The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.
It's ironic that posts about Russian hacking are being done by a bot. This is the third identical post I have seen here today. So rather than being a "nothing burger" these posts indicate that the very interference they are trying to play down is in fact still ongoing.
The free market argument works if there's competition. If the customers want net neutrality, they will ditch ISPs which accept payments for fast lanes, and switch to ISPs which honor net neutrality. If customers want services who pay for fast lanes, they will ditch neutral ISPs for ISPs which charge for fast lanes. This is pretty much how Internet service works in most of the world. If your ISP's policies piss you off, you cancel and get Internet using a different ISP.
This exposes the seed of destruction that Capitalism contains. A free market requires competition, low barriers to entry and informed consumers, among a few other things. But market participants are incentivized to eliminate competition, raise barriers to entry and keep consumers as ignorant as possible. So the free market's participants have a short-term interest in destroying the freedom of the market! It's one of Capitalism's inherent flaws that I have always found interesting, and why government regulation is required to maintain Capitalism.
Notice how I keep saying "their network", as if they built it, own it and should be able to use it (or not use it) as they want?
I did notice that! And that's what has me confused. They did not build it, as I'm sure you know. They have been helping expand and maintain it. But the Internet has always been a public network and should remain so. It is, at most, a public-private partnership. These companies seem to forget the "public" part, as companies often do. So the public must remind them. However, considering the slant of the current court, that is not guaranteed.
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.
You're giving yourself away with language like that. "Nothing Burger" is too recognizable and betrays your agenda. Try to find a less played-out phrase and you won't be so obvious.
Moron. #CrookedHillary lost on her own evil deeds.
And now Krooked Kushner is following suit. No doubt Trump would post a tweet denying such hypocrisy... assuming he could spell the word.
It's been apparent for a while now that hypocrisy is not a concept that Republicans understand. There is no intellectual consistency, only political expedience.
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Won't somebody please think of the users? These ad groups are just trying to get them the information they need! *chortle*
I always get a kick out of it when these types of groups make it sound like they give a crap about the wellbeing of their cattle. Like anyone wants to see their ads in the first place.
Right to bear arms - how is that holding up in UK?
Free speech - how is that holding up in Germany?
France, Italy, Greece, India, multiple parties, they seem to be doing great, yes?
It is telling that you list the right to bear arms ahead of the right to free speech. Those other countries you mentioned have their problems, no doubt. But in case you haven't noticed, the very-wealthy have used their money and influence to take over the two political parties in the US. The country is essentially a plutocracy at this point.
I don't want to speak for the person you're responding to, but I think they were talking about substances like heroin and GHB which, despite being medically useful chemicals, do cause suffering. Everyone (well, everyone here) knows that some chemicals are only schedule 1 for political reasons, or because the medical applications are not yet recognised by the USFDA.
It's also worth pointing out that LSD can of course cause suffering. There are plenty of cases of PTSD caused by bad trips in an uncontrolled environment.
I think you're right. But the poster should have been more specific. I would also argue that people hooked on heroin were suffering before they started using the drug. Such hard drugs are often used to dull the pain of whatever the person is going through. It's not a good remedy, but that's what some people do.
I grew up reading Time in the 80's, so I'm well aware of their pro-drug bias.
Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.
I can explain it: forgiveness . Perhaps you live in Leftist utopia where everything is permissable, but nothing is forgiven, but the rest of the world doesn't think that way. If you wouldn't judge someone for mistakes in their past, and I understand (and the Right understands) that people make mistakes, who is there left to judge someone for their past mistakes? However, I can understand your sentiment - you've surely seen how the Left doesn't forgive racists - and you extrapolate that to a criminal record. You might be right in this regard, but at least you could still work for a conservative.
I imagine most Leftists wouldn't care about past drug use, and should you find yourself interviewed by a Conservative, you can always refer to Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." So, from this perspective, the deterrent of prison time helps keep people from picking up the habit in the first place, and gives them reason to seek treatment should it happen to them. When this is combined with the Conservative preference for small government, you end up with a system where the role of police is not to lock everyone up for minor drug crimes, but rather, "to keep an honest man honest".
The fuck is this? I'm the one saying we shouldn't lock people up for doing drugs. And you come back talking about how the Left doesn't forgive. If you are so all about forgiveness, why do you want to lock people up and ruin their lives?
I don't really see how forgiveness enters into it. The fact is that having a felony record severely impacts a person's ability to get a job and sustain themselves. That's not a judgement by the Left or the Right, it's the way our society currently works. And it's part of why it's such a bad idea to lock people up for doing drugs.
There is a Car Lot in my town where if you miss a payment, they disable the vehicle. This sort of thing isn't new and while it may be embarrassing, so is not paying the Bills you agreed to pay.
Would you be as sanguine if it happened to you? Did you miss the line in TFS that said, "Lallier said there was no mention of the removal fee in the contract and he disputed having to pay it."? Or are you just being smug and self righteous in the Internet?
The only slippery road is allowing the government to decide what you are allowed to put in your body (absolutely against the Constitution at the federal level).
In order to ban alcohol, they had to amend the Constitution. But one re-interpretation of the Commerce clause later and we can ban all drugs with only legislation!
Right, because drugs themselves haven't condemned MILLIONS of people to decades of suffering either?
Look, I understand your point: the 'war on drugs' is stupid. I agree. But to assert that the absence of MDMA as a theraputic resources is even within what, four? five? more? orders of magnitude the overall hurtful impact of class 1 substances generally is just silly.
Class 1 substances like marijuana, LSD and Peyote? These drugs do not cause suffering.
Perhaps someone on the Left can answer this for me, but why is it that the Left objects so strongly to the exploitation of the weak by corporations, but considers exploitation by drug dealers to be a positive social good?
As a member of the Left, I'd like to know where you got the notion that anyone on the Left thinks that way. Please point out where a person has said that exploitation by drug dealers is a social good, or admit this is a strawman.
People in general think the war on drugs is bad because the supposed cure is worse that the disease. I would much rather be addicted to heroin than serving time on a 20 year prison sentence. I can kick the smack, but I can never get rid of a felony record.
Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.
Very clever how this current effort to legalize MDMA was designed. Focusing on PTSD as the indication, and how it could help all those brave patriotic veterans.
Instead of dirty depressed hippies and single mom assault victims, who are leeches on society totally undeserving of pharmaceutical treatment.
This political smokescreen is the only reason the study managed to survive the tender minstrations of the DEA.
I don't disagree. But Americans are a very war-like people, so appealing to their militarism often works. It's how we got the interstate highway system, after all.
Want to know how to break a globehead in 2 seconds flat, every time, without fail? Point out that we see light in a vacuum. If he or she does not believe you, then point out MIT feather vacuum Youtube video. Then point out how space should be 100% light everywhere from the sun's rays reaching us and beyond. You're welcome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
With the exception of my tax dollars being pissed away, this doesn't affect me or anyone else. Perhaps a few scientists got paid off taxpayer money to do this, but how does this matter? Nobody is going to visit Saturn and nobody can live there. Can anyone explain how this matters? The whole basic science research is bogus because we can fund basic science research that is actually worthwhile. This is not, and I highly doubt anyone can justify this wasteful spending. I'll surely be censored to -1 by moderators who want to avoid this question, but that only confirms that this research is useless.
You don't think learning new things about our solar system and its planets is valuable? Sometimes outcomes lead to unexpected things. Sometimes new technology is invented for the mission that ends up being used for other things in other areas.
Did you know that the CMOS sensor in your smartphone was developed by JPL for space missions? At the time you probably wondered what the point was of exploring space. But now you have a neat little camera in your phone because of it. The point is, you don't know what the information gathered from these missions will lead to, or what work was done to enable them. Unless you can predict the entire future, you cannot judge the absolute merits of this mission. It is rather premature to assert that "this doesn't affect me or anyone else".
When your relatives (deleted children, because, you probably didn't manage to breed) are dead due to violence in the streets, you can thank your communist brothers (briefly, before you go to the gulag) for thinking that, this time, communism will work.
Who's talking about Communism? The 1980's called, they want their political boogeyman back.
I wish I had a clip of that Republican politician explaining it. A reporter pointed out that the crime stats say that crime is down under Obama, but he counters that people "feel" like crime is up. And people's perception is an equally valid alternative form of truth in his opinion.
The thing is, on a personal level, perception is reality. If someone holds the opinion that crime rates are going up, or the economy got worse under Obama, then that is the truth to them. You can come along with your studies and statistics that show that crime is going down. I would not say you are wrong. But to someone who didn't arrive at their opinion by studying the facts, and rather came to it by listening to Rush Limbaugh, your stats aren't going to matter.
If you are talking about a scientific study, then people's opinions are not a valid form of truth. Controlled experimentation and observation are the truth. But if you are a politician trying to convince people to vote for you, their opinions are absolutely a form of truth. People consider their opinions to be correct; otherwise they would not hold them. More sophisticated thinkers might admit that their opinions are probably correct. Catering and pandering to those opinions gets you votes. So I'm not surprised a politician would see things that way.
Slashdot Mirror
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.
It's ironic that posts about Russian hacking are being done by a bot. This is the third identical post I have seen here today. So rather than being a "nothing burger" these posts indicate that the very interference they are trying to play down is in fact still ongoing.
There. Now, maybe you worthless protesters can begin to direct your ire at the correct problem.
Ah, market fundamentalists. You guys are always looking at only half the issue.
The free market argument works if there's competition. If the customers want net neutrality, they will ditch ISPs which accept payments for fast lanes, and switch to ISPs which honor net neutrality. If customers want services who pay for fast lanes, they will ditch neutral ISPs for ISPs which charge for fast lanes. This is pretty much how Internet service works in most of the world. If your ISP's policies piss you off, you cancel and get Internet using a different ISP.
This exposes the seed of destruction that Capitalism contains. A free market requires competition, low barriers to entry and informed consumers, among a few other things. But market participants are incentivized to eliminate competition, raise barriers to entry and keep consumers as ignorant as possible. So the free market's participants have a short-term interest in destroying the freedom of the market! It's one of Capitalism's inherent flaws that I have always found interesting, and why government regulation is required to maintain Capitalism.
Notice how I keep saying "their network", as if they built it, own it and should be able to use it (or not use it) as they want?
I did notice that! And that's what has me confused. They did not build it, as I'm sure you know. They have been helping expand and maintain it. But the Internet has always been a public network and should remain so. It is, at most, a public-private partnership. These companies seem to forget the "public" part, as companies often do. So the public must remind them. However, considering the slant of the current court, that is not guaranteed.
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.
Really, twice in one thread? Like I said before, you're being too obvious.
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.
You're giving yourself away with language like that. "Nothing Burger" is too recognizable and betrays your agenda. Try to find a less played-out phrase and you won't be so obvious.
Moron. #CrookedHillary lost on her own evil deeds.
And now Krooked Kushner is following suit. No doubt Trump would post a tweet denying such hypocrisy... assuming he could spell the word.
It's been apparent for a while now that hypocrisy is not a concept that Republicans understand. There is no intellectual consistency, only political expedience.
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Won't somebody please think of the users? These ad groups are just trying to get them the information they need! *chortle*
I always get a kick out of it when these types of groups make it sound like they give a crap about the wellbeing of their cattle. Like anyone wants to see their ads in the first place.
Too much grrl power feminism in rogue one. She went from nobody to jedi master in 17 minutes.
Who did? Rey wasn't in Rogue One.
Right to bear arms - how is that holding up in UK? Free speech - how is that holding up in Germany?
France, Italy, Greece, India, multiple parties, they seem to be doing great, yes?
It is telling that you list the right to bear arms ahead of the right to free speech. Those other countries you mentioned have their problems, no doubt. But in case you haven't noticed, the very-wealthy have used their money and influence to take over the two political parties in the US. The country is essentially a plutocracy at this point.
Out of curiosity, what issues have invalid ballots caused in the past? Have they invalidated elections so they had to be repeated?
Do you not remember the 2000 election and the "hanging chads"? I am still all for paper ballots, but they are not without issue.
I don't want to speak for the person you're responding to, but I think they were talking about substances like heroin and GHB which, despite being medically useful chemicals, do cause suffering. Everyone (well, everyone here) knows that some chemicals are only schedule 1 for political reasons, or because the medical applications are not yet recognised by the USFDA.
It's also worth pointing out that LSD can of course cause suffering. There are plenty of cases of PTSD caused by bad trips in an uncontrolled environment.
I think you're right. But the poster should have been more specific. I would also argue that people hooked on heroin were suffering before they started using the drug. Such hard drugs are often used to dull the pain of whatever the person is going through. It's not a good remedy, but that's what some people do.
I'm kind of old. My back hurts every time I bend to care for my plants. They do cause suffering, but it's worth it.
This year, they're two meters tall/wide/deep. So not so bad. Unintended consequence of the six plant limit, bigger plants.
Good on ya!
Perhaps you don't consider Time Leftist, but a lot of people do:
I grew up reading Time in the 80's, so I'm well aware of their pro-drug bias.
Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.
I can explain it: forgiveness . Perhaps you live in Leftist utopia where everything is permissable, but nothing is forgiven, but the rest of the world doesn't think that way. If you wouldn't judge someone for mistakes in their past, and I understand (and the Right understands) that people make mistakes, who is there left to judge someone for their past mistakes? However, I can understand your sentiment - you've surely seen how the Left doesn't forgive racists - and you extrapolate that to a criminal record. You might be right in this regard, but at least you could still work for a conservative.
I imagine most Leftists wouldn't care about past drug use, and should you find yourself interviewed by a Conservative, you can always refer to Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." So, from this perspective, the deterrent of prison time helps keep people from picking up the habit in the first place, and gives them reason to seek treatment should it happen to them. When this is combined with the Conservative preference for small government, you end up with a system where the role of police is not to lock everyone up for minor drug crimes, but rather, "to keep an honest man honest".
The fuck is this? I'm the one saying we shouldn't lock people up for doing drugs. And you come back talking about how the Left doesn't forgive. If you are so all about forgiveness, why do you want to lock people up and ruin their lives?
I don't really see how forgiveness enters into it. The fact is that having a felony record severely impacts a person's ability to get a job and sustain themselves. That's not a judgement by the Left or the Right, it's the way our society currently works. And it's part of why it's such a bad idea to lock people up for doing drugs.
It's a fair point. But the United States is the only country currently rolling its military across the world.
There is a Car Lot in my town where if you miss a payment, they disable the vehicle. This sort of thing isn't new and while it may be embarrassing, so is not paying the Bills you agreed to pay.
Would you be as sanguine if it happened to you? Did you miss the line in TFS that said, "Lallier said there was no mention of the removal fee in the contract and he disputed having to pay it."? Or are you just being smug and self righteous in the Internet?
The only slippery road is allowing the government to decide what you are allowed to put in your body (absolutely against the Constitution at the federal level).
In order to ban alcohol, they had to amend the Constitution. But one re-interpretation of the Commerce clause later and we can ban all drugs with only legislation!
Right, because drugs themselves haven't condemned MILLIONS of people to decades of suffering either?
Look, I understand your point: the 'war on drugs' is stupid. I agree. But to assert that the absence of MDMA as a theraputic resources is even within what, four? five? more? orders of magnitude the overall hurtful impact of class 1 substances generally is just silly.
Class 1 substances like marijuana, LSD and Peyote? These drugs do not cause suffering.
Perhaps someone on the Left can answer this for me, but why is it that the Left objects so strongly to the exploitation of the weak by corporations, but considers exploitation by drug dealers to be a positive social good?
As a member of the Left, I'd like to know where you got the notion that anyone on the Left thinks that way. Please point out where a person has said that exploitation by drug dealers is a social good, or admit this is a strawman.
People in general think the war on drugs is bad because the supposed cure is worse that the disease. I would much rather be addicted to heroin than serving time on a 20 year prison sentence. I can kick the smack, but I can never get rid of a felony record.
Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.
Very clever how this current effort to legalize MDMA was designed. Focusing on PTSD as the indication, and how it could help all those brave patriotic veterans.
Instead of dirty depressed hippies and single mom assault victims, who are leeches on society totally undeserving of pharmaceutical treatment.
This political smokescreen is the only reason the study managed to survive the tender minstrations of the DEA.
I don't disagree. But Americans are a very war-like people, so appealing to their militarism often works. It's how we got the interstate highway system, after all.
Want to know how to break a globehead in 2 seconds flat, every time, without fail? Point out that we see light in a vacuum. If he or she does not believe you, then point out MIT feather vacuum Youtube video. Then point out how space should be 100% light everywhere from the sun's rays reaching us and beyond. You're welcome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What? Why should space be 100% light everywhere?
With the exception of my tax dollars being pissed away, this doesn't affect me or anyone else. Perhaps a few scientists got paid off taxpayer money to do this, but how does this matter? Nobody is going to visit Saturn and nobody can live there. Can anyone explain how this matters? The whole basic science research is bogus because we can fund basic science research that is actually worthwhile. This is not, and I highly doubt anyone can justify this wasteful spending. I'll surely be censored to -1 by moderators who want to avoid this question, but that only confirms that this research is useless.
You don't think learning new things about our solar system and its planets is valuable? Sometimes outcomes lead to unexpected things. Sometimes new technology is invented for the mission that ends up being used for other things in other areas.
Did you know that the CMOS sensor in your smartphone was developed by JPL for space missions? At the time you probably wondered what the point was of exploring space. But now you have a neat little camera in your phone because of it. The point is, you don't know what the information gathered from these missions will lead to, or what work was done to enable them. Unless you can predict the entire future, you cannot judge the absolute merits of this mission. It is rather premature to assert that "this doesn't affect me or anyone else".
When your relatives (deleted children, because, you probably didn't manage to breed) are dead due to violence in the streets, you can thank your communist brothers (briefly, before you go to the gulag) for thinking that, this time, communism will work.
Who's talking about Communism? The 1980's called, they want their political boogeyman back.
I wish I had a clip of that Republican politician explaining it. A reporter pointed out that the crime stats say that crime is down under Obama, but he counters that people "feel" like crime is up. And people's perception is an equally valid alternative form of truth in his opinion.
The thing is, on a personal level, perception is reality. If someone holds the opinion that crime rates are going up, or the economy got worse under Obama, then that is the truth to them. You can come along with your studies and statistics that show that crime is going down. I would not say you are wrong. But to someone who didn't arrive at their opinion by studying the facts, and rather came to it by listening to Rush Limbaugh, your stats aren't going to matter.
If you are talking about a scientific study, then people's opinions are not a valid form of truth. Controlled experimentation and observation are the truth. But if you are a politician trying to convince people to vote for you, their opinions are absolutely a form of truth. People consider their opinions to be correct; otherwise they would not hold them. More sophisticated thinkers might admit that their opinions are probably correct. Catering and pandering to those opinions gets you votes. So I'm not surprised a politician would see things that way.
Actually the bee population is increasing now. OH! - does that not serve your purpose? I guess you're not paying attention to the latest news.
Fuck off.
And he was right! There you are, right on cue!