You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#41 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 395 weeks ago
I'm still trying to formulate an opinion, and all the doom and gloom pretending the FCC saved the internet under Obama isn't helping. There was no "net neutrality" (which I've found is really a buzzword and has no actual definition) prior to 2015 and the internet was just fine. Like I said, Canada lacks a net neutrality law, and they don't have any issues. Same with the Netherlands.
The Netherlands was the first European country to enact a net neutrality law. It's only recently that this legislation has been challenged due to a new EU directive that might prohibit The Netherlands from enforcing some of the stricter parts of their legislation. But in practice, today, The Netherlands still has Net Neutrality legislation.
Capitalism and competition is what forced Verizon and AT&T to start offering unlimited data plans at a fair rate in order to compete with Sprint and T-Mobile.
Yes. But unfortunately, there is no real competition in fixed broadband internet in the US. You typically only have one cable provider and one dominant DSL provider per area, making it so the forces of capitalism can't really work as they should. That's why in the US, you pay nearly twice as much for broadband internet service than in most of Europe.
I think I'm in favor of net neutrality, but the scare tactics and nonsense populating the dialogue turns me off. I'd much rather see the feds break up the major ISPs and treat the cable lines like we do the electric and water companies.
That's effectively what the FCC did under Tom Wheeler: regulate internet as a Title II communications service. It's not entirely the same as regulating it as a utility, but it's the closest thing that was feasible back then. Now, even title II seems a pipe dream.
Net neutrality is needed because there is just not enough competition, and the cost of entry for new players is staggeringly high (prohibitively so), and often hampered by building permits, zoning regulations and other publicly managed resources. There's just no real chance for new competitors to come up and disrupt things.
Net Neutrality legislation has become a necessity due to the recent consolidation in the industry (comcast/time warner/cox, at&t/directv, ...). There are other ways to achieve similar results, but net neutrality is a simple principle: just like PG&E does not get to charge different rates depending on what you do with your electricity, your internet provider should not charge you depending on what you do with your bytes. You pay for throughput and volume, not the contents of your internet packets.
#42 Re: Guns N' Roses » LEAKS THREAD » 397 weeks ago
gunsnfnroses claims they have atlas shruuged, the general, and today they claim silkworms. how do you prove them wrong? when they're not sharing what they have either but sharing just with themselves by PM only. how do you prove it wrong? as for walker, who else has silkworms on internet? you know something about silkworms we don't know? which gunsnfnroses knows about silkworms? why gunsnfnroses has silkworms? what information do you know about silkworms?
That's not how it works, we don't have to prove them wrong, they claim to have something but as long as they don't prove it (prove! not just claim) it's obviously bullshit.
#43 Re: Guns N' Roses » guns n roses record label situation » 400 weeks ago
I still think if they want to capture the best sound of Guns N’ Fuckin Roses, they need Mike Clink. Each album with him captured them perfectly, and got better with each release. TSI, though not many like the album, the band sound absolutely killer. Drums are punchy and in your face, Slash’s guitars are clear, sharp and fat with killer tone, Duff’s bass melodies shine through, and Axl’s voice is the crown on top of it all.
I see no other producer capturing pure GNR other than Mike Clink.
Yes, absolutely. The mid-90's Mike Clink stuff sounds absolutely amazing, the production on IFOCS is one of my go-to examples when discussing the topic with other recording enthusiasts.
#44 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 402 weeks ago
Again, don't make up arguments or assumptions for me to fit your narrative. I believe in solar and renewable energies.
I know you do, which is why I made the analogy. You wouldn't argue for subsidizing coal miners, so why would you argue for sinking tax payer money in technological abominations like the F-35? The subsidization of the military industrial complex in the US is one of the best examples of out-of-control socialism: inefficient, sub-par work done by government funded organizations for the sake of job creation over creativity and efficiency...
Sure, lot's of innovations have come from military spending, doesn't mean it's the only way forward, and that certainly doesn't mean the US military spending budget is reasonable.
But anyway, we're veering horribly off-topic. The question at hand is why do a significant portion of Americans spend so much time idolizing and glorifying guns?
#45 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 402 weeks ago
The factories that build the equipment and parts for those military projects are littered throughout the country. It matters to the economy. More infrastructure creates more jobs. We start cutting military spending significantly it will create more unemployment.
So... because a given industry could suffer, you should just carry on as-is? There's no way to replace those jobs? The only thing American workers are good at is building equipment and parts for military projects?
You probably think the government should subsidize coal miners too, right?
#46 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 402 weeks ago
our constitution is the most revered legal document in the world.
This made me chuckle... Stop acting like the US constitution is some sort of Magna Carta. It's a 230 year old document that was designed to be just vague enough to get everyone on board, filled with ambiguity to hide the underlying disagreements the founding fathers had about the necessity of even having such a document, let alone its contents.
It's a fucking legal document, context is important and that context has changed significantly over the past centuries. You're delusional if you really believe that it is a perfect document that has absolutely no room for improvement.
There’s no way you’re getting 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the states to ratify an abolishment of the 2nd amendment.
Yeah, it's hard, so why even bother trying, right? We should only aspire things that are easy to achieve, anything else is just... what... not worth the effort?
Look, Smoking Guns is dead-on with his assessment, and it is fucking awe inspiring to see the zeal in his posts. The problem is the gun fetish, the problem is the fact that owning a gun is considered normal or even necessary, the problem is that murder weapons are normalized in your country. Of course banning guns isn't going to magically make them inaccessible to criminals, but it will get them out of the collective minds of normal people so that when you see someone carrying a gun you don't just shrug your shoulders and think "eh... probably just another gun toting, goat fucking redneck", you see it for what it is: a human being that feels the need to express his disdain for human life in public AND A POTENTIAL THREAT TO YOUR LIFE. You know... "see something, say something", not "see something, say something except when it's a goatee sporting nitwit in cargo shorts with a semi-automatic weapon slung around his neck"
Banning guns makes it harder for those who have acquired one illegally to carry it from one place to another, it makes it easier to spot criminals with guns, it makes it SO MUCH HARDER to smuggle a metric shit-ton of them into a fucking hotel room looking over one of the most iconic tourist attractions in the world.
Isn't it obvious to you that if there are no exceptions to the rule, it is much more straightforward to enforce it?
"What? ay'm just a-protectin' muh freedoms, man!"
#47 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 403 weeks ago
I am not rich and never will be, but I have never liked the idea of the "estate tax".
That money has already been taxed. Why should the government get their hands on the money due to death?
I actually think an estate tax is a great idea. The purpose of taxation can be twofold: to fund the governments coffers for community benefitting projects that would otherwise go unfunded (like national defence, healthcare, ...), AND (often overlooked) stimulate the regulated free market. Money that is locked up in an estate is not moving hands, not participating in the economy, and therefor useless for the market. Forcing that money into the economy by making it less profitable to just let it pass on from parent to heir is hugely beneficial. It can then be used for actual investments into new ideas, projects, jobs, ...
Not to mention the fact that it at least somewhat keeps insane amounts of wealth from ending up in some loser kid's hands without them having to work for it. Nothing worse than a rich guy that hasn't earned his own wealth.
#48 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 410 weeks ago
The question you need to ask is would you rather 3 million Koreans die to prevent 300k Americans from dying. It's not even a debate for me.
Can you explain why you feel that the lives of Americans are worth at least 10 times more than the lives of Koreans?
#49 Re: Guns N' Roses » European Tour 2017 Thread » 414 weeks ago
Is saw them here in Belgium a couple of weeks ago. It was fun seeing Axl, Slash and Duff together for the first time, but the show was decidedly mediocre and I felt apathetic to most of it. Axl was pitchy and decidedly "clean" sounding for most of it, no power in his voice, and Slash was sloppy and boring in his solo spots. There was just no magic there, and the band didn't seem to be enjoying it any more than I was.
I think the story of this band has mostly been told and we're in the boring ending chapters that just keep on dragging out (kinda like the third LoTR movie). And though that story started out fresh; full of venom, anger and artistic enthusiasm; it just kinda fizzled out in the end.
#50 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 414 weeks ago
What crime? He was told someone had info, he took a meeting. Allegedly, no information was shared. So even using the weak interpretation of campaign contributions, (does paying a British spy to get Russian intelligence fall under your legal understanding) no contribution was given.
He was told a foreign national had info that would've been illegal for him to obtain from a foreign national and he still accepted the meeting in order to obtain that information. Let the alleged fact that he did not receive any information not get in the way of the very real fact that he has confirmed, in writing, that he was going into that meeting with the very specific intention of committing the crime of receiving information from a foreign national.
