So… greedy companies “might” restrict us from things, or they “might”
prioritize content delivery to the highest payer.
in the sense that they are (to also use stupid quotes) "already" doing "just that"
Further:
One problem with the diagram above is that our homes are not connected to
just one big ISP. The FCC’s own data shows that as of June 2008, 98 percent
of zip codes have at least 2 broadband providers, and 88% of zip codes have
at least 4 broadband providers
oh, wow, two (maybe four) isps! Ignoring, of course, that for most of us there are only two (cable + telephone) and everyone else has to pay to run on those wires. And for many, telephone line delivered internet is very slow, so now we're down to one actual isp.
And comcast costs $65/mo where I live for just internet. And they're looking at neflix and google and all those other internet businesses and chomping at the bit to steal some money from them.
Also, weirdly enough, my internet bill keeps going up but the speed doesn't. Feel the competition!
Not at all. dsl speed strongly varies based on distance from who-knows-what; all I know is that it tops out at 1.5MB/368K where I live in the peninsula (in Belmont, CA -- between the valley and sf for people not from the area).
> FACT: The Net Neutrality cause is a response to a hypothetical problem.
Except, it's out of date as we've had ISPs intentionally manipulating their networks to their own advantage (and more importantly their customers disadvantage) for at least a year. Even when this article was written, overzealous throttling of select services was/is common. (Youtube in particular)
The condescending tone of the article is pretty entertaining given the level of ignorance he willfully displayed even then.
Except for the whole part where what he decries as non-existent (ISPs slowing down traffic for non-payers) which thus does not need regulating is happening right now.
The FDA’s letter to 23andMe calls “particularly concerning” the information the tests would provide about the gene linked to breast cancer (BRCA) “because of the potential health consequences that could result from false positive or false negative assessments.”
According to 23andMe's site:
"You should not change your health behaviors solely on the basis of information from 23andMe. Make sure to discuss your Genetic Information with a physician or other health care provider before you act upon the Genetic Information resulting from 23andMe Services. For most common diseases, the genes we know about are only responsible for a small fraction of the risk. There may be unknown genes, environmental factors, or lifestyle choices that are far more important predictors. If your data indicate that you are not at elevated genetic risk for a particular disease or condition, you should not feel that you are protected. The opposite is also true; if your data indicate you are at an elevated genetic risk for a particular disease or condition, it does not mean you will definitively develop the disease or condition. In either case, if you have concerns or questions about what you learn through 23andMe, you should contact your physician or other health care provider."
Identifying yourself by your skin color means you perceive the color of your skin to imply something about you.
Anyone who asserts that the color of an individual's skin implies something about that individual is a quintessential racist. It implies nothing about you as an individual. Anyone who says it does (including you), accepts the premises that every racist accepts: that a color somehow defines the identity or nature of that individual.
"Offensively ignorant"
#1) I can't control what offends you, that's your choice. If you are offended, then choose not to be. #2) Ignorance means lack of knowledge or information. What specific information am I lacking in this context?
"I've been around a good long while." Again, no (rational) person in this forum cares how long you've been around. What does that have to do with my argument?
These arguments have been going on for nearly a century, and you're trotting out the same tired old arguments. Either you're trolling me, or are ignorant of the ongoing debates/discussions/history of this issue. That's specifically what I mean when I say you're ignorant. Your words display zero awareness of the larger context.
The "We aren't racist or sexist, we're colour-blind and gender-agnostic, we're a meritocracy, and it just happens to be the case that our country club is full of white people isn't important, and you people are racists/sexists for constantly trying to disrupt our happy existence" is old. If you know that, you need to do more than whip it out, you need to acknowledge the many, many arguments against it and explain why you don't think they apply.
If you don't know that, you are ignorant of the subject matter. If you know it but do not address it, you are trolling. Some people call that being "intellectually dishonest," but I prefer to say trolling.
Of course I identify myself by all of the my characteristics that have a significant contribution to my life's experience. I have size 11 feet, but that has never meant much to me, so I don't think of myself as a "Size 11 Guy." I've been assaulted on the street and called a "Nigger" and "Spook" by strangers, so guess what? My skin colour does contribute to defining my experience.
When you call that racist, you're either ignorantly redefining the word "racist" or trolling me. I prefer to think you're ignorant of the implications. Conflating having a life experience that has been affected by his skin colour with white supremacism and Jim Crow laws is wrong. It's also deeply offensive.
I'm offended. I choose to be offended. I choose to speak out against it. That's not the same thing as being "Jerry Springer" angry with you, or curling up in a fetal ball and sobbing, but it is enough to motivate me to act.
And let me tell you flat out, this "I'm not being offensive, you're just choosing to be offended" argument is nonsense, it's like that Simpson's episode where Bart windmills his arms and says "I'm just windmilling my arms, and walking forward, if you get hit that's your problem."
Do yourself a favour, and remove it from your toolbox of arguments.
The fact that a lineup of white male speakers (because a majority of programmers are male) automatically makes you think that it is an intentional act by the event organizers to discriminate against women/minorities is foolish and offensive. This is similar to I believe a couple summers ago when Square had their summer intern program going, and all of the interns were male (because no females applied) and Jack Dorsey was attacked on Twitter for it. Square did not discriminate against people, but of course people leap to turning these people into the villain instead of thinking that it may be possible that no qualified minorities/women were able to speak at the conference for one reason or another. The organizer of this event is right to ignore this straw-man argument of trying to call him a racist/sexist because he knows that the allegation is ridiculous.
"automatically makes you think that it is an intentional act by the event organizers to discriminate against women/minorities..."
Whoa, nellie!
That isn't the argument, not by a long shot. Let's take race out of this. I organize a tech conference. All the speakers are cyclists. Why? Because I asked everyone I knew personally to speak.
I am not prejudiced against non-cyclists, it just so happens that because I cycle, I know a lot of cyclists socially. There is no malicious intent, but the result is not representative of the world we live in, just of a small pocket of the world.
Furthermore, I have absolutely and positively overlooked speakers like Sandi Metz who are cyclists, but don't ride in Ontario, or Pete Forde, who lives in Toronto but doesn't ride.
Whereas, if I sat down with the plan from the start to canvas the best speakers available, I would have cast a wider net than just my personal friends.
OI have no idea what process those organizers used, but judging by the result, it did not include reaching out to a large number of qualified speakers.
So I raise my hand and ask, "Could this process be improved?" No accusation of deliberate malice or even incompetence, just asking how we can do this better.
"The fact that a lineup of white male speakers (because a majority of programmers are male) automatically makes you think that it is an INTENTIONAL act by the event organizers..."
--
You're missing the point. The concern expressed about the predominantly white-dude lineups at popular conference IS NOT that individual conference organizers are purposefully excluding non-white-dude speakers. The people talking about these issues generally go out of their way to explain the difference between INDIVIDUAL bias and SYSTEMIC bias. The latter is not a matter of a conference organizer saying, "Hey! Let's make sure we don't have black speakers!" Instead, systemic bias is the way the status quo of a particular group or culture leads members to make assumptions or automatic decisions that UNINTENTIONALLY exclude certain people.
Think of a web developer building a new site. All of their friends use iOS, they use iOS, and although they don't have anything against Android, their unexamined default assumptions will steer them towards building the mobile version of the site with iOS in mind. Some Android users might still use it, and even get a lot out of it, but many will also be lost to bad UX collisions, mistaken assumptions about browser feature support, and so on. The result can easily turn into a spiral: Android users don't use our site, so working to support them would just be platform zealotry!
A stretched analogy? Perhaps. But it's an example of how unintentional assumptions can leave important groups of people -- with lots of really valuable stuff to contribute -- out in the cold unless work is done up front. It's not about tokenism, or quotas, or assuming bad faith and evil intentions. It's about keeping our eyes open, and listening when people say we're missing something important.
"Nobody mentions that an economy has a hypothetical failure mode (like the game of Monopoly) where all of the money ends up in one person's hands -- and then trading stops."
I don't think the point is to offer this literally as a likely outcome.
If I interpret the parent correctly, the point is more to argue that there has to exist some level of inequality which even the most hardened libertarian would agree is sufficiently bad for the economy to justify an intervention. Hence reducing it to a question of degrees, a trade-off rather than a pure matter of principle.
"if a town wants to pool their money and pay to build out infrastructure that should be legal"
If people want to pool their own money together, they can. The only thing this bill prevents is the government from forcing an individual to pay for something.
Even if every individual was morally obligated to pay for something that the town wants (which is not the case), providing services is not the proper role of government.
