You can always voluntarily demonetize and say anything you want (that fit legal bounds and are within the terms of service).
Google is a de-facto monopoly on search and video dissemination. So I think there's a reasonable argument to be made if Google impacts search results based on 'objectionable' content. But when their clients - advertisers - say, 'I don't want to pay to see my ad on that channel / content', it doesn't matter if it's hate speech or football talk. The whole point is to target ads at likely buyers. And maybe Pepsi marketing has determined the neo-nazi market isn't worth the trouble. In which case, they get to make that call. And if Google can't meet that customer need, maybe it makes sense for Pepsi to give Google the finger and yank their ads.
I mean, we used to call that a 'free market'. But when you see alt-right wingers whining on about their losing their free speech rights on a corporate platform they don't own, it seems these days things are topsy-turvy. You know, up is down, black is white, left is right.
And what percent of GTX 1080 users need their Blender to render faster?
Yeah. So, having more cores helps speed the render. The latest Blender does support Pascal. It's very fast. But your real limiting factor here is how much of the scene can you fit into the card's memory? Because if you exceed total memory capacity of the card, you'll be rendering on your system CPU.
A Titan X Pascal ships with 12GB RAM and a few more rendering cores. Compared to GTX 1080TI at 11GB, it's a marginal difference for a whopping $600 savings. So, if you're rendering 3D photorealistic in Cycles, your question is, will that 1GB difference really matter? Because if not, you'll want to buy a second GTX1080 for a bit more than one Titan X Pascal, and you'll blow a single card away in rendering times. Or buy four of them for less than 2.5x the price of two Titan Xs.
For 2D cartoons, you'll see some benefit in Blender using planes and onion skinning. But not with OpenToonz, which really doesn't have extensive GL acceleration yet. So choose hardware carefully to the projects you expect will pay the bills.
Who in their right mind does this? Pro animators, it's not just film but also advertising and motion design for web. Or architects, who often shoot proposed sites with a drone and then use a 3D model with motion tracking to composite them together for clients.
So, when you're paid by the project, each extra hour of rendertime really matters. And easily justifies a few extra thousand dollars in hardware.
I have confirmed that 30-Bit color is working on a 27-inch iMac. A 16-Bit greyscale ramp was used to test. Applications which support this capability are quite sparse. At the time of my testing Preview worked and Pixelmator did not. It is likely that applications need to optin to use this feature. The standard 24-Bit pipeline is indicated with Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888). New 30-Bit color pipelines will show Pixel Depth: 30-Bit Color (ARGB2101010) or Pixel Depth: CGSThirtyBitColor. I have also been able to get 30-Bit color working on my Dell U2713H via DisplayPort. Support seemed sparse and intermittent in earlier versions, but as of 10.11.3 everything works well in my experience.
The apple website notes these LG panels are P3 color gamut compliant. Which is a smaller color space than Adobe RGB, but probably sufficient for 10bit per channel. While the OS has supported 10 bit since a recent update to El Capitan, there are almost no Mac applications that make use of this. Unlike on Windows, where 10 bit color support and display panels have been available for several years. And note, the latest MacBook Pro panel still doesn't support real 10 bit. And if you want to use wide color with a secondary panel, you'll need to buy a laptop with a secondary GPU.
On the PC side, it's much easier to get the right hardware and get Adobe tools to display a wide color space. Apple is still far behind on what has become absolutely necessary for photographers and filmmakers.
This is exactly right. Daniel Ellsberg broke the law by photocopying and smuggling out classified documents about Vietnam War progress (or lack thereof) from the RAND corporation, where he was an a Ph.D military analyst. He provided those documents to the reporters from New York Times and Washington Post. The Nixon Administration filed an emergency injunction with the Supreme Court to suppress immanent publication by the New York Times. But the Supreme Court refused on the grounds doing so would imperil the first amendment by imposing court mandated prior restraint. See: New York Times v United States.
Now that does not mean Ellsberg could not have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1919. He absolutely broke the law and admitted as such. He was an employee with a high security clearance entrusted to prevent the release of those documents. Not steal and release them. The justice department ultimately refused to prosecute. But as we've seen with the Bush and Obama Administrations, Espionage Act investigations and prosecutions are popular these days.
Just how the US Government plans to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act is unclear. He's a non-citizen who never signed a US security clearance nor took an oath to protect classified materials. Furthermore, Wikileaks is arguably a journalistic endeavor. The government makes no distinction between official journalists and citizen journalists for first amendment protections. If the New York Times can do it, so can Julian Assange. And if they argue he's not a citizen and therefore not protected under the first amendment, how then can they argue as a non citizen he's bound by the US Espionage Act?
Perhaps a real lawyer can chime up here. I just took a grad media law class. But it sure seems like tortured logic to me.
I know a guy who hacked his old 2009 Pro tower with two new xeons and a Titan X just to give the thing a bit more life. Made it a pretty good machine performance wise and he didn't have to throw away his old software investment. But he's already transitioning off mac, so this was to keep an old tool chain functional.
The problem is investment in old software and hardware drivers is often obsoleted by Apple without consideration. Have an old copy of Adobe? On Windows, it'll probably run forever. On Mac, you're fucked. It won't run on Linux (properly), but at least supporting open source alternatives indefinitely is possible. How about old hardware? I have an ancient Creative EMU 0404 USB audio interface with two XLR inputs. After El Capitan, forget about that old (64bit intel!) driver still working. On Linux or Windows? No problem. It'll probably run as long as the thing still works.
From a hardware standpoint on the Mac line, Apple is flailing. Mac Pros are generations behind. The iMacs and Macbook Pros are supposed to be for film editors and photography / design creatives, but don't even ship with 10bit color HDR LCD panels. They lock you into hardware configurations that are next to impossible to upgrade out of. And give no flexibility to support common pro applications. It's Apple's way or the highway. I mean, why not buy Final Cut Pro X and Logic? Who needs that stuff the whole rest of the world has standardized on already.
I like MacOS. It's pretty good. There's bash and python and what I don't get out of the box I can add with homebrew. And there are some commercial apps I'm absolutely dependent on still, which I wouldn't have with Linux. In particular, Scrivener, MS Office, and Adobe. But if I have to buy these things again - particularly Adobe, Linux and Windows here I come. Lack of Adobe plugin availability on Mac is a real downer.
Apple is so focused on selling iPhones and iPads, they simply don't care about customer needs any more. It can be a damn nightmare to get real work done.
I'm fed up with Apple. Still running a 27" iMac from 2010. Good enough machine with boot SSD and 32GB RAM. But the latest machines are very behind, particularly the MacPro. Also, 5k and 4k panels don't support deep color (10bit). You're better off running AViD, Adobe, DaVinci et all on a PC with Windows. Particularly if you need HDR color. The same for free software creative tools, which also tend to run badly on Mac. Apple just doesn't support power users and creatives any longer.
For the cost of a good 5k iMac you could get two 10 bit 4k panels, a Haswell 5960 or 6850, 32-64GB RAM, and a Pascal GTX card that supports 10 bit. Adobe, et all under Win 8/10 supports 10 bit. And Blender supports 10 bit (really 32bit float color). I think there may be a path to 10 bit on Linux as well... but then you're stuck with free tools.
What are you buying that Mac for? If you're developing iPhone / iPad apps - sure. But as much as I like MacOS under the hood, it's a real PITA to do real work with. And the Pro hardware is generations behind current PCs.
Question: Can recent distributions with modern desktops handle resolution independence? Will fonts, icons, and application widgets automatically scale? If I buy a 4k monitor will it seamlessly work or will I be reading with a magnifying glass held up against the screen? I'm particularly interested in use cases with blender/makehuman, gimp/krita, synfig/opentunez, and audacity/ardour. I've been in the Mac ghetto a little too long for my own good.
Speaking is not writing. It impacts quality of prose. Though it might be a good way to bang out an initial rough, I'd still want to fine tune phrasing and word choice by keyboard.
This is Australia. Even if they did have it - and they do - they still wouldn't be able to find it. And while they're milling about looking - bah, much easier to bugger off an hour or two early to the local pub for a pint.
China’s military hacked into computer networks of civilian transportation companies hired by the Pentagon at least nine times, breaking into computers aboard a commercial ship, targeting logistics companies and uploading malicious software onto an airline’s computers, Senate investigators said Wednesday....
A yearlong investigation announced by the Senate Armed Services Committee identified at least 20 break-ins or other unspecified cyber events targeting companies, including nine successful break-ins of contractor networks....
Earlier this summer, in an apparently unrelated investigation, the US accused five members of the Chinese military of hacking computers for economic espionage purposes. It accused them of hacking into five US nuclear and technology companies’ computer systems and a major steel workers union’s system, conducting economic espionage and stealing confidential business information, sensitive trade secrets and internal communications for competitive advantage.
I'm guessing they don't like that. Which perhaps is what the United States means by "American Exceptionalism".
Exactly. The value of a PhD is diluted by accessibility. The wrong social classes have entered the marble halls of that ivory tower. What's needed is to make the PhD even more accessible by opening the gates to the front courtyard of that educational tower. That way everyone can become a PhD. And to really set yourself apart, private institutions will form to teach "Super PhDs" where only the absolute best gain entrance. Of course, earning a Super PhD takes longer. A newly minted star professor might win tenure and emeritus at the same time. But by these measures, we'll strengthen education, the labor market, the economy and freedom itself.
It's more Cancer Socialism. Clearly, an unregulated private sector education market would lower interest rates and high college tuition costs across the board by fertilizing fields of opportunity ploughed and ready for planting by the roughly calloused hands of entrepreneur students.
As we all know, there's no problem in the labor market that can't be solved with more education.
As President Obama says at the official White House web site, "Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few; rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy." Because, as he notes, "With the average earnings of college graduates at a level that is twice as high as that of workers with only a high school diploma, higher education is now the clearest pathway into the middle class."
To help sustain this middle class, the President has proposed policies that will:
Therefore, earning a PhDs must not be enough. What we need is a new credential. Something beyond PhD. A... "Super PhD" that will help high achievers stand out to those employers seeking only the best. Of course, that means longer class schedules, more lab training, in short... more education.
Don't worry, our financial institutions are here to help. Banks will be happy to lend you more with government backed student loans. It's the least they can do for a beleaguered middle class too uneducated to succeed in this high tech economy.
America is that Shiny City upon a Hill, a place where gleaming gold coins lay scattered about ripe for the picking. You only need more education to find them. A new life awaits you in that shining city on the hill. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure! So come on America, become a go-getter and land that Super PhD! The Sciences are just filled with Gold Coins of Opportunity in this Shinny City on a Hill for those with the right education.
It's the advertising that pisses me off. Easy to turn of WiFi. And I'll never do anything about tower triangulation anyway, other than yanking the battery.
I've soured on the desirability of gps in my phone. Maps just ain't worth the tracking of everywhere I go by the phone company and facebook and everyone else for targeted advertising and whatnot.
Back in 2006, then outgoing network news anchor Ted Koppel wrote a New York Times editorial stating the obvious: The Iraq war is about oil. And though the Bush Administration at the time had vociferously denied this fact, two years before that even former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil had said the same during a CBS interview.
So now Panetta's saying it will be a thirty year war. Prepare ourselves for lost treasure, spilled blood, and the tears of war over this nearly indefinite period that compares in length to England's old The War of Roses. All to control a declining resource that's causing serious global environmental harm to boot.
Scenarios generally indicate that growth in RE [Renewable Energy] will be widespread around the world. Although the precise distribution of RE deployment among regions varies substantially across scenarios, the scenarios are largely consistent in indicating widespread growth in RE deployment around the globe. In addition, the total RE deployment is higher over the long term in the group of non-Annex I countries12 than in the group of Annex I countries in most scenarios (Figure SPM.10).
[chart in document]
Scenarios generally indicate that growth in RE will be widespread around the world. Although the precise distribution of RE deployment among regions varies substantially across scenarios, the scenarios are largely consistent in indicating widespread growth in RE deployment around the globe. In addition, the total RE deployment is higher over the long term in the group of non-Annex I countries12 than in the group of Annex I countries in most scenarios (Figure SPM.10).
So a thirty year war to control world oil that ends at just about the same time global deployment of renewable systems are predicted to offset world energy needs. Huh.
Or as another staffer said, "I find the whole rulemaking context almost hilarious in many instances, because you know you're reading something, and you know it's not true. And you're guessing, you know, the person is hallucinating." Ordinary comments were, in other words, prone to error and lacked truthfulness, in the eyes of many of the Commission's staff. They also represented one person's opinion or experience, whereas according to staff, comments submitted by legal or economic experts collated information in a more systematic way, and from a much broader population of consumers.
The FCC got three million responses, or almost one percent of the entire US population. And FCC staffers deride the public comment process as filled with 'hilarious hallucinations.' Because, according to this staffer, those comments submitted by 'legal and economic experts' prepared under the employ of institutions with a vested interest "collated information in a more systematic way" and "from a much broader population of consumers."
Think about this. Actual citizen voices don't matter because private interests have the money to hire people and staff time to organize large submissions with systematically collated information about the population of Net product consumers. Do you see how citizenship to impact public policy has been stripped from the process, leaving the public as nothing more than consumers of product in a rigged market?
They think we don't understand. That we're simply unqualified to understand the nuance of policy. But that's clearly not the case. As highly qualified Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, including Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig have been stumping for Net Neutrality for the better part of a decade. These people are not policy stupid. They've submitted comments with 'systematically collated information' by nationally and internationally recognized experts.
These FCC staffers quoted would have us believe the public is misinformed and uneducated. That is the spin they want to present to the press.
It's offensive. Regardless of what position you take on the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to see the sad news. Condolences for his friends and family.
I guess we're all getting old now.
Thanks for buying and killing it, Autodesk. Really. No. Actually, I can't hate you enough.
You can always voluntarily demonetize and say anything you want (that fit legal bounds and are within the terms of service).
Google is a de-facto monopoly on search and video dissemination. So I think there's a reasonable argument to be made if Google impacts search results based on 'objectionable' content. But when their clients - advertisers - say, 'I don't want to pay to see my ad on that channel / content', it doesn't matter if it's hate speech or football talk. The whole point is to target ads at likely buyers. And maybe Pepsi marketing has determined the neo-nazi market isn't worth the trouble. In which case, they get to make that call. And if Google can't meet that customer need, maybe it makes sense for Pepsi to give Google the finger and yank their ads.
I mean, we used to call that a 'free market'. But when you see alt-right wingers whining on about their losing their free speech rights on a corporate platform they don't own, it seems these days things are topsy-turvy. You know, up is down, black is white, left is right.
It's all about justifying the hardware based on income potential.
Yeah. So, having more cores helps speed the render. The latest Blender does support Pascal. It's very fast. But your real limiting factor here is how much of the scene can you fit into the card's memory? Because if you exceed total memory capacity of the card, you'll be rendering on your system CPU.
A Titan X Pascal ships with 12GB RAM and a few more rendering cores. Compared to GTX 1080TI at 11GB, it's a marginal difference for a whopping $600 savings. So, if you're rendering 3D photorealistic in Cycles, your question is, will that 1GB difference really matter? Because if not, you'll want to buy a second GTX1080 for a bit more than one Titan X Pascal, and you'll blow a single card away in rendering times. Or buy four of them for less than 2.5x the price of two Titan Xs.
For 2D cartoons, you'll see some benefit in Blender using planes and onion skinning. But not with OpenToonz, which really doesn't have extensive GL acceleration yet. So choose hardware carefully to the projects you expect will pay the bills.
Who in their right mind does this? Pro animators, it's not just film but also advertising and motion design for web. Or architects, who often shoot proposed sites with a drone and then use a 3D model with motion tracking to composite them together for clients.
So, when you're paid by the project, each extra hour of rendertime really matters. And easily justifies a few extra thousand dollars in hardware.
http://www.astramael.com/
The apple website notes these LG panels are P3 color gamut compliant. Which is a smaller color space than Adobe RGB, but probably sufficient for 10bit per channel. While the OS has supported 10 bit since a recent update to El Capitan, there are almost no Mac applications that make use of this. Unlike on Windows, where 10 bit color support and display panels have been available for several years. And note, the latest MacBook Pro panel still doesn't support real 10 bit. And if you want to use wide color with a secondary panel, you'll need to buy a laptop with a secondary GPU.
On the PC side, it's much easier to get the right hardware and get Adobe tools to display a wide color space. Apple is still far behind on what has become absolutely necessary for photographers and filmmakers.
See here: https://www.theguardian.com/me...
This is exactly right. Daniel Ellsberg broke the law by photocopying and smuggling out classified documents about Vietnam War progress (or lack thereof) from the RAND corporation, where he was an a Ph.D military analyst. He provided those documents to the reporters from New York Times and Washington Post. The Nixon Administration filed an emergency injunction with the Supreme Court to suppress immanent publication by the New York Times. But the Supreme Court refused on the grounds doing so would imperil the first amendment by imposing court mandated prior restraint. See: New York Times v United States.
Now that does not mean Ellsberg could not have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1919. He absolutely broke the law and admitted as such. He was an employee with a high security clearance entrusted to prevent the release of those documents. Not steal and release them. The justice department ultimately refused to prosecute. But as we've seen with the Bush and Obama Administrations, Espionage Act investigations and prosecutions are popular these days.
Just how the US Government plans to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act is unclear. He's a non-citizen who never signed a US security clearance nor took an oath to protect classified materials. Furthermore, Wikileaks is arguably a journalistic endeavor. The government makes no distinction between official journalists and citizen journalists for first amendment protections. If the New York Times can do it, so can Julian Assange. And if they argue he's not a citizen and therefore not protected under the first amendment, how then can they argue as a non citizen he's bound by the US Espionage Act?
Perhaps a real lawyer can chime up here. I just took a grad media law class. But it sure seems like tortured logic to me.
I know a guy who hacked his old 2009 Pro tower with two new xeons and a Titan X just to give the thing a bit more life. Made it a pretty good machine performance wise and he didn't have to throw away his old software investment. But he's already transitioning off mac, so this was to keep an old tool chain functional.
The problem is investment in old software and hardware drivers is often obsoleted by Apple without consideration. Have an old copy of Adobe? On Windows, it'll probably run forever. On Mac, you're fucked. It won't run on Linux (properly), but at least supporting open source alternatives indefinitely is possible. How about old hardware? I have an ancient Creative EMU 0404 USB audio interface with two XLR inputs. After El Capitan, forget about that old (64bit intel!) driver still working. On Linux or Windows? No problem. It'll probably run as long as the thing still works.
From a hardware standpoint on the Mac line, Apple is flailing. Mac Pros are generations behind. The iMacs and Macbook Pros are supposed to be for film editors and photography / design creatives, but don't even ship with 10bit color HDR LCD panels. They lock you into hardware configurations that are next to impossible to upgrade out of. And give no flexibility to support common pro applications. It's Apple's way or the highway. I mean, why not buy Final Cut Pro X and Logic? Who needs that stuff the whole rest of the world has standardized on already.
I like MacOS. It's pretty good. There's bash and python and what I don't get out of the box I can add with homebrew. And there are some commercial apps I'm absolutely dependent on still, which I wouldn't have with Linux. In particular, Scrivener, MS Office, and Adobe. But if I have to buy these things again - particularly Adobe, Linux and Windows here I come. Lack of Adobe plugin availability on Mac is a real downer.
Apple is so focused on selling iPhones and iPads, they simply don't care about customer needs any more. It can be a damn nightmare to get real work done.
I'm fed up with Apple. Still running a 27" iMac from 2010. Good enough machine with boot SSD and 32GB RAM. But the latest machines are very behind, particularly the MacPro. Also, 5k and 4k panels don't support deep color (10bit). You're better off running AViD, Adobe, DaVinci et all on a PC with Windows. Particularly if you need HDR color. The same for free software creative tools, which also tend to run badly on Mac. Apple just doesn't support power users and creatives any longer.
For the cost of a good 5k iMac you could get two 10 bit 4k panels, a Haswell 5960 or 6850, 32-64GB RAM, and a Pascal GTX card that supports 10 bit. Adobe, et all under Win 8/10 supports 10 bit. And Blender supports 10 bit (really 32bit float color). I think there may be a path to 10 bit on Linux as well... but then you're stuck with free tools.
What are you buying that Mac for? If you're developing iPhone / iPad apps - sure. But as much as I like MacOS under the hood, it's a real PITA to do real work with. And the Pro hardware is generations behind current PCs.
They do have resolution independence. But not real10bit displays.
Question: Can recent distributions with modern desktops handle resolution independence? Will fonts, icons, and application widgets automatically scale? If I buy a 4k monitor will it seamlessly work or will I be reading with a magnifying glass held up against the screen? I'm particularly interested in use cases with blender/makehuman, gimp/krita, synfig/opentunez, and audacity/ardour. I've been in the Mac ghetto a little too long for my own good.
Neo-nazis. I think even anti-death penalty ACLU lawyers would have been happy to pull a lever at the Nuremberg gallows.
Speaking is not writing. It impacts quality of prose. Though it might be a good way to bang out an initial rough, I'd still want to fine tune phrasing and word choice by keyboard.
This is Australia. Even if they did have it - and they do - they still wouldn't be able to find it. And while they're milling about looking - bah, much easier to bugger off an hour or two early to the local pub for a pint.
How do US authorities feel about foreign nations hacking into US military and corporate computers? For example, this story: Chinese authorities hacked into Pentagon and other sensitive computers:
I'm guessing they don't like that. Which perhaps is what the United States means by "American Exceptionalism".
There's lots of useful free stuff for people who want to emulate ancient computers at pdp11.org.
Exactly. The value of a PhD is diluted by accessibility. The wrong social classes have entered the marble halls of that ivory tower. What's needed is to make the PhD even more accessible by opening the gates to the front courtyard of that educational tower. That way everyone can become a PhD. And to really set yourself apart, private institutions will form to teach "Super PhDs" where only the absolute best gain entrance. Of course, earning a Super PhD takes longer. A newly minted star professor might win tenure and emeritus at the same time. But by these measures, we'll strengthen education, the labor market, the economy and freedom itself.
It's more Cancer Socialism. Clearly, an unregulated private sector education market would lower interest rates and high college tuition costs across the board by fertilizing fields of opportunity ploughed and ready for planting by the roughly calloused hands of entrepreneur students.
As we all know, there's no problem in the labor market that can't be solved with more education.
As President Obama says at the official White House web site, "Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few; rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy." Because, as he notes, "With the average earnings of college graduates at a level that is twice as high as that of workers with only a high school diploma, higher education is now the clearest pathway into the middle class."
To help sustain this middle class, the President has proposed policies that will:
- Help Middle Class Families Afford College
- by Keeping Costs Down
- Strengthen Community Colleges
- Improve Transparency and Accountability
Therefore, earning a PhDs must not be enough. What we need is a new credential. Something beyond PhD. A... "Super PhD" that will help high achievers stand out to those employers seeking only the best. Of course, that means longer class schedules, more lab training, in short... more education.
Don't worry, our financial institutions are here to help. Banks will be happy to lend you more with government backed student loans. It's the least they can do for a beleaguered middle class too uneducated to succeed in this high tech economy.
America is that Shiny City upon a Hill, a place where gleaming gold coins lay scattered about ripe for the picking. You only need more education to find them. A new life awaits you in that shining city on the hill. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure! So come on America, become a go-getter and land that Super PhD! The Sciences are just filled with Gold Coins of Opportunity in this Shinny City on a Hill for those with the right education.
It's the advertising that pisses me off. Easy to turn of WiFi. And I'll never do anything about tower triangulation anyway, other than yanking the battery.
Yeah, my first thought was 'no GPS?, sign me up!'
I've soured on the desirability of gps in my phone. Maps just ain't worth the tracking of everywhere I go by the phone company and facebook and everyone else for targeted advertising and whatnot.
Back in 2006, then outgoing network news anchor Ted Koppel wrote a New York Times editorial stating the obvious: The Iraq war is about oil. And though the Bush Administration at the time had vociferously denied this fact, two years before that even former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil had said the same during a CBS interview.
So now Panetta's saying it will be a thirty year war. Prepare ourselves for lost treasure, spilled blood, and the tears of war over this nearly indefinite period that compares in length to England's old The War of Roses. All to control a declining resource that's causing serious global environmental harm to boot.
Who here notices that this 30 year timeline dovetails in nicely with the UN's IPCC's Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
So a thirty year war to control world oil that ends at just about the same time global deployment of renewable systems are predicted to offset world energy needs. Huh.
The FCC got three million responses, or almost one percent of the entire US population. And FCC staffers deride the public comment process as filled with 'hilarious hallucinations.' Because, according to this staffer, those comments submitted by 'legal and economic experts' prepared under the employ of institutions with a vested interest "collated information in a more systematic way" and "from a much broader population of consumers."
Think about this. Actual citizen voices don't matter because private interests have the money to hire people and staff time to organize large submissions with systematically collated information about the population of Net product consumers. Do you see how citizenship to impact public policy has been stripped from the process, leaving the public as nothing more than consumers of product in a rigged market?
They think we don't understand. That we're simply unqualified to understand the nuance of policy. But that's clearly not the case. As highly qualified Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, including Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig have been stumping for Net Neutrality for the better part of a decade. These people are not policy stupid. They've submitted comments with 'systematically collated information' by nationally and internationally recognized experts.
These FCC staffers quoted would have us believe the public is misinformed and uneducated. That is the spin they want to present to the press.
It's offensive. Regardless of what position you take on the matter.