"The current administration is definitely making strides to separate itself in terms of behavior from the previous administration, but it can't do as quickly as our American attention level seems to require."
"Separate itself" is much different than "differ from". The Obama administration has been wildly successful at convincing people that it's not the Bush administration - he even convinced the Nobel committee that the separation was hugely significant.
But when it came time to ACTUALLY correct some of the previous abuses, what's happened? 5 day review? Nope. No earmarks? Sorry, that was the last administration's business, and he's looking forward.
Obama's like the guy who promises his new girl that he won't beat on her like her previous man, but gives her a few smacks because "the other guy already made the bruises." But he promises the future will be better. We all know how THAT turns out.
"Why do you assume that people at seminary don't do that? "
Because people who believe in God are doo-doo heads, therefore people who are studying to be leaders of those people are even bigger doo-doo heads. QED.
"Part of the value is that the Mac mini Server is only $100 more than the standard mini equipped with a single 500 GB drive"
A caveat: the server does not have an optical drive (that's where they stuffed the other HD). Still a good deal, just not quite as good as on first glance.
If she's anything like a few of the nurses I've know, she became a nurse to : - fuck doctors - marry them - divorce them - live off the alimony - repeat.
No, the root definition of being a professional is providing a service where you are required to put your client's needs above your own. It's become a bit blurred lately, but if we use that definition, health care "professionals" should definitely be compelled to get vaccines, even if they don't personally want it. As a matter of fact, many of them swore an oath to that effect: "I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice."
"So you're arguing for the right to get diseases and the right to transmit them to others? I don't think that's how rights work..."
It's exactly how rights work. By the same token, I have a right to shoot his ass dead if I believe he threatens the health of me an my family. Knowing this, it will convince him to get the vaccine in his own self interest, and all are happy.
At least, that's the way it works in Ayn Rand Land.
Why impossible? You are equating "US Population" with "H1N1 Fatalities". They are not necessarily the same. And in this case, there may be a correlation between odds of fatality and overall health. One of the odd things we know about the 1918 epidemic is that healthy people were MORE likely to die than unhealthy ones whop were infected. One theory is that the deaths were caused by cytokine storm, where your immune system freaks out. And the healthier the immune system, the worse the damage. The CDC has said that H1N1 doesn't appear to be causing that; however, H1N1 is killing FAR more healthy people than regular seasonal flu does.
As for comparisons with 1918, they really are apples and oranges. Yes, there are better practices and facilities now. On the other hand, high speed transportation didn't exist in 1918 - the idea that the virus could be in Hong Kong one day and NYC the next was wholly unfathomable at the time. And infections do travel that way - witness SARS in the Pacific NW, which hopped a flight from Asia.
I'll give you the first one - I was thinking of the overall statistics, including young adults. That being said, 1/3 vs. 1/2? Healthy kids shouldn't be dying from flue at all.
As for your second "point" (although I'm loathe to grant it even that status) is incomplete. 477 isn't a rate - it's a number. A "rate" is a ratio. In this case, the important ratio is the Case Fatality Rate, which is # deaths/# infections. Right now H1N1 is somewhere between.4% and.6%. The CFR for regular seasonal flu is Project Runway, but I just do that for my wife), and I mostly get my news from NPR, and I have a contact that is more educated in pandemic virology than you and I combined, I think I'll follow my own opinions instead of yours, which seem to be wholly of the form "not(someone_else's_opinion)"
Leaving aside your feat of statistical legerdemain, my understanding is that about 50% of H1N1 heaths so far have been otherwise healthy children and young adults. As in, up to 35 years old.
It may not be the Spanish Flu, but it's certainly something to be concerned about, though perhaps not scared. I might also point out that the Spanish flue wasn't a pandemic either - in 1917. It eased off at first and then came back with a vengeance in 1918.
"Vaccines for diseases with high mortality rates makes sense. Vaccines for the seasonal flu is fixing what ain't broke, which always introduces risk."
You are exactly correct on both counts - Which is exactly why you should vet the H1N1 vaccine!
1) H1N1 has a high mortality rate. It is a couple of magnitudes more deadly than seasonal flu. Is it the Spanish flu? Probably not, but it's still much higher than "acceptable" for something that has a vaccine.
2) H1N1 is not "seasonal flu". The reason there is a flu "season" is that typical flu viruses do not tolerate high environmental temperatures well. This means a great deal for transmission - flu virus will remain active on a door handle for weeks in the winder, and hours in the summer. But this strain of H1N1 has a substantially higher temperature tolerance, which has been proven both experimentally (tests on the isolated virus) and epidemiologically (H1N1 never really "went away" over the summer). Or put it another way - how could H1N1 be classified as "seasonal flu" when people are dying from it and flu season hasn't even begun yet?
I have a libertarian streak myself, and people have a right to their bodies, but I'll say this - if my healthy kid catches H1N1 and dies(50% of the dead kids were healthy) and I discover the person who gave it to him "doesn't believe in vaccines", he or she will quickly find out what it means to suffer for one's beliefs.
I won't address your first comment except to say that it takes great big balls, and very few brains, to compare the denial of rights the gay rights community suffers to Jews in the Holocaust. For that matter, if I were you I'd be expecting a visit from the ghosts of all the dead gays that were killed as well - they might want to speak to you about what the word "oppression" really means.
As for the rest of your response, you complain that it is ironic that other minority groups, having moved up in the world, are now helping keep another minority group down. You apparently expect that other minority groups would use their new found power to help lift others up. I merely pointed out the naivete of that idea. Not only is it completely historically inaccurate, the entire underpinnings of identity politics RELIES on the idea that a gain for someone else is a loss for yourself. It's not about rights - it's about power. Not only is there no reason for blacks to care about gay civil rights, to do so would be to dilute the power they have gained. The leaders of the black community have been playing this game for years - the individuals in their constituency either doesn't care or are actively hostile to gay rights, mostly for religious and cultural reasons. What incentive is there for that leader to try to change their minds?
As for your last ad hominem, puhleese. "Members of an oppressed minority who choose to band together and work as a group to win their rights" is the very DEFINITION of identity politics, at least when you are operating politically. It defines it, not trivializes it. Identity politics has been massively influential in the shaping of US policy and law for decades, and has gotten a lot of results for both political parties, as well as substantial power gains for various players. While I personally believe that the long term effects of such a strategy are awful, it certainly works for increasing a group's political power in the interim. I just think you need to get off your high horse about the moral qualities of other minority groups.
Finally, yes, I am male, and white (neither of which are majorities, btw). I am also Roman Catholic, Italian descent, German descent, an engineer, and prematurely gray - also minorities. So what? If I claimed I was handicapped, would that somehow make the facts of what I just said more true?
Yes, I am a bigot - I believe that the opinions of people who are idiots are not to be given credence. I guess we have something in common then? Lets form a movement.
"So, what... blacks and latinos can't hate gays? Interesting, given both communities are known for being deeply intolerant toward homosexuals (which is sadly ironic)"
Why ironic? It's a natural consequence of identity politics, which is based on the premise that the pie is only so big and somebody else is getting too much of it. The gay community and racial minorities have absolutely nothing in common besides the belief that they have been shortchanged. While they have a "common enemy", there is no reason for them to be friends, ESPECIALLY when resources are viewed as a zero sum game. In that situation, everyone but your own group is a competitor, and the more they get, the less you have. I'd say that the gay community chose to participate in identity politics, but for the fact that the gay community as currently defined didn't EXIST before it started self identifying that way.
"But pretending that you can in any way separate sexual preference from gender, against which discrimination is expressly forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, is nothing more than parlor-trick hand-waiving by a homophobic community intent on forcing Biblical morality on an entire nation."
Huh? Why can't sexual orientation be separated from gender? One can be male, female, intersexed, transexual, etc. and one can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. The first is what you are, the second is what (or who) you do. There is a substantial difference.
This is one of the fundamental issues with the concept of "gay rights". Most protected classes in the US are identified because of what the individual are - black, hispanic, women, handicapped, etc. They are not that way by choice. There are some others that are identified by current or previous actions - veterans and religious groups come to mind - due to historical and policy reasons.
But sexual orientation doesn't really fit into either that well. At first glance, it seems to belong to the second category - a class identified by their actions, or what they do. But, except for the previously mentioned groups, it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of people's past and current actions. This is the most basic definition of discrimination - choosing one over another. It's perfectly legal to put up a sign that says "Long haired freaky people need not apply", as long as the hair and the freakiness isn't related to religion or a medical condition. It may be stupid or immoral, but it is legal.
In order to circumvent this, the gay community has pretty much taken the stance that sexual orientation belongs in the first category - that it is a basic part of someones identity. It would be a strong position, but for the the fact that the only way to determine a person's basic sexual orientation is... their actions. It's not enough to say "I naturally feel attracted to a certain gender" - we don't punish based on thoughts or feelings (not yet anyway), so it's not really proper to protect based on thoughts and feelings. They haven't identified the "gay gene", so how would any 3rd person be able to judge what a person's sexual orientation really is?
Personally, I don't care who sticks what body part into whom. As for marriage, I've come to the conclusion that civil marriage needs to fundamentally change, because the fundamental underpinnings of what marriage IS have changed. But just dismissing those who "separate sexual preference from gender" as a ruse is both tactically stupid and, I believe, incorrect.
"History has shown that if you realize some horrible scenario is possible, writing a dystopian novel to warn people is not a good idea.
Orwell for one, but HG Wells also inspired some very unfortunate developments (including the atomic bomb and bomber aircraft)."
Ehh, not sure about that. I'm pretty sure the first guy to drop a hand grenade out of a WWI fighter cockpit didn't get "inspired" by HG Wells. More likely from dropping rocks into a pond from a bridge to scare the frogs.
On a more pertinent note, this is what happens when you move away from a performance spec - instead of just saying "Fuel efficiency shall be X" and letting the makers figure out how to do it, they feel compelled to tell the makers HOW to get better mileage - with expected results.
"That's absurd. The fairness doctrine will never be applied to ISPs. It covers ONLY broadcast TV and radio, and only because of limited spectrum. It doesn't even cover content providers like print media, much less ISPs. There's no way that anyone could possibly get it expanded to cover ISPs."
First off, the Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to anything now. So it's not simply a matter of "lets just do what we did before - it needs to be re-implemented. Second, when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, the internet didn't exist in the form it does now. Third, it didn't cover other media because the FCC had no jurisdiction over them. But it DOES have some jurisdiction over the internet.
And even if they did, in order to get bandwidth restrictions put in place, they would have to prove that traffic was being unfairly altered in such a way that limited access to one side of the issues. The fairness doctrine requires equal access to the content, not equal viewing of that content. It would no more allow them to reduce bandwidth for a right wing site than it would allow them to force people to keep their radios turned on while a Democrat gives a rebuttal to a Republican State of the Union address.
No, the Fairness Doctrine did require that. But now the legal climate is a bit different, and regulatory agencies can look at results, as opposed to intentions. For instance, in employment discrimination cases, the plaintiff doesn't have to prove discrimination - the fact that not enough of that particular protected class are employed there is considered prima facie evidence of discrimination. So, under that regulatory regime, a complainant would not need to prove that an ISP is favoring a particular viewpoint, just that they are processing a lot more traffic carrying that viewpoint than the opposing one. And since the big ISP's are lobbying to be treated like content providers, and have the capability of manipulating traffic for business purposes, why shouldn't they be required to manipulate it in the name of fairness?
"BTW, the FCC commissioner who suggested this absurdity is a Republican-appointed commissioner who was formerly a paid lobbyist for telecom companies. His comments should be carefully weighed against his biases. I suspect that if you follow the money, you'll find that the Democrats who are fighting against network neutrality are similarly beholden to such telecom special interests."
Yep, he probably said it to introduce FUD into the Net Neutrality debate. But like the saying goes, "Being paranoid doesn't mean that no one is out to get me." Politicians are ALWAYS trying to muck about with the internet - do you really believe that this would be an exception?
Let me hit all of your points, as you completely missed the mark.
First, yes, we all know that the original fairness doctrine applied to broadcasters. Considering that distributing content via the internet didn't even exist when it was in place, that's completely rational. What ISN'T rational is the belief that, if TFD were to be reinstated, that the internet would be ignored. The point that I was making is that, since there is a push among Democrats to reinstate TFD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Reinstatement_considered), it's likely that they are also thinking about the Internet as well.
As far as parsing between "broadcast medium" and the internet, the model is outmoded. Previously, differentiating between "broadcast" and "private" made sense regarding the radio spectrum. But now there's this medium that the FCC has _some_ control over, that isn't exactly like broadcasting and isn't like a private phone call, either. So we've started using a new model - content provider vs. service provider. In that sense, a new Fairness Doctrine\ne would apply to content providers, would it not?
Regarding my comparison, I'd compliment the straw man you set up, but for its idiocy. What do their radio shows have to do with internet traffic? If you thought I was just mistaken and talking about radio, I'd have thought my use of the words "throttle", "traffic", and "website" would have set you straight. But that's OK - I'll just use Alexa numbers instead.
rushlimbaugh.com - Rank: 5,710, Category: Arts > Radio PRI.org - Rank: 166,719, Category: Arts > Radio
Yep - PRI is just crushing Rush on the web. But that's unfair, because PRI is a news service, and Rush is opinion. Alright, lets look at Pacifica Radio, which is unabashedly liberal.
pacifica.org - Rank: 1,647,109. Really putting teh beat down on Limbaugh, aren't they?
As for your last comment, it really gets down to the heart of it. In your dismissive recital of what we "all" think, you reveal how shallow your understanding really is. The ENTIRE reason Democrats have been pushing the return of TFD is the utter dominance of conservative talk radio. See the Wikipedia article I cited - it has quotes. Those quotes show that the goal is to get rid of conservative talk radio. How? By forcing broadcasters - aka content providers - to carry liberal shows as well. Which sucks in the ratings. So they're much more likely just to ditch political talk altogether.
How does this work on the internet? Well, since ATT/Comcast etc. are trying to be classified as "content providers" because they can make more money that way, that would make them responsible for political opinion that comes through their network. And by looking at those website stats, Pacifica could easily claim that ATT/Comcast has stepped over the threshold of neutrality, given that Rush's traffic is greater than Pacifica's by a couple orders of magnitude. Now, since the "content providers" can't force people to visit the Pacifica website, what to they do? The only practical course would be to throttle rushlimbaugh.com. Sure, people could get to it, but it would be so slow that it would have the effect of limiting the content.
None of that would be remotely as easy if the ATT/Comcast were forced to treat traffic equally regardless of the source. It's the Dems deal with the devil - they'll support the big ISP's effort to manipulate traffic to make money, because it also leaves an opening to manipulate traffic politically.
"(We have to specially import US specification televisions to check how it murders our games'artwork when played over there, and adjust the source artwork to avoid red and yellow). '
So how are you going to feel about importing twice as many TV's - the California model and the 49 State models? Good job not addressing the parent post and getting a "US Sucks!" dig in there.
Slashdot Mirror
"glorious mad scientist mustache);"
Wait - you mean all those 70's porn stars were also mad scientists? Now we know why porn and the internet are so linked.
"Because they still believe in the Bible. "
I'd repeat my "doo-doo head" reply from above, but you pretty much nailed what I was getting at.
"The current administration is definitely making strides to separate itself in terms of behavior from the previous administration, but it can't do as quickly as our American attention level seems to require."
"Separate itself" is much different than "differ from". The Obama administration has been wildly successful at convincing people that it's not the Bush administration - he even convinced the Nobel committee that the separation was hugely significant.
But when it came time to ACTUALLY correct some of the previous abuses, what's happened? 5 day review? Nope. No earmarks? Sorry, that was the last administration's business, and he's looking forward.
Obama's like the guy who promises his new girl that he won't beat on her like her previous man, but gives her a few smacks because "the other guy already made the bruises." But he promises the future will be better. We all know how THAT turns out.
"Why do you assume that people at seminary don't do that? "
Because people who believe in God are doo-doo heads, therefore people who are studying to be leaders of those people are even bigger doo-doo heads. QED.
I went to Guam for a 1 day meeting - imagine crossing the date line twice in 72 hours.
I still think someone owes me a day.
I'm not saying it's cut and dried, only that it differs from other situations that have presented itself to US policy, culture, and jurisprudence.
You illustrate the problem with your last line: "that's not an acceptable choice for most people." Perfectly true - but it IS a choice, unlike race.
"Part of the value is that the Mac mini Server is only $100 more than the standard mini equipped with a single 500 GB drive"
A caveat: the server does not have an optical drive (that's where they stuffed the other HD). Still a good deal, just not quite as good as on first glance.
"why the fuck is she a nurse?"
If she's anything like a few of the nurses I've know, she became a nurse to :
- fuck doctors
- marry them
- divorce them
- live off the alimony
- repeat.
No, the root definition of being a professional is providing a service where you are required to put your client's needs above your own. It's become a bit blurred lately, but if we use that definition, health care "professionals" should definitely be compelled to get vaccines, even if they don't personally want it. As a matter of fact, many of them swore an oath to that effect: "I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice."
"So you're arguing for the right to get diseases and the right to transmit them to others? I don't think that's how rights work..."
It's exactly how rights work. By the same token, I have a right to shoot his ass dead if I believe he threatens the health of me an my family. Knowing this, it will convince him to get the vaccine in his own self interest, and all are happy.
At least, that's the way it works in Ayn Rand Land.
Why impossible? You are equating "US Population" with "H1N1 Fatalities". They are not necessarily the same. And in this case, there may be a correlation between odds of fatality and overall health. One of the odd things we know about the 1918 epidemic is that healthy people were MORE likely to die than unhealthy ones whop were infected. One theory is that the deaths were caused by cytokine storm, where your immune system freaks out. And the healthier the immune system, the worse the damage. The CDC has said that H1N1 doesn't appear to be causing that; however, H1N1 is killing FAR more healthy people than regular seasonal flu does.
As for comparisons with 1918, they really are apples and oranges. Yes, there are better practices and facilities now. On the other hand, high speed transportation didn't exist in 1918 - the idea that the virus could be in Hong Kong one day and NYC the next was wholly unfathomable at the time. And infections do travel that way - witness SARS in the Pacific NW, which hopped a flight from Asia.
I'll give you the first one - I was thinking of the overall statistics, including young adults. That being said, 1/3 vs. 1/2? Healthy kids shouldn't be dying from flue at all.
As for your second "point" (although I'm loathe to grant it even that status) is incomplete. 477 isn't a rate - it's a number. A "rate" is a ratio. In this case, the important ratio is the Case Fatality Rate, which is # deaths/# infections. Right now H1N1 is somewhere between .4% and .6%. The CFR for regular seasonal flu is Project Runway, but I just do that for my wife), and I mostly get my news from NPR, and I have a contact that is more educated in pandemic virology than you and I combined, I think I'll follow my own opinions instead of yours, which seem to be wholly of the form "not(someone_else's_opinion)"
"but claiming some sort of profit motive for annual fly vaccine is, from my understanding, wildly innaccurate."
I dunno - would that be Spanish fly vaccine?
Leaving aside your feat of statistical legerdemain, my understanding is that about 50% of H1N1 heaths so far have been otherwise healthy children and young adults. As in, up to 35 years old.
It may not be the Spanish Flu, but it's certainly something to be concerned about, though perhaps not scared. I might also point out that the Spanish flue wasn't a pandemic either - in 1917. It eased off at first and then came back with a vengeance in 1918.
"the federal government ordered enough H1N1 u vaccines for every man, woman and child across the country who would want or need one"
Canada Population: 33,212,696
US Population: 304,059,724
There's a big difference between filling orders of different size - especially when the difference is an order of magnitude.
And I note that the phrase "the shots would be ready for the fall and winter onslaught" references the future. Have those doses been delivered yet?
You are exactly correct on both counts - Which is exactly why you should vet the H1N1 vaccine!
1) H1N1 has a high mortality rate. It is a couple of magnitudes more deadly than seasonal flu. Is it the Spanish flu? Probably not, but it's still much higher than "acceptable" for something that has a vaccine.
2) H1N1 is not "seasonal flu". The reason there is a flu "season" is that typical flu viruses do not tolerate high environmental temperatures well. This means a great deal for transmission - flu virus will remain active on a door handle for weeks in the winder, and hours in the summer. But this strain of H1N1 has a substantially higher temperature tolerance, which has been proven both experimentally (tests on the isolated virus) and epidemiologically (H1N1 never really "went away" over the summer). Or put it another way - how could H1N1 be classified as "seasonal flu" when people are dying from it and flu season hasn't even begun yet?
I have a libertarian streak myself, and people have a right to their bodies, but I'll say this - if my healthy kid catches H1N1 and dies(50% of the dead kids were healthy) and I discover the person who gave it to him "doesn't believe in vaccines", he or she will quickly find out what it means to suffer for one's beliefs.
Your reply speaks volumes.
I won't address your first comment except to say that it takes great big balls, and very few brains, to compare the denial of rights the gay rights community suffers to Jews in the Holocaust. For that matter, if I were you I'd be expecting a visit from the ghosts of all the dead gays that were killed as well - they might want to speak to you about what the word "oppression" really means.
As for the rest of your response, you complain that it is ironic that other minority groups, having moved up in the world, are now helping keep another minority group down. You apparently expect that other minority groups would use their new found power to help lift others up. I merely pointed out the naivete of that idea. Not only is it completely historically inaccurate, the entire underpinnings of identity politics RELIES on the idea that a gain for someone else is a loss for yourself. It's not about rights - it's about power. Not only is there no reason for blacks to care about gay civil rights, to do so would be to dilute the power they have gained. The leaders of the black community have been playing this game for years - the individuals in their constituency either doesn't care or are actively hostile to gay rights, mostly for religious and cultural reasons. What incentive is there for that leader to try to change their minds?
As for your last ad hominem, puhleese. "Members of an oppressed minority who choose to band together and work as a group to win their rights" is the very DEFINITION of identity politics, at least when you are operating politically. It defines it, not trivializes it. Identity politics has been massively influential in the shaping of US policy and law for decades, and has gotten a lot of results for both political parties, as well as substantial power gains for various players. While I personally believe that the long term effects of such a strategy are awful, it certainly works for increasing a group's political power in the interim. I just think you need to get off your high horse about the moral qualities of other minority groups.
Finally, yes, I am male, and white (neither of which are majorities, btw). I am also Roman Catholic, Italian descent, German descent, an engineer, and prematurely gray - also minorities. So what? If I claimed I was handicapped, would that somehow make the facts of what I just said more true?
Yes, I am a bigot - I believe that the opinions of people who are idiots are not to be given credence. I guess we have something in common then? Lets form a movement.
Huh? Why can't sexual orientation be separated from gender? One can be male, female, intersexed, transexual, etc. and one can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. The first is what you are, the second is what (or who) you do. There is a substantial difference.
This is one of the fundamental issues with the concept of "gay rights". Most protected classes in the US are identified because of what the individual are - black, hispanic, women, handicapped, etc. They are not that way by choice. There are some others that are identified by current or previous actions - veterans and religious groups come to mind - due to historical and policy reasons.
But sexual orientation doesn't really fit into either that well. At first glance, it seems to belong to the second category - a class identified by their actions, or what they do. But, except for the previously mentioned groups, it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of people's past and current actions. This is the most basic definition of discrimination - choosing one over another. It's perfectly legal to put up a sign that says "Long haired freaky people need not apply", as long as the hair and the freakiness isn't related to religion or a medical condition. It may be stupid or immoral, but it is legal.
In order to circumvent this, the gay community has pretty much taken the stance that sexual orientation belongs in the first category - that it is a basic part of someones identity. It would be a strong position, but for the the fact that the only way to determine a person's basic sexual orientation is ... their actions. It's not enough to say "I naturally feel attracted to a certain gender" - we don't punish based on thoughts or feelings (not yet anyway), so it's not really proper to protect based on thoughts and feelings. They haven't identified the "gay gene", so how would any 3rd person be able to judge what a person's sexual orientation really is?
Personally, I don't care who sticks what body part into whom. As for marriage, I've come to the conclusion that civil marriage needs to fundamentally change, because the fundamental underpinnings of what marriage IS have changed. But just dismissing those who "separate sexual preference from gender" as a ruse is both tactically stupid and, I believe, incorrect.
Orwell for one, but HG Wells also inspired some very unfortunate developments (including the atomic bomb and bomber aircraft)."
Ehh, not sure about that. I'm pretty sure the first guy to drop a hand grenade out of a WWI fighter cockpit didn't get "inspired" by HG Wells. More likely from dropping rocks into a pond from a bridge to scare the frogs.
Glazed glass?
On a more pertinent note, this is what happens when you move away from a performance spec - instead of just saying "Fuel efficiency shall be X" and letting the makers figure out how to do it, they feel compelled to tell the makers HOW to get better mileage - with expected results.
"Slashdot really needs a new mod-tag: "-1: Insane nutburger who's off his medication."
I may be just that - it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Nice try at the ad hominem, though.
First off, the Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to anything now. So it's not simply a matter of "lets just do what we did before - it needs to be re-implemented. Second, when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, the internet didn't exist in the form it does now. Third, it didn't cover other media because the FCC had no jurisdiction over them. But it DOES have some jurisdiction over the internet.
No, the Fairness Doctrine did require that. But now the legal climate is a bit different, and regulatory agencies can look at results, as opposed to intentions. For instance, in employment discrimination cases, the plaintiff doesn't have to prove discrimination - the fact that not enough of that particular protected class are employed there is considered prima facie evidence of discrimination. So, under that regulatory regime, a complainant would not need to prove that an ISP is favoring a particular viewpoint, just that they are processing a lot more traffic carrying that viewpoint than the opposing one. And since the big ISP's are lobbying to be treated like content providers, and have the capability of manipulating traffic for business purposes, why shouldn't they be required to manipulate it in the name of fairness?
Yep, he probably said it to introduce FUD into the Net Neutrality debate. But like the saying goes, "Being paranoid doesn't mean that no one is out to get me." Politicians are ALWAYS trying to muck about with the internet - do you really believe that this would be an exception?
Let me hit all of your points, as you completely missed the mark.
First, yes, we all know that the original fairness doctrine applied to broadcasters. Considering that distributing content via the internet didn't even exist when it was in place, that's completely rational. What ISN'T rational is the belief that, if TFD were to be reinstated, that the internet would be ignored. The point that I was making is that, since there is a push among Democrats to reinstate TFD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Reinstatement_considered), it's likely that they are also thinking about the Internet as well.
As far as parsing between "broadcast medium" and the internet, the model is outmoded. Previously, differentiating between "broadcast" and "private" made sense regarding the radio spectrum. But now there's this medium that the FCC has _some_ control over, that isn't exactly like broadcasting and isn't like a private phone call, either. So we've started using a new model - content provider vs. service provider. In that sense, a new Fairness Doctrine\ne would apply to content providers, would it not?
Regarding my comparison, I'd compliment the straw man you set up, but for its idiocy. What do their radio shows have to do with internet traffic? If you thought I was just mistaken and talking about radio, I'd have thought my use of the words "throttle", "traffic", and "website" would have set you straight. But that's OK - I'll just use Alexa numbers instead.
rushlimbaugh.com - Rank: 5,710, Category: Arts > Radio
PRI.org - Rank: 166,719, Category: Arts > Radio
Yep - PRI is just crushing Rush on the web. But that's unfair, because PRI is a news service, and Rush is opinion. Alright, lets look at Pacifica Radio, which is unabashedly liberal.
pacifica.org - Rank: 1,647,109. Really putting teh beat down on Limbaugh, aren't they?
As for your last comment, it really gets down to the heart of it. In your dismissive recital of what we "all" think, you reveal how shallow your understanding really is. The ENTIRE reason Democrats have been pushing the return of TFD is the utter dominance of conservative talk radio. See the Wikipedia article I cited - it has quotes. Those quotes show that the goal is to get rid of conservative talk radio. How? By forcing broadcasters - aka content providers - to carry liberal shows as well. Which sucks in the ratings. So they're much more likely just to ditch political talk altogether.
How does this work on the internet? Well, since ATT/Comcast etc. are trying to be classified as "content providers" because they can make more money that way, that would make them responsible for political opinion that comes through their network. And by looking at those website stats, Pacifica could easily claim that ATT/Comcast has stepped over the threshold of neutrality, given that Rush's traffic is greater than Pacifica's by a couple orders of magnitude. Now, since the "content providers" can't force people to visit the Pacifica website, what to they do? The only practical course would be to throttle rushlimbaugh.com. Sure, people could get to it, but it would be so slow that it would have the effect of limiting the content.
None of that would be remotely as easy if the ATT/Comcast were forced to treat traffic equally regardless of the source. It's the Dems deal with the devil - they'll support the big ISP's effort to manipulate traffic to make money, because it also leaves an opening to manipulate traffic politically.
"(We have to specially import US specification televisions to check how it murders our games'artwork when played over there, and adjust the source artwork to avoid red and yellow). '
So how are you going to feel about importing twice as many TV's - the California model and the 49 State models? Good job not addressing the parent post and getting a "US Sucks!" dig in there.