It has nothing to do with "unregulated corporate greed". It has a lot to do with corporate greed using regulations for their own benefit. The "problem" this new "net neutrality" regulation is supposed to fix was created by the government in the first place when it granted cable companies monopoly status in various areas. I never cease to be amazed at how often people respond to problems created by abusive use of government power by demanding that the government be given even more power.
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. Nobody but the FCC commissioners have seen these 300 pages of regulations yet (well OK, people are getting a look at them now). This is another, "We have to pass it so that you can see what is in it" set of rules. I would be a lot more likely to believe it was a good thing if they had not kept the wording hidden up until they passed it. Of course, at over 300 pages I doubt I would have believed it was a good thing any way.
The problem with this scheme is that currently is a 1st generation i7 better than a 5th generation i3? My guess would be "probably not", but having looked at a very limited amount of information, the answer appears to be a definite "maybe". Basically, ever since Intel gave up on 80x86 designations for its chips they have failed to settle on a naming convention that allows me to easily compare their CPUs (although the Core series is easier to compare than what came just before that).
I used to regularly do a review of CPUs from both Intel and AMD to determine what I considered to be the best bang for the buck, but it has become too much work to do so any more. Now I only do it when I am buying a new computer, and I put that off as long as I can.
In a true free market they would be able to start a business. There are a lot of things which I could do to make money, but the cost of meeting the government regulations raises my costs above what people are willing to pay.
The problem is that you wait for the general election when the choice for each party has already been selected. You need to take part in the process by which the candidates for your party of choice is selected.
Yes, the Times said that, but that was not what they said when the U.S. was preparing to go for war. Nor was it what they said right after the invasion. What they said right after the invasion was that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...now they are saying that there were.
Oh, I don't suppose it occurred to you that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is unlikely to want to bring attention to the fact that ISIS came into being on her watch. When I did a Google search of her comments about ISIS, her statements were mostly supportive of Obama's strategy, primarily suggesting a slightly more aggressive bombing program than the current one (but supportive of the current program none-the-less).
As to JEB Bush, it is hard to imagine him coming out touting wmds found in Iraq, when his own brother did not do so as President. Even though these weapons were found while W. was being shellacked for failing to fin them, it was his decision to keep it quiet.
Of course, it doesn't help that people like you continue to believe that WMDs were the sole, or at least primary, justification given for invading Iraq, when in fact the primary justification given at the time was Saddam's refusal to abide by the agreement he made at the end of the first Gulf War.
It is interesting that the Huffington Post does not use the "degraded over time" argument. They instead claim that the "lie" told by the Bush Administration was that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction rather than that he had them (contrary to what they argued in 2004, when they claimed that no wmds were found in Iraq).
Of course, the fact that ISIS has actually used these chemical weapons in the manner for which they were created does not suggest to you that perhaps they are still potent enough to cause mass destruction?
Perhaps you failed to notice that my source was the Huffington Post. It is they who are saying that ISIS troops are using chemical weapons which they obtained from Saddam's stockpiles. While I will agree that Huffington Post is a bunch of wingnuts, they are are not noted for thinking that Bush was right about anything.
You mean the way Democrats keep mentioning the Koch brothers, while Republicans also mention people like Tom Steyer? And Herbert and Marion Sandler? The interesting thing about Soros, Steyer, and the Sandlers is that all three have been either involved with, or associated with illegal activities.
Let's see, it was not Fox News spreading the idea that vaccines cause autism. That was MSNBC.
As to Saddam having WMDs, you apparently have not read the reports about ISIS using the WMDs which Saddam had stockpiled (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/isis-chemical-weapons-_n_5987106.html)
Yeah, someone working in the police force there is either very incompetent or very shady.
Actually, you are overlooking the most likely scenario: Someone (or more than someone) working for the Scottish Police Authority is both very incompetent AND very shady.
Actually, the term engineer as it applies to electrical, mechanical, etc engineers does not derive from the term used for those who drive trains. If the two terms are related, it is the other way around. My suspicion is that the term railroad engineer for the guy who drives a train derives from the fact that the first men who drove trains were the same men who designed trains. And even long after that stopped being true, they were men who knew how trains were designed (in detail) so that they knew how to fix them when something went wrong.
Maybe you should look at places that have already implemented such systems. Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for some time now, medical professionals report that they do not wait for the patient to decide that they want to die. They just use their own judgment as to whether that person's life is still worth living. As far as I have been able to find, there have been no prosecutions for such acts, even though they are technically illegal.
In other words, once it becomes legal for medical professionals to assist someone in taking their own life, medical professionals begin killing people who have not asked for such "help".
Well, yes, everyone who wanted to see, or wanted to be perceived as wanting to see, Iran reduce its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons said that the negotiations had succeeded in getting them to agree to do so. Interestingly enough, the Iranians have said that they have NOT agreed to reduce their nuclear program...so, exactly how is that working out well?
The problem is that people often use the two terms interchangeably. When someone uses the term "capitalism", they usually mean free market economics. If that is not how you are using the term, you need to define what you mean by it (those who use "capitalism" as something other than "free market economics" mean a wide variety of things).
Such as?
At this point in history, free market economics has delivered more goods and better lives, by a wide margin, to a greater number of people than any other economic system tried by mankind. In the last century we have seen why it has worked this way. So, please lay out your alternative economic system in a way which does not contain the flaws so clearly demonstrated in every other attempt to organize economic activity.
Here is the flaw in a nutshell: People are greedy and almost always use any power they have to improve their position at the expense of others. Any system which relies on one group of people controlling everyone else's desire to take advantage of others is open to that group using their power to take advantage of others.
Because the Constitution explicitly states "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right." In other words, it is unconstitutional. Various studies of the legal interpretation of the time tell us that "limited times" means 99 years or less (which is why, for example, the British lease of Hong Kong only lasted for 99 years).
Well, yes, that is a possibility. Of course, various studies have shown that in trade between countries with highly restrictive import rules and high tariffs and countries with limited import rules and tariffs, it is the latter which fair better economically. Trade restrictions appear to have greater negative impact on the country imposing them than on the country they are applied to (exceptions being in those cases where the country imposing the restrictions has a much larger economy than the one they are being imposed on).
Then they will move some place else. Of course, you could always make it so that a company pays a tax in every country they do business in on all of the money they make any where in the world, with a tax credit for any tax paid in any other country (meaning that only the country with the highest tax rates actually gets any money). Of course the result of this will be for companies to separate into lots of smaller companies all owned by the same holding company. The holding company would be based in a low tax country and would charge each of the subsidiaries a fee for "managing" their relationships. That fee would be equal to, or exceed, whatever taxable income each subsidiary would otherwise earn.
Or to put it another way, yet more capital would be tied up in finding ways to avoid taxes rather than being spent on productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with "unregulated corporate greed". It has a lot to do with corporate greed using regulations for their own benefit. The "problem" this new "net neutrality" regulation is supposed to fix was created by the government in the first place when it granted cable companies monopoly status in various areas. I never cease to be amazed at how often people respond to problems created by abusive use of government power by demanding that the government be given even more power.
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. Nobody but the FCC commissioners have seen these 300 pages of regulations yet (well OK, people are getting a look at them now). This is another, "We have to pass it so that you can see what is in it" set of rules. I would be a lot more likely to believe it was a good thing if they had not kept the wording hidden up until they passed it. Of course, at over 300 pages I doubt I would have believed it was a good thing any way.
It's good to see that people who favor government regulation admit that the only reason they support government regulation is because they are evil.
The problem with this scheme is that currently is a 1st generation i7 better than a 5th generation i3? My guess would be "probably not", but having looked at a very limited amount of information, the answer appears to be a definite "maybe". Basically, ever since Intel gave up on 80x86 designations for its chips they have failed to settle on a naming convention that allows me to easily compare their CPUs (although the Core series is easier to compare than what came just before that). I used to regularly do a review of CPUs from both Intel and AMD to determine what I considered to be the best bang for the buck, but it has become too much work to do so any more. Now I only do it when I am buying a new computer, and I put that off as long as I can.
In a true free market they would be able to start a business. There are a lot of things which I could do to make money, but the cost of meeting the government regulations raises my costs above what people are willing to pay.
The problem is that you wait for the general election when the choice for each party has already been selected. You need to take part in the process by which the candidates for your party of choice is selected.
Yes, the Times said that, but that was not what they said when the U.S. was preparing to go for war. Nor was it what they said right after the invasion. What they said right after the invasion was that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...now they are saying that there were.
No, but it is evidence suggesting that the Germans were prepared to use chemical weapons in WWI
Oh, I don't suppose it occurred to you that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is unlikely to want to bring attention to the fact that ISIS came into being on her watch. When I did a Google search of her comments about ISIS, her statements were mostly supportive of Obama's strategy, primarily suggesting a slightly more aggressive bombing program than the current one (but supportive of the current program none-the-less). As to JEB Bush, it is hard to imagine him coming out touting wmds found in Iraq, when his own brother did not do so as President. Even though these weapons were found while W. was being shellacked for failing to fin them, it was his decision to keep it quiet. Of course, it doesn't help that people like you continue to believe that WMDs were the sole, or at least primary, justification given for invading Iraq, when in fact the primary justification given at the time was Saddam's refusal to abide by the agreement he made at the end of the first Gulf War.
It is interesting that the Huffington Post does not use the "degraded over time" argument. They instead claim that the "lie" told by the Bush Administration was that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction rather than that he had them (contrary to what they argued in 2004, when they claimed that no wmds were found in Iraq). Of course, the fact that ISIS has actually used these chemical weapons in the manner for which they were created does not suggest to you that perhaps they are still potent enough to cause mass destruction?
Perhaps you failed to notice that my source was the Huffington Post. It is they who are saying that ISIS troops are using chemical weapons which they obtained from Saddam's stockpiles. While I will agree that Huffington Post is a bunch of wingnuts, they are are not noted for thinking that Bush was right about anything.
You mean the way Democrats keep mentioning the Koch brothers, while Republicans also mention people like Tom Steyer? And Herbert and Marion Sandler? The interesting thing about Soros, Steyer, and the Sandlers is that all three have been either involved with, or associated with illegal activities.
Let's see, it was not Fox News spreading the idea that vaccines cause autism. That was MSNBC. As to Saddam having WMDs, you apparently have not read the reports about ISIS using the WMDs which Saddam had stockpiled (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/isis-chemical-weapons-_n_5987106.html)
Yeah, someone working in the police force there is either very incompetent or very shady.
Actually, you are overlooking the most likely scenario: Someone (or more than someone) working for the Scottish Police Authority is both very incompetent AND very shady.
Actually, the term engineer as it applies to electrical, mechanical, etc engineers does not derive from the term used for those who drive trains. If the two terms are related, it is the other way around. My suspicion is that the term railroad engineer for the guy who drives a train derives from the fact that the first men who drove trains were the same men who designed trains. And even long after that stopped being true, they were men who knew how trains were designed (in detail) so that they knew how to fix them when something went wrong.
Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...
Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...
Maybe you should look at places that have already implemented such systems. Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for some time now, medical professionals report that they do not wait for the patient to decide that they want to die. They just use their own judgment as to whether that person's life is still worth living. As far as I have been able to find, there have been no prosecutions for such acts, even though they are technically illegal. In other words, once it becomes legal for medical professionals to assist someone in taking their own life, medical professionals begin killing people who have not asked for such "help".
Well, yes, everyone who wanted to see, or wanted to be perceived as wanting to see, Iran reduce its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons said that the negotiations had succeeded in getting them to agree to do so. Interestingly enough, the Iranians have said that they have NOT agreed to reduce their nuclear program...so, exactly how is that working out well?
The problem is that people often use the two terms interchangeably. When someone uses the term "capitalism", they usually mean free market economics. If that is not how you are using the term, you need to define what you mean by it (those who use "capitalism" as something other than "free market economics" mean a wide variety of things).
Such as?
At this point in history, free market economics has delivered more goods and better lives, by a wide margin, to a greater number of people than any other economic system tried by mankind. In the last century we have seen why it has worked this way. So, please lay out your alternative economic system in a way which does not contain the flaws so clearly demonstrated in every other attempt to organize economic activity.
Here is the flaw in a nutshell: People are greedy and almost always use any power they have to improve their position at the expense of others. Any system which relies on one group of people controlling everyone else's desire to take advantage of others is open to that group using their power to take advantage of others.
And why would that be wrong?
Because the Constitution explicitly states "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right ." In other words, it is unconstitutional. Various studies of the legal interpretation of the time tell us that "limited times" means 99 years or less (which is why, for example, the British lease of Hong Kong only lasted for 99 years).
Well, yes, that is a possibility. Of course, various studies have shown that in trade between countries with highly restrictive import rules and high tariffs and countries with limited import rules and tariffs, it is the latter which fair better economically. Trade restrictions appear to have greater negative impact on the country imposing them than on the country they are applied to (exceptions being in those cases where the country imposing the restrictions has a much larger economy than the one they are being imposed on).
When has a lack of legal basis stopped Obama from doing what he pleases in the past?
Then they will move some place else. Of course, you could always make it so that a company pays a tax in every country they do business in on all of the money they make any where in the world, with a tax credit for any tax paid in any other country (meaning that only the country with the highest tax rates actually gets any money). Of course the result of this will be for companies to separate into lots of smaller companies all owned by the same holding company. The holding company would be based in a low tax country and would charge each of the subsidiaries a fee for "managing" their relationships. That fee would be equal to, or exceed, whatever taxable income each subsidiary would otherwise earn.
Or to put it another way, yet more capital would be tied up in finding ways to avoid taxes rather than being spent on productivity.