The FCC is a Congressional agency and empowered by Congress to make these sort of policies in accordance with relevant legislation. It precisely is the FCC's business, presumably because Congress actually *has* legislated it. The FCC site has links to all sorts of laws, which it is probably safe to assume cover the issues you mention.
Because free markets do not necessarily serve the public interest, which is blindingly obvious to anyone paying attention to the continuously declining quality of mass media news coverage in the USA.
I think that this is more of an attempt to get the horse back in the barn, which should be interesting, conisdering how prevalent the massive media conglomerates are, at least in the USA.
... between charitable donations and housecleaning. But who am I to judge, I cross it every spring when I leave my trash^H^H^H^H^H donations at the Sally Ann box up at the mall.
I concede that MS is not the laughingstock that it once was, but they are a ways from the respect that some of their competitors of similar scale (cough*IBM*cough) have long since earned. Eliminating the repeat vulnerabilities such as the recent ANI vuln might be a good place to start.
Oh sure, like you young'ns are geeks with yer "Internets" and yer "GUIs" and yer "hard drives"! All MY ones and zeros were painstakingly crafted in the old world tradition!
As yet, we have nothing but speculation as to them long term negative effects of global climate change
OK, but there are varying degrees to which speculation has value. For example, it has been widely speculated that global climate change will cause changes in weather patterns. Some like to say that this is uniformly a Bad Thing, but there could be bad effects (more hurricanes) and good effects (more rain in the Sahara) and in the end, it really is just speculation where weather is concerned. Weather is very hard to predict.
On the other hand, some negative effects of global climate change are so readily inferred that they have real predictive value. If the earth's global average temperature rises, so will ocean levels, due to polar icemelt. If you live in the Maldives, it is obvious that this will occur and that this is unequivocally a Bad Thing. It's specious reasoning and poor public policy to dismiss this as mere speculation.
And, from a political perspective, the dynamic of the climate change debate has been that scientists have steadily converged on a consensus view for many years, and this view has typically been backed up by scientific research (which is almost always inferential in part but is generally thought to have greater predictive value than mere speculation), but so-called positive effects (or blanket dismissals of negative effects) tend to be driven by the concerns of affected industries and presented as press releases. This tends to lend weight to the previous poster's comments on disingenuousness.
It doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the company in this case, but it's an interesting related issue.
Thank you. If I was more articulate, this is what I would have said.
I was wondering whether this also was a standard practice for more dangerous medical inventions, such as pharmaceuticals, and whether the problem is really with 'excessive paperwork' costs, or with liability for product failure.
I've read the whole thread. You said Had you said "speciesist" or some such, maybe I'd have listened.. And, you said, But when people are so intellectually lazy that they group every bit of so-called discrimination they see into racism, I engage in my own bit of laziness and refuse to keep reading. So it all boils down to the definition of the word racism, unless there is a secret magical hidden meaning to your words that escapes us all, in whcih case perhaps you should explain it.
He said, Racism doesn't have to be contained within a single species, even using a biological definition. Why? Because species are contained within a nested taxonomy, and so any subordinating division can be used to describe such prejudice. Human belief in superiority to plants is kingdomist, but it's also speciesist and racist and everything all the way up from there because there are no HORIZONTAL bounds in the taxonomy. . And he backed it up with dictionary definitions, which you have not provided despite some big talk about the OED earlier.
He also said "Your objection is noted, but it's absurd and immaterial." which I think sums things up nicely.
Dude, you are a train wreck. He just explained why he does discern the difference between "race" and "species". He just explained why his use of the word "race is not erroneous and produced dictionary definitions to back it up. He just explained why it makes rhetorical sense to use the word the way he did. You've got nothing. Give it up.
Slashdot Mirror
As though this is going to stop anyone. Reason has long since fled discourse on this topic and many others.
The FCC is a Congressional agency and empowered by Congress to make these sort of policies in accordance with relevant legislation. It precisely is the FCC's business, presumably because Congress actually *has* legislated it. The FCC site has links to all sorts of laws, which it is probably safe to assume cover the issues you mention.
Because free markets do not necessarily serve the public interest, which is blindingly obvious to anyone paying attention to the continuously declining quality of mass media news coverage in the USA.
I think that this is more of an attempt to get the horse back in the barn, which should be interesting, conisdering how prevalent the massive media conglomerates are, at least in the USA.
This being Wikipedia, where they are by definition the same.
It would be interesting to try that study with a commercial entity.
With this your first post in almost two years, maybe you should consider selling it? Last I checked the auction was at $306.
... between charitable donations and housecleaning. But who am I to judge, I cross it every spring when I leave my trash^H^H^H^H^H donations at the Sally Ann box up at the mall.
According to the website, they're "made in the USA for superior quality".
I concede that MS is not the laughingstock that it once was, but they are a ways from the respect that some of their competitors of similar scale (cough*IBM*cough) have long since earned. Eliminating the repeat vulnerabilities such as the recent ANI vuln might be a good place to start.
Oh sure, like you young'ns are geeks with yer "Internets" and yer "GUIs" and yer "hard drives"! All MY ones and zeros were painstakingly crafted in the old world tradition!
And that's the way it was and we LIKED it!
Transformers? Flibble-dee-flee!
Is there any other kind?
As yet, we have nothing but speculation as to them long term negative effects of global climate change
OK, but there are varying degrees to which speculation has value. For example, it has been widely speculated that global climate change will cause changes in weather patterns. Some like to say that this is uniformly a Bad Thing, but there could be bad effects (more hurricanes) and good effects (more rain in the Sahara) and in the end, it really is just speculation where weather is concerned. Weather is very hard to predict.
On the other hand, some negative effects of global climate change are so readily inferred that they have real predictive value. If the earth's global average temperature rises, so will ocean levels, due to polar icemelt. If you live in the Maldives, it is obvious that this will occur and that this is unequivocally a Bad Thing. It's specious reasoning and poor public policy to dismiss this as mere speculation.
And, from a political perspective, the dynamic of the climate change debate has been that scientists have steadily converged on a consensus view for many years, and this view has typically been backed up by scientific research (which is almost always inferential in part but is generally thought to have greater predictive value than mere speculation), but so-called positive effects (or blanket dismissals of negative effects) tend to be driven by the concerns of affected industries and presented as press releases. This tends to lend weight to the previous poster's comments on disingenuousness.
They keep saying that because Microsoft keeps babbling that because it's a closed platform, you for some reason can't install applications on it, which is 1) wrong and 2) silly.
Hm, you'd think those pricey analysts would factor the high cost of the device into their cogent analyses.
Then again, the likes of Gartner don't want their corporate customers to be thinking too much about value for cost.
It doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the company in this case, but it's an interesting related issue.
Thank you. If I was more articulate, this is what I would have said.
I was wondering whether this also was a standard practice for more dangerous medical inventions, such as pharmaceuticals, and whether the problem is really with 'excessive paperwork' costs, or with liability for product failure.
One wonders what other such testing is 'outsourced'...
Geez, that's what I get for sticking my nose in.
I've read the whole thread. You said Had you said "speciesist" or some such, maybe I'd have listened.. And, you said, But when people are so intellectually lazy that they group every bit of so-called discrimination they see into racism, I engage in my own bit of laziness and refuse to keep reading. So it all boils down to the definition of the word racism, unless there is a secret magical hidden meaning to your words that escapes us all, in whcih case perhaps you should explain it.
He said, Racism doesn't have to be contained within a single species, even using a biological definition. Why? Because species are contained within a nested taxonomy, and so any subordinating division can be used to describe such prejudice. Human belief in superiority to plants is kingdomist, but it's also speciesist and racist and everything all the way up from there because there are no HORIZONTAL bounds in the taxonomy. . And he backed it up with dictionary definitions, which you have not provided despite some big talk about the OED earlier.
He also said "Your objection is noted, but it's absurd and immaterial." which I think sums things up nicely.
You are pwned.
Dude, you are a train wreck. He just explained why he does discern the difference between "race" and "species". He just explained why his use of the word "race is not erroneous and produced dictionary definitions to back it up. He just explained why it makes rhetorical sense to use the word the way he did. You've got nothing. Give it up.