A whole bunch of non-reputable websites were pushing this in late January. I mean, it's a deliberate distortion, and MS clarified THE SAME DAY that the rumor was nonsense. But there are plenty of places where the parent poster could have read it.
The FSF is against "open source software." They're for "free software," which is what the GPL gets you. BSD Licenses generally get you "open source software."
The disticton is that Free Software licenses force developers of derivative works to license under a Free Software license. Open Source licenses do not.
I'm on a cell phone, so I'm not going to link you to Stallman's essay on the difference, but some rudimentary Googling will find it if you don't think I'm treating the FSF's position fairly.
Distributing source code under BSD licenses is bad for the GPL.That's wildly different from bad for Free as in Speech distribution of source code.
People who want cross-platform on iOS and Android have had it since day 1. Write your logic in C or C++. Its how cross-platform has been done for decades. Then write a wrapper in whatever language the platform uses for the UI.
Are we allowed to use someone else's wrapper? Because that's all* Xamarin is.
*There are more differences between alternate platforms than just the UI. (For example, the sensors you have available are different on iOS and on Android. You also get access to an SD card on Android sometimes.) Xamarin abstracts this stuff too, by the way.
It's never an issue. Those for gun control don't think they need to change the Constitution, and those against never offer it up as a gauge of public opinion on the matter.
I'm not sure what the bolded part means. You mean it's never an issue on Slashdot right? Gun control comes up as an issue on Slashdot fairly often. When it's related to the article, it's usually in the context of a gun authentication technology that gun owners oppose being introduced to the market because some misguided states have laws on the books that mandate all guns implement authentication technology as soon as such a scheme is commercially available. (This law is on the books in my state (NJ) now.)
I'm not sure what "offer it up as a gauge of public opinion" means. Do you mean my list of problems with the Republican party, like how they won't reform the farm bill? Because for all their failings, they're pretty good on gun right.
That's some impressive analysis... Too bad it's wrong. First off, both parties' Congressional Delegations have moved towards the poles since 2010. (Look up what happened to the Blue Dog Democrats sometime.) And since there's more Republicans in Congress than Democrats, I'd argue that the electorate leans closer to the rigjt at the moment. Ditto for Governor's Mansions. (Obama has a personality cult thing going on. Elections with him on the ballot are an outlier. Other Democrats can't count on that.)
Secondly, I assume that nobody trusts what ANY politician says while they're running for office. Regardless of what he said while he was running, Obama has governed from the left (TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN HILLARY CLINTON WOULD HAVE, which was my original point.) McCain and Romney, on the other hand, are well known for being on the Republican Party's LEFT. Romney's healthcare plan as governor was a state level version of Obamacare. You can't really think that most of the Republicans are to the left of the guy who implemented state level Obamacare, can you?
Gun control. If you want gun control, the first step should be to change the Constitution, not passing laws that are "bad" and fighting in court to justify them.
I've never seen you make this point on Slashdot before. My apologies.
Have you not seen my constant complaints that the Republicans aren't conservative enough?
No I haven't. That's my question. Can you give me an example where you think Republicans aren't conservative enough? I think there's plenty of examples, but I'm a conservative and not a centrist, so you'll probably have less then me. (You hinted at domestic policy with "laws that restrict freedom" and "increase spending while cutting taxes," so the quick list that follows leaves out foreign policy stuff.)
I think Republicans aren't fighting hard enough to defeat Obamacare.
I think Republicans should be fighting to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I think Republicans should be fighting harder to split the Farm Bill into a bill that funds farm insurance and a bill that funds SNAP, because as currently constituted, both are ridiculous corporate welfare. SNAP should be reformed on the financial side (the taxpayers need better protection from the bank who issues the cards), and we don't need the actual farm insurance part of the bill.
I think Republicans should force the government to drastically reduce its stake in the student loan market, and let private industry back in, like it was less than a decade ago.
Republicans are already good on gun rights, support the Keystone pipeline, and largely oppose the regulatory overreaches that characterize the executive branch during this administration.
Republicans and Democrats are both too pro-amnesty and pro-H1B. The unconstitutional Internet Sales Tax compact they're trying to pass is bipartisan. Neiter of those are differences.
These are short lists. They're incomplete because I'm running late for work. But you get the idea. Is there an issue where you agree with conservatives over Democrats?
The claim, "Oh yeah? I'm to the right of European socialists" is trolling every time it happens. Only American citizens can vote in American elections, so it doesn't matter what kind of crazy stuff Europeans socialists support. Relative to the American electorate, you are a leftist troll.
Can you name a position taken by the GOP that you support over the position taken by the Democratic party? Because I first noticed your signature and gun related username in a thread involving Sarah Palin somehow (I think, but can't swear to it, that it was the non-scandal where the 4channer son of a Democrat state representative hacked her e-mail) and assumed you'd be a supporter of hers because she's popular in Alaska. Then I went back and re-read your post and saw that you were criticizing her somehow. (Again, I forget the issue at hand.)
Not liking Sarah Palin is fine, I guess. But I kept noticing your signature and gun related username showing up every time there was an opportunity to attack a Republican or a conservative, and usually to defend a Democrat. Unless I'm massively missing a part of your posting history, it's not reflective of you being a centrist.
Now, I don't claim to be a centrist. I'm a conservative, and my posting history reflects that... probably better than anything else*. I'm not a huge fan of the Republican party, but that doesn't make me a liberal because I don't think the solution is more Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. I've seen you criticize the Democratic party for being insufficiently liberal, which is the other side of that coin.
The problems with the major parties aside, I'll be generous and assume you're not trolling, and really think you're a centrist. Take the Cruz-Warren test. Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren are probably the most conservative and the most liberal mainstream politicians in the country today. In order to be a centrist, there has to be at least one issue where you agree with Cruz and disagree with Warren, and one issue where you agree with Warren and disagree with Cruz. I want you to really think about what it says about you if all your tallies are in the Warren column.
It says you're a liberal. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that**. But take it from me. You'll be happier once you realize that you come down on one side of the isle and not the other.
*To save you the trouble of digging through my post history, other topics that I post on are Microsoft and how I'm usually a fan... Apple and how I'm usually not... Google often makes good Android-related decisions and bad non-Android ones... I'm quick to defend the Zune... The 360 was a great console, and I have an Xbox One, but I don't think that a great console game has come out yet this console generation. A couple of times, I've asked Sony fans if there's an exclusive on their side of the isle that's truly great.
I'm offended that you think I or any unfortunate readers who read your words are gullible enough to believe it.
Fine, then. What possible motive would Richard Armitage have for leaking the name of Joseph Wilson's wife? Remember, Armitage and Wilson were allies.
And as far as the "might makes right" bullshit, Libby was only ever testifying because the prosecutor wanted to trap somebody in perjury charges. At the time Libby testified, Armitage had already confessed. The prosecutor already knew who committed the crime and could have sought an indictment against Armitage if he wanted to. Libby's sentence was commuted because the whole thing was a miscarriage of justice. Which is EXACTLY what pardons are for.
Fine, but you're a well known radical leftist troll. Relative to the electorate, Obama is part of the hard left. He beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 by convincing Democrats that they should go with a hard-leftist rather than a moderate-by-comparison like Hillary. And since Obama has been a disaster for everyone in the Democratic Party EXCEPT Obama, the party is going to nominate Hillary Clinton, as scandal ridden as she is, instead of another leftist in the Obama mold like Elizabeth Warren.
Kennedy was a left-wing anti-communist, something that you don't see too much of today. He was killed by a crazy communist, partially because of the whole anti-communist thing. (You'll note that Barry Goldwater wasn't assassinated by a member of the John Birch Society.)
Kennedy didn't have the extreme faction of his side of the isle, and he didn't have any significant portion of the right wing, hence, he was polarizing.
Of course, if we do take it was true, what about the corollary to Romney's remarks, that there is a segment of the population which itself is resistant to anything Obama or a Democrat would offer is worth considering on its own?
Well, I guess there's two points, and I don't think they are worth considering about Obama specifically. Romney was talking about the contrast in media treatment of a Democrat and a Republican, so I think they only make sense in comparison.
First, there's a certain amount of "natural polarization" that President Obama (or a theoretical President Romney) would be affected by, even with a fair media. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson dealt with this kind of natural polarization, but in their day, the media was known openly to be biased, and was not regarded as the kind of arbiters of truth that some people treat them as today.
Secondly, 47% sounds high, but that's because Romney is accounting for the unfair media. The corollary to THAT, the number of people that would never vote for Obama because of things they heard from an unfair media, is admittedly non-zero, although you will probably think the magnitude is higher than I will. (Similarly, you're discounting the magnitude of the unfair treatment of Romney.) I guarantee you that Obama knew what percentage of the population wouldn't vote for him, and targeted his ads toward segments of the population who would. He just didn't have a malicious reporter lie about the context.
The 47% quote, itself from a non-fair media source, was originally presented (and is usually presented) as "47% of the population will never vote for Romney because his ideas will hurt them economically or socially or whatever." The specific example Romney was talking about was people on welfare. Romney's welfare plan would have helped people get off of welfare and into jobs. That would be better for them than staying on welfare forever, but these plans are commonly portrayed as leaving people to die in the street.
Sure, the GOP can ride this strategy to grab House and Senate seats, but - like the Dems - they can't acquire the Big Chair without largely ignoring the extremists and moving towards the center.
Literally every president - and candidate - since Reagan has been called "polarizing"
You don't think Carter was polarizing? Or Nixon? LBJ was certainly polarizing. Somebody shot Kennedy, so he certainly qualifies. Maybe Eisenhower wasn't polarizing. But then Truman was. FDR's New Deal and court packing schemes were polarizing. (The New Deal is polarizing to this day.) Skipping back through history (over another guy who got shot, BTW) half the states tried to leave because Lincoln got elected. I'd say polarizing has been the rule, rather than the exception, since Washington left office.
Also, you're leaving out important context in the Romney quote. The reason 47% of the country wouldn't vote for him is because the full weight of the media is devoted to covering up for the Democrat and attacking the Republican. It's not because there's something inherently wrong with Romney or his ideas.
But the 14th amendment pretty much states that if you a citizen you have full rights whether naturalized or born, and of course anyone born in the country is a citizen. This means the whole native born stuff is meaningless now.
The 14th amendment doesn't overturn the Article II eligibility requirements. However, there have always been two ways to get US citizenship, by birth and through the naturalization process. Obama and Cruz are both citizens by virtue of the fact that their mothers were US citizens. (Obama is also a citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born in Hawaii.) By contrast, people like Madeline Albright (she was Bill Clinton's secretary of state), and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became US citizens through the naturalization process, are not eligible to be President.
Scooter Libby lost his job and had to pay a shitload in fines. Only the prison term was commuted. He was also never charged with leaking anything. Also, his conviction was part of a partisan witch hunt. Richard Armitage leaked the name of Wilson's wife. Armitage confessed to the prosecutor before Libby was ever interviewed, so there was no reason to interview Libby in the first place. The prosecutor did anyway because he wanted to stick The Bad Guys with something.
Armitage opposed the Iraq war, and leaked the name by mistake. The leak wasn't a Cheney/Rove plot to smear Iraq war opponents, which is the story we were all fed at the time.
if a woman walks butt naked into a cell block full of hardened convicts...
The phrase is "buck naked." The analogy is to the male deer, a woodland creature not known for wearing clothes. Also, please learn how to use the shift key on your keyboard.
Gore claimed that he created the modern internet by sponsoring the bill in the Senate that deregulated the ARPANET. In full context (which Gore provided) the claim is fair. Speaking of, where was The Biggest Deregulatory In Internet History in the Title II debate?
While you're thinking, please consider my full position, which is "The United States government needs an organization whose job is EXCLUSIVELY to license over the air broadcasting. If it uses the RF spectrum, it can be subject to this agency's regulation. They should issue licences by type of broadcast (OTA TV, FM, AM etc.) and maybe some light touch content stuff. (The FCC as currently constituted is too heavy handed in this area.) Anything NOT broadcast over the air (such as wireline internet connections) should NOT be regulated by this agency."
The examples you are talking about are examples of the content rules. The content rules are dumb and overused, but that's not what I'm talking about. The EFF, for one example, is worried about the CONDUCT rule (which is just taking effect now) being ex post facto.
You're just babbling now. "The ISPs have exclusive access to the backbone?" Who, other than ISPs, need access to it? That's like saying "people with cars have exclusive access to the highway." The problem is that in almost all geographic areas, one ISP has exclusive access to the customers in that area. Those are monopolies, but Title II doesn't fix that problem, it makes it worse. (As far as bragging to the FCC, you're wrong on that as well. Comcast says that they should be allowed to merge with Time Warner because there are no areas where Comcast and Time Warner compete for the same CUSTOMERS, not nowhere they compete for the same backbone.)
Slashdot Mirror
A whole bunch of non-reputable websites were pushing this in late January. I mean, it's a deliberate distortion, and MS clarified THE SAME DAY that the rumor was nonsense. But there are plenty of places where the parent poster could have read it.
The disticton is that Free Software licenses force developers of derivative works to license under a Free Software license. Open Source licenses do not.
I'm on a cell phone, so I'm not going to link you to Stallman's essay on the difference, but some rudimentary Googling will find it if you don't think I'm treating the FSF's position fairly.
Distributing source code under BSD licenses is bad for the GPL.That's wildly different from bad for Free as in Speech distribution of source code.
People who want cross-platform on iOS and Android have had it since day 1. Write your logic in C or C++. Its how cross-platform has been done for decades. Then write a wrapper in whatever language the platform uses for the UI.
Are we allowed to use someone else's wrapper? Because that's all* Xamarin is.
*There are more differences between alternate platforms than just the UI. (For example, the sensors you have available are different on iOS and on Android. You also get access to an SD card on Android sometimes.) Xamarin abstracts this stuff too, by the way.
It's never an issue. Those for gun control don't think they need to change the Constitution, and those against never offer it up as a gauge of public opinion on the matter.
I'm not sure what the bolded part means. You mean it's never an issue on Slashdot right? Gun control comes up as an issue on Slashdot fairly often. When it's related to the article, it's usually in the context of a gun authentication technology that gun owners oppose being introduced to the market because some misguided states have laws on the books that mandate all guns implement authentication technology as soon as such a scheme is commercially available. (This law is on the books in my state (NJ) now.)
I'm not sure what "offer it up as a gauge of public opinion" means. Do you mean my list of problems with the Republican party, like how they won't reform the farm bill? Because for all their failings, they're pretty good on gun right.
Secondly, I assume that nobody trusts what ANY politician says while they're running for office. Regardless of what he said while he was running, Obama has governed from the left (TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN HILLARY CLINTON WOULD HAVE, which was my original point.) McCain and Romney, on the other hand, are well known for being on the Republican Party's LEFT. Romney's healthcare plan as governor was a state level version of Obamacare. You can't really think that most of the Republicans are to the left of the guy who implemented state level Obamacare, can you?
Gun control. If you want gun control, the first step should be to change the Constitution, not passing laws that are "bad" and fighting in court to justify them.
I've never seen you make this point on Slashdot before. My apologies.
Have you not seen my constant complaints that the Republicans aren't conservative enough?
No I haven't. That's my question. Can you give me an example where you think Republicans aren't conservative enough? I think there's plenty of examples, but I'm a conservative and not a centrist, so you'll probably have less then me. (You hinted at domestic policy with "laws that restrict freedom" and "increase spending while cutting taxes," so the quick list that follows leaves out foreign policy stuff.)
I think Republicans aren't fighting hard enough to defeat Obamacare.
I think Republicans should be fighting to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I think Republicans should be fighting harder to split the Farm Bill into a bill that funds farm insurance and a bill that funds SNAP, because as currently constituted, both are ridiculous corporate welfare. SNAP should be reformed on the financial side (the taxpayers need better protection from the bank who issues the cards), and we don't need the actual farm insurance part of the bill.
I think Republicans should force the government to drastically reduce its stake in the student loan market, and let private industry back in, like it was less than a decade ago.
Republicans are already good on gun rights, support the Keystone pipeline, and largely oppose the regulatory overreaches that characterize the executive branch during this administration.
Republicans and Democrats are both too pro-amnesty and pro-H1B. The unconstitutional Internet Sales Tax compact they're trying to pass is bipartisan. Neiter of those are differences.
These are short lists. They're incomplete because I'm running late for work. But you get the idea. Is there an issue where you agree with conservatives over Democrats?
OK, so you got nothing. You can't win them all, and your side has a bad hand on this one. Great argument. See you next time.
How was it?
Can you name a position taken by the GOP that you support over the position taken by the Democratic party? Because I first noticed your signature and gun related username in a thread involving Sarah Palin somehow (I think, but can't swear to it, that it was the non-scandal where the 4channer son of a Democrat state representative hacked her e-mail) and assumed you'd be a supporter of hers because she's popular in Alaska. Then I went back and re-read your post and saw that you were criticizing her somehow. (Again, I forget the issue at hand.)
Not liking Sarah Palin is fine, I guess. But I kept noticing your signature and gun related username showing up every time there was an opportunity to attack a Republican or a conservative, and usually to defend a Democrat. Unless I'm massively missing a part of your posting history, it's not reflective of you being a centrist.
Now, I don't claim to be a centrist. I'm a conservative, and my posting history reflects that... probably better than anything else*. I'm not a huge fan of the Republican party, but that doesn't make me a liberal because I don't think the solution is more Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. I've seen you criticize the Democratic party for being insufficiently liberal, which is the other side of that coin.
The problems with the major parties aside, I'll be generous and assume you're not trolling, and really think you're a centrist. Take the Cruz-Warren test. Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren are probably the most conservative and the most liberal mainstream politicians in the country today. In order to be a centrist, there has to be at least one issue where you agree with Cruz and disagree with Warren, and one issue where you agree with Warren and disagree with Cruz. I want you to really think about what it says about you if all your tallies are in the Warren column.
It says you're a liberal. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that**. But take it from me. You'll be happier once you realize that you come down on one side of the isle and not the other.
*To save you the trouble of digging through my post history, other topics that I post on are Microsoft and how I'm usually a fan... Apple and how I'm usually not... Google often makes good Android-related decisions and bad non-Android ones... I'm quick to defend the Zune... The 360 was a great console, and I have an Xbox One, but I don't think that a great console game has come out yet this console generation. A couple of times, I've asked Sony fans if there's an exclusive on their side of the isle that's truly great.
**Except for the fact that you're wrong.
I'm offended that you think I or any unfortunate readers who read your words are gullible enough to believe it.
Fine, then. What possible motive would Richard Armitage have for leaking the name of Joseph Wilson's wife? Remember, Armitage and Wilson were allies.
And as far as the "might makes right" bullshit, Libby was only ever testifying because the prosecutor wanted to trap somebody in perjury charges. At the time Libby testified, Armitage had already confessed. The prosecutor already knew who committed the crime and could have sought an indictment against Armitage if he wanted to. Libby's sentence was commuted because the whole thing was a miscarriage of justice. Which is EXACTLY what pardons are for.
He's far too right wing for me.
Fine, but you're a well known radical leftist troll. Relative to the electorate, Obama is part of the hard left. He beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 by convincing Democrats that they should go with a hard-leftist rather than a moderate-by-comparison like Hillary. And since Obama has been a disaster for everyone in the Democratic Party EXCEPT Obama, the party is going to nominate Hillary Clinton, as scandal ridden as she is, instead of another leftist in the Obama mold like Elizabeth Warren.
The subpoena doesn't cover personal emails, and her team already made and kept copies of the work-related emails for the investigation.
Leaving aside the question of why you think Team Clinton's sanitizing of the e-mails is trustworthy, we already know they're lying. Top Hillary aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin used secret ClintonEmail addresses rather than their State Department ones, which means any e-mails to Clinton's Chief of Staff or Deputy Chief of Staff weren't turned over. And Sidney Blumenthal (not a government employee, by the way) was sending secret intelligence information about the Benghazi attack to her ClintonEmail address. Also work related, and also not turned over.
Kennedy didn't have the extreme faction of his side of the isle, and he didn't have any significant portion of the right wing, hence, he was polarizing.
Of course, if we do take it was true, what about the corollary to Romney's remarks, that there is a segment of the population which itself is resistant to anything Obama or a Democrat would offer is worth considering on its own?
Well, I guess there's two points, and I don't think they are worth considering about Obama specifically. Romney was talking about the contrast in media treatment of a Democrat and a Republican, so I think they only make sense in comparison.
First, there's a certain amount of "natural polarization" that President Obama (or a theoretical President Romney) would be affected by, even with a fair media. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson dealt with this kind of natural polarization, but in their day, the media was known openly to be biased, and was not regarded as the kind of arbiters of truth that some people treat them as today.
Secondly, 47% sounds high, but that's because Romney is accounting for the unfair media. The corollary to THAT, the number of people that would never vote for Obama because of things they heard from an unfair media, is admittedly non-zero, although you will probably think the magnitude is higher than I will. (Similarly, you're discounting the magnitude of the unfair treatment of Romney.) I guarantee you that Obama knew what percentage of the population wouldn't vote for him, and targeted his ads toward segments of the population who would. He just didn't have a malicious reporter lie about the context.
The 47% quote, itself from a non-fair media source, was originally presented (and is usually presented) as "47% of the population will never vote for Romney because his ideas will hurt them economically or socially or whatever." The specific example Romney was talking about was people on welfare. Romney's welfare plan would have helped people get off of welfare and into jobs. That would be better for them than staying on welfare forever, but these plans are commonly portrayed as leaving people to die in the street.
You're kidding, right? It's against the law to destroy records that are the subject of a subpoena.
Sure, the GOP can ride this strategy to grab House and Senate seats, but - like the Dems - they can't acquire the Big Chair without largely ignoring the extremists and moving towards the center.
Counterpoint: Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012
Literally every president - and candidate - since Reagan has been called "polarizing"
You don't think Carter was polarizing? Or Nixon? LBJ was certainly polarizing. Somebody shot Kennedy, so he certainly qualifies. Maybe Eisenhower wasn't polarizing. But then Truman was. FDR's New Deal and court packing schemes were polarizing. (The New Deal is polarizing to this day.) Skipping back through history (over another guy who got shot, BTW) half the states tried to leave because Lincoln got elected. I'd say polarizing has been the rule, rather than the exception, since Washington left office.
Also, you're leaving out important context in the Romney quote. The reason 47% of the country wouldn't vote for him is because the full weight of the media is devoted to covering up for the Democrat and attacking the Republican. It's not because there's something inherently wrong with Romney or his ideas.
But the 14th amendment pretty much states that if you a citizen you have full rights whether naturalized or born, and of course anyone born in the country is a citizen. This means the whole native born stuff is meaningless now.
The 14th amendment doesn't overturn the Article II eligibility requirements. However, there have always been two ways to get US citizenship, by birth and through the naturalization process. Obama and Cruz are both citizens by virtue of the fact that their mothers were US citizens. (Obama is also a citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born in Hawaii.) By contrast, people like Madeline Albright (she was Bill Clinton's secretary of state), and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became US citizens through the naturalization process, are not eligible to be President.
Armitage opposed the Iraq war, and leaked the name by mistake. The leak wasn't a Cheney/Rove plot to smear Iraq war opponents, which is the story we were all fed at the time.
if a woman walks butt naked into a cell block full of hardened convicts...
The phrase is "buck naked." The analogy is to the male deer, a woodland creature not known for wearing clothes. Also, please learn how to use the shift key on your keyboard.
Gore claimed that he created the modern internet by sponsoring the bill in the Senate that deregulated the ARPANET. In full context (which Gore provided) the claim is fair. Speaking of, where was The Biggest Deregulatory In Internet History in the Title II debate?
While you're thinking, please consider my full position, which is "The United States government needs an organization whose job is EXCLUSIVELY to license over the air broadcasting. If it uses the RF spectrum, it can be subject to this agency's regulation. They should issue licences by type of broadcast (OTA TV, FM, AM etc.) and maybe some light touch content stuff. (The FCC as currently constituted is too heavy handed in this area.) Anything NOT broadcast over the air (such as wireline internet connections) should NOT be regulated by this agency."
The examples you are talking about are examples of the content rules. The content rules are dumb and overused, but that's not what I'm talking about. The EFF, for one example, is worried about the CONDUCT rule (which is just taking effect now) being ex post facto.
You're just babbling now. "The ISPs have exclusive access to the backbone?" Who, other than ISPs, need access to it? That's like saying "people with cars have exclusive access to the highway." The problem is that in almost all geographic areas, one ISP has exclusive access to the customers in that area. Those are monopolies, but Title II doesn't fix that problem, it makes it worse. (As far as bragging to the FCC, you're wrong on that as well. Comcast says that they should be allowed to merge with Time Warner because there are no areas where Comcast and Time Warner compete for the same CUSTOMERS, not nowhere they compete for the same backbone.)