AT&T developed Unix and early network protocols for phone services (along with IBM, Xerox, and numerous other companies). The Government piggy backed on that work and used tax dollars to create ARPAnet. Much of that work (meaning both projects) was done by Universities, but the heavy lifting especially for networking and Unix was private research. (Xerox, AT&T, Texas Instruments, IBM, etc...)
The Internet would have come about regardless of tax payer dollars. You may be able to argue that the process was expedited because of tax dollars, but there is no reason to conclude that the Internet would not exist. In fact, given the amount of proprietary (closed) network protocols of the 80s and 90s, we can say with relative certainty that the Internet would have happened anyway.
Aaaaaaand he was a Muslim convert. What's your point? That if we hadn't imported tons of Islam he would still have converted?
Quite possibly. There is this thing called the Internet, you know.
So to circumvent the spreading of Islamic danger, we should control every form of communication? I see where this is going.
Nope, I'm saying you will never be able to stop extremism, and fascist acts such as destroying personal privacy and xenophobic/nationalistic acts such as barring all immigrants from a single specific category won't work and will end up hurting, not helping your society in the long run.
There is a sliding scale. Most Muslims in the US have integrated into society quite nicely. The UK used to be able to say the same thing. Letting a million or so come in at once and not even attempting to ensure assimilation has caused the problem. We could say the same of Germany, Poland, Sweden, and any other Country who has done the same thing as the UK.
Going a bit further, I don't believe that this is an issue with just Muslims. They happen to be the biggest influx in most of those countries so the easiest to discuss. The US has similar issues with people from South America who have no interest in integrating and hate the US. They just want the stuff the US hands out (not all of them, but there is a measurable percentage).
When people come from areas that do not have free speech and they learn the power of suppressing speech, why would you think they would want free speech when they move into your country? If people come from an area that deals with legal issues by violence, why would that immediately change in your country?
Assimilation of immigrants should be the discussion, which requires temperament with how many immigrants a Country allows.
A post-truth Fact? The Democrats, including the latest President and Candidate for the same party label(ed) anyone with a different viewpoint as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, anti-Semite, misogynist who hates the poor and middle class. In the last year those same two democrats mentioned repeated the 0.70c on the dollar lie about women hundreds of times in every possible venue. It is impossible for anyone with any level of intellect to believe that one lie, so the only reason to perpetuate it is to divide the populace.
Those same claims of phobe and "ist" have been leveled at every single person in the Trump administration, including the Supreme Court appointee. This is not new, because the same was claimed of Romney, McCaine, Bush, and yes even Ronald Reagan.
If a Hispanic person believes border control is an issue that needs to be dealt with, Democrats call the traitors. If a woman does not believe the 70cents on a dollar lie they are traitors. If a Black person expresses a conservative or Constitutional view on anything, they are labelled an "Uncle Tom". Those are facts coming right from Democratic party member mouths!
Instead of attempting to look intelligent with claims of 'post-truth', how about you actually use truth yourself. Any truth at all would be better than your complete denial of reality. Sorry your party is that of the slave owners who started Planned Parenthood with the goal of harming the Black Race. Another truth you can find by reading Sangar. Sorry your party is full of racists who believe Byrd is a great guy to look up to. Those are facts, and truths. Truth is often harsh, especially when you devote so much effort into avoiding it.
I believe most people would agree with you, but you have to have enough mass seeing the dishonesty demanding change. Right now you have a good amount of people pointing out the dishonesty, but you have the extreme right taking advantage of the information starvation and putting up fake news. You also have people on the far left promoting fake news of the same variety trying to discredit people showing the deficit.
It's not an easy problem to tackle, but we should start by agreeing that censorship is absolutely not the solution.
Can you back your claim with any evidence that the Constitution can not be amended? If you spent about 2 minutes reading the complete Constitution you would find that the Constitution has in fact been amended numerous times. That means that the process is working as intended and _codified_ in the same document.
The Declaration of independence is the vision, the Constitution is the method of achieving and maintaining the Declaration. The Federalist papers demonstrate the history and discussions used to create the Constitution. All of those things are linked legally and historically.
Mostly, you stated a bunch of rubbish with no factual or historical basis.
MSM is horrible, and possibly worse than what we used to make fun of in the USSR called Pravda. Let me give a couple examples.
Subject 1: "No proof that A" Subject 2: "Suspicion that B"
There is no logical difference between those two statements, both indicate that A and B both lack enough facts to result in a conclusion. Yet MSM constantly uses this format to denounce A and promote B to suite their agenda (or visa-versa). This type of rhetoric is extremely powerful and hard for most to understand.
They similarly cherry pick content to distort messages, and completely omit facts and stories that would harm their agenda. Monopolization of media means that this is done at massive scale with collusion among nearly all of MSM.
Since people can see through the clouds, at least on occasions where it's obvious, we have come to a point of information deficit in MSM. There is little to no unbiased news. If you are truly unbiased your only option is to go find original sources, which is a daunting and time consuming task. I find it less time consuming to find sources than sift through hours of opinions, but that is something I had to force myself to do (which makes it easier).
Because telecommunications has deemed a Federal responsibility
We are not talking about regulating telecommunications, we are talking about Welfare to provide Internet and Phone services for "Free". Welfare is not a Federal responsibility.
Given originalism, we'd not have women's suffrage or racial equality, so much for originalism.
That statement is a load of crap put out by propagandists and ignores the Constitution. Article 5 was put in because the Founders understood that there were still adjustments that had to be made. As an easy example, which is also backed by the Federalist papers 3/5ths of a person was not the end goal. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Was the sought conclusion. The majority of the founders did not want slavery but saw that specific concession as the only way to finance the revolution and have support from all 13 colonies.
We do NOT have a Constitutional amendment claiming Welfare should come from the Federal side. Nor would that pass the Supreme Court (unless the court was stacked with progressives who claim the Constitution has no meaning except what the progressives claim it has).
When you say Government, why do you assume everything should be a Federal issue? You do realize that the United States is founded as a Federation of States where the States are supposed to handle the majority of powers. This includes Social Welfare.
Perhaps the moderation is overly done, because while we can agree that Social welfare programs I (and the foundering documents and history) would disagree that the onus should be on the Federal government to provide those programs.
While you are correct that people need access, and that many people need assistance in getting access, the issue should be at the State level as FCC Chairman states. The Federal Government was never intended to be the source of Welfare systems, that is a function of the State.
For some reason, over the last 70 years or so, all social welfare programs have been pushed to the Federal Government. This has caused a massive amount of bloat and comes with an excessive amount of problems. Social Security is a great example of a good idea, but the bureaucracy has completely destroyed the system. Instead of actually saving the money people put in, it has been spent as discretionary funds. There is no money in Social Security, and nothing has been saved since the very early 1970s. People paying in today are the only source of paying people that collect. There is no interest on the money as was promised, and no guarantee that you will get what you are supposed to get. Being 20Trillion in cash debt and 220Trillion in debt when you include entitlements, there is a good chance that you won't get yours.
People should really read the Federalist papers and see where the Founders said power should go and why. They knew that a bloated Federal Government leads to what we have today. Massive corruption, massive cronyism, massive waste and fraud, and it's extremely difficult to remove at that high of a level.
That is not to say that States don't run a risk of corruption, but the corruption at a more local level has numerous benefits. The Federal Government can investigate and charge for corruption at the State level, where they won't touch their own for fear of harming their own budgets. People unhappy with the State Government have more direct control of the elected officials.
1. The US Constitution is a single Government and Country. Rules within the US Constitution are exactly sovereign. Article 5 ensures as much. Second, the Trade Union was not just working on Trade issues. The EU was not founded as a super Government where all members are subjects.
2. The EU was creating and enabling rules that have nothing to do with Commerce. The EU beginning to form their own private Army was one easy way to see that this was becoming a Government with complete control of other Governments, not just a Trade Union ensuring ease of commerce under a standard currency. Another example was the EU Forcing immigration rules onto all members. Those two examples happen to be large issues where it's easy to find substantiating facts. Those were _not_ the only two issues, just the two which are easy to see. Farrage lays out a series of abuses of power throughout his career.
The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"
So, the main driver of the precursor of the EU was not just trade, but to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible".
Which is why it was never implemented in that way, and nowhere in the EU's founding doctrine will you find this language. That unelected bureaucrats have thwarted the initial agreement is not a surprise. The same should be said for Countries like the Iceland and UK who pulled out of the agreement.
The only country seeing any benefit from the EU for the last decade has been Germany. Which is why Iceland was the first to pull out, the UK was the 2nd, France heavily favors an exit, and Greece Spain and Italy are all either bankrupt or on the verge and would probably pull out if they could.
Are you willing to pay me to be your personal think tank? If not, then you can find your own answers as I did by searching for documents, procedures, policies, leaks, votes, etc... None of this stuff is hard to find, you are just being intellectually lazy because your position is harmed by facts.
You didn't even bother with a half truth, you went with the old FLAT OUT LIE!
Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit?
You were saying?
Because the person DID omit more than 50% of the UK who voted Brexit, then came back and lied claiming it wasn't more than 50%. I prove them wrong, which in Slashdot's SJW moderators find to be "flamebait" instead of what it should be. Which is called "informative". The facts were provided from a Left leaning site called the BBC, not Alex Jones.
Which non-elected bureaucrats are these? The ones that could be dismissed by a vote of the fully elected European Parliament?
Yes, exactly those same bureaucrats!. England can not directly impact the EU parliament, even when their own interests are being trashed by the same. They have to put everything on hold and wait for the EU vote schedule, and hope that the other members of the EU allow the UK to determine it's own positions.
And what dictatorial powers?
What dictatorial powers, the ones you pulled out of your ass as a strawman? I never said dictatorship, I said the EU parliament had gotten involved in much more than _TRADE_ as it was originally founded and agreed to. I gave you two of the easy examples to find, but there are plenty more. If you can't figure it out from the 2 examples given you are simply being dishonest to maintain a delusion (or perhaps just to be a liar for the purpose of propaganda). If you happen to be morally bankrupt, I can't fix your corrupt morality. I can only point out facts for bystanders to protect themselves from people like you.
You didn't even bother with a half truth, you went with the old FLAT OUT LIE! It was 53.4% that voted to LEAVE from England, with 73% turnout. If you tally all of the votes including Wales, Scotland, and Ireland tally was 17,410,722 to leave, 16,141,231. Which is still 52% of the vote _TOTAL_ (51.89%).
Ireland and Scotland had the worst turn outs, which means they didn't have a strong enough opinion to vote.
Your opinion denies things we call facts. Your opinion is invalid and based on some fantasy land that does not exist. Only a complete lunatic attempts to deny facts to support their delusional ill gotten opinion.
Citation for the intellectually challenged who can't find results. Don't worry, I know you won't look.
Because the only possible way to maintain your sovereignty is to pay non-elected bureaucrats from other countries to dictate every aspect of your country.
The EU was setup as a Trade Union with standard currency, which most people agreed with as a "Trade Union" with standard currency. Once it started making demands on everything from members paying for a private private army to demanding how a country handles immigration the EU failed in it's purpose.
Your position and statement is disingenuous and dishonest.
Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit? Considering the massive amount of propaganda for "remain" having over 50% for exit is an insanely high number.
It's almost like you are actually ignoring facts to back an ideology. Why does that seem so familiar? Oh, I got it! The elitists in the US did and do the same thing. People have caught on to the game, repeating the lies won't make the true. All it does at this point is expose the amount of people involved in attempting to maintain the charade.
Well, as someone else pointed out these are weekly rates, which look more correct. Their number then changes to about 3K/mo. SF proper is about 5K/mo for a 1 bedroom, but some of the areas drop the average as you go west toward Pacifica. I don't know anywhere "decent" in the Bay area within an hour commute that's less than 3K/mo.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T developed Unix and early network protocols for phone services (along with IBM, Xerox, and numerous other companies). The Government piggy backed on that work and used tax dollars to create ARPAnet. Much of that work (meaning both projects) was done by Universities, but the heavy lifting especially for networking and Unix was private research. (Xerox, AT&T, Texas Instruments, IBM, etc...)
The Internet would have come about regardless of tax payer dollars. You may be able to argue that the process was expedited because of tax dollars, but there is no reason to conclude that the Internet would not exist. In fact, given the amount of proprietary (closed) network protocols of the 80s and 90s, we can say with relative certainty that the Internet would have happened anyway.
True, but who is easier to get rid of? The corrupt mayor or the corrupt prime minister?
Aaaaaaand he was a Muslim convert. What's your point? That if we hadn't imported tons of Islam he would still have converted?
Quite possibly. There is this thing called the Internet, you know.
So to circumvent the spreading of Islamic danger, we should control every form of communication? I see where this is going.
Nope, I'm saying you will never be able to stop extremism, and fascist acts such as destroying personal privacy and xenophobic/nationalistic acts such as barring all immigrants from a single specific category won't work and will end up hurting, not helping your society in the long run.
There is a sliding scale. Most Muslims in the US have integrated into society quite nicely. The UK used to be able to say the same thing. Letting a million or so come in at once and not even attempting to ensure assimilation has caused the problem. We could say the same of Germany, Poland, Sweden, and any other Country who has done the same thing as the UK.
Going a bit further, I don't believe that this is an issue with just Muslims. They happen to be the biggest influx in most of those countries so the easiest to discuss. The US has similar issues with people from South America who have no interest in integrating and hate the US. They just want the stuff the US hands out (not all of them, but there is a measurable percentage).
When people come from areas that do not have free speech and they learn the power of suppressing speech, why would you think they would want free speech when they move into your country? If people come from an area that deals with legal issues by violence, why would that immediately change in your country?
Assimilation of immigrants should be the discussion, which requires temperament with how many immigrants a Country allows.
A post-truth Fact? The Democrats, including the latest President and Candidate for the same party label(ed) anyone with a different viewpoint as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, anti-Semite, misogynist who hates the poor and middle class. In the last year those same two democrats mentioned repeated the 0.70c on the dollar lie about women hundreds of times in every possible venue. It is impossible for anyone with any level of intellect to believe that one lie, so the only reason to perpetuate it is to divide the populace.
Those same claims of phobe and "ist" have been leveled at every single person in the Trump administration, including the Supreme Court appointee. This is not new, because the same was claimed of Romney, McCaine, Bush, and yes even Ronald Reagan.
If a Hispanic person believes border control is an issue that needs to be dealt with, Democrats call the traitors. If a woman does not believe the 70cents on a dollar lie they are traitors. If a Black person expresses a conservative or Constitutional view on anything, they are labelled an "Uncle Tom". Those are facts coming right from Democratic party member mouths!
Instead of attempting to look intelligent with claims of 'post-truth', how about you actually use truth yourself. Any truth at all would be better than your complete denial of reality. Sorry your party is that of the slave owners who started Planned Parenthood with the goal of harming the Black Race. Another truth you can find by reading Sangar. Sorry your party is full of racists who believe Byrd is a great guy to look up to. Those are facts, and truths. Truth is often harsh, especially when you devote so much effort into avoiding it.
Haha, thanks for that !
I believe most people would agree with you, but you have to have enough mass seeing the dishonesty demanding change. Right now you have a good amount of people pointing out the dishonesty, but you have the extreme right taking advantage of the information starvation and putting up fake news. You also have people on the far left promoting fake news of the same variety trying to discredit people showing the deficit.
It's not an easy problem to tackle, but we should start by agreeing that censorship is absolutely not the solution.
Can you back your claim with any evidence that the Constitution can not be amended? If you spent about 2 minutes reading the complete Constitution you would find that the Constitution has in fact been amended numerous times. That means that the process is working as intended and _codified_ in the same document.
The Declaration of independence is the vision, the Constitution is the method of achieving and maintaining the Declaration. The Federalist papers demonstrate the history and discussions used to create the Constitution. All of those things are linked legally and historically.
Mostly, you stated a bunch of rubbish with no factual or historical basis.
Bruce first! You can't have it both ways, unless of course you are simply a biased prick. Are you?
I took that AC post as pure irony, no need to comment.
MSM is horrible, and possibly worse than what we used to make fun of in the USSR called Pravda. Let me give a couple examples.
Subject 1: "No proof that A"
Subject 2: "Suspicion that B"
There is no logical difference between those two statements, both indicate that A and B both lack enough facts to result in a conclusion. Yet MSM constantly uses this format to denounce A and promote B to suite their agenda (or visa-versa). This type of rhetoric is extremely powerful and hard for most to understand.
They similarly cherry pick content to distort messages, and completely omit facts and stories that would harm their agenda. Monopolization of media means that this is done at massive scale with collusion among nearly all of MSM.
Since people can see through the clouds, at least on occasions where it's obvious, we have come to a point of information deficit in MSM. There is little to no unbiased news. If you are truly unbiased your only option is to go find original sources, which is a daunting and time consuming task. I find it less time consuming to find sources than sift through hours of opinions, but that is something I had to force myself to do (which makes it easier).
Because telecommunications has deemed a Federal responsibility
We are not talking about regulating telecommunications, we are talking about Welfare to provide Internet and Phone services for "Free". Welfare is not a Federal responsibility.
Given originalism, we'd not have women's suffrage or racial equality, so much for originalism.
That statement is a load of crap put out by propagandists and ignores the Constitution. Article 5 was put in because the Founders understood that there were still adjustments that had to be made. As an easy example, which is also backed by the Federalist papers 3/5ths of a person was not the end goal. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Was the sought conclusion. The majority of the founders did not want slavery but saw that specific concession as the only way to finance the revolution and have support from all 13 colonies.
We do NOT have a Constitutional amendment claiming Welfare should come from the Federal side. Nor would that pass the Supreme Court (unless the court was stacked with progressives who claim the Constitution has no meaning except what the progressives claim it has).
When you say Government, why do you assume everything should be a Federal issue? You do realize that the United States is founded as a Federation of States where the States are supposed to handle the majority of powers. This includes Social Welfare.
Perhaps the moderation is overly done, because while we can agree that Social welfare programs I (and the foundering documents and history) would disagree that the onus should be on the Federal government to provide those programs.
While you are correct that people need access, and that many people need assistance in getting access, the issue should be at the State level as FCC Chairman states. The Federal Government was never intended to be the source of Welfare systems, that is a function of the State.
For some reason, over the last 70 years or so, all social welfare programs have been pushed to the Federal Government. This has caused a massive amount of bloat and comes with an excessive amount of problems. Social Security is a great example of a good idea, but the bureaucracy has completely destroyed the system. Instead of actually saving the money people put in, it has been spent as discretionary funds. There is no money in Social Security, and nothing has been saved since the very early 1970s. People paying in today are the only source of paying people that collect. There is no interest on the money as was promised, and no guarantee that you will get what you are supposed to get. Being 20Trillion in cash debt and 220Trillion in debt when you include entitlements, there is a good chance that you won't get yours.
People should really read the Federalist papers and see where the Founders said power should go and why. They knew that a bloated Federal Government leads to what we have today. Massive corruption, massive cronyism, massive waste and fraud, and it's extremely difficult to remove at that high of a level.
That is not to say that States don't run a risk of corruption, but the corruption at a more local level has numerous benefits. The Federal Government can investigate and charge for corruption at the State level, where they won't touch their own for fear of harming their own budgets. People unhappy with the State Government have more direct control of the elected officials.
Two problems with your position and example.
1. The US Constitution is a single Government and Country. Rules within the US Constitution are exactly sovereign. Article 5 ensures as much. Second, the Trade Union was not just working on Trade issues. The EU was not founded as a super Government where all members are subjects.
2. The EU was creating and enabling rules that have nothing to do with Commerce. The EU beginning to form their own private Army was one easy way to see that this was becoming a Government with complete control of other Governments, not just a Trade Union ensuring ease of commerce under a standard currency. Another example was the EU Forcing immigration rules onto all members. Those two examples happen to be large issues where it's easy to find substantiating facts. Those were _not_ the only two issues, just the two which are easy to see. Farrage lays out a series of abuses of power throughout his career.
He'll never be the head of a major corporation. Nothing to lose one's head over...
What's with people using "literally" all the time? Is it the '90s again?
Like, totally!
Oh wait, that was the 80s.
The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"
So, the main driver of the precursor of the EU was not just trade, but to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible".
Which is why it was never implemented in that way, and nowhere in the EU's founding doctrine will you find this language. That unelected bureaucrats have thwarted the initial agreement is not a surprise. The same should be said for Countries like the Iceland and UK who pulled out of the agreement.
The only country seeing any benefit from the EU for the last decade has been Germany. Which is why Iceland was the first to pull out, the UK was the 2nd, France heavily favors an exit, and Greece Spain and Italy are all either bankrupt or on the verge and would probably pull out if they could.
Are you willing to pay me to be your personal think tank? If not, then you can find your own answers as I did by searching for documents, procedures, policies, leaks, votes, etc... None of this stuff is hard to find, you are just being intellectually lazy because your position is harmed by facts.
You didn't even bother with a half truth, you went with the old FLAT OUT LIE!
Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit?
You were saying?
Because the person DID omit more than 50% of the UK who voted Brexit, then came back and lied claiming it wasn't more than 50%. I prove them wrong, which in Slashdot's SJW moderators find to be "flamebait" instead of what it should be. Which is called "informative". The facts were provided from a Left leaning site called the BBC, not Alex Jones.
If the truth hurts, too fucking bad.
Which non-elected bureaucrats are these? The ones that could be dismissed by a vote of the fully elected European Parliament?
Yes, exactly those same bureaucrats!. England can not directly impact the EU parliament, even when their own interests are being trashed by the same. They have to put everything on hold and wait for the EU vote schedule, and hope that the other members of the EU allow the UK to determine it's own positions.
And what dictatorial powers?
What dictatorial powers, the ones you pulled out of your ass as a strawman? I never said dictatorship, I said the EU parliament had gotten involved in much more than _TRADE_ as it was originally founded and agreed to. I gave you two of the easy examples to find, but there are plenty more. If you can't figure it out from the 2 examples given you are simply being dishonest to maintain a delusion (or perhaps just to be a liar for the purpose of propaganda). If you happen to be morally bankrupt, I can't fix your corrupt morality. I can only point out facts for bystanders to protect themselves from people like you.
You didn't even bother with a half truth, you went with the old FLAT OUT LIE! It was 53.4% that voted to LEAVE from England, with 73% turnout. If you tally all of the votes including Wales, Scotland, and Ireland tally was 17,410,722 to leave, 16,141,231. Which is still 52% of the vote _TOTAL_ (51.89%).
Ireland and Scotland had the worst turn outs, which means they didn't have a strong enough opinion to vote.
Your opinion denies things we call facts. Your opinion is invalid and based on some fantasy land that does not exist. Only a complete lunatic attempts to deny facts to support their delusional ill gotten opinion.
Citation for the intellectually challenged who can't find results. Don't worry, I know you won't look.
Because the only possible way to maintain your sovereignty is to pay non-elected bureaucrats from other countries to dictate every aspect of your country.
The EU was setup as a Trade Union with standard currency, which most people agreed with as a "Trade Union" with standard currency. Once it started making demands on everything from members paying for a private private army to demanding how a country handles immigration the EU failed in it's purpose.
Your position and statement is disingenuous and dishonest.
Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit? Considering the massive amount of propaganda for "remain" having over 50% for exit is an insanely high number.
It's almost like you are actually ignoring facts to back an ideology. Why does that seem so familiar? Oh, I got it! The elitists in the US did and do the same thing. People have caught on to the game, repeating the lies won't make the true. All it does at this point is expose the amount of people involved in attempting to maintain the charade.
Well, as someone else pointed out these are weekly rates, which look more correct. Their number then changes to about 3K/mo. SF proper is about 5K/mo for a 1 bedroom, but some of the areas drop the average as you go west toward Pacifica. I don't know anywhere "decent" in the Bay area within an hour commute that's less than 3K/mo.