In the west, Google can only gather (and monetize) user data so much, before there starts to be public outcry, pushback, and Congressional hearings about them invading privacy to an unacceptable degree. In China, Google can gather user data as much as it wants, and gathering more leads to ambivalence from the public (because they're used to it) and praise from the local government. They get to play out their dream of having every search be tied to a person; and of course every site that includes code from google analytics, doubleclick etc. is tied to that, so they'll know many sites that each person goes to (all, if they use Chrome or Android). The proven most-effective pieces of personal data to harvest will be back-ported to Google's services around the rest of the world.
You've just described fascism -- nominal private ownership with strong government control and partnership. The only thing missing is nationalism in rhetoric.
Life is better for the average person than ever before, and this continues, and now continues in places like China and India, becaus of economic freedom
All other politics are liars, on oth sides, seeking power to twist laws to their own advantage.
The besr bet outside the solar system is teasing out the spectral lines of a star as it passes through the atmosphere of a planet in front of it, and looking for the kinds of complexity you only find with life.
It requires incredible tech but they're already getting there.
The idea was the regulatory agency's interpretation of the law should carry greater weight, as they have the knowledge of the subject matter, unless there are obvious errors.
This has lead to some unfortunate things such as the agencies changing their own interpretation of their own regulation after an offense to keep charges on someone.
This is one of the big points against regulatory agencies -- Congress can run and hide and let the rage play out elsewhere and every congress-critter can throw up their hands and exclaim, "I didn't do it!", proving the agency is legislation without representation.
If the FCC has no authority to impose net neutrality regulations on telecommunication services, then it equally has no authority to prevent states from imposing their own net neutrality regulations, because their is no federal authority that they are usurping. This means that the fundamental premise behind the suit filed by the telecom companies to invalidate California's net neutrality legislation has no footing, since it requires the FCC to have the authority Mr. Pai just disclaimed it possessing.
Um... I get your argument and support the state's right to do this, but your logic is flawed.
The FCC may not have the legal mandate to enforce NN, but that's not the same thing as not having the legal standing to prevent states from doing the regulation themselves. The contention that because the FCC claims they don't have the authority to enforce NN they cannot prevent the states from enacting the same regulation is not logically related.
The Federal government may not be able to restrict your free speech rights, but that doesn't mean they have no power over the states attempts to do the same thing.
So I don't think the argument you are using here is logically correct.
You are technically right, but this would have required Congress to have considered, then declined, to have regulated the Internet in this manner, in some unrelated (to the FCC) legislation.
interstate commerce clause does have authority to regulate however
Congress has that authority, and they must exercise it. Many feel a purely regulatory agency should not inhale control over a multi-trillion dollar industry that didn't exist back then, without express Congressional direction.
Anyway, the ggp post is a good point. If the agency chooses to deliberately not regulate, the dormant commerce principle says no state may override the feds' choice of no regulation. But if the fed agency claims it doesn't have that authority from Congress (a reasonable claim in light of what was discussed above) and the industry didn't exist when Congress created the agency, then perforce Congress has not spoken about it either in the positive, or negative light, and therefore the fed agencies have no control, and therefore the states retain their sovereign power.
Except in this case, the cover up isn't illegal, either, and hiding embarrassing things from the government is a rational strategy, what with its itchy regulatory trigger finger pushed by transient outrage fanned by politicians themselves.
If the human race does not get that problem under control fast, nothing else will save it.
Skipping dictatorships and war, free people solve problems faster than they become major problems, leading to a steady increase in measurements of average health, wealth, and longevity, and progress in invention.
10 billion people would be significantly better than today, which is phenomenal compared to 50 years ago, and so on.
So much so you can't even predict what life would be like in 100 years.
You can less predict that than people in 1900 could predict today.
This isn't to say unconstrained pollution can't be an issue, but the screaming hyperbole of topics like this that ignore the reality serve no one.
So...the AI looked ignored mad skills, because all resumes had them, and instead looked at past resumes of successful hires, found "women's" wasn't in most of them, and drew the conclusion that it correlated with a terrible candidate.
Accidental death, suicide, and homicide kill 36,726 annually. In that age group, roughly 43M are alive. That 1:1171 or so chance of dying from those causes by my calculation.
The important point isn't whether it's 300 or 1000 years, it's that it's vastly limited. Some will make it to 20,000 (roughly Gandalf's "300 lifetimes") by luck and timid living.
Unlike age 70, say, the average here doesn't fall off a rock. This is more like a half life average, so if it is 300 years, half will be dead, but 1/4 will still be alive in 600 years, and 1/8 in 900 years, and 1/16 in 1200 years.
Not likely anyone would live to 21,000 (1 in 2^^70) but if 1000 is half life, many thousands would.
Anyway growth rate outweighs as a numeric problem as a 1% growth rate ends up having more than the number of molecules in the universe in 17,000 years.
Good luck solving that through some kind of quantum storage brain uploads or expansion of the matter and energy of the universe.
It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.
"And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
First of all we'd be up to 50 billion by now.
Secondly, people voting is not a problem. That's amenable to persuasion (as long as you aren't a dick about it, which is, sadly, what most preaching to the choir politics is, e.g. the entire Kavanaugh thing most recently). People need to discover a better way on their own so they don't feel attacked and get defensive.
Anyway, the real problem is dictatorship. With the greatest psychopathic charismatics in history (the ability to lie convincingly is key) running around, and their internal security thugs and their well-to-do elites humanity could be in for a long, long slog.
Maybe the laws of skulduggery have changed since I was a young whippersnapper, but isn't one of the most important aspects of a secret weapon for it to be secret?
Yes, which suggests a deliberate reason to release this info (which Russia probably knew already.)
It is a declaration to the people in Russia and the west, so the Russian leaders who are hacking the west, now have fearful citizens worried about an attack, more accurately a counter attack, in response to their Russian leaders' gameplaying.
How do they divide up the procedes? Per copyright? Per sale in normal media?
How does a band with 20 songs and 1 hit fare againse music copyright trolls who write "1000 songs", none of which are hits, and they aren't really a recording musician, but are happy to sue a hit song that happens to vaguely sound like one of their planted scatershot?
"Terms of the settlement included requiring Tesla to rein in Musk's social-media communications, but it was unclear when Tesla intends to implement that.... The settlement has yet to be court-approved."
"In exchange for not having to admit guilt, you agree to give us money and give up your First Amendment rights."
Yeah, that's not gonna work for me. Because it implicates speech, the government should be forced to prove the crime in court, and thus that the speech was part of the crime (like advertising illegal drugs or fraud)...or give up on restricting speech.
Slashdot Mirror
In the west, Google can only gather (and monetize) user data so much, before there starts to be public outcry, pushback, and Congressional hearings about them invading privacy to an unacceptable degree.
In China, Google can gather user data as much as it wants, and gathering more leads to ambivalence from the public (because they're used to it) and praise from the local government. They get to play out their dream of having every search be tied to a person; and of course every site that includes code from google analytics, doubleclick etc. is tied to that, so they'll know many sites that each person goes to (all, if they use Chrome or Android).
The proven most-effective pieces of personal data to harvest will be back-ported to Google's services around the rest of the world.
You've just described fascism -- nominal private ownership with strong government control and partnership. The only thing missing is nationalism in rhetoric.
"(Such-and-such) solution is so very Chinese!"
n/m
or organized campaigns.
I would hesitate to claim the anti-side wasn't often driven by organized campaigns, either, with many sites exhorting users to go file a letter.
Which is fine, but it's hardly unorganized.
Life is better for the average person than ever before, and this continues, and now continues in places like China and India, becaus of economic freedom
All other politics are liars, on oth sides, seeking power to twist laws to their own advantage.
Because a state-level hacker is an idiot who can't route to a secret intelligence service with a proper IP somewhere.
The besr bet outside the solar system is teasing out the spectral lines of a star as it passes through the atmosphere of a planet in front of it, and looking for the kinds of complexity you only find with life.
It requires incredible tech but they're already getting there.
The idea was the regulatory agency's interpretation of the law should carry greater weight, as they have the knowledge of the subject matter, unless there are obvious errors.
This has lead to some unfortunate things such as the agencies changing their own interpretation of their own regulation after an offense to keep charges on someone.
This is one of the big points against regulatory agencies -- Congress can run and hide and let the rage play out elsewhere and every congress-critter can throw up their hands and exclaim, "I didn't do it!", proving the agency is legislation without representation.
If the FCC has no authority to impose net neutrality regulations on telecommunication services, then it equally has no authority to prevent states from imposing their own net neutrality regulations, because their is no federal authority that they are usurping. This means that the fundamental premise behind the suit filed by the telecom companies to invalidate California's net neutrality legislation has no footing, since it requires the FCC to have the authority Mr. Pai just disclaimed it possessing.
Um... I get your argument and support the state's right to do this, but your logic is flawed.
The FCC may not have the legal mandate to enforce NN, but that's not the same thing as not having the legal standing to prevent states from doing the regulation themselves. The contention that because the FCC claims they don't have the authority to enforce NN they cannot prevent the states from enacting the same regulation is not logically related.
The Federal government may not be able to restrict your free speech rights, but that doesn't mean they have no power over the states attempts to do the same thing.
So I don't think the argument you are using here is logically correct.
You are technically right, but this would have required Congress to have considered, then declined, to have regulated the Internet in this manner, in some unrelated (to the FCC) legislation.
I don't know but I doubt it.
tl;dr
Nelson: Ha ha!
interstate commerce clause does have authority to regulate however
Congress has that authority, and they must exercise it. Many feel a purely regulatory agency should not inhale control over a multi-trillion dollar industry that didn't exist back then, without express Congressional direction.
Anyway, the ggp post is a good point. If the agency chooses to deliberately not regulate, the dormant commerce principle says no state may override the feds' choice of no regulation. But if the fed agency claims it doesn't have that authority from Congress (a reasonable claim in light of what was discussed above) and the industry didn't exist when Congress created the agency, then perforce Congress has not spoken about it either in the positive, or negative light, and therefore the fed agencies have no control, and therefore the states retain their sovereign power.
"Nobody tells us what to do!" [Buys China's stuff.]
[Insert resignated Pepe meme.]
Except in this case, the cover up isn't illegal, either, and hiding embarrassing things from the government is a rational strategy, what with its itchy regulatory trigger finger pushed by transient outrage fanned by politicians themselves.
Q was talking about the Internet.
Why tf are you using Bing? This sounds more like advertising for them (in the "no news is bad news" sense).
If the human race does not get that problem under control fast, nothing else will save it.
Skipping dictatorships and war, free people solve problems faster than they become major problems, leading to a steady increase in measurements of average health, wealth, and longevity, and progress in invention.
10 billion people would be significantly better than today, which is phenomenal compared to 50 years ago, and so on.
So much so you can't even predict what life would be like in 100 years.
You can less predict that than people in 1900 could predict today.
This isn't to say unconstrained pollution can't be an issue, but the screaming hyperbole of topics like this that ignore the reality serve no one.
Why is this downmod? That's what happened and was the issue and what they had to address.
Who is fantasizing this is an attack on women? That's disasterbation.
So...the AI looked ignored mad skills, because all resumes had them, and instead looked at past resumes of successful hires, found "women's" wasn't in most of them, and drew the conclusion that it correlated with a terrible candidate.
"Why did you just send me a text message that you'd 'like to press your balls firmly against me, ya know what I mean?', Dad?"
Squatty Potty
Not Squatty Potty!
Accidental death, suicide, and homicide kill 36,726 annually. In that age group, roughly 43M are alive. That 1:1171 or so chance of dying from those causes by my calculation.
The important point isn't whether it's 300 or 1000 years, it's that it's vastly limited. Some will make it to 20,000 (roughly Gandalf's "300 lifetimes") by luck and timid living.
Unlike age 70, say, the average here doesn't fall off a rock. This is more like a half life average, so if it is 300 years, half will be dead, but 1/4 will still be alive in 600 years, and 1/8 in 900 years, and 1/16 in 1200 years.
Not likely anyone would live to 21,000 (1 in 2^^70) but if 1000 is half life, many thousands would.
Anyway growth rate outweighs as a numeric problem as a 1% growth rate ends up having more than the number of molecules in the universe in 17,000 years.
Good luck solving that through some kind of quantum storage brain uploads or expansion of the matter and energy of the universe.
It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.
"And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
First of all we'd be up to 50 billion by now.
Secondly, people voting is not a problem. That's amenable to persuasion (as long as you aren't a dick about it, which is, sadly, what most preaching to the choir politics is, e.g. the entire Kavanaugh thing most recently). People need to discover a better way on their own so they don't feel attacked and get defensive.
Anyway, the real problem is dictatorship. With the greatest psychopathic charismatics in history (the ability to lie convincingly is key) running around, and their internal security thugs and their well-to-do elites humanity could be in for a long, long slog.
Maybe the laws of skulduggery have changed since I was a young whippersnapper, but isn't one of the most important aspects of a secret weapon for it to be secret?
Yes, which suggests a deliberate reason to release this info (which Russia probably knew already.)
It is a declaration to the people in Russia and the west, so the Russian leaders who are hacking the west, now have fearful citizens worried about an attack, more accurately a counter attack, in response to their Russian leaders' gameplaying.
How do they divide up the procedes? Per copyright? Per sale in normal media?
How does a band with 20 songs and 1 hit fare againse music copyright trolls who write "1000 songs", none of which are hits, and they aren't really a recording musician, but are happy to sue a hit song that happens to vaguely sound like one of their planted scatershot?
What I find amazing is that there doesn't seem to be a video showing actual shredding. Just the aftermath.
Why is that amazing? Who shoots video of paintings that just sold at an art auction?
Someone who knows it is going to happen. So the artist told someone to film it. Secretly probably because the house may not let video be taken.
"Terms of the settlement included requiring Tesla to rein in Musk's social-media communications, but it was unclear when Tesla intends to implement that.... The settlement has yet to be court-approved."
"In exchange for not having to admit guilt, you agree to give us money and give up your First Amendment rights."
Yeah, that's not gonna work for me. Because it implicates speech, the government should be forced to prove the crime in court, and thus that the speech was part of the crime (like advertising illegal drugs or fraud)...or give up on restricting speech.