"Stop whining about paying this portion of your taxes. Instead revel in the good you do for the kids and the community. Feel GOOD about it, as you well should. And then ask what more we can do."
"but there never any ISP who has done that before and its unknown if they would do that"
That particular line of satire originated from a graphic that displayed the WWW as if it were a cable TV channel subscription pricing card. See the second image here:
Yeah. As long as we keep re-litigating and voting on gay rights, abortion, and trickle down, we can't get any other issues on the national docket.
When do we get to vote on issues like: - 4th Amendment - Privacy - Intellectual Property
No candidate ever needs to take a stand on these issues because they're overshadowed by the rerun issues, or worse, "email!". As long as the people don't vote on these issues, the "machine of gov't, both D and R" will keep taking it in the direction it chooses.
No. It's the education. There is negligible resource scarcity in the USA, and in fact, your argument is provably false because the Americans with the fewest resources procreate more than average.
In fact,
- Educated women have income, options, other things to do. They don't see endless child-rearing as their entire life's calling.
- Educated women also don't worry about starving in retirement, so don't need many children to assure they have support. Instead, they can earn money and invest it!
- Uneducated women/men are often in poor countries with high mortality rates. The only way to assure a couple of children in her old age is to bear 6+ children. This is a strong motivator. Educated women buy healthcare, and expect their 1.9 kids to outlive them.
- Uneducated women/nen are encouraged to have more children by tribal leaders, in order to increase the strength of the tribe. This does not really apply to educated women.
It seems unlikely, but you appear to have not interacted with many educated women. You should also visit some countries where women's progress is withheld, and listen to women there.
I know this requires seeing things as a community, not as a selfish actor, but consider:
We in a town, state, our country, make up a community of people. We ALL mutually and EACH individually benefit from a stable, productive, healthy, and educated community. Separating out education, it benefits ALL of us because:
- educated people make better employees for people who want to grow a business - educated people make better co-workers - education wildly increases productivity of the individual - educated people tend to have fewer children - educated people vote better in a democracy - educated people commit fewer violent crimes
So, education is offered by government, NOT to educate MY kids with MY taxes, quid pro quo, but rather because it is a smart investment for the community to educate ALL its children.
It's very fair. Stop whining and pay.
PS: I also pay taxes for lots of services I will never use. That's the nature of working as a community, not an individual. I never drove on Hamilton Ave. in my town, should I go to my Mayor and as for that portion of my taxes back?
IF - automation is transferring income from Labor (L) to Capital (K), as robots take the jobs of L
THEN - The income is already in the process being redistributed from the workers to the wealthy. Finland is merely seeking to stop the redistribution.
SO - Taxing K income at a reasonable rate is where the money comes from, and then distributing it as basic income.
Many on the right like to act like any income received without having to work for the income will result in lazy people just slacking around. They act like our American system would crumble if people got paid but didn't work. I dunno. Maybe. Let's watch Finland.
Yet those same on the right don't seem to have a problem with wealthy people with capital earning money on their investments without working for it. They have no problem with inheritances so some families never have to work, but just reap dividends from their K.
We've already got people who make money without doing work for it. Why no anger at this group? Why is it only the worker who is scorned when they get a work-free income?
Roger's argument seems entirely serious and credible. It's not good, but it is entirely plausible, and is the direction we are heading.
"Not serious" would be ignoring this trend, and not trying to mitigate it - as most politicians do. It's more popular to say, "We're great, and we'll all be wealthy." than to be more realistic.
"Following this logic, the family could sue the manufacturer of the vehicle that hit theirs, claiming it didn't do enough to prevent drivers from operating the vehicle unsafely."
Following this logic, the family could sue a completely unrelated car company, like Skoda. It is clear that Skoda did not do enough to prevent this accident. They did nothing! Negligence!
That news is absolutely NOT, fake, and I bet even you will agree with me in a minute.
1 - Do you agree that scientists and climatologists with degrees, pedigree, and working for real research institutions and universities are studying climate?
2 - Do you agree that these climatologists are producing lengthy, detailed research reports with data that support some conclusion, whether they are telling the truth, or even if they are lying?
3 - Do you agree that some substantial portion of the have concluded in their research that climate change is real and caused by human activity?
4 - Do you agree that those researchers publish their work, and seek publicity, interest, and newsworthiness in their findings?
OK, so, now, if a news reporter reports on this research stating what the researcher's credentials are, and summarizing the findings, is the news fake? No. The news is real. It is truthfully reporting the findings of the research of an accredited climate scientist.
You may think the scientist is lying, but the news isn't.
Oh, and you're wrong. I hope a climate scientist shows up at your job and tells you you suck at it and you're lying. The kind of conspiracy you guys propose exists is impossible to set up, and even less possible to conceal. Climate scientists are smart, educated people. They don't need to work/study climate change. If it were fake, they would not NEED to fake it to have a job. They would easily find some other job in the sciences. These are curious people that follow their interests. None of them want to waste their short career/life working on something fake.
"You have declared in your infinite wisdom that Snopes is a true beacon of light in a dark world."
While Thad did say that at first, that is NOT what he is arguing with you at all. He appears to be entirely willing to consider ANY EVIDENCE you provide to the contrary.
His argument IS that without any citation or example, we can discount your claim.
Thad also clarified for you how your citation of "look it up on Google" is worthless, as Google is not a source.
You have written NOTHING to refute Thad. You just got angry and told him he's the problem, and a "keyboard warrior". (Which sounds super cool.)
Listen, you don't have to spend your time arguing here. You don't have to give Thad the proof he wants. But if you're going to stick around and argue, then you should do so in earnest.
So, we already have independent third party nationally recognized and trusted testing Laboratories like UL. UL provides a certification for thousands of consumer electronics devices, to assure the customer that they won't shatter, catch fire, explode, short-circuit your home, emit too much RF, and a variety of other risks.
Many of the IoT products we're talking about here (in these DDOS bot nets) already have UL certification. So UL (or other certification labs) should add a test of whether a product meets some basic Internet security standards, and just make that part of their certification.
In fact, it's kinda lame on them if they don't do that already.
"the brand's dedication to consumers and innovation" IS the brand.
The actual motives and strategies, of course, are the same as any other telco: maximize shareholder value, and test the limits of the existing laws to do so, and push for more preferable legislation.
Scorpion and the frog. Scorpion gonna be scorpion.
Normally, the wireless telcos would pursue and sue the asses off of anyone who transmitted in their licensed frequencies. It is illegal for others to broadcast on these channels:
So, why is there no involvement from the Telcos here? The Law Enforcement agencies are setting up a man-in-the-middle attack in their networks, they are transmitting on their frequencies, they are degrading the quality of the cellular service.
Why no outcry from carriers? Something's going on there.
Karl, you wrote "But then again, many websites aren't giving up on comments because it's really all that hard to save them, they're giving up because it's just easier and cheaper to ignore these users completely, "
Isn't it also true that many websites are killing comments sections because they don't want to bother or are afraid of legal actions, law enforcement inquiries, and brand damage of being viewed as "responsible" for all the content on their site, even if it was posted by third parties?
I know Techdirt often talks about Section 230 protection, but most people have never heard of it. It is not all-powerful, and it doesn't stop lawsuits and attacks, even if they can be won using Section 230. An easier solution for websites is just to kill the conversation.
It's chicken shit, and as you wrote, it sends all the community, and thus all the valuable business to Facebook. And then the news companies complain about how Facebook is making more money than them.
It won't happen, but Section 230 needs to be its own separate law. It needs to be publicized and well-known. It might even rise to the importance of meriting a slot in the constitution. Otherwise, conversations will be killed for expedience.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
Baron. I know you are right here, but consider that:
"I heard an interesting interview..."
is not you citing the most reliable source.
I'm sure the AC you are arguing with also "Heard it on the TV" that "fake news" is a liberal conspiracy to silence the truth tellers.
To the AC, "fake news" is not just anything libs don't like. It is stuff like "Obamacare to instate death panels" or "Assange feared dead" or "FBI agent in Weiner emails found dead" and other shit that is patently false, but is clickbait paydirt that is gobbled up and shared by twice as many on the right as the left.
So don't tell those on the left that we're reactionary scaredy cats. At least we have a tendency to react to actual, y'know, stuff. Not that Techdirt is left. I am.
BTW, this takes us to what T-Mo does with BingeOn.
Instead of trying to further compress MP4 files, which I indicated was nigh impossible, T-Mo instead does something that CAN be done: reduce the screen resolution.
So if a vid is being asked for in 1080p, and sent in 1080P, BingeOn transcodes it as a man-in-the-middle, and sends a reduced 480P file. THAT can be much smaller.
On the post: Finland Will Give 2000 Unemployed People $590 Every Month, No Strings Attached, Even After They Get A Job
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Stop whining about paying this portion of your taxes. Instead revel in the good you do for the kids and the community. Feel GOOD about it, as you well should. And then ask what more we can do."
On the post: Net Neutrality Hating, SOPA-Loving Marsha Blackburn Pegged To Chair Key Technology & Telecom Subcommittee
Re: Re: The FUTURE of the Trump Intarwebs !!!
That particular line of satire originated from a graphic that displayed the WWW as if it were a cable TV channel subscription pricing card. See the second image here:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/08/holy-shnikeys-espn-contributes-6-to.html
The ISPs ARE the cable companies. They HAVE done that before. And ISPs like AOL have done it before. And Telcos like France's Minitel system.
On the post: The FBI Is Apparently Paying Geek Squad Members To Dig Around In Computers For Evidence Of Criminal Activity
Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI in the Obama era
When do we get to vote on issues like:
- 4th Amendment
- Privacy
- Intellectual Property
No candidate ever needs to take a stand on these issues because they're overshadowed by the rerun issues, or worse, "email!". As long as the people don't vote on these issues, the "machine of gov't, both D and R" will keep taking it in the direction it chooses.
On the post: Finland Will Give 2000 Unemployed People $590 Every Month, No Strings Attached, Even After They Get A Job
Re: Re: Re:
In fact,
- Educated women have income, options, other things to do. They don't see endless child-rearing as their entire life's calling.
- Educated women also don't worry about starving in retirement, so don't need many children to assure they have support. Instead, they can earn money and invest it!
- Uneducated women/men are often in poor countries with high mortality rates. The only way to assure a couple of children in her old age is to bear 6+ children. This is a strong motivator. Educated women buy healthcare, and expect their 1.9 kids to outlive them.
- Uneducated women/nen are encouraged to have more children by tribal leaders, in order to increase the strength of the tribe. This does not really apply to educated women.
It seems unlikely, but you appear to have not interacted with many educated women. You should also visit some countries where women's progress is withheld, and listen to women there.
On the post: Finland Will Give 2000 Unemployed People $590 Every Month, No Strings Attached, Even After They Get A Job
Re: Re: Re:
We in a town, state, our country, make up a community of people. We ALL mutually and EACH individually benefit from a stable, productive, healthy, and educated community. Separating out education, it benefits ALL of us because:
- educated people make better employees for people who want to grow a business
- educated people make better co-workers
- education wildly increases productivity of the individual
- educated people tend to have fewer children
- educated people vote better in a democracy
- educated people commit fewer violent crimes
So, education is offered by government, NOT to educate MY kids with MY taxes, quid pro quo, but rather because it is a smart investment for the community to educate ALL its children.
It's very fair. Stop whining and pay.
PS: I also pay taxes for lots of services I will never use. That's the nature of working as a community, not an individual. I never drove on Hamilton Ave. in my town, should I go to my Mayor and as for that portion of my taxes back?
On the post: Finland Will Give 2000 Unemployed People $590 Every Month, No Strings Attached, Even After They Get A Job
Re: Re: Re: Who pays for a universal income?
IF - automation is transferring income from Labor (L) to Capital (K), as robots take the jobs of L
THEN - The income is already in the process being redistributed from the workers to the wealthy. Finland is merely seeking to stop the redistribution.
SO - Taxing K income at a reasonable rate is where the money comes from, and then distributing it as basic income.
Many on the right like to act like any income received without having to work for the income will result in lazy people just slacking around. They act like our American system would crumble if people got paid but didn't work. I dunno. Maybe. Let's watch Finland.
Yet those same on the right don't seem to have a problem with wealthy people with capital earning money on their investments without working for it. They have no problem with inheritances so some families never have to work, but just reap dividends from their K.
We've already got people who make money without doing work for it. Why no anger at this group? Why is it only the worker who is scorned when they get a work-free income?
On the post: Finland Will Give 2000 Unemployed People $590 Every Month, No Strings Attached, Even After They Get A Job
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show me the money
It's not good, but it is entirely plausible, and is the direction we are heading.
"Not serious" would be ignoring this trend, and not trying to mitigate it - as most politicians do. It's more popular to say, "We're great, and we'll all be wealthy." than to be more realistic.
On the post: Victims Of Car Crash Sue Apple For Not Preventing Distracted Driver From Hitting Their Vehicle
Why Stop There?
Following this logic, the family could sue a completely unrelated car company, like Skoda. It is clear that Skoda did not do enough to prevent this accident. They did nothing! Negligence!
On the post: Facebook Announces Its Pilot Plans To 'Deal' With Fake News -- Not With Censorship, But With More Info
Re: Global Warming
That news is absolutely NOT, fake, and I bet even you will agree with me in a minute.
1 - Do you agree that scientists and climatologists with degrees, pedigree, and working for real research institutions and universities are studying climate?
2 - Do you agree that these climatologists are producing lengthy, detailed research reports with data that support some conclusion, whether they are telling the truth, or even if they are lying?
3 - Do you agree that some substantial portion of the have concluded in their research that climate change is real and caused by human activity?
4 - Do you agree that those researchers publish their work, and seek publicity, interest, and newsworthiness in their findings?
OK, so, now, if a news reporter reports on this research stating what the researcher's credentials are, and summarizing the findings, is the news fake? No. The news is real. It is truthfully reporting the findings of the research of an accredited climate scientist.
You may think the scientist is lying, but the news isn't.
Oh, and you're wrong. I hope a climate scientist shows up at your job and tells you you suck at it and you're lying. The kind of conspiracy you guys propose exists is impossible to set up, and even less possible to conceal. Climate scientists are smart, educated people. They don't need to work/study climate change. If it were fake, they would not NEED to fake it to have a job. They would easily find some other job in the sciences. These are curious people that follow their interests. None of them want to waste their short career/life working on something fake.
On the post: Facebook Announces Its Pilot Plans To 'Deal' With Fake News -- Not With Censorship, But With More Info
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You have declared in your infinite wisdom that Snopes is a true beacon of light in a dark world."
While Thad did say that at first, that is NOT what he is arguing with you at all. He appears to be entirely willing to consider ANY EVIDENCE you provide to the contrary.
His argument IS that without any citation or example, we can discount your claim.
Thad also clarified for you how your citation of "look it up on Google" is worthless, as Google is not a source.
You have written NOTHING to refute Thad. You just got angry and told him he's the problem, and a "keyboard warrior". (Which sounds super cool.)
Listen, you don't have to spend your time arguing here. You don't have to give Thad the proof he wants. But if you're going to stick around and argue, then you should do so in earnest.
On the post: Iowa Taxpayers Handing Out $60K Settlement To California Gamblers Who Were Legally Robbed Of $100K By State Troopers
P P P Poker Face P P Poker Face - I love it
It'd be like the Obi Wan Landspeeder pull-over stop.
On the post: The FCC Suggests Some Wishy Washy, Highly Unlikely Solutions To The Poorly-Secured Internet Of Things
Seems to Me Something The Free Market May Solve
So, we already have independent third party nationally recognized and trusted testing Laboratories like UL. UL provides a certification for thousands of consumer electronics devices, to assure the customer that they won't shatter, catch fire, explode, short-circuit your home, emit too much RF, and a variety of other risks.
Many of the IoT products we're talking about here (in these DDOS bot nets) already have UL certification. So
UL (or other certification labs) should add a test of whether a product meets some basic Internet security standards, and just make that part of their certification.
In fact, it's kinda lame on them if they don't do that already.
On the post: FBI Investigates Journalist For An Obvious Joke Tweet, Because What The Hell Is Wrong With The FBI?
Re: Re: Poe's Law
Is that ironic, or not?
On the post: FBI Investigates Journalist For An Obvious Joke Tweet, Because What The Hell Is Wrong With The FBI?
Poe's Law
A decent portion of the right wing's red meat was written by people of another ideology trying to satirize them...but it only stoked the fire.
On the post: T-Mobile Applauds Likely Death Of Net Neutrality Under Trump
The Brand is The Brand
The actual motives and strategies, of course, are the same as any other telco: maximize shareholder value, and test the limits of the existing laws to do so, and push for more preferable legislation.
Scorpion and the frog. Scorpion gonna be scorpion.
On the post: AT&T Just Showed Us What The Death Of Net Neutrality Is Going To Look Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
T-mo doesn't actually do the transcode, they trigger it from the BingeOn content provider.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Use Of Stingray Devices Probably OK
Re: It is always being operated illegally
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipment-against-law
https://www.te chdirt.com/articles/20051219/158257.shtml
So, why is there no involvement from the Telcos here? The Law Enforcement agencies are setting up a man-in-the-middle attack in their networks, they are transmitting on their frequencies, they are degrading the quality of the cellular service.
Why no outcry from carriers? Something's going on there.
On the post: The Globe And Mail Tries Something Revolutionary: Actually Giving A Damn About User Comments & Conversation
Chilling FX?
"But then again, many websites aren't giving up on comments because it's really all that hard to save them, they're giving up because it's just easier and cheaper to ignore these users completely, "
Isn't it also true that many websites are killing comments sections because they don't want to bother or are afraid of legal actions, law enforcement inquiries, and brand damage of being viewed as "responsible" for all the content on their site, even if it was posted by third parties?
I know Techdirt often talks about Section 230 protection, but most people have never heard of it. It is not all-powerful, and it doesn't stop lawsuits and attacks, even if they can be won using Section 230. An easier solution for websites is just to kill the conversation.
It's chicken shit, and as you wrote, it sends all the community, and thus all the valuable business to Facebook. And then the news companies complain about how Facebook is making more money than them.
It won't happen, but Section 230 needs to be its own separate law. It needs to be publicized and well-known. It might even rise to the importance of meriting a slot in the constitution. Otherwise, conversations will be killed for expedience.
On the post: Ahead Of President Trump, The Web's One And Only Backup Wants To Make A Backup Of Itself (In Canada)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
"I heard an interesting interview..."
is not you citing the most reliable source.
I'm sure the AC you are arguing with also "Heard it on the TV" that "fake news" is a liberal conspiracy to silence the truth tellers.
To the AC, "fake news" is not just anything libs don't like. It is stuff like "Obamacare to instate death panels" or "Assange feared dead" or "FBI agent in Weiner emails found dead" and other shit that is patently false, but is clickbait paydirt that is gobbled up and shared by twice as many on the right as the left.
And here's data and examples on which side is most gullible:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis?utm_term=.owGVEB1dW#.odb rQEv5x
So don't tell those on the left that we're reactionary scaredy cats. At least we have a tendency to react to actual, y'know, stuff. Not that Techdirt is left. I am.
On the post: AT&T Just Showed Us What The Death Of Net Neutrality Is Going To Look Like
Re: Re:
Instead of trying to further compress MP4 files, which I indicated was nigh impossible, T-Mo instead does something that CAN be done: reduce the screen resolution.
So if a vid is being asked for in 1080p, and sent in 1080P, BingeOn transcodes it as a man-in-the-middle, and sends a reduced 480P file. THAT can be much smaller.
Next >>