If you want to discuss something seriously, /dis/ is your place

Search /dis/ threads

Password  (for post and file deletion)

Apr 1Progress! At long last, we have the beginnings of a functional combined site ready to preview publicly. Feel free to take our new beta area for a test drive and point out any bugs you see.
Mar 31With the Merger coming up soon, we have created an official steam group for the combined sites. It can be found at http://steamcommunity.com/groups/PonychanSteam

File 139967137513.png - (260.09KB , 487x713 , mlfw3118-63566_-_fluttershy_monocle_posh.png )
77844 No. 77844 [View]

Do you guys and gals think that Open Marriage is a better option of a lifestyle or the Traditional one?
With an Open Marriage, you can have more fun with other people without feeling guilty than an Traditional and maybe help built a healthy relationship with your partner. In a Open relationship, i know there might be ground rules or do's and dont's.
15 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77890
I feel like if you truly, TRULY love someone, you won't want to be with anyone except them. If you're with someone and you still are wanting to sleep with other people, I feel like you just shouldn't be getting married.
>> No. 77897
Sounds traditional.

Thats just fine : if you're like the 20-25% of the population who seems naturally inclined towards both traditional marriage and monogamy, then good on you. Helen Fisher reports people like you often make some of the best environments for raising children and will sacrifice happily to maintain it.

But this naturally-inclined-towards-traditional-models + naturally-wanting-to-be-monogamous if this group indeed describes you, is still only 1/5 to 1/4 of the population.
>> No. 78134
I fully support traditional marriage. Marriage without a dowry lessens the value of the bride. Marriage not under the arrangement of the tribe or family is selfish, if young people can't put the needs of the community before their own then they certainly can't put their partner's needs before their own either.

File 140386524070.jpg - (10.58KB , 250x277 , 136142725101.jpg )
78118 No. 78118 [View]
I have a hypothetical question.

If a lady has to have a pelvic exam (or any other exam involving looking inside the wahaHA!) and she is a virgin (with hymen). Does the doctor have to break the hymen to do the exam? If so, it seems really messed up, but that's just me.
2 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 78121
File 140386603755.png - (102.05KB , 680x753 , 136296630627.png )
ugh, i tried googling it, but i never found any good answers.
>> No. 78122
File 140386645614.png - (212.61KB , 507x454 , balloons are cars too.png )
You never know which source is most reliable.

I think a good doctor can definitely do a pelvic exam.
Things need to stretch, but a hymen can take that, as long as it doesn't chafe.

But the whole deal of breaking a hymen being messed up seems a bit silly.
It's supposed to break sooner or later.
>> No. 78123
File 140386773921.jpg - (42.80KB , 344x536 , image.jpg )
Only thing messed up here is the cultural obsession with a woman's technical virginity.

File 140174055948.png - (570.64KB , 864x929 , Christian Pinkie Pie.png )
77964 No. 77964 [View]

For a long time, the entertainment industry on average seems to have been rather against religion and, specifically, Christianity. Think about the last game you played where religion was positively portrayed. Now think about the last game you played where religion was negatively portrayed. In movies, TV shows, and often music as well, religion is rarely portrayed positively, and often negatively.

Yet in recent years, we've had a wave of movies that not only portray religion positively, but Christianity as a central, positive theme. I can think of three off the top of my head, and I rarely pay attention to movies. Les Miserables, God's Not Dead, and Heaven Is For Real all have Christianity as a central theme and portray it overall positively. They were also all commercial successes, in spite of the latter two receiving poor reviews. And yes, Les Miserables has been around for a long time, but the issue is that someone thought it would actually be a good idea to make a movie of it recently. And it turns out that it was.

So here's the question: Could this recent influx of Christian-themed films be indicative of a changing direction in the entertainment industry? Could it be that, in recent years, there's been a change in the average viewpoint of Christianity (and possibly religion as a whole) among film companies? Can you think of any other recent movies that portray Christianity positively, whether as a central theme or not?

Or is that wrong? Can you think of more than a thin smattering of major films like this in recent times that were released before the past couple of years? Is it just a passing fad? Maybe the work of a few unknown film companies and the rest of the entertainment industry won't catch on?

Inb4 people think I'm Christian or atheist

27 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78109
File 140374034245.png - (1.05MB , 1366x768 , 11.png )

Oh, don't start with that argument. Everyone does what they do because of the culture around them, whether it's a household culture, a national culture, or a global one. You're assuming that that culture is based in Christianity.

And I have proven that that's bullshit. First by pointing out that parents more prone to abuse would be more likely to own several books on discipline (the reverse causation argument, something that you still refuse to address) and by pointing to the fact that the Schatzes (and others, for that matter) specifically went against the teachings of the Pearls in regards to what they thought deserved "discipline" as well as how severe that "discipline" was. Unless you can show that the Pearls have ever suggested beating a child for hours for something as unrelated to the point of the book (and their teachings, for that matter) as mispronouncing a word, your argument is complete bunk. I have shown time and again that that sort of thing runs counter to the Pearls' writings as soon as the first spark of frustration forms.

So unless you can show that, no. Their teachings have not "convinced several parents to beat their children literally to death."

Last edited at Wed, Jun 25th, 2014 16:52

>> No. 78111

Many of these people have claimed that they were not continuing out of anger, but out of a need to drive the 'rebellion' out of their children.

If someone tells people to take their car up to 80 mph while approaching a T intersection but to hit the brake at 50 meters, are they completely blameless when someone hits the brake at 40 and slams their car into a building?

But lets assume that you're right, that these people got none of their ideas about abusing children from their religion. That despite their own claims, they only call themselves Christians out of convenience.

It's pretty convenient for these horrible abusive people that they have the camouflage of wrapping their abuse in a popular religion, which has been so drummed up in the national rhetoric at this point that it makes many people afraid to stand up to them and challenge their behavior.
>> No. 78116
It would be nice if things were up front. I would probably prefer it too. Not to come off as insulting, but I think that idealism is dangerous to apply in life. If you aren't playing the psychological manipulation game at some level you might be at a loss to mount effective countermeasures. You also are not as effective as your peers or competition willing to engage. Its a Buyer Beware situation and I think its entirely appropriate - if not a bit required - to develop a 'Seller Beware' system. As much as part of me hates to say it, I am cool with a level of manipulation that has a border on the grey primarily because I see it as a required life skill to immunize against like attempts. Its the harm that is done that decides it for me, but it would be nice if things could be presented up front and honestly. We're just so, so far away from that by now as a species.

Additionally, the world of organized religion is rife with such things intentional and perhaps not. I'm prone to find too much meaning in things so its probably also a bit of a personal bias of mine here at work too a bit.

>To me, that makes them trying to push a political issue even worse.

Well, a couple questions. Kind of pointed probes.

- What constitutes an issue as political or not?
- What issues are okay to push and which are not?

File 140095593629.png - (6.10KB , 375x259 , dinocomics-asexuality.png )
77875 No. 77875 [View]
What do you guys think of asexuality? do you have any questions about it? are there any asexuals onlline right now?
35 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 77999
>I think what I really want is for somebody to WANT to have sex with me.

There's the catch, isn't it. You want the validation of someone's romantic interest, but aren't willing to put much effort into validating the people you're looking to get that from.

Most people want to be wanted.
>> No. 78001
File 140263314577.jpg - (262.30KB , 500x658 , Catch-22Man.jpg )
The whole situation is some kind of strange Catch 22.
I'm willing to put in some effort, but the amount required seems WAY out of scale. Of all the things that you could possibly not be good at this is the worst. This is seriously the only skill I can think of that's actually shameful to not be able to do.
>> No. 78065
Nothing worth having is ever easy.

If you really want it, put the effort into it. No matter how hard it is.

File 140313094101.png - (183.54KB , 1219x1400 , 1396751919242.png )
78012 No. 78012 [View]
is it morally acceptable to make love to your pokemon?
47 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78060
File 140314207674.jpg - (28.79KB , 599x634 , 38303848.jpg )
holy shit, this thread got moved to /dis/
>> No. 78061
File 140314256340.jpg - (43.86KB , 500x448 , 39632365_m.jpg )
She's a dog, dude.
>> No. 78062
File 140315063685.png - (223.46KB , 350x411 , Ribbonlike feelers.png )
I got to say this was a hilarious read, this thread.

10/10 would kek again

File 139987461209.jpg - (88.54KB , 869x920 , 1009952_10151915927851616_1492773873_n.jpg )
77856 No. 77856 [View]

What If Bounty Hunting Was Legal In The US?
>Would you need a special I.D?
>Would it lower crime rates?
>What would be the pro or con of this?
1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77866
What do you think 'bounty hunting' is?

Bounty hunters in the United States usually go after and apprehend people who post bail and then skip out on their court date and leave town.

Do you mean Star Wars style bounty hunters who are basically just assassins?
>> No. 78002
File 140264590726.jpg - (871.31KB , 656x900 , BobaFettEAtlas.jpg )
It technically is, but they're just glorified cops. You still go to police academy, get a badge, etc. etc.

The only difference is that you only try and find people that, as Pyrite said, skip their court dates.

Now I'm assuming you're either talking about the classic kind of Red Dead Redemption bandito bounty hunter that goes and catches criminals of their own accord to get a monetary reward, or the Star Wars-y assassins mentioned above.

If the prior is true, then I could see several positives and negatives come of it. People would probably be more inclined to stop crime, and more criminals would get caught because, well, people like money.
Second, it would probably get out the violent urges and thirst for adventure many people have, in short, livening things up a little.
Although, since the government would have to pay the said bounty hunter if they caught said criminal, it would simply be another thing to spend money on. Although they might not have to spend that money on law enforcement if there's a bunch of bounty hunters running around. Then again, who really cares with the economical shithole we're in anyway.
Another con, if there was ever a slowing in the amount of criminals to catch, or some other roadblock got in the way of them getting their money, they would probably turn into the Star Wars bounty hunters, that just do whatever to get paid. That would be bad.

So in short, it'd probably be cool, but it has a 50% chance of being shitty later on down the road.
>> No. 78003
File 140267370677.png - (0.99MB , 1180x900 , WZlwDVg.png )
Pretty much what this guy said.

It is legal to be a bounty hunter, it's just not done the way it's portrayed in futuristic movies where you can put a severed head into a kiosk and money comes out.

File 140235083461.jpg - (16.42KB , 443x120 , image.jpg )
77996 No. 77996 [View]
Look at this picture.
>> No. 77997
File 140236728048.jpg - (15.93KB , 267x315 , e42.jpg )
I looked at it.

Your point being...?

File 139673876433.jpg - (655.44KB , 1238x929 , your-argument-is-invalid-because-potato.jpg )
77667 No. 77667 [View]
The first thing that I'd like to note here is that what I am referring to as "pseudoscience" here is not directly aimed at pseudoscientific per se, but at something that is broader yet narrower.
Pseudoscience, in my book, should be understood as wild claims, either untestable, made up, or in any way neglecting the basics of scientific method of investigation. Fighting against claims that pseudoscientific phenomena should be treated equally with phenomena backed up with actual evidence would make sense for many, but in this discussion I want to address only the ideas which should be considered dangerous when it comes to pseudoscientific propaganda and/or data manipulation.

There are obvious branches of pseudoscience that are very common, often cringeworthy, such as UFOlogy, creationism or astrology, but they are usually mostly or even completely harmless. We can argue with people supporting them for fun, but personally I don't see anything directly wrong in believing in such stuff.
Things get complicated when beliefs in myths can indeed be harmful for the believers and their environment, both indirectly and directly.
Anti-vaccination movements, which basically kill people and significantly lower herd immunity
Anti-GMO propaganda, which greatly contributes to hunger in 3rd world countries.
Organic farming activists, whose ideology leads to less efficient and thus unecological growth,
Natural medicine organizations, which lead people away from drugs that help them with health problems
The list can go on.
But it is not my goal to make the list of harmful ideas. My goal is to find a good way to get through to people who follow such ideas. We could laugh in their faces and feel superior, but that would change nothing. The biggest problem is that pseudoscientific solutions usually are supported by huge lists of miracles provided by the idea X, which seem very compelling. Plus, they usually attack the established solutions as outdated, toxic and otherwise evil (usually the arguments regard government and pharmaceutical conspiracies). On the other hand, we have the solutions brought by science. Backed up by observations, rigorously tested and proven
10 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77719
The irony, of course, is that pseudoscience is actually less open-minded than regular science.
>> No. 77720
lets vaccinate our children thanks
>> No. 77887
File 140113922987.png - (25.92KB , 345x504 , 1400455546485.png )

>Organic farming activists, whose ideology leads to less efficient and thus unecological growth,

hahah, efficient for *what* is the question. certainly slow food artisanship can be more labour intensive, but this can be a design feature.

consider the perennial problem of listless untermenschen unable (or unwilling) to find place in society as it exists heretofore. presently, one primary solution in america is to bloat our jails using petty crime legislation as justification. incredibly expensive of course, but politically expedient.

labour intensive, but value added, projects like producing good old locally sourced, grass fed pesticide free organic goodness(tm) are far preferable solutions on multiple levels compared to extant alternatives. be it in terms of opportunity cost, but more importantly, in terms of giving people something to do in life.

'well who wants to work anyways, isint this what welfare is for?' indeed, the 'solution' that is anything but, as we have seen. in this case not merely politically expedient, but memetically adaptive. it should be pointed out that we already have examples of 'post-scarcity' societies, places where magic cards provide mana from the heavens, places like detroit.

File 138929269492.jpg - (2.18MB , 1984x2427 , Petertalking.jpg )
76569 No. 76569 [View]

Hey, /dis/, I wanted to start a question thread. There has been this movement going on recently, called the Zeitgeist Movement. Now, I don't know a lot about it, but I guess that's why I am really here to discuss it. Below is some material that is relevant to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, and some questions that I would like to ask you guys.

I watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F0AtKeExOA
It's a short interview featuring Peter Joseph, that offers some interesting critique on the way modern day society is run. I'm no expert on financial matters, but a lot of what he says makes sense. Though they may be a slight bit Utopian, I believe that Peter's messages could really make a difference, if applied effectively. He speaks of revamping the economic system, and forming a market based more on ideas, mechanical development, and information development, instead of on a notion of scarcity, and constant circulation of currency.

I'll let you watch the video, and have your thoughts. It's all very interesting, and the interview is very comprehensive.

The question that I would like to ask you savvy, discussionists, is whether or not you think that these ideologies could really change the world. Is a post scarcity economy possible? And, maybe if you feel like it, consider whether or not or society today is flawed enough that a change is needed.

Just to get my own opinion out of the way, I will mention that I personally think that some of the ideas that he talks about will probably have to be implemented, or have already to some degree been implemented, and that what he envisions, is definitely a better world than we have now.
>> No. 76572
File 138937801518.png - (18.27KB , 172x172 , 26 t.png )
Joseph's analysis seems pretty good, but what is the Zeitgeist Movement's actual plan to get from where we are now to a better society? It's really easy to look at the world and see what we all should be doing to improve things. It's really hard to actually get people to do the those things, especially when all the world's financial, political, military, and media power is against the revolutionary changes that you want.

Joseph agrees that the present social organizations are corrupt and broken, and this happens by design; we cannot drastically improve things from within the current system. But he also says he doesn't want to depend on a large collapse.
>> No. 76574
It's Marxism in a new suit.

It's easy to think that someone is right when they are the only one speaking and they are very charismatic. That's why whenever I listen to someone speaking like this I always put myself in the mindset of being a debate against them. I intentionally do my best to find every flaw and problem with every word they say. This way, only if they are able to overcome them will I know that they are speaking soundly. Lets do that here.

First, RT America. I always found Russia Today a bit sketchy, but that is neither here or there. Just showing that this 'Movement' is getting less media attention than the Occupy Movement.

Environmental Sustainability? He talks about how it's mean to be about preventing bio-diversity loss and helping the environment. It's Environmentalism in a nut-shell. He basically wants you to completely ignore the power of animals to destroy their own environments and for Nature to sometimes just be BAD for us and to accept blame for every little thing. I'm sure he'd want humans to accept blame for how there are rivers and lakes that are bad to drink from while forgetting that for thousands of years untouched by man they were bad for man to drink from. It's why explorers and settlers in the Americas had to boil and ferment their drinks so they could have liquids in their diet. Even Natives made prepared teas and other drinks, despite their small resistance to drinking straight natural water.

I'm all for protecting nature, but I am also for letting nature take it's course. Unless you want to give me a good reason why humans are not an aspect of nature, letting humans do what they wish is a part of that.

You will also note that he mentions 'Preservation'. I need to make clear what that is. That is preserving something for NO FUTURE USE. They basically want to mark out areas of land and put up signs that say 'No Humans Allowed'. This is why I am an Conservationist. Conservationists believe
>> No. 77872
>He targets Libertarians who believe in removing the State from the Free Market, he even calls them a 'subculture' or 'submovement' to put into your mind that this is a small minority instead of the truth where a large portion of Libertarians believe it.

He's right about it being a subculture. Its a sponsored political movement designed to go mostly nowhere of any real progress and convinces people to either follow intellectual follies of 'Free Market' mythology in pursuit of the manifestation of a deity-like force of collective human rationality summonable only once the market becomes 'Free' enough, or to vote against their own interests on behalf of the sponsor.

You can't even measure market's freedom objectivity. Its a farce. It does not exist. There is no way to test a market to see how 'free' it is or has become, or needs to be, and every market is subject to all kinds of rules and regulations which are both writ by society and the participants in the exchange as well as established but unwritten amongst them: and then there are the laws of nature as well, which we might do well to abide by if we want our 'markets' to stay functioning.

If libertarians want to 'free the market' they need to capture the government to use it to give an abstract concept an objective value that cannot be measured anyway.

Keeping in mind we are dealing with money here, an entirely quantifiable substance.


File 139402090466.png - (108.06KB , 400x312 , South Park Phylogenetic Network.png )
77497 No. 77497 [View]

The way that life assembles sometimes is just really amazing I think. Case in point: our human bodies. Perhaps this appeals to me largely because of my more holistic perspective of things.


From what I am understanding, somewhere between 90-95% of our 'human' bodies are actually not cells we identify as 'human'. We have even possibly waged war on this 90-95% of our bodies, with things like 'antimicrobial soaps' and foods and drinks liberally hosed down with and fed glyphosates. How are their microbiomes faring?

Perhaps it would be intelligent for us to consider ourselves, at least as a thought experiment, as the "I" in plural form. The microbiota(right word I think?) that make up the overwhelming majority of our body aren't just along for the ride. They produce the chemicals your brain needs to think, they help you digest your food and help improve the nutrient availability and quality of that food as it passes through your body.They are quite likely even portals for information integration and dissemination in both horizontal and vertical fashions (gene data networking) and behavior adaptation through horizontal gene transfer - and if they are the 90-95% of our actual selves, its likely they also otherwise help influence our behavior, our interests, and our thought processes.

It may even be possible that people's genetic material could be penetrated and engineered through the introduction of designed microbial 'fortifications' against pests that eat their food.

"I", plural is a vastly different world than the "I", singular-self we assemble through countless hours of anatomy lessons, isn't it? When we consider that we may be also open and active in this process of DNA s
12 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77843

Its possible I don't understand which 95% but it keeps cropping up in various places. I am trying to find said citation.


Item 4
>4. There are more bacterial cells in the body than human cells.
>Scientists have estimated that about 95% of all the cells in the body are bacteria. The vast majority of these microbes can be found within the digetive tract.

Which scientists? Which estimate? I have yet to find it but I've heard this reiterated in a lot of other places. Perhaps I have worded it wrongly or misunderstood but it seems to be indicating that our 'human body cells' as we call them are an inclusive microbiome of mostly not what we previously consider to be 'our body' more or less.
>> No. 77845
File 139967153971.png - (376.96KB , 909x531 , dendrite.png )
>4. There are more bacterial cells in the body than human cells.
>Scientists have estimated that about 95% of all the cells in the body are bacteria. The vast majority of these microbes can be found within the digetive tract.

Okay, I can buy that. I hadn't really thought about it much, and bacteria are a lot smaller than animal cells, so it's certainly possible that there are more bacteria in our gut than cells in our body.

>our genes do behave and switch on or off or vary or what have you based on our interactions with other people and probably the food we eat and stuff like that.

You are absolutely correct there, variation in gene expression is how we can have such a variety of specialized tissues that all have the same genetic content. Changing expression to meet needs or conditions is one of the most important functions of our genome. And the microorganisms in your gut would also be changing and adapting, maybe even doing HGT among themselves, and I guess it's possible the intestinal cells could read into that and change in response to it. I don't know, the more I think about this the more plausible it's becoming.

>Are you sure that the nerve only goes one way
>> No. 77871
> I think you might be romanticizing the implications just a tad, but it's definitely a very interesting new frontier. Thanks for sharing!

You're right I do romanticize it don't I? I also am not well educated in stuff like this so I might get the right information but interpret it a little closer to the heart than to the academia.

If I find more I will post it here ^_^

File 140044802750.png - (355.30KB , 600x600 , 131780389536.png )
77867 No. 77867 [View]


'The decision handed down by the ECJ in a dispute between a Spanish man, who was suing a Spanish newspaper (to be precise, its website), and Google Spain has sent shockwaves through the internet industry. In effect, the judges have reiterated that in Europe there is a "right to be forgotten" - which applies specifically to search engines but not to news websites (or other journalistic endeavour) - and that people can therefore ask to be removed from search indexes (for some search engines, as we'll explain).'

Do we have a right to be forgotten? Can that be understood as anything other than a right to censor the speech of others about ourselves?

Is there a better, more fair way for this to be handled other than personal appeals?

To me this seems like a dramatic overreach that will only be used by those who can afford to argue extensive legal cases to keep the public in the dark about their misconduct.
>> No. 77868
File 140048815510.png - (440.13KB , 723x544 , Dean 14.png )
Age-old question, like should the gov't be allowed to listen in on our phone calls. On the one hand - hell no, I deserve my privacy. On the other hand - catch criminals and terrorists. Hmm.

The trouble is, the internet has grown to be such a huge part of life that I don't think giants like Google can really say "It's your choice to use our services, so you can't complain about us keeping your information". Use of services like Google has become so central to our communicative lives that it almost seems comparable to walking through the park with a secret agent beside you listening to your conversation, saying "It's your choice to speak out loud where I can hear you, so you can't complain about me keeping your information".

Furthermore, it's not like the man in question Googled "Kiddy Porn" and then complained that Google retained that information. Information was put up about him that was damaging to him, information about past misfortune/embarrassment/malpractice. With that information publicly on the internet for all to see his prospects of getting a good job in the future are seriously damaged. "Freedom of information", cries the technogiant, but surely this is damaging if it means that no one is allowed to clear their name of the mistakes of their past? It would be like a recovered alcoholic walking around with a great big sign on his jacket saying "I Used To Be A Good-For-Nothing Drunk", even though he hadn't touched a drop in twenty years. Good luck getting a job.

On a more personal level, we all have dumb things on Facebook, Twitter, and so on. Dumb things from our youth. We are the first generation in history where future employers will judge us on the things we've done and said as teenagers - even as children, depending on when you signed up for these sites. In the past the only time something like that would show up for an employer is if you had a criminal conviction or something. Now ... anything goes. How can this possibly be a good thing?

The internet's previously unconstrained right to our information has allowed crime-fighting bodies to track dow
>> No. 77869
I agree that it's a rather serious problem, one that's gotten more and more serious with as the information age finishes it's dawn and climbs toward 'noon'.

Ideally, people should begin to realize that their fellow human beings are flawed, that they themselves are flawed, and engage in less demonization of the other when everyone they know has a sketchy past.

But if there need to be limitations, they should not place this level of burden on the company to directly resolve disputes.

File 139071232251.png - (124.40KB , 471x410 , tumblr_mdyywkPhtk1rnhw2fo4_500.png )
76792 No. 76792 Locked [View] [Last 50 posts]
I wonder. Are there negative effects of calibrating to much?
86 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 77863
File 140031342833.png - (162.04KB , 453x451 , what 3.png )
Why have you brought it back from the bottom?
>> No. 77864
File 140039222205.png - (74.74KB , 262x400 , Absolutely disgusting7.png )

>necro-ing a 5(+) month old thread
>> No. 77865

Locking this.

File 139843400478.jpg - (24.78KB , 416x299 , what-is-net-neutrality-what-you-should-know.jpg )
77742 No. 77742 [View]

I'm honestly getting sick and tired of all the hysteria surrounding this.

Net Neutrality is defined as "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." For a long time, the FCC has enforced this with additional laws that allowed blocking of access to content deemed as illegal. Recently, the FCC has adopted instead an Open Internet consept, allowing the ISPs to have more control over what they provide. Of course, everyone starting screaming that it's the end of the internet and I'm here to try and speak to you over the din about what is actually going ot happen.

First, the FCC is not surrendering all control. They will still enforce rules as stated in their own blogs:

"To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted.

Incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here:

The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be “commercially reasonable.” Acting within the constraints of the Court’s decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is “commercially reasonable.” In addition, the Notice will seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important goal consistent with the Court’s decision. The Notice will also observe that the Commission believes it has the authority under Supreme Court precedent to identify behavior that is flatly illegal.
13 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77837
>I fail to see the significance.

Just mouse over the image of the letter and you can read it.
>> No. 77840
I did. Again, I fail to see the significance.
>> No. 77842
File 139966351704.jpg - (162.81KB , 1200x945 , 10295056_10152387319849699_4261406052016115491_o.jpg )
Thats okay.

Check this out.


I lol'd. Back to AOL time's with you, FCC!

File 139422076418.png - (448.34KB , 895x544 , vlcsnap-2013-06-13-22h44m45s116.png )
77540 No. 77540 [View]

Well come on folks, where's the Ukraine thread?

I'll start. Assuming that the Crimea has majority Russian population, the local government has called a referendum to secede, and the people vote to secede, why should they not do so? Is it not their democratic right?

London fully respects the right of Scotland to secede if it votes to, why should it not respect the right of the Crimea?
10 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77572
File 139455389649.png - (22.04KB , 140x150 , clover_the_clever_vector_by_kyute_kitsune-d4jooau.png )
Thanks for that! That is a really good resource.
>> No. 77584
Let me tell you a story while I am still able to do so.

But first lets make up two political party names. Goodguyians and Badguyians will do.
Lets make up a country for them. How about Nobodycaria? Good enough for the purpose of this mental ex... I mean the story.
Let's make Nobodycaria a parliamentary-presidential republic. In simpler terms it means the Parliament is in charge, the President can do some stuff, but most of the time just represents Nobodycaria everywhere.

In the dark future of the forty first millenium a Badguyian becomes the President in Nobodycaria. Plagues, natural disasters and general dissatisfaction with politicians sweep the land. (He soon, predictably, screws up, don't worry, Badguyian ratings plummet etc., etc., but I'm getting ahead of myself.)

The "majority" in Parliament, being mostly composed of the Badguyian party, is locked in a never ending stalemate with a coalition of smaller parties, led by Goodguyians - the largest party among the opposition. Both "coalitions" have approximately equal deputee counts, neither has the Constitutional Majority necessary to actually do something and break the stalemate (duh).
>> No. 77838
File 139956730177.jpg - (24.86KB , 500x619 , 13996_10151490780545729_1020721743_n.jpg )
Would someone like to update on whats going on? I haven't been following.

File 139817292075.jpg - (62.59KB , 500x328 , tumblr_inline_n41aucZGhW1sp7gkx.jpg )
77738 No. 77738 [View]

I haven't seen it yet but just caught wind this is the biggest thing in ratings (viewership) history, and that it will be broadcast all over the world in a hundred and fifty or so languages and just may get the same general ratings response. Suggesting it could actually be a fucking big deal.

Have you seen it? What do you think?

(a word about ownership)
picture taken from https://31.media.tumblr.com/83275e643359fe51423a6bdd0cf5c45d/tumblr_inline_n41aucZGhW1sp7gkx.jpg off of the website http://www.cosmosontv.com/ and probably is owned by FOX whom I would credit the image and for airing the show
16 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77816
Rogan is pretty cool, but sometimes if you put him next to or on the line with or in the room with really smart people you can see that he might collect smart people ideas and conversations but he really needs the smart people to help him understand them.
>> No. 77817
File 139913739382.jpg - (122.29KB , 992x558 , derailment.jpg )
>Sometimes people will legitimately ask if its okay to go off topic in a dis thread by asking the OP and /dis/ if its okay
In all my years on the internet, I've never seen or heard of somebody asking permission to derail a thread. You learn something new everyday.
>> No. 77835
We sometimes try not to step on each others toes here in /dis/ but I am rarely one to complain if things go off topic.

Threads sometimes do need to be pulled back closer to the original topic from time to time.

Delete post []
Report post

[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]