>"Republicans only favor states rights when the states want to do something they agree with that federal government wants to do."
Sorry, you just described what EITHER of the two main parties (D & R) do; this is not the sole domain of Republicans. Although conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, but also Constitution party, Libertarians, Classic Liberals, and others) absolutely support the Constitution and the rights of states to govern their people with the few exceptions laid out for the Fed.... that is generally NOT the stance of the "left" (so-called "modern liberals", Socialists, Green, most Democrats) at all.
This energy thing with CA is a perfect example of how it is SUPPOSED to work. Whether you agree with what they are trying to do is irrelevant. They should be able to do it because it is not a power granted to the Fed nor prohibited to the States. It is what allows experimentation, innovation, and better matching of the needs to certain localities.
No doubt many other States will be watching such an experiment and perhaps do the same thing, or something similar, or something inbetween that meets their citizens' needs. Some will wait to see what happens, some might join early, others later. Some will ignore it completely because they can't handle the cost, or don't have the capital, or don't have enough of the natural resources that might be required (yet).
>"You know, it's ridiculous that there are people that conflate identification with surveillance."
Of course you need identification systems. But surveillance isn't possible or meaningful without identification. The problem comes when an ID system becomes mandatory or essentially mandatory for things it shouldn't be needed for in the first place. Making things worse is the technology now involved making things recorded, permanent, searchable, and sharable; all at little cost. For example, you should not need to prove WHO you are to buy alcohol. You only need to show an ID that a cashier can use to determine you are of age (and that the ID is reasonably of you and real) and the transaction is through and essentially anonymous. But somehow that is now morphing into SCANNING that ID, and STORING your full identification information. There is a huge difference. Once people get used to that, then the next stages kick in- full ID storage for OTC medications, then things that "might" be dangerous, then everything.
So it is not necessarily the presence of an ID system that is the problem, it is how it is used or when it is required to be used. In this article, it isn't just the ID, but the combination of that with biometrics, and then its [mis]use by big business that shows the path it is taking. It won't take long before just about ANYTHING an Indian citizen wants to do- government or private, in person or online, they will have to be ID'ed. Before the age of insanely powerful computers, massive networks, and ultra cheap storage, such ID'ing would be just an inconvenience. But IN that age, it is a privacy (and ultimately freedom) nightmare.
National ID systems can be very dangerous; combining it with biometrics, even more dangerous; allowing business in on the situation, still more dangerous. Nothing erodes privacy and freedom more than being constantly tracked, cataloged, watched, recorded, post-judged, and pre-judged. And this all follows with the systematic destruction of anonymity that such systems create. It is the proverbial "mark of the beast"- that which gives government and/or large corporate interests the ability to control the populous completely. Suppression of decent, lack of free thought, destruction of creativity, lack of risk-taking, constant paranoia, no way to really change or atone for mistakes- these are not things that are compatible with a "free" society. And yet we keep marching in that direction in the apparent quest of some utopic "safe" society. If that is what it means to be "safe", I think "dangerous" is far more acceptable and far more human.
>"Ah yes, the infamous, "But when you look at the statistics. .." bullshit argument."
Statistics are facts. If you don't use facts, then you are arguing irrationally and emotionally.
>"But looking at the number of occurrences and the totality of deaths, the U.S. leads the pack."
Meaningless. Obviously such statistics have to be per capita or they are pretty much of no value. And when you do make it per capita, USA is nowhere near "leading the pack." In fact, in mass shootings, "the USA is 4th behind 3 European countries or eighth when a broader set of non-conflict countries are examined."
>"If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there?"
You are kidding right? "Gun free" zones, are not enforced, they are just "feel good" things that actually make the zone much, much less safe and a prime target for shooters who want to do maximum damage in minimum time.
>"If it wasn't, how come the good guys with guns didn't save everyone?"
Because the "good guys" follow the laws and rules and the "bad guys" don't. This shooting was another case of mental health problems.
>"But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID, which means private institutions and even the federal government itself have had to improvise."
Well, they do, it is the SSN (Social Security Number)... which was never supposed to be or meant to be some type of general-purpose, national ID number. In any case, it is not desirable to have a national ID number, anyway. Why? Because it destroys freedom and privacy by making being anonymous difficult and encourages tracking and cross-referencing.
Biggest problem ever was when "credit scores" got linked to SSN and now businesses use that as an excuse to REQUIRE SSN for many transactions, even getting a phone, gas, electricity, mortgage. And the IRS uses for taxes, another huge mistake- so now every employer and bank and lender "must" have it. And your employer shares it with numerous insurance companies and other "partners" without your permission nor knowledge (been there, done that).
>"Verizon treated them as the same. There had not been a cap, previously."
Ever since Verizon brought back "unlimited" plans they have been throttled/capped. It really is not related to net neutrality, it is just about them trying to prevent "abuse" (heavy users) and make more money. This is interesting: https://www.androidpolice.com/...
Not sure how well Verizon's throttled service worked, but way before Verizon did it, Sprint was doing it and I was on Sprint's "unlimited" data. On Sprint, the cap was very low and throttling was to force data to *2G* speeds- it was so slow as to be almost totally unusable. A web site could take minutes to load, and usually would just time out. Navigation was also impossible. 4 years ago I switched to T-Mobile, and I opted for their lowest amount limited plan (they had both; I think my cap was 2GB). I had never hit the cap because it was pretty high (and I am not a data fiend). Still on the same plan, the only difference is they keep raising the amount of data in my plan at the same price. It is now 8GB with another 20GB "stashed" of which I typically seem to use about now, of which my peak over the last several months has been 1GB:)
>"It is unacceptable for communications providers to deceive their customers[...]"
And for the third time (on Slashdot).... this has NOTHING to do with net neutrality. The data speed is not being altered based on where the data is going or coming from; it is completely neutral, based on a non-secret cap. Data caps are on nearly all "unlimited" data plans with all wireless carriers (and most wired carriers too). Just because it is a government agency that didn't read or perhaps understand their contracts before signing them doesn't make it any more deceiving than for anyone else. But.... but.... "save the children!!!!"
Per what is now apparently the industry standard definition, "unlimited data" does not mean "unlimited speed" across the "unlimited" data, it just means data service will not be cut off or incur extra charges at some point during the billing cycle. If they don't like that, then work out a deal on a different data plan, or work with the FTC to change or clarify the meaning of "unlimited data" and force all the carriers to call it something else.
>"People are resistant to change and that resistance seems to grow with age. Educating my father on how much he would be saving had no effect, when I went ahead and replaced them myself, he nearly had a aneurysm. He got a huge grin when he opened next months electric bill thou."
Glad it worked out:) You are right that there are always some people who don't or can't see reason. But that isn't the best argument for removing choice from those who do have good reasons for still using older technology. Freedom does have some fallacy, but the alternative is a nanny state, telling you everything you can or can't do (or just removing choice completely). It it hard to draw lines sometimes, but we need to be careful.
>"This event also makes driving laws in some other countries (Australia is the first that comes to mind) look better than our own. They restrict the use of high-powered vehicles until the driver has a certain amount of driving experience -- five years, if I remember right."
Different (objective), not better (generally subjective).
In any case- ANY modern car can go 100 MPH, the estimated speed of this accident. In many places in the USA, the highest speed limit is 80 (and 85 in a few tiny spots), with people reasonably going 5 over. You don't need a "performance" [high-powered] vehicle to do that.
Now, most would admit that "performance" vehicles may further coax certain [already reckless-leaning] people to do reckless things.
>" Not really. I picked up a pack of 3 for $5, led bulbs, from the dollar store 2 years ago. Those bulbs are still going strong."
It really is a "crap shoot". I have a few ancient LED bulbs that are still working fine. I have others I bought from Amazon, with 5 star ratings, and half died within a few months. I have a lot of genuine CREE bulbs, and half of those started flickering and dying in just a few years.... and those were expensive.
I *love* LED bulbs. But I also don't think other bulbs should be "banned". That is just stupid. LED bulbs don't solve ALL problems for ALL situations, and if they are so great, they will naturally take over (like they are doing). Old tech will get less and less popular, harder to find, less in demand, and their prices will go up and up. It doesn't have to be forced down people's throats.... instead, provide education.
That is just nonsense (and, actually, irresponsible). For one, ANYTHING you are doing that requires your peak senses and/or rationality will be negatively impacted by using Marijuana. For things like driving, surgery, operating dangerous power tools, whatever, it is not a good idea to be "altered". And claiming that throughout all history, being high on pot has not directly caused or contributed to death, is just *ridiculous*.
And if the choice of consumption of Marijuana involves SMOKING it (instead of eating it, ingesting a pill, or vaporizing it, or whatnot), well, let's just say that breathing in any type of smoke into the lungs is very unhealthy, no matter what type it is.
Now, if you were to say something more reasonable like "Marijuana is the safest illicit drug" most would readily agree with you. If you were to say it was safer than alcohol, again, most people would probably agree.
>"If your opinion is shared by the neo-nazi's, and they say you're the savior of the white race.... chances are you're a fucking neo-nazi".
Or, you are just a rallying point for ignorant people who think they have something going that they don't. Siting a left-wing site outlet of a left-wing organization (SPLC) doesn't lend much credibility to the analysis. I could just as easily site Stossel's take on the SPLC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
>"The fact you think the media is to blame for calling out hate groups, not that the hate groups exist in the first place, is a testament to your ideology... not an indication of reality. "
Don't put words in my mouth. There have ALWAYS been hate groups, in every country, in every society, in every time. And there probably always will be, too. I would certainly never say otherwise. What I said is that it APPEARS there are more "now" because of the slanted and sensationalized media. And I believe that is absolutely true. All the other "hate" I see is just ever more escalating, polarized bickering and hypersensitivity. Trump certainly doesn't help that at all- more by what he says than by what he does (thankfully).
>"You might be too stupid to understand that, but it doesn't change the fact"
Great, so now *I* am "stupid" because I don't agree with your assessment?
>"Trump won on spreading hate, telling people they're not to blame for their problems, that the "other" people are... those with different color skin, or a different religion, or a different birth place. that pretty much boils down Trump supporters.... people who can't take responsibility for themselves, and absolutely have to have some one to blame for their own shortcomings in life."
That is ripe, because what you described is so very similar to the platform of the far left- everyone is a victim, you are only what your "identity politics" say you are or can be, everything is someone else's fault, especially certain other "groups", and only the government can fix it.
The fact is, there is enough stupidity and hate to go all around.
Not really. "Social Justice", at least as it is practiced today, appears to be not concerned with equal opportunity but equal OUTCOMES. The only way to make THAT happen is to remove those three aspirations of classical liberalism: political freedom, civil liberty, and economic freedom. It is a belief that somehow everyone is a victim and everyone else owes you something. To to promote it, they foster "identity politics" where people are not individuals, but just parts of either victim or oppressor "groups." And to "rectify it", they seek government and corporate assistance, demonize anyone who disagrees, and seek to shut down any rational conversation in any way possible- like appealing to emotion instead of facts and banning speech. Gone is individual responsibility and gratefulness, replaced with blame, sadness, and outrage. That is the modern social justice warrior, at least as I have observed.
>"There are more hate groups now than ever before."
Actually no. It might APPEAR there are more "hate groups", but only because of the way the media is covering such topics.
>"The problem isn't that they're not being stigmatized, it's that people without basic decency are now embracing the hate. That's the reason Trump was elected, and why this countries conservatives are on a seemingly one way ticket to all out fascism."
That is just utter nonsense. The vast majority of hate I see is from the left and SJW's. The reason Trump was elected was primarily due to people getting fed up with the "establishment" politicians- on both sides. There is no denying he certainly has been different.
>"What is it with liberals getting so worked up about controlling who is allowed to speak? Even Wikipedia says "Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association." Maybe it's time to redefine the terms."
Many already have. Those original liberals are now often called "classical liberals", not to be confused with "modern liberals", who many just now refer to as the "left".
>" The throttling "has everything to do with net neutrality," a Santa Clara County official said."
No it does NOT. Never has and never will, no matter how many times "Clara County" wants to say it. No matter how you try to twist it, or phrase it, or try to pin it on Trump, or whine, or cry. This is just data throttling, which nearly EVERY ISP does. It is normal, it does not discriminate in any way WHERE you get the data from or send the data to. It is determined ONLY by a total measured cap.
Now, Clara Country might have been stupid enough to not READ or UNDERSTAND the terms of the contract they signed and later not like it. Or perhaps there really was a mistake made by Verizon in putting them on a "unlimited" plan instead of a measured plan. But stop trying to make this some example of net neutrality.
>"My ISP offers full speed unlimited data (only on wired network, though)"
I was talking about wireless carriers, not home/business wired. But even home/wired almost always has some type of cap, even if it is very high and they don't say what it is.
While I think using a paper ballot is a GOOD thing (especially when combined with optical readers and such), I am not sure the Federal Government (Congress) has the authority to impose such a law. My understanding is that the polling/election process is solely a State responsibility and domain. The Constitution assigns such powers to the States and then follows up with the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
So, short of a Constitutional Amendment, I don't see how such a law would be Constitutional. Although I know it is EXTREMELY popular and prevalent for the Fed to simply ignore the 10th Amendment whenever convenient.
>"But if the throttling for a particular customer is removed subject to additional payments, it isn't. "
That is not what net neutrality is about. If they are throttle ALL their data the same way, regardless of where it is going or coming from, that is, by definition, "neutral". If they started throttling only video, or only to Google, or only to a certain country, that would NOT be neutral.
Throttling is just a way of being able to say "unlimited data". Without throttling, they could have to really give you all the data you want, forever, with no limits and at full speed (for your flat price); which they are NOT going to do because it would be disruptive to their network and other customers, and most importantly, not profitable. OR not call it "unlimited" AND would either have to:
1) Stop ALL your data, which would be devastating for most people. 2) Charge you an additional fee for more data, which consumers HATE.
>"Oh for pete's sake, just buy a flip phone/feature phone and call it a day."
And the phone companies will still:
* Track your every move using very accurate cellular triangulation methods * Store all that location data from above * Filter/track/store all your text messages * Track/store all your meta data (who you called, when, where)
So yeah, it will at least cut Google out of the picture, but tracking is still there. If you are using an Android phone, the best you can do is register under a pseudonym, turn off all the tracking features, don't use their client software (use a third party, traditional SMS, use an alternative search engine, use an alternative browser, etc) and never attach ANYTHING on it to a real address, phone number, credit card number, bank account, or Email address. You can get a maximally "private" smart device (as much as can be expected) although at the cost of it being a degraded "experience".
You can have more privacy or more convenience.... but probably not both.
>"Verizon Wireless's throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules."
Um, this has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. It does have to do with the definition of "unlimited data", but they were not throttling based on where the data was going....
Slashdot Mirror
>"Republicans only favor states rights when the states want to do something they agree with that federal government wants to do."
Sorry, you just described what EITHER of the two main parties (D & R) do; this is not the sole domain of Republicans. Although conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, but also Constitution party, Libertarians, Classic Liberals, and others) absolutely support the Constitution and the rights of states to govern their people with the few exceptions laid out for the Fed.... that is generally NOT the stance of the "left" (so-called "modern liberals", Socialists, Green, most Democrats) at all.
This energy thing with CA is a perfect example of how it is SUPPOSED to work. Whether you agree with what they are trying to do is irrelevant. They should be able to do it because it is not a power granted to the Fed nor prohibited to the States. It is what allows experimentation, innovation, and better matching of the needs to certain localities.
No doubt many other States will be watching such an experiment and perhaps do the same thing, or something similar, or something inbetween that meets their citizens' needs. Some will wait to see what happens, some might join early, others later. Some will ignore it completely because they can't handle the cost, or don't have the capital, or don't have enough of the natural resources that might be required (yet).
>"You know, it's ridiculous that there are people that conflate identification with surveillance."
Of course you need identification systems. But surveillance isn't possible or meaningful without identification. The problem comes when an ID system becomes mandatory or essentially mandatory for things it shouldn't be needed for in the first place. Making things worse is the technology now involved making things recorded, permanent, searchable, and sharable; all at little cost. For example, you should not need to prove WHO you are to buy alcohol. You only need to show an ID that a cashier can use to determine you are of age (and that the ID is reasonably of you and real) and the transaction is through and essentially anonymous. But somehow that is now morphing into SCANNING that ID, and STORING your full identification information. There is a huge difference. Once people get used to that, then the next stages kick in- full ID storage for OTC medications, then things that "might" be dangerous, then everything.
So it is not necessarily the presence of an ID system that is the problem, it is how it is used or when it is required to be used. In this article, it isn't just the ID, but the combination of that with biometrics, and then its [mis]use by big business that shows the path it is taking. It won't take long before just about ANYTHING an Indian citizen wants to do- government or private, in person or online, they will have to be ID'ed. Before the age of insanely powerful computers, massive networks, and ultra cheap storage, such ID'ing would be just an inconvenience. But IN that age, it is a privacy (and ultimately freedom) nightmare.
Good followup to the recent https://it.slashdot.org/story/... on Slashdot.
National ID systems can be very dangerous; combining it with biometrics, even more dangerous; allowing business in on the situation, still more dangerous. Nothing erodes privacy and freedom more than being constantly tracked, cataloged, watched, recorded, post-judged, and pre-judged. And this all follows with the systematic destruction of anonymity that such systems create. It is the proverbial "mark of the beast"- that which gives government and/or large corporate interests the ability to control the populous completely. Suppression of decent, lack of free thought, destruction of creativity, lack of risk-taking, constant paranoia, no way to really change or atone for mistakes- these are not things that are compatible with a "free" society. And yet we keep marching in that direction in the apparent quest of some utopic "safe" society. If that is what it means to be "safe", I think "dangerous" is far more acceptable and far more human.
>"Ah yes, the infamous, "But when you look at the statistics. . ." bullshit argument."
Statistics are facts. If you don't use facts, then you are arguing irrationally and emotionally.
>"But looking at the number of occurrences and the totality of deaths, the U.S. leads the pack."
Meaningless. Obviously such statistics have to be per capita or they are pretty much of no value. And when you do make it per capita, USA is nowhere near "leading the pack." In fact, in mass shootings, "the USA is 4th behind 3 European countries or eighth when a broader set of non-conflict countries are examined."
http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-co...
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...
>"Was this a gun free zone?"
Of course it was a so-called "gun free" zone, because almost all "mass shootings" occur at "gun free" zones.
http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-co...
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...
>"If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there?"
You are kidding right? "Gun free" zones, are not enforced, they are just "feel good" things that actually make the zone much, much less safe and a prime target for shooters who want to do maximum damage in minimum time.
>"If it wasn't, how come the good guys with guns didn't save everyone?"
Because the "good guys" follow the laws and rules and the "bad guys" don't. This shooting was another case of mental health problems.
>"But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID, which means private institutions and even the federal government itself have had to improvise."
Well, they do, it is the SSN (Social Security Number)... which was never supposed to be or meant to be some type of general-purpose, national ID number. In any case, it is not desirable to have a national ID number, anyway. Why? Because it destroys freedom and privacy by making being anonymous difficult and encourages tracking and cross-referencing.
Biggest problem ever was when "credit scores" got linked to SSN and now businesses use that as an excuse to REQUIRE SSN for many transactions, even getting a phone, gas, electricity, mortgage. And the IRS uses for taxes, another huge mistake- so now every employer and bank and lender "must" have it. And your employer shares it with numerous insurance companies and other "partners" without your permission nor knowledge (been there, done that).
>"Verizon treated them as the same. There had not been a cap, previously."
Ever since Verizon brought back "unlimited" plans they have been throttled/capped. It really is not related to net neutrality, it is just about them trying to prevent "abuse" (heavy users) and make more money. This is interesting: https://www.androidpolice.com/...
Not sure how well Verizon's throttled service worked, but way before Verizon did it, Sprint was doing it and I was on Sprint's "unlimited" data. On Sprint, the cap was very low and throttling was to force data to *2G* speeds- it was so slow as to be almost totally unusable. A web site could take minutes to load, and usually would just time out. Navigation was also impossible. 4 years ago I switched to T-Mobile, and I opted for their lowest amount limited plan (they had both; I think my cap was 2GB). I had never hit the cap because it was pretty high (and I am not a data fiend). Still on the same plan, the only difference is they keep raising the amount of data in my plan at the same price. It is now 8GB with another 20GB "stashed" of which I typically seem to use about now, of which my peak over the last several months has been 1GB :)
>"It is unacceptable for communications providers to deceive their customers[...]"
And for the third time (on Slashdot).... this has NOTHING to do with net neutrality. The data speed is not being altered based on where the data is going or coming from; it is completely neutral, based on a non-secret cap. Data caps are on nearly all "unlimited" data plans with all wireless carriers (and most wired carriers too). Just because it is a government agency that didn't read or perhaps understand their contracts before signing them doesn't make it any more deceiving than for anyone else. But.... but.... "save the children!!!!"
Per what is now apparently the industry standard definition, "unlimited data" does not mean "unlimited speed" across the "unlimited" data, it just means data service will not be cut off or incur extra charges at some point during the billing cycle. If they don't like that, then work out a deal on a different data plan, or work with the FTC to change or clarify the meaning of "unlimited data" and force all the carriers to call it something else.
>"People are resistant to change and that resistance seems to grow with age. Educating my father on how much he would be saving had no effect, when I went ahead and replaced them myself, he nearly had a aneurysm. He got a huge grin when he opened next months electric bill thou."
Glad it worked out :) You are right that there are always some people who don't or can't see reason. But that isn't the best argument for removing choice from those who do have good reasons for still using older technology. Freedom does have some fallacy, but the alternative is a nanny state, telling you everything you can or can't do (or just removing choice completely). It it hard to draw lines sometimes, but we need to be careful.
>"This event also makes driving laws in some other countries (Australia is the first that comes to mind) look better than our own. They restrict the use of high-powered vehicles until the driver has a certain amount of driving experience -- five years, if I remember right."
Different (objective), not better (generally subjective).
In any case- ANY modern car can go 100 MPH, the estimated speed of this accident. In many places in the USA, the highest speed limit is 80 (and 85 in a few tiny spots), with people reasonably going 5 over. You don't need a "performance" [high-powered] vehicle to do that.
Now, most would admit that "performance" vehicles may further coax certain [already reckless-leaning] people to do reckless things.
>" Not really. I picked up a pack of 3 for $5, led bulbs, from the dollar store 2 years ago. Those bulbs are still going strong."
It really is a "crap shoot". I have a few ancient LED bulbs that are still working fine. I have others I bought from Amazon, with 5 star ratings, and half died within a few months. I have a lot of genuine CREE bulbs, and half of those started flickering and dying in just a few years.... and those were expensive.
I *love* LED bulbs. But I also don't think other bulbs should be "banned". That is just stupid. LED bulbs don't solve ALL problems for ALL situations, and if they are so great, they will naturally take over (like they are doing). Old tech will get less and less popular, harder to find, less in demand, and their prices will go up and up. It doesn't have to be forced down people's throats.... instead, provide education.
>"Find me someone who died from lung cancer caused by Marijuana use."
That would anecdotal at best...
>"the number of Marijuana deaths is zero."
That is just nonsense (and, actually, irresponsible). For one, ANYTHING you are doing that requires your peak senses and/or rationality will be negatively impacted by using Marijuana. For things like driving, surgery, operating dangerous power tools, whatever, it is not a good idea to be "altered". And claiming that throughout all history, being high on pot has not directly caused or contributed to death, is just *ridiculous*.
And if the choice of consumption of Marijuana involves SMOKING it (instead of eating it, ingesting a pill, or vaporizing it, or whatnot), well, let's just say that breathing in any type of smoke into the lungs is very unhealthy, no matter what type it is.
Now, if you were to say something more reasonable like "Marijuana is the safest illicit drug" most would readily agree with you. If you were to say it was safer than alcohol, again, most people would probably agree.
>"If your opinion is shared by the neo-nazi's, and they say you're the savior of the white race.... chances are you're a fucking neo-nazi".
Or, you are just a rallying point for ignorant people who think they have something going that they don't. Siting a left-wing site outlet of a left-wing organization (SPLC) doesn't lend much credibility to the analysis. I could just as easily site Stossel's take on the SPLC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
>"The fact you think the media is to blame for calling out hate groups, not that the hate groups exist in the first place, is a testament to your ideology... not an indication of reality. "
Don't put words in my mouth. There have ALWAYS been hate groups, in every country, in every society, in every time. And there probably always will be, too. I would certainly never say otherwise. What I said is that it APPEARS there are more "now" because of the slanted and sensationalized media. And I believe that is absolutely true. All the other "hate" I see is just ever more escalating, polarized bickering and hypersensitivity. Trump certainly doesn't help that at all- more by what he says than by what he does (thankfully).
>"You might be too stupid to understand that, but it doesn't change the fact"
Great, so now *I* am "stupid" because I don't agree with your assessment?
>"Trump won on spreading hate, telling people they're not to blame for their problems, that the "other" people are... those with different color skin, or a different religion, or a different birth place. that pretty much boils down Trump supporters.... people who can't take responsibility for themselves, and absolutely have to have some one to blame for their own shortcomings in life."
That is ripe, because what you described is so very similar to the platform of the far left- everyone is a victim, you are only what your "identity politics" say you are or can be, everything is someone else's fault, especially certain other "groups", and only the government can fix it.
The fact is, there is enough stupidity and hate to go all around.
Not really. "Social Justice", at least as it is practiced today, appears to be not concerned with equal opportunity but equal OUTCOMES. The only way to make THAT happen is to remove those three aspirations of classical liberalism: political freedom, civil liberty, and economic freedom. It is a belief that somehow everyone is a victim and everyone else owes you something. To to promote it, they foster "identity politics" where people are not individuals, but just parts of either victim or oppressor "groups." And to "rectify it", they seek government and corporate assistance, demonize anyone who disagrees, and seek to shut down any rational conversation in any way possible- like appealing to emotion instead of facts and banning speech. Gone is individual responsibility and gratefulness, replaced with blame, sadness, and outrage. That is the modern social justice warrior, at least as I have observed.
>"There are more hate groups now than ever before."
Actually no. It might APPEAR there are more "hate groups", but only because of the way the media is covering such topics.
>"The problem isn't that they're not being stigmatized, it's that people without basic decency are now embracing the hate. That's the reason Trump was elected, and why this countries conservatives are on a seemingly one way ticket to all out fascism."
That is just utter nonsense. The vast majority of hate I see is from the left and SJW's. The reason Trump was elected was primarily due to people getting fed up with the "establishment" politicians- on both sides. There is no denying he certainly has been different.
>"What is it with liberals getting so worked up about controlling who is allowed to speak? Even Wikipedia says "Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association." Maybe it's time to redefine the terms."
Many already have. Those original liberals are now often called "classical liberals", not to be confused with "modern liberals", who many just now refer to as the "left".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://reason.com/archives/20...
"â Classical liberalism is a combination of civil liberty, political freedom, and economic freedom.
â Modern liberalism is a combination of social justice and mixed economy."
Why is this being posted yet AGAIN to Slashdot?
>" The throttling "has everything to do with net neutrality," a Santa Clara County official said."
No it does NOT. Never has and never will, no matter how many times "Clara County" wants to say it. No matter how you try to twist it, or phrase it, or try to pin it on Trump, or whine, or cry. This is just data throttling, which nearly EVERY ISP does. It is normal, it does not discriminate in any way WHERE you get the data from or send the data to. It is determined ONLY by a total measured cap.
Now, Clara Country might have been stupid enough to not READ or UNDERSTAND the terms of the contract they signed and later not like it. Or perhaps there really was a mistake made by Verizon in putting them on a "unlimited" plan instead of a measured plan. But stop trying to make this some example of net neutrality.
>"My ISP offers full speed unlimited data (only on wired network, though)"
I was talking about wireless carriers, not home/business wired. But even home/wired almost always has some type of cap, even if it is very high and they don't say what it is.
+1 Informative
Thanks for the info! I went searching and didn't find what I was looking for (which is what you posted).
While I think using a paper ballot is a GOOD thing (especially when combined with optical readers and such), I am not sure the Federal Government (Congress) has the authority to impose such a law. My understanding is that the polling/election process is solely a State responsibility and domain. The Constitution assigns such powers to the States and then follows up with the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
So, short of a Constitutional Amendment, I don't see how such a law would be Constitutional. Although I know it is EXTREMELY popular and prevalent for the Fed to simply ignore the 10th Amendment whenever convenient.
>"But if the throttling for a particular customer is removed subject to additional payments, it isn't. "
That is not what net neutrality is about. If they are throttle ALL their data the same way, regardless of where it is going or coming from, that is, by definition, "neutral". If they started throttling only video, or only to Google, or only to a certain country, that would NOT be neutral.
Throttling is just a way of being able to say "unlimited data". Without throttling, they could have to really give you all the data you want, forever, with no limits and at full speed (for your flat price); which they are NOT going to do because it would be disruptive to their network and other customers, and most importantly, not profitable. OR not call it "unlimited" AND would either have to:
1) Stop ALL your data, which would be devastating for most people.
2) Charge you an additional fee for more data, which consumers HATE.
>"Yes it does - because fuck Verizon."
LOL! Ok, well, there is always that.
>"Oh for pete's sake, just buy a flip phone/feature phone and call it a day."
And the phone companies will still:
* Track your every move using very accurate cellular triangulation methods
* Store all that location data from above
* Filter/track/store all your text messages
* Track/store all your meta data (who you called, when, where)
So yeah, it will at least cut Google out of the picture, but tracking is still there. If you are using an Android phone, the best you can do is register under a pseudonym, turn off all the tracking features, don't use their client software (use a third party, traditional SMS, use an alternative search engine, use an alternative browser, etc) and never attach ANYTHING on it to a real address, phone number, credit card number, bank account, or Email address. You can get a maximally "private" smart device (as much as can be expected) although at the cost of it being a degraded "experience".
You can have more privacy or more convenience.... but probably not both.
>"Verizon Wireless's throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules."
Um, this has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. It does have to do with the definition of "unlimited data", but they were not throttling based on where the data was going....