Comment Re:There might be hope for a decent adaptation (Score 2) 331
"Wannabe" is also a negative term that connotes one lacks the ability. It sounds pretty contemptuous! Maybe not what you meant, but that's how I interpreted it as well.
"Wannabe" is also a negative term that connotes one lacks the ability. It sounds pretty contemptuous! Maybe not what you meant, but that's how I interpreted it as well.
No question that the EFF is happy overall (after all, they've been fighting for net neutrality for years). (And see my other posts on this article if you care about what else I've said.)
What I'm objecting to--or at least curious about--is why so many posts here are so rabidly partisan and specifically attacking Fox News. I must have missed the memo that Fox News was responsible for anyone and everyone who objects to the FCC's net neutrality rules. Even the EFF objects to parts of the rules and has complained about the FCC's lack of transparency. Are they too just lackeys of Fox News for uncritically objecting to the FCC's rules?
However, overall they, like what the FCC is proposing.
No question that the EFF likes net neutrality overall. Over the last decade I have probably flip-flopped about a dozen times on the issue. I loathe greater regulatory loads, but I also loathe many of the ISPs and their practices. Ultimately, I am not happy that the FCC can force through these rules (though I think many aspects of the rules are positive). I believe that any rules that affect such a large portion of the economy (and so many people and companies) should be passed as laws by elected officials.
To say that such concerns constitute "serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules" is hyperbolic.
The FCC's net neutrality rules cover a vast regulatory area, that's not in any question. From the link I posted, the EFF's letter stated:
But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
I don't think that my saying the EFF has "serious issues" is hyperbolic when the EFF's wording was "deeply concerned."
Furthermore, if you read the ex parte letter [eff.org] linked, the EFF actually suggests additional regulation by considering what unbundling rules "might be appropriate for the 21st century, in a separate proceeding." If the EFF is so concerned about the "vast extent" of these new rules, why would they also be asking for additional rules?
That, I think (IMHO), is the EFF's mistake. They are looking at the net neutrality rules in purely utilitarian fashion. That's certainly a valid approach and effective, at least in the short term. The EFF often fights against too much law (even stating here that "[w]e strongly believe that the Commission should...engage in light-touch regulation"), while here they are asking for more law and regulatory agency. I think this is a bit myopic on their part, and I hope they do not end up fighting tougher battles against government regulation of the Internet in the future.
It's a lot easier to fight against a corporation than it is against the government (though good luck either way).
If you want nutbags, you can find them on either side. The second I see the name "Koch brothers" or "Soros" my eyes glaze over. What I fail to understand is why so many people hide behind their partisan beliefs and pretend that when they disagree with other people, the other people are automatically liars, being manipulated, morally bad, etc.
Whatever happened to just disagreeing with somebody?
If you honestly don't believe that the EFF objects to the general conduct rule, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I suspect you're being disingenuous, however.
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.
Snippets:
Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.
You're either with us or against us, right?
I'm a bit curious why the leftist talking points right now seem to solely be focusing on Fox News. Even the EFF had serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules, see, e.g.:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?
Disregarding your rant against Fox News, the EFF had some serious objections too:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?
Would be breeding a better bee. One that is more resistant to mites, insecticides, wax moths, etc., and that isn't so susceptible to CCD.
Lots of people are working on this. One example is the Minnesota Hygienic Bee.
Ironically, one such effort might be responsible for the introduction of the Varroa destructor mite to the West. Brother Adam was a very famous beekeeper living in England who tried to breed an improved bee--the so-called Buckfast bee--by crossing many types of honeybees that were imported from around the world--Italians, Germans, Asian bees, and even some African species. His goals were to breed a better bee after the Isle of Wight disease pretty much destroyed all native English bees.
The ironic part is that the Varroa destructor mite (of Asian origin) was first discovered in England not far from Buckfast abbey, and it's believed that it was probably brought to England as part of one of Brother Adam's shipments.
Nicely said!
One year vaper, previously 20 year smoker. I've had the medical labs done to show how much damage was undone in just one year.
At 41, I can run farther and faster, keep up with young folk better than most of my non-smoker friends of the same age. 3 years ago this was not the case.
Ironically, Verizon sold off their North Carolina services to a Connecticut based company (Frontier).
I think some forget, or never knew, that his first book was published 1996. This guy is not a fast writer.
That's not quite backed up by history. He was pretty darn fast for the first three books, but then it all kind of fell apart. Personally I would say that the first three are very equivalent in terms of quality and I (again, IMHO) continue to enjoy them over several rereads. I have not had any inclination to reread Feast or Dance, though I've had other people tell me that reading them back-to-back was more fulfilling than with a six year gap! My introduction to the series was through the Daenerys chapters from AGOT published as a Novella in Asimov's. I've been reading the other books as soon as they came out, so my perspective is perhaps different from someone who got their first read through in in larger chunks.
Book 1 (AGOT) -- 1996
Book 2 (ACOS) -- 1998 (2 yr)
Book 3 (ASOS) -- 2000 (2 yr)
Book 4 (AFFC) -- 2005 (5 yr)
Book 5 (ADWD) -- 2011 (6yr)
Book 6 (TWOW) -- ?? (at least 5yr)
I definitely agree that he's killed off most of his interesting and fun characters, introduced a bunch of boring plotlines ("I am Darkstar--and I am of the night--and I'm mysterious and cool!"), and written himself into an awkward place!
It's been years since I read the entire Dune series as a teenager (I've subsequently reread the first several times), but I remember enjoying God Emperor more than any book other than Dune. I can't say I remember much about it, but given your post, I'm inclined to go back and reread the rest.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.