The problem is that this is a classic "inside the corporate bubble" reaction to bitcoin. One of the supposed ideas of bitcoin is to not link money to governments. Since corporations are super-important to mindless bots like Rand Paul, the solution is, of course, to link them to corporations. If there is anything worse than linking the monetary system to governments, if you would be linking them the corporations that even worse about selfishness and tilting the playing field towards themselves at all costs.
Actually, in a situation where a city authorizes a monopoly service, why aren't the people of that city consulted when that service is to change hands.
Maybe they are consulted by consulting with the city council or commissioners, but we all know that's just as good as no oversight at all.
You'd at least think there would be public hearing...
They have spent very little money keeping their systems up in Indiana. They constantly oversell their services with push salespeople who don't know their product. Their local offices spend their days on the phone with angry hicks.
In some ways I am fine with seeing the backside of Comcrap, but Charter has a pretty bad reputation itself.
Fiber is supposed to go into my town... and this just wears my patience thinner...
Political contributions don't need to be banned... they need to be limited to just candidates that the person (PERSON, not CORPORATION) can legally vote for.
I really hate this strawman (it usually comes up with the name "Soros" however) because it is so wildly off base. I don't care WHO is buying influence in politics.. it just shouldn't happen. These people should not be able to lobby anyone they can't vote directly for. They have representatives in Congress just like I do. I don't care what they are for, it warps the idea of representative government.
I think the Kochs gets brought up so often, though, because their politics is so destructive to our country and our economy. Because of the massive amount they funnel into organizations and individuals we are unable to do anything as a country that is for the common good. The entire labor movement is estimated to be around a 10th of the Koch brothers money, and there is no comparison or balance. And that's BAD in a system that thrives on balances.
This isn't about fields of expertise. This is about being beholden to specific economic interests. You can get doctors in the FDA that aren't beholden to Pfiser or Eli Lilly.
The "oh, but they are experts" is a very weak defense of corporate behavior that captures regulatory organizations.
What I can't put my finger on is exactly when this behavior and conflict of interest in general because fine. It's rife throughout government. We see it in a big way in the SCOTUS, and the state governments are even worse than the federal government. But *NO ONE* seems to care. This wasn't the same in the 70s and 80s, or perhaps it was and the difference is that these idiots aren't even embarrassed by it any more.
Of course I don't have any confidence our current SCOTUS knows ANYTHING (including the law) and they have proven they will do the wrong thing if the correct price is paid...
This is their trademark at the moment... prejudging cases based on who has the most political clout and money. We've got the worst SCOTUS in the history of the country right now.
So you have to be gay to be pissed off about this?
I'm straight. I'm pretty pissed off about the huge (and loud) number of people that think that making a group of people second class through law is a good thing. It's not just about gays, either.
I hate this strawman, and it's coming up time and time again.
This isn't a "personal belief" or "opinion." This isn't someone who like brunettes over blondes. This isn't someone who doesn't like chocolate or who even doesn't like smokers. This is the belief that a group of people should be second class to another group of people.
If someone stands up and says "I don't like gays" it is one thing. When someone stands up and says "we should take rights away because I don't like these people" it's quite another thing. I am pissed off about the latter. It's the difference between thinking the person is a jerk and thinking the person is detrimental.
Slashdot Mirror
Chicken Little because it isn't going to happen in your lifetime?
I don't get it. This is happening.
Don't expect this. There is an inevitable whining to government that is in the cards... you can bet on it.
The problem is that this is a classic "inside the corporate bubble" reaction to bitcoin. One of the supposed ideas of bitcoin is to not link money to governments. Since corporations are super-important to mindless bots like Rand Paul, the solution is, of course, to link them to corporations. If there is anything worse than linking the monetary system to governments, if you would be linking them the corporations that even worse about selfishness and tilting the playing field towards themselves at all costs.
"Cyber engineers"?
I'm sorry, but anyone that uses this phrase is highly suspect.
I don't think it affects the information in this case, but there is a reason we think that journalists are stupid when it come to tech.
Actually, in a situation where a city authorizes a monopoly service, why aren't the people of that city consulted when that service is to change hands.
Maybe they are consulted by consulting with the city council or commissioners, but we all know that's just as good as no oversight at all.
You'd at least think there would be public hearing...
Like I said, they hate it here.
They have spent very little money keeping their systems up in Indiana. They constantly oversell their services with push salespeople who don't know their product. Their local offices spend their days on the phone with angry hicks.
In some ways I am fine with seeing the backside of Comcrap, but Charter has a pretty bad reputation itself.
Fiber is supposed to go into my town... and this just wears my patience thinner...
> and we may as well turn it over to a single company with tight consumer-interest regulation.
BUHAHAHAHAHA
let me catch my breath.. Comcast regulated?!?1
HAHAHAHBu hahahaha
You're serious?
BuHAHAHA
I love how people STILL assume that Comcast competes on a level playing field.
I am sure there is leverage there. I am sure they have something to hang over the heads of the smaller providers/ISPs.
Look for them to divest their rural Indiana holdings. They hate it here.
I'm accused daily of being a "lib", and I agree 100% with that statement.
I don't give a shit what Soros is for (and I'm not sure what it is)... ban massive contributions.
Political contributions don't need to be banned... they need to be limited to just candidates that the person (PERSON, not CORPORATION) can legally vote for.
I'm replying to a -1, but it has to be said...
you need to look up how much subsidies oil gets before you make that argument again.
I really hate this strawman (it usually comes up with the name "Soros" however) because it is so wildly off base. I don't care WHO is buying influence in politics.. it just shouldn't happen. These people should not be able to lobby anyone they can't vote directly for. They have representatives in Congress just like I do. I don't care what they are for, it warps the idea of representative government.
I think the Kochs gets brought up so often, though, because their politics is so destructive to our country and our economy. Because of the massive amount they funnel into organizations and individuals we are unable to do anything as a country that is for the common good. The entire labor movement is estimated to be around a 10th of the Koch brothers money, and there is no comparison or balance. And that's BAD in a system that thrives on balances.
That's a poor-ass strawman and you know it.
This isn't about fields of expertise. This is about being beholden to specific economic interests. You can get doctors in the FDA that aren't beholden to Pfiser or Eli Lilly.
The "oh, but they are experts" is a very weak defense of corporate behavior that captures regulatory organizations.
What I can't put my finger on is exactly when this behavior and conflict of interest in general because fine. It's rife throughout government. We see it in a big way in the SCOTUS, and the state governments are even worse than the federal government. But *NO ONE* seems to care. This wasn't the same in the 70s and 80s, or perhaps it was and the difference is that these idiots aren't even embarrassed by it any more.
wow. being purposefully ignorant is twice as blissful.
only if you don't know how the Internet works.
Of course I don't have any confidence our current SCOTUS knows ANYTHING (including the law) and they have proven they will do the wrong thing if the correct price is paid...
There would be no huge corporate interest in that case, so the Roberts court would simply refuse to hear the case.
This is their trademark at the moment... prejudging cases based on who has the most political clout and money. We've got the worst SCOTUS in the history of the country right now.
...just don't let them put nuclear waste up there. You don't want it to rip itself out of orbit.
Sometimes those criminals are even made governor of a state.
Rick Scott...
oh.. ok. It's all right then. Never mind.
That equates out to like a $5 fine for those outside of the corporate bubble...
So you have to be gay to be pissed off about this?
I'm straight. I'm pretty pissed off about the huge (and loud) number of people that think that making a group of people second class through law is a good thing. It's not just about gays, either.
...and like a typical member of today's Right, freedom is right there for the buying. As for everyone else.. you're all right, eh Jack?
I hate this strawman, and it's coming up time and time again.
This isn't a "personal belief" or "opinion." This isn't someone who like brunettes over blondes. This isn't someone who doesn't like chocolate or who even doesn't like smokers. This is the belief that a group of people should be second class to another group of people.
If someone stands up and says "I don't like gays" it is one thing. When someone stands up and says "we should take rights away because I don't like these people" it's quite another thing. I am pissed off about the latter. It's the difference between thinking the person is a jerk and thinking the person is detrimental.