It seems like there is some kind of a alert or another on television about 60% of the time (the other 40% being ads, when a life-saving warning is obviously impossible).
Anyway, I can't say my watching experience is enhanced a week later, when I sit down to peruse the TiVo.
From article you reference: "...the President has broad powers to simply shut off any and all regulated telecommunications if he deems it necessary for national security."
Note the word "regulated". The internet is not regulated, although many would have it so, for different reasons, such as "network neutrality". So the government does not currently have the ability to shut down the internet, never mind individual sites.
Are these people not sworn to uphold the constitution?
I am suspicious that this is aimed at "right to repair" legislation (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/right-repair-law-pro) and is pretty much justification for DRM to protect car manufacturers and their supplier and dealer symbiotes.
Why don't you join an insurance pool that excludes smokers? Can't do that? Well then, seems someone else has made some decisions on your behalf. Slippery slope, bummer.
There is a case to be made for smokers reducing overall healthcare costs. They tend to die earlier and quicker - yay, less social security and medicare to pay. Cigarette tax income is significant. If nobody smoked, you would certainly pay more taxes.
People who derive gratification from telling others what to do and what is good for them. They always have a convoluted explanation, but it always comes down to others having to adapt to busybody's choices.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." John Stuart Mill
This is a case of highly successful culture jamming.
Reagan brought down the USSR by inducing it to self-implode in responding to "Star Wars" - no matter that Star Wars did not work. Bin Laden has found a much more cost-effective way of making the USA implode itself.
In the USA we pride ourselves in throwing off parasitic royalty and that everyone is equal. To become a naturalized citizen you have to renounce your titles. So why do sundry "dignitaries" get exemption from screening? If I have to take off my shoes to enter the portals of transportation, then so should everyone, from the President down. What is so special about a lieutenant-governor's wife, anyway?
There seems to be an assumption that because countries are poor, the broadband costs are high. I believe the inverse, that they are poor because broadband (and many other) costs are high.
Why are costs high? Almost always because of government meddling, artificially high barriers to entry, and corruption.
Slashdot Mirror
... the FCC should just re-designate the internet lines as "phone lines" and apply existing common carrier rules.
Do you have a regular landline? That is regulated as a common carrier by the FCC?
I thought not.
There is a reason we all have VOIP phones, and this is at the root.
It seems like there is some kind of a alert or another on television about 60% of the time (the other 40% being ads, when a life-saving warning is obviously impossible).
Anyway, I can't say my watching experience is enhanced a week later, when I sit down to peruse the TiVo.
Yes, I can see that it is raining outside.
... that Facebook knows when you get hooked-up.
Useful info for the sellers of kleenex in the first case, and condoms in the second.
When goods cannot cross borders, armies will. - Frederic Bastiat
I am an immigrant, with an obscure accent, and it always worked perfectly for me. A great service, that will be sorely missed.
Please reconsider, Mr G!
From article you reference: "...the President has broad powers to simply shut off any and all regulated telecommunications if he deems it necessary for national security."
Note the word "regulated". The internet is not regulated, although many would have it so, for different reasons, such as "network neutrality". So the government does not currently have the ability to shut down the internet, never mind individual sites.
Are these people not sworn to uphold the constitution?
Giant aerospace company designs hardware for NASA - how is this news? How is this suddenly "commercial"?
Remember when we found foreigners strange and paranoid?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/international/europe/28PLAN.html?ex=1021135303&ei=1&en=2da41336db98c932
Does this pass the smell test?
Support your right to repair: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/right-repair-law-pro
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/right-repair-law-pro
I am suspicious that this is aimed at "right to repair" legislation (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/right-repair-law-pro) and is pretty much justification for DRM to protect car manufacturers and their supplier and dealer symbiotes.
Medina's point of departure: There are things that the government could do better, if only it were allowed to use all the tools.
My point of departure: Is it necessary that these things be done at all? If so, should the government be doing them?
This is a better discussion of my position: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/freeman/ncjf49.htm
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Why don't you join an insurance pool that excludes smokers? Can't do that? Well then, seems someone else has made some decisions on your behalf. Slippery slope, bummer.
There is a case to be made for smokers reducing overall healthcare costs. They tend to die earlier and quicker - yay, less social security and medicare to pay. Cigarette tax income is significant. If nobody smoked, you would certainly pay more taxes.
And there you go...
You are making the choice to pay for the mistakes of idiots, now you want someone else to be compelled by your decision.
People who derive gratification from telling others what to do and what is good for them. They always have a convoluted explanation, but it always comes down to others having to adapt to busybody's choices.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill
I am not a smoker.
... Even with leaks we can't trust our governments to continue in this despicable fashion.
On the contrary, I believe that we can put our full trust in the government to continue in a despicable fashion.
What's Chinese for Streisand Effect?
You couldn't pay for such publicity.
The data will reveal some kind of imminent disaster for the planet unless steps are taken.
Panels, deliberating bodies, conferences, papers, books and protests will follow...
Let's meet again here in 10 years to review the situation.
This is a case of highly successful culture jamming.
Reagan brought down the USSR by inducing it to self-implode in responding to "Star Wars" - no matter that Star Wars did not work. Bin Laden has found a much more cost-effective way of making the USA implode itself.
http://dribibu.xs4all.nl/dilbert19960123.html
In the USA we pride ourselves in throwing off parasitic royalty and that everyone is equal. To become a naturalized citizen you have to renounce your titles. So why do sundry "dignitaries" get exemption from screening? If I have to take off my shoes to enter the portals of transportation, then so should everyone, from the President down. What is so special about a lieutenant-governor's wife, anyway?
Data is blocked on my son's Verizon phone, yet last month he was billed nearly $8 for 4MB.
There seems to be an assumption that because countries are poor, the broadband costs are high. I believe the inverse, that they are poor because broadband (and many other) costs are high.
Why are costs high? Almost always because of government meddling, artificially high barriers to entry, and corruption.