Comment Re:White balance and contrast in camera. (Score 1) 420
i suspect a fair bit is related to the color temp setting of their monitors as well.
i suspect a fair bit is related to the color temp setting of their monitors as well.
i noticed that.
plus, half or more of the account settings seem to be missing.
Is this the "beta" I've been hearing about?
Not a fan, I must say.
I wanted to update my signature today, and under this new layout I can't seem to find it at all.
So.....pointing out that NN is the status quo...and that the GOP tried to co-opt the term...is now flamebait?
Stupid mods.
Because slant determines the veracity of facts....
Look, it's a very simple concept.
A said X.
X is easily verifiable.
X is determined to be false.
When B (liberal) or C (conservative) reports it is irrelevant.
X doesn't become more true or more false based on who reports it.
Also note that the ACLU in fact DOES and HAS stood up for the 2nd Amendment, which is also alluded to in their position paper.
So while they believe it to be a group or societal right rather than an individual one, they also oppose efforts to create gun owners registry. And they have worked with the NRA to prevent such a registry from being created. And they've fought cases where police have used the presence of a gun to wrongly establish probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment.
So there. You're slightly less stupid now.
(example case: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...)
No, actually I'm well aware of the 2nd Amendment, its court history, and the ACLUs stance, unlike you. Note that it took until 2008 for the SCOTUS to rule as it did, and that decision was contrary to existing precedent, and required the most ideological conservative court since the Hughes Court that battled FDR every step of the way through the New Deal.
The ACLUs position is here: https://www.aclu.org/racial-ju...
It states:
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
Note that it doesnt say "there is no right to bear arms", nor does it say "we opposed the 2nd amendment". Ergo, the ACLU doesn't oppose the 2nd Amendment. They just disagree with your chosen interpretation of it, which is not the same thing.
Which is what I said the first time.
So the ignorant one is you, and apparently you are incapable of logic as well.
And you also apparently dont know what flamebait is, as I must assume you are the cowardly mod (or even a sock pupper for ganjadude) who decided logic and reasoning were "flamebait" because you didnt like them.
(also i find it amusing that you assume I even agree them, rather than am simply pointing out and correcting your ignorance of the topic and your faulty logic)
it only doesn't make sense because you don't know the first thing about labor history in this country, and that is evident from every word you've ever posted on this topic.
you don't know the first thing about unions beyond the BS you've been spoonfed and taught to regurgitate.
but hey, at least youre consistent.
actually no that doesn't automatically follow. but thanks for playing.
the simple fact of the matter is that EVERYONE is underpaid.
that doesn't mean you should begrudge the dockworker a decent living simply because "they're uneducated box pushers".
rather, the key to boosting everyones' pay to where it should be is to start raising wages.
the economy can handle it easily.
The simple fact of the matter is that is wages had kept pace with productivity the current median wage would be ~140k/yr, and not the current anemic ~50k/yr.
All the extra revenue from that increased productivity has been going to the executives, the CEOs, the 0.1%, since the mid 70s. Ever since they first started weakening the unions, spreading the myth of "trickle down economics", and generally f---ing over the middle class who built this country and its economy. God forbid the people who actually generate that revenue, who actually caused the growth in the economy, share in the fruits of their labor.
Oh looks its mi back to provide more lies, while backing his arguments with links to sites that actually disprove everything he says.
Mi, the gentleman who declares "I'm not a bigot, I love (insert random slur here)."
Seriously though. Yet again, from your links:
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
Let us remember that the FCC exists because "the spectrum" is seen and treated under law as a public resource owned by the nation's citizens. So the FCC was
created to administer it (in lieu of created the Federal Minitry of Truth you mention and worry about) in a collaboration between government (and the public's) interests in having the spectrum used in the publics benefit, and private interests in making money while doing so. A middle ground, a middle way, between government provided (and potentially abused) content, and private use (and potential abuse) of the spectrum. A compromise.
That's background. Onto the Fairness Doctrine:
No part of the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with determining "what content is fair".. So right off the bat you're spouting BS. Rather, it simply requires that broadcasters talk about "things in the public interest", which essentially means news. Like right now, there is a major trade deal going down, the TPP, that not one news channel is talking about. OR during and after citizens united, they rarely talk about the money in politics. Such ignoring of important issues would be a valid basis for a complaint to the FCC. And complimentary to the first part of the rule, when discussing or presenting these "things in the public interest", the presentation couldn't be one sided. IE, no Fox News. This so far is logical, straightforward, and completely reasonable.
But lets dig further. More from your link:
In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission stated that the Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had "voluntarily" complied with the "spirit" of the doctrine.
So it was never actually enforced. Broadcasters, chiefly the big 3 until the advent of cable, implemented a similar policy internally and voluntarily.
I could point out your stupidity and ignorance on these topics all day long, but I'm running out of time and need to cut the history and facts lesson short. But the history even gets more interesting: when the FCC revoked the doctrine, there was significant opposition to it. They feared one sided mouth pieces for companies, politicians, or other special interests. A de-evolution of political discourse fed by the chief mechanic people rely on to be informed. Any of that sound familiar, like a news channel or two you know about? Hmmm?
In short: go away you ill informed troll.
Silicon Valley not only backs it, they created it.
The father of the internet supports it.
It's nothing secret, its simply the codification of the current status quo.
As for "what Comcast might do"
"This whole thing" (your post) is a pile of BS written by an ignorant, incompetent shill trying to lie for the telcos.
how many sock puppets does this ignorant shill have?
so then you're opposed to the internet as it stands right now?
you oppose the preservation of the status quo in lieu of ISP's being able to block services they don't want you do have?
Say being blocked from Amazon Prime and forced into Verizon Prime?
Or Comcast redirecting Netflix users to Hulu?
Or otherwise turning internet delivery into a fancier cable channel, with certain websites available in certain tiers of service?
You're a shill.
Or a liar.
Or just ignorant.
But likely all 3.
Net neutrality is the basis of the internet as we know it: ISPs provide access to the entire internet, not just the parts they want us to see.
If you like the internet as it stands, then you like NN. \
It's that f!@#()% simple.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
