The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
FCC Release Net Neutrality Regulations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-400-pages-of-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/
TL
R -
§ 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:
§ 8.7 No throttling.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.9 is redesignated section 8.19.
New section 8.9 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285
(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.
New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
Section 8.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4), revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), and adding new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 8.11 Continues, but for the sake of a TLDR, I will stop there. § 8.12 and on is your rights to file a complaint, procedures for complaints, confidentiality clause.
A funny and a nice little jab at specifically mentioning Verizon, on page 293 a footnote was added:
10 The Verizon court specifically touted the virtuous cycle as a worthy goal and within our authority. Verizon, 740 F.3d at 644 (“The Commission’s finding that Internet openness fosters the edge-provider innovation that drives this ‘virtuous cycle’ was likewise reasonable and grounded in substantial evidence.”.
Also on page 294, the FCC details a little paragraph of how it is using it's rules:
The legal basis for the Open Internet rules we adopt today relies on multiple sources of legal authority, including section 706, Title II, and Title III of the Communications Act. We conclude that the best approach to achieving our open Internet goals is to rely on several, independent, yet complementary sources of legal authority. Our authority under Section 706 is not mutually exclusive with our authority under Titles II and III of the Act. Rather, we read our statute to provide independent sources of authority that work in concert toward common ends. Under section 706, the Commission has the authority to take certain regulatory steps to encourage and accelerate the deployment of broadband to all Americans. Under Title II, the Commission has authority to ensure that common carriers do not engage in unjust and unreasonable practices or preferences. And under Title III, the Commission has authority to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing. Each of these sources of authority provides an alternative ground to independently support our open Internet rules.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-400-pages-of-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/
TL
R - § 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:
§ 8.7 No throttling.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.9 is redesignated section 8.19.
New section 8.9 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285
(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.
New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
Section 8.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4), revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), and adding new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 8.11 Continues, but for the sake of a TLD
R, I will stop there. § 8.12 and on is your rights to file a complaint, procedures for complaints, confidentiality clause.A funny and a nice little jab at specifically mentioning Verizon, on page 293 a footnote was added:
10 The Verizon court specifically touted the virtuous cycle as a worthy goal and within our authority. Verizon, 740 F.3d at 644 (“The Commission’s finding that Internet openness fosters the edge-provider innovation that drives this ‘virtuous cycle’ was likewise reasonable and grounded in substantial evidence.”
.Also on page 294, the FCC details a little paragraph of how it is using it's rules:
The legal basis for the Open Internet rules we adopt today relies on multiple sources of legal authority, including section 706, Title II, and Title III of the Communications Act. We conclude that the best approach to achieving our open Internet goals is to rely on several, independent, yet complementary sources of legal authority. Our authority under Section 706 is not mutually exclusive with our authority under Titles II and III of the Act. Rather, we read our statute to provide independent sources of authority that work in concert toward common ends. Under section 706, the Commission has the authority to take certain regulatory steps to encourage and accelerate the deployment of broadband to all Americans. Under Title II, the Commission has authority to ensure that common carriers do not engage in unjust and unreasonable practices or preferences. And under Title III, the Commission has authority to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing. Each of these sources of authority provides an alternative ground to independently support our open Internet rules.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
Our Prime Minister ate a raw unpeeled onion for no apparent reason. This is the sort of news I live for.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26661946/tony-abbott-eats-raw-unpeeled-onion/
"Farm owner David Addison said there had been some general discussion about onions when Mr Abbott took an impromptu taste-test."
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26661946/tony-abbott-eats-raw-unpeeled-onion/
"Farm owner David Addison said there had been some general discussion about onions when Mr Abbott took an impromptu taste-test."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ__H4DkZdk
Well, I would describe him|as sort of human-shaped.
He's got jeans|and a blue shirt on.
Christ, he's nabbed|a bloody farmer!
Yeah, but there's something|strange about him though.
Like he's got a screw loose|or something.
It is a bloody farmer!
Well, I would describe him|as sort of human-shaped.
He's got jeans|and a blue shirt on.
Christ, he's nabbed|a bloody farmer!
Yeah, but there's something|strange about him though.
Like he's got a screw loose|or something.
It is a bloody farmer!
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
I'd bang the shit out of Dana Perino ... i've had a thing for her for years.
Actually, I'd bang most of the chicks on The Five ... minus that one chicken looking broad with the fucked up teeth.
Actually, I'd bang most of the chicks on The Five ... minus that one chicken looking broad with the fucked up teeth.
Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first
New procedure used to modify disease-causing gene, but raises questions over whether restrictions should be placed on new wave of genetic techniques
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...fy-human-embryos-in-controversial-world-first
New procedure used to modify disease-causing gene, but raises questions over whether restrictions should be placed on new wave of genetic techniques
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...fy-human-embryos-in-controversial-world-first
Einherjar86
Active Member
Now, this shit is fucking ridiculous:
http://feministing.com/2015/05/01/lets-talk-about-age-of-ultrons-rape-joke/
As far as I'm concerned, this person completely missed the import of the line.
http://feministing.com/2015/05/01/lets-talk-about-age-of-ultrons-rape-joke/
As far as I'm concerned, this person completely missed the import of the line.
rms
Active Member
That's basically how I view every lame interpretation of a joke
This is a thing at my school, and people are offended that they have to 'read' it and not that it actually happens. And I got in trouble for making a joke that made people feel unsafe and not promoting a healthy culture, or some crap.
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/...h-back-poster-campaign-spotlighting-offensive
This is a thing at my school, and people are offended that they have to 'read' it and not that it actually happens. And I got in trouble for making a joke that made people feel unsafe and not promoting a healthy culture, or some crap.
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/...h-back-poster-campaign-spotlighting-offensive
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, what's being elided is the fact that it's primarily a Braveheart reference, not a reference to the actual institution of prima nocta. So, multiple details come into play:
a) It's referring to Braveheart - a move that could be construed as mocking big budget films in general, and thereby mocking itself.
b) It's most likely a mythical institution, meaning that it was probably created by those in the position of victimhood in order to make their oppressors appear even worse than they were (genealogy of morality); by invoking it, the film could also be viewed as mocking aristocratic rule in general by referring to the arrogance and pomposity of such an (non-historical) institution.
c) In popular representations, prima nocta is always portrayed in a negative light; so Downey's invocation of the term, followed by his failure to lift Thor's hammer, could also be read as further negative critique of a terrible (and ultimately futile) institution.
Criticizing sexism/misogyny in sociopolitical and/or legal settings is entirely different than critiquing cultural texts (books, films, etc.). The issue with articles like the one above is that it ignores all these other factors, including the fact that Whedon is most likely making a reference to Braveheart. This introduces a whole other level of critique that the author chooses to ignore.
EDIT: to make the contrast more palpable, one only needs to look at the actor's using the words "whore" and "slut" during an interview. Innocently intended and likely harmless; but that is far more available for criticism than the line about prima nocta.
a) It's referring to Braveheart - a move that could be construed as mocking big budget films in general, and thereby mocking itself.
b) It's most likely a mythical institution, meaning that it was probably created by those in the position of victimhood in order to make their oppressors appear even worse than they were (genealogy of morality); by invoking it, the film could also be viewed as mocking aristocratic rule in general by referring to the arrogance and pomposity of such an (non-historical) institution.
c) In popular representations, prima nocta is always portrayed in a negative light; so Downey's invocation of the term, followed by his failure to lift Thor's hammer, could also be read as further negative critique of a terrible (and ultimately futile) institution.
Criticizing sexism/misogyny in sociopolitical and/or legal settings is entirely different than critiquing cultural texts (books, films, etc.). The issue with articles like the one above is that it ignores all these other factors, including the fact that Whedon is most likely making a reference to Braveheart. This introduces a whole other level of critique that the author chooses to ignore.
EDIT: to make the contrast more palpable, one only needs to look at the actor's using the words "whore" and "slut" during an interview. Innocently intended and likely harmless; but that is far more available for criticism than the line about prima nocta.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
rms
Active Member
Is it just me who thinks that the rise of Bernie Sanders type of Politician is a great thing for America?
Dak
mentat
Isn't that what people were saying in 07-08 about Obama? For the last few decades, all anyone has really been able to say positive about most candidates is "Well at least they aren't a Bush or a Clinton".
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Nope, I'm with you on that. It'll be interesting to see how the primary plays out. O'Malley doesn't stand a chance with Bernie in the race (not to mention O'Malley's Zero-Tolerance policy he enacted as Baltimore mayor that will be sure to plague him in the race), so it's really a question of whether or not Bernie can beat Hillary's money and name recognition.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
He's good for a few good laughs(kind of like Trump) but that's about it. Does anyone here really think he even has a chance of beating her in the primaries??? cmon now
One things i know for sure is that i will not me voting for anyone in that party anytime soon.
One things i know for sure is that i will not me voting for anyone in that party anytime soon.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'll vote left simply to keep the conservative "jiggery pokery, applesauce" nut jobs out of the White House.
I'll take Clinton or Sanders over the religious fundamentalism of Walker or Huckabee.
I'll take Clinton or Sanders over the religious fundamentalism of Walker or Huckabee.
Draehl
Lurker
I disagree fundamentally with Sanders, he has a certain level of authenticity compared to most. I'd still prefer any of the non-Trump, non-Bush, non-religionpushing Republicans. (preferably Jindal, Carson, Christie or Paul)
rms
Active Member
I think Obama was a generational politician because he's a minority, but the honest Bernie Sanders politician is a great thing, and people are drawing towards it. His lack of interest in dirt digging or trash talking other candidates and an actual interest in answering questions is awesome for America, I think.
He is a little too-"socialist" for me, but i'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Clinton who is literally like every candidate before. I don't really respect anyone in the "other" party, but it's possible Rand Paul could say some things I agree with.
Dak
mentat
I'll put it this way about the upcoming Presidential election: If someone were holding a gun to my head and making me vote, I'd vote for Rand Paul although I find him not nearly as genuine as his father (but he is a better politician - those two things are negatively correlated). If the person holding the gun nixed Paul as an option, Sanders would be the least worst choice of the remaining field of horrible possibilities.
rms
Active Member
Sadly, Paul has gone back on a lot of things he advocated for so far prior to the Race. I understand since he has like 12 competitors, but I think Bernie is going to push the Democratic party to lean towards his and Warren's outlook rather than simply only differ the Republican candidate on taxes and abortion.
Similar threads
