Well regulated means well running. You have to understand the language as it existed at the time it was written. I know this is hard but is necessary. This is what is upheld by SCOTUS in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is exactly right. Many of the places that burned structures are either rural or in the interfaces between wilderness and city. Many of these are built on ridge lines. Of course there are exceptions but the vast majority fall into these categories. The other issue is lack of defensible space. If you live on the interface with wilderness, you need to create defensible space. You can't have trees shading your house because those trees cause fire danger. The only trees that you can keep a little closer are evergreen trees if you clear all the lower branches up the tree so the upper branches can't catch.
You are talking about Diversity of thought. While being the only thing that matters, it is simultaneously not interesting to managers and C level execs at any software development companies because reasons.
So, basically all Republican candidates were against net neutrality. Still I knew this and fought it on every front possible. We need Net Neutrality although I would like it if it was through legislated powers instead of arbitrary regulatory decisions by people not subject to the will of the people.
When you drive down the cost of goods and services, you drive up the value of currency. As currency is more valuable, people will have a higher demand for things. Demand will rise for things that used to only be available to the elite.01% of the world. As demand rises, so will supply. As supply rises, so will need for more jobs. Yes those jobs will require different skills but they will exist. In addition, niche economies will erupt for things that are handmade and not automated.
Ajit Pai doesn't like it because people can express opinions -- oh my!
At no point in time did he say this. The problem with social media takes a while to explain and I could do a dissertation on it but I doubt anybody would take the time to read it. However, I'll boil down some quick points.
1) People have short attention spans on the Internet and never learn about any issue to the level required to make an informed opinion
2) Because of 1, people jump to conclusions about issues
3) Social media makes 1 and 2 worse by constantly changing the topic in the feed
4) A few providers police the content to make sure their political bias is represented in promoted content and that things they disagree with are buried (example: Twitter shadowbanning, removing checkmark, etc)
5) All out bans of people expressing opinions that are not politically correct even though nothing illegal is said
6) Almost no downvote capability to bury troll content like Slashdot has
The picture of the back of your head would possibly work because it's unique. The photo of the clown or velociraptor probably exists on the Internet in which case the fingerprint is already in their data lake.
I think you missed the point. They aren't saying the photo is unique to any you used before. They mean the photo is unique form anything indexed on the web. Most people who design bots have the bots steal photos from online for account creation purposes. They just search google images for "young woman" or "young man" and use a random image from the results. Google images and services like Tineye already have reverse image search capability. This just taps into that and checks to see if the image was just taken off the Internet or if you really took a new photo.
If only 5 companies control 99% of social media and one of those companies is also the provider of most of the hosting on the Internet, how much will it matter if you can access any site if all the other sites are irrelevant and attract no users. As an example, Gab was basically extorted by Google for not banning more people. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Your premise is false but your conclusion is correct. We don't need to assume that the owners of social media will always "Shape" the thoughts and ideas of it's users. They shouldn't do that. They should concentrate on taking down illegal content and stopping legitimate harassment. Even then, a simple mute button is quite sufficient. Banning people for ideas is a bad idea.
However, I agree that Net Neutrality is not affected by the red herring of free speech in the way Pai says it is.
Do you frequently just believe the first thing you read about somebody? Even Steve Bannon's former employee, Ben Shapiro doesn't think Bannon is racist or a white supremacist. Maybe you should do some fact checking before being so gullible. http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
Ya, his use of logical fallacies is off the charts. This is a major red herring. Free speech on the Internet is an issue but the solution is to apply net neutrality to social media as well, not to get rid of net neutrality altogether.
You are oversimplifying a complex problem. It's much simpler to block the backdoor than to create a removal tool. Many of these malware programs actively thwart removal attempts.
I use an app call "Should I Answer?". It allows blacklisting, community blacklisting, whitelisting and many more features including allowing offline reviews.
Slashdot Mirror
Literally there is no shortage of people willing to make minimum wage. So are you proposing NOT to pay people minimum wage?
Well regulated means well running. You have to understand the language as it existed at the time it was written. I know this is hard but is necessary. This is what is upheld by SCOTUS in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well not the 405 at least. Especially now since its closed due to the fires.
This is exactly right. Many of the places that burned structures are either rural or in the interfaces between wilderness and city. Many of these are built on ridge lines. Of course there are exceptions but the vast majority fall into these categories. The other issue is lack of defensible space. If you live on the interface with wilderness, you need to create defensible space. You can't have trees shading your house because those trees cause fire danger. The only trees that you can keep a little closer are evergreen trees if you clear all the lower branches up the tree so the upper branches can't catch.
Troll harder dude. Wordpress runs some of the most successful websites in the world. This includes CNN, Playstation, The New York Times, etc.
You are talking about Diversity of thought. While being the only thing that matters, it is simultaneously not interesting to managers and C level execs at any software development companies because reasons.
So, basically all Republican candidates were against net neutrality. Still I knew this and fought it on every front possible. We need Net Neutrality although I would like it if it was through legislated powers instead of arbitrary regulatory decisions by people not subject to the will of the people.
Soon, they'll just refer to him as dear leader.
When you drive down the cost of goods and services, you drive up the value of currency. As currency is more valuable, people will have a higher demand for things. Demand will rise for things that used to only be available to the elite .01% of the world. As demand rises, so will supply. As supply rises, so will need for more jobs. Yes those jobs will require different skills but they will exist. In addition, niche economies will erupt for things that are handmade and not automated.
Watch "The Red Pill" documentary to see Feminists say it in their own quotes.
Did you know anybody can say anything on the Internet?
Ajit Pai doesn't like it because people can express opinions -- oh my!
At no point in time did he say this. The problem with social media takes a while to explain and I could do a dissertation on it but I doubt anybody would take the time to read it. However, I'll boil down some quick points.
1) People have short attention spans on the Internet and never learn about any issue to the level required to make an informed opinion
2) Because of 1, people jump to conclusions about issues
3) Social media makes 1 and 2 worse by constantly changing the topic in the feed
4) A few providers police the content to make sure their political bias is represented in promoted content and that things they disagree with are buried (example: Twitter shadowbanning, removing checkmark, etc)
5) All out bans of people expressing opinions that are not politically correct even though nothing illegal is said
6) Almost no downvote capability to bury troll content like Slashdot has
The picture of the back of your head would possibly work because it's unique. The photo of the clown or velociraptor probably exists on the Internet in which case the fingerprint is already in their data lake.
I think you missed the point. They aren't saying the photo is unique to any you used before. They mean the photo is unique form anything indexed on the web. Most people who design bots have the bots steal photos from online for account creation purposes. They just search google images for "young woman" or "young man" and use a random image from the results. Google images and services like Tineye already have reverse image search capability. This just taps into that and checks to see if the image was just taken off the Internet or if you really took a new photo.
Exactly. The only captcha that I remember on Facebook is when you are creating a new account or recovering your password.
No, I didn't say that. Nice strawman though.
Just curious. Can you cite some sources to back up your assertions?
Ya but with Internet, leased lines make way more sense than having local monopolies.
If only 5 companies control 99% of social media and one of those companies is also the provider of most of the hosting on the Internet, how much will it matter if you can access any site if all the other sites are irrelevant and attract no users. As an example, Gab was basically extorted by Google for not banning more people. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Your premise is false but your conclusion is correct. We don't need to assume that the owners of social media will always "Shape" the thoughts and ideas of it's users. They shouldn't do that. They should concentrate on taking down illegal content and stopping legitimate harassment. Even then, a simple mute button is quite sufficient. Banning people for ideas is a bad idea.
However, I agree that Net Neutrality is not affected by the red herring of free speech in the way Pai says it is.
Do you frequently just believe the first thing you read about somebody? Even Steve Bannon's former employee, Ben Shapiro doesn't think Bannon is racist or a white supremacist. Maybe you should do some fact checking before being so gullible. http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
Ya, his use of logical fallacies is off the charts. This is a major red herring. Free speech on the Internet is an issue but the solution is to apply net neutrality to social media as well, not to get rid of net neutrality altogether.
You are oversimplifying a complex problem. It's much simpler to block the backdoor than to create a removal tool. Many of these malware programs actively thwart removal attempts.
Even joking about this is sad. Learn how to have an argument. Attack the argument, not the source.
I use an app call "Should I Answer?". It allows blacklisting, community blacklisting, whitelisting and many more features including allowing offline reviews.