Is there a Grendel in this saga?
1610 posts • joined 28 Oct 2009
Is there a Grendel in this saga?
Net Neutrality is indeed all about control, and the proof is that the Great Manipulator Obama pushed so hard for it, and finally just had it proclaimed AS law, instead of trying to make it law the proper way thru legislation.
> "People see Trump doing something racist / sexist / homophobic..."
Correction, YOU see it. I imagine you see a lot of things that aren't there, such as intelligent Democrats who actually believe Hillary was framed.
Personally I'd love to have the superpower to change reality into exactly what I perceive it to be, but alas, reality doesn't care what I think.
Okay, so that gets Trump more coverage at Comcast and subs. Is that really enough to make a difference? , What caused the other corporate news orgs to act the same way? Are they all in collusion? Did the US Media really get Trump elected just to kill Net Neutrality? Wow.
"The rest of what you said isn't worth my time arguing with..."
Not even your confusion about the difference between between laws and regulations? Or is that the "pedantry" one? Do you really think laws and regulations are more or less the same?
I really think you should reconsider that belief. Knowing how things differ is a critical skill to have when commenting on politics. ;-/
I guess all those emails showing collusion between the NYT "journalists" and the Democrat Party mean nothing to you? And what about those wildly inaccurate election polls they put out (along with the rest of the lefty press)? Did Breitbart do that? Any of that? Not that I've seen. Instead they stand up for what they believe is right, and proclaim it proudly. Half the country agrees with Breitbart, but not the NYT.
So maybe the corporate media does claim Breitbart is twelve kinds of nasty, but those damning words are coming from a set of hacks who no longer own any clothes.
> "Net Neutrality was in trouble, and the laws now in progress were hard fought for (as per the article) so that everyone is equal on the internet, and a low cost startup could compete with massive companies (which could afford higher carrier costs)"
History, history. Olius, I remember Net Neutrality being a controversial idea, not an existing thing that needed saving. That's history.
> "Laws now in progress"
Huh? These are not laws, they are regulations handed down from a bunch of Bureaucrats with orders that they be obeyed by all the people. I do agree that they were hard fought-for; plenty of high dollar lobbying went on for sure. But that does not confer legitimacy upon them.
And your assertion that this is all about equality can be strongly argued against. I won't attempt to declare a stance here, but I look at who was pushing this thing (Obama, et al), and since I object to most of his many many executive orders I have to assume these regulations exist for the same ideological reasons, and they are therefore suspect.
> "Unless, of course, you don't like 'net neutrality' ?"
What if I don't? Does that make me "bad?" Is it forbidden to oppose something labeled "neutral?" Is that all it takes in your world to shut down opposition?
Dude, the NYT has been revealed as a non-credible source, totally in the tank for the Democrats. Don't bring that drivel in here.
You may think that, but it's due to your conditioning. You see an article peppered with nasty little smears about Trump and to you they look like simple truth, because that's what you've been told they are. Others know better and are not at all pleased to see such baseless bias creeping into the Reg articles, so we complain.
You want an example? Let's look at the first paragraph:
"Supporters of net neutrality are preparing to defend FCC regulations passed two years ago in the face of what is increasingly looking like a determined effort by the Trump Administration to undermine them."
I don't recall those regulations having "passed" anything. Obama's cronies just rammed them down America's throat by fiat. Then Trump's presumed policy of removing this sweeping 'regulation from on high' is cast as "undermining," a term describing a destructive act. That sort of language is pure bias, and people who think so have every right to oppose it without being told they are being unreasonable.
The secret is there are no secrets.
"Chinese regulators, which will check the code and schematics for security holes."
Which security? Theirs or ours?
I'd guess it's because the match releases some sulphur compound and that neutralizes our olfactory bulbs.
If I were McD's CEO I would go on Twitter, In Full Trump Mode, and announce that I feel real bad that the Inventor of the Big Mac was never properly rewarded by past CEOs. I would then mention I'm sending his heirs a cool million bucks just to say a belated "thanks." It would stimulate interest in this iconic semi-edible and no doubt boost sales profits enough to cover the million, at least.
And I get to look like a cool dude just for picking up a phone.
"When these kinds of gagging orders have become public in the past, hordes of keyboard warriors have nuked the businesses' ratings to zero."
And the business climate was becoming such that many had to do this stuff to try to stay competitive. This legislation means that no business can do it, so none of them are ground-up in the web's ever-hungry maw. And meanwhile the consumer/raters are safe.
Odd, but this sounds almost reasonable. We are talking about the US Congress, right?
"Come to the UK and say that to my face."
If I did, would you then set about me to prove Murcans are inherently violent?
"All the world over that is what we see of America."
No. What you see of America is what the utterly corrupt leftist press wants you to believe, just like they wanted everyone to believe Hillary could not lose. The truth is that if you take away the inner city black on black violence (due to the corrosive Democrat control of those cities), America has a violent crime rate similar to Europe. So I respectfully request that you shove it.
"...here in the U.S. it probably would have gone down that way."
I'm here in the US too, and I say YOU are probably wrong. Your turn.
Right on. Then the corps just pass the taxes thru to their customers invisibly and no one ever seems to realize how far over they are being bent by Big Daddy Government. Why, it's the evil corporations that are paying for everything, don't you know...
I think they're planning on screwing a huge eyebolt into it about halfway up and using the local fleet of tugboats to yank the building perpendicular. Personally I think they ought to let the public join in. Y'know, college sculling teams, swimmers, jet skiers, garbage scows. It would be a real party!
I can just see the come-on: "Peepuls! Drag yer azzes down to the waterfront on Saturday and help make San Francisco straight again! If we all pull together we'll really pull together!"
There is no need. Just re-number the floors and call the old ground floor the "super-basement."
> "...compressed shoes."
If that were the building's sole support, I bet it would heel over in no time flat. Probably the city would have to foot the cleanup bill too...
"Anyway, nice strawman you made there."
Okay, you got me. I DID realize you really meant that the SF bedrock was inaccessible and not absent, true enough. But after your unprovoked personal insult against me I felt it was legit to rub your shiny little nose in that categorically absolute (and laughably incorrect) statement of yours.
You got a problem with that, or only with people from SoCal, fule?
In future, when trying to tear down others to get your jollies you really ought not spout inanities. It leaves you wide open. I can't be blamed for walking thru a door you conveniently blew off the hinges, can I?
> "There is no bedrock in the San Francisco bay area."
Say, since you're so "over-edumucated," would you like to buy a nice bridge in Frisco? Guaranteed to be free of that pesky bedrock!
Seriously MNGrrrl, who told you there is no bedrock under SF? There is, you know. Might be too deep to build on but it's there. It's everywhere if you go down far enough, and the earthquakes don't care if the sediments are really thick (by our tiny standards). Also I never mentioned anything about engineering, but you pretended I did so you could attempt to denigrate my intelligence. Do you feel really smart when you do that? I bet you do.
There seems to be a lot of ignorance here about the effects of different terrains on earthquake damage. The fact is that a thick layer of soil (or landfill) between bedrock and the buildings does not "cushion" the waves, it amplifies them.
Generally structures sitting directly on bedrock do much better than those on fill or soil. Damp soil is the worst because of liquefaction, something less likely in this case due to that dewatering thing.
I only know about this stuff because of where I was raised: Southern California. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on there...
I stand corrected. Let's just say I find the current wave of criticism toward Trump to be rather excessive, considering he's only just won the election. Propriety demands that people wait at least until inauguration day before jumping down his throat.
Or is that not a thing anymore? And don't we already know all his negatives, thanks to the late race? I get the impression that those who don't like him are determined not to allow Trump even one second's grace. Is he so very evil then? Have we descended to the point where the opposition is not even allowed basic humanity?
I don't remember that happening to this extent when Obama was elected. Perhaps some would have liked to do that, but the Media were too busy swooning at his feet to report anything at all negative either before or after Obama took the oath. Or any time since then, to be honest.
But listen to many of them now and you start suspecting Trump has cloven hooves and the stench of sulphur about him. I don't see that the difference in tone has any foundation in reality, but only in partisanship. And sore-loser partisanship at that.
You wound me. I have never been a big supporter of Trump. I've even made fun of his (alleged) hair on several occasions. My only goal in commenting so strongly is to act as a counterbalance to people like you who trash him at every opportunity. Someone has to do it, or innocents visiting El Reg will get the impression that the tech community are all Hillary ring-kissers.
Trees hanging from fannies?
So are most abstract paintings and a lot of the other kind too. Yet some of those alleged works of art sell for millions.
Amazon reports that the item sold out in hours. Speculators, probably.
Funny tho, at Trump Tower they can't keep the real hats in stock either. In fact the crowds of yokels pressing forward to buy Trump are so bothersome that other nearby businesses (like Tiffany's) are allegedly complaining a bit. I seriously doubt they are too upset tho, at huge crowds of out-of-towners surging past their doors.
"I get average 20th century Republican $437.4M, average 20th century Democrat: $45.7M. "
So, you lump in the 21st century presidents (to get your desired result), but you state the sample is the "20th century," twice!
Too bad you fooked it up royally, FK. All you had to say was "...including Trump" but I guess that would have given it away?
How many past presidents were elected as a billionaire (or equivalent)? Let me just wiki that...
Well, it appears that Trump is far and away the wealthiest person ever elected prexy. That speaks against theories he's susceptible to money corruption; He's not, unless he's stupid as a box of rocks.
What I find interesting on that page is how wealthy the 20th century Democrats were. Republicans were mostly paupers by comparison.
> "But then again, being a Drumpf supporter, you obviously don't perform any critical thinking, or research for yourself."
And yet you yourself insist on changing someone's actual name, the better to (supposedly) ridicule him.
Or am I thinking too critically now?
PS - I admit I did not see the Bootnotes label, my bad. So it's perfectly legit to mindlessly bash Trump in that section I suppose.
It is. The photo was taken from the back.
I'm sorry, but I can't take your word for it that Trump will be corrupt as Prexy. You will have to have some shred of evidence first. After all, he's NOT a Democrat.
Hey, maybe Don has a fabulous side we don't know about.
It is a bit unsettling that Don wants to keep making money legally, rather than just stealing it like the other politicians.
Not a tech angle in it, but it does at least gratuitously bash Trump.
Slow day at the Reg I guess.
> "Actually, it does because the Dems can't claim any moral high ground."
That never stopped them before!
No, we're headed out of an eight year recession. The one that got Obama elected and somehow never went away. Funny about that.
Take heart. Trump has stated that his daily hour of hair care will no longer be possible as Prexy, so he's letting it return to normal.
What normal is, I could not say.
Who made it NASA's job to promote the AGW swindle anyway? Damn straight Trump needs to put a stop to that and get them back to what they exist to do, specifically extend our reach into space.
As for NASA somehow managing to be efficient at it, good luck. No govt. entity has ever been able to compete with private enterprise for long. They don't seem to feel the need to do so, for some reason.
The liberal/left is the beneficiary of peace in Europe, not the cause.
My favorite is "shift-end".
An adjective? Then.. would the proper usage be like "Post-truth truth?"
I think alt-right won't have legs, since the US media seems to be going towards a new label for their opposition, which is most of the U.S. BTW. It's "White Nationalist." The term combines patriotism with an implied charge of racism, but without using the over-applied "R" word. Neat, eh? Almost as good as the term "White Hispanic" used against George Zimmerman in order to deprive him of minority status.
Once the media became corporatized it lost all respect for the very things that were its stock in trade: words.
"If there is such a thing as Post-Truth, then surly it follows there must be Pre-Truth."
Well, yeah. Where do you think Truth comes from? (and don't call me surly)
If you ever find the truth, post it.
> "...it was Trump himself who reneged on his own promise to release his tax returns."
I hadn't realized that a politician's offhand promise to a TV interviewer more than a year ago constitutes a morally binding pact with the public at large.
This changes everything! Every single time one of them fails to keep even the slightest promise made to anyone, we can bust them! Oh wait, we do that already, and they keep doing it anyway. Oh well, back to bashing Trump exclusively...