.
Maybe ISPs could present a standard set of statistics like:
minimum rate, maximum rate, data cap
Gold Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = none
Silver Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = 2 GB then throttled to min: 0.5 Mbps, max: 1 Mbps, cap: none
Economy Plan: min: 0. 5 Mbps, max 0.5 Mbps, cap = none
Any technically-competent person would realize that there are always limits. There is a limit to how much data you can download in a pay period regardless of whether you are being throttled. "No-Throttling" and "unlimited" don't mean the same thing, because "unlimited" is either impossible or incoherent, and "no-throttling" is something that is realistic.
Is that [arguing] what you were doing? It seemed more like you were struggling to understand what a cable news channel was, despite plenty of help from me.
Then you have to remove FOX from your list and that gives the Republicans zero channels. Good lord you are really too stupid to see how your own argument fails that easily?
First of all, that wasn't my argument (as I have said 3 times at this point). It was my refutation of your argument. My argument is not even predicated on the facts of your argument being false (which they are anyway). My refutation of the facts of your argument is a bonus beyond my main argument which was disproving the logic of your argument.
Fox *NEWS* *IS* a cable news channel, like how ms*NBC* is a cable news station
Fox, and NBC are *NOT* cable news news stations, they are broadcast networks.
No wonder you are a leftist, you are stupid!
I'm actually a libertarian, though I am not surprised you would just assume you know something that you actually don't
And I hope to God I never have to use any software written by such a dumb and illogical person.
Conservatives have their own dumb sub-cultures, and liberals have the whole mainsplaining, white male privilege, safe space, trigger warning bullshit. It doesn't mean every liberal and every conservative is like that.
ABC and NBC are broadcast network television networks, that happen to have *some* news programs. They are not 24 hour news channels. MSNBC is a cable news channel owned by NBC
Reject the premise all you want, the premise is valid since most people get media from TV and are impacted by bias.
What you just said, does not contradict or even address anything I said. I never said people don't watch TV nor that they are not impacted by bias. In fact I said the opposite.
The *crux* of what I said, is that the number of left vs. right biased channels doesn't matter. What matters is how many viewers those channels are reaching. If there are 2 left wing cable news channels and 1 right wing cable news channel, but the right wing news channel has double the viewership of the 2 left wing channels, then the amount of left vs. right propaganda is the same.
The same goes for radio. If all the left wing people get their news from liberal TV channels, and all the right wingers get their news from conservative talk radio, that doesn't mean that there is a liberal or a conservative bias in media, just in the form that liberals and conservatives choose to consume their media.
Liberals tried to get a bigger stake in radio, and pretty much failed. Air America was supposed to be the counter balance to conservative talk radio, and they dissolved in 2010.
Web sites are the only place where you can find any parity.
Yeah, because in radio, it's the opposite, where right wing media dominates.
Liberals have a larger portion of TV and conservatives have a larger portion of radio. There is plenty of bias, but it's basically even.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they're not. My point was that voting for someone who supports X does not mean you support X, especially when you only have 2 choices. This was a response to someone making a claim about the sexism of voters for either candidate.
I don't know what Clinton knew. But other people certainly knew. Nate Silver (the guy who made a model that correctly predicted every state in 2012) has a blog called 538. His model categorized 10 states as swing states. These were states that could actually be conceivably won by either candidate. In 2012, his model predicted all swing states, but that was a fluke. You can't really accurately predict swing states (that's what makes them swing states). The polls indicated that Clinton was in the lead on 9/10 of those swing states, but a small polling error (well within normal polling errors) occurred and flipped 5 of those swing states to Trump. This is why 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, because swing states are easily flipped.
Why didn't Clinton stop in Minnesota? I have no idea. They had a plan. She was always *somewhere*, and I guarantee that that somewhere was the place she thought she needed to be at any given moment (She does care about winning). Maybe she thought other states were more important. Maybe she or her strategists made a mistake. Or maybe it wouldn't have mattered. Who knows.
The election was really close, which means there are lots of drastically different outcomes that are entirely possible. There are always bad pollsters and bad pundits making bad predictions in every election. But if you listened to the legitimate data analysts (like Nate silver/538), the had been warning that this was a realistic outcome for months.
I don't have a problem with Trump's stance. I have a problem with his ability to control himself. We are electing a child to the office of president. I have a 2 year old daughter. She is wonderful 95 % of the time. I would not trust her with the nuclear codes. Sometimes she doesn't want to take a bath and throws shit at me.
So yes, I think Trump will be non-interventionist, until someone insults him, and then instead of tweets it's aircraft carriers getting deployed.
I think it's the same media-driven syndrome that beat Hillary. The constant fear-mongering, lies, paranoia. "Trump can't win, he's *ist! why, if he wins it's nuclear war! Why, the stock market is going to crash! OMG he has a 1% chance of winning, it's Hillary for sure with 323 electoral votes!".
538 was predicting Trump had a 1 in 3 chance of winning before the election, and they were calling all the other people saying trump had a much smaller chance of winning stupid. I'm not sure why more people didn't believe them. And the stock market is at least starting to crash.
Being part of the "blue wall" doesn't mean that a state wasn't a swing state. In fact it means the opposite. The truly safe states aren't part of any walls, and no one talks about them because they don't matter.
538's model gave Minnesota a 15% chance of going to Trump. This is about a 1 in 6 chance (i.e. Russian Roulette). This was definitely a state that was known to be in play before the election. Same with Wisconsin and Michigan.
Overall, Trump had a 1 in 3 chance of winning the election according to 538. This is basically a tossup. And if Trump did win, this is pretty much exactly one of the ways it was predicted to go down.
Yes votes for third parties had an effect. All the votes in swing states had an effect. But some things had a much bigger effect (like voter turnout). And you can blame third parties if you want, but I suspect that if you removed all the third parties the outcome would very likely be the same considering they draw votes from both major parties. Post election analysis will tell us the answer, and it might turn out that 3rd parties made the difference.
Incidentally, contrary to popular belief, third parties did not make a difference in 2000 (to elect Bush) nor 1992 (to elect Clinton). Nader drew support from both major parties evenly, and More democrats voted for Bush in Florida than voted for Nader. Similarly, Perot drew about the same number of votes from democrats and republicans. It doesn't have to happen that way, but incidentally in the past it has. We will see if that remains true or not.
But if we are going to play the blame game (which I don't recommend), I would say the best argument is that the DNC lost the election in June when they elected Hillary over Bernie (who was widely popular among both democrats and even many republicans). That may or may not be true and we will never know for sure, but that seems much more convincing to me than the claim that 3rd parties cost Clinton the election. I think it was a terrible mistake to run an unpopular establishment candidate against Trump rather than a popular insurgent candidate that would deflate much of his appeal rather than bolster it. But like I said. I'm not blaming the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries, because I don't think it is fair to expect people to be able to predict the future.
What Trump indicates and what happens have no relation to each other. I am not concerned about a war with any specific country. I am worried that Trump is not capable of any sort of restraint, and will make his judgements as commander in chief based on emotion and ego. We are friends with Russia and China and Europe, etc until someone makes fun of him, and then there is nothing to stop this idiot man-child from unleashing our military on them, aside from shit like military officials refusing to obey orders.
Contrast with Clinton, who has repeatedly indicated she wants regime change is Syria, at the very least a No-Fly Zone in Syria....even though the airspace of the Syrian government is rather actively protected by the Russian military.
I was also very afraid of war under a Clinton presidency. I expect Clinton to start wars whenever they further her agenda. I expect Donald Trump to start wars randomly based on however his idiot mind works.
Did voting for Clinton mean that you support the Iraq War, the patriot act, death penalty, war on drugs, etc? No. People voted for her despite that stuff. Some people voted for Trump because he was sexist, and some voted for him despite it. Same shit.
It's not sexist to vote for Trump, but it is pretty clear that Trump himself is a sexist. Maybe you could argue that Clinton is also sexist (or at least tries to benefit from sexism), and I'd probably agree with you. Trump was probably hurt by his sexism (although not enough to prevent him from still winning a very close election).
It depends what state you voted in. If it was not a close state, your vote did not effect the outcome of the election. I am also a small "el" libertarian. I voted for Johnson in California. I am really worried that Trump will start WW3, but this was a carefully thought out vote that was contingent on the fact that California was not a swing state. I did my best to help democrats in congress in the event of a Trump presidency, and I even advocated for 3rd party supporters in swing states to vote for Clinton.
I don't think the number of emails deleted is significant at all. It's quite possible to delete a million benign emails and to delete only 1 super incriminating email. As far as I am concerned they are equally guilty in terms of trying to destroy information and being dishonest about it, although it is entirely possible that the information itself that Bush destroyed could be more incriminating. And once again, the number of emails deleted makes no difference. If Bush has intentionally deleted only 1 email he would be just as corrupt.
I don't think it would actually be that hard to prove that members of the Bush administration lied. It's not like you need to prove a intentional deception beyond any doubt, just beyond any reasonable doubt to a judge or jury.
Secondly, there are many more things that the Bush administration could be charged besides lying, such as violating the constitution by illegally spying on people and for engaging in torture.
It certainly is about time someone broke that tradition. It's too bad that person is a total fucking idiot with no self control.
That's not true. The republicans and democrats may fight over elections, but they are absolutely on the same side when it comes to insulating politicians of both affiliations from criminal prosecution. This is why none of the Bush administration was ever prosecuted under the Obama administration. Trump is breaking from tradition in calling for Hillary to be jailed.
But the middle of an election campaign isn't the best time to run this through the media grinder, every interesting tidbit end sup looking like a fresh scandal.
Best time for who? It seems like exactly the best time for the media. All this stuff is only exciting with an election looming.
You have a constitutional right to not be not advertised to because of your race/religion/gender/other protected status.
You definitely don't, because the constitution is a set of restrictions on what the government is allowed to do to its citizens.
Also, even if it were, then Hollywood would be constantly violating the constitution by only offering roles to actors that matched the race/sex of that role. Is it messed up that the role of Martin Luther King Jr. was offered to David Oyelowo as opposed to Angelina Jolie, because of Mr. Oyelowo's race and gender?
Frankly, I hate targeted ads, and would be quite happy with a law against targeted advertising. If for no other reason than it eliminates like 95% of the well-funded efforts to violate my privacy.
Why not just make a law against advertising in general?
Telling someone to go back to middle school to learn how to comprehend incoherent sentences is pretty laughable. I have a degree in computer science from a reputable university, but still I only know how to decipher properly formed sentences.
I think T-Mobile is relatively clear compared with other carriers. But they, as well as most ISPs, could be clearer.
As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.
It is not triggered by congestion, but the purpose of it is congestion mitigation. Throttling people to 3G speeds when the network is not congested is dumb. But this practice is pretty much standard for all ISPs. If you have a 5 Mbps cable internet plan, it's not like they let you go at 100Mbps when there is no congestion.
Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan automatically terminated, all of which other providers are doing.
I agree. But I think the term "unlimited" is misleading, because all plans from every ISP are limited in some way. So seeing "unlimited data" in an advertisement, doesn't tell you anything. You have to look at what that means specifically.
Still, it would be really nice to see "unlimited" plans disappear completely. With the exception of the not-artificially-limited plans customers actually expect: No matter how much you download, you'll always be treated just like every other customer. Yeah, there's still technical limitations, but if you object to technical limitations, "unlimited" becomes a completely useless word in almost every context, not just phone plans.
I would love to see "unlimited" advertisements be replaced by a clear specification of what the limits are by all ISPs.
Yes words mean things. Unlimited means something. It means something that no ISP ever could possibly deliver.
Every ISP is going to reach network capacity at certain times and be required to make a decision about who gets throttled. T-Mobile decides to give a priority to people who have not already transmitted a lot of data. Another ISP may decide to throttle everyone on the network at any given time equally. Or maybe they will just always pre-throttle everyone to the point where they can basically guarantee that everyone can access their data without further throttling
Let's say you have capacity to transmit 6 packets a second. We have 2 customers A, and B that can transfer data at 4 packets a second (pps). If they never try to transfer at the same time, then they can always go at full speed. But what do you do when they want to transfer at the same time?
Scenario 1:
Fair throttling base don instantaneous rate
Both A and B are throttled to 3 pps whenever they are both transferring.
Scenario 2:
Fair throttling based on total data sent over time.
Throttle the person who has sent the most data to 2 pps
Let the other person go at 4 pps until they become the heavier user
Scenario 3:
Throttling based on ensuring consistent quality of service:
Throttle both A and B to 3pps at ALL times, even if they are the only one using the network.
Which one is more fair? It is subjective, but the point is that there is not way to deal with the demand on a network exceeding supply other than limiting the amount of data that some people can get.
None of them are "unlimited". They all employ some type of "throttling" strategy when at network capacity (although Scenario 2 is what is most associated with ISP throttling).
My point is not that T-Mobile is right in advertising "unlimited" data, but that a savvy customer should be skeptical of the term "unlimited data" and find out specifically what this means, because it certainly can't mean getting data any time you want at unlimited speed.
In the case of T-Mobile, I don't even think they ever specify data rates at all other than vague terms like 4G and 3G, which refer vaguely to the generation of network rather than the actual rates. You can have a really slow 4G connection.
You can have a throttled connection on a fast network that's faster than an unthrottled connection on a slower network.
It's not that T-Mobile advertised something and didn't deliver it. It's that they advertised something vague and/or impossible.
People are mad because they have an expectation of how fast/consistent their connection would be and their experience didn't match their expectation. I'm saying that terms like "unlimited" don't do anything to help clarify expectations in any scenario, with or without throttling.
Maybe ISPs could present a standard set of statistics like:
minimum rate, maximum rate, data cap
Gold Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = none
Silver Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = 2 GB then throttled to min: 0.5 Mbps, max: 1 Mbps, cap: none
Economy Plan: min: 0. 5 Mbps, max 0.5 Mbps, cap = none
You're an idiot if you can't [incoherent rambling that doesn't address or suggest comprehension of what actually I said]
WTF are you talking about?
Any technically-competent person would realize that there are always limits. There is a limit to how much data you can download in a pay period regardless of whether you are being throttled. "No-Throttling" and "unlimited" don't mean the same thing, because "unlimited" is either impossible or incoherent, and "no-throttling" is something that is realistic.
No point in arguing with a moron.
Is that [arguing] what you were doing? It seemed more like you were struggling to understand what a cable news channel was, despite plenty of help from me.
Then you have to remove FOX from your list and that gives the Republicans zero channels. Good lord you are really too stupid to see how your own argument fails that easily?
First of all, that wasn't my argument (as I have said 3 times at this point). It was my refutation of your argument. My argument is not even predicated on the facts of your argument being false (which they are anyway). My refutation of the facts of your argument is a bonus beyond my main argument which was disproving the logic of your argument.
Fox *NEWS* *IS* a cable news channel, like how ms*NBC* is a cable news station
Fox, and NBC are *NOT* cable news news stations, they are broadcast networks.
No wonder you are a leftist, you are stupid!
I'm actually a libertarian, though I am not surprised you would just assume you know something that you actually don't
And I hope to God I never have to use any software written by such a dumb and illogical person.
Conservatives have their own dumb sub-cultures, and liberals have the whole mainsplaining, white male privilege, safe space, trigger warning bullshit. It doesn't mean every liberal and every conservative is like that.
Which is good, because it means he doesn't bear the shame of white privilege, and his opinion is capable of being valid.
ABC and NBC are not Cable stations?
I said cable *news* station.
ABC and NBC are broadcast network television networks, that happen to have *some* news programs. They are not 24 hour news channels. MSNBC is a cable news channel owned by NBC
Reject the premise all you want, the premise is valid since most people get media from TV and are impacted by bias.
What you just said, does not contradict or even address anything I said. I never said people don't watch TV nor that they are not impacted by bias. In fact I said the opposite.
The *crux* of what I said, is that the number of left vs. right biased channels doesn't matter. What matters is how many viewers those channels are reaching. If there are 2 left wing cable news channels and 1 right wing cable news channel, but the right wing news channel has double the viewership of the 2 left wing channels, then the amount of left vs. right propaganda is the same.
The same goes for radio. If all the left wing people get their news from liberal TV channels, and all the right wingers get their news from conservative talk radio, that doesn't mean that there is a liberal or a conservative bias in media, just in the form that liberals and conservatives choose to consume their media.
Liberals tried to get a bigger stake in radio, and pretty much failed. Air America was supposed to be the counter balance to conservative talk radio, and they dissolved in 2010.
Web sites are the only place where you can find any parity.
Yeah, because in radio, it's the opposite, where right wing media dominates.
Liberals have a larger portion of TV and conservatives have a larger portion of radio. There is plenty of bias, but it's basically even.