Is it your assertion that the Republicans during the early part of the 20th century were somehow even remotely ideologically aligned with the conservatives of today? That's beyond laughable.
Typically, one has to read Youtube comments to see someone make as profound a jackass out of themselves as you have done here. I'm proud of you.
Who the hell do you have doing your accounting? Research is still an itemized expense account listing and is untaxed. You're pretty much only taxed on profits.
Hey, while you're making a fool out of yourself, why don't you look up the pre-Reagan tax code and get back to us. I'm sure you could use the education.
I sure as hell hope you're not in accounting. We did *loads* of research - including paying (sponsoring) university research.
What part of Research and Development did you miss specifically? I am not talking about funding research in universities nor do I understand how the hell you made this leap in subject matter.
No, that shit's written off.
Yes, that shit is written off but it is not handled the way it was in the 1970s. Of course, you'd actually have to know what you were talking about to understand this point.
Seriously? You don't actually know anything about the tax code or own a business that does research of any kind, do you? If so then you need to hire a professional.
Owned and operated a business since 1987 and grew up watching my family ran a large manufacturing business since 1954. But you've probably read an article in People's magazine so how can I compete with that level of intellectual prowess.
But during the Seventies, the political positions switched, with the children of the New Dealers relentlessly opposing every energy and transportation project proposed. California high-speed rail is just the latest.
Bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit.
Not only was I alive but I voted and was very active in politics all through the 1970s. I don't know why you would post such a incredible fantasy but it is easily disproved. In case reality happened to slip your mind, the 1970s was a time of incredible inflation and massive unemployment. And what do Socialists like to do when we have unemployment? Why, they like to create huge infrastructure projects.
Today, even pure scientific research is under attack. Now astronomy, the least polluting of the sciences, is being driven out of our country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, sadly, I know that is the case.
And I also know that it wasn't the socialists who killed the US particle accelerator nor is it the socialist who are attacking science. But I suspect that you knew that as well.
It would be nice to see socialists actually build something for a change, the way they did in the Thirties.
Now, that's amusing.
Feel free to list out all of the stunning projects that Conservatives have built.
Let's see, there was the Star Wars missile shield, the Operation Iraqi Liberation, and we don' have any more Welfare Queens driving their brand new Cadillacs to pick up their Welfare checks (But hey, at least they drove American cars!)
And while you're listing these wonderful accomplishments out, let's try to remember that Eisenhower would be a liberal if he were to be measured by today's conservative movement.
You raise one heck of a compelling argument against state's rights, though I doubt that was your intention.
And if you don't like the way the system works, work to change the system.
What you don't know is that I am almost in complete agreement with you on almost everything you've mentioned except that screaming about progress isn't the way I believe we should be acting.
Bell labs was a subsidiary of government regulated monopoly. It only existed because research and development could be written off in its day. Ronald Reagan killed that concept because he couldn't comprehend the difference between this and a tax loophole. And with it went HP and most other thinktanks.
I would add that this was about the time this country started the decline we find ourselves living in now.
Using your logic, we should never do anything. What the hell, if might not come out perfect or on budget - so we shouldn't do it. And it's not like this project would create good paying jobs or that those people would be paying into our tax coffers, no, none of that makes any difference.
And while you whine about a 35 miles project, the Chinese are looking at building a similar one to connect Chine with the North American mainland. This project will have almost 9,000 miles of high speed track of which more than 100 miles would be a tunnel under the Bering Straights.
Christ, if we had listened to people like you throughout history, we'd still be living in caves. Get a grip.
Um, you brought up the invasion of Iraq as some sort of counterpoint to Bill shooting wads on vulnerable young female interns.
I brought up the failings of two succeeding presidents to compare the scale of both.
I bring up the non sequitur, and then you accuse me of mental gymnastics.
No, I pointed out that your bullshit is malformed, ignorant, and profoundly biased. There is a marked difference.
Classic. You are the one that "compared the actions of two succeeding Presidents".
Yes, that's precisely what I did.
And then you bring up the budget deal with Gingrich. So you're one of those, that no matter what your guy did, it's justified because our guy did something worse.
Damn, watching the mechanizations that you go through to convince yourself that the world can be twisted to fit your views is tantalizing.
Since this somehow managed to escape your comprehension, my reason for introducing the "budget deal with Gingrich" was to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the "conservatives" in screaming about how we have to balance the budget at the expense of the middle class while taking food from the mouthes of the poor only to have the next conservative government burn money at a rate previously unheard of by any administration.
Nice!
I'll guess I'll be a little more clear this time: No, he didn't say let's invade Iraq without a plan; he simply said we should invade Iraq. He backed Bush.
One right of center asshole backing another? No! Tell me it ain't so.
Neither one of them mentioned rape, torture, or maiming.
No, but your guy explicitly authorized and then knowingly backed such actions. Further, he has repeatedly said he would do it again. Of course, he's a Christian who openly claims he regularly talks with God - so there's that.
For the record, I was watching Dan Rather with my jaw on the floor saying "No..., don't do it, no... Holy fuck, what are you thinking Bush? How in the hell do expect to 'win' that? You may kill Saddam, but there's no winning."
Proof positive that regardless of our individual political leanings we could spot the incredible stupidity of this policy - and yet, it went forward.
I felt like I was the only one though; everybody, including all your guys, were all in on it.
No, that's not reality. Once again, let's stick to the historical record, not what you would have liked it to be.
Congress voted to pass an AUMF with the intent of giving the White House the leverage it needed to get Saddam to leave office. This is how the AUMF was presented, as a bargaining chip, but that was nothing more than another bald-faced lie. Proof of that is clearly found in knowing that Saddam did agree to abdicate but that offer was rejected. And in case this somehow escaped your attention, worldwide there were protests which were said to be some of the largest antiwar protests in history - and yet, you somehow felt alone.
Fucking Dan Rather's Liberal Media - How does it work?
Nowadays, in your collective historical fantasy revision, 'Bush Lied', and you guys were against it all along.
The Bush Administration did lie - only sycophants and fools believe any different. The last poll I read claimed that the majority of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 - and where do you think they got that belief from?
What about that presentation where we were warned against a "Smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud" and shown artist renderings of Tora Bora, a high tech fortress carved out of the inside of a mountain?
Oh right, that was the liberals who introduced those lies into the American consciousness. [/snark]
What you cannot seem to grasp is that I loath Bill and Hilla
So you're saying it was Bill Clinton that went after Saddam?
I would be keenly interested in you explaining the line of logic which brought you to this conclusion. It's not often one sees such mental gymnastics being displayed so vividly.
That was Bush, and by bringing him up to defend liberal heroes, you prove Bing's point that you are bought and paid for, no matter what the Clintons do.
Let me see if I understand this misguided attempt at rationalization.
What you're claiming is that by comparing the questionable actions of two succeeding Presidents, I am defending liberal heroes but by bringing up 16 year old girls "Bing" is making a cogent point?
It is interesting to note though, that Bill did say we should go in after Saddam, and invade Iraq.
Did he also say that we should do so without a plan? That we should jail random civilians, rape, torture, and maim them without cause? And while you're desperately trying to justify this historical fantasy revision, can you point out specifically where Clinton stated that we should undo the compromise he made with the Republican controlled Congress to balance our budget and pay down the National Debt to zero?
If every 16 year old female who has sex with a 19 year old male was 'raped' then the law should be enforced evenly.
Indeed!
When a Chief Executive engages in sexual relations with a subordinate, the power dynamic is clearly in play.
Oh, poor Monica. Obviously, she didn't know what she was doing and was pressured into giving Bill a blowjob when she really, really didn't want to.
Is that the argument you're actually making or am I to understand that you think that raping a 16 year old girl is the same thing as having consensual sex with a 22 year old?
Why do the rules change when the horndog happens to be a Liberal hero?
Liberal heroes?
Oh, you mean like when our government told us about Saddam and 911 backed up by Saddam's sons having rape rooms and that they were torturing and killing people and that's why we had to charge in there spreading freedom like peanut butter on hot toast?
But instead we went in and tortured, killed, and raped people ourselves? And all the while guess who was making boatloads of money spreading that there freedom?
Damn liberal heroes getting away with shit like that...
Let's see, someone is saying Clinton bad, we need Bush. Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired. Next up, we get the "Well, at least she's better than Trump" as if American really needs someone to head this country who is qualified because they are seen as being marginally better than a cock-sure moron.
But then we have people parroting Fox News lines and have to wonder how many pennies they get to pretend they are engaging in a discussion instead of pushing the designated line from their boss.
In the final analysis, what this country needs is a leader; an Eisenhower, a John F Kennedy, a Roosevelt (either one would do) but instead we get to choose between the moron and the psychopath.
And if I shoved it up McLellan's ass, we could call it a dildo?
Well, I don't know about that but I wouldn't be surprised if bringing a dildo to school wouldn't get that kid suspended or even sent to juvenile detention center.
What happened? Our leadership's limp noodles never had the brass to go deal with the threat directly until the job was done. Instead we've taken the route of tolerance allowing it to fester just beneath the surface until our entire society is as paranoid and violent as they are.
Right, because what we needed was to get involved in more Vietnams, er, no, Iraq invasions, er, Koreas, no - well how about Granada? Sure, we did real good there.
Maybe, just maybe, someday some of us will learn from our profound mistakes.
We were the direct cause of much of what has happened in this last half century. We even coined the word for it "Blowback" and yet you are advocating for more of the same?
They say that some people never learn from history and they doom the rest of us to repeat it. Thank you for clearly proving that point.
We didn't used to be a bunch of sniveling cowards! There was a time when we used to exude bravery and instead of pissing our pants at the possibility of a problem we shrugged them off and dealt with them as necessary.
And now look at us. Some kid brings a science project to school and we have jackasses wondering if he did this to create a stink.
Maybe the kid just wanted to experiment with electronics - like a lot of us did when we were kids.
Oh right, no one here on SlashDot ever did that.
Christ!
It's a genius idea and a perfect way to seriously gut the federal, state, and local governments of useless bureaucrats. Welfare programs are horribly sexists and promote single motherhood something that is neither good nor should be celebrated. Institute a living wage, gut the governments of their useless bureaucratic leeches, eliminate the minimum wage, and end pensions. I'd be thrilled to see something like that instituted. Being a bureaucrat shouldn't be encouraged as a career choice. You'll see hyperinflation before such a program comes about
And also, you'd have to pay me a lot more than 1,800$ to want to live in Alaska. Something northwards of $150k and then maybe i'd consider it for 3-5 years. Otherwise, pass on the great cold north.
Damn, that's sounds a lot like the perfect recipe to create third world conditions right here at home. Do you like the idea of stepping over dying old people while kids beg from you in the street? Is that really your idea of paradise?
Yes, and it was Kevin Martin who classified Cable service as an information service to relieve them from having to open up their networks to all competitors as the telephone companies had been reluctantly doing.
BTW, you do realize the cable service is not the same as internet service right? So if you do understand this, I'm not sure we are in disagreement. If not, there is our problem.
In what respect do you believe is cable service different from DSL in this context? And while I do disagree with you in this assertion, I have a somewhat awkward assurance of your error that Kevin Martin also disagrees with you as can be seen in the link I supplied above.
Without it, all that would happen is a little inconvenience and a few companies would have to limit who they sell to or find another way to reach people.
Yes, that entire common carriage thing was such a nuisance what with those regulated utilities having to open up their networks to allow for competition. And we can all see exactly how well this decision has worked our given that most of us here in the US pay more for crappy service than most of the rest of the developed world. And while we're resting on our laurels, let's not forget Comcast, who has achieved the distinction of being recognized as having the worst customer service out of any corporation in our country.
The FCC has basically ignored 47 years of precedence in order to enact some political agenda. Read the filing. It lists all it's supporting evidence near the beginning. It is huge.
Given that the internet, as we think of it today, hasn't been around for 47 years, what are you talking about? In fact, it was the common carriage rules which made it possible for all of those independent ISPs to exists.
On another note, how is it that you can make all these assertions without knowing who Kevin Martin was, what his leadership over the FCC did and what effect it had over this entire process?
I cannot find any reference to Kevin Martin outside of some basketball player for some team I frankly have never heard of before. I couldn't say if you are right or wrong about the creation of the term itself. I can however tell you that the terminology was placed in the telecommunications law (1996) to model after the computers II paper published by the FCC. Before that, it was largely refereed to as enhanced services. I don't know if that is connected or not.
Here is the problem. Telecommunications and information services are legally defined.
Yes, and it was Kevin Martin who classified Cable service as an information service to relieve them from having to open up their networks to all competitors as the telephone companies had been reluctantly doing.
But hey, should I be allowed to just come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission or any specific act or law created by your elected officials?
I think you've got it backwards. This is infrastructure, critical infrastructure, and it needs to be regulated. In fact, it was regulated until an unelected official unilaterally enacted the changes this FCC Chair is trying to reverse. Truth be told, this was a horrific decision and screwed all of us.
Now the question of why this isn't a case where we just "come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission" is because all of these companies use publicly owned properties (rights of ways) to deliver these services. The telephone companies have Central Offices in many of the most expensive zip codes without ever having paid for them or having to pay taxes on those properties. The same for the MSOs (cable companies) who traverse tens of thousands of miles using the rights of ways our utility poles are located on without compensating any of us. Then there's all that money we have given them in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
First, I think an actual law should be passed instead of unelected appointed officials reversing over 47 years of precedence (the first FCC reference that I know of about computer communications being an enhanced service and not telecommunications is circa 1968) and pushing their own agenda.
Except that the law is already in place and the FCC has been challenged before as to whether it did have the power to make these decision. That power was upheld by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.
As memory serves, it was Kevin Martin who created the informational service distinction in as far as the current internet is concerned. I believe he did so thinkng that this would allow free enterprise the opportunity to build out our networks to which I would point out has been only partly successful.
And yes, I do see the FCC as "trying to change" the dynamics here so we can agree on that aspect of the discussion.
At the same time, to suggest that the Internet isn't rapidly taking over telecommunication is patently absurd. Next year, the POTS network will likely be scrapped and we have seen times when portions of our telecommunications network has been taken down due to weather incidents leaving people without the ability to call for help when they needed to.
More to the point, we have seen what was once considered to be the gold standard in the world for telecommunications become an embarrassment where one of our larger carriers actually ran advertisements asking "Can you hear me know?" Is this the communications network you believe our country should have?
Where we disagree (apparently) is that I believe the Internet is an infrastructure built for the common good and not as a cash delivery system for commerce. And while I have no issues with people using the net for business (I do so myself) the idea that corporations should have the ability to do whatever their profit margins tell them to do with our net is past absurd as far as I'm concerned.
Kids are getting access to disturbing images, you say? You want to ensure that children are prevented from seeing these kinds of images by passing a law if necessary? But will the children still be able to see people being blown up or otherwise being ripped to shreds during prime time TV? Because otherwise, I'd hate to think we'd be putting people out of work in our "legitimate" entertainment industry.
As an aside, anyone else enjoying the irony in the British government which for decades had gone to great lengths to protect the identity of people they knew were repeatedly sexually assaulting children now claiming that this measure it to protect children? Exactly when will those prosecutions be beginning, Mr Cameron?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it your assertion that the Republicans during the early part of the 20th century were somehow even remotely ideologically aligned with the conservatives of today? That's beyond laughable.
Typically, one has to read Youtube comments to see someone make as profound a jackass out of themselves as you have done here. I'm proud of you.
The golden gate bridge? Are you suggesting that FDR was a conservative?
Que?
Who the hell do you have doing your accounting? Research is still an itemized expense account listing and is untaxed. You're pretty much only taxed on profits.
Hey, while you're making a fool out of yourself, why don't you look up the pre-Reagan tax code and get back to us. I'm sure you could use the education.
I sure as hell hope you're not in accounting. We did *loads* of research - including paying (sponsoring) university research.
What part of Research and Development did you miss specifically? I am not talking about funding research in universities nor do I understand how the hell you made this leap in subject matter.
No, that shit's written off.
Yes, that shit is written off but it is not handled the way it was in the 1970s. Of course, you'd actually have to know what you were talking about to understand this point.
Seriously? You don't actually know anything about the tax code or own a business that does research of any kind, do you? If so then you need to hire a professional.
Owned and operated a business since 1987 and grew up watching my family ran a large manufacturing business since 1954. But you've probably read an article in People's magazine so how can I compete with that level of intellectual prowess.
But during the Seventies, the political positions switched, with the children of the New Dealers relentlessly opposing every energy and transportation project proposed. California high-speed rail is just the latest.
Bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit. Not only was I alive but I voted and was very active in politics all through the 1970s. I don't know why you would post such a incredible fantasy but it is easily disproved. In case reality happened to slip your mind, the 1970s was a time of incredible inflation and massive unemployment. And what do Socialists like to do when we have unemployment? Why, they like to create huge infrastructure projects.
Today, even pure scientific research is under attack. Now astronomy, the least polluting of the sciences, is being driven out of our country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, sadly, I know that is the case.
And I also know that it wasn't the socialists who killed the US particle accelerator nor is it the socialist who are attacking science. But I suspect that you knew that as well.
Somehow I knew that response was coming. Not really.
Can that have been because I had previously specifically stated that using Eisenhower was not permissible?
So, is there another infrastructure project you can credit the conservatives with building? No?
Yes, that was Eisenhower, a liberal, by today's standard.
And people were screaming about how it was full of government pork and we shouldn't build it back them. We called them conservatives at the time.
It would be nice to see socialists actually build something for a change, the way they did in the Thirties.
Now, that's amusing.
Feel free to list out all of the stunning projects that Conservatives have built.
Let's see, there was the Star Wars missile shield, the Operation Iraqi Liberation, and we don' have any more Welfare Queens driving their brand new Cadillacs to pick up their Welfare checks (But hey, at least they drove American cars!)
And while you're listing these wonderful accomplishments out, let's try to remember that Eisenhower would be a liberal if he were to be measured by today's conservative movement.
You raise one heck of a compelling argument against state's rights, though I doubt that was your intention.
And if you don't like the way the system works, work to change the system.
What you don't know is that I am almost in complete agreement with you on almost everything you've mentioned except that screaming about progress isn't the way I believe we should be acting.
Bell labs was a subsidiary of government regulated monopoly. It only existed because research and development could be written off in its day. Ronald Reagan killed that concept because he couldn't comprehend the difference between this and a tax loophole. And with it went HP and most other thinktanks.
I would add that this was about the time this country started the decline we find ourselves living in now.
Thanks Obama.
Indeed.
And China is an almost unfathomably polluted shithole while we Americans would prefer to not live in a cancer inducing dump.
Should I have said most American?
Using your logic, we should never do anything. What the hell, if might not come out perfect or on budget - so we shouldn't do it. And it's not like this project would create good paying jobs or that those people would be paying into our tax coffers, no, none of that makes any difference.
And while you whine about a 35 miles project, the Chinese are looking at building a similar one to connect Chine with the North American mainland. This project will have almost 9,000 miles of high speed track of which more than 100 miles would be a tunnel under the Bering Straights.
Christ, if we had listened to people like you throughout history, we'd still be living in caves. Get a grip.
Um, you brought up the invasion of Iraq as some sort of counterpoint to Bill shooting wads on vulnerable young female interns.
I brought up the failings of two succeeding presidents to compare the scale of both.
I bring up the non sequitur, and then you accuse me of mental gymnastics.
No, I pointed out that your bullshit is malformed, ignorant, and profoundly biased. There is a marked difference.
Classic. You are the one that "compared the actions of two succeeding Presidents".
Yes, that's precisely what I did.
And then you bring up the budget deal with Gingrich. So you're one of those, that no matter what your guy did, it's justified because our guy did something worse.
Damn, watching the mechanizations that you go through to convince yourself that the world can be twisted to fit your views is tantalizing.
Since this somehow managed to escape your comprehension, my reason for introducing the "budget deal with Gingrich" was to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the "conservatives" in screaming about how we have to balance the budget at the expense of the middle class while taking food from the mouthes of the poor only to have the next conservative government burn money at a rate previously unheard of by any administration.
Nice!
I'll guess I'll be a little more clear this time: No, he didn't say let's invade Iraq without a plan; he simply said we should invade Iraq. He backed Bush.
One right of center asshole backing another? No! Tell me it ain't so.
Neither one of them mentioned rape, torture, or maiming.
No, but your guy explicitly authorized and then knowingly backed such actions. Further, he has repeatedly said he would do it again. Of course, he's a Christian who openly claims he regularly talks with God - so there's that.
For the record, I was watching Dan Rather with my jaw on the floor saying "No..., don't do it, no... Holy fuck, what are you thinking Bush? How in the hell do expect to 'win' that? You may kill Saddam, but there's no winning."
Proof positive that regardless of our individual political leanings we could spot the incredible stupidity of this policy - and yet, it went forward.
I felt like I was the only one though; everybody, including all your guys, were all in on it.
No, that's not reality. Once again, let's stick to the historical record, not what you would have liked it to be.
Congress voted to pass an AUMF with the intent of giving the White House the leverage it needed to get Saddam to leave office. This is how the AUMF was presented, as a bargaining chip, but that was nothing more than another bald-faced lie. Proof of that is clearly found in knowing that Saddam did agree to abdicate but that offer was rejected. And in case this somehow escaped your attention, worldwide there were protests which were said to be some of the largest antiwar protests in history - and yet, you somehow felt alone.
Fucking Dan Rather's Liberal Media - How does it work?
Nowadays, in your collective historical fantasy revision, 'Bush Lied', and you guys were against it all along.
The Bush Administration did lie - only sycophants and fools believe any different. The last poll I read claimed that the majority of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 - and where do you think they got that belief from?
What about that presentation where we were warned against a "Smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud" and shown artist renderings of Tora Bora, a high tech fortress carved out of the inside of a mountain?
Oh right, that was the liberals who introduced those lies into the American consciousness. [/snark]
What you cannot seem to grasp is that I loath Bill and Hilla
So you're saying it was Bill Clinton that went after Saddam?
I would be keenly interested in you explaining the line of logic which brought you to this conclusion. It's not often one sees such mental gymnastics being displayed so vividly.
That was Bush, and by bringing him up to defend liberal heroes, you prove Bing's point that you are bought and paid for, no matter what the Clintons do.
Let me see if I understand this misguided attempt at rationalization.
What you're claiming is that by comparing the questionable actions of two succeeding Presidents, I am defending liberal heroes but by bringing up 16 year old girls "Bing" is making a cogent point?
It is interesting to note though, that Bill did say we should go in after Saddam, and invade Iraq.
Did he also say that we should do so without a plan? That we should jail random civilians, rape, torture, and maim them without cause? And while you're desperately trying to justify this historical fantasy revision, can you point out specifically where Clinton stated that we should undo the compromise he made with the Republican controlled Congress to balance our budget and pay down the National Debt to zero?
If every 16 year old female who has sex with a 19 year old male was 'raped' then the law should be enforced evenly.
Indeed!
When a Chief Executive engages in sexual relations with a subordinate, the power dynamic is clearly in play.
Oh, poor Monica. Obviously, she didn't know what she was doing and was pressured into giving Bill a blowjob when she really, really didn't want to.
Is that the argument you're actually making or am I to understand that you think that raping a 16 year old girl is the same thing as having consensual sex with a 22 year old?
Why do the rules change when the horndog happens to be a Liberal hero?
Liberal heroes? Oh, you mean like when our government told us about Saddam and 911 backed up by Saddam's sons having rape rooms and that they were torturing and killing people and that's why we had to charge in there spreading freedom like peanut butter on hot toast?
But instead we went in and tortured, killed, and raped people ourselves? And all the while guess who was making boatloads of money spreading that there freedom?
Damn liberal heroes getting away with shit like that...
Read the comments in this thread.
Let's see, someone is saying Clinton bad, we need Bush. Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired. Next up, we get the "Well, at least she's better than Trump" as if American really needs someone to head this country who is qualified because they are seen as being marginally better than a cock-sure moron.
But then we have people parroting Fox News lines and have to wonder how many pennies they get to pretend they are engaging in a discussion instead of pushing the designated line from their boss.
In the final analysis, what this country needs is a leader; an Eisenhower, a John F Kennedy, a Roosevelt (either one would do) but instead we get to choose between the moron and the psychopath.
Demand better. We deserve it.
And if I shoved it up McLellan's ass, we could call it a dildo?
Well, I don't know about that but I wouldn't be surprised if bringing a dildo to school wouldn't get that kid suspended or even sent to juvenile detention center.
What happened? Our leadership's limp noodles never had the brass to go deal with the threat directly until the job was done. Instead we've taken the route of tolerance allowing it to fester just beneath the surface until our entire society is as paranoid and violent as they are.
Right, because what we needed was to get involved in more Vietnams, er, no, Iraq invasions, er, Koreas, no - well how about Granada? Sure, we did real good there.
Maybe, just maybe, someday some of us will learn from our profound mistakes.
We were the direct cause of much of what has happened in this last half century. We even coined the word for it "Blowback" and yet you are advocating for more of the same?
They say that some people never learn from history and they doom the rest of us to repeat it. Thank you for clearly proving that point.
We didn't used to be a bunch of sniveling cowards! There was a time when we used to exude bravery and instead of pissing our pants at the possibility of a problem we shrugged them off and dealt with them as necessary. And now look at us. Some kid brings a science project to school and we have jackasses wondering if he did this to create a stink. Maybe the kid just wanted to experiment with electronics - like a lot of us did when we were kids. Oh right, no one here on SlashDot ever did that. Christ!
It's a genius idea and a perfect way to seriously gut the federal, state, and local governments of useless bureaucrats. Welfare programs are horribly sexists and promote single motherhood something that is neither good nor should be celebrated. Institute a living wage, gut the governments of their useless bureaucratic leeches, eliminate the minimum wage, and end pensions. I'd be thrilled to see something like that instituted. Being a bureaucrat shouldn't be encouraged as a career choice. You'll see hyperinflation before such a program comes about
And also, you'd have to pay me a lot more than 1,800$ to want to live in Alaska. Something northwards of $150k and then maybe i'd consider it for 3-5 years. Otherwise, pass on the great cold north.
Damn, that's sounds a lot like the perfect recipe to create third world conditions right here at home. Do you like the idea of stepping over dying old people while kids beg from you in the street? Is that really your idea of paradise?
FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service [fcc.gov]
In what respect do you believe is cable service different from DSL in this context? And while I do disagree with you in this assertion, I have a somewhat awkward assurance of your error that Kevin Martin also disagrees with you as can be seen in the link I supplied above.
Yes, that entire common carriage thing was such a nuisance what with those regulated utilities having to open up their networks to allow for competition. And we can all see exactly how well this decision has worked our given that most of us here in the US pay more for crappy service than most of the rest of the developed world. And while we're resting on our laurels, let's not forget Comcast, who has achieved the distinction of being recognized as having the worst customer service out of any corporation in our country.
Given that the internet, as we think of it today, hasn't been around for 47 years, what are you talking about? In fact, it was the common carriage rules which made it possible for all of those independent ISPs to exists.
On another note, how is it that you can make all these assertions without knowing who Kevin Martin was, what his leadership over the FCC did and what effect it had over this entire process?
Kevin Martin
Yes, and it was Kevin Martin who classified Cable service as an information service to relieve them from having to open up their networks to all competitors as the telephone companies had been reluctantly doing.
I think you've got it backwards. This is infrastructure, critical infrastructure, and it needs to be regulated. In fact, it was regulated until an unelected official unilaterally enacted the changes this FCC Chair is trying to reverse. Truth be told, this was a horrific decision and screwed all of us. Now the question of why this isn't a case where we just "come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission" is because all of these companies use publicly owned properties (rights of ways) to deliver these services. The telephone companies have Central Offices in many of the most expensive zip codes without ever having paid for them or having to pay taxes on those properties. The same for the MSOs (cable companies) who traverse tens of thousands of miles using the rights of ways our utility poles are located on without compensating any of us. Then there's all that money we have given them in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
First, I think an actual law should be passed instead of unelected appointed officials reversing over 47 years of precedence (the first FCC reference that I know of about computer communications being an enhanced service and not telecommunications is circa 1968) and pushing their own agenda.
Except that the law is already in place and the FCC has been challenged before as to whether it did have the power to make these decision. That power was upheld by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.
As memory serves, it was Kevin Martin who created the informational service distinction in as far as the current internet is concerned. I believe he did so thinkng that this would allow free enterprise the opportunity to build out our networks to which I would point out has been only partly successful.
And yes, I do see the FCC as "trying to change" the dynamics here so we can agree on that aspect of the discussion.
At the same time, to suggest that the Internet isn't rapidly taking over telecommunication is patently absurd. Next year, the POTS network will likely be scrapped and we have seen times when portions of our telecommunications network has been taken down due to weather incidents leaving people without the ability to call for help when they needed to.
More to the point, we have seen what was once considered to be the gold standard in the world for telecommunications become an embarrassment where one of our larger carriers actually ran advertisements asking "Can you hear me know?" Is this the communications network you believe our country should have?
Where we disagree (apparently) is that I believe the Internet is an infrastructure built for the common good and not as a cash delivery system for commerce. And while I have no issues with people using the net for business (I do so myself) the idea that corporations should have the ability to do whatever their profit margins tell them to do with our net is past absurd as far as I'm concerned.
Kids are getting access to disturbing images, you say? You want to ensure that children are prevented from seeing these kinds of images by passing a law if necessary? But will the children still be able to see people being blown up or otherwise being ripped to shreds during prime time TV? Because otherwise, I'd hate to think we'd be putting people out of work in our "legitimate" entertainment industry.
As an aside, anyone else enjoying the irony in the British government which for decades had gone to great lengths to protect the identity of people they knew were repeatedly sexually assaulting children now claiming that this measure it to protect children? Exactly when will those prosecutions be beginning, Mr Cameron?
That would be providing Verizon relinquishes the space on the poles - and I wouldn't bet on them doing so.