No. He's a mutant. He had the claws, and the regenerative ability. The experimental part was the adamantium infused into his skeleton. Everyone knows that.....
The whole reason Comcast is able to even consider throttling a possibility is because of the monopoly handed to them by government restriction preventing the construction of additional internet access lines by competitors. Competition would make it ridiculous and dangerous for a company to think of restricting their own customers, as the customers could simply go elsewhere.
"It is a law because the government is putting up money (student loans)."
And it should not be. Offering student loans is entirely outside the realm of "upholding the rights of the citizenry". You're using the status quo in an argument for the status quo.
"If the employers just reject the graduates the loans don't get repaid."
That's quite a ridiculous position to support. Laughably ridiculous. Wouldn't the government then have an incentive to throw a stamp of approval on every institution they can, just so they can get their money back? It is exactly that sort of corruption we could avoid through private competition.
"That would require employers to spend time and money keeping track of universities' efforts to prevent cheating. Having your leased politician pass a law pushing the responsibility back onto the college is much easier."
Read my other replies to other people who have said the same thing. Employers wouldn't have to do anything. Schools would willingly pay independent examiners to verify that their students are taking their tests, in order to get a stamp of approval that the employer can see and trust (provided the approving firm is trusted, like VeriSign is online).
That is a good thing. Handing over your responsibility to another entity is not a good idea, nor is it justifiable to force an institution to use its own funds to do anything against its will.
"I don't see a problem so long as this is not the only option."
The problem is that it forces a private organization to do with its property other than it wishes. That is my primary concern. As for a secondary problem: the false sense of security that comes with such a law, as is apparent in another reply to my original post - employers will accept the government's stamp of approval without questioning whether the organization got its accreditation through some loophole or through political pull.
"Otherwise this institution doesn't get accreditation."
Again, why must the government handle such a thing? It only permits the possibility of enforceable corruption.
"If you have a better idea how to take exam in your home without an official, share your idea with us."
A private organization offers to verify that a student is taking a test, and the employer bases his decision on his trust of that organization. We do the same thing with website security certificates. VeriSign has built up a name that people trust, and is not a branch of the government.
"Again, I like the fact that some of my tax money goes to fund students who would otherwise likely not have a chance for formal education."
Then you should be free to choose to assign those tax dollars - your earnings - as you see fit, donating them to an organization that offers loans to such students. But you have no choice. Just because a portion of your tax dollars happen to currently fund an action that you support does not mean that they always will. All it means is that you have no choice over the matter, and that you are tricking yourself into believing that this lack of choice is justifiable.
That is why I suggested an independent verifier, of the same kind as VeriSign, for example. They would do all the work, at the expense of the school, to verify students are actually taking their tests, if they want their reputations to remain high among employers.
"Yes, they could. If every company had the time, desire and resources to do background research for every hole in the wall online school (there will only be more of them as time goes on)."
Why would they have to research anything? The school would be required to show evidence of research. This research can be done by an independent organization that specifically does this sort of thing. The employer wouldn't have to do anything but verify that the a trusted independent organization has confirmed the school verifies student identity.
"Or, it could be made a law so businesses can assume any person graduating from an accredited school..."
And a failing business they would be for assuming such a thing. To assume that their employee actually took their tests is to also assume that the school has not found a loophole in the law, or has not - through some other middleman - paid off the right politicians to make a special exception for them. Even if there were such a law, any rational employer would still want independent verification - independent of the school and the government. As such the law is redundant, except to those employers willing to hand over their brains to the government, willing to turn off their rational minds in favor of convenience - which ultimately makes no sense, because under the alternative scenario, the school would be compelled via competition to make verification as convenient as possible to the employer anyways.
I'm not sure you read my post. Who are you suggesting would be doing the lying? The student? Or the institution? If the student, then that is precisely my point - the institution should state that they are verifying student identities; or else the employer should not hire the student, or have an independent organization confirm this. If the institution is doing the lying, then then that is fraud, either being committed by the verifying organization, or by the institution themselves. Either way, they can be held responsible either criminally or in a civil court.
And if they are trying to "break that restriction", employers should take note not to hire graduates of such institutions. This is entirely outside the domain of the government. Now, if fraud is committed - if the student or institution deceives the employer, that is where the law comes into play to hand out punishment and compensation.
Why does this need to be a law? Can't employers simply choose to reject someone who graduates from an institution that makes no effort to verify who is taking their students' tests?
I'd buy it, but then I'd have to run a long extension cord from my apartment to the parking lot. Once dealerships start offering monthly payment plans and leases, this thing is going to look really attractive to the people getting one tenth the mileage or less - ie, everyone.
Before, I continue, I will make one note. The line of discussion that you have started here, and that I am now getting involved in, is not the result of my forgetting something. It is, in fact, the result of your not thinking things through. Rather than follow a line of reasoning, you are now resorting to shotgun responses, such as the one that follows - the most common shotgun response to the idea of privatization.
"If all land is privately owned, how in the world are you going to get any access to your land?"
You have a right to your property. If someone tries to stop you from accessing your property, or from leaving your property, they are violating your rights to property and life. The law enforcement will put them in their place.
"How are the telephone/water/electric companies going to get access to your land?"
Through privately owned property. If the existing roads became privately-owned, it would simply be a matter of them cutting a deal with the property owner.
"Will you be paying your neighbors and everyone between them and the company's land for access?"
No, maybe the company would, but the private owner wouldn't. Whether or not the company passes that cost on to their customers is up to them to decide and the customers to freely accept or reject.
"They became the government because they were the land owners."
And that is exactly what we have today. Those in power sell their power to the highest bidders. Feudalism is just as much a failure of the government as the corporatism we have today.
"Unless you have a magic wand which will provide some way for everyone to get what they need without stepping off their land"
Acknowledging their right to life is all that is necessary. Anyone preventing you from leaving your land to interact with society and get what you need to survive is violating that right and can be brought to justice.
"there has to be some community accepted way of sharing parts of the land to allow everyone to actually use their own land."
If members of a community come together to buy equal shares of a piece of property in order to do with it as they please, what problem is there, and how does that become government ownership?
"How did it kill Netscape, Novell, and thousands of other compeditors who were providing services?"
Lots of government-enforced bogus patents probably helped that along, however I am not an expert in that area.
"They used their monopoly in one sector, gained primarly through providing "just good enough, just cheap enough" to strong arm their way into any other sector they wanted a piece of."
How can they force anyone to accept something without physically forcing them to accept it? You're contradicting yourself.
"Disk compression utilities? Nah, you don't need to buy our compeditors, we've just included (stole) one in our latest OS!"
So accept it or don't. Nobody is forcing you to buy a computer.
"we've made sure ours works better than theirs by deliberately preventing them from being able to do what ours can."
So don't buy their OS if you don't like how it's written. If enough people agree with you, or if you can persuade them to agree with you, then the company will suffer and have to change their OS to fit your needs, or risk losing your business to some other company.
"Capitalism is a tool. And like ANY other tool, it's useful only when you know what you are doing with it."
In other words, you are saying rights are only useful when they are convenient, and then when they become inconvenient, you believe it is justifiable to ignore and violate them. You are wrong.
"Ownership however, as in "you don't own the city/state/federal property you are putting your lines down on" does."
You are only destroying your own argument even as you make it. You've once again identified the problem all the more clearly - government restriction. All property should be privately owned. Once the government takes control of land and creates enforceable rules about its use, particularly when the land permeates [i]every square mile of the country[/i], what results is a supreme manipulation of the economy. No private entities are permitted to compete with these government-run services. And the end result is obvious to all.
"Yes, I'm sure it'll turn out all right this time around, after all last time when they did that we got Ma Bell and wasn't she wonderful ? We've been there and done that already Unicorn."
You're using an example of the failure of a government-enforced monopoly in your argument for government enforcement. I do not understand what you are trying to show or how you intend to show it.
"The reality of life is if you let some people get big enough that they run the sandbox, suddenly they don't care if they have your business."
Without government-backed, forced manipulation, how is it possible for any privately-run entity to get big enough that they "run the sandbox" for any extended period of time. I can see companies merging, but as the demand for better service increases, either the company provides that service or another company comes along to fill that demand. What can stop such a competitor from existing except for force, and what entity can apply force except for the government?
"Take off the magic glasses and read a history book."
"No my argument is that for many things that are considered public services, such as phone lines, electricity, and water, there is only ONE provider in an area by either necessity or expediency."
Expediency is no justification for forcibly preventing individuals/companies from doing with the property as they please and trading with willing parties as they please.
"It's all well and good for you to blow smoke about how other companies should be allowed in the game and I would be all for it, if you know... it was feasible for other companies to get into the game at this point. Who is going to sign up for telephone service that only lets you call people on your block?"
You first have to show that any new start-up would be that small. Then, when you realize you can't show that, then you'll also realize that you've concocted a straw man.
"Who, other than the government, would force any of the companies to make their systems interoptable?"
Existing companies will want their service. If demand is high enough for service providers to filter phone calls, either existing providers will start to offer that service, or new providers will spring up to offer that service and fill that demand. Existing providers will still want those services and permit them access. But if they don't, then so what? People can choose to go with the larger provider who is unwilling to provide call filtering services. Again, none of this is my main concern. What is my main concern are the rights violations that come with the government-backed compulsion that exists when any "National ____ List" is legislated into existence.
"Dude, don't ever open those big yellow books the phone company sends out every now and then, you'll shit yourself."
Except you can tell your phone company to keep your number private - ie, unpublished, but it is an entirely different story for you to enter your number into a DNC list that is given to the very people who you don't want calling you. And again, the privacy aspect is not my primary concern. For that, see this post, my last post, and my original post.
"Cause you see, here in the US we happen to have one company per area that is allowed to supply land lines."
You've only identified the problem all the more clearly. Government restriction. Get rid of the restriction on the number of telephone companies in an area, and maybe you'll get some choice. Your argument, as it stands now, is basically "the government doesn't give me any choice, so it shouldn't give anyone else a choice either." In other words, you are accepting the status quo in defense of the status quo.
"PS. The entire "personal" information provided by the DNC is your phone number, not exactly an exploitable source of information when the whole system is number based and most telemarketers are behind auto-dialers."
That was not my primary concern, though. My main concern is with the rights violations that come with government-backed compulsion. Besides, you can't say that it's impossible for me get your personal information just from your phone number. Even better, I have an entire list of confirmed, active phone numbers for which to gather personal information! Sure, alone it's just a number, but with a little social engineering it can turn into a whole lot more.
The DNC list is the wrong solution to the problem. If you are unhappy with the number of telemarketer calls, you should be complaining to your service provider. Make it their duty to filter the calls coming to you, using whatever technology they desire. If they fail in that regard, switch to a service provider that will make it happen for you.
We should in general avoid a "National _____ List" whenever possible. Besides the rights violations that come with government-backed compulsion, there is also the needless risk of exploitation that comes with advertising your personal information. Anyone here would find it laughable if there ever was an attempt at a National Do Not Email List.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sex, sex, sex, that's all they think about!"
Finally, now the term "speed-hacking" can be applied outside the context of video games!
No. He's a mutant. He had the claws, and the regenerative ability. The experimental part was the adamantium infused into his skeleton. Everyone knows that.....
What I meant was, despite the name, this is not that story.
This should not be confused with the Origin mini-series that explores Wolverine's childhood and reveals his real name.
The whole reason Comcast is able to even consider throttling a possibility is because of the monopoly handed to them by government restriction preventing the construction of additional internet access lines by competitors. Competition would make it ridiculous and dangerous for a company to think of restricting their own customers, as the customers could simply go elsewhere.
"It is a law because the government is putting up money (student loans)."
And it should not be. Offering student loans is entirely outside the realm of "upholding the rights of the citizenry". You're using the status quo in an argument for the status quo.
"If the employers just reject the graduates the loans don't get repaid."
That's quite a ridiculous position to support. Laughably ridiculous. Wouldn't the government then have an incentive to throw a stamp of approval on every institution they can, just so they can get their money back? It is exactly that sort of corruption we could avoid through private competition.
"That would require employers to spend time and money keeping track of universities' efforts to prevent cheating. Having your leased politician pass a law pushing the responsibility back onto the college is much easier."
Read my other replies to other people who have said the same thing. Employers wouldn't have to do anything. Schools would willingly pay independent examiners to verify that their students are taking their tests, in order to get a stamp of approval that the employer can see and trust (provided the approving firm is trusted, like VeriSign is online).
That is a good thing. Handing over your responsibility to another entity is not a good idea, nor is it justifiable to force an institution to use its own funds to do anything against its will.
"I don't see a problem so long as this is not the only option."
The problem is that it forces a private organization to do with its property other than it wishes. That is my primary concern. As for a secondary problem: the false sense of security that comes with such a law, as is apparent in another reply to my original post - employers will accept the government's stamp of approval without questioning whether the organization got its accreditation through some loophole or through political pull.
"Otherwise this institution doesn't get accreditation."
Again, why must the government handle such a thing? It only permits the possibility of enforceable corruption.
"If you have a better idea how to take exam in your home without an official, share your idea with us."
A private organization offers to verify that a student is taking a test, and the employer bases his decision on his trust of that organization. We do the same thing with website security certificates. VeriSign has built up a name that people trust, and is not a branch of the government.
Also a smart solution for the employer.
"Again, I like the fact that some of my tax money goes to fund students who would otherwise likely not have a chance for formal education."
Then you should be free to choose to assign those tax dollars - your earnings - as you see fit, donating them to an organization that offers loans to such students. But you have no choice. Just because a portion of your tax dollars happen to currently fund an action that you support does not mean that they always will. All it means is that you have no choice over the matter, and that you are tricking yourself into believing that this lack of choice is justifiable.
That is why I suggested an independent verifier, of the same kind as VeriSign, for example. They would do all the work, at the expense of the school, to verify students are actually taking their tests, if they want their reputations to remain high among employers.
"Yes, they could. If every company had the time, desire and resources to do background research for every hole in the wall online school (there will only be more of them as time goes on)."
Why would they have to research anything? The school would be required to show evidence of research. This research can be done by an independent organization that specifically does this sort of thing. The employer wouldn't have to do anything but verify that the a trusted independent organization has confirmed the school verifies student identity.
"Or, it could be made a law so businesses can assume any person graduating from an accredited school..."
And a failing business they would be for assuming such a thing. To assume that their employee actually took their tests is to also assume that the school has not found a loophole in the law, or has not - through some other middleman - paid off the right politicians to make a special exception for them. Even if there were such a law, any rational employer would still want independent verification - independent of the school and the government. As such the law is redundant, except to those employers willing to hand over their brains to the government, willing to turn off their rational minds in favor of convenience - which ultimately makes no sense, because under the alternative scenario, the school would be compelled via competition to make verification as convenient as possible to the employer anyways.
I'm not sure you read my post. Who are you suggesting would be doing the lying? The student? Or the institution? If the student, then that is precisely my point - the institution should state that they are verifying student identities; or else the employer should not hire the student, or have an independent organization confirm this. If the institution is doing the lying, then then that is fraud, either being committed by the verifying organization, or by the institution themselves. Either way, they can be held responsible either criminally or in a civil court.
And if they are trying to "break that restriction", employers should take note not to hire graduates of such institutions. This is entirely outside the domain of the government. Now, if fraud is committed - if the student or institution deceives the employer, that is where the law comes into play to hand out punishment and compensation.
Why does this need to be a law? Can't employers simply choose to reject someone who graduates from an institution that makes no effort to verify who is taking their students' tests?
He's just mad that only Buzz gets any attention these days.
I'd buy it, but then I'd have to run a long extension cord from my apartment to the parking lot. Once dealerships start offering monthly payment plans and leases, this thing is going to look really attractive to the people getting one tenth the mileage or less - ie, everyone.
"You seem to have forgotten something."
Before, I continue, I will make one note. The line of discussion that you have started here, and that I am now getting involved in, is not the result of my forgetting something. It is, in fact, the result of your not thinking things through. Rather than follow a line of reasoning, you are now resorting to shotgun responses, such as the one that follows - the most common shotgun response to the idea of privatization.
"If all land is privately owned, how in the world are you going to get any access to your land?"
You have a right to your property. If someone tries to stop you from accessing your property, or from leaving your property, they are violating your rights to property and life. The law enforcement will put them in their place.
"How are the telephone/water/electric companies going to get access to your land?"
Through privately owned property. If the existing roads became privately-owned, it would simply be a matter of them cutting a deal with the property owner.
"Will you be paying your neighbors and everyone between them and the company's land for access?"
No, maybe the company would, but the private owner wouldn't. Whether or not the company passes that cost on to their customers is up to them to decide and the customers to freely accept or reject.
"They became the government because they were the land owners."
And that is exactly what we have today. Those in power sell their power to the highest bidders. Feudalism is just as much a failure of the government as the corporatism we have today.
"Unless you have a magic wand which will provide some way for everyone to get what they need without stepping off their land"
Acknowledging their right to life is all that is necessary. Anyone preventing you from leaving your land to interact with society and get what you need to survive is violating that right and can be brought to justice.
"there has to be some community accepted way of sharing parts of the land to allow everyone to actually use their own land."
If members of a community come together to buy equal shares of a piece of property in order to do with it as they please, what problem is there, and how does that become government ownership?
"How did it kill Netscape, Novell, and thousands of other compeditors who were providing services?"
Lots of government-enforced bogus patents probably helped that along, however I am not an expert in that area.
"They used their monopoly in one sector, gained primarly through providing "just good enough, just cheap enough" to strong arm their way into any other sector they wanted a piece of."
How can they force anyone to accept something without physically forcing them to accept it? You're contradicting yourself.
"Disk compression utilities? Nah, you don't need to buy our compeditors, we've just included (stole) one in our latest OS!"
So accept it or don't. Nobody is forcing you to buy a computer.
"we've made sure ours works better than theirs by deliberately preventing them from being able to do what ours can."
So don't buy their OS if you don't like how it's written. If enough people agree with you, or if you can persuade them to agree with you, then the company will suffer and have to change their OS to fit your needs, or risk losing your business to some other company.
"Capitalism is a tool. And like ANY other tool, it's useful only when you know what you are doing with it."
In other words, you are saying rights are only useful when they are convenient, and then when they become inconvenient, you believe it is justifiable to ignore and violate them. You are wrong.
"Ownership however, as in "you don't own the city/state/federal property you are putting your lines down on" does."
You are only destroying your own argument even as you make it. You've once again identified the problem all the more clearly - government restriction. All property should be privately owned. Once the government takes control of land and creates enforceable rules about its use, particularly when the land permeates [i]every square mile of the country[/i], what results is a supreme manipulation of the economy. No private entities are permitted to compete with these government-run services. And the end result is obvious to all.
"Yes, I'm sure it'll turn out all right this time around, after all last time when they did that we got Ma Bell and wasn't she wonderful ? We've been there and done that already Unicorn."
You're using an example of the failure of a government-enforced monopoly in your argument for government enforcement. I do not understand what you are trying to show or how you intend to show it.
"The reality of life is if you let some people get big enough that they run the sandbox, suddenly they don't care if they have your business."
Without government-backed, forced manipulation, how is it possible for any privately-run entity to get big enough that they "run the sandbox" for any extended period of time. I can see companies merging, but as the demand for better service increases, either the company provides that service or another company comes along to fill that demand. What can stop such a competitor from existing except for force, and what entity can apply force except for the government?
"Take off the magic glasses and read a history book."
Ad hominem.
"No my argument is that for many things that are considered public services, such as phone lines, electricity, and water, there is only ONE provider in an area by either necessity or expediency."
Expediency is no justification for forcibly preventing individuals/companies from doing with the property as they please and trading with willing parties as they please.
"It's all well and good for you to blow smoke about how other companies should be allowed in the game and I would be all for it, if you know... it was feasible for other companies to get into the game at this point. Who is going to sign up for telephone service that only lets you call people on your block?"
You first have to show that any new start-up would be that small. Then, when you realize you can't show that, then you'll also realize that you've concocted a straw man.
"Who, other than the government, would force any of the companies to make their systems interoptable?"
Existing companies will want their service. If demand is high enough for service providers to filter phone calls, either existing providers will start to offer that service, or new providers will spring up to offer that service and fill that demand. Existing providers will still want those services and permit them access. But if they don't, then so what? People can choose to go with the larger provider who is unwilling to provide call filtering services. Again, none of this is my main concern. What is my main concern are the rights violations that come with the government-backed compulsion that exists when any "National ____ List" is legislated into existence.
"Dude, don't ever open those big yellow books the phone company sends out every now and then, you'll shit yourself."
Except you can tell your phone company to keep your number private - ie, unpublished, but it is an entirely different story for you to enter your number into a DNC list that is given to the very people who you don't want calling you. And again, the privacy aspect is not my primary concern. For that, see this post, my last post, and my original post.
"Cause you see, here in the US we happen to have one company per area that is allowed to supply land lines."
You've only identified the problem all the more clearly. Government restriction. Get rid of the restriction on the number of telephone companies in an area, and maybe you'll get some choice. Your argument, as it stands now, is basically "the government doesn't give me any choice, so it shouldn't give anyone else a choice either." In other words, you are accepting the status quo in defense of the status quo.
"PS. The entire "personal" information provided by the DNC is your phone number, not exactly an exploitable source of information when the whole system is number based and most telemarketers are behind auto-dialers."
That was not my primary concern, though. My main concern is with the rights violations that come with government-backed compulsion. Besides, you can't say that it's impossible for me get your personal information just from your phone number. Even better, I have an entire list of confirmed, active phone numbers for which to gather personal information! Sure, alone it's just a number, but with a little social engineering it can turn into a whole lot more.
The DNC list is the wrong solution to the problem. If you are unhappy with the number of telemarketer calls, you should be complaining to your service provider. Make it their duty to filter the calls coming to you, using whatever technology they desire. If they fail in that regard, switch to a service provider that will make it happen for you.
We should in general avoid a "National _____ List" whenever possible. Besides the rights violations that come with government-backed compulsion, there is also the needless risk of exploitation that comes with advertising your personal information. Anyone here would find it laughable if there ever was an attempt at a National Do Not Email List.