Wednesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, November 12. 2014

An interesting life even if he had not located King Tut's tomb: Howard Carter the artist

America’s Oldest Living Veteran, 108, Still Enjoys a Whiskey and a Cigar

Student photos of skimpy Michelle O lunches raise ire of parents

Let them eat crap

You can’t say ‘crazy’ at Smith College: Student paper replaces with ‘ableist slur’

Those people aren't crazy - they are batshit crazy. They ought to get out of Northhampton occasionally and experience reality unless they are too fragile to handle it.

Marijuana Arrests Continue to Fall As Decriminalization and Legalization Spread

Bad News for Long-Term Pot Smokers

But isn't the whole point to make you a little stupid? That's the good part.

Surber: Say Nyet to net neutrality

Mia Love isn't really black

"Real black" politicians are all about victimhood and special goodies. In my experience, real black Americans are not.

The coming climate onslaught - President Obama readies a sweeping list of executive actions.

South and East: Get ready for the icebox

Proposed Water Rule Could Put ‘Property Rights of Every American Entirely at the Mercy’ of EPA

Why Obamacare Architect's Admission of Dishonesty Should Matter to Every American

Thomas Sowell: Obama's Weakness, Ineptitude Are By Design, Part Of The Plan

Donor Data Show Overwhelming Leftist Bias of News, Entertainment, and Academia

Chart below via Carpe

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:06 | Comments (46) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

"batshit crazy".....that is terribly speciesist of you.

#1 RickinNC on 2014-11-12 06:17 (Reply)

That's right. Batshit is just about the best fertilizer out there. Millions of bats spend all day every day producing large quantities of it so that nearby minority communities can produce their food supply. No batshit would mean malnutrition, if not starvation (unless they uh, emigrated to the U.S.). That makes the comment racist too.

#1.1 BillH on 2014-11-12 11:38 (Reply)

EPA Water rule:

Not only will this kill private property rights, along with the FDA/USDA water regulations that command produce farmers who irrigate (which is like, all of them) to take 20 water samples a year for a 4yr period, there will be massive food shortages. There's only one reason for 20 water samples, (unless you use different irrigation sources of water, then it's 20 samples PER SOURCE) is to drive farmers out of business, drive the cost of food up exorbitantly and take over the entire industry of food production. When the food safety and modernization act of 2010 was passed the equipment auctions started full bore, as a lot of farmers decided it wasn't worth being SWAT raided by EPA, DEP, USDA and FDA anymore.

Because he who controls the food, controls the world.

#2 fjord on 2014-11-12 07:54 (Reply)

We're not going to starve.

This was just to drive out all those pesky, independent-minded farmers and turn the industry over to the Democrat party's corporate overlords.

Oops, I guess all those Master's degrees didn't reveal who was in the pocket of big corporate?

Saw Bernie Sanders on the Bill Maher show. Talk about 'batshit crazy'. He went off on the Republicans trying to give everything to the corporations. Me thinks he protests to much.

#2.1 JKB on 2014-11-12 09:24 (Reply)

I don't think that the EPA over reach is constitutional. I think that under the constitution the EPA can regulate all federal property and federal acts but not state or private property or actions.

#2.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-11-12 10:07 (Reply)

Fox News Full Video - The Man Who Killed Usama bin Laden

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/11/fox-news-full-video-man-who-killed.html

#3 Steve on 2014-11-12 08:30 (Reply)

One big reason so many women now have master's degrees, is because teachers (predominantly women) typically get a decent payraise for having a masters. Does it make them better teachers? Maybe. Every teacher I know has a masters degree. For most professions you do not need a masters degree and a pay raise doesn't come with one.

#4 Mark M. on 2014-11-12 08:57 (Reply)

Also consider the vast numbers of public employees and nurses for whom a masters is a step to promotion. Then there's government contractors who can bill a higher rate if the worker has a masters.

Plus, grad school means avoiding the inevitable job search.

#4.1 walt moffett on 2014-11-12 12:54 (Reply)

Every teacher I know has a masters degree.

Last time I looked, 25-30% of master's degrees were awarded in Education. That helps explain why Pubs win or are roughly equal among HS grads and BS degree holders, but Demos win big among holders of master's degrees.

A master's degree in Education is basically a fill in the blanks and color. The doctorate degrees in Education I have read, of people I knew, weren't much better.

#4.2 Gringo on 2014-11-12 14:38 (Reply)

For some reason, when I hear Smith College, I immediately think 'crazy chick'. Hmm?

#5 JKB on 2014-11-12 09:25 (Reply)

"Skimpy Michelle O" throws my mind into a level of cognitive dissonance that is hard to overcome.

#6 B Moe on 2014-11-12 09:44 (Reply)

Net Neutrality will create massive "free-rider" opportunities and also allow firms like Amazon and Google to consolidate their positions to prevent competition (if not actually give them the opportunity to create true monopolies).

It is a well-meaning concept that completely overlooks the fact the internet has developed as a free-market solution for the exchange of information. To date, this transmission vehicle has had relatively few problems with its transmission structure primarily because, as a capital and exchange market, it has solved these issues via commerce rather than relying on political solutions.

Net Neutrality will kill the internet as we know it and allow companies that have opportunity to push large quantities of data for free, to take advantage of those opportunities - passing the costs along to you via taxes and increased costs of bandwidth, rather than passing those costs along to their consumers.

#7 Bulldog on 2014-11-12 09:57 (Reply)

So we can have an internet that works like cable TV? Pay a lot for what little you want? What could possibly go wrong?

#7.1 Mark on 2014-11-12 22:55 (Reply)

Bull Dog: Net Neutrality will create massive "free-rider" opportunities and also allow firms like Amazon and Google to consolidate their positions to prevent competition (if not actually give them the opportunity to create true monopolies).

Most analysts believe net neutrality will better allow startups to compete against large firms, otherwise, they'll be locked out by larger competitors.

Bull Dog: It is a well-meaning concept that completely overlooks the fact the internet has developed as a free-market solution for the exchange of information.

Sure, thanks to Al Gore and ilk who worked to deregulate the nascent Internet to create the "Information Superhighway".

Bull Dog: Net Neutrality will kill the internet as we know it and allow companies that have opportunity to push large quantities of data for free, to take advantage of those opportunities - passing the costs along to you via taxes and increased costs of bandwidth, rather than passing those costs along to their consumers.

You do realize that net neutrality has characterized the Internet until just recently? Most countries have rules concerning net neutrality, including Japan which is faster and cheaper than in the U.S.

#8 Zachriel on 2014-11-12 10:34 (Reply)

Now we want to regulate the Internet after Al Gore deregulated it?

#8.1 mudbug on 2014-11-12 11:01 (Reply)

mudbug: Now we want to regulate the Internet after Al Gore deregulated it?

Not everything is black-and-white. Actually, most things aren't.

#8.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-12 11:25 (Reply)

It was until Kinemacolor came online in 1906.

#8.1.1.1 BillH on 2014-11-12 11:43 (Reply)

It looks like the threat of more regulations on the Internet is having the same result as other radical regulation regimes like Obummercare and Dodd-Frank: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/t-pause-fiber-investment-until-net-neutrality-rules-134516021--finance.html

But this is not really about neutrality but about money (as usual): http://thehill.com/policy/technology/245479-fcc-eyes-tax-on-internet-service

Taxing the Internet is just such a great idea!

#8.1.1.2 mudbug on 2014-11-12 14:38 (Reply)

On one hand, I'm sort of for "NN" - you see, there's a local group of us who somewhat regularly get together in real space for MMORPGs. This, of course, chews up a good deal of bandwidth (relying on several neighboring routers), and can be problematic when other folks in the neighborhood start streaming video and more (buffering... buffering... buffering)

A couple of us do pay extra for higher bandwidth, but NN would level the field - but you might not be able to do everything you wish to do online when we get going...

As to "NN" in other countries, it's an issue of content - not bandwidth. Comparing the two is rather idiotic.

#8.1.1.2.1 Jess1 on 2014-11-12 16:06 (Reply)

Oh, and Z, drop the "japan or other place" line. Ookla currently rates the Household Download Index for Japan lower than the Continental US...

#8.1.1.2.1.1 Jess1 on 2014-11-12 16:15 (Reply)

Jess1: As to "NN" in other countries, it's an issue of content - not bandwidth. Comparing the two is rather idiotic.

Under net neutrality, data is data. It has to do with last-mile monopolies throttling access to different services, including competitors.

Jess1: Oh, and Z, drop the "japan or other place" line.

Akamai’s update on the State of the Internet:
http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Akamai-2010-Q4-Average-Measured-Connection-Speed-by-Country.jpg

#8.1.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2014-11-12 17:01 (Reply)

"It has to do with last-mile monopolies"

Only in the fevered swamps of the Dim party. In the rest of the world, not at all.

From the EU's own white paper (BERC): "There are no clear rules on net neutrality today at EU level, leaving 96% of Europeans without legal protection for their right to access the full open internet"

BTW, it's not 4Q 2010 anymore, either. Or do you have some proof that Ookla is incorrect?

#8.1.1.2.1.2.1 Jess1 on 2014-11-12 17:50 (Reply)

Jess1: From the EU's own white paper (BERC): "There are no clear rules on net neutrality today at EU level, leaving 96% of Europeans without legal protection for their right to access the full open internet"

That's right. Up until recently, net neutrality has been the state of the Internet. That is changing, and that change will favor current big players.

Jess1: BTW, it's not 4Q 2010 anymore, either.

http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Akamai-20104-Q1-Average-Measured-Connection-Speed-by-Country.png

#8.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-12 18:16 (Reply)

I will show the Smith article to my wife, a Smith alumna. Stuff like this from Smith drives her [ableist slur].

#9 Jim on 2014-11-12 12:58 (Reply)

Regarding Mia Love not really black:

The author of the article certainly doesn't look disenfranchised or left behind to me. Mr. PhD needs to look around and notice that we haven't been left behind anybody. The ones saying that we are hold themselves back. I'm so sick of minorities playing victim and wasting energy on getting more help to keep up. It made me want to vomit to type what I just typed. Good for Mia Love! She's not having any of that Kool-Aid, and it's nice to see other minorities put down their cup and look up.

#10 OhBoy on 2014-11-12 14:55 (Reply)

Kids' Pix of lunches: School won't allow TV news to take own pictures--confirmation that the school has much to be embarassed about.

Can't say crazy? How about "I question the sanity and the ability to reason of (whatever)?" Steve Martin will never do a show at Smith!

Long-Term Pot Smokers: Who was it said, "There's a reason it's called Dope."?

Mia Love: "Love's political convictions show a strong support for values that do not necessarily represent her interests as a member in any of these oppressed groups." Oh, nooooooooooooo! She does not show that she represents the varied and specific interests that those oppressed groups are require to have! How DARE she think differently? This is unconscionable!

Sowell: "Resentment of the prosperous — whether at home or on the world stage — runs through virtually everything Barack Obama has said and done throughout his life. " Although he's quite happy to be prosperous himself.

#11 Sam L. on 2014-11-12 15:47 (Reply)

"That is changing, and that change will favor current big players. "
So empowering them via government fiat helps how? (re my real world example previously - which your refusal to acknowledge answers more than you wish)

You still haven't answered Ookla's analytics - and waw is woefully outdated (SK averages far higher).

#12 Jess1 on 2014-11-12 18:27 (Reply)

Jess1: So empowering them via government fiat helps how?

You have that exactly backwards. Net neutrality means if you want to access the new upstart video service, you will get just as much bandwidth as you would if you were accessing YouTube. Without net neutrality, the big players will pay to have access to faster channels, while the upstarts will be stuck on the slow lane, or not have access at all.

Jess1: [i]You still haven't answered Ookla's analytic

We cited Akamai. Each measurement provides a slightly different picture of Internet speed, but most analysts consider Japan and Korea faster.
http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Akamai-20104-Q1-Average-Measured-Connection-Speed-by-Country.png

#12.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-12 19:19 (Reply)

FWIW Z, I'll go out on a short limb and guess that you'd be one of the first bitching to whatever enforcement arm when you'd be interrupted chatting to your dear Grandmama whilst we chewed on some serious bandwidth - all at the same $$. But hey, no one can throttle me back!

#13 Jess1 on 2014-11-12 18:35 (Reply)

Jess1: I'll go out on a short limb and guess that you'd be one of the first bitching to whatever enforcement arm when you'd be interrupted chatting to your dear Grandmama whilst we chewed on some serious bandwidth - all at the same $$.

Again, that is incorrect. With net neutrality, you can be charged for how much bandwidth you are using, but not based on what content is being transmitted. YouTube and UpStartVid would pay the same price for bandwidth, and so would you. Without net neutrality, YouTube could negotiate for preferential treatment, so the person using the UpStartVid might be subject to lag even though they are using the same amount of data as the person using YouTube. Because YouTube is big and has cash, they could effectively block competition.

#13.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-12 19:24 (Reply)

Wow. Just wow. Content = bandwidth. A video service should pay (and currently do) more than a plain text or similar. If you can negotiate a better price than me you'd be ok paying more? Color me unconvinced.

"We" use other analytics. Broader based as well.

#14 Jess1 on 2014-11-12 20:12 (Reply)

Jess1: A video service should pay (and currently do) more than a plain text or similar.

Wow. Just wow.

Under net neutrality bandwidth costs are content independent. If you buy a gigabit @ 100mbps, then it doesn't matter whether it's a gigabit of text, YouTube, or UpStartVid. Without net neutrality, your provider would be able to give faster speeds to YouTube, stifling the growth of UpStartVid.

#14.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-12 20:21 (Reply)

Who sets those costs, and why the (false) assumption that all bandwidth is fungible and scales?
I note that you still failed to address my real world example - how would a NN organization allocate my use of last mile pipe if price is off the table?

#15 Jess1 on 2014-11-12 20:38 (Reply)

Jess1: Who sets those costs, and why the (false) assumption that all bandwidth is fungible and scales?

No one sets the price by fiat, the carrier just can't price it differently based on content. A bit is a bit regardless of content.

#15.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-13 07:52 (Reply)

Your inability to answer whilst tossing up the proverbial strawmen is illuminating in and of itself...

#16 Jess1 on 2014-11-13 08:34 (Reply)

Jess1: Your inability to answer whilst tossing up the proverbial strawmen is illuminating in and of itself...

We did answer, but will do so again.

Jess1: how would a NN organization allocate my use of last mile pipe if price is off the table?

Net neutrality doesn't allocate anything, nor does it take price off the table. You can be charged for data-usage and data-rates. It just requires that all data be treated equally. Generally, net neutrality will protect innovation in content providers, and allow users to access the best of those providers.

Without net neutrality, Netflix can make a deal with the large carriers for preferential treatment, the result being that someone trying to compete with Netflix will have trouble delivering product.

#16.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-13 09:45 (Reply)

"We did answer"

"We"? FWIW, claiming to have done something without actually doing so is not flattering.

"It just requires that all data be treated equally"
That may be one of the most bizarre and nonsensical lines I've read this week.

"Without net neutrality, Netflix can make a deal with the large carriers for preferential treatment"

Someone negotiating a good deal is somehow a bad thing - a point you failed to respond to previously...

I note that you've dropped references to actual access as well.

#17 Jess1 on 2014-11-13 09:51 (Reply)

Zachriel: It just requires that all data be treated equally

Jess1: That may be one of the most bizarre and nonsensical lines I've read this week.

It's not that complicated. It means if a consumer wants a gigabit of YouTube or a gigabit of UpStartVid, they'll both be delivered on equal terms.

Jess1: Someone negotiating a good deal is somehow a bad thing - a point you failed to respond to previously...

We did respond, but you didn't have you listening ears on.

Most people have few choices for carriers, so losing net neutrality can lead to entrenchment of a few big players, and limits the ability of upstarts to compete. It also limits choices for the consumer. Instead of being able to choose freely between Netflix and UpStartVid, because UpStartVid won't have equal access.

#17.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-13 10:09 (Reply)

"delivered on equal terms"
As determined by who? This may come as a surprise to you, but differentiation is a good thing.

"We did respond"
No, you did not, and you still don't. Conflating "Netflix" (which, oddly enough, managed to grow w/o NN) with general statements on bandwidth utterly fails to answer the question of "why should the US government enact NN legislation"

You see, the "internet" is working out quite well w/o such malarkey - keeping government out is not a bug, but a feature.

#18 Jess1 on 2014-11-13 10:28 (Reply)

BTW, your use of Netflix as an example leads to further mirth - "netflixvscomcast" is the shining poster child of those pushing for more regulation... yet somehow netflx came out well.

Geesh. Wonder how without NN?

#19 Jess1 on 2014-11-13 10:42 (Reply)

Jess1: As determined by who?

It's not a hard distinction to make. Under net neutrality, carriers deliver data without regard to content, just like phone companies deliver your voice without regard to content.

Jess1: Conflating "Netflix" (which, oddly enough, managed to grow w/o NN) with general statements on bandwidth utterly fails to answer the question of "why should the US government enact NN legislation"

Actually, Netflix grew with net neutrality, which has been the environment of the web since its inception. Net neutrality is threatened.

We have answered your question repeatedly. You can refuse to grapple with the answer if you like. Losing net neutrality can lead to entrenchment of a few big players, and limits the ability of upstarts to compete. It also limits choices for the consumer.

Jess1: yet somehow netflx came out well.

Of course they did. They are big and wealthy.

#19.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-13 10:44 (Reply)

"It's not a hard distinction to make"

Yet you refuse (or are unable) to do so.

"just like phone companies deliver your voice without regard to content. "
You forget the good old days of Fed control over phones - certain calls did carry priority, as bandwidth (as always) is not infinite...

"Netflix grew with net neutrality"

So you continue to use it as an example of non NN why, exactly?

" It also limits choices for the consumer"
Yes, NN does.

"Of course they did. They are big and wealthy."

Illuminating - of course, once they were neither - just one of many small startups that managed to tap into a market.

All content is not of equal value to all users. Recognizing that reality is a primary rule of economics and markets. Ignore it at your peril (but ignoring what you can't answer is a hallmark of yours)

#20 Jess1 on 2014-11-13 11:05 (Reply)

Jess1: You forget the good old days of Fed control over phones - certain calls did carry priority, as bandwidth (as always) is not infinite...

Telephone services are classified as common carriers in the U.S., meaning they are expressly prohibited from giving preferential treatment.

Jess1: So you continue to use it as an example of non NN why, exactly?

Because de facto net neutrality is under threat.

Jess1: Yes, NN does.

Handwaving. We have repeatedly explained by losing net neutrality will limit competition. No only do you ignore our argument, but then you assert the contrary without foundation. There may be an argument there, but you refuse to engage it.

#20.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-13 14:54 (Reply)

To add - we all note that you've dropped the local access line as well...
Just to clarify: when I use a significant portion of the local pipe (enough to impact your QoS), you're comfortable w/the ISP being unable to do, well, anything...

#21 Jess1 on 2014-11-13 11:17 (Reply)

Jess1: when I use a significant portion of the local pipe (enough to impact your QoS), you're comfortable w/the ISP being unable to do, well, anything...

You still don't understand net neutrality. It doesn't limit the cost of your Internet, or even whether they throttle bandwidth, as long as they do so without regard to content.

#21.1 Zachriel on 2014-11-13 14:58 (Reply)

So the approx. 738,593,271 repostings of Kim K's a$$ = the online collaborative work on Philae...

Sure.

#22 Jess1 on 2014-11-15 07:54 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, November 12. 2014

Wednesday morning links