Do you care to explain how climate science is tainted by politics? Is there any rational argument against the basic idea that pumping unnatural amounts of carbon into the atmosphere will alter its ability to to trap heat? If there is, I haven't heard it yet.
If you're willing to throw away climate science because a politician somewhere used it in their campaign, you better also be willing to throw away nutritional science, psychology, sociology, economics...
Of course people have been doing that, broadly. What we are looking at here is one specific industry, and really just a couple of different jobs within that industry.
No doubt the Dems are trying to leverage the situation. But if you are denying that Russia ran a psy-ops campaign to influence the election, you are the one with your head in the sand. That has been their (and our) modus operandi ever since WW2. All that's different now are the tools. The information superhighway can truck propaganda as efficiently as it trucks other information... Which is very.
Not to suggest that Russian interference was the only factor, far from it. By and large, the failings are internal to our governmental system. The Democratic party failed hard, as hard as the Republicans, in giving us a good candidate. People were so desperate for an outsider, it almost didn't matter who. Whoever could claim a major party's nomination while still keeping an air of independence was going to be on good footing.
Of course, now that he is in power, we see he is mostly enacting the Republican corporatist wish list, barring a few attempts to save face on dumb shit like the Muslim ban. Politics is about perception even more than it is about governance. There is this perception, accurate perception, that Hillary is corrupt. And yet we had almost half the votes go to Trump, who is a poster boy for corruption if I've ever seen one. The difference is his corruption, until now, had all been private-sector - no public scrutiny. That is where "perception" comes in. He was perceived as the guy on The Apprentice making people rich, she was perceived as the corrupt politician.
I wouldn't say she has gone "off the rails", she has mostly stayed out of the public eye. I think she's only done a couple of speeches since the election (including this one), whereas Trump has just never stopped talking about it at all.
She is still on her rails, they just don't go anywhere particularly nice. That said, Trump is fast rebuilding the track to Auschwitz, so for that reason alone its better for her to stay out of the spotlight. Im willing to excuse her trying to save face as long as it doesn't hurt our country in the process. I don't think it will, because at this point nobody takes her seriously.
What is the alternative?
If I want know about, for example the war in Ukraine, do I need to take a trip there myself? Am I prohibited from discussing it until I do?
"The media are all liars" is a great line to trot out when you want to discount a piece of news you find unfavorable, though. No wonder its usually the unfavorable who push it.
I think the difference is in degree. We are in the middle of a groundswell in the number of coders, both in the US and worldwide. The lure of being the next Gates or Jobs (and they probably think he was a developer) has been sinking into society for a couple decades now. Add to that all the pushes to put disinterested kids into coding courses, or even to make it a mandatory course. All this is going to decrease the skill of the average coder, as people start getting into it for the wrong reasons.
More low-skilled coders isn't necessarily a bad thing, in terms of getting work done - if the people doing the hiring/firing are competent. Often, they aren't. And the most basic tool of their credential analysis, the college degree, is being slowly devalued as well.
The higher-ups are sitting in Iraq or Syria, giving orders via internet. We generally already know who they are. Or in many recent cases, the attackers have had no direct contact with a terrorist organization at all. Their attacks are not so much "ordered" as they are "inspired by". That is why trying to attack a command structure, like you would in a traditional war or even fighting organized crime, is going to be minimally effective. To combat something like this, you have to get to the core of what is inspiring these attacks, which is the narrative that the West is at war with Islam. That comes from the constant intervention by Western powers in the Middle East over the past half-century. Look how we responded to 9/11 - we ramped up the intervention. Now, terrorist attacks on our own soil are ramping up. It's not a coincidence, we are reaping what we have sown. When our politicians suggest things like a "Muslim ban", that plays right into the Islamists' narrative. We are sowing the seeds for yet more attacks. I fully expect them to continue at breakneck speed. And even if we pulled our troops out of the Middle East tomorrow, the attacks wouldn't stop tomorrow. It took us a half-century of intervention to get to this point, it will probably take another half-century for Muslims to forget. We are in this for the long haul, but we need to stand up and be the better man starting today, if we want it to ever end.
All that said, our police and intelligence agencies definitely need to stay on their toes at home, so that we can disrupt the attacks whenever possible. And in this attack, there were probably like-minded accomplices. But until we get to the root of the problem, of why so many are being radicalized, all of this is just playing clean-up after the fact.
20 people die listening to Ariana Grande and it's a national tragedy.
A couple of days later, 100 civilians die from a bombing in Iraq and nobody bats an eye.
I mostly use my phone and voicemail for "official business" where "Hey download this messaging app and hit me up at @Stickmayne89" just doesn't sound professional. Not to mention it flat out is not a valid line of communication for many entities I deal with and they will never use it.
Secretary of State wouldn't have had operational details of that level (names of sources, etc) generally, and certainly not sent to her by email. Unless somebody in the CIA was breaking protocol even more egregiously by sending it that way - those briefings get done in person.
She obviously had something unflattering there, but there is no reason to believe it goes beyond the usual politicking about campaign finances, or something similar. Inferring what you have sounds more like a 4chanesque conspiracy theory than something supported by a reasoned consideration of the situation.
When reasoned arguments based on science fail to break through the ignorance, you're left with less savory options. On an issue of such critical importance to the survival of humanity (there will be nowhere to flee), I absolutely support deploying these tools.
Climate change.
You'll probably be dead by the time those chickens really come to roost, but spare a thought for someone else sometime. Do it for "The kids", if thats what it takes to make sustainable living and a functioning society palpable to you.
I can absolutely choose which bakery gets my patronage. Were you raised in North Korea or something? You still fail to grasp that the word "censor" doesn't even apply to private entities like Twitter. They have no obligation to publish anything, from anyone. But at the end of the day, all this hand-waving about Twitter and bakeries is just an attempt to justify telecom deregulation, and it really has no bearing on the shittiness of that idea to begin with.
If you don't like Twitter for whatever reason (and there's plenty - I stay away entirely), you are free to use another service. Hell, start your own. Web hosting is like $5/mo and there is open source social network software out there for free.
If you don't like your ISP's rules, tough shit. If you are lucky, there might be 1 or 2 alternatives, and they'll all be doing the same thing.
Oh, and good luck trying to start a Twitter alternative without net neutrality. Access to your site is going to be way slower than the big boys (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) who can pay off your ISP.
If the lines the internet traverse are important so to are the servers that those lines connect.
The servers are privately owned and the owners can do whatever they want with them. That is free speech. Your ISP is a public utility with a natural monopoly. There is no equivalency whatsoever. Why do you think you are entitled to Twitter the way you want it? I'm guessing you got butthurt when they banned some white nationalist troll.
You are conflating the voting process with the policymaking process. There are as many possible ways to write a bill as there are words in the English language.
Most people won't do any of those things once in their life. The summary talks about passenger vehicles owned by individuals. (The headline says something else, but that's Slashdot editing)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not always silent, especially if someone is drowning in it.
I think that's exactly the reason.
It's like a heroin addict who refuses to stop because it makes him feel good today, and fuck tomorrow.
Do you care to explain how climate science is tainted by politics? Is there any rational argument against the basic idea that pumping unnatural amounts of carbon into the atmosphere will alter its ability to to trap heat? If there is, I haven't heard it yet.
If you're willing to throw away climate science because a politician somewhere used it in their campaign, you better also be willing to throw away nutritional science, psychology, sociology, economics...
Of course people have been doing that, broadly. What we are looking at here is one specific industry, and really just a couple of different jobs within that industry.
No doubt the Dems are trying to leverage the situation. But if you are denying that Russia ran a psy-ops campaign to influence the election, you are the one with your head in the sand. That has been their (and our) modus operandi ever since WW2. All that's different now are the tools. The information superhighway can truck propaganda as efficiently as it trucks other information... Which is very. Not to suggest that Russian interference was the only factor, far from it. By and large, the failings are internal to our governmental system. The Democratic party failed hard, as hard as the Republicans, in giving us a good candidate. People were so desperate for an outsider, it almost didn't matter who. Whoever could claim a major party's nomination while still keeping an air of independence was going to be on good footing. Of course, now that he is in power, we see he is mostly enacting the Republican corporatist wish list, barring a few attempts to save face on dumb shit like the Muslim ban. Politics is about perception even more than it is about governance. There is this perception, accurate perception, that Hillary is corrupt. And yet we had almost half the votes go to Trump, who is a poster boy for corruption if I've ever seen one. The difference is his corruption, until now, had all been private-sector - no public scrutiny. That is where "perception" comes in. He was perceived as the guy on The Apprentice making people rich, she was perceived as the corrupt politician.
I wouldn't say she has gone "off the rails", she has mostly stayed out of the public eye. I think she's only done a couple of speeches since the election (including this one), whereas Trump has just never stopped talking about it at all. She is still on her rails, they just don't go anywhere particularly nice. That said, Trump is fast rebuilding the track to Auschwitz, so for that reason alone its better for her to stay out of the spotlight. Im willing to excuse her trying to save face as long as it doesn't hurt our country in the process. I don't think it will, because at this point nobody takes her seriously.
"An innovation in Power-over-IP"
What is the alternative? If I want know about, for example the war in Ukraine, do I need to take a trip there myself? Am I prohibited from discussing it until I do? "The media are all liars" is a great line to trot out when you want to discount a piece of news you find unfavorable, though. No wonder its usually the unfavorable who push it.
Bubble bubble bubble bubble...
Anyone care to speculate what happens when the education bubble finally pops?
I think the difference is in degree. We are in the middle of a groundswell in the number of coders, both in the US and worldwide. The lure of being the next Gates or Jobs (and they probably think he was a developer) has been sinking into society for a couple decades now. Add to that all the pushes to put disinterested kids into coding courses, or even to make it a mandatory course. All this is going to decrease the skill of the average coder, as people start getting into it for the wrong reasons.
More low-skilled coders isn't necessarily a bad thing, in terms of getting work done - if the people doing the hiring/firing are competent. Often, they aren't. And the most basic tool of their credential analysis, the college degree, is being slowly devalued as well.
It was an American air strike. If it were just Muslims killing Muslims, we wouldn't have this issue in the first place.
The higher-ups are sitting in Iraq or Syria, giving orders via internet. We generally already know who they are. Or in many recent cases, the attackers have had no direct contact with a terrorist organization at all. Their attacks are not so much "ordered" as they are "inspired by". That is why trying to attack a command structure, like you would in a traditional war or even fighting organized crime, is going to be minimally effective.
To combat something like this, you have to get to the core of what is inspiring these attacks, which is the narrative that the West is at war with Islam. That comes from the constant intervention by Western powers in the Middle East over the past half-century. Look how we responded to 9/11 - we ramped up the intervention. Now, terrorist attacks on our own soil are ramping up. It's not a coincidence, we are reaping what we have sown. When our politicians suggest things like a "Muslim ban", that plays right into the Islamists' narrative. We are sowing the seeds for yet more attacks. I fully expect them to continue at breakneck speed. And even if we pulled our troops out of the Middle East tomorrow, the attacks wouldn't stop tomorrow. It took us a half-century of intervention to get to this point, it will probably take another half-century for Muslims to forget. We are in this for the long haul, but we need to stand up and be the better man starting today, if we want it to ever end.
All that said, our police and intelligence agencies definitely need to stay on their toes at home, so that we can disrupt the attacks whenever possible. And in this attack, there were probably like-minded accomplices. But until we get to the root of the problem, of why so many are being radicalized, all of this is just playing clean-up after the fact.
20 people die listening to Ariana Grande and it's a national tragedy.
A couple of days later, 100 civilians die from a bombing in Iraq and nobody bats an eye.
I mostly use my phone and voicemail for "official business" where "Hey download this messaging app and hit me up at @Stickmayne89" just doesn't sound professional. Not to mention it flat out is not a valid line of communication for many entities I deal with and they will never use it.
Turn off, hide, disable... Sounds like a real pain if you need to actually be available for contact.
Secretary of State wouldn't have had operational details of that level (names of sources, etc) generally, and certainly not sent to her by email. Unless somebody in the CIA was breaking protocol even more egregiously by sending it that way - those briefings get done in person. She obviously had something unflattering there, but there is no reason to believe it goes beyond the usual politicking about campaign finances, or something similar. Inferring what you have sounds more like a 4chanesque conspiracy theory than something supported by a reasoned consideration of the situation.
When reasoned arguments based on science fail to break through the ignorance, you're left with less savory options. On an issue of such critical importance to the survival of humanity (there will be nowhere to flee), I absolutely support deploying these tools.
Climate change. You'll probably be dead by the time those chickens really come to roost, but spare a thought for someone else sometime. Do it for "The kids", if thats what it takes to make sustainable living and a functioning society palpable to you.
I can absolutely choose which bakery gets my patronage. Were you raised in North Korea or something? You still fail to grasp that the word "censor" doesn't even apply to private entities like Twitter. They have no obligation to publish anything, from anyone. But at the end of the day, all this hand-waving about Twitter and bakeries is just an attempt to justify telecom deregulation, and it really has no bearing on the shittiness of that idea to begin with.
If you don't like your ISP's rules, tough shit. If you are lucky, there might be 1 or 2 alternatives, and they'll all be doing the same thing.
Oh, and good luck trying to start a Twitter alternative without net neutrality. Access to your site is going to be way slower than the big boys (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) who can pay off your ISP.
If the lines the internet traverse are important so to are the servers that those lines connect.
The servers are privately owned and the owners can do whatever they want with them. That is free speech. Your ISP is a public utility with a natural monopoly. There is no equivalency whatsoever. Why do you think you are entitled to Twitter the way you want it? I'm guessing you got butthurt when they banned some white nationalist troll.
Twitter is not an ISP.
Do you think the ISPs are going to use this to help doctors with MRIs, or to line their own pockets?
You are conflating the voting process with the policymaking process. There are as many possible ways to write a bill as there are words in the English language.
Most people won't do any of those things once in their life. The summary talks about passenger vehicles owned by individuals. (The headline says something else, but that's Slashdot editing)
The immediate cost goes to that guy, but not the full cost.