If you thought corporations played a big role in your life already, just wait until tomorrow when the FCC gives up on trying to find a way to enforce equal access to broadband and finally kills net neutrality.
What does this mean? It means that the companies with more money and more bankrolling (and a better way to bribe services like Comcast) will have more broadband, while other, smaller companies that haven’t curried favor with their corporate overlords are going to be left with the table scraps. ISPs cannot legally slow traffic on purpose, but when you have a two tier system and the corporate approach to ethics (that is, “catch me doing something wrong, I dare you”), how do you tell the difference between slow and “slow?”
Sounds like a very decent and honest fellow. The way people gang up on and try to destroy good people is just terrible. It is much better to keep your family intact and live off the land than spend your life on welfare.
Disqus can be a wild, ridiculous place to get your socks off:
(i have redacted the names because it’s mostly irrelevant - what is relevant is the thinking behind these comments - the ‘wingnut’ comments are bold , the last comment is the one that finally sent her packing. I did not take part in this debate - just watched with popcorn from the sidelines)
Yeah , it’s a crying shame he can mooch off federal land then cry like a baby to Fox when it’s time to pay the piper .
Here’s an idea , BUY land for your cattle to graze on .
Case closed .
Your feds should return the 83% of Nevada that they own to the state.
The state never was in possession of that land, and the federal govt. owes absolutely none of it to Nevada which need I remind you never would have existed without the federal United States. There is nothing to return.
My focus is on what is right and wrong. The people of Nevada should decide what is done with the land within their border. Good to know the feds likely do not see it that way. Going forward it is necessary for people to know the federal gov is not of the people. It is of itself.
My focus is the same. I am stating unequivocally it is wrong to unlawfully annex someone else’s land. If Nevada wants it, they can buy it. I have much greater allegiance to the United States than any corrupt, ineffectual, lesser state govt.
Fine. So be honest and say the federal government is an occupying force. It owns all the land and only government lovers can use it. Just do not be surprised if there is an insurrection.
Bundy is permitted to use the land and has for decades now. He just refuses to pay for it.
Good luck with that .
We’ll send flowers to your funeral .
That is , if there’s anything left to bury .
Federal lands are OUR lands .
We the people .
Too bad they don’t hang people for sedition anymore .
How is the land owed to Nevada exactly?
All land within Nevada’s borders are Nevada land. Kind of simple.
I think Nevada should be given back to the original owners before it was stolen by White folk.
The next logical progression goes one step beyond rings and glasses to implanted microchips and processors. It seems like a page out of a sci-fi novel right now, and most consumers aren’t quite ready for that level of invasiveness. However, as wearable technologies go from convenient to bulky, and users become thirsty for even tinier tech, what we now consider science fiction will become reality.
It’s not his birthday or the anniversary of his death, however, it is just another in a long litany of days where another rightwing hero gets caught in a racist dash to the bottom. And surely he would be smiling today:
It’s one thing to attempt to defend a racist, entirely another to do so in a Freudian slip that suggests you do not understand what “nuance” and “context” mean.
And just for added irony - here is Thomas Jefferson:
‘Bigotry is the disease of ignorance’
This starts with a couple of examples of her pop culture mashup/remixes, both of which I found piteously boring (yep, there’s me being an art critic without the attitude, paying my dues, or any training…) if you want to skip past that to the actual discussion, move the slider to ~ 14 minutes in.
With the democratization of content creation came the democratization of the overzealous copyright claim. Do private agreements between copyright holders and hosting platforms such as YouTube’s Content ID system compromise artist’s fair use rights?
In this open discussion Elisa Kreisinger — Brooklyn-based video artist and artist-in-residence at Public Knowledge — invites artists, users, and lawyers to share their copyright experiences with hosting platforms, and debate the future of distributing digital arts works online.
More information on this event here: cyber.law.harvard.edu
An attractive couple strolls along the banks of the river Seine in Paris holding hands, stopping to kiss in the evening sun.
They take in a movie, laugh, dine al fresco, go home, make passionate love and next morning they get engaged underneath the Eiffel Tower.
They marry six months later and within three years they have two children, a house, car and dog. Nice story, isn’t it?
The couple I’ve been describing are two men. Two friends of mine.
For some people, that story suddenly switched from being nice to something sinister or uncomfortable. But it’s still the same story.
In London, gay couples hold hands and sometimes kiss while walking around town.
Ask yourself, what’s your reaction to that? Are you excited? Fine.
Are you amused? Fine.
Are you offended? If, so, ask yourself why.
What about two men making love? Are you disgusted, by the idea? If so, why?
Is it the anatomy?
Morgan Freeman recently re-tweeted the quote: “I hate the word homophobia. You’re not scared. You’re an asshole.”
Racism has retreated to the point where the US President is black. One day the US president will be gay.
I like to imagine (and sure, accuse me of stereotyping) that when that day comes the world will become a more peaceful place, with less nuclear bombs and global warming and just about the same amount of gay sex.
Who’s afraid of a little ‘Vagina on’ vagina Woolf…?
More at Gawker
Some audio at Dropbox
More “racesplaining” from Bundy in a separate interview with Peter Schiff
I wonder how long the wingnuts are seriously going to stand with this guy, but I suppose they all still love that Duck Dynasty guy. I haven’t seen the same hubbub on Facebook about Bundy that I saw about Phil Robertson, but I don’t think Bundy poses himself as a “Christian” in quite the same way.
The Ugandan police of Inspector General’s Office, Kampala, report alleges that the U.S.-Backed HIV Center Was “collecting sperm in masturbation rooms.” The official report on an April 3 police raid also says the clinic maintained rooms for “practicing” homosexuality as part of the center’s “homosexual recruitment project”.
OLOGDEE obtained a copy of the Police Report which is below, which alleges that the Walter Reed project was “recruiting” youth aged 15 - 25 and “training them in homosexual practices.” I am wondering what this means? Does this mean that if one cannot instruct youth or men on condom use? And less so if a youth or man declares he is into sex with men? For fear of being accused of “training in homosexual practices?”
The report speaks for itself - and seems rather vague. These alleged actions are described in a way the denies the nature of the research which could easily be misconstrued into actions that would seem illegal under Uganda’s ill defined Anti-Homosexuality Act.
The shape of our backs keeps us balanced when we walk on two legs, but it comes at a cost. Anatomist Bruce Latimer shows how our transition to being exclusively bipedal has led to many common back ailments.
YOUR INNER FISH airs Wednesdays, April 9-23, 2014, 10/9c as part of PBS’ THINK WEDNESDAY.