So were you this upset when Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio? Who was convicted of contempt of court for openly refusing a court order telling him to stop civil rights violations? And now you're telling me you wouldn't expect a Trump pardon here? And that you support Trump and the rule of law? And that Trump isn't protecting obviously criminal people? ffs dude, that's some reality you must be living in. I'm with you with all those names, but you've got a giant gaping blind spot if you think Trump shouldn't be on that list and are out of your damn mind if you think Trump would put the rule of law above protecting himself (A President can pardon himself, right guys??).
The framing is factually accurate and highlights the big issue the story contributes to, so what's the problem exactly? Trump is notorious for refusing expert advice in favor of his own views; heck he brags about that and people cheer it. Science? Also objectively true; you can't look at this administrations actions and find that they haven't been against science wherever it conflicts with politics; replacing scientists with energy lobbyists, shutting down research, taking data offline, etc. Oh right, as Trump himself admitted, any news that makes him look bad is "fake news".
Also your uid is lower than mine, and I remember arguing with people here about what a tool Dubya was... selective memory?
"Were you there to hear Eratowhatever say that? No. That's just more false history the gubmint puts out there to back up its propaganda." -Flat earther
Come on, you know there's no getting through to people like that.
Now where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, that other awful ruling where she decided uncharged, unproven conduct tainted by corruption could turn a 20-year sentence into life without parole. Not at all surprised she'd ignore standards to push her views again.
Crystal clear to anyone who's being intellectually honest about the Constitution. If courts weren't already corrupting the meaning we wouldn't even have the whole war on drugs that led to this case. But they are, so now that we've come up with a situation where once again, an obvious and clear civil right poses a significant obstacle to law enforcement, and the courts are falling all over themselves to try to weasel out of a clear prohibition on self-incrimination with absurd logic.
People should have been more careful when sanctioning rights violations because they hurt the right people. Now we're seeing again, with people just cheering on intellectually dishonest court rulings that further their goal of nullifying the 2nd Amendment, in complete denial that the kind of extreme twisting being done will one day fall on a more favored right, just as has happened with the logic weakening them in the past. The only reason a lot of people are opposing this ruling is because it was over weed; everyone was loving it when it was the pedophile cop and the revenge porn sleaze.
Sorry, forcing school classes and workplaces to reflect the population instead of the applicant pool, and total compensation to be equal despite time taken off/hours worked/raises asked for is 100% trying to enforce equality of outcome. I also have no idea what RWNJ is. Progressives and SJWs self-describe with those labels and under those labels promulgate the ideology described, so that's not inaccurate.
It's also always fun being told by insane progressives like you I'm a right winger, while the right-wingers insist I'm a batshit leftist. You've supported my argument pretty well though, despite not knowing what most self-described progressives support.
That still doesn't get around the fact that they're trying to require you to use the contents of your mind to assist in discovery of evidence to aid in your prosecution, something barred by the 5th Amendment. The idea that you can essentially hold someone under a life sentence if they don't remember the password to every encrypted container in their possession is so ridiculous it makes a strong case for revoking the absolute immunity judges enjoy.
You can also adjust modifiers to remove the anonymous penalty/logged in bonus, so you can still set your threshold to +1 and see comments posted anonymously that haven't been otherwise downmodded.
The solution is to actually pursue equality, and accept that equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome. *That* is the problem people are having with progressives/SJWs; they clearly don't stand for equality, they want special treatment; to switch who gets the privelege. You can see that in such fantastic claims like "Why color-blind meritocracy is a tool of white supremacy", never willing to address the origins of the inequality, just claiming it's racism and sexism and trying to enforce it at the end by giving special treatment. Setting up justice systems where only what the women feels matters, evidence and elements of crime be damned-- Title IX kangaroo courts, allowing expert witnesses in real courts that literally say 'the womens lies prove she's telling the truth". Turning simple, obvious truths like "men and women may be biologically predisposed to different career preferences" into 'burn the heretics who dare say that', but only ever complaining about white collar, highly paid jobs-- never about the lack of women in waste management or oil rigging-- somehow I don't think it's sexism that's keeping them out of those fields.
All of that is standard progressive/SJW ideology, and it's very alienating to the rest of the left who just want equality. And just watch as this comment gets modded into oblivion for daring to point it out,
Sorry, conservative parties? Libertarians might have supported Trump slightly more than Clinton as I just posted about above; but it's hardly unanimous, and it's absurd to call them a conservative party and chalk their votes up to the right. If you break it down point-by-point by ideology, Trumps didn't even come close to winning, because Libertarians diverge in majority percentages in just about every area outside domestic economics and regulatory issues (some; for instance NN has majority support among (L)). Trumps social conservatism, criminal justice policies, international trade policies, foreign intervention policies, and more, are all deeply offensive to most libertarians.
I've heard some ridiculous spin before to try to get past the fact you lost the popular, but claiming libertarians are conservatives and count towards conservative ideology is one of the great manipulations that sounds intelligent to people who have no idea what libertarians actually stand for. And the bottom line, the electoral college is a system that says "you live in a rural area, so your vote counts for more".
another ~1% wasted their votes on throwaway protest "message" which effectively let Trump eke out an electoral victory.
So it's your contention that had Gary Johnson and Jill Stein not been on the ballot, all of those votes would have gone to Clinton? Steins probably; but (L) would have broken towards Trump, since that party has also gone off the deep end and made me embarrassed to have called myself one with their rampant Trump support. So no, 3rd party votes had nothing to do with Trump winning, and if you don't want so many people staying home or "protest voting" why don't you stop bitching on Slashdot and go work to make the big 2 not both be so god damn awful.
Considering what comes out of peoples mouths when they explain why they voted for Trump or still support him, arguing that no one is stupid enough to have been influenced by something that dumb isn't very persuasive.
None of those updates made the original version wrong. Bottom line, forwarding to the company doesn't count as doing anything, and trying to claim the explanation as demonstrating a factual inaccuracy, and the moderations supporting that, is nothing but the kind of dishonest bullshit you right wingers are trying to use to try to pretend left media is even remotely as dishonest as the right.
Forwarding doesn't count. That wasn't their current policy. The original may have lacked them trying to claim forwarding does count, and if that's enough to say it was wrong, take a good hard look at the state of media bias and the right wing propaganda that is leading you people to attack this truth. It wasn't wrong.
No, it was initially accurate, unless you're so intellectually dishonest you consider forwarding the complaint to be doing something. Apparently, you are.
You really can't understand the distinction between an ISP and a website? Yes you absolutely can pick and choose which regulations apply to which services. If Facebook started rolling fiber and became an ISP, then yes they should have to follow regulations on ISPs. Facebook doesn't have even remotely the level of monopoly ISPs do. Under your asinine theory, we couldn't even regulate telephone monopolies.
For what it's worth, I am actually upset about Facebook censoring posts about guns, but since I'm not a dishonest weasel, I'm not calling them an ISP or saying there's no difference between ISPs and websites or claiming their have equivalent market dominance.
And again, this judge thinks it's a constitutional issue, but it's simply not, unless you're dishonest or don't understand things; you've manged to span both.
The Verge article was dead on balls accurate in this case. They included the Democratic criticism (which turned out to be accurate per the followup), and the FCC response initially denying it, and then reported on not hearing additional followup. It then further elaborated on why this change would undermine the process. It could not possibly have been less biased. This is the problem with right wingers, what you call "fake news" on the left is such extreme nitpicking that's it's either not accurate to begin with (as here), or shortly corrected (something the right *never* does because they're intentionally lying and distorting facts). The level of bias between most of the left (non-zero but not extreme) and most of the right (overtly extreme) isn't even in the same universe, stop drawing false equivalencies.
Please find the exact clause and wording in the Constitution where it grants the government the right to tell a private company what it can and cannot distribute to customers voluntarily consuming its services. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
It's right after the line that says corporate entities are people and have the same rights. And that great clause about money being speech.
ISPs have near monopoly status and receive taxpayer subsidies for a service considered as essential as electric and telephone. You, and this judge, have some psychotic view of corporate personhood where they can still remain exempt from additional regulations that other companies don't have to abide by, and that's bullshit. This has nothing to do with the Constitution.
And take your business elsewhere to who ffs? You think the local cable/DSL duopoly is competition? That LTE counts? That a 3rd provider is actually widespread? There is effectively no competition and you're either shockingly ignorant for a Slashdot poster, or more likely as is typically the case among conservatives who aren't otherwise fools, flagrantly intellectually dishonest.
You know what, I'll go ahead and say it. I've become entirely against the idea that a private company acting as a public forum with a monopoly, near monopoly, or companies part of a small oligarchy over something can do whatever the fuck they please with no obligations on basic fairness. We need stronger consumer protection laws in these situations. They want the benefit of being a giant public platform with virtually no competitors? Then so sorry, there should be responsibility that comes along with that to not be completely arbitrary and capricious because you love the taste of the RIAA and MPAA's nethers. Prompt ability to appeal to a human when a financial issue is at stake is a no brainer.
That quote ignores a whole range of useful tasks people with a little training can do in those fields though. You don't need a plumber when it's just a plunge job; you don't need an accountant to do your taxes if they're simple. There's a whole spectrum of levels of knowledge, and general tools should be mostly accessible to those that know the basics. It's also a terrible idea to put barriers in against increasing your knowledge level.
Visual Basic, before.NET, was an excellent example of this. I'm by no means someone who could write an AAA game or contribute to the Linux kernel, but I've created quite a few useful utilities in VB. From the very simple, then as I got better over the years, all the way up to very complex utilities with multithreading, inline assembly, and the latest Windows APIs for line of business use. There's still nothing I've found that provides the simplicity to jump right in with the power to grow to professional level (nor create a Win32 GUI so quickly). That whole paragraph just reeks of elitism; programming isn't some inherently dangerous activity that only those who get special schooling should be able to approach it. It's like any other home utility concerning the workings of our everyday possessions.
A real President like who? Clinton (and Bill too for that matter) would have signed it; both Bushes would have signed it; I can't think of a single President or nominee from the big 2 parties in the past 50 years that wouldn't have signed it, especially in the face of the vote to override being basically guaranteed. My rabid hate for Trump is well documented, but there was no getting out of this one.
Like many of the greatest affronts to civil rights, FOSTA was overwhelmingly bi-partisan. The vote was 97-2 in the Senate. There's plenty to blame on Republicans, but sex trafficking hysteria is one thing where the blame is equally on Democrats. Republicans approach it from the religious angle, whereas Democrats have decided that all sex workers are exploited, even if they say they're not, so the choice should be taken away from them. Same result.
I pay about $120 per every 80 Blu-ray movies I watch (or per 40 4k ones now), which can be any title the day it's released on disc (sometimes sooner), and includes unlimited re-watches, ability to format shift to other devices, no DRM whatsoever... it's a great plan, called the 'buy harddrives and download from pirate bay' plan. There's cheaper plans too, you can download lower resolutions instead of full disc rips, or delete them when you're done so you don't have to manage 10TB of movies (a fraction of TV shows tho).
If not to suggest we shouldn't be complaining, then what's the point of bringing up the distinction? That's the general implication of that kind of argument, "Well, we've got it good compared to others, so be happy with what we have." You say you're not making that argument, but haven't offered an alternative explanation. Incarcerating millions for sentences wildly disproportionate to the crime on a failed moral crusade, police routinely beating and sometimes killing people who don't pose a threat along with widescale legalized theft from people not even arrested, spying on everyone with our agencies going so far as to re-route domestic traffic over overseas links to bypass restrictions on surveillance, spending trillions on foreign wars of aggression during which civilians are intentionally killed because they're near a drone target... the list goes on. However worse death marches and mass starvation are, these are fundamentally still evil, and are due vociferous opposition (and if you don't think I see the spectrum, never have I called for the kind of armed, violent revolution that would be called for if there were things like death camps).
Ah yes, the 'everyone who isn't as bad as x is good' argument. Like we should accept our government abusing our rights because they're not as bad as those other governments. The mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders, mass surveillance of the population, rampant civil rights abuses by police... it's all good because we don't have death camps. Wonderful.
Slashdot Mirror
So were you this upset when Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio? Who was convicted of contempt of court for openly refusing a court order telling him to stop civil rights violations? And now you're telling me you wouldn't expect a Trump pardon here? And that you support Trump and the rule of law? And that Trump isn't protecting obviously criminal people? ffs dude, that's some reality you must be living in. I'm with you with all those names, but you've got a giant gaping blind spot if you think Trump shouldn't be on that list and are out of your damn mind if you think Trump would put the rule of law above protecting himself (A President can pardon himself, right guys??).
The framing is factually accurate and highlights the big issue the story contributes to, so what's the problem exactly? Trump is notorious for refusing expert advice in favor of his own views; heck he brags about that and people cheer it. Science? Also objectively true; you can't look at this administrations actions and find that they haven't been against science wherever it conflicts with politics; replacing scientists with energy lobbyists, shutting down research, taking data offline, etc. Oh right, as Trump himself admitted, any news that makes him look bad is "fake news".
Also your uid is lower than mine, and I remember arguing with people here about what a tool Dubya was... selective memory?
"Were you there to hear Eratowhatever say that? No. That's just more false history the gubmint puts out there to back up its propaganda." -Flat earther
Come on, you know there's no getting through to people like that.
Now where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, that other awful ruling where she decided uncharged, unproven conduct tainted by corruption could turn a 20-year sentence into life without parole. Not at all surprised she'd ignore standards to push her views again.
Crystal clear to anyone who's being intellectually honest about the Constitution. If courts weren't already corrupting the meaning we wouldn't even have the whole war on drugs that led to this case. But they are, so now that we've come up with a situation where once again, an obvious and clear civil right poses a significant obstacle to law enforcement, and the courts are falling all over themselves to try to weasel out of a clear prohibition on self-incrimination with absurd logic.
People should have been more careful when sanctioning rights violations because they hurt the right people. Now we're seeing again, with people just cheering on intellectually dishonest court rulings that further their goal of nullifying the 2nd Amendment, in complete denial that the kind of extreme twisting being done will one day fall on a more favored right, just as has happened with the logic weakening them in the past. The only reason a lot of people are opposing this ruling is because it was over weed; everyone was loving it when it was the pedophile cop and the revenge porn sleaze.
Sorry, forcing school classes and workplaces to reflect the population instead of the applicant pool, and total compensation to be equal despite time taken off/hours worked/raises asked for is 100% trying to enforce equality of outcome. I also have no idea what RWNJ is. Progressives and SJWs self-describe with those labels and under those labels promulgate the ideology described, so that's not inaccurate.
It's also always fun being told by insane progressives like you I'm a right winger, while the right-wingers insist I'm a batshit leftist. You've supported my argument pretty well though, despite not knowing what most self-described progressives support.
That still doesn't get around the fact that they're trying to require you to use the contents of your mind to assist in discovery of evidence to aid in your prosecution, something barred by the 5th Amendment. The idea that you can essentially hold someone under a life sentence if they don't remember the password to every encrypted container in their possession is so ridiculous it makes a strong case for revoking the absolute immunity judges enjoy.
You can also adjust modifiers to remove the anonymous penalty/logged in bonus, so you can still set your threshold to +1 and see comments posted anonymously that haven't been otherwise downmodded.
The solution is to actually pursue equality, and accept that equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome. *That* is the problem people are having with progressives/SJWs; they clearly don't stand for equality, they want special treatment; to switch who gets the privelege. You can see that in such fantastic claims like "Why color-blind meritocracy is a tool of white supremacy", never willing to address the origins of the inequality, just claiming it's racism and sexism and trying to enforce it at the end by giving special treatment. Setting up justice systems where only what the women feels matters, evidence and elements of crime be damned-- Title IX kangaroo courts, allowing expert witnesses in real courts that literally say 'the womens lies prove she's telling the truth". Turning simple, obvious truths like "men and women may be biologically predisposed to different career preferences" into 'burn the heretics who dare say that', but only ever complaining about white collar, highly paid jobs-- never about the lack of women in waste management or oil rigging-- somehow I don't think it's sexism that's keeping them out of those fields.
All of that is standard progressive/SJW ideology, and it's very alienating to the rest of the left who just want equality. And just watch as this comment gets modded into oblivion for daring to point it out,
Sorry, conservative parties? Libertarians might have supported Trump slightly more than Clinton as I just posted about above; but it's hardly unanimous, and it's absurd to call them a conservative party and chalk their votes up to the right. If you break it down point-by-point by ideology, Trumps didn't even come close to winning, because Libertarians diverge in majority percentages in just about every area outside domestic economics and regulatory issues (some; for instance NN has majority support among (L)). Trumps social conservatism, criminal justice policies, international trade policies, foreign intervention policies, and more, are all deeply offensive to most libertarians.
I've heard some ridiculous spin before to try to get past the fact you lost the popular, but claiming libertarians are conservatives and count towards conservative ideology is one of the great manipulations that sounds intelligent to people who have no idea what libertarians actually stand for. And the bottom line, the electoral college is a system that says "you live in a rural area, so your vote counts for more".
another ~1% wasted their votes on throwaway protest "message" which effectively let Trump eke out an electoral victory.
So it's your contention that had Gary Johnson and Jill Stein not been on the ballot, all of those votes would have gone to Clinton? Steins probably; but (L) would have broken towards Trump, since that party has also gone off the deep end and made me embarrassed to have called myself one with their rampant Trump support. So no, 3rd party votes had nothing to do with Trump winning, and if you don't want so many people staying home or "protest voting" why don't you stop bitching on Slashdot and go work to make the big 2 not both be so god damn awful.
Considering what comes out of peoples mouths when they explain why they voted for Trump or still support him, arguing that no one is stupid enough to have been influenced by something that dumb isn't very persuasive.
None of those updates made the original version wrong. Bottom line, forwarding to the company doesn't count as doing anything, and trying to claim the explanation as demonstrating a factual inaccuracy, and the moderations supporting that, is nothing but the kind of dishonest bullshit you right wingers are trying to use to try to pretend left media is even remotely as dishonest as the right.
Forwarding doesn't count. That wasn't their current policy. The original may have lacked them trying to claim forwarding does count, and if that's enough to say it was wrong, take a good hard look at the state of media bias and the right wing propaganda that is leading you people to attack this truth. It wasn't wrong.
No, it was initially accurate, unless you're so intellectually dishonest you consider forwarding the complaint to be doing something. Apparently, you are.
You really can't understand the distinction between an ISP and a website? Yes you absolutely can pick and choose which regulations apply to which services. If Facebook started rolling fiber and became an ISP, then yes they should have to follow regulations on ISPs. Facebook doesn't have even remotely the level of monopoly ISPs do. Under your asinine theory, we couldn't even regulate telephone monopolies.
For what it's worth, I am actually upset about Facebook censoring posts about guns, but since I'm not a dishonest weasel, I'm not calling them an ISP or saying there's no difference between ISPs and websites or claiming their have equivalent market dominance.
And again, this judge thinks it's a constitutional issue, but it's simply not, unless you're dishonest or don't understand things; you've manged to span both.
The Verge article was dead on balls accurate in this case. They included the Democratic criticism (which turned out to be accurate per the followup), and the FCC response initially denying it, and then reported on not hearing additional followup. It then further elaborated on why this change would undermine the process. It could not possibly have been less biased. This is the problem with right wingers, what you call "fake news" on the left is such extreme nitpicking that's it's either not accurate to begin with (as here), or shortly corrected (something the right *never* does because they're intentionally lying and distorting facts). The level of bias between most of the left (non-zero but not extreme) and most of the right (overtly extreme) isn't even in the same universe, stop drawing false equivalencies.
I wasn't aware the US Code was part of the US Constitution.
Please find the exact clause and wording in the Constitution where it grants the government the right to tell a private company what it can and cannot distribute to customers voluntarily consuming its services. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
It's right after the line that says corporate entities are people and have the same rights. And that great clause about money being speech.
ISPs have near monopoly status and receive taxpayer subsidies for a service considered as essential as electric and telephone. You, and this judge, have some psychotic view of corporate personhood where they can still remain exempt from additional regulations that other companies don't have to abide by, and that's bullshit. This has nothing to do with the Constitution.
And take your business elsewhere to who ffs? You think the local cable/DSL duopoly is competition? That LTE counts? That a 3rd provider is actually widespread? There is effectively no competition and you're either shockingly ignorant for a Slashdot poster, or more likely as is typically the case among conservatives who aren't otherwise fools, flagrantly intellectually dishonest.
You know what, I'll go ahead and say it. I've become entirely against the idea that a private company acting as a public forum with a monopoly, near monopoly, or companies part of a small oligarchy over something can do whatever the fuck they please with no obligations on basic fairness. We need stronger consumer protection laws in these situations. They want the benefit of being a giant public platform with virtually no competitors? Then so sorry, there should be responsibility that comes along with that to not be completely arbitrary and capricious because you love the taste of the RIAA and MPAA's nethers. Prompt ability to appeal to a human when a financial issue is at stake is a no brainer.
That quote ignores a whole range of useful tasks people with a little training can do in those fields though. You don't need a plumber when it's just a plunge job; you don't need an accountant to do your taxes if they're simple. There's a whole spectrum of levels of knowledge, and general tools should be mostly accessible to those that know the basics. It's also a terrible idea to put barriers in against increasing your knowledge level. .NET, was an excellent example of this. I'm by no means someone who could write an AAA game or contribute to the Linux kernel, but I've created quite a few useful utilities in VB. From the very simple, then as I got better over the years, all the way up to very complex utilities with multithreading, inline assembly, and the latest Windows APIs for line of business use. There's still nothing I've found that provides the simplicity to jump right in with the power to grow to professional level (nor create a Win32 GUI so quickly). That whole paragraph just reeks of elitism; programming isn't some inherently dangerous activity that only those who get special schooling should be able to approach it. It's like any other home utility concerning the workings of our everyday possessions.
Visual Basic, before
A real President like who? Clinton (and Bill too for that matter) would have signed it; both Bushes would have signed it; I can't think of a single President or nominee from the big 2 parties in the past 50 years that wouldn't have signed it, especially in the face of the vote to override being basically guaranteed. My rabid hate for Trump is well documented, but there was no getting out of this one.
Like many of the greatest affronts to civil rights, FOSTA was overwhelmingly bi-partisan. The vote was 97-2 in the Senate. There's plenty to blame on Republicans, but sex trafficking hysteria is one thing where the blame is equally on Democrats. Republicans approach it from the religious angle, whereas Democrats have decided that all sex workers are exploited, even if they say they're not, so the choice should be taken away from them. Same result.
I pay about $120 per every 80 Blu-ray movies I watch (or per 40 4k ones now), which can be any title the day it's released on disc (sometimes sooner), and includes unlimited re-watches, ability to format shift to other devices, no DRM whatsoever... it's a great plan, called the 'buy harddrives and download from pirate bay' plan. There's cheaper plans too, you can download lower resolutions instead of full disc rips, or delete them when you're done so you don't have to manage 10TB of movies (a fraction of TV shows tho).
If not to suggest we shouldn't be complaining, then what's the point of bringing up the distinction? That's the general implication of that kind of argument, "Well, we've got it good compared to others, so be happy with what we have." You say you're not making that argument, but haven't offered an alternative explanation. Incarcerating millions for sentences wildly disproportionate to the crime on a failed moral crusade, police routinely beating and sometimes killing people who don't pose a threat along with widescale legalized theft from people not even arrested, spying on everyone with our agencies going so far as to re-route domestic traffic over overseas links to bypass restrictions on surveillance, spending trillions on foreign wars of aggression during which civilians are intentionally killed because they're near a drone target... the list goes on. However worse death marches and mass starvation are, these are fundamentally still evil, and are due vociferous opposition (and if you don't think I see the spectrum, never have I called for the kind of armed, violent revolution that would be called for if there were things like death camps).
Ah yes, the 'everyone who isn't as bad as x is good' argument. Like we should accept our government abusing our rights because they're not as bad as those other governments. The mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders, mass surveillance of the population, rampant civil rights abuses by police... it's all good because we don't have death camps. Wonderful.