Still can't handle facts, can you? Care to even try to provide ANY sources for your assertions of Soros as an angel (we'll just forget about how he earned his wealth by trading art the Nazis stole from the Jews they put into gas chambers)?
Bah! Why do I try? You'll never acknowledge facts - you just want to promote a boogieman meme with no basis in reality.
You are gullible. You haven't even managed to name a right wing equivalent of the Koch Brothers, but that doesn't stop you believing that they must exist.
There's no right-wing equivalent of media matters, the EPA, the IRS, or the Leo W. Gerard, either, but that doesn't stop you from being their useful idiot anyway, with your head firmly embedded up your ass so you don't have to face reality.
WOW. Just wow. I predicted the usual "it's okay if my side does it" response, but you've gone straight for the "Soros is an angel and Koch's tiny-by-comparison funds are evil incarnate" response instead.
George Soros is a philanthropist, giving his money away to help others less fortunate.
Thanks for epitomizing the stereotypical "useful idiot". Ironically, you called me "gullible". I guess we can add your picture to the "projection" entry in the DSM.
What are you talking about? Name the left wing equivalent of the Koch brothers if you think it exists. It doesn't. You are the "low information voter."
But in a few years - say three at the max, Android makers will realise that these patents are really worthless, and back away from their agreements.
Once you sign an agreement, it doesn't really matter whether the patent is worthless or not - you've agreed to the payments contractually, and that's still legally binding. Samsung is attempting to use some clause in the contract to claim that Microsoft Corporation has done something to invalidate the agreement - that is, transforming to a company with a major smartphone manufacturing subdivision. Maybe that will work, I don't know.
We have two female programmers on our team of 10 devs (total). They are paid equivalently to the males, receive the same training opportunities, and each holds expert status in some region of our offerings. The men do not joke about about them (I would know, being one of the male devs and all, I would hear it). If that kind of thing started up it would be nipped in the bud......as it was a few years ago when we hired, then shortly thereafter fired, a guy who turned out to be outright misogynistic.
I am not denying the trend in the industry, I am just pointing out that there *are* places that refuse to hire unprofessional jerks, and will treat all their employees with respect.
I'm not really convinced it's a trend in the industry - if anything, the trend is more toward the kind of environment where you work. I've worked at many organizations, both technology organization and it IT in other types of companies, and what you describe is more the norm, while the hostile-to-women places are the outliers. In fact, I've only worked at ONE place that was like that (I'll go ahead and name names - it was Capital One), and I only worked there three days before I quit - and I'm not even a woman.
Common carriers are regulated, but they don't have the kinds of restrictions you're talking about. Part of the point of a common carrier is that nobody is allowed to inspect the contents in order to determine what's in there.
That isn't really the case (there are clearly many organizations and government agencies inspecting the contents of all kinds of things these days, whether it's on a common carrier or not). And you missed the "LAWFUL content" part. How will they know if it's lawful or not if it's not inspected? Inspection of content (to determine whether it is allowed or not) will be MANDATORY!
That's neither what I think nor what I expressed. My point is that the weight of these corrupt practices are coming from organisations funded by the Koch Brothers. There is no equal on the other side.
So you bought into that implied connection even though there is no evidence that it exists at all? Typical low information voter. No wonder the US political system is so screwed up.
It doesn't work anyway. Regulatory capture is common [bloombergview.com]. The regulators end up working hand-in-hand with the people they're supposed to be regulating, big companies and lawyers benefit while the public suffers.
Speaking of which, isn't the current head of the FCC an executive from Comcast?
That was my thought. I don't even understand why the Koch brothers care. They don't have a dog in this fight. Why on earth go to the trouble of opposing net neutrality?
They don't, they don't, and they are not. If you read the article carefully, you'll see they're just shouting "KOCH BROTHERS" as a rallying cry to left-leaning constituencies. The "ties" to Koch that they refer to is simply that the the founder of "American Commitment" once (5 years ago) worked for Americans for Prosperity, which is chaired by David Koch. There doesn't seem to be any funding for American Commitment from Koch or AFP.
as long as the party contineus to generally also support workers rights, unions
You can't really support both. You either support unions' rights or workers' rights. Once the unions are given privileges, workers' rights are handed over to the union collective.
Having your labor exploited by a powerful corporation is bad enough. Being exploited by a powerful corporation AND a powerful union just adds insult to injury.
However, if the FCC actually had the balls to make the internet common carrier that would be the kind of regulation that is really needed to protect the net. If the FCC did that then the Republican position is all kinds of wrong.
I fear this will lead to the FCC regulating Internet content like they do broadcast content. Censors, fairness doctrines, all kinds of stuff. It's easy when "lawful content" and "lawful traffic" are embedded all over the place in the proposals. "Lawful" is a lower bar than "Legal" - just look at the definition: "conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules." In other words, "Legal" means there is no law against, but "Lawful" means there needs to be a law allowing it.
This can lead to all kinds of attempts to ban things, especially since even "traffic" and "packets" are prefaced with the "lawful" term. Where has the bittorrent protocol been defined as lawfully recognized? Anything objected to as "hate speech" or "bullying" can certainly be called "unlawful". You can't stream that football game - "Washington Redskins" is an unlawfully racist.
If that was remotely true then sites like RedTube wouldn't be campaigning for Net Neutrality, but I'm sure some dumbass on Slashdot understands this better than their lawyers.
If "all lawful content" must be treated equally, wouldn't that mean the FCC would ban co-location of devices like the NetFlix boxes and Google caching servers? They put those things into ISP data centers for free, now, so they can serve up content faster without using expensive CDNs and WAN links. Why would that be allowed under a common carrier rule? After all, the smaller guys (like, say, RedTube), can't afford that kind of roll-out of caching servers, so why wouldn't they be banned?
Not necessarily, but they could be unlawful. Yes, there is a difference. So be careful what you ask for. If last-mile ISPs get categorized as "common carriers" (like the current wave of "'net neutrality" activists are asking for), then only "lawful content" as well as "lawful network traffic" will be allowed. You will be quite surprised what the FCC decides out of that regulation is going to be completely banned.
There's a certain irony to someone complaining about "Another jackboot stomp on the way to facism [sic]", and "it's like a catalog of what leftists wish were true" in the same post. Fascism is a *RIGHT*-wing concept. Extremely *far* right wing, but right wing none the less.
Highly debatable. There is just as good an argument that Fascism is *LEFT*-wing, that is, it embodies a high amount of government control over individuals' economic liberty, similar to Socialism and Communism. When you get to the extremes of either wing, they tend to merge. Far left and far right groups are both full of conspiracy theorists, opposed to centralized authority, and view BOTH major political parties in the US as having very similar policies. Which in a way is true. Both parties are enemies to individual liberty on some issues (typically the right want strict social control while the left wants strict economic control).
Fascism is a merger of corporate control and government control. Which is why it is vilified from both sides. What the majority on both sides currently fail to grok is how pervasive Mussolini-style fascist policies have become in the US.
And in spite of widespread public support for that individual right...
Are you trying to say that there exists public support for opposing any sort of gun regulation, or that the majority of the public supports it? The second thing isn't true at all, it's just that the minority who really care about guns really care about guns and are single issue voters. The broader public which supports gun regulation doesn't consider it to be more important than other issues.
There is widespread public support for all of the individual rights explicitly pointed out in the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. The level of support varies among individuals (apparently for some people speech is a low priority, since they are supporting a Constitutional amendment to weaken it), but in general they are all supported.
As far as arms rights, most people want to keep arms away from proven bad actors (convicted violent felons), so Bloomberg has convinced a significant portion of low information voters that there is some loophole that allows them easy access. Of course, most people would like to pass on their family-owned firearms to the progeny without requesting permission to do so from federal bureaucrats, so I don't think his disarmament proposals are going to get very far, even in comparatively liberal Washington state.
But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
Right. But cherry-picking land ice is perfectly okay (as long as it's melting, of course).
... the presence of personal armaments everywhere...
Actually personal firearms are an example of the existence of personal rights and freedoms, something that totalitarian regimes tend not to allow. The 2nd amendment is every bit as important as the other amendments.
And in spite of widespread public support for that individual right, the administration, faced with the inability to explicitly change the law, are using its regulatory power over the money supply to basically shut down all commerce that enables that right. They are using the same technique to shut down the recently legalized marijuana trade in Colorado, and medical marijuana dispensaries all over the country. Just search on "Operation Chokepoint" - it's basically a program to shutdown businesses they think are "objectionable", but are clearly perfectly legal.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! You didn't even check the source, you idiot - your ad hominem is directed at a bloggers repost! ROFLMAO!
Still can't handle facts, can you? Care to even try to provide ANY sources for your assertions of Soros as an angel (we'll just forget about how he earned his wealth by trading art the Nazis stole from the Jews they put into gas chambers)?
Bah! Why do I try? You'll never acknowledge facts - you just want to promote a boogieman meme with no basis in reality.
You are gullible. You haven't even managed to name a right wing equivalent of the Koch Brothers, but that doesn't stop you believing that they must exist.
There's no right-wing equivalent of media matters, the EPA, the IRS, or the Leo W. Gerard, either, but that doesn't stop you from being their useful idiot anyway, with your head firmly embedded up your ass so you don't have to face reality.
BTW - here's your sign.
WOW. Just wow. I predicted the usual "it's okay if my side does it" response, but you've gone straight for the "Soros is an angel and Koch's tiny-by-comparison funds are evil incarnate" response instead.
George Soros is a philanthropist, giving his money away to help others less fortunate.
Thanks for epitomizing the stereotypical "useful idiot". Ironically, you called me "gullible". I guess we can add your picture to the "projection" entry in the DSM.
What are you talking about? Name the left wing equivalent of the Koch brothers if you think it exists. It doesn't. You are the "low information voter."
LOL! Sure, buddy, sure. Here you go.
And what about Charles and David Koch — the two men whose right-leaning philanthropy is supposedly single-handedly destroying the political process? Where does their company, Koch Industries, rank? Number 36, with $2.66 million, well below AT&T, Comcast, Goldman Sachs and General Electric. Among individual donors, David Koch ranks 90th with $382,000, below a pair of Las Vegas figures. Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, rank 83rd with $391,000, and Wynn Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn ranks 84th with $390,000.
Truth hurts? Or will you try to dismiss the facts with ad hominems and excuses like "Oh, well, it's okay when my side does it."
But in a few years - say three at the max, Android makers will realise that these patents are really worthless, and back away from their agreements.
Once you sign an agreement, it doesn't really matter whether the patent is worthless or not - you've agreed to the payments contractually, and that's still legally binding. Samsung is attempting to use some clause in the contract to claim that Microsoft Corporation has done something to invalidate the agreement - that is, transforming to a company with a major smartphone manufacturing subdivision. Maybe that will work, I don't know.
We have two female programmers on our team of 10 devs (total). They are paid equivalently to the males, receive the same training opportunities, and each holds expert status in some region of our offerings. The men do not joke about about them (I would know, being one of the male devs and all, I would hear it). If that kind of thing started up it would be nipped in the bud......as it was a few years ago when we hired, then shortly thereafter fired, a guy who turned out to be outright misogynistic.
I am not denying the trend in the industry, I am just pointing out that there *are* places that refuse to hire unprofessional jerks, and will treat all their employees with respect.
I'm not really convinced it's a trend in the industry - if anything, the trend is more toward the kind of environment where you work. I've worked at many organizations, both technology organization and it IT in other types of companies, and what you describe is more the norm, while the hostile-to-women places are the outliers. In fact, I've only worked at ONE place that was like that (I'll go ahead and name names - it was Capital One), and I only worked there three days before I quit - and I'm not even a woman.
Common carriers are regulated, but they don't have the kinds of restrictions you're talking about. Part of the point of a common carrier is that nobody is allowed to inspect the contents in order to determine what's in there.
That isn't really the case (there are clearly many organizations and government agencies inspecting the contents of all kinds of things these days, whether it's on a common carrier or not). And you missed the "LAWFUL content" part. How will they know if it's lawful or not if it's not inspected? Inspection of content (to determine whether it is allowed or not) will be MANDATORY!
Troll??? Did somebody give Leo Gerard mod points or something?
... better solution would be to break up these government created monopolies and allow for competition in the markets.
Care to name any conservative groups with your solution above as part of their platform? I'd really like to send them a check. Thanks!
There are a few (some call themselves "conservative", others used terms like "libertarian" or "non-partisan". Here is my favorite one.
That's neither what I think nor what I expressed. My point is that the weight of these corrupt practices are coming from organisations funded by the Koch Brothers. There is no equal on the other side.
So you bought into that implied connection even though there is no evidence that it exists at all? Typical low information voter. No wonder the US political system is so screwed up.
It doesn't work anyway. Regulatory capture is common [bloombergview.com]. The regulators end up working hand-in-hand with the people they're supposed to be regulating, big companies and lawyers benefit while the public suffers.
Speaking of which, isn't the current head of the FCC an executive from Comcast?
That was my thought. I don't even understand why the Koch brothers care. They don't have a dog in this fight. Why on earth go to the trouble of opposing net neutrality?
They don't, they don't, and they are not. If you read the article carefully, you'll see they're just shouting "KOCH BROTHERS" as a rallying cry to left-leaning constituencies. The "ties" to Koch that they refer to is simply that the the founder of "American Commitment" once (5 years ago) worked for Americans for Prosperity, which is chaired by David Koch. There doesn't seem to be any funding for American Commitment from Koch or AFP.
as long as the party contineus to generally also support workers rights, unions
You can't really support both. You either support unions' rights or workers' rights. Once the unions are given privileges, workers' rights are handed over to the union collective.
Having your labor exploited by a powerful corporation is bad enough. Being exploited by a powerful corporation AND a powerful union just adds insult to injury.
However, if the FCC actually had the balls to make the internet common carrier that would be the kind of regulation that is really needed to protect the net. If the FCC did that then the Republican position is all kinds of wrong.
I fear this will lead to the FCC regulating Internet content like they do broadcast content. Censors, fairness doctrines, all kinds of stuff. It's easy when "lawful content" and "lawful traffic" are embedded all over the place in the proposals. "Lawful" is a lower bar than "Legal" - just look at the definition: "conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules." In other words, "Legal" means there is no law against, but "Lawful" means there needs to be a law allowing it.
This can lead to all kinds of attempts to ban things, especially since even "traffic" and "packets" are prefaced with the "lawful" term. Where has the bittorrent protocol been defined as lawfully recognized? Anything objected to as "hate speech" or "bullying" can certainly be called "unlawful". You can't stream that football game - "Washington Redskins" is an unlawfully racist.
Koch BROoooooTHEeeeeeeRrrrrSSssssssss!!!!
If that was remotely true then sites like RedTube wouldn't be campaigning for Net Neutrality, but I'm sure some dumbass on Slashdot understands this better than their lawyers.
If "all lawful content" must be treated equally, wouldn't that mean the FCC would ban co-location of devices like the NetFlix boxes and Google caching servers? They put those things into ISP data centers for free, now, so they can serve up content faster without using expensive CDNs and WAN links. Why would that be allowed under a common carrier rule? After all, the smaller guys (like, say, RedTube), can't afford that kind of roll-out of caching servers, so why wouldn't they be banned?
I thought obscene materials were illegal ?
Not necessarily, but they could be unlawful. Yes, there is a difference. So be careful what you ask for. If last-mile ISPs get categorized as "common carriers" (like the current wave of "'net neutrality" activists are asking for), then only "lawful content" as well as "lawful network traffic" will be allowed. You will be quite surprised what the FCC decides out of that regulation is going to be completely banned.
Be very careful.
Pictures or it didn't happen!
Troll? Really?
There's a certain irony to someone complaining about "Another jackboot stomp on the way to facism [sic]", and "it's like a catalog of what leftists wish were true" in the same post. Fascism is a *RIGHT*-wing concept. Extremely *far* right wing, but right wing none the less.
Highly debatable. There is just as good an argument that Fascism is *LEFT*-wing, that is, it embodies a high amount of government control over individuals' economic liberty, similar to Socialism and Communism. When you get to the extremes of either wing, they tend to merge. Far left and far right groups are both full of conspiracy theorists, opposed to centralized authority, and view BOTH major political parties in the US as having very similar policies. Which in a way is true. Both parties are enemies to individual liberty on some issues (typically the right want strict social control while the left wants strict economic control).
Fascism is a merger of corporate control and government control. Which is why it is vilified from both sides. What the majority on both sides currently fail to grok is how pervasive Mussolini-style fascist policies have become in the US.
And in spite of widespread public support for that individual right...
Are you trying to say that there exists public support for opposing any sort of gun regulation, or that the majority of the public supports it? The second thing isn't true at all, it's just that the minority who really care about guns really care about guns and are single issue voters. The broader public which supports gun regulation doesn't consider it to be more important than other issues.
There is widespread public support for all of the individual rights explicitly pointed out in the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. The level of support varies among individuals (apparently for some people speech is a low priority, since they are supporting a Constitutional amendment to weaken it), but in general they are all supported.
As far as arms rights, most people want to keep arms away from proven bad actors (convicted violent felons), so Bloomberg has convinced a significant portion of low information voters that there is some loophole that allows them easy access. Of course, most people would like to pass on their family-owned firearms to the progeny without requesting permission to do so from federal bureaucrats, so I don't think his disarmament proposals are going to get very far, even in comparatively liberal Washington state.
But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
Right. But cherry-picking land ice is perfectly okay (as long as it's melting, of course).
Jeez talk about hateful wishful thinking...it's like a catalog of what leftists wish were true.
What did he say that's not true? Too much inconvenient truth for you? I'm to the right of Ted Cruz, and I see it happening too.
... the presence of personal armaments everywhere ...
Actually personal firearms are an example of the existence of personal rights and freedoms, something that totalitarian regimes tend not to allow. The 2nd amendment is every bit as important as the other amendments.
And in spite of widespread public support for that individual right, the administration, faced with the inability to explicitly change the law, are using its regulatory power over the money supply to basically shut down all commerce that enables that right. They are using the same technique to shut down the recently legalized marijuana trade in Colorado, and medical marijuana dispensaries all over the country. Just search on "Operation Chokepoint" - it's basically a program to shutdown businesses they think are "objectionable", but are clearly perfectly legal.