The regulations were many, and often at odds with each other and at odds with the goals of School Nutrition Association. It was pushed by Michelle Obama with little or no input from nutrition experts or the aforementioned group, and caused so much anger with it's one-sided dictates that Michelle's "food policy czar" was asked not to speak/hand out awards at the SNA association dinner.
School regulations are the purview of state, not federal. It's much *much* better when the local population has a say in how their kids get schooled. Common core and "no child left behind" was a disaster.
Schools are better off managed at the local level.
On this logic, So-And-So can talk loudly about changing a law, and the courts will treat said law as toxic and not even hear a challenge, as said law is "on its way out" Seems legit.
1. To hell with income tax! 2. Raise income tax 50%. 3. Laugh as courts refuse to hear challenges to my new tax as its on its way out anyway.... 4. Profit.... 5. Repeat.
Context matters in this instance, and in most of the political articles on Slashdot.
The net neutrality law was a standout overreach by one department, essentially making up regulations that are outside the purview of that department. If this is allowed to continue we'd have lots of other departments declaring themselves the regulator of fact of anything and everything and a mishmash of ill-considered, overreaching, and contradictory laws.
As an example of this, the FAA decided that they were the regulator of fact for (commercial, toy) drones, and then essentially banned them outright. After great public outcry and 5 years, they instituted draconian rules that include intrusive registration and unnecessary regulation, the vast majority of which has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft.
DHS decided they were the regulator of fact for model rocketry, and effectively banned the hobby for several years. DEA has decided that they are the regulator of fact for home chemistry sets, and uses extra-legal methods to enforce it. (Such as the gentleman making water-safe drinking straws containing Iodine, who had to go out of business after the DEA "asked" all his suppliers to stop selling him iodine.)
Now, you can argue that having a bad law is better than no law, but it's not 100% black-and-white here. We really do need to stop government from reaching into everyone's lives and making draconian rules.
Argue for a *better* law, argue for multiple providers, argue for the correct department to handle ir, argue to fix the issue by other means (such as competition). Point out that cities charge money for pole access, make exclusionary deals with providers, and get all sorts of kickbacks.
Net neutrality is a good thing, so let's fix it rather than complain about narrowly-defined aspects.
Thats just a stupid ass conspiracy theory. I bet you believe we didn't land on the moon too. Or Bush did 9/11 (oh wait, maybe not that one because it was by a republican lol)
Is there oil off the coast of Mar-a-Lago? Trump pitched a fit about a wind farm off the coast of Scotland near his golf course there. Wonder how he'd feel about a few oil drilling platforms or a spill?
Has the DNC E-mail leaker been found yet? Hillary was inconsolable after the election, and you know how people who cross her tend to end up dead. Wonder how she would react if the DNC leaker's name were made public?
Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them. They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed. They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them. Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left.
Why is it that businesses are only required to enforce certain rights?
Equal and fair commerce for all races and religions I can understand.
I can even understand how corner cases crop up where opposing rights come into conflict - not having to make a wedding cake for gay people, for instance. It wasn't entirely clear which right had precedence before the courts sorted it out.
But businesses are allowed to curtail freedom of speech in any way they want. Facebook bans conservatives more than liberals, Google implements a "fake news" filter that's specific to Breitbart, twitter shadowbans people so that they can't be certain they're being suppressed, Berkeley effectively bans conservative speakers, the list goes on...
I'm not talking about speech generated by the companies, such as CNN or Fox or HuffPo. They're employees are paid to produce speech with a specific slant - I get that.
I'm talking about companies giving average people a forum for their speech, but then imposing rules about insults and impolite speech. And then enforcing the rules one-sidedly to promote a political agenda.
The nazis used to have book burnings, and the situation at Berkeley sounds a lot like what the nazis used to do in the beginning. People at the riots seem to think that beating people is OK, although I haven't heard of anyone being beaten to death yet...
Why do we force people to give commerce without regard to race (or religion, or a handful of other characteristics)
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee, the law was a standout of overreaching jurisdiction, roundly criticised, and should have been the responsibility of a different department. The same article appeared on Slashdot weeks ago, it's nothing new today, and the opposition is showing no leadership on the issue - no proposals for change, no references to studies or data, nothing.
Also, it's important to talk about this issue and not, for example tax overhaul which is happening *right now*.
That way we could fight a war on 2 fronts with 2 carriers each (like Japan and Germany were), and have one left over for relief aid and support, like we did with Haiti.
Gas-Powered Alarm Clock: Product description indicated the clock is the size of a small generator and is powered by gasoline.
Product was approved by Energy Star without a review of the company Web site or questions of the claimed efficiencies.
Geothermal Heat Pump: Energy use data reported was more efficient than any product listed as certified on the Energy Star Web site at the time of submission.
High-energy efficiency data was not questioned by Energy Star.
Product is eligible for federal tax credits and state rebate programs.
Computer Monitor
Product was approved by Energy Star within 30 minutes of submission.
Private firms contacted GAO’s fictitious firm to purchase products based on participation in the Energy Star program.
Refrigerator:
Self-certified product was submitted, qualified, and listed on the Energy Star Web site within 24 hours.
Product is eligible for federal tax credits and state rebates.
Every other "outrage" article on Slashdot has had a reasonable explanation.
It's happened so many times that we shouldn't even bother looking into them any more - they are so often wrong and too trivial to worry about.
Perhaps the EnergyStar program didn't actually do anything, but took up federal money. (Like that axed Obama-era justice standards group that didn't do anything useful.)
Perhaps it was being run by the wrong agency, and was perceived as overreach outside of the agency's jurisdiction (like that net-neutrality law).
Perhaps it held virtually no value to the consumer, by adjusting the standards to meet the industry products instead of the other way around (such as the drive to give more of America access to "broadband" internet).
Perhaps there were better and cheaper alternatives in the free market.
Historically speaking, this is almost certainly a non-issue.
It's most likely fake news intended to provoke outrage in the reader.
Well Trump is consistent in not doing any of the things he had campaigned to do.
Scott Adams notes out that people watch the same scenes and think they're viewing a different movie.
Looking at the anti-Trump rhetoric on this thread, I'm starting to wonder if that's literally true. It's gotten so blatantly obvious that I'm starting to wonder about the basic sanity of some people.
1) Bomb the shit out of ISIS 2) Build the wall (ongoing) 3) Withdraw from TPP 4) Suspend immigration from terror-prone areas (ongoing) 5) Rework health care (ongoing, 2nd round coming up) 6) Rework the tax code (ongoing) 7) Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
I don't agree with everything he's done, but you have to allow that he's done or in the process of doing at least *some* of his campaign promises.
And he's been in office for just under 100 days and there's lots to be done, and he's getting some of it actually done while running the country.
How do people come up with these alternate scenarios?
Is cognitive dissonance so powerful and so real that people literally make scenes up out of whole cloth?
I think there are two problems, not enough people are marking these as 'spam', and we as readers aren't submitting enough of the articles appropriate for the site.
The problem with this is that if you submit several articles that are marked as spam, slashdot will lock your account. Vicious readers use this effect to harass legitimate submitters.
This happened to me - I was locked out from having several legitimate articles marked as SPAM, but then Slashdot management reversed the lockout. Now I'm 'kinda jaded about submitting articles.
I have to wonder how many legitimate submitters have been locked out... and got disheartened or felt there was no way to appeal or were driven away by the bad users.
Also, if you're going to blatantly rip off Star Trek, at least rip off the good stuff. The ipads and the handheld communicators and the touchscreens every-fucking-where and the obtrusive diversity and social justice are great and all, but we've made practically zero progress toward warp drive or transporters, and the vague, fumbling gestures in the direction of holodecks are so far unimpressive at best.
You're right. This was an ill-advised project that didn't even *try* to duplicate anything interesting from the star trek universe.
Furthermore, it's practically useless because it only diagnoses common ailments, and not very many of those either.
It's not like self-driving cars: It'll never be improved upon - at least, not to the point where it diagnoses even a small fraction of the total number of diseases, and it will never be more accurate in the things it *does* diagnose than a real human doctor.
I don't know why people even bother trying these sorts of things.
They could have done so much more. I mean, warp drives would have been sooooo much more useful!
Fifty-ish medical conditions is a very good start, and I can only imagine that adding more and different sensors will allow such a system to discriminate between more conditions in the future (do these devices ask for human input of symptoms or history?).
Of course, we could never get these approved for use in the USA - the 3.8 million noted in the article would only be a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of certification. If a single drug costs $2.5 billion for certification (and hearing aids cost $5000 and up), imagine how much it would cost to certify an autodoc for 50 diseases!
But this should work quite well in developing countries.
As a further point on home assistants, someone at Hackaday suggested that if you want to burgle a home, try shouting "Alexa, unlock the front door!" through the letter slot.
I'm totally expecting some wag with a really loud car stereo system to drive through a high-price neighbourhood playing a loop of that.
The friendly Burger King employee ends the ad by saying “Ok Google, what is the Whopper burger?” Google home then springs into action reading the product description from Burger King’s Wikipedia page.
Trolls across the internet jumped into the fray. The Whopper’s ingredient list soon included such items as toenail clippings, rat, cyanide, and a small child. Wikipedia has since reverted the changes and locked down the page.
Google apparently wasn’t involved in this, as they quickly updated their voice recognition algorithms to specifically ignore the commercial. Burger King responded by re-dubbing the audio of the commercial with a different voice actor, which defeated Google’s block. Where this game of cat and mouse will end is anyone’s guess.
Could you provide some sources for these numbers you're throwing around? Seems a little soon for this administration to have had much of an effect, let alone provide enough time for statistical trends to have emerged and analyzed.
On the plus side, illegal immigration is at the lowest it's been in 2 decades, the economy is up by 20%, and we made a strong-but-measured move in Syria which has garnered praise from many world leaders.
It's fine to carp about every little thing the president does, but no one really expects the president to please everyone all the time. I'm against a fair number of the littl'er policy changes (such as abortion policy), but I also realize that several small issues can be compensated by one or two really big issues.
For example, our strong but limited response on Syria will have a positive effect on relations and negotiations with Iran, N. Korea, and China. Limiting illegal immigration should eventually bubble up into more jobs, and at the same time we're concentrating on illegal-immigrant violent criminals and ignoring illegal immigrant students.
I'm happy to trade some of the smaller problems for bigger ones.
I think the US is in a good place right now.
(And then there's the very real question of whether this is fake news, which has been patently true for about 80% of the shocking(!) revelations posted on this site. How long has this commission been around, and have they done anything of any note? Or is it just another example of government waste?)
I'll never understand the rationality behind the google image search features. Or some of the "advanced" features on their text search.
Search for images and the page initially shows a fair number. Scroll down looking for the thing you want, and suddenly you trigger a 2nd pack of images to be loaded, scroll down some more and you trigger a 3rd set.
This means that if you *don't* find the image you want, you have to wait while the 2nd pack loads... except that it could have been loading while you were looking at some of the top images. I don't know why making the person wait for the 2nd pack is in any way useful.
Additionally, when the new pack loads it resets your position in the page and jumps the display somewhere. If you're actually interested in an image at the end of the first pack, you can be looking at it and suddenly the page jumps somewhere else.
I'm sure making the user wait and suddenly yanking the image of interest away is useful somehow. I just can't see how.
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
It's clearly hate speech, and should be deleted for that reason.
You wouldn't want people to be able to shout hateful things on the internet, would you?
And besides, it's not the government that's doing it, it's a private company. They can censor anything they want because they're not bound by the constitution, and people are free to leave twitter and start their own social media service.
Also: Gab.aio is a free-speech twitter alternative. Check out their humor channel sometime - it's actually funny!
People are claiming this to justify their anti-Islam positions. Talking about this is racist.
No, it's not. Liberals need to stop name calling and get a clue:
RACISM IS NOT DEFINED AS "SOMETHING THAT DISAGREES WITH THE LEFT!"
We CAN talk about issues without being racist, holding racist beliefs, or being prejudiced.
Grow the fuck up and have adult conversations.
It seems that many terrorist attacks in recent years have come from Muslims. This might be a false perception because of media bias, so
1) Does anyone have strong statistical evidence that the problem is Islam, and not a different common feature?
2) Would it make sense to bar entry to the US from certain world areas?
3) Would it make sense to put Muslims under enhanced scrutiny domestically?
As an anecdote to #3, I heard news articles saying that the local Imam in Florida was calling for death to gays before the nightclub attack. Are such overt calls for violence protected as free speech or freedom of religion, or should we make certain exceptions?
Discuss. None of these questions is racist, or indicate inherent racism to an intelligent person. (But it might to liberals.)
Second, there sure seems to be a lot of actual evidence that it's Democrats who have been using government surveillance against US citizens for purely - and illegal - political purposes.
That's just misdirection, trying to get the public eye away from the real issue, which is "the Russians did it"!
I don't know why everyone thinks that wiretapping a presidential candidate during an election is even worthy of consideration!
I mean, come on: there's gotta be Russians somewhere around here, we just have to find them!
Old - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers, 1 million of which must already be served by some other company. New - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers.
Less competition, but more people who had no access will be getting access. Isn't that why you loved the "Affordable" Care Act?
I'm not even sure why people are complaining about this.
Suppose you have 1 person with no internet access, and 1 person with access from a single provider. Which is more important:
1) Getting access to the person without, or 2) Duplicating access to the person with one already
We've complained for years about how providers ignore low-population-density areas, and the "existing subscribers" are probably already in these areas.
Why is this not a common-sense adjustment? Isn't getting people onto the internet the more important task, and worthy of being done first?
And on the flip side, I note that forcing providers to make useful changes in return for acquisitions is one way of fixing the problem. About 25 million households have no access to high-speed internet, and this one change should reduce that amount by 4%.
Yes, that's a little, but it's a little in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
In the spirit of Saint Reagan
Oh, be fair.
The regulations were many, and often at odds with each other and at odds with the goals of School Nutrition Association. It was pushed by Michelle Obama with little or no input from nutrition experts or the aforementioned group, and caused so much anger with it's one-sided dictates that Michelle's "food policy czar" was asked not to speak/hand out awards at the SNA association dinner.
School regulations are the purview of state, not federal. It's much *much* better when the local population has a say in how their kids get schooled. Common core and "no child left behind" was a disaster.
Schools are better off managed at the local level.
Everyone knows that.
Wow - nice post. Thank you for that.
On this logic, So-And-So can talk loudly about changing a law, and the courts will treat said law as toxic and not even hear a challenge, as said law is "on its way out" Seems legit.
1. To hell with income tax!
2. Raise income tax 50%.
3. Laugh as courts refuse to hear challenges to my new tax as its on its way out anyway....
4. Profit....
5. Repeat.
Context matters in this instance, and in most of the political articles on Slashdot.
The net neutrality law was a standout overreach by one department, essentially making up regulations that are outside the purview of that department. If this is allowed to continue we'd have lots of other departments declaring themselves the regulator of fact of anything and everything and a mishmash of ill-considered, overreaching, and contradictory laws.
As an example of this, the FAA decided that they were the regulator of fact for (commercial, toy) drones, and then essentially banned them outright. After great public outcry and 5 years, they instituted draconian rules that include intrusive registration and unnecessary regulation, the vast majority of which has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft.
DHS decided they were the regulator of fact for model rocketry, and effectively banned the hobby for several years. DEA has decided that they are the regulator of fact for home chemistry sets, and uses extra-legal methods to enforce it. (Such as the gentleman making water-safe drinking straws containing Iodine, who had to go out of business after the DEA "asked" all his suppliers to stop selling him iodine.)
Now, you can argue that having a bad law is better than no law, but it's not 100% black-and-white here. We really do need to stop government from reaching into everyone's lives and making draconian rules.
Argue for a *better* law, argue for multiple providers, argue for the correct department to handle ir, argue to fix the issue by other means (such as competition). Point out that cities charge money for pole access, make exclusionary deals with providers, and get all sorts of kickbacks.
Net neutrality is a good thing, so let's fix it rather than complain about narrowly-defined aspects.
Idiot.
Thats just a stupid ass conspiracy theory. I bet you believe we didn't land on the moon too. Or Bush did 9/11 (oh wait, maybe not that one because it was by a republican lol)
Whoosh!
Is there oil off the coast of Mar-a-Lago? Trump pitched a fit about a wind farm off the coast of Scotland near his golf course there. Wonder how he'd feel about a few oil drilling platforms or a spill?
Has the DNC E-mail leaker been found yet? Hillary was inconsolable after the election, and you know how people who cross her tend to end up dead. Wonder how she would react if the DNC leaker's name were made public?
Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them. They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed. They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them. Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left.
Why is it that businesses are only required to enforce certain rights?
Equal and fair commerce for all races and religions I can understand.
I can even understand how corner cases crop up where opposing rights come into conflict - not having to make a wedding cake for gay people, for instance. It wasn't entirely clear which right had precedence before the courts sorted it out.
But businesses are allowed to curtail freedom of speech in any way they want. Facebook bans conservatives more than liberals, Google implements a "fake news" filter that's specific to Breitbart, twitter shadowbans people so that they can't be certain they're being suppressed, Berkeley effectively bans conservative speakers, the list goes on...
I'm not talking about speech generated by the companies, such as CNN or Fox or HuffPo. They're employees are paid to produce speech with a specific slant - I get that.
I'm talking about companies giving average people a forum for their speech, but then imposing rules about insults and impolite speech. And then enforcing the rules one-sidedly to promote a political agenda.
The nazis used to have book burnings, and the situation at Berkeley sounds a lot like what the nazis used to do in the beginning. People at the riots seem to think that beating people is OK, although I haven't heard of anyone being beaten to death yet...
Why do we force people to give commerce without regard to race (or religion, or a handful of other characteristics)
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee, the law was a standout of overreaching jurisdiction, roundly criticised, and should have been the responsibility of a different department. The same article appeared on Slashdot weeks ago, it's nothing new today, and the opposition is showing no leadership on the issue - no proposals for change, no references to studies or data, nothing.
Also, it's important to talk about this issue and not, for example tax overhaul which is happening *right now*.
The US currently has 10 aircraft carriers in service, and are building 2 more.
How about we reduce that number from 12 to 5?
That way we could fight a war on 2 fronts with 2 carriers each (like Japan and Germany were), and have one left over for relief aid and support, like we did with Haiti.
GAO submitted a few non-existant products to test the EnergyStar program. Some notable results:
Gas-Powered Alarm Clock:
Product description indicated the clock is the size of a small generator and is powered by gasoline.
Product was approved by Energy Star without a review of the company Web site or questions of the claimed efficiencies.
Geothermal Heat Pump:
Energy use data reported was more efficient than any product listed as certified on the Energy Star Web site at the time of submission.
High-energy efficiency data was not questioned by Energy Star.
Product is eligible for federal tax credits and state rebate programs.
Computer Monitor
Product was approved by Energy Star within 30 minutes of submission.
Private firms contacted GAO’s fictitious firm to purchase products based on participation in the Energy Star program.
Refrigerator:
Self-certified product was submitted, qualified, and listed on the Energy Star Web site within 24 hours.
Product is eligible for federal tax credits and state rebates.
Every other "outrage" article on Slashdot has had a reasonable explanation.
It's happened so many times that we shouldn't even bother looking into them any more - they are so often wrong and too trivial to worry about.
Perhaps the EnergyStar program didn't actually do anything, but took up federal money. (Like that axed Obama-era justice standards group that didn't do anything useful.)
Perhaps it was being run by the wrong agency, and was perceived as overreach outside of the agency's jurisdiction (like that net-neutrality law).
Perhaps it held virtually no value to the consumer, by adjusting the standards to meet the industry products instead of the other way around (such as the drive to give more of America access to "broadband" internet).
Perhaps there were better and cheaper alternatives in the free market.
Historically speaking, this is almost certainly a non-issue.
It's most likely fake news intended to provoke outrage in the reader.
Well Trump is consistent in not doing any of the things he had campaigned to do.
Scott Adams notes out that people watch the same scenes and think they're viewing a different movie.
Looking at the anti-Trump rhetoric on this thread, I'm starting to wonder if that's literally true. It's gotten so blatantly obvious that I'm starting to wonder about the basic sanity of some people.
1) Bomb the shit out of ISIS
2) Build the wall (ongoing)
3) Withdraw from TPP
4) Suspend immigration from terror-prone areas (ongoing)
5) Rework health care (ongoing, 2nd round coming up)
6) Rework the tax code (ongoing)
7) Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
I don't agree with everything he's done, but you have to allow that he's done or in the process of doing at least *some* of his campaign promises.
And he's been in office for just under 100 days and there's lots to be done, and he's getting some of it actually done while running the country.
How do people come up with these alternate scenarios?
Is cognitive dissonance so powerful and so real that people literally make scenes up out of whole cloth?
I am astonished.
I think there are two problems, not enough people are marking these as 'spam', and we as readers aren't submitting enough of the articles appropriate for the site.
The problem with this is that if you submit several articles that are marked as spam, slashdot will lock your account. Vicious readers use this effect to harass legitimate submitters.
This happened to me - I was locked out from having several legitimate articles marked as SPAM, but then Slashdot management reversed the lockout. Now I'm 'kinda jaded about submitting articles.
I have to wonder how many legitimate submitters have been locked out... and got disheartened or felt there was no way to appeal or were driven away by the bad users.
1) Brian Tracy "The Psychology of Success"
2) This video, by John Cleese
3) Anthony Robbins, "Get The Edge"
Each of these addresses the psychological aspect of creativity.
So that's like what, "up to" 0.000001% of them?
Also, if you're going to blatantly rip off Star Trek, at least rip off the good stuff. The ipads and the handheld communicators and the touchscreens every-fucking-where and the obtrusive diversity and social justice are great and all, but we've made practically zero progress toward warp drive or transporters, and the vague, fumbling gestures in the direction of holodecks are so far unimpressive at best.
You're right. This was an ill-advised project that didn't even *try* to duplicate anything interesting from the star trek universe.
Furthermore, it's practically useless because it only diagnoses common ailments, and not very many of those either.
It's not like self-driving cars: It'll never be improved upon - at least, not to the point where it diagnoses even a small fraction of the total number of diseases, and it will never be more accurate in the things it *does* diagnose than a real human doctor.
I don't know why people even bother trying these sorts of things.
They could have done so much more. I mean, warp drives would have been sooooo much more useful!
The competition appears to be for a medical tricorder.
(There are legitimate science tricorder projects as well.)
Fifty-ish medical conditions is a very good start, and I can only imagine that adding more and different sensors will allow such a system to discriminate between more conditions in the future (do these devices ask for human input of symptoms or history?).
Of course, we could never get these approved for use in the USA - the 3.8 million noted in the article would only be a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of certification. If a single drug costs $2.5 billion for certification (and hearing aids cost $5000 and up), imagine how much it would cost to certify an autodoc for 50 diseases!
But this should work quite well in developing countries.
As a further point on home assistants, someone at Hackaday suggested that if you want to burgle a home, try shouting "Alexa, unlock the front door!" through the letter slot.
I'm totally expecting some wag with a really loud car stereo system to drive through a high-price neighbourhood playing a loop of that.
The article over at Hackaday has a good summary of the situation:
The friendly Burger King employee ends the ad by saying “Ok Google, what is the Whopper burger?” Google home then springs into action reading the product description from Burger King’s Wikipedia page.
Trolls across the internet jumped into the fray. The Whopper’s ingredient list soon included such items as toenail clippings, rat, cyanide, and a small child. Wikipedia has since reverted the changes and locked down the page.
Google apparently wasn’t involved in this, as they quickly updated their voice recognition algorithms to specifically ignore the commercial. Burger King responded by re-dubbing the audio of the commercial with a different voice actor, which defeated Google’s block. Where this game of cat and mouse will end is anyone’s guess.
My response on reading that: "Bwa ha ha ha!"
There's a lot to chuckle about.
Could you provide some sources for these numbers you're throwing around? Seems a little soon for this administration to have had much of an effect, let alone provide enough time for statistical trends to have emerged and analyzed.
Happy to oblige! Look here and here.
On the plus side, illegal immigration is at the lowest it's been in 2 decades, the economy is up by 20%, and we made a strong-but-measured move in Syria which has garnered praise from many world leaders.
It's fine to carp about every little thing the president does, but no one really expects the president to please everyone all the time. I'm against a fair number of the littl'er policy changes (such as abortion policy), but I also realize that several small issues can be compensated by one or two really big issues.
For example, our strong but limited response on Syria will have a positive effect on relations and negotiations with Iran, N. Korea, and China. Limiting illegal immigration should eventually bubble up into more jobs, and at the same time we're concentrating on illegal-immigrant violent criminals and ignoring illegal immigrant students.
I'm happy to trade some of the smaller problems for bigger ones.
I think the US is in a good place right now.
(And then there's the very real question of whether this is fake news, which has been patently true for about 80% of the shocking(!) revelations posted on this site. How long has this commission been around, and have they done anything of any note? Or is it just another example of government waste?)
I'll never understand the rationality behind the google image search features. Or some of the "advanced" features on their text search.
Search for images and the page initially shows a fair number. Scroll down looking for the thing you want, and suddenly you trigger a 2nd pack of images to be loaded, scroll down some more and you trigger a 3rd set.
This means that if you *don't* find the image you want, you have to wait while the 2nd pack loads... except that it could have been loading while you were looking at some of the top images. I don't know why making the person wait for the 2nd pack is in any way useful.
Additionally, when the new pack loads it resets your position in the page and jumps the display somewhere. If you're actually interested in an image at the end of the first pack, you can be looking at it and suddenly the page jumps somewhere else.
I'm sure making the user wait and suddenly yanking the image of interest away is useful somehow. I just can't see how.
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
It's clearly hate speech, and should be deleted for that reason.
You wouldn't want people to be able to shout hateful things on the internet, would you?
And besides, it's not the government that's doing it, it's a private company. They can censor anything they want because they're not bound by the constitution, and people are free to leave twitter and start their own social media service.
Also: Gab.aio is a free-speech twitter alternative. Check out their humor channel sometime - it's actually funny!
Given the tragedy that occurred comments like yours are juts appalling!
People died here!
The only purpose of solemnity is control.
Once you get people to be solemn in extreme cases, over time you can slowly get people to agree in less compelling situations.
Eventually, everything becomes serious, everything is "not a joking matter".
DOES THIS SEEM FUNNY TO YOU? HUH? HUH? DOES IT?
Well... yes it does, actually.
People are claiming this to justify their anti-Islam positions. Talking about this is racist.
No, it's not. Liberals need to stop name calling and get a clue:
RACISM IS NOT DEFINED AS "SOMETHING THAT DISAGREES WITH THE LEFT!"
We CAN talk about issues without being racist, holding racist beliefs, or being prejudiced.
Grow the fuck up and have adult conversations.
It seems that many terrorist attacks in recent years have come from Muslims. This might be a false perception because of media bias, so
1) Does anyone have strong statistical evidence that the problem is Islam, and not a different common feature?
2) Would it make sense to bar entry to the US from certain world areas?
3) Would it make sense to put Muslims under enhanced scrutiny domestically?
As an anecdote to #3, I heard news articles saying that the local Imam in Florida was calling for death to gays before the nightclub attack. Are such overt calls for violence protected as free speech or freedom of religion, or should we make certain exceptions?
Discuss. None of these questions is racist, or indicate inherent racism to an intelligent person. (But it might to liberals.)
Second, there sure seems to be a lot of actual evidence that it's Democrats who have been using government surveillance against US citizens for purely - and illegal - political purposes.
That's just misdirection, trying to get the public eye away from the real issue, which is "the Russians did it"!
I don't know why everyone thinks that wiretapping a presidential candidate during an election is even worthy of consideration!
I mean, come on: there's gotta be Russians somewhere around here, we just have to find them!
From TFS, I gleaned the following:
Old - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers, 1 million of which must already be served by some other company.
New - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers.
Less competition, but more people who had no access will be getting access. Isn't that why you loved the "Affordable" Care Act?
I'm not even sure why people are complaining about this.
Suppose you have 1 person with no internet access, and 1 person with access from a single provider. Which is more important:
1) Getting access to the person without, or
2) Duplicating access to the person with one already
We've complained for years about how providers ignore low-population-density areas, and the "existing subscribers" are probably already in these areas.
Why is this not a common-sense adjustment? Isn't getting people onto the internet the more important task, and worthy of being done first?
And on the flip side, I note that forcing providers to make useful changes in return for acquisitions is one way of fixing the problem. About 25 million households have no access to high-speed internet, and this one change should reduce that amount by 4%.
Yes, that's a little, but it's a little in the right direction.