Why only Verizon? The Federal Government created the legal framework for corporate mergers. Now they are used to avoid taxes on transfer of money and property between corporate entities and to suppress competition. The Federal Government can remove the legal framework for corporate mergers.
Only members of the legislature can make activities illegal in The United States. You probably don't get that because you are an idiot, but that must insensitive of me.
Regulating interstate commerce is an enumerated power. And as much you may argue that the interstate commerce clause has been abused otherwise, in the case of access to the Internet, it's pretty clearly applicable.
No, they are legal entities which have rights with respect to the other legal entity -- the Federal Government. Which people live in which states changes as people pick and choose where they live. You probably don't get that because you are an idiot, but that must be insensitive of me. The Federal Government, btw, is fully within its rights to regulate "interstate commerce"; so, on this issue, state rights are subservient to the Federal Government's enumerated powers.
The real question is how many unique views were served for each ad and how many ads there were total. 126 million people seeing one silly racist political meme one random afternoon is nothing to panic about, and certainly they'll try to spin this revelation as nothing more than that. But 126 million people being immersed daily into an advertising environment that's completely saturated with unregulated foreign propaganda, rubber-stamped with approval by an ostensibly loyal, United States citizen-owned publicly traded corporation... now that my friends, that right there is how you sew destruction throughout the minds of an entire population. That is how you fundamentally pervert the perception of reality of an entire social class. That is how you sever friendships and turn families against each other. That is how you topple a government. That is how you start a civil war. That is something worth panicking about.
They didn't get the memo did they? Russians weren't hacking the election anymore. It's only election hacking if they supported Republicans. All the money Russians spent on the Democrats clearly shows that they were not hacking the election.
No, the whole campaign is to find a Republican boogie man or to hide the Democarts footprints. Based on how it has been conducted so far (not on what I want it to be, but what it has been so far), if no name is given, it's more likely to be a Democrat who is being protected than a Republican.
No, winning elections would only allow them to control political offices. I doubt the hands-on operations or operational policies are enforced by political operatives.
So, please explain why and how "Dems are burning the evidence" in this case?
The whole story is part of a smear campaign against Republicans. If the name of the person who ordered the wiping matched the rhetoric, he would be accused immediately. Everything about the "russian collusion" story is repeated unsubstantiated allegations against Republicans or "we don't know this 100%"-type defense of Democrats. If no accusation has been made, then (consistent with the mode operandi so far) the person who did the did was a Democrat.
Of course, it's "unclear". If it was ordered by a Republican, it would be the first thing mentioned. The whole Russian collusion story is falling apart, so Dems are burning the evidence to create doubt. Democratic Party is a criminal organization.
At this point the US media establishment is a major threat to world peace and security, perhaps the biggest one whilst the US military/security complex is the worst we have seen since the Nazis. People willing to kill millions to earn millions.
This is lunacy, but I don't care to debate as to why. I don't think there is any convincing crazy.
Doesn't the last election show you that the mainstream media, which was solidly backing Clinton, is utterly impotent to sway elections in the way you describe?
How do you figure? It was precisely in the last elections that you had very polarized votes by geographic areas. California is just one striking example of that. People who make their living being "normal" don't want to voice opinions which in their geographic areas are considered "crazy". So I don't know how much influence social media has on the news. Most people on social media communicate with people they already know in real life.
Balancing can only be done relative to a frame of reference. What would be a frame of reference for all publically available text? What about for all printed text? If propaganda can make psychotic regimes, then humans are just as susceptible to global biases. Value judgements is how we correct for it. If they are not present in a system which does what we do, why would you expect that system to be better at classifying than we are?
When I say "black box", I mean that it is not fed (or forced if you will) any biases it doesn't find in the larger body of text (not just locally). If there is a bias in text at-large towards anti-gay and antisemitic views, then it's just detecting a larger bias. It's not a value judgement. It's an indication that absent a value system, over-all biases will be present. It's still just a detection of biases in text at-large rather than imposing of biases on text at-large.
Step 1: further consolidation of geographically-biased opinion news.
Step 2: further cluster fuck of opinions (you think California being completely out of step with the country is something, wait until every state votes by 75%-25% margin).
Step 3: further financial incentives to suppress opposing view points (left or right -- it doesn't matter -- as long as they oppose the cluster fuck in a particular geo market)
Step 4: complete disregard for whether it is right or wrong to suppress unpopular speech. No national politician wins a local election unless they rail against those who oppose the cluster-fuck views. There is already a loud voice to suppress "hate speech" on college campuses. It will become the norm once every market is dominated by 1-opinion news sources.
Step 5: with complete lack of defenders and a deluge of critics, Google News folds to salvage its other businesses from judicial and legislative encroachment
the two are similar enough fundamentally that the superficial differences do not weigh heavily enough to not combine the two..
Oh, I see the problem. You feel the need to comment on something you don't understand. Let me give you the shortest explanation for why you are wrong: no, they are not. I guess I should elaborate by mentioning that water vapor does not cause cancer while smoke from actual cigarettes is what deposits tar in the lungs and increases risks of cancer. But I don't want to explain things to you as if you were an intelligent human being. I want to treat you like you that which you are -- a shill for the politicians of the Criminal Democratic Party.
If it just allows for text analysis and the text, as a total body of statements, uses "Jew" or "gay" as insults, wouldn't high fidelity API reflect that? It seems more like a statement about the text being analyzed rather than about the processing. If the analysis didn't have high fidelity to the text, wouldn't it then be biased? Imagine the analysis which corrects for biases against historically-oppressed minorities. Now imagine this black box is fed Mein Kampf and other Nazi works. Should it correct for the biases? That would mean not detecting antisemitic biases in the Nazi propaganda. Wouldn't that make it a bad analysis?
Simply saying "smoking/e-cigars" makes you a liar. Just that one conflating is enough to make everything else you say meaningless. I could retort by saying that they are not even similar because the smoke produced in vaping is water vapor rather than smoke from burning of something, but I wouldn't have to. Because when you start with a false premise (as you have), you can prove anything.
Really? Well, make sure your other sources of water vapor don't infringe on anyone in public. Or an overly eager police officer could stretch the definition of vaping and give you a ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
Why only Verizon? The Federal Government created the legal framework for corporate mergers. Now they are used to avoid taxes on transfer of money and property between corporate entities and to suppress competition. The Federal Government can remove the legal framework for corporate mergers.
Interstate commerce very clearly covers Internet access. And its within the domain of the Federal Government.
We should make it illegal
Only members of the legislature can make activities illegal in The United States. You probably don't get that because you are an idiot, but that must insensitive of me.
Regulating interstate commerce is an enumerated power. And as much you may argue that the interstate commerce clause has been abused otherwise, in the case of access to the Internet, it's pretty clearly applicable.
They're effectively just groups of people.
No, they are legal entities which have rights with respect to the other legal entity -- the Federal Government. Which people live in which states changes as people pick and choose where they live. You probably don't get that because you are an idiot, but that must be insensitive of me. The Federal Government, btw, is fully within its rights to regulate "interstate commerce"; so, on this issue, state rights are subservient to the Federal Government's enumerated powers.
"zloy" is more angry than evil. "Pagubniy" is probably the closest to how evil is used in English.
Hey, it beats saying "nope, I got nothing; couldn't find the collusion; moving on now."
The real question is how many unique views were served for each ad and how many ads there were total. 126 million people seeing one silly racist political meme one random afternoon is nothing to panic about, and certainly they'll try to spin this revelation as nothing more than that. But 126 million people being immersed daily into an advertising environment that's completely saturated with unregulated foreign propaganda, rubber-stamped with approval by an ostensibly loyal, United States citizen-owned publicly traded corporation... now that my friends, that right there is how you sew destruction throughout the minds of an entire population. That is how you fundamentally pervert the perception of reality of an entire social class. That is how you sever friendships and turn families against each other. That is how you topple a government. That is how you start a civil war. That is something worth panicking about.
Paid for by the Podesta Group and the DNC.
There... fixed it for you.
They didn't get the memo did they? Russians weren't hacking the election anymore. It's only election hacking if they supported Republicans. All the money Russians spent on the Democrats clearly shows that they were not hacking the election.
No, the whole campaign is to find a Republican boogie man or to hide the Democarts footprints. Based on how it has been conducted so far (not on what I want it to be, but what it has been so far), if no name is given, it's more likely to be a Democrat who is being protected than a Republican.
buh... did the deed... not did the did.. sometimes this inability to edit is really frustrating.
No, winning elections would only allow them to control political offices. I doubt the hands-on operations or operational policies are enforced by political operatives.
So, please explain why and how "Dems are burning the evidence" in this case?
The whole story is part of a smear campaign against Republicans. If the name of the person who ordered the wiping matched the rhetoric, he would be accused immediately. Everything about the "russian collusion" story is repeated unsubstantiated allegations against Republicans or "we don't know this 100%"-type defense of Democrats. If no accusation has been made, then (consistent with the mode operandi so far) the person who did the did was a Democrat.
seriously, fuck off
Right back at you. Go back to jail.
Spoken like a Democrat.
Of course, it's "unclear". If it was ordered by a Republican, it would be the first thing mentioned. The whole Russian collusion story is falling apart, so Dems are burning the evidence to create doubt. Democratic Party is a criminal organization.
At this point the US media establishment is a major threat to world peace and security, perhaps the biggest one whilst the US military/security complex is the worst we have seen since the Nazis. People willing to kill millions to earn millions.
This is lunacy, but I don't care to debate as to why. I don't think there is any convincing crazy.
Doesn't the last election show you that the mainstream media, which was solidly backing Clinton, is utterly impotent to sway elections in the way you describe?
How do you figure? It was precisely in the last elections that you had very polarized votes by geographic areas. California is just one striking example of that. People who make their living being "normal" don't want to voice opinions which in their geographic areas are considered "crazy". So I don't know how much influence social media has on the news. Most people on social media communicate with people they already know in real life.
Balancing can only be done relative to a frame of reference. What would be a frame of reference for all publically available text? What about for all printed text? If propaganda can make psychotic regimes, then humans are just as susceptible to global biases. Value judgements is how we correct for it. If they are not present in a system which does what we do, why would you expect that system to be better at classifying than we are?
When I say "black box", I mean that it is not fed (or forced if you will) any biases it doesn't find in the larger body of text (not just locally). If there is a bias in text at-large towards anti-gay and antisemitic views, then it's just detecting a larger bias. It's not a value judgement. It's an indication that absent a value system, over-all biases will be present. It's still just a detection of biases in text at-large rather than imposing of biases on text at-large.
Step 1: further consolidation of geographically-biased opinion news.
Step 2: further cluster fuck of opinions (you think California being completely out of step with the country is something, wait until every state votes by 75%-25% margin).
Step 3: further financial incentives to suppress opposing view points (left or right -- it doesn't matter -- as long as they oppose the cluster fuck in a particular geo market)
Step 4: complete disregard for whether it is right or wrong to suppress unpopular speech. No national politician wins a local election unless they rail against those who oppose the cluster-fuck views. There is already a loud voice to suppress "hate speech" on college campuses. It will become the norm once every market is dominated by 1-opinion news sources.
Step 5: with complete lack of defenders and a deluge of critics, Google News folds to salvage its other businesses from judicial and legislative encroachment
the two are similar enough fundamentally that the superficial differences do not weigh heavily enough to not combine the two..
Oh, I see the problem. You feel the need to comment on something you don't understand. Let me give you the shortest explanation for why you are wrong: no, they are not. I guess I should elaborate by mentioning that water vapor does not cause cancer while smoke from actual cigarettes is what deposits tar in the lungs and increases risks of cancer. But I don't want to explain things to you as if you were an intelligent human being. I want to treat you like you that which you are -- a shill for the politicians of the Criminal Democratic Party.
If it just allows for text analysis and the text, as a total body of statements, uses "Jew" or "gay" as insults, wouldn't high fidelity API reflect that? It seems more like a statement about the text being analyzed rather than about the processing. If the analysis didn't have high fidelity to the text, wouldn't it then be biased? Imagine the analysis which corrects for biases against historically-oppressed minorities. Now imagine this black box is fed Mein Kampf and other Nazi works. Should it correct for the biases? That would mean not detecting antisemitic biases in the Nazi propaganda. Wouldn't that make it a bad analysis?
Simply saying "smoking/e-cigars" makes you a liar. Just that one conflating is enough to make everything else you say meaningless. I could retort by saying that they are not even similar because the smoke produced in vaping is water vapor rather than smoke from burning of something, but I wouldn't have to. Because when you start with a false premise (as you have), you can prove anything.
Really? Well, make sure your other sources of water vapor don't infringe on anyone in public. Or an overly eager police officer could stretch the definition of vaping and give you a ticket.