Historically, telecom contributions have slightly favored the Democrats.
How historical are you going in order to make this claim? Net Neutrality has only been a partisan issue for... what? Less that ten years. The FCC was still trying to compromise back in 2010 with it's "third way" policy. Going full-on partisanship is a tactic that the ISPs adopted when their other efforts failed. This particular issue is one that's easier to trace to corporate influence than many other issues for this reason.
Also, this bullshit needs to stop:
If they truly believed in net neutrality on principle, they could've easily passed it during Obama's first term when they held the Presidency and both branches of Congress with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
The Democrats never had the ability to pass anything they wanted. At their peak they had 58 senators, only for a period of six months, and of the two independents only Sanders was a fairly reliable Democratic vote. Lieberman was definitely not. Also, of the true-blue Democrats, almost one quarter were right-leaning Blue Dogs.
However, for this reason, your point about Democrats not truly believing in network neutrality has at least a little bit of merit - Democrats just aren't that homogeneous. They don't have nearly the same party discipline that Republicans do, it's only Trump which has really brought Democrats together recently. Republicans may be the bad guys here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Democrats are the good guys or that they've always been the good guys.
Well, obviously, the fact that he's critical of Trump. A large portion of humor is critical of something, whether it's a person or a practice or a shared experience. "What's the deal with airline food?" "Lawyers are all scumbags, amiright?"
Recognizing those shared experiences and commenting on them can be funny, but only to those people who agree with you. At least agree to some extent - they need to find some grain of truth in what you're saying. For mundane things, this may be possible for almost everyone. There are a lot of challenges in preparing airline food, for example, there are reasons why it's bad. But even people who know those reasons might still appreciate that humor, since knowing why the food is bad doesn't change the fact that it is bad and it's still a shared experience.
However, the more closely held your beliefs, the less flexible your sense of humor. A deeply religious person will have a hard time laughing at jokes poking fun at their religion - making fun of their religion is not a shared experience, and if they can find no grain of truth in what you're saying then there's no humor there for them. For Trumpettes, true believers, pointing out that Trump is a disgrace of a human being is not funny, and can never be funny.
It's not the tick that causes the allergy, the tick just transmits a protein which is common to most mammals, but which apes lack. So our immune systems develop antibodies, and subsequently react to the presence of this protein.
In other words: yes, we can tell if this tick has been genetically modified by PETA. It hasn't.
I realize that was probably a joke, but people say some crazy shit about PETA sometimes...
There's precedent for this. Hong Kong is mostly free from censorship, and I think Macau has some censorship free areas. It's not about being a honeypot, it's about the fact that Hainan is an island and so there's a physical barrier there to the spread of ideas.
As the quote I gave above says: no, the democrats couldn't stop it. I suppose the problem here is treating the parties like single homogeneous groups - it was the Republicans in the House partnering with a minority of right-leaning Democrats who made it happen. Over the protests of the Democratic majority.
I guess what you're saying is, "If the Democrats had been a uniform group who all agreed on everything, then they could have stopped this easily." But the Democrats are not uniform even now, and they certainly weren't in 1981 - not long after the Southern Strategy and while they still had many strongly right-wing members.
I'm surprised that your kid would have that on a final, so I went looking for an explanation and found this. I'll quote:
The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill.
You're right that the blame should not be placed solely on the president, but it doesn't seem as though the blame was swapped. This was a joint effort between the president and congress, with the president championing the cause.
There's also a BitTorrent company, which maintains the original bittorrent client as well as MuTorrent (Greek letter Mu. I can't get Slashdot to accept that.). I think they make money somehow. Not sure how.
Thank you, I try to call attention to this whenever I can. You can not make a Unity game which does not spy on your players.
Frankly, this outcry over RedShell is probably not going to do anything. It's too specific, limiting itself to this one implementation of spying instead of calling out spying in general.
And yet, our noble MSM is reporting only that the study was retracted, comparing it to 50-ish other studies that were similarly flawed.
Did you read the links? The NPR link says basically what you're saying here: the diet still has good evidence behind it, but they softened the language in the conclusion as a result of this. The Quartz article is more one-sided, but... are you really calling Quartz "MSM"?
Let's see... Here's the New York Times coverage. I'll quote:
That Huge Mediterranean Diet Study Was Flawed. But Was It Wrong?
A highly publicized trial in Spain found that the Mediterranean diet protects against heart disease. Now the original work has been retracted and re-analyzed, with the same result.
The next link from my search is USA Today, I'll quote:
He stressed this flaw only affected a small part of the trial (about 10 percent of participants) and that the conclusions remain the same: A Mediterranean diet can decrease risk of heart attacks and strokes by about 30 percent among those who are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
So the answer to your exercise appears to be: Yes, the MSM are responsible journalists and the random news blog is not.
Kaspersky will become the victim of "we can't prove it but they are evil" global campaign
There is no claim that is can't be proven, only that it hasn't been proven. i.e.: This hasn't gone to court.
There are some obvious parallels between this and the people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, accused but not proven of committing any crimes, and it is somewhat unsettling for the same reason. On the one hand, this is not nearly so bad as that - the people who work for Kaspersky are not in prison, and are free to go about their lives. It's only the company that's in a bad position. So in that regard this is not nearly such a moral affront.
On the other hand, it is still an affront. It's bothersome to see that the reason this all seems okay is because the bar has been lowered to such a degree.
Neither liberals nor conservatives approve of how Comey handled that investigation, so I don't think that's a controversial statement.
The investigations were only covered in scrupulous breathless detail by the right-wing press. It's unlikely that most progressives have a terribly developed opinion on the way in which the investigations were handled. They're more likely to care about the number of investigations, the length, the results, the way in which the results were revealed to the public, etc.
It's pretty easy to identify your political affiliation here based on what you think everyone believes. Not just the above, but also your statement, "Comey's credibility is gone." That fact is a sad testament to how corrupted our press has become.
Don't try to correct him, he's right - she was accused of all kinds of shit. According to somebody, she also murdered the cat of one of the staffers who displeased her. (I'm not making this up.)
You need to do more to defend this claim. You trot it out every time there's a story about network neutrality, but I haven't seen you make a thorough defense (maybe you have, and I've just missed it) and one is really called for here because this claim is not at all intuitive.
What you seem to be implying is that regulatory capture is the only barrier to competition, and that without this barrier a significant number of competitors will spring up out of nowhere with the hundreds of billions of dollars that it takes to create new last-mile networks. This, despite the fact that a third of Americans still have no broadband, thus no regulatory capture, and thus, according to you, no barrier to entry.
And that ignores the other problem that removing such regulation would create.
So... if you're going to just state this as though it were a given, I would like to see a little more backing it up.
you'll be paying $200/mo for high speed internet in a few years
That's only for Premium Internet though, the full package. I'm sure you'll be able to get a basic package pretty cheaply, giving access to all of the approved websites and services with only a fair and equitable number of injected ads.
I'm not seeing it. He has changed the focus from bigotry against gay people to bigotry against Muslims and "Mexicans." That's not at all a blow against religious conservatives, just a change in priorities.
Anything else which might possibly be considered a nerf against religious conservatives? I can't think of anything. He's screwed transsexual people in the military, but that's not really a religious issue in the same way that it is for gay people. Abortion is pretty much the same debate as always... Tax exemptions for churches are the same and don't look like they're changing any time soon. What other political issues are religious in nature?
But it doesn't do what it's supporters justify it as doing
But it does. Gerrymandering the election to amplify the voices of people in rural states is exactly what it does, and what people defend it for doing. They don't phrase it that way, they say "giving people in rural areas a voice" or "ensuring that people in states with lower populations don't get sidelined" or "giving smaller states a greater say, just as the founders intended."
You're not going to convince anyone by making a "one man, one vote" argument. Those people who defend the electoral collage are already openly turning their backs on that principle.
Well sure. I don't think the article is arguing that this is illegal, a violation of anyone's rights, only that this is bad. As in: it might be difficult for someone to negotiate an effective nuclear weapons treaty if he doesn't know how uranium enrichment works, and he rejects anyone who might be able to tell him that.
The article isn't saying that this isn't what people wanted when they voted for Trump, or that this is violating any campaign promises. In fact, the article points out one instance where this is fulfilling a campaign promise.
The last time I tried it (a long time ago) it wasn't even suitable for graphic adventures. Even if the latency doesn't impact gameplay, it makes your mouse feel really sluggish as you try to move it across the screen.
No. This is just... no. For one thing, the parent was talking about "during Obama." For another thing, Fox News is the mainest of mainstream news and they did nothing but criticize Obama during that time (and they continue to do so) and they have done very well for themselves. Nowadays: I don't know if Trump counts as the powers that be, but there are mainstream journalists who have been critical of him and are also doing well.
Or as well as possible, given the collapse of journalism. Is that what you were talking about? The loss of that business model? Which is completely unrelated to scrutiny by the justice department?
Their legal foundation was rock solid. This was after years of litigation already, and the neutrality regulations passed in 2015 were the result of all of that. Some of the earlier regulations, where they tried to enforce neutrality without classifying as title 2, those were rejected. But when the court rejected those, the court said specifically that all the FCC needed to do was reclassify. As they did in 2015. And then after that the 2015 rules were challenged and were upheld by the court.
As for your suggestion that Congress should pass a law instead of the FCC doing it... any such law would need to empower some sort of committee or government body to oversee enforcement, and to ensure that the law kept pace with technology. Oh wait, I'm describing the FCC.
A true libertarian would say that parents shouldn't be infringing on the child's liberty, and that free market (the only entity which is allowed to make decisions) will decide what media is and is not suitable for children to consume.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has been leading the charge of this stupidity for a long time now
Now, let's be fair: Microsoft is pretty late to the party on this. Removing or hiding options from users is very much an Apple thing.
Historically, telecom contributions have slightly favored the Democrats.
How historical are you going in order to make this claim? Net Neutrality has only been a partisan issue for... what? Less that ten years. The FCC was still trying to compromise back in 2010 with it's "third way" policy. Going full-on partisanship is a tactic that the ISPs adopted when their other efforts failed. This particular issue is one that's easier to trace to corporate influence than many other issues for this reason.
Also, this bullshit needs to stop:
If they truly believed in net neutrality on principle, they could've easily passed it during Obama's first term when they held the Presidency and both branches of Congress with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
The Democrats never had the ability to pass anything they wanted. At their peak they had 58 senators, only for a period of six months, and of the two independents only Sanders was a fairly reliable Democratic vote. Lieberman was definitely not. Also, of the true-blue Democrats, almost one quarter were right-leaning Blue Dogs.
However, for this reason, your point about Democrats not truly believing in network neutrality has at least a little bit of merit - Democrats just aren't that homogeneous. They don't have nearly the same party discipline that Republicans do, it's only Trump which has really brought Democrats together recently. Republicans may be the bad guys here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Democrats are the good guys or that they've always been the good guys.
What's not to like.
Well, obviously, the fact that he's critical of Trump. A large portion of humor is critical of something, whether it's a person or a practice or a shared experience. "What's the deal with airline food?" "Lawyers are all scumbags, amiright?"
Recognizing those shared experiences and commenting on them can be funny, but only to those people who agree with you. At least agree to some extent - they need to find some grain of truth in what you're saying. For mundane things, this may be possible for almost everyone. There are a lot of challenges in preparing airline food, for example, there are reasons why it's bad. But even people who know those reasons might still appreciate that humor, since knowing why the food is bad doesn't change the fact that it is bad and it's still a shared experience.
However, the more closely held your beliefs, the less flexible your sense of humor. A deeply religious person will have a hard time laughing at jokes poking fun at their religion - making fun of their religion is not a shared experience, and if they can find no grain of truth in what you're saying then there's no humor there for them. For Trumpettes, true believers, pointing out that Trump is a disgrace of a human being is not funny, and can never be funny.
It's not the tick that causes the allergy, the tick just transmits a protein which is common to most mammals, but which apes lack. So our immune systems develop antibodies, and subsequently react to the presence of this protein.
In other words: yes, we can tell if this tick has been genetically modified by PETA. It hasn't.
I realize that was probably a joke, but people say some crazy shit about PETA sometimes...
There's precedent for this. Hong Kong is mostly free from censorship, and I think Macau has some censorship free areas. It's not about being a honeypot, it's about the fact that Hainan is an island and so there's a physical barrier there to the spread of ideas.
As the quote I gave above says: no, the democrats couldn't stop it. I suppose the problem here is treating the parties like single homogeneous groups - it was the Republicans in the House partnering with a minority of right-leaning Democrats who made it happen. Over the protests of the Democratic majority.
I guess what you're saying is, "If the Democrats had been a uniform group who all agreed on everything, then they could have stopped this easily." But the Democrats are not uniform even now, and they certainly weren't in 1981 - not long after the Southern Strategy and while they still had many strongly right-wing members.
The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill.
You're right that the blame should not be placed solely on the president, but it doesn't seem as though the blame was swapped. This was a joint effort between the president and congress, with the president championing the cause.
There's also a BitTorrent company, which maintains the original bittorrent client as well as MuTorrent (Greek letter Mu. I can't get Slashdot to accept that.). I think they make money somehow. Not sure how.
Arson? Arson is a common refrain from Musk? The company has had some problems, to be sure, but this is not a standard excuse.
Thank you, I try to call attention to this whenever I can. You can not make a Unity game which does not spy on your players.
Frankly, this outcry over RedShell is probably not going to do anything. It's too specific, limiting itself to this one implementation of spying instead of calling out spying in general.
And yet, our noble MSM is reporting only that the study was retracted, comparing it to 50-ish other studies that were similarly flawed.
Did you read the links? The NPR link says basically what you're saying here: the diet still has good evidence behind it, but they softened the language in the conclusion as a result of this. The Quartz article is more one-sided, but... are you really calling Quartz "MSM"?
Let's see... Here's the New York Times coverage. I'll quote:
That Huge Mediterranean Diet Study Was Flawed. But Was It Wrong?
A highly publicized trial in Spain found that the Mediterranean diet protects against heart disease. Now the original work has been retracted and re-analyzed, with the same result.
The next link from my search is USA Today, I'll quote:
He stressed this flaw only affected a small part of the trial (about 10 percent of participants) and that the conclusions remain the same: A Mediterranean diet can decrease risk of heart attacks and strokes by about 30 percent among those who are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
So the answer to your exercise appears to be: Yes, the MSM are responsible journalists and the random news blog is not.
Kaspersky will become the victim of "we can't prove it but they are evil" global campaign
There is no claim that is can't be proven, only that it hasn't been proven. i.e.: This hasn't gone to court.
There are some obvious parallels between this and the people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, accused but not proven of committing any crimes, and it is somewhat unsettling for the same reason. On the one hand, this is not nearly so bad as that - the people who work for Kaspersky are not in prison, and are free to go about their lives. It's only the company that's in a bad position. So in that regard this is not nearly such a moral affront.
On the other hand, it is still an affront. It's bothersome to see that the reason this all seems okay is because the bar has been lowered to such a degree.
Neither liberals nor conservatives approve of how Comey handled that investigation, so I don't think that's a controversial statement.
The investigations were only covered in scrupulous breathless detail by the right-wing press. It's unlikely that most progressives have a terribly developed opinion on the way in which the investigations were handled. They're more likely to care about the number of investigations, the length, the results, the way in which the results were revealed to the public, etc.
It's pretty easy to identify your political affiliation here based on what you think everyone believes. Not just the above, but also your statement, "Comey's credibility is gone." That fact is a sad testament to how corrupted our press has become.
Don't try to correct him, he's right - she was accused of all kinds of shit. According to somebody, she also murdered the cat of one of the staffers who displeased her. (I'm not making this up.)
It doesn't matter what she was accused of.
You need to do more to defend this claim. You trot it out every time there's a story about network neutrality, but I haven't seen you make a thorough defense (maybe you have, and I've just missed it) and one is really called for here because this claim is not at all intuitive.
What you seem to be implying is that regulatory capture is the only barrier to competition, and that without this barrier a significant number of competitors will spring up out of nowhere with the hundreds of billions of dollars that it takes to create new last-mile networks. This, despite the fact that a third of Americans still have no broadband, thus no regulatory capture, and thus, according to you, no barrier to entry.
And that ignores the other problem that removing such regulation would create.
So... if you're going to just state this as though it were a given, I would like to see a little more backing it up.
And... ? You have some weird-ass conspiracy theory about the Washington Post and Waluigi and Liberalism and mental disorders?
you'll be paying $200/mo for high speed internet in a few years
That's only for Premium Internet though, the full package. I'm sure you'll be able to get a basic package pretty cheaply, giving access to all of the approved websites and services with only a fair and equitable number of injected ads.
How long do you suppose it would take to find out?
If you want a real answer, it looks like four years is about average for this type of investigation.
severely nerfed the religious conservatives
I'm not seeing it. He has changed the focus from bigotry against gay people to bigotry against Muslims and "Mexicans." That's not at all a blow against religious conservatives, just a change in priorities.
Anything else which might possibly be considered a nerf against religious conservatives? I can't think of anything. He's screwed transsexual people in the military, but that's not really a religious issue in the same way that it is for gay people. Abortion is pretty much the same debate as always... Tax exemptions for churches are the same and don't look like they're changing any time soon. What other political issues are religious in nature?
But it doesn't do what it's supporters justify it as doing
But it does. Gerrymandering the election to amplify the voices of people in rural states is exactly what it does, and what people defend it for doing. They don't phrase it that way, they say "giving people in rural areas a voice" or "ensuring that people in states with lower populations don't get sidelined" or "giving smaller states a greater say, just as the founders intended."
You're not going to convince anyone by making a "one man, one vote" argument. Those people who defend the electoral collage are already openly turning their backs on that principle.
Well sure. I don't think the article is arguing that this is illegal, a violation of anyone's rights, only that this is bad. As in: it might be difficult for someone to negotiate an effective nuclear weapons treaty if he doesn't know how uranium enrichment works, and he rejects anyone who might be able to tell him that.
The article isn't saying that this isn't what people wanted when they voted for Trump, or that this is violating any campaign promises. In fact, the article points out one instance where this is fulfilling a campaign promise.
The last time I tried it (a long time ago) it wasn't even suitable for graphic adventures. Even if the latency doesn't impact gameplay, it makes your mouse feel really sluggish as you try to move it across the screen.
No. This is just... no. For one thing, the parent was talking about "during Obama." For another thing, Fox News is the mainest of mainstream news and they did nothing but criticize Obama during that time (and they continue to do so) and they have done very well for themselves. Nowadays: I don't know if Trump counts as the powers that be, but there are mainstream journalists who have been critical of him and are also doing well.
Or as well as possible, given the collapse of journalism. Is that what you were talking about? The loss of that business model? Which is completely unrelated to scrutiny by the justice department?
Their legal foundation was rock solid. This was after years of litigation already, and the neutrality regulations passed in 2015 were the result of all of that. Some of the earlier regulations, where they tried to enforce neutrality without classifying as title 2, those were rejected. But when the court rejected those, the court said specifically that all the FCC needed to do was reclassify. As they did in 2015. And then after that the 2015 rules were challenged and were upheld by the court.
As for your suggestion that Congress should pass a law instead of the FCC doing it... any such law would need to empower some sort of committee or government body to oversee enforcement, and to ensure that the law kept pace with technology. Oh wait, I'm describing the FCC.
A true libertarian would say that parents shouldn't be infringing on the child's liberty, and that free market (the only entity which is allowed to make decisions) will decide what media is and is not suitable for children to consume.