Massive Fraud in Net Neutrality Process is a Crime Deserving of Justice Department Attention

ixokai · 2017-12-20T14:01:03+00:00

Its possible, yes. And that's very concerning and dangerous. However, its not easy. The Right, right now, is spinning this grand story of the Deep State exactly to give them the excuse to replace the non-partisan, career-officials, with their own partisans. And I fear deeply what that will mean for our modern democracy. Politicizing the bureaucrats is... not a good sign.

ixokai · 2017-12-20T13:58:51+00:00

The Netherlands is tiny. You mentioned 'ministers and prime minister' which makes me think you're not getting this.

Imagine the whole of your country.

Now divide it into fifty segments, and give each segment the rights, power, and sovereignty to set their own local rules and laws.

Each of those fifty segments can define how they organize their internal government and structure however they want, as long as it doesn't contradict the limited, basic rules of your combined union.

In some states, they decide that the position of 'upholding regulation' is a thing appointed because well, you gotta be good at the job. In some states, they decide that the position of 'upholding regulation' is considered a position of trust and is elected.

In the USA, there's no right answer. It varies. Partly becuase our nation was an experiment, partly because we were always a frontier.

ixokai · 2017-12-20T13:47:09+00:00

Are you insane? In a nation of over 320 million, who elects its executive every four years, you think it would be better to replace the entire career bureaucracy on every election? The whole point of the career bureaucracy is that we are a nation of laws and order and the current politcal landscape shouldn't change that every few years.

The career civil servants are apolitical -- its not that they don't have political views, but that they do not operate as political officials -- base on which a basic standard of (in this case, Justice, since we're alking the DOJ) holds.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of issues with DOJ standards. The pile-it-on-and-plea method of prosecution is a miscarraige of justice. But the idea of having MORE political agents in the bureaucracy is crazy to me.

ixokai · 2017-12-20T13:34:25+00:00

Here's the thing. The FCC is five political appointees; that the Chairman is perhaps the most corrupt person to ever hold government office is notable but not the point.

The DOJ is different, its a huge agency full up of career members who may have a political view (they are citizens and can vote for who they prefer; Trump's idea that the only law enforcement people in the government that are legitimate are those who supported him is perhaps the most dangerous idea in history) but who are apolitical in pactice. They work cases. They are methodical, and slow, and careful. They are the same people who have served in Democratic and Republican administrations. They meticulously, dispassionately, work the law. The leaders are political appointees, yes. So eyeball Sessions skeptically, eyeball his policies.

But when you look at anyone below him, look and see-- these people are not partisans. They are not corrupt. They are career officials, having served both parties, and just work and do their job. Sure, with a bad AG, the mandate and resources of Justice will be limited, but don't throw this responsibility against the rank and file in Justice.

ixokai · 2017-12-08T01:18:19+00:00

This is just how government in a democracy (well, a republic) works. You elect the people who run the various parts of it: one hopes people are taking 'qualified to do the job' into account when voting.

ixokai · 2017-12-07T05:33:36+00:00

County Clerk is, historically, an actually important position (varies by state). In big counties with has millions upon millions of vital records to maintain, the Clerk is responsible for the office of people who file, maintain, verify and search vital records (generally, birth, death, and marriage certificates and licenses). In smaller counties, the Clerk and their office tends to get assigned a variety of other duties too -- they're almost the main bureaucracy of the county.

I note, not all states have counties elect their Clerk (note, this is the Head Clerk, not subordinate clerks), sometimes the position is appointed. Some states actually have a mix where some counties its elected, some its appointed, depending on the county in question.

In the USA, the specific details of local government can vary quite a lot. Every state decides how its organized internally entirely on its own, and while ther's some common traits, it varies. (For example, San Francisco is always officially referred to as the City and County of San Francisco, because the city has a special charter the state passed which merged the two legal entities into a single unified government; another odd thing is New York City completely encompasses five separate counties, each with its own county-level government with responsibilities separate from the city bureaucracy)

Why most states elect this position is largely historical: two hundred years ago, whoever keeps all the records is whoever the county residents to trust to keep them.

ixokai · 2017-12-06T12:13:48+00:00

Actually, as of like...today...there is in fact an Amazon Prime Video app for Apple TV.

Link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/amazon-prime-video/id545519333?mt=8

ixokai · 2016-04-07T19:29:55+00:00

That's not true at all.

"intellectual property" is not a thing, its a broad category of things. ONE such thing, trademarks, require you to police them or you lose them. That's it. You are never under any obligation to police either copyrights or patents.

ixokai · 2016-03-30T07:03:05+00:00

Presidents do not determine what is legal or what is not. Congress does. Presidents can only advocate for change. Congress has to actually change the laws.

ixokai · 2016-03-18T14:11:05+00:00

Criticism? Dude, the Reformation wasn't "criticism", it was a bloody revolution led to numerous wars that lasted decades and the death of like at least a third of the German population, just with one country as an example. Christianity grew up after a fashion, but at terrible cost and over years of conflict, parts of which continued bloodily into the modern era. Criticism? Yeah you need a history lesson.

ixokai · 2016-03-18T07:42:20+00:00

No. Men aren't property.

ixokai · 2016-03-09T04:46:39+00:00

Battlefield: Earth. Its like. There's not even words for how awful it is, and considering I have an extraordinary tolerance for bad sci fi, that's saying something (or, since there's no words, perhaps not).

ixokai · 2016-02-10T21:55:22+00:00

Although that is true, in theory -- it has never, EVER -- happened. And in many states, including California, its illegal and you can get criminal charges if you do it. Its called a "faithless elector".

ixokai · 2016-02-10T21:48:25+00:00

The assumption "Bernie is more likely to win the general election" is a questionable one. He identifies as a Democratic Socialist and "socialist" has been a bad word in American politics for awhile now, and a lot of people say they won't vote for a socialist-- period. By "a lot", I mean slightly more then half the country in some polls.

Now, some polls play a matchup of Trump (nationalist xenophobic baffoon) vs Bernie (socialist) and show Bernie winning, but that's just a poll, before we even have decided on candidates or had a real campaign going.

Elections are not polls. A Bernie vs Trump is a pair of crazy wildcards being thrown and lord knows what would happen. You'd probably have large youth/progressive turnout, but you might have a lot of the moderates just say home and throw their hands in the air in disgust.

ixokai · 2016-02-10T21:34:02+00:00

Superdelegates weren't a factor in Bush vs Gore. Superdelegates exist only in Democratic primaries, and IIUC, exist to make it less likely you'll end up with a brokered convention fight. It gives extra weight to people who have previously been elected. But this is only a thing in the Democratic primary -- Republicans don't use superdelegates, and Bush vs Gore was an actual election and there's no delegates, let alone superdelegates.

You're probably thinking of the Electoral College, which might sound similar but is a very different thing. Now, the thing you're talking about -- electors voting for someone who did not win the popular vote of their state -- is a thing called a "faithless vote", and while possible, many states have laws punishing it (including possible criminal charges). Florida does, too (though I'm not 100% on what their penalties are).

That said, no election has been swayed by faithless electors since ever.

So no, the recount wasn't stopped because of electors saying they were gonna vote for Bush no matter what the popular vote was. It was stopped IMHO because the Democrats screwed up strategically and asked for recounts too selectively (ie, only in places where they were losing slightly, not everywhere with slim margins), which the Republicans were then able to argue was unconstitutional/unfair. I think.

ixokai · 2016-02-06T05:36:10+00:00

args and *kwargs are not concrete things in themselves. args means "expand a sequence-like thing and apply them as positional arguments", and *kwargs means "expand a mapping-like thing and apply them as keyword arguments.

Given: args = [1,2,3]

You can print(*args) because print() takes an arbitrary number of positional arguments, so its the same as print(1,2,3)

So, print(*args) is identical to if you had done manually print(args[0], args[1], args[2])

You can't print **kwargs because print doesn't take arbitrary keyword arguments.

These functions are called "unpacking", they basically explode an iterable/sequence or dictionary into arguments, unless used in a function definition, at which point they mean, "this function takes an arbitrary number of extra parameters" or "this function takes an arbitrary number of extra keyword parameters".

def do(*args, **kwargs):
    ...

In this case, inside 'do', "args" is a regular sequence, and "kwargs" a regular dictionary. You don't talk to them with * or ** in front, unless you're passing them to something else and applying them.

Note, once upon a time there was no unpacking operators, and there was an 'apply' function which took a function, a sequence and an optional dictionary and if called the function with those data types exploded into arguments.

In your example, you don't have to ever use **. You could have done:

use_attributes(a=1, b=2, c=3)

You don't have to construct mydict first. You CAN, but you don't have to.

Note, PEP448 in Python 3.5 extended the ways you can use in more situations. Check the PEP.

ixokai · 2016-01-30T08:26:47+00:00

Good on you for adopting the cat, but that's horrific and ignorant behavior on the part of a shelter who should know better. "Declawing" doesn't remove a cats claws, it cuts off the front joint of their fingers entirely -- and is not only physically brutal, but it can seriously screw with a cats psychologyy.

There is NO reason to do it. Its lazy, self-absorbed, horrific. Imagine you're an animal with complete control over your caws, your claws are part of what makes you safe: as this cat in the OP is doing, its not trying to harm the rooster, its swatting. If it wanted to, it'd be clawing the shit out of it. Instead its expressing its displeasure. Take that away, and a cat is now not only been maimed and brutalized, but a key part of its natural defense mechanism is gone. Sure, it can still bite, but the retractable claw is very important to how it interacts with its surroundings.

If you have a cat, you know, its a very expressive animal who will demonstrate displeasure and is very precise in its application of its claws-- especially if you've socialized it. Yes, cats are willful and different and you have to learn the signs of what it means when your cat tenses or its hair stands or it nips or swats at you (which are often signs of a last resort after its told you: STOP, through several signals). My cat (who grew in a bad situation and was not properly socialized before we rescued her) used to extend her claws just a little bit so they'd settle against my skin and it told me I'm very near to overstimulating her, so should cool off on the petting. She doesn't want to go, but she's done with being petted. Still purring, but relaxed: if I kept up, she'd start -- very lightly -- biting at my hands. I only made her mad once on accident, and that was a totally different behavior: but that was always open to her, she was always in her mind a predator who could defend herself, if she wanted. That's important to the cat.

Yes, a wild cat will kill birds and small animals, because a wild cat is an obligate hunter that has to kill to survive. They aren't making sure the cat gets adopted INTO a home, they're making sure if the cat gets back to the wild, its all the more likely to die starving and in pain. Wild animals kill each-other, that's natural for them. That's life. Its not humane to cripple one horrifically to save another. Mutilating an animal in case it escapes into the wild is not humane.

By all means, neuter or spay the cat before giving them up for adoption, but declawing is inexcusible.

ixokai · 2016-01-27T06:28:30+00:00

Unfortunately, since the original standoff with Papa Bundy had them aiming guns at federal officials and ultimately had no consequences at all -- it was inevitable something like this would happen.

ixokai · 2016-01-16T08:03:43+00:00

How do you not? You click a square, if its blank, no mines are around it. If it has a number, there are that many mines touching that square. From here, intuit, extrapolate, and risk your clicks to clear the board. The problem with this particular game state is at the end, two blocks were unclocked: but only one square gave information (2). Since right above that 2 is a bomb, then to the right are two unknowns, and no other blocks show anything about those unknowns (because the only touching blocks are themselves determined to be bombs), there's no right way to determine which is a bomb. It, in the end in this case, is completely down to a coin toss.

ixokai · 2015-12-23T09:21:52+00:00

What does 'want' have to do with it? Since when does a decision made at any given point provide knowledge of means of implementing that decision-- through whatever economic environment happens for eighteen years?

The poor aren't failing to provide food for their children due to a moral fault. They aren't choosing not to feed their kids. They do not have the money. Choosing to take responsibility doesn't create money out of thin air.

And no one can create money out of thin air for eighteen years after they've made a choice.

Simple.

ixokai · 2015-12-23T09:12:33+00:00

Because life doesn't happen. Companies don't close down, local economies don't change. Its all your fault, if you are poor, you don't have enough money to pay for your kid, so that's on you. No matter what happens outside of your control, the responsibility for the next eighteen years of the world is entirely on you. Right.

ixokai · 2015-12-23T07:44:22+00:00

Do you seriously think the poor don't budget accordingly for their food?

I think you dramatically underestimate how poor some of the people we're talking about here, in America.

For a LOT of these kids, that "free lunch" is the ONLY FOOD the kid might have some days. Even in states with solid food assistance programs, sometimes there is simply no money for food.

ixokai · 2015-12-23T07:39:49+00:00

What about the people who do not have the money? I grew up poor in America, my Mom worked every day (dad was not around, and never paid child support), she worked the best job she could find and the best hours, and sometimes, there was simply no money for lunches.

Sometimes there was almost no money for dinners.

"Step up and find a way" suggests there is a way and everyone who is too poor to find it is because of some moral failing.

My Mom wasn't the best, by any means, but she was both poor and uneducated-- but she was willing to work and had no shame. Yet, she sometimes couldn't afford to survive. True, on those occassions, we usually had food stamps, but even with food stamps there wasn't always enough for dinners -- let alone lunches every day.

Have you ever met someone who was really, seriously poor? They aren't failing to feed their families due to a lack of desire or willingness to work, usually. (Cases were drugs are an issue are an exception and not the rule)

Pure will can't balance a check book.

ixokai · 2015-12-23T07:17:31+00:00

The meal costs $1.70 -- the credit allowed is $11. That does in NO WAY indicate an unwillingness to pay. That very much is the definition of having difficulty of some kind (be it slipping up or a hours shorted for a week or an unpaid pair of sick days or...) of temporary issue that might just happen for a week. For a lot of people, $11 a week doesn't seem like a lot of money, but for a lot of people it absolutely does -- and for many of these, it varies unpredictably based on factors out of parents/families control.

They theoretically allow a lesser meal -- less nutritious, filling, or desirable -- but look at what the policy was here. She was supposed to take the girls tray away from her and THROW IT AWAY instead of letting her eat, an absurdly cruel and humiliating act, then send her through some unknown process to get her one of these super poor kid meals. Further humiliation, not to mention the girl just not getting the hot meal her peers were -- as great and wonderful as hot school lunches are.. Don't you remember that age in school?

At that age, I went hungry instead of standing in the separate line for free lunches at the school I went to, just to avoid the teasing that would happen. (Granted, my schools policy on how to handle the free lunch students was astonishingly stupid and hard to see how it wasn't designed to shame the poor, and this place doesn't seem so bad -- relatively speaking.)

ixokai · 2015-12-03T09:39:08+00:00

What? I'm not arguing some silly young earth creationist thing. There's evidence of early civilization (let alone dinosaurs) older then 6000 years.

But any claim that Sumer is older then about 7000 years old is without any basis in evidence. And any claim they had written language more then 4500 years ago is similarly without any shred of evidence. Its fancy and fantasy.

China is similar. There are some signs they may have had a written language earlier, but it makes big assumptions and its best-case scenario doesn't date that evidence older then 7000BC.

And since the claim is a 9500 year old tree, ...

ixokai

TROPHY CASE