Fortunately, it matters less and less: the entire journalistic profession is becoming irrelevant. They used to be the people who had the time and got paid for running endlessly after news stories and information in order to redistribute it. That also gave them a lot of power as gatekeepers of information and allowed them to write the occasional editorial.
These days, people collect and distribute information themselves and the primary function of journalists has become as obsolete as horse shit collectors in NYC after the automobile. Journalists are trying to reinvent themselves as some kind of intellectuals and experts on whatever they are reporting on, but face it: a journalism degree doesn't give you much insight into complex topics like the economy, psychology, criminology, the law, or science.
Who cares what "journalists" think or do? They stopped being gatekeepers of information, and most lack sufficient experience or knowledge to have informed opinions on much of anything.
Should it be legal to distribute the video? Of course.
Whether you choose to watch it is your business. I really didn't want to see it.
America calls itself the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
I think platitudes like these are part of the problem, because politicians just cycle through them as they fail to deliver specific results on any one of them: after "Land of the Free", we get "The American Dream" or "Fairness" or "The Shining City on a Hill" or "Huddled Masses" or whatever.
What we really need to do is hold our politicians accountable for what they deliver, not treat them like celebrities that can do no wrong.
As it is, they are mostly spineless and beholden to the same moneyed interests as the Republicans, maybe a little less so but the result is still that the status quo is mostly maintained.
Odd then that you seem to favor Democrats over Republicans. Democrats have handed out huge favors to the rich, to banks, to Wall Street, and to corporations.
We shouldn't need charity in a society that takes care of its citizens.
You're right: depending on private charity is demeaning and unreliable. Unfortunately, it turns out that depending on public welfare is even more demeaning and even more unreliable.
I wish Democrats positioned themselves more as socialists.
Me too. I mean, socialists are at least honest about the fact that they hate the middle class ("the bourgeoisie") and want to destroy it; Democrats are still pretending they want to help us.
(I'm no friend of Republicans, but really, stop being so naive about Democrats.)
A simple way around your "loop hole" would be to say you cannot charge differently for non-internet services. Require that the these communication companies normalizes their prices for all services based on bandwidth consumed and features.
Bandwidth measured how? Features measured how?
An example would be VoIP compared to normal voice on your cell phone, VoIP would be cheaper because it has dynamic bandwidth while normal voice allocated a fixed bandwidth and consumes more.
Except, of course, that your view of "normal voice" seems to be rooted in analog copper wire circuit switching. A carrier may well run much more efficient protocols for voice over their network than your average VoIP provider. And IP traffic is really quite bad for real time communications and requires lots of overprovisioning to make it reliable.
You're going down a rabbit hole of regulations here, piling one nonsensical rule on top of another.
I agree in principle, but what happened to Zelda Williams was not "dissent."
No, and it wasn't nice. But she and her family have made a lot of money from being a public figure. Along with the choice to live as a public figure and the benefits it brings comes the reality that you are exposing yourself to mean and nasty people. That may be unfortunate, but protecting the feelings of people like her is not sufficient reason to impose draconian restrictions on speech on everybody.
the FUD would be in denying that fact. like the kind of FUD some uninformed/ irresponsible people and congresscritters use to deny the funding we need to keep our highways, tracks, and airstrips from crumbling
Congress has the funding to "keep our highways, tracks, and airstrips from crumbling". But instead of spending it on infrastructure, they are spending it on bailouts, stimulus packages, entitlements, and other waste.
And you think progressives and "liberals" are any better? Have you actually looked at what the Obama administration has been up to on defense and anti-terrorist efforts? Obama was elected to end this nonsense, yet he has taken it to a whole new level.
What you're seeing is the typical conservative notion that deregulation promotes investment
Deregulation in practice just becomes another vehicle for crony capitalism and rent seeking, that's why we're screwed with more regulation and we're screwed with most forms of deregulation. I expect "net neutrality" will simply result in raising barriers to entry further and encourage providers to use more proprietary and non-IP protocols.
What would actually help is to expand the free WiFi/WiMax spectrum 1000 fold and increase permitted power levels for WiFi/WiMax 10 fold; then, people could actually start building up meaningful competition to existing providers without all the regulatory headaches.
The Berne convention and its restrictive policies were passed in 1886 and widely implemented and adopted by Europeans; the US only joined the Berne convention in 1988. Automatic copyright under the Berne convention is probably the most destructive provision. In addition, Europe has other stupid provisions, like the "droit morale" that effectively gives artists eternal control over their works. Europe pushed for these restrictive copyright policies because they thought they had locked up the market for music, literature, and entertainment in perpetuity. A century later, however, US culture dominates. It seems rather disingenuous for Europeans and Asians to have pushed for this lousy convention and then complain when the US succeeds based on it.
So, don't blame the US. In fact, if the US were to push for shortening copyright terms or loosening the terms of the Berne convention, European publishers would be screaming bloody murder and European governments would condemn the US position. In fact, it is likely that a lot of the US position is based on lobbying by European publishers who find it easier to push for these kinds of extensions in the US than in Europe, where they might get a bad name among their primary customers.
When progressives complain about "the 1%" and all that, they say people just succeed because of privilege and random luck. When progressives argue for feminist policies, they keep pointing to data that women are really much better suited to well-paying positions than men. So, which is it? Is Viktoria Tsukanov a privileged one-percenter who stumbled into her position through pure luck, networking, and a privileged upbringing? Or does individual performance matter after all and are there differences between the sexes? And if women are demonstrably so much better at generating profit, why don't more companies hire them as CEOs? I mean, we are also told that all corporations care about is maximizing profit.
I'm saying that actual legal punishment requires the court system, and the courts are much more interested in the law and the Constitution.
Legal punishment may require the court system, but extralegal punishment does not: the FBI and NSA can do horrible things to both a company and its officers if they choose to, without any courts being involved.
The FCC has good intentions with this, and it will nominally achieve what it intends to: uniform pricing for Internet content without prioritization.
However, it will also have unintended and negative consequences. For example, it removes the incentive for providers to switch to VoIP, since they can continue to charge differently for non-Internet services. They may even resurrect non-IP delivery of video, available only on their own special handsets.
And it disincentivizes companies from giving you a deal like free service in return for prioritizing their content and ads. Now, they have to operate like any other carrier, meaning they will charge like any other carrier too. We'll never know whether Netflix, Google, Facebook, or other companies would have offered cheap or free Internet access that way because they aren't even going to try.
Finally, this kind of interference also causes uncertainty: once the FCC has started regulating the Internet this way, a line has been crossed. Though they promise that they aren't going to do this or that because they don't want to discourage investments, the situation is now that the FCC can pretty much change the rules whenever they like, with no warning and no legal recourse. Companies will be less likely committing large amounts of money on long-term projects if the value of those investments can be decreased dramatically overnight at the whim of the FCC chairman.
Overall, these FCC rules basically just cement what geeks right now consider the best scenario given the status quo. It's unlikely that that's a good long-term solution.
That's why I said "usually". You can lower costs that way, but the majority of men will not want to inject themselves. Also, the majority of men will probably not make the other changes you made.
Did you try the lifestyle changes before replacement therapy? I had low-T and my doctors wanted to put me on supplementation (my health plan even covers it). I tried it briefly and it made me feel better, but I stopped and just changed diet and exercised, and it normalized on its own over time.
Low testosterone and high testosterone each correlate both with some desirable and some undesirable factors, and almost nothing can be said about causality.
Your best bet is to exercise, eat better, and lose weight; that clearly has health benefits and will also naturally raise your testosterone levels.
Low testosterone, aging, and loss of lean muscle mass, fat gain, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, low libido all correlate. Because testosterone supplementation improves some of these problems somewhat, people have concluded that they might be caused by low testosterone. But they are clearly caused simply by bad diet and lack of exercise, and you're likely going to improve your overall health much more by exercising and eating better. Exercise and improvements in diet will also naturally increase your testosterone levels.
Once you start taking testosterone, you usually end up dependent on it for life. That means not just applying it every day, it means more frequent checkups, monitoring for side effects, and pretty tough questions when you start getting prostate problems and cancer (which you will, sooner or later).
Trying to fix what are just bad lifestyle choices in most men (lack of exercise, too much sitting, bad diet) with medicine (statins, testosterone, etc.) also puts an enormous strain on our medical system and is one of the reasons the US spends so much money on health care: the cost of testosterone replacement is usually several hundred dollars a month for the drug alone, plus even more money for the extra monitoring and tests. Insurance may currently cover that, but don't bet on it in the future. And even if it covers it, you still end up with co-pays, frequent trips to the doctor, and potential complications and additional drugs to deal with side effects.
(Of course, some small percentage of men really do have abnormally low or absent testosterone due to actual disease, and for those, supplementation makes sense.)
The airspace over the United States is owned by the people of the United States.
Low altitude airspace generally belongs to the land owner under that airspace. For example, the land owner can build buildings and radio towers on their land even if it inconveniences airplanes; pilots have to accommodate property owners, not the other way around. Commercial aviation simply has been granted a special exemption allowing them to fly through otherwise unused airspace. That exemption is not a property right and it doesn't transfer ownership of airspace to "the people" or anybody else. And since it's not a property right, it can be revoked at any time.
Fortunately, the First Amendment protects against compelled speech in most circumstances. In fact, we’re not aware of any case where a court has upheld compelled false speech.
You don't seriously believe that organizations that have broken just about every constitutional guarantee and law give a f*ck about this. This sounds more like an NSA honeypot for "troublemakers", plus a means of spreading disinformation.
In addition, it's also irrelevant; what are you going to do if they get a security letter? And if they don't, how do you know these agencies haven't used a backdoor and simply didn't need this kind of access?
but I am not sure how one would really judge if a company was negligent or not. The only really secure systems are air gapped, which renders them rather unusable in these situations.
That's because companies have never faced much risk over having customer data stolen; as a result, pretty much all the software used for these transactions is utter crap.
If we move it simply to 'you were hacked, you are responsible' then we have doomed pretty much every company to a random shaft.
There is nothing "random" about it. Courts of law can and should analyze these cases and assign responsibility and determine damages, just like they do for, say, car accidents.
Currently, courts of law are prevented from doing that because the law implicitly shifts blame away from corporations. And that's because corporations have lobbied for laws to be written that way. And a generation of developers and security experts have been indoctrinated into thinking that this situation is perfectly natural, as you yourself demonstrate.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, it matters less and less: the entire journalistic profession is becoming irrelevant. They used to be the people who had the time and got paid for running endlessly after news stories and information in order to redistribute it. That also gave them a lot of power as gatekeepers of information and allowed them to write the occasional editorial.
These days, people collect and distribute information themselves and the primary function of journalists has become as obsolete as horse shit collectors in NYC after the automobile. Journalists are trying to reinvent themselves as some kind of intellectuals and experts on whatever they are reporting on, but face it: a journalism degree doesn't give you much insight into complex topics like the economy, psychology, criminology, the law, or science.
Who cares what "journalists" think or do? They stopped being gatekeepers of information, and most lack sufficient experience or knowledge to have informed opinions on much of anything.
Should it be legal to distribute the video? Of course.
Whether you choose to watch it is your business. I really didn't want to see it.
But our leader promised us that we didn't need to make such a tradeoff! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think platitudes like these are part of the problem, because politicians just cycle through them as they fail to deliver specific results on any one of them: after "Land of the Free", we get "The American Dream" or "Fairness" or "The Shining City on a Hill" or "Huddled Masses" or whatever.
What we really need to do is hold our politicians accountable for what they deliver, not treat them like celebrities that can do no wrong.
Odd then that you seem to favor Democrats over Republicans. Democrats have handed out huge favors to the rich, to banks, to Wall Street, and to corporations.
You're right: depending on private charity is demeaning and unreliable. Unfortunately, it turns out that depending on public welfare is even more demeaning and even more unreliable.
Me too. I mean, socialists are at least honest about the fact that they hate the middle class ("the bourgeoisie") and want to destroy it; Democrats are still pretending they want to help us.
(I'm no friend of Republicans, but really, stop being so naive about Democrats.)
Bandwidth measured how? Features measured how?
Except, of course, that your view of "normal voice" seems to be rooted in analog copper wire circuit switching. A carrier may well run much more efficient protocols for voice over their network than your average VoIP provider. And IP traffic is really quite bad for real time communications and requires lots of overprovisioning to make it reliable.
You're going down a rabbit hole of regulations here, piling one nonsensical rule on top of another.
No, and it wasn't nice. But she and her family have made a lot of money from being a public figure. Along with the choice to live as a public figure and the benefits it brings comes the reality that you are exposing yourself to mean and nasty people. That may be unfortunate, but protecting the feelings of people like her is not sufficient reason to impose draconian restrictions on speech on everybody.
They'll still have the SJWs, feminists, and journalists. In fact, that's pretty much all that's left anyway.
What he means is: "We suck at censoring opinions that disagree with our particular upper middle class intellectual left coast views."
I think we'd be better off if all contracts were required to be public in order to be enforceable in a court of law.
Congress has the funding to "keep our highways, tracks, and airstrips from crumbling". But instead of spending it on infrastructure, they are spending it on bailouts, stimulus packages, entitlements, and other waste.
And you think progressives and "liberals" are any better? Have you actually looked at what the Obama administration has been up to on defense and anti-terrorist efforts? Obama was elected to end this nonsense, yet he has taken it to a whole new level.
Deregulation in practice just becomes another vehicle for crony capitalism and rent seeking, that's why we're screwed with more regulation and we're screwed with most forms of deregulation. I expect "net neutrality" will simply result in raising barriers to entry further and encourage providers to use more proprietary and non-IP protocols.
What would actually help is to expand the free WiFi/WiMax spectrum 1000 fold and increase permitted power levels for WiFi/WiMax 10 fold; then, people could actually start building up meaningful competition to existing providers without all the regulatory headaches.
The Berne convention and its restrictive policies were passed in 1886 and widely implemented and adopted by Europeans; the US only joined the Berne convention in 1988. Automatic copyright under the Berne convention is probably the most destructive provision. In addition, Europe has other stupid provisions, like the "droit morale" that effectively gives artists eternal control over their works. Europe pushed for these restrictive copyright policies because they thought they had locked up the market for music, literature, and entertainment in perpetuity. A century later, however, US culture dominates. It seems rather disingenuous for Europeans and Asians to have pushed for this lousy convention and then complain when the US succeeds based on it.
So, don't blame the US. In fact, if the US were to push for shortening copyright terms or loosening the terms of the Berne convention, European publishers would be screaming bloody murder and European governments would condemn the US position. In fact, it is likely that a lot of the US position is based on lobbying by European publishers who find it easier to push for these kinds of extensions in the US than in Europe, where they might get a bad name among their primary customers.
When progressives complain about "the 1%" and all that, they say people just succeed because of privilege and random luck. When progressives argue for feminist policies, they keep pointing to data that women are really much better suited to well-paying positions than men. So, which is it? Is Viktoria Tsukanov a privileged one-percenter who stumbled into her position through pure luck, networking, and a privileged upbringing? Or does individual performance matter after all and are there differences between the sexes? And if women are demonstrably so much better at generating profit, why don't more companies hire them as CEOs? I mean, we are also told that all corporations care about is maximizing profit.
Legal punishment may require the court system, but extralegal punishment does not: the FBI and NSA can do horrible things to both a company and its officers if they choose to, without any courts being involved.
The FCC has good intentions with this, and it will nominally achieve what it intends to: uniform pricing for Internet content without prioritization.
However, it will also have unintended and negative consequences. For example, it removes the incentive for providers to switch to VoIP, since they can continue to charge differently for non-Internet services. They may even resurrect non-IP delivery of video, available only on their own special handsets.
And it disincentivizes companies from giving you a deal like free service in return for prioritizing their content and ads. Now, they have to operate like any other carrier, meaning they will charge like any other carrier too. We'll never know whether Netflix, Google, Facebook, or other companies would have offered cheap or free Internet access that way because they aren't even going to try.
Finally, this kind of interference also causes uncertainty: once the FCC has started regulating the Internet this way, a line has been crossed. Though they promise that they aren't going to do this or that because they don't want to discourage investments, the situation is now that the FCC can pretty much change the rules whenever they like, with no warning and no legal recourse. Companies will be less likely committing large amounts of money on long-term projects if the value of those investments can be decreased dramatically overnight at the whim of the FCC chairman.
Overall, these FCC rules basically just cement what geeks right now consider the best scenario given the status quo. It's unlikely that that's a good long-term solution.
That's why I said "usually". You can lower costs that way, but the majority of men will not want to inject themselves. Also, the majority of men will probably not make the other changes you made.
Did you try the lifestyle changes before replacement therapy? I had low-T and my doctors wanted to put me on supplementation (my health plan even covers it). I tried it briefly and it made me feel better, but I stopped and just changed diet and exercised, and it normalized on its own over time.
Low testosterone and high testosterone each correlate both with some desirable and some undesirable factors, and almost nothing can be said about causality.
Your best bet is to exercise, eat better, and lose weight; that clearly has health benefits and will also naturally raise your testosterone levels.
Low testosterone, aging, and loss of lean muscle mass, fat gain, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, low libido all correlate. Because testosterone supplementation improves some of these problems somewhat, people have concluded that they might be caused by low testosterone. But they are clearly caused simply by bad diet and lack of exercise, and you're likely going to improve your overall health much more by exercising and eating better. Exercise and improvements in diet will also naturally increase your testosterone levels.
Once you start taking testosterone, you usually end up dependent on it for life. That means not just applying it every day, it means more frequent checkups, monitoring for side effects, and pretty tough questions when you start getting prostate problems and cancer (which you will, sooner or later).
Trying to fix what are just bad lifestyle choices in most men (lack of exercise, too much sitting, bad diet) with medicine (statins, testosterone, etc.) also puts an enormous strain on our medical system and is one of the reasons the US spends so much money on health care: the cost of testosterone replacement is usually several hundred dollars a month for the drug alone, plus even more money for the extra monitoring and tests. Insurance may currently cover that, but don't bet on it in the future. And even if it covers it, you still end up with co-pays, frequent trips to the doctor, and potential complications and additional drugs to deal with side effects.
(Of course, some small percentage of men really do have abnormally low or absent testosterone due to actual disease, and for those, supplementation makes sense.)
Low altitude airspace generally belongs to the land owner under that airspace. For example, the land owner can build buildings and radio towers on their land even if it inconveniences airplanes; pilots have to accommodate property owners, not the other way around. Commercial aviation simply has been granted a special exemption allowing them to fly through otherwise unused airspace. That exemption is not a property right and it doesn't transfer ownership of airspace to "the people" or anybody else. And since it's not a property right, it can be revoked at any time.
They might build it, you know, just for fun. Why not?
Cutting-edge technology like... eyes?
(Apparently, they really did just look at them, leaving the DNA sequencing for later.)
You don't seriously believe that organizations that have broken just about every constitutional guarantee and law give a f*ck about this. This sounds more like an NSA honeypot for "troublemakers", plus a means of spreading disinformation.
In addition, it's also irrelevant; what are you going to do if they get a security letter? And if they don't, how do you know these agencies haven't used a backdoor and simply didn't need this kind of access?
That's because companies have never faced much risk over having customer data stolen; as a result, pretty much all the software used for these transactions is utter crap.
There is nothing "random" about it. Courts of law can and should analyze these cases and assign responsibility and determine damages, just like they do for, say, car accidents. Currently, courts of law are prevented from doing that because the law implicitly shifts blame away from corporations. And that's because corporations have lobbied for laws to be written that way. And a generation of developers and security experts have been indoctrinated into thinking that this situation is perfectly natural, as you yourself demonstrate.
No, it's not counterintuitive, it's just wrong.
Yes, and that's why it's wrong.