Do you suggest the same for electric? water? Should we have 8 redundant pipes of every type running to every single house, only one of which would be active at a given time? This seems insane.
I don't think you can compare a water utility to an internet utility. They have entirely different types of requirements. For instance, we don't have 8 different types of water companies sharing that line, you get one. And it handles all the water of the town. And in rare exceptions of true incompetence, almost everyone is happy with that arrangement. I don't think anyone wants a one-size-fits-all monopoly Internet provider. More and more that's what we're getting, but we're actively angry about the Internet company, not the water company (unless you live in Flint)
The issue is not NN but competition. We have an issue with monopolies because the government... local and state mostly grants exclusive franchise licenses to run cable to no more than two companies typically.
Yup. Because the cable companies own the transmission lines. Because the burdens on government and infrastructure are too extreme if every ISP has to run its own duplicate set of cables throughout town. It's too much of a financial barrier for the ISP as well. If we could break that association, to rip the lines from the cable and telcos, then we would actually have a more free-market system of ISPs. Let the ISPs be ISPs, and let the Internet connections at the homes be a utility.
Eh, I hear controlling vaginas and uteri is more important than things that affect real day-to-day business in the country...
They would probably argue that ending legally sanctioned child murder is a weeee bit more important than if some guy goes over his cap on his Internet connection.
Not that that's how I see it, but if you have to see their side in order to understand why they think the way they do.
Actually it is next to impossible for a 3rd party candidate to be elected anymore. Both political parties have lobbied very hard in some states to make it difficult for 3rd party candidates to even get on the ballot. Many require you to submit signed petitions with thousands of signatures by certain deadlines to even be considered.
But there are third party candidates on almost every state's presidential ballots. There are much strong factors at work that prevent the rise of the first party. The first is economic -- campaigns are very expensive, labor-intensive things, and the media focuses on parties rather than candidates, so whomever is the top dog of the Democratic and Republican parties in the area get exposure. No one else.
The second is social pressure. More than any other time in my life, I see the American public as being completely segregated into two camps, with each camp living in constant fear and hatred of the other. The problem with the third party is that people will always tell you "the third party won't win. All you will be doing is lessening support for the candidate you were thinking of voting for out of the big two. And thus, the candidate you like the least of the three will get the most votes. By voting third party, you are essentially casting your vote for the worst of the choices." People actually believe this shit. And have for decades. And now more than ever, left-leaning folks have an absolute hatred for the idea that a right-winger will be elected, and vice versa.
President Obama, under rules that required that he choose a Republican. But hey, Tom Wheeler used to be a Comcast lobbyist, and he seemed to work against Comcast's interests. Not so much with Pai.
Buying a service or good is a voluntary transaction unlike Obamacare.
So when you get plastered by a car, the ambulance is going to wait until your health care check clears before delivering you to the hospital, right? Oh, and they definitely won't operate if you don't have a way to pay, right?
If that's not true, then health care isn't nearly as voluntary a transaction as you make it out to be.
You're projecting like there's no tomorrow because you're too much of a pussy to throw your smartphone away and take back your privacy.
You're not admitting that life is all about TRADE-OFFS, almost no one gets to have everything they really want no matter how hard they work, and that most people find "security" and "privacy" to be something that you weigh against other desires, not some qualities that they want to the exclusion of everything else.
Hope they're enjoying their warm weather. You have to take the good with the bad. Didn't the U.S. steal it from the Indians or Mexicans anyways? Bad karma?
Pretty much all US land was stolen from the Indians (though not always by the US), California included. The state rebelled and was a (very very) short-lived independent republic, but Mexico was not able to take it back since they were distracted by the Mexican-American war. California was included anyway in the peace treaty.
Remember the tortured logic of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at the funerals of American soldiers? "God hates fags, and the soldiers protect America which does not have the death penalty for homosexuals, therefore dead soldiers are God's wrath against the homosexuals who aren't dying."
In other words, don't argue with a biblical zealot. They will always find a passage to "support" whatever they want to believe in.
Or maybe, just maybe that the idea of building large cities in places where they can't be supported is a good reason the rest of the country looks at good ol' Cali funny.
Yeah, like those folks who live on the eastern seaboard in the path of hurricanes. What weirdos. That goes double for any floodland, including Arizona, of all places. And how about those folks who build in areas prone to tornadoes? playing Russian Roulette, they are. How about Las Vegas and much of the Southwest? Talk about settling where the land doesn't support it. This doesn't even go into states in this country without enough industry where they have to rely on tax dollars that come from other states to support their people. Does that count as living in a place that can't support itself? Or making poor choices and blaming some other?
These days it is, just because there's so much of it that any more compounds the damage. It's like drinking two gallons of water. Another glass of water at that point becomes a bad thing no matter what.
For the next thousand years we're going to need a lot of that regrowing plant material to take CO2 out and then figure out a way to mass-sequester it in the ground so decay doesn't make it go right back into the atmosphere again.
The body is interesting. The way it absorbs and stores energy is so counter-intuitive to most people. "Wait, I got really fat. That means I need to cut out all the fat from my diet and eat everything else, right? Fat is bad."
If you don't want an STD, don't have sex with people who have STDs. That might actually mean "don't have sex with someone who you don't know LONG TERM. And has gotten tested if they have a sordid history."
I'd sway way off base. It's a bit more analogous to removing the ENTIRE head of the penis. It makes it very difficult for the woman to feel pleasure afterwards. I'm circumcised myself, and while I regret that had been done to me, I don't have nearly the sorts of problems that women who have been through FGM have been through.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the difference here is the rise of email tracking used by people you know. Companies have always tried to track us.
It ain't a child until it is born, full stop.
That's your opinion, theirs is that it's a life well before birth. Thus why the two sides will never come to an agreement.
Do you suggest the same for electric? water? Should we have 8 redundant pipes of every type running to every single house, only one of which would be active at a given time? This seems insane.
I don't think you can compare a water utility to an internet utility. They have entirely different types of requirements. For instance, we don't have 8 different types of water companies sharing that line, you get one. And it handles all the water of the town. And in rare exceptions of true incompetence, almost everyone is happy with that arrangement. I don't think anyone wants a one-size-fits-all monopoly Internet provider. More and more that's what we're getting, but we're actively angry about the Internet company, not the water company (unless you live in Flint)
The issue is not NN but competition. We have an issue with monopolies because the government... local and state mostly grants exclusive franchise licenses to run cable to no more than two companies typically.
Yup. Because the cable companies own the transmission lines. Because the burdens on government and infrastructure are too extreme if every ISP has to run its own duplicate set of cables throughout town. It's too much of a financial barrier for the ISP as well. If we could break that association, to rip the lines from the cable and telcos, then we would actually have a more free-market system of ISPs. Let the ISPs be ISPs, and let the Internet connections at the homes be a utility.
Too many men getting their lives ruined by lying cunts making shit up
Well. Jesus Christ, I guess we know where you stand. Not terribly subtle about it. :-)
Eh, I hear controlling vaginas and uteri is more important than things that affect real day-to-day business in the country...
They would probably argue that ending legally sanctioned child murder is a weeee bit more important than if some guy goes over his cap on his Internet connection.
Not that that's how I see it, but if you have to see their side in order to understand why they think the way they do.
Actually it is next to impossible for a 3rd party candidate to be elected anymore. Both political parties have lobbied very hard in some states to make it difficult for 3rd party candidates to even get on the ballot. Many require you to submit signed petitions with thousands of signatures by certain deadlines to even be considered.
But there are third party candidates on almost every state's presidential ballots.
There are much strong factors at work that prevent the rise of the first party. The first is economic -- campaigns are very expensive, labor-intensive things, and the media focuses on parties rather than candidates, so whomever is the top dog of the Democratic and Republican parties in the area get exposure. No one else.
The second is social pressure. More than any other time in my life, I see the American public as being completely segregated into two camps, with each camp living in constant fear and hatred of the other. The problem with the third party is that people will always tell you "the third party won't win. All you will be doing is lessening support for the candidate you were thinking of voting for out of the big two. And thus, the candidate you like the least of the three will get the most votes. By voting third party, you are essentially casting your vote for the worst of the choices." People actually believe this shit. And have for decades. And now more than ever, left-leaning folks have an absolute hatred for the idea that a right-winger will be elected, and vice versa.
You can't just throw claims out with no sources
Do you even know how the Internet operates in 2017? Or how our current President operates?
No one is held accountable for throwing out unsubstantiated claims.
Do you know who hired Ajit Pai to the FCC?
President Obama, under rules that required that he choose a Republican.
But hey, Tom Wheeler used to be a Comcast lobbyist, and he seemed to work against Comcast's interests. Not so much with Pai.
Benghazi was about a youtube video??
Oh my God, are you that intellectually dishonest?
And now that the individual mandate is being removed, expect health care premiums to spike even higher! Yeehaa!
Buying a service or good is a voluntary transaction unlike Obamacare.
So when you get plastered by a car, the ambulance is going to wait until your health care check clears before delivering you to the hospital, right?
Oh, and they definitely won't operate if you don't have a way to pay, right?
If that's not true, then health care isn't nearly as voluntary a transaction as you make it out to be.
May I ask what WBC has to do with the fires in SoCal? Get a life.
Don't be so hostile, dickweed.
And it's all about the foolishness of interpreting any natural disaster, or any calamity on "God's Wrath" against whatever you think God hates.
You're projecting like there's no tomorrow because you're too much of a pussy to throw your smartphone away and take back your privacy.
You're not admitting that life is all about TRADE-OFFS, almost no one gets to have everything they really want no matter how hard they work, and that most people find "security" and "privacy" to be something that you weigh against other desires, not some qualities that they want to the exclusion of everything else.
Hope they're enjoying their warm weather. You have to take the good with the bad. Didn't the U.S. steal it from the Indians or Mexicans anyways? Bad karma?
Pretty much all US land was stolen from the Indians (though not always by the US), California included. The state rebelled and was a (very very) short-lived independent republic, but Mexico was not able to take it back since they were distracted by the Mexican-American war. California was included anyway in the peace treaty.
It's a semi-arid Mediterranean climate, which is technically different from "desert."
Remember the tortured logic of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at the funerals of American soldiers? "God hates fags, and the soldiers protect America which does not have the death penalty for homosexuals, therefore dead soldiers are God's wrath against the homosexuals who aren't dying."
In other words, don't argue with a biblical zealot. They will always find a passage to "support" whatever they want to believe in.
Or maybe, just maybe that the idea of building large cities in places where they can't be supported is a good reason the rest of the country looks at good ol' Cali funny.
Yeah, like those folks who live on the eastern seaboard in the path of hurricanes. What weirdos. That goes double for any floodland, including Arizona, of all places.
And how about those folks who build in areas prone to tornadoes? playing Russian Roulette, they are.
How about Las Vegas and much of the Southwest? Talk about settling where the land doesn't support it.
This doesn't even go into states in this country without enough industry where they have to rely on tax dollars that come from other states to support their people. Does that count as living in a place that can't support itself? Or making poor choices and blaming some other?
CO2 isn't naturally a bad thing
These days it is, just because there's so much of it that any more compounds the damage. It's like drinking two gallons of water. Another glass of water at that point becomes a bad thing no matter what.
For the next thousand years we're going to need a lot of that regrowing plant material to take CO2 out and then figure out a way to mass-sequester it in the ground so decay doesn't make it go right back into the atmosphere again.
" And, restrooms are not always easy to find."
there's an app for that.
I'm not peeing on my phone again, forget it.
So where is this "all-natural" keto diet supposed to come from? Cow secretions for their babies, animals we only domesticated 20k years ago
Which is extremely close to human breast-milk, something human babies have been drinking for many times that length.
It needs to be low carb, high fat.
The body is interesting. The way it absorbs and stores energy is so counter-intuitive to most people.
"Wait, I got really fat. That means I need to cut out all the fat from my diet and eat everything else, right? Fat is bad."
Ownership is often conservative, and editorial staff is often liberal. What that means for the slant of the outlet is pretty much outlet-dependent.
If you don't want an STD, don't have sex with people who have STDs.
That might actually mean "don't have sex with someone who you don't know LONG TERM. And has gotten tested if they have a sordid history."
If I'm way off base please educate me.
I'd sway way off base. It's a bit more analogous to removing the ENTIRE head of the penis. It makes it very difficult for the woman to feel pleasure afterwards.
I'm circumcised myself, and while I regret that had been done to me, I don't have nearly the sorts of problems that women who have been through FGM have been through.