Well, this story is one. Since I'm now ahead, can you find a Slashdot story where the apparent malfeasance is on the part of a Republican and that fact is not mentioned?
The point is that when said bought-off politicians are Republicans, their party affiliation is prominently displayed, trumpeted, and even brought up in stories as part of a problematic pattern.
When they're Democrats, the party affiliation is conspicuously absent. As it is here.
Is there any evidence that what would actually be enacted is this way, or are you like most Net Neutrality proponents who make up their own rules and decide that must be what NN means?
hmm, I can only assume that you're talking about the GHA numbers on there, which are meaningless because: "These figures do not include humanitarian aid from within the donor country itself".
Let's assume you believe these numbers are worthwhile, which they're not. Your assertion was "we give less than any first world nation". For that to be true, your list of first world nations must be exactly:
Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, UK, US.
There's a word for that, I believe it's "wrong". Do you have a spelled-out sound effect for that one, or does that only apply to other people?
Again, these numbers are NOT worthwhile, because there is plenty of giving going on right here at home which is being discounted entirely. The demographics of the US are quite a bit different from Luxembourg.
The data you've linked to considers "Official Development Assistance". That page describes it: "Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations."
It would probably be best for you to actually read things before assuming they support you.
If by "we" you mean the Almighty Federal Government (as people with your particular worldview are wont to do), compared to the almighty governments of other countries, maybe.
If you mean "we" as in actual people, compared to actual people elsewhere, I think that's baloney.
When the pronoun is the subject of a clause, it should be subjective. For example, "the folks who made it", "who will spend the profit", "who will bankroll".
Net Neutrality means whatever the politicians want it to mean. The well-meaning useful idiots such as yourself promote Net Neutrality, even after its character has changed.
The story I read said that any four of these seven must get together at one of these bases. That seems to indicate that each one has half of the key. Two of them, if they were the right two, could do it. But having four out of seven guarantees that you have at least one copy of both halves.
Welcome to the real world, where economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because somebody has more doesn't mean somebody else has less. Peddle your Marxism elsewhere.
So if Microsoft gets bought out by Oracle and the User-Agent string of IE6, IE7, and IE8 are immediately updated to be OIE6 7 or 8, respectively, with a surprise critical update..
You are saying it's the web developers' fault, and not Oracle's, when this poorly conceived change breaks the web and compatibility for IE users?
I suppose I wasn't clear. I agree with everything you said 100%.
My point was that since the federal government derives its powers from the Constitution (note that I'm saying by default it has NO power, only that which the Constitution gives it), that the original poster should appreciate it for at least that.
No, the Constitution is an agreement between sovereign states to create a federal government, and delegate certain powers, and only those powers, to that government.
The Supreme Court is not meant to be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means. Congress, the President, and the judiciary ALL swear to uphold the Constitution, and if the President (for example) believes something is unconstitutional, he must behave accordingly, regardless of what the Court says.
But in any case, the ultimate arbiters are the states themselves. An entity created by an agreement cannot have the final word on what the agreement says. That just doesn't make any sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this story is one. Since I'm now ahead, can you find a Slashdot story where the apparent malfeasance is on the part of a Republican and that fact is not mentioned?
The point is that when said bought-off politicians are Republicans, their party affiliation is prominently displayed, trumpeted, and even brought up in stories as part of a problematic pattern.
When they're Democrats, the party affiliation is conspicuously absent. As it is here.
Shutting down isn't required, but selling off seems like an awfully good idea for a number of reasons.
I'll do it for $2.3 billion!
Nope. It's an electron moving into a different orbit around a nucleus.
Praxis is their key energy production facility...
Is there any evidence that what would actually be enacted is this way, or are you like most Net Neutrality proponents who make up their own rules and decide that must be what NN means?
That's theft protection. Copyright infringement != theft, remember?
No, d'jou?
MADD is a quintessential example of an organization that has completed all of its original goals, but continues to exist simply for its own sake.
Why doesn't the government back these people's warranties, like it did with GM?
hmm, I can only assume that you're talking about the GHA numbers on there, which are meaningless because: "These figures do not include humanitarian aid from within the donor country itself".
Let's assume you believe these numbers are worthwhile, which they're not. Your assertion was "we give less than any first world nation". For that to be true, your list of first world nations must be exactly:
Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, UK, US.
There's a word for that, I believe it's "wrong". Do you have a spelled-out sound effect for that one, or does that only apply to other people?
Again, these numbers are NOT worthwhile, because there is plenty of giving going on right here at home which is being discounted entirely. The demographics of the US are quite a bit different from Luxembourg.
The data you've linked to considers "Official Development Assistance". That page describes it: "Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations."
It would probably be best for you to actually read things before assuming they support you.
We give less per capita
If by "we" you mean the Almighty Federal Government (as people with your particular worldview are wont to do), compared to the almighty governments of other countries, maybe.
If you mean "we" as in actual people, compared to actual people elsewhere, I think that's baloney.
When the pronoun is the subject of a clause, it should be subjective. For example, "the folks who made it", "who will spend the profit", "who will bankroll".
This is just one more reason why "net neutrality" sounds great in theory, but would be a terrible, arbitrary, and unenforceable law.
My copy of Civilization came on 2 5.25" HD floppies! I still have 'em. Now get off my lawn.
Any word on whether it will work in Linux? Natively, through WINE, none of the above?
Net Neutrality means whatever the politicians want it to mean. The well-meaning useful idiots such as yourself promote Net Neutrality, even after its character has changed.
Looks like you're right; they appear to be using an implementation of Shamir's Secret Sharing
The story I read said that any four of these seven must get together at one of these bases. That seems to indicate that each one has half of the key. Two of them, if they were the right two, could do it. But having four out of seven guarantees that you have at least one copy of both halves.
Welcome to the real world, where economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because somebody has more doesn't mean somebody else has less. Peddle your Marxism elsewhere.
The thread I replied to said this:
So if Microsoft gets bought out by Oracle and the User-Agent string of IE6, IE7, and IE8 are immediately updated to be OIE6 7 or 8, respectively, with a surprise critical update..
You are saying it's the web developers' fault, and not Oracle's, when this poorly conceived change breaks the web and compatibility for IE users?
Time to pull your head out, AC.
I suppose I wasn't clear. I agree with everything you said 100%.
My point was that since the federal government derives its powers from the Constitution (note that I'm saying by default it has NO power, only that which the Constitution gives it), that the original poster should appreciate it for at least that.
No, the Constitution is an agreement between sovereign states to create a federal government, and delegate certain powers, and only those powers, to that government.
The Supreme Court is not meant to be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means. Congress, the President, and the judiciary ALL swear to uphold the Constitution, and if the President (for example) believes something is unconstitutional, he must behave accordingly, regardless of what the Court says.
But in any case, the ultimate arbiters are the states themselves. An entity created by an agreement cannot have the final word on what the agreement says. That just doesn't make any sense.