In case any readers are unclear as to the concept, due to unique geography I get my internet from Verizon wireless. That costs $10/1 GB. Do your own math (hint: it's cheaper to buy DVDs of new movies than to stream them).
Chaffetz is from Utah and a ridiculously high percentage of SS and FBI agents are Mormons. Something happened ten years ago and I suspect we still don't know what that was about other than it was about a lot more than what we're reading.
What THIS is about is Chaffetz leaking this story all over the Beltway to bolster his credentials for a leadership role in the new, even more radicalized Republican Congress.
Chaffetz is playing the media like a violin. Techdirt should cover him very cautiously.
Does the author have any clue why scientists are trying to modify rice? Why the tip on how to reduce the calories in rice? Yes, as a fat American I know that trick, but the scientists are trying to trick MORE calories out of rice, not less.
What a stunning disconnect to go from feeding people to tips on how to get less food value from your food.
but in no way was Nancy Pelosi trying to stop fast track. Naked Capitalism has written about this at length. Pelosi pushed so hard for this her own allies in the Democratic Caucus called her out last night.
Anything you read crediting Pelosi with stopping this is based on her flacks' false account. Pelosi and Obama lost today, and the Democratic party regained a smidgeon of their lost honor.
There is a weirdly effective guerrilla marketing scam the right uses. They see where the counterculture is making inroads, note how that information is being distributed, and then they start coming up with "stings" like this one that make you doubt the good information.
This chocolate study may have been about how easily duped we are, but it's getting wide distribution because it makes people doubt the alternative health information out there. I saw this article in real time and dismissed it because it was so obviously indebted to wishful thinking.
Voluminous amounts of new information about diet are coming out. Much better documented and not fad dieting oriented. Simply put, we've been propagandized into ruining our diets. Why? Because you can make more money from processed foods. But hey, there was a phony story about chocolate, so you'd be stupid to read any of that stuff, which is why you're going to continue to read about this study for a long, long time.
I hate 1st Amendment debates because everything is so black and white, but I live in a very gray world.
I don't have much faith in our Constitution anymore. Words can be used as weapons, and there is a gray area where our Constitution permits those with loud voices to brutalize those without power. Our courts refuse to see the connection between the words and the violence, but clearly some of those words lead to some of that violence.
You can use words to promote revolution without anyone being harmed, but a skilled hatemonger can use words to promote philosophies that result in attacks on whichever "other" is being scapegoated.
But maybe this is really just a debate about how selectively we interpret our laws. A SCOTUS worthy of the name would see that Geller's speech shouldn't be protected. Such a ruling would be of great comfort to me because I live in a violent country where haters constantly urge us on to new wars and more punitive law enforcement.
I do appreciate this site's optimism and belief in our Constitution, but increasingly I think that's a Norman Rockwell picture of an America that doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did.
The passages you selected show that Cullin honored Doyle by taking a passage and improving on it in ways Doyle could not have. Doyle's Holmes sounds like a manipulative cult leader, whereas Cullin's take pays tribute to the detective as psychologist.
I do not care for a 1st Amendment that only kicks in when death is mentioned.
So you support a broad reading of the first amendment that protects you in a wide variety of circumstances? I am failing to see how that helps your arguement.
-- Not worded well. I meant that the 1st Amendment only kicks into "hey, that's not what the Founders meant" mode when death is mentioned.
The exceptions for commercial speech are clear. And when you're on the receiving end of it (and as a white male Boomer I rarely am), hate speech is a lot more obvious than this site seems to think. I'm not talking nuances, I'm talking Ms. Wu's death threats sitting on an FBI desk gathering dust. Hate speech/gamergate/Pam Geller — there are a lot of people working to necessitate a clarification of the 1st Amendment.
I'll just say this once and will leave it at that since I mostly agree with you, but truly as one who has followed this issue closely, it is troubling that those who discount "hate" speech are, to the very best of my knowledge, all of European descent and not a member of a discriminated against group.
Especially with the internet, you have a very distinct and ugly school of online bullying that is quite obviously used against women, people of color and other minorities. I do not care for a 1st Amendment that only kicks in when death is mentioned.
Frontier is not more hated than Comcast is that Comcast has far more customers.
In Wisconsin where I live Frontier is worse than a joke. Basic phone service runs about $60 a month. You can go without features, but they will — one way or another — trick your landline bill into being $60 a month. DSL is imaginary and any google search for Frontier and DSL will find tons of angry missives from customers of this alleged service.
They do not upgrade phone lines and the entire company is an invisibly owned Ponzi scheme. Apparently control of the company keeps getting sold to new investors who loot and then move on.
If you follow the news at all, you will be amazed how frequently his cartoons are based on his misunderstandings of actual news. Glenn McCoy is still the worst, but both rely on ridicule and mockery much more than anything vaguely construable as humor. Both love to "punch down."
I understand and respect that many in the tech community love being independent contracts, and financially flourish under those rules. They are the exception. In virtually every other field I worked with, independent contractors were little more than abused and underpaid employees.
Nearly ALL workers benefit from the legal protections afforded employees, but not independent contractors. From newspaper carriers to pizza delivery folks, indie contractors get the short end of the stick while being held to the same standards as employees without the benefits.
It's deeply offensive they have not withdrawn their allegation and publicly apologized. Nakamoto may not have the law on his side, but with crowdfunding he could embarrass Newsweek and I suspect that's his intent.
The less the American media bothers to investigate and report real scandals, the harder they should be slapped for sloppy work that serves no point other than to serve up some mild titillation to their geekier readers.
Salaries are kept confidential for the worst of reasons, and almost always hide unequal pay and disproportionate bonuses. I've written over 7,000 resumes for clients. Never has one told me of a good job review that helped them improve their work, but countless clients told me of being unfairly set up for being fired after getting a bad review that came out of nowhere.
Nothing beats transparency, and no workplace ever suffered from hands-on management and supervisors who worked with their employees to assure top quality. You should never need a performance review to know what your boss thinks of your work.