The courts shut down the FCC regulating ISP's around 2005, claiming they did not have the authority to do so. In response, the FCC attempted to change the legal definition of what an ISP is until they could regulate. They failed in 2008 but succeeded in 2012. Then three years later Obama encouraged the FCC to go around congressional authority to impose new legal doctrine and voila! the Net Neutrality regulations that were just repealed. The vote was put to table within the FCC on the same grounds that caused the 2005 court ruling.
All these events that are recent history which have been conveniently ignored in the discussion of Net Neutrality. The FCC never had authority to do what they did but the gears of government are very slow.
Interesting, but your argument was rendered moot when the courts affirmed the Net Neutrality regulations in 2015.
Make it an actual law that changes the existing law about the FCC not doing this kind of regulation. Please.
If not the FCC, then who? That's the way this sort of thing works: Congress passes a law, and a federal agency carries the law out - in this case, regulation is required. So which federal agency is more appropriate than the FCC?
The legislature enacts LAWS. Federal agencies enacts RULES to enforce those laws. In this case, the FCC was enforcing the Telecom Act of 1934. A federal judge found this to be a lawful application of rules by the FCC in 2015.
Which will show that the "it just needs to come from Congress, not the FCC" argument comes from a desire for political cover and not from a respect for proper procedure.
That, and to demonstrate the the GOP is not interested in Net Neutrality in any form. The idea that political theater has no value is an odd one - it demonstrates where the parties differ.
Whatever form of Net Neutrality congress were to pass, it would fall on some regulatory agency to enforce it. Why not the FCC - what makes them the incorrect agency to deal with this? And if not the FCC, why would another agency - none of which are democratically elected - be a better option? Are you suggesting the creation of a new agency? And if none of the above, how exactly would it be enforced?
You could call it grandstanding. I prefer to call it "getting everyone to declare their position". If the House takes this up and passes it, great. If they don't, then it's clear that the House, and the speaker in particular are on the wrong side of the issue and need to be replaced. If it doesn't pass the Senate, and it's on party lines, then it's clear that the talk about "doing it the proper way" is just another in a long line of self-serving rules the GOP insists Democrats observe while doing nothing of the sort themselves.
Your understanding of what constitutes interstate commerce is lacking. States are absolutely allowed to regulate commercial activity that occurs within their borders. For example, they can require that brewers use third party distributors to get their product to market, even if the beer is brewed in another state.
Applied to Net Neutrality, it seems entirely reasonable that states could require that ISPs operating within their borders must abide by NN principles to make sales within their borders. They can't require that ISPs based in other states apply those principles in all states in which they operate - that level of regulation is reserved for the federal government - but there's no reason they shouldn't be able to require those principles be upheld within their jurisdiction.
You're not wrong about what the new rules are. It's not clear that this particular rule is legal and that it will survive the courts. Generally speaking, regulatory agencies don't have the authority to dictate what levels of additional regulation states are allowed to enact. Even congress may not have that level of authority.
People get desperate when something important to them is threatened. It does not follow that their desperation is a sign that they don't have reason to be desperate.
A good place to start: Cui bono?
I see your point, but that's not the distinction I'm making. That assistance is not programming in the same sense that we mean with computers. Advice is not directive - it's closer to data than code. Impulse, for lack of a better word, is internal in source, not provided externally.
What I said is not what you said. The word before "Senators" is an adjective, not a noun. That means the proper word to use is the adjective form of "Democrat", which is "Democratic", not "Democrat". And "Democratic" is not the same thing as "democratic". The former refers to things having to do with the Democratic party, whereas the latter refers to things having to do with democracy in its various forms. The phrase "Democratic Senators" is not ambiguous in the least. You'd have to be either willfully obtuse or hopelessly ignorant to think so.
To my understanding, there are essentially three major problems, which may be interrelated to various degrees.
1) DNA degradation over time
2) Insufficient repair and regrowth of damaged tissue
3) Inadequate waste removal, including cholesterol and heavy metals.
If we find a treatment for the first, we will likely solve the second.
There has been no evolutionary pressure to solve any of these things.
Nor will there ever be. Natural selection only applies to things which affect ability to reproduce. If these things struck at a young enough age that those with "inferior" genes died before they got a chance to reproduce, evolutionary pressures would apply. But they don't generally hit until after offspring have reproduced themselves, so there's no evolutionary advantage for those who are less affected by these factors.
Not in the same sense. Computers do exactly what you program them to do, and only ask questions if you tell them to. People wrestle with competing motivations (my motivation to play is competing with my motivation to do work to fulfill my motivation to survive, for example), and decide from moment to moment which motivation is most compelling. We take input from all our sensors all the time, not just within the confines that a program dictates. We piece that input into a meaningful continuum within which we are free to choose how to interact - or not interact. That is a significantly higher intelligence than we see required within the game of chess or go.
Illegal aliens are perpetually breaking the law and committing a crime every single moment they're in the country illegally.
Once again, "breaking the law" is not the same thing as "committing a crime". Immigration violations are CIVIL violations, not CRIMINAL violations. Breaking immigration law is not a criminal act.
I'm white, and no one has been shitting on me. Have you considered the possibility that, if people are shitting on you, it could be because you're an asshole, and not because you're white?
Imagine a TV show set in Tokyo where 75% of the characters are white, 23% of the characters are black, 1% of the characters are jewish and the last 1% are asian - but half of those are from India.
Imagine? Seems pretty much like what Hollywood typically does.
Slashdot Mirror
Or more accurately, a promise he wasn't in position to keep.
The courts shut down the FCC regulating ISP's around 2005, claiming they did not have the authority to do so. In response, the FCC attempted to change the legal definition of what an ISP is until they could regulate. They failed in 2008 but succeeded in 2012. Then three years later Obama encouraged the FCC to go around congressional authority to impose new legal doctrine and voila! the Net Neutrality regulations that were just repealed. The vote was put to table within the FCC on the same grounds that caused the 2005 court ruling.
All these events that are recent history which have been conveniently ignored in the discussion of Net Neutrality. The FCC never had authority to do what they did but the gears of government are very slow.
Interesting, but your argument was rendered moot when the courts affirmed the Net Neutrality regulations in 2015.
Make it an actual law that changes the existing law about the FCC not doing this kind of regulation. Please.
If not the FCC, then who? That's the way this sort of thing works: Congress passes a law, and a federal agency carries the law out - in this case, regulation is required. So which federal agency is more appropriate than the FCC?
The legislature enacts LAWS. Federal agencies enacts RULES to enforce those laws. In this case, the FCC was enforcing the Telecom Act of 1934. A federal judge found this to be a lawful application of rules by the FCC in 2015.
Which will show that the "it just needs to come from Congress, not the FCC" argument comes from a desire for political cover and not from a respect for proper procedure.
That, and to demonstrate the the GOP is not interested in Net Neutrality in any form. The idea that political theater has no value is an odd one - it demonstrates where the parties differ.
Then where should those rules be enacted, and by whom should they be enforced?
Whatever form of Net Neutrality congress were to pass, it would fall on some regulatory agency to enforce it. Why not the FCC - what makes them the incorrect agency to deal with this? And if not the FCC, why would another agency - none of which are democratically elected - be a better option? Are you suggesting the creation of a new agency? And if none of the above, how exactly would it be enforced?
You could call it grandstanding. I prefer to call it "getting everyone to declare their position". If the House takes this up and passes it, great. If they don't, then it's clear that the House, and the speaker in particular are on the wrong side of the issue and need to be replaced. If it doesn't pass the Senate, and it's on party lines, then it's clear that the talk about "doing it the proper way" is just another in a long line of self-serving rules the GOP insists Democrats observe while doing nothing of the sort themselves.
Your understanding of what constitutes interstate commerce is lacking. States are absolutely allowed to regulate commercial activity that occurs within their borders. For example, they can require that brewers use third party distributors to get their product to market, even if the beer is brewed in another state.
Applied to Net Neutrality, it seems entirely reasonable that states could require that ISPs operating within their borders must abide by NN principles to make sales within their borders. They can't require that ISPs based in other states apply those principles in all states in which they operate - that level of regulation is reserved for the federal government - but there's no reason they shouldn't be able to require those principles be upheld within their jurisdiction.
You're not wrong about what the new rules are. It's not clear that this particular rule is legal and that it will survive the courts. Generally speaking, regulatory agencies don't have the authority to dictate what levels of additional regulation states are allowed to enact. Even congress may not have that level of authority.
It's almost as though Trump has managed to change very little, and thus the economic trends from before his election are continuing apace.
You are really bad at estimating levels of evil.
People get desperate when something important to them is threatened. It does not follow that their desperation is a sign that they don't have reason to be desperate. A good place to start: Cui bono?
I see your point, but that's not the distinction I'm making. That assistance is not programming in the same sense that we mean with computers. Advice is not directive - it's closer to data than code. Impulse, for lack of a better word, is internal in source, not provided externally.
What I said is not what you said. The word before "Senators" is an adjective, not a noun. That means the proper word to use is the adjective form of "Democrat", which is "Democratic", not "Democrat". And "Democratic" is not the same thing as "democratic". The former refers to things having to do with the Democratic party, whereas the latter refers to things having to do with democracy in its various forms. The phrase "Democratic Senators" is not ambiguous in the least. You'd have to be either willfully obtuse or hopelessly ignorant to think so.
Well, the novels specifically. But both are very good.
That's an awful lot of money to spend on something we'll just park in the slow zone until the Free Navy decides to take it over.
To my understanding, there are essentially three major problems, which may be interrelated to various degrees.
1) DNA degradation over time 2) Insufficient repair and regrowth of damaged tissue 3) Inadequate waste removal, including cholesterol and heavy metals.
If we find a treatment for the first, we will likely solve the second.
There has been no evolutionary pressure to solve any of these things.
Nor will there ever be. Natural selection only applies to things which affect ability to reproduce. If these things struck at a young enough age that those with "inferior" genes died before they got a chance to reproduce, evolutionary pressures would apply. But they don't generally hit until after offspring have reproduced themselves, so there's no evolutionary advantage for those who are less affected by these factors.
Not in the same sense. Computers do exactly what you program them to do, and only ask questions if you tell them to. People wrestle with competing motivations (my motivation to play is competing with my motivation to do work to fulfill my motivation to survive, for example), and decide from moment to moment which motivation is most compelling. We take input from all our sensors all the time, not just within the confines that a program dictates. We piece that input into a meaningful continuum within which we are free to choose how to interact - or not interact. That is a significantly higher intelligence than we see required within the game of chess or go.
Treblinka? Belzec? Chelmo? Dachau? Buchenwald? Janowska? Majdanek? Bergen-Belsen?
Illegal aliens are perpetually breaking the law and committing a crime every single moment they're in the country illegally.
Once again, "breaking the law" is not the same thing as "committing a crime". Immigration violations are CIVIL violations, not CRIMINAL violations. Breaking immigration law is not a criminal act.
"I don't understand someone. Kill them!"
I'm white, and no one has been shitting on me. Have you considered the possibility that, if people are shitting on you, it could be because you're an asshole, and not because you're white?
Imagine a TV show set in Tokyo where 75% of the characters are white, 23% of the characters are black, 1% of the characters are jewish and the last 1% are asian - but half of those are from India.
Imagine? Seems pretty much like what Hollywood typically does.