So big countries with high per capita production have high per capita carbon emissions? I guess carbon emissions must be related to production and living standards then, with lower carbon emissions correlated to lower standards of living.
Do you think this is why there might be some resistance to schemes to reduce carbon emissions at any cost?
Tell it how you like. Being a captive voting bloc of one party hasn't been great for black folks. That was the point. And it's hard to see how it might help in future.
It's one thing to read "I have a dream speech". It's another to listen to it, and it's yet another to watch it.
Too bad he told black folks to all vote for one party. If they split it up more, black folks would have 2 parties trying to appeal to them in different ways to get their votes. Versus now, where they have one answer, and the D party spends it's time trying to scare them into voting, while the R party tries to scare others into voting the other way.
Obama's careful and thoughtful delivery of his policy, conveys that he understands it.
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period."
Trump's emotional delivery conveys that he understands the "common man".
I'm sure he will tell "the common man" it's the other side's fault when he fails. I wonder what the "resistance" has planned to deal with the anger from "the common man"? If it continues to be dismiss and divide and deplore, things will continue to get worse.
I'll add that these visual cues can be deceiving, and often, people overly depend on them and come to a poor result.
These examples don't address whether judging credibility solved any problem for anyone. (Except the court witness one, and that one isn't related to TV news.).
These can help you make judgment calls about a person's credibility.
I can't imagine caring enough about someone's credibility one way or the other for it to be worthwhile. Do you have an example of when this judgement was needed?
Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Danger is something that is perceived, not necessarily something that actually hurts someone. So yes, some may see a danger.
If you can prove to everyone that it's impossible that anything could ever go wrong, you should hurry up and do that. Otherwise expect people to be protective of their children.
On the other hand, what's the benefit to the other 99.99% of society if transgender people feel comfortable about their bathroom use? And why does their comfort override parents' comfort? (These are genuine questions, BTW. If you want to advocate for a bathroom policy, shouldn't you be able to answer them thoughtfully?)
Watching TV news is a horrible use of time. TV news has negative value -- if you consume it, your life will be worse than if you don't. And your net knowledge of the world ("net" meaning information - misinformation) may go down.
Especially if there's some sort of emotional resonance or if it seems especially convenient to someone's worldview.
Daily Mail seems OK. And factual financial news is rarely biased to the point of uselessness. Tech news can be ok.
Also, read stories about what happened, not stories about what might happen, or stories about what it might mean to someone, or stories about someone reacting to what happened. Facts, not "meaning".
Not sure whether that's sarcasm, but it's "economic productivity" - a.k.a. value creation divided by time. Some people like to look down on entertainment as second-rate, but a huge quantity of second-rate [something of value] has more total value than a moderate amount of the best. That reality makes some people feel sad, but it's still reality.
Thanks. That's the PR version and even that seems to clearly disallow a wireless service prioritizing voice traffic over someone streaming Netflix at 4K.
There's also nothing mentioned about enforcement mechanisms.
Please show which provider is slowing down google.com packets to help bing.com. If I happened, it's not imaginary.
Honestly, I'm for a lot harsher regulations on Comcast than Net Neutrality. Their monopoly needs to be ended. Net Neutrality doesn't address the real problem: monopoly providers and local governments that enable and support them.
There literally is no regulatory risk involved in net neutrality.
That's the problem with making policy based on storytelling. In the story, Net Neutrality is all good, with no bad things. There's a villain, the evil Comcast, trying to slow down google.com (for reasons the storyteller never really explains). And the only ones who can save the day are the heroic regulators, one dimensional characters of pure good, dedicating their life to righteousness and protecting the holy google.com packets. The heroes win, nothing ever goes wrong (in the story), and they all live happily ever after. The End.
Reality has regulators who expand their mission once they start. Real networks have oversubscription problems and congestion and real network operators don't think they should have to talk to the Internet police every time someone complains. A wireless operator doesn't think phone calls should lose out to people streaming Netflix at 4K, and wants to prioritize voice packets without asking Washington DC for permission. An operator who never treated any packets different from any others doesn't think he owes regulators even a minute of his time. A company VP is calculating ROI and he doesn't use "they all lived happily ever after" in his projections.
Who benefits by keeping the NSA from mandating back doors in all encryption schemes? Who benefits from VPNs being legal? Who benefits from giving accused criminals the presumption of innocence? Who benefits from any limitation on government power or authority?
Free people benefit.
Rules that would encourage and reward competitive, non-monopoly Internet environments specifically benefit people who want more choices of ISPs. And anyone who wants faster Internet benefits when providers decide to invest and expand rather than deciding the ROI is too small to be worth the regulatory risks.
This is a very simplistic rule that is quite practical.
It's a rule that was made up to solve a problem that was imagined. We should have rules that are designed for real problems. But we can only consider one rule, because of the Net Neutrality dogma.
If you wanted to talk about a real case, then why did you make up the imaginary bing.com, google.com scenario?
How about a rule that only applies providers like Comcast in monopoly or near monopoly situations? And everyone else in non-monopoly situations is free of such rules. You could even make it considerably harsher than net neutrality, to make monopolies disadvantageous. That would start to address the real issues instead of the imaginary ones.
I'd say we should have as few rules as practical, and that we shouldn't enact real rules and police them with real internet police because of some imaginary scenarios involving google.com.
Real problems can be addressed with fewer, more narrowly focused rules that respect all the interested parties, most especially the public. But the Net Neutrality side is too dogmatic, refusing to acknowledge anyone else's interests.
Declaring anyone who doesn't agree with you a "troll" because "what about my imaginary google.com scenario" isn't really a way to have a discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
And exaggeration accounts for the other 200%.
Why does a person have to be in some group or another's pocket to make a decision?
Because groupthinkers can't imagine anyone deciding anything independently.
Not me. I'm not a religious environmentalist, so my energy use isn't a sin.
I looked for some but I don't see any. Where does it usually hide? If I see some I'll try breathing it and report back.
So big countries with high per capita production have high per capita carbon emissions? I guess carbon emissions must be related to production and living standards then, with lower carbon emissions correlated to lower standards of living.
Do you think this is why there might be some resistance to schemes to reduce carbon emissions at any cost?
Tell it how you like. Being a captive voting bloc of one party hasn't been great for black folks. That was the point. And it's hard to see how it might help in future.
It's one thing to read "I have a dream speech". It's another to listen to it, and it's yet another to watch it.
Too bad he told black folks to all vote for one party. If they split it up more, black folks would have 2 parties trying to appeal to them in different ways to get their votes. Versus now, where they have one answer, and the D party spends it's time trying to scare them into voting, while the R party tries to scare others into voting the other way.
Obama's careful and thoughtful delivery of his policy, conveys that he understands it.
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period."
Trump's emotional delivery conveys that he understands the "common man".
I'm sure he will tell "the common man" it's the other side's fault when he fails. I wonder what the "resistance" has planned to deal with the anger from "the common man"? If it continues to be dismiss and divide and deplore, things will continue to get worse.
I'll add that these visual cues can be deceiving, and often, people overly depend on them and come to a poor result.
Yes.
These examples don't address whether judging credibility solved any problem for anyone. (Except the court witness one, and that one isn't related to TV news.).
These can help you make judgment calls about a person's credibility.
I can't imagine caring enough about someone's credibility one way or the other for it to be worthwhile. Do you have an example of when this judgement was needed?
Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Danger is something that is perceived, not necessarily something that actually hurts someone. So yes, some may see a danger.
If you can prove to everyone that it's impossible that anything could ever go wrong, you should hurry up and do that. Otherwise expect people to be protective of their children.
On the other hand, what's the benefit to the other 99.99% of society if transgender people feel comfortable about their bathroom use? And why does their comfort override parents' comfort? (These are genuine questions, BTW. If you want to advocate for a bathroom policy, shouldn't you be able to answer them thoughtfully?)
Watching TV news is a horrible use of time. TV news has negative value -- if you consume it, your life will be worse than if you don't. And your net knowledge of the world ("net" meaning information - misinformation) may go down.
Just don't necessarily believe it.
Especially if there's some sort of emotional resonance or if it seems especially convenient to someone's worldview.
Daily Mail seems OK. And factual financial news is rarely biased to the point of uselessness. Tech news can be ok.
Also, read stories about what happened, not stories about what might happen, or stories about what it might mean to someone, or stories about someone reacting to what happened. Facts, not "meaning".
And remember the news isn't about you.
Not sure whether that's sarcasm, but it's "economic productivity" - a.k.a. value creation divided by time. Some people like to look down on entertainment as second-rate, but a huge quantity of second-rate [something of value] has more total value than a moderate amount of the best. That reality makes some people feel sad, but it's still reality.
Thanks. That's the PR version and even that seems to clearly disallow a wireless service prioritizing voice traffic over someone streaming Netflix at 4K.
There's also nothing mentioned about enforcement mechanisms.
You can't complain about one speculation, then utilize your own.
Why not? Everyone else does.
It's sounding more and more like you don't actually understand what net neutrality is.
Ok, please link the official government Net Neutrality rules.
Yeah, innovation requires taking a chance that things won't work out sometimes.
Yeah, they invent things.
If you read the article, you'll see where they wanted to use Hydrogen but the government said No.
Please show which provider is slowing down google.com packets to help bing.com. If I happened, it's not imaginary.
Honestly, I'm for a lot harsher regulations on Comcast than Net Neutrality. Their monopoly needs to be ended. Net Neutrality doesn't address the real problem: monopoly providers and local governments that enable and support them.
There literally is no regulatory risk involved in net neutrality.
That's the problem with making policy based on storytelling. In the story, Net Neutrality is all good, with no bad things. There's a villain, the evil Comcast, trying to slow down google.com (for reasons the storyteller never really explains). And the only ones who can save the day are the heroic regulators, one dimensional characters of pure good, dedicating their life to righteousness and protecting the holy google.com packets. The heroes win, nothing ever goes wrong (in the story), and they all live happily ever after. The End.
Reality has regulators who expand their mission once they start. Real networks have oversubscription problems and congestion and real network operators don't think they should have to talk to the Internet police every time someone complains. A wireless operator doesn't think phone calls should lose out to people streaming Netflix at 4K, and wants to prioritize voice packets without asking Washington DC for permission. An operator who never treated any packets different from any others doesn't think he owes regulators even a minute of his time. A company VP is calculating ROI and he doesn't use "they all lived happily ever after" in his projections.
Who benefits by keeping the NSA from mandating back doors in all encryption schemes? Who benefits from VPNs being legal? Who benefits from giving accused criminals the presumption of innocence? Who benefits from any limitation on government power or authority?
Free people benefit.
Rules that would encourage and reward competitive, non-monopoly Internet environments specifically benefit people who want more choices of ISPs. And anyone who wants faster Internet benefits when providers decide to invest and expand rather than deciding the ROI is too small to be worth the regulatory risks.
This is a very simplistic rule that is quite practical.
It's a rule that was made up to solve a problem that was imagined. We should have rules that are designed for real problems. But we can only consider one rule, because of the Net Neutrality dogma.
Except it's a very real scenario: After Netflix pays Comcast, speeds improve 65%
If you wanted to talk about a real case, then why did you make up the imaginary bing.com, google.com scenario?
How about a rule that only applies providers like Comcast in monopoly or near monopoly situations? And everyone else in non-monopoly situations is free of such rules. You could even make it considerably harsher than net neutrality, to make monopolies disadvantageous. That would start to address the real issues instead of the imaginary ones.
And get modded down to -1? Why bother?
I'd say we should have as few rules as practical, and that we shouldn't enact real rules and police them with real internet police because of some imaginary scenarios involving google.com.
Real problems can be addressed with fewer, more narrowly focused rules that respect all the interested parties, most especially the public. But the Net Neutrality side is too dogmatic, refusing to acknowledge anyone else's interests.
Declaring anyone who doesn't agree with you a "troll" because "what about my imaginary google.com scenario" isn't really a way to have a discussion.
Because any comment that questions the Net Neutrality dogma gets modded down to -1.