This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 158159160 161162 ... 306
4771
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:33:59 PM »
StoryFederal regulators have set a new definition for broadband that establishes 25 megabits per second as the baseline for high-speed downloads, up from 4 Mbps previously.
With this standard, the Federal Communications Commission will be able to argue for much stronger action on Internet providers — a point that's rankling Republicans on the commission as the agency moves to promote the adoption of fast, cheap and reliable Internet in America.
It's a simple accounting change that will have major ramifications. As a result of the decision — which also sets the minimum speed for uploads at 3 Mbps — millions of people who subscribe to slower plans will effectively lose their broadband status. Combine those with the substantial share of Americans who have never had broadband, and as many as 17 percent of America, or 55 million people, will lack access to high-speed broadband under the new measure, according to the FCC.
Conservatives are decrying the move as a case of government overreach, calling the 25/3 Mbps standard an "arbitrary" threshold and arguing that most consumers seem to think the old one — 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up — works just fine.
"Seventy-one percent of consumers who can purchase fixed 25 Mbps service — over 70 million households — choose not to," said Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.
For an agency whose mission is to remove barriers to broadband, the FCC is its own worst enemy, Pai added, saying the FCC is intentionally finding that the industry has failed just so that it can "regulate it back to health."
But Democrats on the commission say the new standard establishes a forward-looking, aspirational target. Those who lack access to speeds that are "table stakes" for the rest of the country don't deserve to be left behind, they argue. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler pointed out that subscriptions to 25/3 service have quadrupled in the last three years. And Wheeler said that Internet providers' claims that there isn't enough demand for 25 Mbps broadband isn't borne out by their marketing campaigns, which treat customers like voracious data consumers.
"Someone is telling us one thing and telling consumers another," Wheeler said. "Our challenge is not to hide behind self-serving lobbying statements, but to recognize reality. And our challenge is to help make that reality available to all."
As the FCC prepares to intervene next month against state laws that make it harder for cities to build their own, public alternatives to traditional Internet providers — and as it plans to release its latest draft rules to prevent discrimination against Internet traffic — the standard for broadband will become a key political tool in defending the FCC's actions. So will the underlying law that recognizes the FCC's authority to promote broadband, Section 706 of the Communications Act. A Republican-backed bill in Congress is already seeking to strip the FCC of that power.
4772
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:09:01 PM »
Eh. I stand, but I could care less what it says. Doesn't make me anti-America, just means that I've said it so many times that it's pointless to me.
Oh, are we talking about the actual Pledge?
That's what I presume is meant by "Declaring Allegiance"
4773
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:08:19 PM »
We really need to break Russia up after the eventual conflict.
4774
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:05:50 PM »
Moderate Liberal
I'd have chosen "Dirty Socialist".
But whatever floats your boat >.>
I shower daily.
4775
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:05:30 PM »
declaring allegiance to the United States.
Extremely pointless, to be honest. And again, American Muslims are vastly different from Euro Muslims.
It's less about governmental loyalty and more about the moral and philosophical values which underpin pretty much all Western society.
It's not just Muslims, everybody ought to do it. Especially the government, too.
Eh. I stand, but I could care less what it says. Doesn't make me anti-America, just means that I've said it so many times that it's pointless to me.
4776
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:02:37 PM »
Moderate Liberal
4777
« on: January 29, 2015, 03:01:29 PM »
declaring allegiance to the United States.
Extremely pointless, to be honest. And again, American Muslims are vastly different from Euro Muslims.
4778
« on: January 29, 2015, 02:01:44 PM »
Both of you, watch the personal attacks. >.>
Don't make me fetch a mod.
4779
« on: January 29, 2015, 02:00:50 PM »
have exemptions for religious affiliations to not perform if necessary, while still allowing denominations to perform the marriages if they wish. Wait, does whatever's in the article go further than that?
Spoiler No, I didn't read it.
EDIT: Yes it does, and it's fucking retarded.
That's Oklahoma for you.
4780
« on: January 29, 2015, 02:00:21 PM »
Icy mentioned further regulations
What part of "business leaders fund studies to say climate change doesn't exist in order to push that rhetoric and avoid new regulations" suggested I wanted it?
4781
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:58:24 PM »
Further regulations will kill the economy and force hundreds of thousands of people out of work. And I'm not disagreeing that humans impact the climate, but I don't believe we're the sole cause of it Nobody here is saying that we are the sole cause (Well, Meta might). However, we are a huge cause of it happening so rapidly. Continuing on the path we are on and denying we are the problem is only going to continue to cause harm.
4782
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:55:32 PM »
When that service, from religious churches or not, directly impacts government services on you (Tax returns, ability to adopt a child, spousal rights) - it can be classified as discrimination.
Oh yeah, I completely agree with that. I agree with a State-recognised form of "marriage" which confers all the benefits, but when it comes to spiritual/religious/ceremonial 'consecrations' of marriage then it ought not be coerced.
I'm not aware on laws in all fifty states, but I do believe some, if not many of the states with marriage equality, have exemptions for religious affiliations to not perform if necessary, while still allowing denominations to perform the marriages if they wish. Instead of just doing that, which is extremely reasonable... let's just go off the edge.
4783
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:48:27 PM »
Government should get out of marriage period
Government should work to protect their citizens from blatant discrimination.
If that means they have to give out marriage licenses to couples a church won't wed, or to the non religious, so fucking be it.
Discrimination is being beaten up and called a faggot. A church refusing to perform a service for you is a non-issue when it comes to discrimination.
When that service, from religious churches or not, directly impacts government services on you (Tax returns, ability to adopt a child, spousal rights) - it can be classified as discrimination. You are purposefully exempting a group from the ability to get the license - and therefore, hindering them in all aspects stemming from that license.
4784
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:46:10 PM »
Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?
Ever heard of carbon dioxide and how it's a heat trapping gas? Ever hear about the fact that the majority of our technology emits carbon dioxide?
Seriously, you have to actually wilfully try to deny anthropogenic climate change. Fuck. Turn your fucking brain on.
I'm not denying climate change exists, I'm questioning that history and science has shown multiple times in the past that change in the environment is natural. A study conducted in 2003 showed that temperatures 1000-1100 AD are comparable to the temperatures from 1900-1990. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed
[Citation needed]
I'll be awaiting your pseudo science source.
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007
Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years" (660 KB) , Climate Research, 2003
Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005
Timothy Ball, PhD, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?," www.canadafreepress.com, Feb. 5, 2007
Nicholas Caillon, PhD, and Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, PhD, et al., "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III," Science, Mar. 14, 2003
US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee, "US Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007," epw.senate.go, Dec. 20, 2007
Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007
It took me like 20 minutes to gather everything that was wrong with the sources in your response. I'm not sure how many of these were published in what could be considered a peer-reviewed journal. Consider this post the short response:
Arthur Brouhard "Art" Robinson (born March 24, 1942[1]) is an American biochemist, politician and member of the Republican Party from the U.S. State of Oregon.
For the papers referencing Soon and/or Baliunas, see here.
Moberg Anders is primarily a businessman, so there's obviously a potential conflict of interest.
Timothy Ball was funded by Friends of Science which he founded, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, both of which oppose the idea of climate change.
The paper published by the US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee was written by Jim Inhofe, a notorious climate change denier in the Senate:
Since 2003, when he was first elected Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe has been the foremost Republican promoting arguments for climate change denial in the global warming controversy. He famously said in the Senate that global warming is a hoax, has invited contrarians to testify in Committee hearings, and spread his views both via the Committee website run by Marc Morano, and through his access to conservative media such as Fox News.
The only paper that seemed to have any semblance of validity was Caillon and Severinghaus.
So because a person is a business man and others have a differing opinion, it's automatically wrong?
No - when a person has a certified interest in pushing for denial of human impact in climate change, to avoid further regulations - that is what makes it wrong. Also, the fact that is the only thing you could come up with after Kupo's post, not even defending your sources, is quite laughable.
4785
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:47:42 AM »
Government should get out of marriage period
Government should work to protect their citizens from blatant discrimination. If that means they have to give out marriage licenses to couples a church won't wed, or to the non religious, so fucking be it.
4786
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:38:34 AM »
If I'm cutting something with a knife, left. If I'm just having a salad, right.
4787
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:34:45 AM »
She didn't even critique me, and I love this girl already.
4788
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:12:30 AM »
Why the fuck is gay not an option?
4789
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:10:30 AM »
Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?
Climate change has always happened. The question is whether or not humans have sped up the process.
4790
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:09:15 AM »
I wanna know her stance on marijuana and gay marriage.
She's probably against both, because she's a cunt?
Wow. Professional. She supports SSM and I don't believe has made a recent statement on marijuana.
4791
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:12:49 AM »
Both Grandparents on my Dad's side of the family.
4792
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:11:03 AM »
I don't have pants on.
4793
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:29:04 PM »
Didn't they do this last year?
I don't watch the Superbowl, so hell if I know
I'll have it on so I can discuss it the next day, but it never holds my interest.
Bruh not even the commercials?
I can watch most of them now.
4794
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:25:12 PM »
Whelp...this is awkward...
4795
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:24:39 PM »
Didn't they do this last year?
I don't watch the Superbowl, so hell if I know
I'll have it on so I can discuss it the next day, but it never holds my interest.
4796
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:22:00 PM »
Middle Middle Class. Mom works in a medical lab, and my step dad is an engineer.
4797
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:18:45 PM »
I'll say Johnson out of the three
But on an unrelated note, I'll more likely vote for a Bush and Rubio ticket if anything
What, no Rand? And there will never be a Bush/Rubio ticket. Not a chance in hell
4798
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:17:50 PM »
Oh fuck no. I'll go on record and say I'd rather have Obama run for a 3rd time then let that bitch ever set foot on the campaign
Again...why?
4799
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:15:08 PM »
Didn't they do this last year?
I don't watch the Superbowl, so hell if I know
They did.
qff
4800
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:11:06 PM »
Didn't they do this last year?
I don't watch the Superbowl, so hell if I know
Pages: 1 ... 158159160 161162 ... 306
|
Show Posts