A well written point, however the vast majority of Americans don't really understand exactly what the stakes are in the Open Internet debate, and how it will affect them.
Every single person I've heard mention anything about "Net Neutrality" that labeled themselves as a "conservative", dismissed it as a "government takeover" of the internet, which we all know is complete horseshite, and a Faux News/Rove/Koch smoke and mirrors job.
I would like to meet some of these "reactionary" and "financial" conservatives you speak of who would rather have an Open Internet than one proposed by groups like ALEC. Where are they?
Perhaps you should try some critical thinking sometime Mike.
I never said anything about the people you mention... You did.
Because I criticize "Conservatives" doesn't mean I'm a big Harry Reid fan either.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the policies of ALEC and those who lobby to hand control of an Open Internet over to corporations.
Really, from your highly modded post(who would have thought!) we can deduce one of two things:
1. You are wildly uninformed and are a Faux News kneejerk who thinks an Open Internet is a "government takeover",
OR
2. You know and understand exactly what groups like ALEC want to do, and why they want control over the Internet in the US.
You may a fair point, and I agree that all those that assign the tag of "Conservative" to themselves probably don't agree with groups like ALEC, The Koch Brothers and Karl Rove when it comes to an Open Internet.
However, more than likely, the VAST majority of "Conservatives" DO AGREE with agree with groups like ALEC, The Koch Brothers and Karl Rove when it comes to an Open Internet, and their dogmatic load of shit about a "government takeover of the internet".
You need to "read between the lines" on the "Conservative", "Freedom Loving" talking points, and what their actions really are in comparison with those talking points. People like the Kochs are really after control and consolidation of power.
There are plenty of reasons for "Conservatives" to oppose an Open Internet...
Which "Conservatives"?
Groups like ALEC, thats who.
"Conservatives" since Reagan are really about one thing, and that is continuing the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of the few(whether you want to call them the 1% or not doesn't matter), at all costs.
Whether it is environmental issues, health and safety, human rights, etc; the "Conservative" agenda is really quite an affront to anyone on this planet who values things like clean water, justice for the marginalized, a safe workplace, and yes, a media and telecommunications system that isn't biased for and towards that "few" that controls most of the wealth and power in the US.
People like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and rest would have the non-critical thinkers in this country swallow their load of absolute and unadulterated bullshit. They know most of the American electorate are ill informed and scared(Thanks Rupert!) and they also understand that control of the media and how getting even more control will put them in a position to "manage" the political system in the US like never before.
The "Conservatives" like to throw around that Freedom word, yet in reality, their agenda is really only about giving them more freedom to destroy, despoil and enslave.
With that being said, don't assume I'm some Obama lover, as I regard his administrations attack on whistleblowers, absolute disdain for privacy protections, etc really on par with what "Conservatives" want. On those fronts Obama, The Kocks and Karl Rove are on the same page.
Car wrecks don't spread the way a disease like Ebola can.
A "quarantine" on non-critical return flights is in order from any country with an Ebola problem.
If we can do this shit for terrorism we can damn right do it for Ebola.
I couldn't agree more.
I use FF mostly, and have all the tracking blockers you've mentioned installed and configured to only allow what I deem "non-Big-Brother-esque". That means BOTH Google and FB are blocked. TrackMeNot, RequestPolicy, NoScript and AdBlock Plus are the way to go.
Close, of the Forest Service, doesn't seem to agree.
She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain.
"That's kind of a distortion," says Peter Essick, an award-winning National Geographic photographer who has worked with the Forest Service before, as well as the other agencies that oversee American wildernesses for years to produce truly remarkable work.
"When the Wilderness Act was created in 1964, there were plenty of people doing photography," he says. "Nothing in the Wilderness Act says photography is not approved or banned."
When he goes out to shoot, Essick takes the utmost care to the follow the rules of "leave no trace," and he does it with 65 pounds of gear on his back. He's a nature photographer: Not trashing the place is pretty much rule number one.
on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed
WTF is this bullshit?!?
Really?
There are wilderness designated areas in National Forests that people are in on a constant basis:
Wilderness is an area of Federal Land that is free from modern human control or manipulation, is undeveloped, and provides outstanding opportunites for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Wilderness areas are generally over 5,000 acres in size and may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
Heck, there are wilderness areas where ranchers can graze cattle.
You seem to have overlooked the part where the evil corporations OWN the over-reaching government outright.
You should try paying attention once in a while.
Modded Troll eh?
It appears we have a few(or many) people whose retirement plans for that Costa Rican bungalow depending on the continued Big Pharma-Insurance-Hospital/Hospice Industrial Complex paradigm of keeping the American People diseased.
Shhh...! We don't want people using that as a sweetener.
It's in everybody's interest to have a population that is morbidly obese, diabetic and wracked with all manner of diet related diseases so that the Big Pharma-Insurance-Hospital/Hospice Industrial Complex can continue to bleed the American People dry.
Keep in mind that the regs and red tape from PCI are now being used as revenue generating mechanisms by many companies that have their fingers in the PCI pie:
We charge you $ to audit and approve your compliance or you can just be non-compliant and then pay us a monthly fee...
Great, because you've been playing that long I'm supposed to agree with you about Pathfinder and WoTC. Sorry, I don't. You don't have to agree with me either. Thats the beauty of slashdot. Also, if EGG approved of WoTC that is fine, thats him. Not me.
I see WoTC/Hasbro as a corporate profit generating system, whereby a new and more lame version of what used to be D&D comes out every few years, more expensive with more books and supplements to have to go out and buy. Thats the reality as I see it. Should we change the rules to Poker, Monopoly and Baseball every few years?
BTW, I started D&D with the Blue Box in 1979, so you can do the math.
I've tried 3.5, 4 and am actually about to try D&D Next(5.0?, etc;), because my group wants to and I said I would give it a shot. I love other games besides 1.5-2nd ed D&D. Traveller, Warhammer 40K, Gamma World, etc; I've played quite a few.
A few things about the games I don't like, such as:
1. Pathfinder modules and GM's "guide" the group too much, similar to video games. It seemed very much like the old text based games. I like Fantasy RPG's where characters have the freedom to do as they wish, which also leads to consequences of those actions. Not where it's like "You have to protect this temple against the raiders from Ad-Keroatia and their evil minioins".
2. When I tried 3.5/4 the general breakdown of the character attributes, powers, skills, etc ad infinitum led to the sort of "superheroing" of characters. I admit it, I like a more conservative game when it comes to Fantasy base RPG's. IMHO that leads to players having to use cleverness and teamwork more. I'm not a fan of characters that can do and be everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on the money brother.
No, Facebook and Google do.
Nice try. How about making a point...
A well written point, however the vast majority of Americans don't really understand exactly what the stakes are in the Open Internet debate, and how it will affect them.
Every single person I've heard mention anything about "Net Neutrality" that labeled themselves as a "conservative" , dismissed it as a "government takeover" of the internet, which we all know is complete horseshite, and a Faux News/Rove/Koch smoke and mirrors job.
I would like to meet some of these "reactionary" and "financial" conservatives you speak of who would rather have an Open Internet than one proposed by groups like ALEC.
Where are they?
...And the Republican controlled Congress.
Perhaps you should try some critical thinking sometime Mike.
I never said anything about the people you mention... You did.
Because I criticize "Conservatives" doesn't mean I'm a big Harry Reid fan either.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the policies of ALEC and those who lobby to hand control of an Open Internet over to corporations.
Really, from your highly modded post(who would have thought!) we can deduce one of two things:
1. You are wildly uninformed and are a Faux News kneejerk who thinks an Open Internet is a "government takeover",
OR
2. You know and understand exactly what groups like ALEC want to do, and why they want control over the Internet in the US.
Which is it?
Probably before Clinton and the Republican Congress gutted bank regulators.
What did you think he meant?
You may a fair point, and I agree that all those that assign the tag of "Conservative" to themselves probably don't agree with groups like ALEC, The Koch Brothers and Karl Rove when it comes to an Open Internet.
However, more than likely, the VAST majority of "Conservatives" DO AGREE with agree with groups like ALEC, The Koch Brothers and Karl Rove when it comes to an Open Internet, and their dogmatic load of shit about a "government takeover of the internet".
You need to "read between the lines" on the "Conservative", "Freedom Loving" talking points, and what their actions really are in comparison with those talking points.
People like the Kochs are really after control and consolidation of power.
There are plenty of reasons for "Conservatives" to oppose an Open Internet...
Which "Conservatives"? Groups like ALEC, thats who.
"Conservatives" since Reagan are really about one thing, and that is continuing the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of the few(whether you want to call them the 1% or not doesn't matter), at all costs .
Whether it is environmental issues, health and safety, human rights, etc; the "Conservative" agenda is really quite an affront to anyone on this planet who values things like clean water, justice for the marginalized, a safe workplace, and yes, a media and telecommunications system that isn't biased for and towards that "few" that controls most of the wealth and power in the US.
People like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and rest would have the non-critical thinkers in this country swallow their load of absolute and unadulterated bullshit. They know most of the American electorate are ill informed and scared(Thanks Rupert!) and they also understand that control of the media and how getting even more control will put them in a position to "manage" the political system in the US like never before.
The "Conservatives" like to throw around that Freedom word, yet in reality, their agenda is really only about giving them more freedom to destroy, despoil and enslave.
With that being said, don't assume I'm some Obama lover, as I regard his administrations attack on whistleblowers, absolute disdain for privacy protections, etc really on par with what "Conservatives" want. On those fronts Obama, The Kocks and Karl Rove are on the same page.
Right, because the new Opeth is TOTALLY Metal!
Car wrecks don't spread the way a disease like Ebola can.
A "quarantine" on non-critical return flights is in order from any country with an Ebola problem.
If we can do this shit for terrorism we can damn right do it for Ebola.
Why we are even allowing flights to/from Ebola infected countries to continue?
Why are are we taking the chance with this?
I couldn't agree more.
I use FF mostly, and have all the tracking blockers you've mentioned installed and configured to only allow what I deem "non-Big-Brother-esque". That means BOTH Google and FB are blocked. TrackMeNot, RequestPolicy, NoScript and AdBlock Plus are the way to go.
BINGO!
It's that sickly sweet, sort of decaying flesh odour of AC apologetics.
Hey, genius, jump over and read this before you start awarding Nobel prizes to the idiots that penned this rule.
Here is an excerpt for you:
Close, of the Forest Service, doesn't seem to agree. She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain. "That's kind of a distortion," says Peter Essick, an award-winning National Geographic photographer who has worked with the Forest Service before, as well as the other agencies that oversee American wildernesses for years to produce truly remarkable work. "When the Wilderness Act was created in 1964, there were plenty of people doing photography," he says. "Nothing in the Wilderness Act says photography is not approved or banned." When he goes out to shoot, Essick takes the utmost care to the follow the rules of "leave no trace," and he does it with 65 pounds of gear on his back. He's a nature photographer: Not trashing the place is pretty much rule number one.
on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed
WTF is this bullshit?!?
Really?
There are wilderness designated areas in National Forests that people are in on a constant basis:
Wilderness is an area of Federal Land that is free from modern human control or manipulation, is undeveloped, and provides outstanding opportunites for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Wilderness areas are generally over 5,000 acres in size and may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
Heck, there are wilderness areas where ranchers can graze cattle.
You seem to have overlooked the part where the evil corporations OWN the over-reaching government outright.
You should try paying attention once in a while.
I come from what used to be Ohlone land and I now live in what used to be Pomo land...
So you were born in Santa Clara and now live in Boonville.
Modded Troll eh?
It appears we have a few(or many) people whose retirement plans for that Costa Rican bungalow depending on the continued Big Pharma-Insurance-Hospital/Hospice Industrial Complex paradigm of keeping the American People diseased.
Shhh...! We don't want people using that as a sweetener.
It's in everybody's interest to have a population that is morbidly obese, diabetic and wracked with all manner of diet related diseases so that the Big Pharma-Insurance-Hospital/Hospice Industrial Complex can continue to bleed the American People dry.
Dry as a funeral drum...
http://www.waveipt.com/
Keep in mind that the regs and red tape from PCI are now being used as revenue generating mechanisms by many companies that have their fingers in the PCI pie:
We charge you $ to audit and approve your compliance or you can just be non-compliant and then pay us a monthly fee...
which suits the method actor gamer types because their tactical senses are abstracted away into various quick and easy card-based recipes for success.
Bingo!
I've been doing RPG for 38 years
Great, because you've been playing that long I'm supposed to agree with you about Pathfinder and WoTC. Sorry, I don't. You don't have to agree with me either. Thats the beauty of slashdot. Also, if EGG approved of WoTC that is fine, thats him. Not me.
I see WoTC/Hasbro as a corporate profit generating system, whereby a new and more lame version of what used to be D&D comes out every few years, more expensive with more books and supplements to have to go out and buy. Thats the reality as I see it. Should we change the rules to Poker, Monopoly and Baseball every few years?
BTW, I started D&D with the Blue Box in 1979, so you can do the math.
I've tried 3.5, 4 and am actually about to try D&D Next(5.0?, etc;), because my group wants to and I said I would give it a shot. I love other games besides 1.5-2nd ed D&D. Traveller, Warhammer 40K, Gamma World, etc; I've played quite a few.
A few things about the games I don't like, such as:
1. Pathfinder modules and GM's "guide" the group too much, similar to video games. It seemed very much like the old text based games. I like Fantasy RPG's where characters have the freedom to do as they wish, which also leads to consequences of those actions. Not where it's like "You have to protect this temple against the raiders from Ad-Keroatia and their evil minioins".
2. When I tried 3.5/4 the general breakdown of the character attributes, powers, skills, etc ad infinitum led to the sort of "superheroing" of characters. I admit it, I like a more conservative game when it comes to Fantasy base RPG's. IMHO that leads to players having to use cleverness and teamwork more. I'm not a fan of characters that can do and be everything.