I call bullshit on that. The CRA never forced banks to make loans to people they knew couldn't repay them. It simply said if you do business in a community you can't refuse to also make loans in that community. The dollar amount that CRA loans had to do with the Wall Street meltdown amounts to a rounding error.
I think the reason that dialup modems hit that wall had more to do with the practical limits of pushing data over an audio phone line than anything to do with regulation.
Somehow, I think a Federally owned universal ISP option might end up being the same as universal health care.
Considering that nearly every other country in the world that has instituted universal health care pays about half as much per capita as we do in the US for health care I'm not sure I see a problem with this idea.
BP was drilling there instead of in shallow water precisely because the government said they couldn't drill in shallow water...
I've seen this claim made quite often lately but I've never seen any actual evidence that it's a true statement. I know they've avoided drilling in shallow water in the Eastern Gulf because of Florida politics but I've never heard anyone who would know make that claim for the rest of the Gulf. It always seems to come from people who have and axe to grind with environmentalists.
Based on how much oil gushed out of the well until they got it under control I expect that BP was drilling there because it was a good oil field and they knew they could make good money on it. Then it all blew up in their faces.
It all started with the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. In a statement that was not a part of the official decision of the court but rather an obiter dictum* the court reporter added it as a head note on the decision.
* "an incidental and collateral opinion that is uttered by a judge but is not binding"
If you examine the Founding Fathers attitudes about corporations you find they were mostly distrustful of them. I don't think they intended the Constitution to grant any rights to them. Often a corporation is just as much a faceless bureaucracy as government is.
How about if instead of the ISP's choosing for you how to discriminate based on packet origin they leave it up to their customers to do that for themselves? Or at least they could offer it as an option the customer could choose rather than imposing it on everybody.
I think your statement that the media is dominated by conservative news is in error.
I think whether you consider a news source liberal or conservative depends completely on your point of view. Of the ones you listed I would only consider MSNBC and maybe PBS to be liberal.
Part of the reason they get higher ratings is that they have some exclusive deals with hotels. I've been in a number of hotels where the only cable news is Fox (and maybe CNN Headline News). I've never been in a hotel where MSNBC is the only cable news.
It was actually a story about the use of rBGH* in dairy cattle but you're right, the courts found that the reporters didn't have status as whistleblowers because the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation". Monsanto stopped the story by talking to Roger Ailes.
Yeah, I was being a bit hyperbolic with the 10 wires comment.
But I think it's wasteful of money and resources to string multiple cables. Each company would have to charge you a little more to pay off the installation cost. Why go to the expense of putting in lots of cables when one or at most two would suffice for any imaginable need in most places? If you separate the content providers completely from the delivery of that content then you can get it from any provider that cares to deliver it to you.
I've thought about that before and it would be a good idea but still I'd rather have the providers of the pipes for information to me completely separate from the providers of the content I get over those pipes. Then there is no issue of conflict of interest.
If corporations didn't practice censorship the news you get would be radically different than it currently is. Most of the media tailors its news to avoid offending its advertisers. After all, it's the advertisers who are their customers, not the public. They're selling your eyeballs to the advertisers or their other sponsors.
Make no mistake about it. If enough ordinary citizens get exercised about some issue the Federal Government will do something. They still have to get elected. But corporate interests, their crony politicians and the MSM work to keep people divided so they seldom are able to come together in such a way as to exercise there power. In the absence of enough pressure by ordinary citizens corporations are able to sustain lobbying the Feds 24/7 drowning out individual voices.
Did you listen to all 40+ minutes of her talk? This is a woman whose father was murdered by a white man when she was 16 years old. She had reason to dislike white people. It's a story about how she overcame her racism and came to understand it was more about the haves and have nots than race. When you cherry pick a line or two to make a point opposite to the point the speaker was trying to make I'd call it butchering.
Rather than allow other vendors to string their own "wires" the wires should be run as a public utility allowing anyone to sell their wares over them. I don't want to see 10 more wires hanging on the poles outside my house to to have my street dug up 5 different times so someone can bury their own wires. Just give me one pipe and allow any ISP or other service to sell to me as they will.
It's only 2 or 3 mm per year. You're not really going to notice it if you're not paying pretty close attention. This NOAA tides and currents site has the information. For instance at Pensacola they have records going back to 1925 and it's averaged 2.1 mm/year, at Dauphin Island from 1965? it's averages 2.98 mm/year and at Galveston since 1957 it's averaged 6.84 mm/year (hmm, must be some subsidence going on there). Click on the station you want then sea level trends to see the graphs.
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit on that. The CRA never forced banks to make loans to people they knew couldn't repay them. It simply said if you do business in a community you can't refuse to also make loans in that community. The dollar amount that CRA loans had to do with the Wall Street meltdown amounts to a rounding error.
I think the reason that dialup modems hit that wall had more to do with the practical limits of pushing data over an audio phone line than anything to do with regulation.
Somehow, I think a Federally owned universal ISP option might end up being the same as universal health care.
Considering that nearly every other country in the world that has instituted universal health care pays about half as much per capita as we do in the US for health care I'm not sure I see a problem with this idea.
BP was drilling there instead of in shallow water precisely because the government said they couldn't drill in shallow water...
I've seen this claim made quite often lately but I've never seen any actual evidence that it's a true statement. I know they've avoided drilling in shallow water in the Eastern Gulf because of Florida politics but I've never heard anyone who would know make that claim for the rest of the Gulf. It always seems to come from people who have and axe to grind with environmentalists.
Based on how much oil gushed out of the well until they got it under control I expect that BP was drilling there because it was a good oil field and they knew they could make good money on it. Then it all blew up in their faces.
Not all states deny felons the right to vote after they have served their time.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing that Al Franken is 1 of 100 Senators, not 1 of 435 Representatives.
It all started with the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. In a statement that was not a part of the official decision of the court but rather an obiter dictum* the court reporter added it as a head note on the decision.
* "an incidental and collateral opinion that is uttered by a judge but is not binding"
If you examine the Founding Fathers attitudes about corporations you find they were mostly distrustful of them. I don't think they intended the Constitution to grant any rights to them. Often a corporation is just as much a faceless bureaucracy as government is.
I don't care if ISPs offer those kinds of services as long as I have the option not to choose one of them.
How about if instead of the ISP's choosing for you how to discriminate based on packet origin they leave it up to their customers to do that for themselves? Or at least they could offer it as an option the customer could choose rather than imposing it on everybody.
I think your statement that the media is dominated by conservative news is in error.
I think whether you consider a news source liberal or conservative depends completely on your point of view. Of the ones you listed I would only consider MSNBC and maybe PBS to be liberal.
Part of the reason they get higher ratings is that they have some exclusive deals with hotels. I've been in a number of hotels where the only cable news is Fox (and maybe CNN Headline News). I've never been in a hotel where MSNBC is the only cable news.
It was actually a story about the use of rBGH* in dairy cattle but you're right, the courts found that the reporters didn't have status as whistleblowers because the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation". Monsanto stopped the story by talking to Roger Ailes.
* recombinant bovine growth hormone
Yeah, I was being a bit hyperbolic with the 10 wires comment.
But I think it's wasteful of money and resources to string multiple cables. Each company would have to charge you a little more to pay off the installation cost. Why go to the expense of putting in lots of cables when one or at most two would suffice for any imaginable need in most places? If you separate the content providers completely from the delivery of that content then you can get it from any provider that cares to deliver it to you.
I've thought about that before and it would be a good idea but still I'd rather have the providers of the pipes for information to me completely separate from the providers of the content I get over those pipes. Then there is no issue of conflict of interest.
It needs to at least be big enough to take on corporate interests on my behalf.
It was 45 years ago in 1965 when her father was killed reportedly over a dispute about a few cows. An all white grand jury returned no charges against the shooter. It was a different world in 1965. I was there. I remember when blacks were denied entry into public accommodations and had separate drinking fountains. Are you old enough to remember any of that?
In the end though it's a story about how Shirley Sherrod overcame her racism which is the opposite of what Andrew Breitbart was trying to imply.
If corporations didn't practice censorship the news you get would be radically different than it currently is. Most of the media tailors its news to avoid offending its advertisers. After all, it's the advertisers who are their customers, not the public. They're selling your eyeballs to the advertisers or their other sponsors.
Make no mistake about it. If enough ordinary citizens get exercised about some issue the Federal Government will do something. They still have to get elected. But corporate interests, their crony politicians and the MSM work to keep people divided so they seldom are able to come together in such a way as to exercise there power. In the absence of enough pressure by ordinary citizens corporations are able to sustain lobbying the Feds 24/7 drowning out individual voices.
Now that's insightful!
Did you listen to all 40+ minutes of her talk? This is a woman whose father was murdered by a white man when she was 16 years old. She had reason to dislike white people. It's a story about how she overcame her racism and came to understand it was more about the haves and have nots than race. When you cherry pick a line or two to make a point opposite to the point the speaker was trying to make I'd call it butchering.
I want sysadmins running ISPs, ...
As opposed to the corporate suits that seem to run most ISP's now?
Why not separate the delivery of content from the providers of content so the delivery services have no conflict of interest over what they deliver?
But you would have a ballot the size of the OED. I don't have a month to mark my ballot.
Rather than allow other vendors to string their own "wires" the wires should be run as a public utility allowing anyone to sell their wares over them. I don't want to see 10 more wires hanging on the poles outside my house to to have my street dug up 5 different times so someone can bury their own wires. Just give me one pipe and allow any ISP or other service to sell to me as they will.
It's only 2 or 3 mm per year. You're not really going to notice it if you're not paying pretty close attention. This NOAA tides and currents site has the information. For instance at Pensacola they have records going back to 1925 and it's averaged 2.1 mm/year, at Dauphin Island from 1965? it's averages 2.98 mm/year and at Galveston since 1957 it's averaged 6.84 mm/year (hmm, must be some subsidence going on there). Click on the station you want then sea level trends to see the graphs.