So what! 1. The ISP is just a "private company" that's probably a lot smaller than Google/Apple/etc.
2. If the ISP won't carry your traffic because they are heroically woke and censor based on the same SJW criteria as Google/Apple, you can JUST GET ANOTHER ISP!
3. And if no ISP will let your traffic through you can START YOUR OWN ISP!
I mean, points 2 and 3 are literally the argument for why a "small" company like Google and Apple can censor you at will but a "big" company like a local telephone company with a few hundred employees is apparently not allowed to be "woke".
"He had told the FCC boss that advances in computer processing power had made it easier for internet service providers to discriminate against certain web users for commercial or political reasons, perhaps slowing down traffic to one political party's website or making it harder for a rival company to process payments."
Wait.. if Google, Apple, Twitter, or Facebook did that to Trump PopeRatzo would drop trou and service himself in public while talking about how it's fine because OMG THEY ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES.
But apparently if an ISP literally did the exact same "woke" action that is almost considered to be a moral duty of the "woke" companies listed above, suddenly it's bad?
Funny how a multi-billion dollar megacorp that contributes to the "correct" Democrat politicians is granted complete autonomy over controlling speech because PRIVATE COMPANY.
I'm sure you'd apply that exact same level of reasoning to the PRIVATE COMPANY bake shop that doesn't want to make custom cakes for specific weddings because "Private owned company, no such thing as free speech, but you should know that you snowflake."
All "BUT WHATABOUT TRUMP" posts where you accuse Trump of basically being worse than this without evidence can just be posted as replies here so we can stay organized.
This is a great day for the FISA court system, which has been viciously attacked for decades right here on Slashdot.
Now that there's pretty solid evidence that the DNC basically used the DOJ to lie to the FISA courts as part of its campaign... SUDDENLY FISA IS OK! That's because the abuses were against Trump. Just remember, if it had been against a terrorist or an actual foreign spy, that would have been unconstitutional.
But against Trump? Fuck the constitution the ends always justify the means.
Remember, principles should be sacrificed as long as the end result is reinforcing the narrative that OMG TRUMP RUSSIA is true no matter what.
I have been told by at least 500 Koolaid drinkers and their bots that the only vulnerable chips that have ever existed in all of human history were made by Intel because INTEL IS THE SOLE SOURCE OF EVIL ON EARTH!
Intel put these bugs in intentionally because Russia & NSA while simultaneously doing it because they are stupid!
Any school child and CPU design experts like Linus Torvalds Theo De Radt knew about these bugs and exactly how to exploit them for DECADES but didn't do anything about it until now because of Intel's MIND CONTROL RAYS that made open source software illegal!
This disrupts the narrative and therefore is an anti-science big-oil lie. AMD chips are all perfect. Hell, AMD chips are so perfect that you don't need to even update the software because software bugs are just a propaganda lie invented by EVIL INTEL to distract us from the fact that AMD is perfect.
If only the Russians weren't white, this type of criticism would sound like KKK propaganda (which it basically is but it's OK because Russians are the new equivalent of blacks in the Jim Crowe south).
Good liberal copy-n-paste with the usual racist attitude that could literally be from the KKK if you just s/white/black in there.
Incidentally, you *do* realize that a bunch of those "evil white racists" you want to send off the extermination camps voted for Obama but then *didn't* vote for Hillary.
So according to your "logic" white supremacists actually don't mind a black president vs. Hillary -- or -- Obama is actually white and Hillary is actually black.
Or maybe -- just maybe -- being a stupid racist isn't a very good platform to argue about what happened in 2016.
The worst possible thing that has EVER been put on Facebook is a propaganda ad that's exactly like all the other propaganda but was paid for by an EVIL RUSSIAN!
Isn't it nice how Russians are white people so I can say that without sounding like I'm in the KKK if they were black?
Incidentally, are we still worshiping Snowden as our religious icon or is his involvement with RUSSIA enough to make him damaged goods? I'm confused since following the right narrative replaced rational thought around here years ago.
Whatever this is must be bad because OMG TRUMP won't let anybody do any science anymore. That's a settled fact because Slashdot comments said so (oh and he's a RUSSIAN SPY TOO!)
So obviously this isn't science, it's uh.. capitalism... and is therefore not science.
It's also somewhat disingenuous since practically every journal in existence has allowances for the researchers to put their work online completely for free.
The biggest restrictions from some (not even all) journals are that the authors usually can't publish the edited and formatted copy that was in the journal, but they can post the actual document that they wrote before the journal received it and edited it for publication.
So really the big bad gatekeepers *aren't* the journals but the academics who don't bother to upload their papers for all the world to see.
Frankly given the amount of fake "research" that comes out of China & Russia, you'd probably be better off ignoring those papers if you want quality results.
As for the rest of them, I'm pretty sure U.S. universities would do quite nicely for themselves if they had to pay a small fraction of the amount of money that they got in fees from the other countries for reciprocal publication access agreements.
Figuring out ways to pay for useful research shouldn't be considered "dirty". Charging taxpayers for useless research should be considered dirty.
I don't see why there's an entitlement for universities in New Zealand to be given free access to work that was paid for with the tax money of people in other countries (and I'm sure the U.S. is #1 by a huge margin).
The story would have made a better point if the author actually figured out how much New Zealand universities pay to get access to papers paid for by New Zealand taxpayers.
Actually no I really don't. The massive hurricane drought that must be caused by Global Warming (because *literally everything* is caused by Global Warming) hasn't really done much to scare me even if 2017 included a few hurricanes that were similar to those observed pre-1950.
Good, in that case if a cable company truck kills you then you have absolutely no problem with your next of kin having absolutely no ability to sue the cable company for a single red cent.
Because when a court says that a company is a "person" it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I hope that wherever you claimed to go to law school gave you a refund. Or at least publicly labeled you as ineligible to do anything other than work at a Starbucks.
Just remember how hypocritical and disingenuous they are the next time they put on an act of "standing up" to big mean OMG Hitler-Trump.
You know the guy who, even in the strawman fantasy world constructed for him by good liberals, would qualify as the most radical human rights reformer in over 5,000 years of Chinese history if he were in China.
Once again you are using an 8th-grade children's book interpretation of Marbury v. Madison to come to stupid conclusions that aren't based on any proper legal analysis but merely on your subjective emotional feeling that because you personally think "net neutrality" (a term that changes meaning every time it is mentioned on Slashdot) == OMG GOOD that it is now literally unconstitutional for the government to change a regulation that was passed in 2015. That's what a dictator does, not a court.
Here's a proper analysis: 1. Was the net neutrality regulation constitutional or not? A court might decide that -- properly -- based not on the emotional bigotry of a judge but based on a judgment as to whether the statutory grant of power to the FCC and the actual rule making process of the FCC met both the statutory and constitutional requirements for administrative rule making.
2. If it turns out that the rule is not legal, then it should be overturned. If it turns out that the rule was legal, then the exact same administrative body... the FCC... that promulgated the rule can rescind it in the future by definition. It's called Democracy, not dictatorship.
Yeah... I have and you obviously don't know what Marbury v. Madison is actually about if you are stupid enough to name-drop a Supreme Court case that never once stated that the Supreme Court allocates itself the power to arbitrarily re-instate an administrative rule that was overturned by the same administrative body that implemented the rule in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
So what!
1. The ISP is just a "private company" that's probably a lot smaller than Google/Apple/etc.
2. If the ISP won't carry your traffic because they are heroically woke and censor based on the same SJW criteria as Google/Apple, you can JUST GET ANOTHER ISP!
3. And if no ISP will let your traffic through you can START YOUR OWN ISP!
I mean, points 2 and 3 are literally the argument for why a "small" company like Google and Apple can censor you at will but a "big" company like a local telephone company with a few hundred employees is apparently not allowed to be "woke".
"He had told the FCC boss that advances in computer processing power had made it easier for internet service providers to discriminate against certain web users for commercial or political reasons, perhaps slowing down traffic to one political party's website or making it harder for a rival company to process payments."
Wait.. if Google, Apple, Twitter, or Facebook did that to Trump PopeRatzo would drop trou and service himself in public while talking about how it's fine because OMG THEY ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES.
But apparently if an ISP literally did the exact same "woke" action that is almost considered to be a moral duty of the "woke" companies listed above, suddenly it's bad?
Funny how a multi-billion dollar megacorp that contributes to the "correct" Democrat politicians is granted complete autonomy over controlling speech because PRIVATE COMPANY.
I'm sure you'd apply that exact same level of reasoning to the PRIVATE COMPANY bake shop that doesn't want to make custom cakes for specific weddings because "Private owned company, no such thing as free speech, but you should know that you snowflake."
"1. There is no capital punishment."
Well clearly Iceland fails then since they commit systematic capital punishment against Downe Syndrome babies without trial.
Oh wait, "capital punishment" is only bad when applied to murders who have had trials and appeals. I forgot.
All "BUT WHATABOUT TRUMP" posts where you accuse Trump of basically being worse than this without evidence can just be posted as replies here so we can stay organized.
K-Thanks!
Yes, the stock market is crashing because low unemployment and strong GDP growth mean interest rates might go up in the future.
We sure didn't have problems with low unemployment and strong GDP growth when Obama was president. Truly 2009 was a golden age.
When even the Onion is willing to not drink the standard Democrat party-line koolaid you know it's legitimate.
This is a great day for the FISA court system, which has been viciously attacked for decades right here on Slashdot.
Now that there's pretty solid evidence that the DNC basically used the DOJ to lie to the FISA courts as part of its campaign... SUDDENLY FISA IS OK! That's because the abuses were against Trump. Just remember, if it had been against a terrorist or an actual foreign spy, that would have been unconstitutional.
But against Trump? Fuck the constitution the ends always justify the means.
Remember, principles should be sacrificed as long as the end result is reinforcing the narrative that OMG TRUMP RUSSIA is true no matter what.
I have been told by at least 500 Koolaid drinkers and their bots that the only vulnerable chips that have ever existed in all of human history were made by Intel because INTEL IS THE SOLE SOURCE OF EVIL ON EARTH!
Intel put these bugs in intentionally because Russia & NSA while simultaneously doing it because they are stupid!
Any school child and CPU design experts like Linus Torvalds Theo De Radt knew about these bugs and exactly how to exploit them for DECADES but didn't do anything about it until now because of Intel's MIND CONTROL RAYS that made open source software illegal!
This disrupts the narrative and therefore is an anti-science big-oil lie. AMD chips are all perfect. Hell, AMD chips are so perfect that you don't need to even update the software because software bugs are just a propaganda lie invented by EVIL INTEL to distract us from the fact that AMD is perfect.
If only the Russians weren't white, this type of criticism would sound like KKK propaganda (which it basically is but it's OK because Russians are the new equivalent of blacks in the Jim Crowe south).
Good liberal copy-n-paste with the usual racist attitude that could literally be from the KKK if you just s/white/black in there.
Incidentally, you *do* realize that a bunch of those "evil white racists" you want to send off the extermination camps voted for Obama but then *didn't* vote for Hillary.
So according to your "logic" white supremacists actually don't mind a black president vs. Hillary -- or -- Obama is actually white and Hillary is actually black.
Or maybe -- just maybe -- being a stupid racist isn't a very good platform to argue about what happened in 2016.
The worst possible thing that has EVER been put on Facebook is a propaganda ad that's exactly like all the other propaganda but was paid for by an EVIL RUSSIAN!
Isn't it nice how Russians are white people so I can say that without sounding like I'm in the KKK if they were black?
Incidentally, are we still worshiping Snowden as our religious icon or is his involvement with RUSSIA enough to make him damaged goods? I'm confused since following the right narrative replaced rational thought around here years ago.
Whatever this is must be bad because OMG TRUMP won't let anybody do any science anymore. That's a settled fact because Slashdot comments said so (oh and he's a RUSSIAN SPY TOO!)
So obviously this isn't science, it's uh.. capitalism... and is therefore not science.
It's also somewhat disingenuous since practically every journal in existence has allowances for the researchers to put their work online completely for free.
The biggest restrictions from some (not even all) journals are that the authors usually can't publish the edited and formatted copy that was in the journal, but they can post the actual document that they wrote before the journal received it and edited it for publication.
So really the big bad gatekeepers *aren't* the journals but the academics who don't bother to upload their papers for all the world to see.
Frankly given the amount of fake "research" that comes out of China & Russia, you'd probably be better off ignoring those papers if you want quality results.
As for the rest of them, I'm pretty sure U.S. universities would do quite nicely for themselves if they had to pay a small fraction of the amount of money that they got in fees from the other countries for reciprocal publication access agreements.
Figuring out ways to pay for useful research shouldn't be considered "dirty". Charging taxpayers for useless research should be considered dirty.
I don't see why there's an entitlement for universities in New Zealand to be given free access to work that was paid for with the tax money of people in other countries (and I'm sure the U.S. is #1 by a huge margin).
The story would have made a better point if the author actually figured out how much New Zealand universities pay to get access to papers paid for by New Zealand taxpayers.
Yeah, because driving up the price of gas and electricity and food only hurts the ultra-rich and never hurts anyone outside of the 1% at all.
You think the past 10 years have been bad?
Actually no I really don't. The massive hurricane drought that must be caused by Global Warming (because *literally everything* is caused by Global Warming) hasn't really done much to scare me even if 2017 included a few hurricanes that were similar to those observed pre-1950.
Good, in that case if a cable company truck kills you then you have absolutely no problem with your next of kin having absolutely no ability to sue the cable company for a single red cent.
Because when a court says that a company is a "person" it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I hope that wherever you claimed to go to law school gave you a refund. Or at least publicly labeled you as ineligible to do anything other than work at a Starbucks.
Angela Merkel's disgusting pro-Trump propaganda needs to stop now!
Just remember how hypocritical and disingenuous they are the next time they put on an act of "standing up" to big mean OMG Hitler-Trump.
You know the guy who, even in the strawman fantasy world constructed for him by good liberals, would qualify as the most radical human rights reformer in over 5,000 years of Chinese history if he were in China.
Did you properly report your naked electioneering to the FEC there? Are you illegally coordinating with that PAC that you are advertising there?
Funny how those pesky rules should only apply to *some* companies but not to other companies you personally like or to you yourself.
Once again you are using an 8th-grade children's book interpretation of Marbury v. Madison to come to stupid conclusions that aren't based on any proper legal analysis but merely on your subjective emotional feeling that because you personally think "net neutrality" (a term that changes meaning every time it is mentioned on Slashdot) == OMG GOOD that it is now literally unconstitutional for the government to change a regulation that was passed in 2015. That's what a dictator does, not a court.
Here's a proper analysis:
1. Was the net neutrality regulation constitutional or not? A court might decide that -- properly -- based not on the emotional bigotry of a judge but based on a judgment as to whether the statutory grant of power to the FCC and the actual rule making process of the FCC met both the statutory and constitutional requirements for administrative rule making.
2. If it turns out that the rule is not legal, then it should be overturned. If it turns out that the rule was legal, then the exact same administrative body... the FCC... that promulgated the rule can rescind it in the future by definition. It's called Democracy, not dictatorship.
Yeah... I have and you obviously don't know what Marbury v. Madison is actually about if you are stupid enough to name-drop a Supreme Court case that never once stated that the Supreme Court allocates itself the power to arbitrarily re-instate an administrative rule that was overturned by the same administrative body that implemented the rule in the first place.
Try again.