It's odd that I never heard a conservative conspiracy theory that liberals planted Donald in order to destroy the republicans from within. He's a billionaire from NYC who was a democrat most of his life and clearly laughs at the family values conservatives claim to hold.

That it would have been a huge backfire on democrats simply makes it more believable.

Also worth noting that Obama nominated Wheeler as chairman, who really looked like he was going to overturn net neutrality until he didn't after a backlash.

While it would be idiotic beyond even american conservative capability to suggest that this is because of Obama, he should have done a lot more to protect the internet.

JFC. Generations of Americans who are still breathing helped fight off Nazis AND the Japanese empire simultaneously, won voting rights, landed on the moon, held off nuclear Armageddon, and invented the internet, all of which is harder than establishing reasonable regulations on the internet.

Two days ago, ALABAMA voted in a pro-choice democrat.

You're suggesting we can't stand against a bunch of douche-bag MBAs, corrupt politicians, and lobbyists? Go fuck a rusty railroad spike, you dumb coward. This is fucking easy. You don't need to elect perfect saints in order to make progress on net neutrality or legal bribery, just vote for people who talk about those issues specifically rather than bleat about the bible or terrorism and this solves itself.

If you can't bring yourself to do that, move to another shit-hole country or commit suicide so you're not dead weight in the next census and aren't wasting resources.

Somehow, even with recent national events, I'm still surprised at conservative's ability to blame everything bad on Obama and democrats.

I probably shouldn't be angry that net neutrality is going away, I should really just be surprised it managed to last this long if nerds on slashdot are unable to work out how we got here.

Me too. But convenience is not the issue. The issue is journals are being fed tax dollars through subscription fees through universities, are also being fed tax dollars through publicly funded science submitted to them, are also being fed tax dollars in the form of publicly-funded researchers who volunteer to write and review the papers and serve as editors, and also are being fed tax dollars in fees paid to publish your article in those journals.

It's one of the most bizarre economic arrangements. The consumers and suppliers are the same people, in both roles they compete for the journals rather than vice versa, in both roles they pay.

To top it off, with the internet, there's not even the necessary costs of printing.

The major costs of science publishers seems to be:
- Advertising
- Staff to handle taking the papers and giving it to volunteer reviewers, and entry-level copy-editors
- Lobbyists to keep the gravy train rolling

Without advertising, journal prestige wouldn't change, but that's utterly unimportant to anyone besides editors at D-list journals. Staffing is required, but not the millions being given to journals now.

I think him joking about it signals something even worse. Two possibilities 1: He's drinking his own koolaid and genuinely believes at this point Comcast's interests are the interests of the nation and the notion that he could be wrong about this is funny because it's so alien. This type of religious belief in the corporate masters is as dangerous as any other religion running government. Or 2: He is so sold out that he has no decency or shame about the crime he's committing. He's aware that the climate of the Trump administration is so brazenly corrupt that this is acceptable behavior now.

Doesn't change the current question of "is he biased" or "Is he working for the best interest of the consumer." That's obvious. The problem though is the forces that led him to this action, the GOPs religious belief in the gospel of deregulation, and/or blatant corruption, those forces are still at work across all government levels.

Republican too. "Data" is sinful and gets in the way of truthiness.

Yes, for instance: innocent men are being slandered by evil femnazis. That's spreading like wildfire here.

Men aren't always being painted as guilty. AC was whining about why this issue wasn't going away: I'm suggesting it's because it's not a lie he wishes it was. The comparison is fair.

You're objecting to both sensitivity training seminars AND to calling out known harassers. I agree with you on the first one, you can't train someone to not be a sleazeball. But the second one?

What solutions DO you propose if not shaming predators who are caught? Prayer?

How many self-declared male allies have turned out to be serial rapists? It seems like you're pretending the effect is the cause: you don't like "Social justice warriors" so you're constructing a narrative here.

You didn't mention anything that sounds like a reason to be defensive. Don't harass or assault women and don't be sexist if you're worried. It's that fucking simple.

No one thought Obama should be king. If anyone hated Obama as much as the GOP, it was all the liberals he let down by being centrist and tepid.

We approved of things like executive orders or FCC making rules because the action, not the actor, were right.

Additionally, we didn't invent them specifically for Obama. Yes, we may have been fans of the DACA executive order, but if we had screamed bloody murder about it, executive orders would still be there for Trump to abuse.

Finally, if you think net neutrality would be safe had Obama insisted that the republican controlled congress set the rules, I have high speed internet to sell you.

I didn't see anything in your post resembling evidence or logic as to why sexism in tech isn't an issue, just pure anger. That's actually not very convincing. So maybe it keeps coming up because it's true.

"Why do all these articles about 'Smoking is bad' keep popping up as if smoking does in fact give you cancer?! I'm sick of it" - tobacco executives in the 80's

JFC, way to make it about your fragile ego rather than anything productive.

Maybe this type of response is why it keeps coming up. Every time someone points out the problem, people like you take it as a personal attack. What is it you're afraid of here exactly? Some woman is going to point at you personally and say "YOU DID IT! SHAME!"?

If you want the topic to stop coming up, hire more women. If you just want to be outraged that progressives are talking, do that. If you're actually convinced it's not a problem, be convincing rather than foaming at the mouth. If you feel upset at the vague implication that men aren't collectively blameless here, grow a fucking ballsack and do something about it or shut the fuck up.

Which explains why in Japan, there have been automated coffee shops on most street corners for decades.

They're called "vending machines."

The coffee in a can is equivalent to starbucks, except cheaper and in a lot more locations.

Why the fuck don't we have that here already?

The summary to me read "Increases demand, increases demand, increases demand" and ended with either a stupid joke or disingenuous propaganda

I doubt many people take away that the important bit here is there will maybe somehow be more need for coffee artists. The interesting part is that demand goes up from robots.

A more interesting, accurate conclusion would be "Evidently, people DON'T get coffee at Starbucks or food at McDonald's to talk to employees! WE ACTUALLY ALL HATE INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE IN THAT CONTEXT! WHO KNEW BESIDES EVERY SANE HUMAN BEING!?!"

It's comparable to the numbers lost per month during the recession. So I'd say it's reasonably significant. I personally started a new job in November so maybe I'm biased.