Representatives do frequently care about their constituent's concerns, especially if it's a service they provide to constituents, or if you can make a reasoned, non-partisan argument detailing specifics (and not just FUD).
Do note the average person writing to their representative will be writing about an above-average-controversy, however.
Who shouldn't ban guns/BitTorrent? It's OK for a store to say "no guns on my property", it's not OK for the government to say "you can't own a gun on your property". An employer can say "no torrents on my network", a common carrier or the government cannot say "no torrenting on your network."
In any event, the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order specifically says it only applies to "legal" content, so this argument is misleading.
How does the article manage to make the jump from "The FCC does not have the statutory authority to manage computer networks" (which is true) to "Ajit Pai wants ISPs to block content" (not true).
The FCC's own 2015 Open Internet Order says it only applies to "legal" content anyways. Among other things, this excludes most BitTorrent traffic and gambling.
Title II also contains many compulsory provisions entirely incompatible with Net Neutrality, like censorship of explicit material.
If you want Net Neutrality, write to your representative and tell them the Internet is a Title I service.
As you can see, there's no "passive" property to be found. It was instead described in a Mozilla- and Google-owned fork that's still not standardized by the larger body of W3C members.
They've been doing this a lot recently. Specifically, Anne van Kesteren is cancer.
If adding $0.25/kg wouldn't make a difference in anyone's purchases then why isn't it already that high?
The answer, by the way, is yes, it does. Maybe not you, maybe not anyone you know, maybe not even a statistically significant number of people -- but still a nonzero number of people, and enough for the price to be set accordingly.
I agree that voting is an abuse of a consensus model (the IETF never votes on anything, for example). However, the standard was an API for doing encryption that was already implemented in the vast majority of Web browsers. The EFF was just apparently out of other, more appropriate venues that are actually about DRM.
Do you have a source for WordPress claiming copyright ownership of all themes? I've used WordPress quite extensively and have never heard of this.
https://wordpress.org/news/200... "One sentence summary: PHP in WordPress themes must be GPL, artwork and CSS may be but are not required." The only way someone can set conditions on the work you're working with is if they have some sort of copyright claim on it. If you fork a WordPress theme, then they have such a claim and can say "Derivatives must be GPL as a condition of redistribution". They still claim this even if you wrote a theme from scratch.
They're protecting their users. Suppose WordPress kept using ReactJS and I used WordPress. Now, I decide to sue Facebook for violating some patent of mine. Due to Facebook's licensing, I'd lose my license to use ReactJS and, thus, wouldn't be able to use WordPress. All WordPress-based sites of mine would immediately need to come down lest Facebook sue me back. It's a method of suppressing patent infringement lawsuits. By WordPress switching from ReactJS to an alternative, they protect their users from this.
If you believe software patents are bullshit (as I do) and you release everything as prior art, then what Facebook is doing can literally never impact you.
The kinds of people this will impact are companies who love patents and regularly file lawsuits about infringement - it would hinder them from doing so.
Reminder this is the same Wordpress that believes they own the copyright on any template that works with Wordpress, even if it was written from scratch and doesn't contain any derivative works.
Whatever problem WordPress has with licensing, they helped fuel it.
And what's WordPress planning anyways, suing Facebook for patent infringement sometime down the road?
A reference to the creator was omitted from the Constitution because it would have been superfluous.
However, The First Amendment refers to the freedom of speech, in accordance with the principle that freedom pre-exists the state and that the state exists to protect liberty, instead of infringe on it.
You're conflating what you can do and what you should do. For the vast majority of rights we have, I think we should exercise them on a regular basis, lest people think we "don't need them" anymore. But it's not our role to play criminal justice system.
Yes, you can discriminate against people by their race or height what they want written on their cake or because they looked at you funny. That doesn't mean you should
And yes, you can discriminate against someone who does those very things. That still doesn't mean you should.
(There's some asterisks here, of course. You always must fulfill agreements, offers, and other contracts. The law might disagree with me, but that doesn't make the law right.)
Not exactly correct. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for Congressional representation, instead of a full person, and that's a good thing because that reduced the representation of slave states in Congress.
That's literally the only reason that clause exists in the Constitution, and it says nothing about race, only slave status.
If the ad were put up by the government, then it would be unconstitutional by the Equal Protections clause. Otherwise, the First Amendment protects you from government action about your speech.
If a trading firm dumps every last share and plunges the value of a company by half... so what? Great opportunity to buy all the cheap, underpriced shares that just went on sale.
If a trading firm buys a billion dollars of stocks of a firm... so what? Someone just got a lot richer by selling all the overpriced stocks.
Everything you just complained about is even worse at Breitbart since Andrew Breitbart died.
The website is now literally run by Trump's campaign staff. No, really, Steve Bannon is both executive chairman at Breitbart and CEO of Donald Trump presidential campaign.
Shouldn't the existing driver's license already make sure you can read signs?
If a driver's license good enough for navigating streets with a passenger, what should it matter if they connected through a phone app or something else?
I'm sorry, do you have any clue how markets and stock markets work?
Any tax on individual transactions would absolutely mutilate liquidity. Markets and entire economic theorems about their efficiency only works when the cost of a transaction is negligible.
Further, do you have any clue how stocks are issued and priced? The price of a stock is just the price at which the last one was traded for. The price that YOU are going to be able to buy or sell for is different, it's whatever price a second party is willing to sell or buy for (respectively).
And you realize the price level is completely arbitrary, right? If a corporation feels that the stock is priced too high, no problem, just issue a 10:1 split and boom, their $1000/share is now $100/share.
Slashdot Mirror
Representatives do frequently care about their constituent's concerns, especially if it's a service they provide to constituents, or if you can make a reasoned, non-partisan argument detailing specifics (and not just FUD).
Do note the average person writing to their representative will be writing about an above-average-controversy, however.
Who shouldn't ban guns/BitTorrent? It's OK for a store to say "no guns on my property", it's not OK for the government to say "you can't own a gun on your property". An employer can say "no torrents on my network", a common carrier or the government cannot say "no torrenting on your network."
In any event, the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order specifically says it only applies to "legal" content, so this argument is misleading.
That's why I'm saying write your representative, and not the FCC.
How does the article manage to make the jump from "The FCC does not have the statutory authority to manage computer networks" (which is true) to "Ajit Pai wants ISPs to block content" (not true).
The FCC's own 2015 Open Internet Order says it only applies to "legal" content anyways. Among other things, this excludes most BitTorrent traffic and gambling.
Title II also contains many compulsory provisions entirely incompatible with Net Neutrality, like censorship of explicit material.
If you want Net Neutrality, write to your representative and tell them the Internet is a Title I service.
If necessary via having their lobbyists be the politicians
That's a pretty funny way of saying the government is the biggest barrier to a free market.
No, it's not standard. addEventListener is described here: https://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/...
As you can see, there's no "passive" property to be found. It was instead described in a Mozilla- and Google-owned fork that's still not standardized by the larger body of W3C members.
They've been doing this a lot recently. Specifically, Anne van Kesteren is cancer.
If adding $0.25/kg wouldn't make a difference in anyone's purchases then why isn't it already that high?
The answer, by the way, is yes, it does. Maybe not you, maybe not anyone you know, maybe not even a statistically significant number of people -- but still a nonzero number of people, and enough for the price to be set accordingly.
"cramming XHTML down our throats"? XHTML is a part of HTML5. When you serve an HTML document as XML, we call it XHTML5.
(Which I highly suggest doing, by the way, it's far more secure and predictable.)
30% disagreed.
The proponents outnumbered the opponents by 2:1.
I agree that voting is an abuse of a consensus model (the IETF never votes on anything, for example). However, the standard was an API for doing encryption that was already implemented in the vast majority of Web browsers. The EFF was just apparently out of other, more appropriate venues that are actually about DRM.
Do you have a source for WordPress claiming copyright ownership of all themes? I've used WordPress quite extensively and have never heard of this.
https://wordpress.org/news/200... "One sentence summary: PHP in WordPress themes must be GPL, artwork and CSS may be but are not required." The only way someone can set conditions on the work you're working with is if they have some sort of copyright claim on it. If you fork a WordPress theme, then they have such a claim and can say "Derivatives must be GPL as a condition of redistribution". They still claim this even if you wrote a theme from scratch.
They're protecting their users. Suppose WordPress kept using ReactJS and I used WordPress. Now, I decide to sue Facebook for violating some patent of mine. Due to Facebook's licensing, I'd lose my license to use ReactJS and, thus, wouldn't be able to use WordPress. All WordPress-based sites of mine would immediately need to come down lest Facebook sue me back. It's a method of suppressing patent infringement lawsuits. By WordPress switching from ReactJS to an alternative, they protect their users from this.
If you believe software patents are bullshit (as I do) and you release everything as prior art, then what Facebook is doing can literally never impact you.
The kinds of people this will impact are companies who love patents and regularly file lawsuits about infringement - it would hinder them from doing so.
So I don't really see the problem.
No, I'm calling them a hypocrite.
Reminder this is the same Wordpress that believes they own the copyright on any template that works with Wordpress, even if it was written from scratch and doesn't contain any derivative works.
Whatever problem WordPress has with licensing, they helped fuel it.
And what's WordPress planning anyways, suing Facebook for patent infringement sometime down the road?
The // signifies an authority or hostname. URIs that don't refer to a server shouldn't use it.
Which introduces the question, so just who is "a" anyways?
The same way a Go game has a "finite number of combinations?"
"More than the number of atoms in the observable universe" sure is an interesting way to define "small"
Penn Jillette literally yells "Fire" in a crowded theater almost every night during Penn & Teller.
So far, exactly zero people have died.
A reference to the creator was omitted from the Constitution because it would have been superfluous.
However, The First Amendment refers to the freedom of speech, in accordance with the principle that freedom pre-exists the state and that the state exists to protect liberty, instead of infringe on it.
You're conflating what you can do and what you should do. For the vast majority of rights we have, I think we should exercise them on a regular basis, lest people think we "don't need them" anymore. But it's not our role to play criminal justice system.
Yes, you can discriminate against people by their race or height what they want written on their cake or because they looked at you funny. That doesn't mean you should
And yes, you can discriminate against someone who does those very things. That still doesn't mean you should.
(There's some asterisks here, of course. You always must fulfill agreements, offers, and other contracts. The law might disagree with me, but that doesn't make the law right.)
Not exactly correct. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for Congressional representation, instead of a full person, and that's a good thing because that reduced the representation of slave states in Congress.
That's literally the only reason that clause exists in the Constitution, and it says nothing about race, only slave status.
Uh, yeah.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments, just like I said.
It didn't, because it wasn't sufficiently clear, because there was no Equal Protections clause.
No, it's a limitation on government power found in the Constitution.
The Constitution only applies to the government.
If the ad were put up by the government, then it would be unconstitutional by the Equal Protections clause. Otherwise, the First Amendment protects you from government action about your speech.
When?
If a trading firm dumps every last share and plunges the value of a company by half... so what? Great opportunity to buy all the cheap, underpriced shares that just went on sale.
If a trading firm buys a billion dollars of stocks of a firm... so what? Someone just got a lot richer by selling all the overpriced stocks.
What else could you possibly mean?
Everything you just complained about is even worse at Breitbart since Andrew Breitbart died.
The website is now literally run by Trump's campaign staff. No, really, Steve Bannon is both executive chairman at Breitbart and CEO of Donald Trump presidential campaign.
Shouldn't the existing driver's license already make sure you can read signs?
If a driver's license good enough for navigating streets with a passenger, what should it matter if they connected through a phone app or something else?
It might be painless for you, but you can't say that for sure about everyone else who is trading, which is what actually matters.
The alternative is you don't restrict people from selling their own property.
I'm sorry, do you have any clue how markets and stock markets work?
Any tax on individual transactions would absolutely mutilate liquidity. Markets and entire economic theorems about their efficiency only works when the cost of a transaction is negligible.
Further, do you have any clue how stocks are issued and priced? The price of a stock is just the price at which the last one was traded for. The price that YOU are going to be able to buy or sell for is different, it's whatever price a second party is willing to sell or buy for (respectively).
And you realize the price level is completely arbitrary, right? If a corporation feels that the stock is priced too high, no problem, just issue a 10:1 split and boom, their $1000/share is now $100/share.