And most libertarians have such views, on paper. But I haven't seen a Reason article about how Comcast fucked over competition, just ones about how deregulating ISPs is going to make things better. The biggest cause of libertarians not being liked is because the agenda is so dominated by defending corporations from government, but relatively little concern is put into actual cases where regulations are directly impeding competition.
Without a sense of priorities, a libertarian philosophy can and often is cherry-picked to the point that a man can be shot dead for possessing a plant with no consequences, while the owners of a company like Wal-Mart, which has taxpayer subsidized employees using government benefits in their own stores, aren't paying any taxes on the profits they made double-dipping from the welfare system. Chanting "taxation is theft" all day long doesn't change the fact that such a system in no way resembles "liberty."
I'm talking about competition. The trolls back this because of a theoretical chance for competition, while they say nothing about an actual case of regulations being used to inhibit competition. This is exactly the kind of regulation all of their rhetoric is based around, and all we get in response is silence.
Do you have any data? Because, from my understanding, government run ISPs commonly have a pretty high approval rating.
Yeah, Comcast is more hated than the IRS. Now, this isn't a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but they are considerably less popular than what is likely the least popular government agency. I'm not sure why you are talking about government-run ISPs, because my point was that Comcast and AT&T manage to blow the enormous perceptual advantage they have as private companies, because they are so bad at their jobs.
And why would they care? How would it maximize their take home pay not to "blow this for everyone?" Ideally, back it up with a case where something actually happened, as opposed to conjecture based on first principles.
The Heritage foundation is not about "take home pay." It's about shaping public opinion to shift power from government to businesses. Unpopular businesses hurt that mission, because they demonstrate the need for government regulation, and that businesses can have the same kind of problems that are attributed to governments. They are about the worst possible PR for the concept of private businesses.
For a concrete example, look at the Great Recession. Because the financial sector shit the bed, more regulations were passed. Now, those regulations weren't all that strong because of the previous work they put in, but they were reactively punished for bad behavior. Had the recession not happened, they would have faced less regulation, which is the HF's end goal.
It probably has to do with the fact that this will do NOTHING to improve competition on the internet, while all the concern trolls opposing Net Neutrality were dead silent while AT&T and Comcast stopped Google from efficiently wiring competing infrastructure in Nashville.
What? The people pushing for net neutrality are the ones bitching about adpocalypse and the like. There are corporations that are not neutral, but that's because they have same conflict of interest as the ISPs.
No, we know that there are a significant amount of people that oppose net neutrality. Telecom lobbyists, libertarian "Think Tanks", and assorted periphery. But, there aren't significant amounts of people that 1) understand the actual issues at a technical level and 2) don't have direct financial incentives to oppose net neutrality that oppose net neutrality.
I'll agree it's not the best phrasing, probably because it would be "unprofessional" to write an accurate headline like "Ajit Pai is a fuckwit ISP shill that doesn't even know how the internet works."
As for the stewardship of the "owners of the wires," they manage to be basically the only private entities less popular than any part of the government. Do you know how fucking hard it is for a business to be LESS POPULAR THAN THE GOVERNMENT? if I were running the Heritage foundation or whatever hyper-capitalist think tank bribe machine, I would be taking the CEOs of AT&T and Charter out into the desert, and having a sincere talk with them about getting their goddamn shit together before they blow this for everyone.
Shooting yourself in both feet with a RPG seems a funny way to get ready for an IPO.
This is a change that sounds good to investors and is horrible for actual usage. Sounds like standard operating procedure for getting ready for an IPO.
But that requires an enormous capital investment, and de facto involves bribing politicians enough to let you in on the racket. Either that, or effective antitrust law breaks up the financial industry sufficiently enough to have a competitive market, but let's be realistic.
He was complaining that there is a low value for what they charge compared to the services they provide, so the proposal would be that they charge more reasonable rates for their services.
No, right wingers love taxes when it's taxes and fees from a government that calls itself a corporation. Plus, they love jerking off military contractors.
Yes, because oil companies don't have any money....
Even if there wasn't an overwhelming scientific consensus, we should at least come to the conclusion that God hates petroleum because he fucking buried it mostly under the world's biggest assholes.
Wit and nuance are almost mutually exclusive. Not all comments need to be elaborate, and I typically err on the side of being too verbose. Basically anybody posting here that can be reasoned with knows that there are far bigger economic concerns than bitcoin, and those concerns are caused by a good share of the names below. So, it's an acceptable jest to have a "Jesus Christ, what an asshole"-type comment when people like Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon are mentioned as if they should be given even more attention. It's roughly in line with the comedic principle of "punching up."
I see it as little different than when we trash slashvertisements. It's a bunch of crap that doesn't belong here, or anywhere.
Did I blame economists as a whole? No, I blamed the individuals mentioned in TFS, a list of names which included leadership from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs. I'm sorry if my clearly comical post wasn't a doctoral thesis on which individuals in the world of finance are the most and least harmful. I would have preferred funny to insightful, though.
For reference, I scanned the front page of reddit. A few of the post weren't news related, just "here's something cool," which was often an image (curious as to how that was evaluated). But I saw a post titled "Trump isn’t welcome in UK after sharing far-right videos, London mayor says." I then read the article, and while I learned a few additional details, it was pretty much just that. The mayor of London was bothered by Trump's tweets of far-right, anti-islamic videos, and he's called for Theresa May to withdraw the offer for a visit.
I would consider that an example where there was little reason for the average user to bother reading the whole article. I definitely agree with you that many news articles fit the pattern you describe. The question is the ratio between the articles you describe and the ones I describe, which would determine how worthwhile reading an article is. I make no claim to have the answer, but I am presenting an explanation why not reading the article might make some degree of sense.
To determine whether or not this is a problem, we have to determine what percentage of articles are actually worth reading over the headlines. If the articles are typically just fleshing out the headline, without anything meaningful added, this is efficient, rational behavior.
It is not absurd, there is a direct textual and historical note that draws the line between one and the next.
It is totally absurd. The broader meaning of "letters patent" here effectively boils down to "public records." What continues closer to that legal tradition of patents is Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals' legal cocaine monopoly.
Regarding patents, they are not property, and if there is an established process for how patents are granted and revoked, that process is, by definition, due process. If Congress decided to, they could end all patents outright immediately, that would be completely legal (although it would violate some treaties that we should also leave), and probably a damn good idea.
It doesn't harm the patent holder. It merely fails to continue to aid them. Patent holders cannot be harmed because the only power a patent holds is to harm holders of actual property.
If a patent hadnâ(TM)t improperly issued, the applicant would have had essentially endless opportunities to tailor the claims toward validity, but you canâ(TM)t get that back years later.
Yeah, and I'm 100% okay with that. Throwing money at a patent until it sticks (and then is likely used or threatened to be used in the broader way that was invalidated) is not something we should be encouraging. If making broad claims means your patent is likely to be invalidated, then this will incentivize more narrow claims.
Slashdot Mirror
And most libertarians have such views, on paper. But I haven't seen a Reason article about how Comcast fucked over competition, just ones about how deregulating ISPs is going to make things better. The biggest cause of libertarians not being liked is because the agenda is so dominated by defending corporations from government, but relatively little concern is put into actual cases where regulations are directly impeding competition.
Without a sense of priorities, a libertarian philosophy can and often is cherry-picked to the point that a man can be shot dead for possessing a plant with no consequences, while the owners of a company like Wal-Mart, which has taxpayer subsidized employees using government benefits in their own stores, aren't paying any taxes on the profits they made double-dipping from the welfare system. Chanting "taxation is theft" all day long doesn't change the fact that such a system in no way resembles "liberty."
I'm talking about competition. The trolls back this because of a theoretical chance for competition, while they say nothing about an actual case of regulations being used to inhibit competition. This is exactly the kind of regulation all of their rhetoric is based around, and all we get in response is silence.
Yeah, Comcast is more hated than the IRS. Now, this isn't a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but they are considerably less popular than what is likely the least popular government agency. I'm not sure why you are talking about government-run ISPs, because my point was that Comcast and AT&T manage to blow the enormous perceptual advantage they have as private companies, because they are so bad at their jobs.
The Heritage foundation is not about "take home pay." It's about shaping public opinion to shift power from government to businesses. Unpopular businesses hurt that mission, because they demonstrate the need for government regulation, and that businesses can have the same kind of problems that are attributed to governments. They are about the worst possible PR for the concept of private businesses.
For a concrete example, look at the Great Recession. Because the financial sector shit the bed, more regulations were passed. Now, those regulations weren't all that strong because of the previous work they put in, but they were reactively punished for bad behavior. Had the recession not happened, they would have faced less regulation, which is the HF's end goal.
Actually, it's due to the nature of infrastructure, including the legal rights of the property owners whose land the cables are installed on.
It probably has to do with the fact that this will do NOTHING to improve competition on the internet, while all the concern trolls opposing Net Neutrality were dead silent while AT&T and Comcast stopped Google from efficiently wiring competing infrastructure in Nashville.
What? The people pushing for net neutrality are the ones bitching about adpocalypse and the like. There are corporations that are not neutral, but that's because they have same conflict of interest as the ISPs.
No, we know that there are a significant amount of people that oppose net neutrality. Telecom lobbyists, libertarian "Think Tanks", and assorted periphery. But, there aren't significant amounts of people that 1) understand the actual issues at a technical level and 2) don't have direct financial incentives to oppose net neutrality that oppose net neutrality.
I'll agree it's not the best phrasing, probably because it would be "unprofessional" to write an accurate headline like "Ajit Pai is a fuckwit ISP shill that doesn't even know how the internet works."
As for the stewardship of the "owners of the wires," they manage to be basically the only private entities less popular than any part of the government. Do you know how fucking hard it is for a business to be LESS POPULAR THAN THE GOVERNMENT? if I were running the Heritage foundation or whatever hyper-capitalist think tank bribe machine, I would be taking the CEOs of AT&T and Charter out into the desert, and having a sincere talk with them about getting their goddamn shit together before they blow this for everyone.
The nerds were right all along. People just acclimate to almost anything, no matter how horrible it is.
This is a change that sounds good to investors and is horrible for actual usage. Sounds like standard operating procedure for getting ready for an IPO.
But that requires an enormous capital investment, and de facto involves bribing politicians enough to let you in on the racket. Either that, or effective antitrust law breaks up the financial industry sufficiently enough to have a competitive market, but let's be realistic.
He was complaining that there is a low value for what they charge compared to the services they provide, so the proposal would be that they charge more reasonable rates for their services.
No, right wingers love taxes when it's taxes and fees from a government that calls itself a corporation. Plus, they love jerking off military contractors.
Yes, because oil companies don't have any money....
Even if there wasn't an overwhelming scientific consensus, we should at least come to the conclusion that God hates petroleum because he fucking buried it mostly under the world's biggest assholes.
Wit and nuance are almost mutually exclusive. Not all comments need to be elaborate, and I typically err on the side of being too verbose. Basically anybody posting here that can be reasoned with knows that there are far bigger economic concerns than bitcoin, and those concerns are caused by a good share of the names below. So, it's an acceptable jest to have a "Jesus Christ, what an asshole"-type comment when people like Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon are mentioned as if they should be given even more attention. It's roughly in line with the comedic principle of "punching up."
I see it as little different than when we trash slashvertisements. It's a bunch of crap that doesn't belong here, or anywhere.
Did I blame economists as a whole? No, I blamed the individuals mentioned in TFS, a list of names which included leadership from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs. I'm sorry if my clearly comical post wasn't a doctoral thesis on which individuals in the world of finance are the most and least harmful. I would have preferred funny to insightful, though.
He gets paid directly in little boys.
Why not talk about unicorns while we're at it?
What we call 'capitalism' is another, and we've swindled far more people on that one.
Neither do you, or just about anybody else brought up in this conversation.
For reference, I scanned the front page of reddit. A few of the post weren't news related, just "here's something cool," which was often an image (curious as to how that was evaluated). But I saw a post titled "Trump isn’t welcome in UK after sharing far-right videos, London mayor says." I then read the article, and while I learned a few additional details, it was pretty much just that. The mayor of London was bothered by Trump's tweets of far-right, anti-islamic videos, and he's called for Theresa May to withdraw the offer for a visit.
I would consider that an example where there was little reason for the average user to bother reading the whole article. I definitely agree with you that many news articles fit the pattern you describe. The question is the ratio between the articles you describe and the ones I describe, which would determine how worthwhile reading an article is. I make no claim to have the answer, but I am presenting an explanation why not reading the article might make some degree of sense.
To determine whether or not this is a problem, we have to determine what percentage of articles are actually worth reading over the headlines. If the articles are typically just fleshing out the headline, without anything meaningful added, this is efficient, rational behavior.
Mozilla hired bigfoot?
It is totally absurd. The broader meaning of "letters patent" here effectively boils down to "public records." What continues closer to that legal tradition of patents is Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals' legal cocaine monopoly.
Regarding patents, they are not property, and if there is an established process for how patents are granted and revoked, that process is, by definition, due process. If Congress decided to, they could end all patents outright immediately, that would be completely legal (although it would violate some treaties that we should also leave), and probably a damn good idea.
It doesn't harm the patent holder. It merely fails to continue to aid them. Patent holders cannot be harmed because the only power a patent holds is to harm holders of actual property.
If a patent hadnâ(TM)t improperly issued, the applicant would have had essentially endless opportunities to tailor the claims toward validity, but you canâ(TM)t get that back years later.
Yeah, and I'm 100% okay with that. Throwing money at a patent until it sticks (and then is likely used or threatened to be used in the broader way that was invalidated) is not something we should be encouraging. If making broad claims means your patent is likely to be invalidated, then this will incentivize more narrow claims.