Mitch McConnell: Democrats' Net Neutrality Bill is 'Dead on Arrival' in Senate
This is what the Democrats need to do, go down the list of popular bills congress should pass, send them to the senate so the electorate can watch them go down in flames thanks to Mitch McConnell. Lather, rinse repeat until the 2020 election and shine the spotlight on Mitch McConnell every time he shoots one of these popular bills down. Make him the poster boy for the demise of every reform, every popular bill imaginable. It's the best way to make his 'no to everything, it's my way or the highway' policy work against him. There are tons of people on both the right and left wing who want to seen net-neutrality anchored in law and for either Rep. or Dem. politicians to be against net neutrality is not likely to be a vote winner on either side.
Right? It is so annoying when mass media companies allow the printing of speech I disagree with. I never do business with anyone that has a different opinion on anything then I have.
Why is the government then using a private corporation like YouTube to stream?
Why is the government using a private corporation like Boeing to build the President's aircraft? I expect they used YouTube and Boeing because they both provided something the government needed and the government wasn't about to waste large amounts of taxpayer money on designing and building those things them selves when they could be outsourced to private industry and the vast sums of tax payer money the government thus saved could be better spent on tax breaks for the wealthy.
However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
If someone was a nationalist, and thought their nation should be solely or dominantly one race, would it not be semantically and massively correctly to refer to them as a "[Race] Nationalist"?
(Race being not a biological category, as humans are a single species, but a reference to skin color, geographical ancestry, or religion.)
Humans are so lacking in genetic diversity that the closest we get to 'race' is 'trivial regional variations'.
Free Speech. Guaranteed by the first (foremost) amendment to the supreme law of the land.
Anyone who would knowingly abridge it is an enemy of the United States of America.
Period. Full Stop.
You can exercise your free speech as much as you want and you can use the 1st amendment to spew as much racist hate as you want but I reserve the right to forbid you from doing that on my lawn and I will make use of the rights guaranteed to me under the second amendment to persuade you to comply if you refuse. Be glad that Google is a lot more diplomatic about shutting up hate spewing racist dummies than I am.
I don't know if these "You Tube Moderators" have looked around much, but you can find hateful comments on pretty much any video. Why block comments on just this one?
If YouTube wants to block "hateful comments" why do they allow comments anywhere?
Because the quantity and hatefulness blew the scale?
We have health care system that is the envy of most of the world. There is a reason why the kings of the middle east come here and say not the UK or Canada when they need life saving care.
Yeah, that is exactly his point. State of the art healthcare that only the kings of the Middle East, american oligarchs and the moneyed classes in the US can afford but that will bankrupt the middle class and that the working US classes simply cannot afford. If you think there is no state of the art medicine available elsewhere in the developed world you are full of bovine rectal secretions. Even Cuba has a better and more affordable healthcare system than the US from the common citizen's point of view and so does all of Western Europe.
Taking care of your poor?
Abject poverty is at its lowest level in history. Nobody is starving to death in America ANYWHERE.
That's not what he said. He was referring to the more than 40.0 million Americans live in households that struggle against hunger.
Having a proper democracy?
Yes voter id laws would help a lot.
Voter ID to do what? Give the GOP the opportunity to make voter ID's much more easily available in heavily Republican districts and nearly unobtainable in Democrat districts in a portfolio of measures intended to 'adjust' democracy to make sure the GOP wins elections despite a majority of the electorate voting for something else? Let's not forget that the most outrageous case of electoral fraud in the 2018 midterms was perpetrated by the GOP, not the Democrats, not the 'Socialists', not tons of 'liberals' bussed in by George Soros from neighbouring states, not millions of illegal immigrants, not the shadowy forces of the Deep state, it was perpetrated by the GOP.
The slave-ification of the Roman economy was a process that in many ways was similar to automation since it was a massive infusion of extremely cheap un paid labour so here are historical precedents indicating that this is not guaranteed to end the way you predict. UBI in Rome was simply a mechanism the wealthy slave owners used to keep the masses from arming themselves and coming for them. This was an ever-present danger since many of Rome's free citizenry were veterans of Rome's constant wars to secure resources and pre-emptively neutralise potential competitors which was one of the few career options still open to those who wanted something more out of life than just subsisting on a UBI. That last part about constant wars over resources of course has no parallels in post WWII US history... or does it?
$100 per ton would mean $200 per ton of coal, which sells for around $50. Nobody's going to pay a 5-fold premium on coal.
Mind you that's just for capturing the gas:
Carbon Engineering says that its direct air capture (DAC) process is now able to capture the gas for under $100 a tonne.
Expect the conversion into whatever fossil fuel they choose to cost even more and probably quite a bit more than another hundred bucks. That and the fact that this only makes sense (economics apart) if you re-bury the coal since if. you burn it again it does nothing to reduce atmospheric carbon levels. Anybody hitching their cart to fossil fuels is like a guy who went to see the Benz Patent-Motorwagen in 1886 and then sank his entire fortune into a buggy-whip company.
Anybody who operates a platform is entitled to decide that a bunch of lunatics spewing all kinds of stupid conspiracy theories and hate can go elsewhere to express themselves.
Not if that platform is sufficiently public. The concept of a privately owned or privately operated public space is well established.
Otherwise, every university, library, park, street, sidewalk, etc. would be leased to an NGO for operation and no protest would be allowed anywhere.
One more time, why do the loonies that pass for conservatives these days insist on being reliant upon a bunch of us hated 'libtards' for a place from which to propagate their beliefs? They are perfectly free to set up their own rivals to Facebook, Google and Twitter (hail the sacred free market!!!) where only those are allowed to speak who pledge unconditional fealty to their orange god-emperor. Facebook, Google and Twitter are businesses with a brand. They are no more obliged to let any bat-shit crazy conspiracy theorists shit all over their brand by spouting their hate on Facebook, Google and Twitter's sites any more than the LA times is obligated to let Alex Jones write whatever deranged crap about Sandy Hook he has thought up today their news site. If Facebook, Google and Twitter decide that your conspiracy and hate laden ramblings are damaging their brand they are perfectly within their rights to tell you to go whistle.
The problem is, they are either a platform or a publisher.
The difference is in responsibility. If they are a platform, then they have a wide range of latitude on content on that platform. They aren't responsible. The moment they start picking an choosing, they start to become a publisher, and the content protection narrows substantially.
Censorship is a natural tendency, and we all ought to fight against it in all its forms. The idea that some ideas are just "too dangerous" is a slippery slope that we don't want to ride down.
Anybody who operates a platform is entitled to decide that a bunch of lunatics spewing all kinds of stupid conspiracy theories and hate can go elsewhere to express themselves. The lunatic convention that calls itself conservatives these days is perfectly free to set up competing platforms. If they really are the silent majority and enjoy a groundswell of support among the vast majority of the population I'm pretty sure those platforms will quickly outshine Facebook, Google and Twitter in popularity. Meanwhile the group of generally sane and rational people that we used call conservatives really need to think up a new name for their socio-political philosophy because the term 'conservative' has become synonymous with something very different.
I too could build a starship in my tiny apartment for ten dollars worth of scrap metal, but my immense intellect has decided that it wasn't worth my time. That proves that I'm smart, right? That I didn't do anything?
I think you misunderstood something, here's what happened:
Re:Cats are pretty stupid, so that is quite an achievement. But they recognize the names only when you bring them food. And then they recognize any name as theirs.
Why do you consider cats stupid? Because you can't teach them tricks like a dog? In actual facts dogs are stupid because they will do cheap tricks for food out of greed. Cats could learn do those tricks too but because a cat is a very smart and cerebral creature it just can't be bothered with such simplistic food/reward teaching methods. You are mistaking that for stupidity.
More like: If I bought a multi-thousand dollar top of the line TV without advertising financial support, back dooring it into the product after it's too late to return it is a taking. Ad supported products are worth far less.
Yup, there is a reason I don't own a singe Google device and there is a reason I always buy 'dumb' televisions and this episode is basically it.
If you use a TV with an OS made by an advertising company, can you really find it that surprising or audacious? People need to stop thinking of Google as a technology company and start thinking of them as what they really are: The world's biggest ad agency.
Does it surprise me that Google would do this... ummm... No. this is Google we are talking about here. Do I find it audacious? You better believe that I do, in fact it's not just audacious it is bloody outrageous. Apple and Microsoft do not repurpose my desktop background or screensaver to shove advertisements in my face, Toyota does not project advertisements onto the windshield of my car and the Asus company who made my computer monitor does interrupt my work by flashing advertisements across it. If Google wants to subsidise devices or hand them out for free in exchange for people putting up with advertisements that OK in my book, but if I buy a device outright unsubsidised doing this is bloody outrageous.
Yeah, the audacity is a bit staggering. If I spend multiple thousands of dollars on a device I'm OK with advertisements in the Google Play store or iTunes or some app like that but I'm not OK with the space on my home-screen/desktop being chewed up so that these bozos can make money by shoving advertisements in my face. One of the things you pay for when you buy a device is freedom from bullshit like that.
Just because you keep saying there isn't proof doesn't mean that its true. These Chinese firms have been caught on more than one occasion red handed already. How many times does it take before you admit they are either letting their masters do what they want or are outright malicious themselves? At this point there doesn't even have to be a new specific exploit or issue, the long history of active attempts by the Chinese to steal our secrets is reason enough to cut them out of any critical systems.
I keep saying ??? I didn't say there was no proof he did:
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this...
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government...
... and US firms have been caught red handed conducting industrial espionage too, sometimes with the help of the US government and its three letter agencies. China has a shorter history of stealing our secrets than the US does so why, pray tell, should I trust the US any more than the Chinese?
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire).
but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
Oooo, I'm a shill now. As for the rest of your commment, no, the Trump admin is not MIT but the Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei and if they are ready to try and bully the EU over Huawei your take-away from that if you are MIT is: Better cut ties with Huawei before the Trump admin starts gunning for the small fry. MIT just sampled the wind, smelled the stink emanating from a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington which in turn caused MIT's sense of self-preservation to kick in.
It's like the USA, holder of more nukes than everyone else combined, accusing Iraq of biilding a nuke all over again.
Yeah, I am certain that Huawei has backdoor. *Even* if they'd actually be unaware of them.
If I was under Chinese government power, I'd avoid them like the plague.
But I'm not in China. I'm under US government power.
So my goal is to avoid *their* spying and terrorism.
Which means avoiding Cisco like the plague!
But that's beside the point, isn't it?
Because it is the ridiculous blatant childish bickering and basically begging to be followed by the USA that is currently making it a global joke, and having the EU, for the very first time, say "No!".
If China was acting *that* childish, nobod would accept them anymore either.
By the way: Why does the US not just make China look that ridiculous?
Oh wait! That would require competent leadership!
Anyway... Thanks Trump! For finally ending the reign of the world bully " USA" on a BWAHAHAHAHA!:D
Niptick, Russia is the king of nukes with 4,350 usable nuclear warheads, while the United States comes in second at 3,800 usable nuclear warheads a fact that seems to have given Prez. Trump an inferiority complex.. Both have over 6000 warheads if you count ones that are in storage and not easily made combat ready and both countries keep about 1600 of their warheads instantly deployable. Neither country has more nukes than the rest of the world combined but Russia is a bit closer though.
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire).
but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration. I think that if there was a shred of proof that China is using Huawei to spy on the ROW Trump would have tweeted the proof of it before his first intelligence briefing on the subject was over.
Wasn't this more or less the plot to Terminator: Genisys?
Oh, it is completely shameless plagiarism. I just cannot for the life of me imagine that Facebook will do something sensible (from the point of view of a soulless unfeeling AI) when it becomes self aware like wiping out humanity. Self aware Facebook will be the AI equivalent of Sarah Palin.
Slashdot Mirror
Mitch McConnell: Democrats' Net Neutrality Bill is 'Dead on Arrival' in Senate
This is what the Democrats need to do, go down the list of popular bills congress should pass, send them to the senate so the electorate can watch them go down in flames thanks to Mitch McConnell. Lather, rinse repeat until the 2020 election and shine the spotlight on Mitch McConnell every time he shoots one of these popular bills down. Make him the poster boy for the demise of every reform, every popular bill imaginable. It's the best way to make his 'no to everything, it's my way or the highway' policy work against him. There are tons of people on both the right and left wing who want to seen net-neutrality anchored in law and for either Rep. or Dem. politicians to be against net neutrality is not likely to be a vote winner on either side.
Right? It is so annoying when mass media companies allow the printing of speech I disagree with. I never do business with anyone that has a different opinion on anything then I have.
A fine description of a Fox News customer.
Why is the government then using a private corporation like YouTube to stream?
Why is the government using a private corporation like Boeing to build the President's aircraft? I expect they used YouTube and Boeing because they both provided something the government needed and the government wasn't about to waste large amounts of taxpayer money on designing and building those things them selves when they could be outsourced to private industry and the vast sums of tax payer money the government thus saved could be better spent on tax breaks for the wealthy.
However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
If someone was a nationalist, and thought their nation should be solely or dominantly one race, would it not be semantically and massively correctly to refer to them as a "[Race] Nationalist"?
(Race being not a biological category, as humans are a single species, but a reference to skin color, geographical ancestry, or religion.)
Humans are so lacking in genetic diversity that the closest we get to 'race' is 'trivial regional variations'.
Free Speech. Guaranteed by the first (foremost) amendment to the supreme law of the land.
Anyone who would knowingly abridge it is an enemy of the United States of America.
Period. Full Stop.
You can exercise your free speech as much as you want and you can use the 1st amendment to spew as much racist hate as you want but I reserve the right to forbid you from doing that on my lawn and I will make use of the rights guaranteed to me under the second amendment to persuade you to comply if you refuse. Be glad that Google is a lot more diplomatic about shutting up hate spewing racist dummies than I am.
I don't know if these "You Tube Moderators" have looked around much, but you can find hateful comments on pretty much any video. Why block comments on just this one?
If YouTube wants to block "hateful comments" why do they allow comments anywhere?
Because the quantity and hatefulness blew the scale?
Spin up your fantasies, guy.
Let's not forget that the most outrageous case of electoral fraud in the 2018 midterms was perpetrated by the GOP,
How can we remember something that is your frothy fantasy? You need to cite, not just assert.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Republica...
what about health care?
We have health care system that is the envy of most of the world. There is a reason why the kings of the middle east come here and say not the UK or Canada when they need life saving care.
Yeah, that is exactly his point. State of the art healthcare that only the kings of the Middle East, american oligarchs and the moneyed classes in the US can afford but that will bankrupt the middle class and that the working US classes simply cannot afford. If you think there is no state of the art medicine available elsewhere in the developed world you are full of bovine rectal secretions. Even Cuba has a better and more affordable healthcare system than the US from the common citizen's point of view and so does all of Western Europe.
Taking care of your poor?
Abject poverty is at its lowest level in history. Nobody is starving to death in America ANYWHERE.
That's not what he said. He was referring to the more than 40.0 million Americans live in households that struggle against hunger.
Having a proper democracy?
Yes voter id laws would help a lot.
Voter ID to do what? Give the GOP the opportunity to make voter ID's much more easily available in heavily Republican districts and nearly unobtainable in Democrat districts in a portfolio of measures intended to 'adjust' democracy to make sure the GOP wins elections despite a majority of the electorate voting for something else? Let's not forget that the most outrageous case of electoral fraud in the 2018 midterms was perpetrated by the GOP, not the Democrats, not the 'Socialists', not tons of 'liberals' bussed in by George Soros from neighbouring states, not millions of illegal immigrants, not the shadowy forces of the Deep state, it was perpetrated by the GOP.
Tractors benefited land owners who could buy them, not farmers using them.
Massive numbers of slaves benefitted large land owners, not the common wage workers of Rome who became welfare cases on a Universal Basic Income.
... or does it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The slave-ification of the Roman economy was a process that in many ways was similar to automation since it was a massive infusion of extremely cheap un paid labour so here are historical precedents indicating that this is not guaranteed to end the way you predict. UBI in Rome was simply a mechanism the wealthy slave owners used to keep the masses from arming themselves and coming for them. This was an ever-present danger since many of Rome's free citizenry were veterans of Rome's constant wars to secure resources and pre-emptively neutralise potential competitors which was one of the few career options still open to those who wanted something more out of life than just subsisting on a UBI. That last part about constant wars over resources of course has no parallels in post WWII US history
$100 per ton would mean $200 per ton of coal, which sells for around $50. Nobody's going to pay a 5-fold premium on coal.
Mind you that's just for capturing the gas:
Carbon Engineering says that its direct air capture (DAC) process is now able to capture the gas for under $100 a tonne.
Expect the conversion into whatever fossil fuel they choose to cost even more and probably quite a bit more than another hundred bucks. That and the fact that this only makes sense (economics apart) if you re-bury the coal since if. you burn it again it does nothing to reduce atmospheric carbon levels. Anybody hitching their cart to fossil fuels is like a guy who went to see the Benz Patent-Motorwagen in 1886 and then sank his entire fortune into a buggy-whip company.
Anybody who operates a platform is entitled to decide that a bunch of lunatics spewing all kinds of stupid conspiracy theories and hate can go elsewhere to express themselves.
Not if that platform is sufficiently public. The concept of a privately owned or privately operated public space is well established.
Otherwise, every university, library, park, street, sidewalk, etc. would be leased to an NGO for operation and no protest would be allowed anywhere.
One more time, why do the loonies that pass for conservatives these days insist on being reliant upon a bunch of us hated 'libtards' for a place from which to propagate their beliefs? They are perfectly free to set up their own rivals to Facebook, Google and Twitter (hail the sacred free market!!!) where only those are allowed to speak who pledge unconditional fealty to their orange god-emperor. Facebook, Google and Twitter are businesses with a brand. They are no more obliged to let any bat-shit crazy conspiracy theorists shit all over their brand by spouting their hate on Facebook, Google and Twitter's sites any more than the LA times is obligated to let Alex Jones write whatever deranged crap about Sandy Hook he has thought up today their news site. If Facebook, Google and Twitter decide that your conspiracy and hate laden ramblings are damaging their brand they are perfectly within their rights to tell you to go whistle.
The problem is, they are either a platform or a publisher.
The difference is in responsibility. If they are a platform, then they have a wide range of latitude on content on that platform. They aren't responsible. The moment they start picking an choosing, they start to become a publisher, and the content protection narrows substantially.
Censorship is a natural tendency, and we all ought to fight against it in all its forms. The idea that some ideas are just "too dangerous" is a slippery slope that we don't want to ride down.
Anybody who operates a platform is entitled to decide that a bunch of lunatics spewing all kinds of stupid conspiracy theories and hate can go elsewhere to express themselves. The lunatic convention that calls itself conservatives these days is perfectly free to set up competing platforms. If they really are the silent majority and enjoy a groundswell of support among the vast majority of the population I'm pretty sure those platforms will quickly outshine Facebook, Google and Twitter in popularity. Meanwhile the group of generally sane and rational people that we used call conservatives really need to think up a new name for their socio-political philosophy because the term 'conservative' has become synonymous with something very different.
I too could build a starship in my tiny apartment for ten dollars worth of scrap metal, but my immense intellect has decided that it wasn't worth my time. That proves that I'm smart, right? That I didn't do anything?
I think you misunderstood something, here's what happened:
.....o <-- you
..../|\
..../ \
--=|CAT JOKE>
-- 50.000 feet --
TTTTTTTTTT
Re:Cats are pretty stupid, so that is quite an achievement. But they recognize the names only when you bring them food. And then they recognize any name as theirs.
Why do you consider cats stupid? Because you can't teach them tricks like a dog? In actual facts dogs are stupid because they will do cheap tricks for food out of greed. Cats could learn do those tricks too but because a cat is a very smart and cerebral creature it just can't be bothered with such simplistic food/reward teaching methods. You are mistaking that for stupidity.
These people have too much money to play with ideas which are not really scalable and have a ton of issues which are not fixable.
That sounds like a description of the Pentagon.
More like: If I bought a multi-thousand dollar top of the line TV without advertising financial support, back dooring it into the product after it's too late to return it is a taking. Ad supported products are worth far less.
Yup, there is a reason I don't own a singe Google device and there is a reason I always buy 'dumb' televisions and this episode is basically it.
If you use a TV with an OS made by an advertising company, can you really find it that surprising or audacious? People need to stop thinking of Google as a technology company and start thinking of them as what they really are: The world's biggest ad agency.
Does it surprise me that Google would do this ... ummm ... No. this is Google we are talking about here. Do I find it audacious? You better believe that I do, in fact it's not just audacious it is bloody outrageous. Apple and Microsoft do not repurpose my desktop background or screensaver to shove advertisements in my face, Toyota does not project advertisements onto the windshield of my car and the Asus company who made my computer monitor does interrupt my work by flashing advertisements across it. If Google wants to subsidise devices or hand them out for free in exchange for people putting up with advertisements that OK in my book, but if I buy a device outright unsubsidised doing this is bloody outrageous.
The way this was sneaked in is alarming.
Yeah, the audacity is a bit staggering. If I spend multiple thousands of dollars on a device I'm OK with advertisements in the Google Play store or iTunes or some app like that but I'm not OK with the space on my home-screen/desktop being chewed up so that these bozos can make money by shoving advertisements in my face. One of the things you pay for when you buy a device is freedom from bullshit like that.
Orange Man Bad
Precisely! ...and the oranges of my investigations support that conclusion, even the Parson Brown grown in Texas.
Just because you keep saying there isn't proof doesn't mean that its true. These Chinese firms have been caught on more than one occasion red handed already. How many times does it take before you admit they are either letting their masters do what they want or are outright malicious themselves? At this point there doesn't even have to be a new specific exploit or issue, the long history of active attempts by the Chinese to steal our secrets is reason enough to cut them out of any critical systems.
I keep saying ??? I didn't say there was no proof he did:
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this...
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government...
... and US firms have been caught red handed conducting industrial espionage too, sometimes with the help of the US government and its three letter agencies. China has a shorter history of stealing our secrets than the US does so why, pray tell, should I trust the US any more than the Chinese?
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
Oooo, I'm a shill now. As for the rest of your commment, no, the Trump admin is not MIT but the Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei and if they are ready to try and bully the EU over Huawei your take-away from that if you are MIT is: Better cut ties with Huawei before the Trump admin starts gunning for the small fry. MIT just sampled the wind, smelled the stink emanating from a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington which in turn caused MIT's sense of self-preservation to kick in.
It's like the USA, holder of more nukes than everyone else combined, accusing Iraq of biilding a nuke all over again.
Yeah, I am certain that Huawei has backdoor. *Even* if they'd actually be unaware of them. If I was under Chinese government power, I'd avoid them like the plague.
But I'm not in China. I'm under US government power. So my goal is to avoid *their* spying and terrorism. Which means avoiding Cisco like the plague!
But that's beside the point, isn't it? Because it is the ridiculous blatant childish bickering and basically begging to be followed by the USA that is currently making it a global joke, and having the EU, for the very first time, say "No!". If China was acting *that* childish, nobod would accept them anymore either.
By the way: Why does the US not just make China look that ridiculous? Oh wait! That would require competent leadership!
Anyway... Thanks Trump! For finally ending the reign of the world bully " USA" on a BWAHAHAHAHA! :D
Niptick, Russia is the king of nukes with 4,350 usable nuclear warheads, while the United States comes in second at 3,800 usable nuclear warheads a fact that seems to have given Prez. Trump an inferiority complex.. Both have over 6000 warheads if you count ones that are in storage and not easily made combat ready and both countries keep about 1600 of their warheads instantly deployable. Neither country has more nukes than the rest of the world combined but Russia is a bit closer though.
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration. I think that if there was a shred of proof that China is using Huawei to spy on the ROW Trump would have tweeted the proof of it before his first intelligence briefing on the subject was over.
Trump! For finally ending the reign of the world bully " USA" on a BWAHAHAHAHA! :D
... which leaves us with three world bullies The USA, China and Russia. Not exactly an improvement.
Wasn't this more or less the plot to Terminator: Genisys?
Oh, it is completely shameless plagiarism. I just cannot for the life of me imagine that Facebook will do something sensible (from the point of view of a soulless unfeeling AI) when it becomes self aware like wiping out humanity. Self aware Facebook will be the AI equivalent of Sarah Palin.