Last mile problem can be fixed with a BOND measure and building out Municipal Fiber, back hauled to a COLO were providers can fight for customers. IF we quit trying to fix the wrong problem it is much easier to fix.
Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S.
Yes, through Franchise agreements with local municipalities. The problem we're dealing with isn't the CONTENT on the wire, it is the wire itself. And since this is networking, and not water or electricity or gas, we can route DIFFERENT products down the same pathway.
THE solution is to build out COLO facilty and bring last mile into a this shared facility, where you can order whatever product and services from whomever offers it, and pay a one time connect fee (or have the provider pay it for you). The last mile infrastructure is Municipally owned, and you are free to choose between any vendor to provide service.
Once you break the problem of the last mile, you don't need regulation, price controls or anything else, the market will fix itself.
ADVERTISEMENT EXAMPLE "Why go with Comcast who restricts your access to sites like Netflix? Go with Archangel Cable and have UNLIMITED and UNRESTRICTED internet, cable and voice for half the price of Comcast"
does not intend to set rates or add new taxes to broadband bills.
The government lies about its intentions. PERIOD. UNLESS it is actually written in law that they CANNOT set rates or add new taxes, you can be assured that they WILL set rates and increase taxes. And when has government ever not met a tax that it didn't like?
The problem is, if reporting 5 instead of 2 doesn't work, because of a defect in BIOS/Firmware, it isn't the fault of LINUX, it is a fault of defective by design hardware.
IF Dell doesn't support 5 properly, then it is defective. PERIOD. Buy the product, and return it defective to the place of purchase. Either that, or find a computer that actually works at 5, and post it on a hardware compatibility list somewhere, along with naming and shaming DELL for having defective hardware.
GWB = Back-channel communication (off the record) (Very Bad) 8 out of 10 HRC = FULL Control of ALL communication, apart from established rules, regulations and laws (Worse than Very Bad) 10 out of 10
Makes what happened during Nixon years look tame (ironic considering HRC being on the Watergate prosecution team);)
There is a typical flaw in defending the likes of HRC, "The other side does it too!"
The base is a deflection and changing the subject to take the focus off the current crime. Pointing to the wrongs of others is no excuse for the current wrongs.
Liberals saying "Bush did it too" doesn't make what HRC did okay. Nor does Republicans saying "We learned this from the Clintons" excuse their behavior.
What we are talking here is the LEADING candidate for the (D) for president, doing exactly what she said was criminal when Bush did it, and yet she felt entitled to do it anyway, and now is justifying it in all sorts of distracting ways.
But there is at least ONE major difference between GWB and HRC actions, HRC came after GWB's and that there were additional rule, regulations and laws that were developed to restrict it from happening again. And not only did HRC violate those rules, regulations and laws, she did so knowing they were ethically wrong (having made the case against GWB).
I am not defending GWB here, in fact, I'm using it as a springboard to show that what HRC did was much much worse.
No, ALL. As in 100%. If any (R) had set up a private server, and never used a.GOV email account, ALL of them would be going apeshit crazy. ALL of them.
I'm not a (R), so I can't speak for (R). The hypocrisy is HRC railing against all the (R) for doing LESS than what she has actually admitted to. So, which is it? Cool idea or criminal? Depends on which HRC you ask and when, doesn't it?
You introduced a fallacy, namely that I said YOU did anything at all.
Sarah Palin's email issue was a "phoney scandal" drummed up by left wing haters, and resolved with one of them hacked into her account looking for incriminating evidence... and found none. But until then, the haters kept mentioning "appearances of impropriety" as if that was enough reason to keep her from the VP spot.
Keep in mind, I am not a Sarah Palin fan, and have other reasons to keep her from office, all of which were basically the same reasons I didn't vote for Obama either (lack of experience).
I am NOT a republican apologist. I just see that the left wing has a high standard of hypocrisy going on here, including HRC who lambasted the Bush Admin for much less than she has been caught doing here. She can't even hold up to her own "values" (malleable as they are).
The question is, is using private email for official government use, under the retention policies, laws and rules apply to Clinton equally as it does for everyone else or not? Because, there are several people who have been tried and convicted for less than what Clinton has DONE (admitted to). Just asking how much of a Clinton apologist you are.
The issue is, we don't know if it violated any laws, because we don't have access to the information from that email server. She may have, she may not have broken the law. We don't know, and cannot possibly know. Obfuscation happens to be against the law, predating email systems. This case CLEARLY falls under those statutes. Just because "on the internet" isn't specified, doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
Funny, the left's view of Sarah Palin's Email usage was a BIG concern 8 years ago. Funny how "Big Concern" becomes "Low Grade" depending on which party you're rooting for.
unwanted emails permanently disappear from the.gov
Because, the system is NOT being administered by those who would delete the emails. This means, all email is archived BEFORE it is actually delivered; out of the reach of the users. The users could delete the email, but a copy would remain on the permanent archive system.
In HRC case, none of those safeguards were/are in place, and we just have to trust that she is telling the truth, because we'll never know. Which is kind of why she did it that way.
First off, I am a (L), so I don't support either (R) or (D) parties.
Walker is clean, having been washed through three elections including one Recall. The dirt on him is clean dirt (i.e. "old news")
Most (R)s I know don't want another Bush III either. What is becoming clear with the Bush/Clinton Part 2 anointing process, even to (D) and (R) alike, is that BOTH parties are bought and paid by special interests. The question is, which of the two parties fractures first, leaving their party with split votes for the other guy/gal?
And from my casual non-scientific polling, most (D) are more capable of holding their noses while voting for the "lessor of two evils" than most (R)s are.
AND just wait till Hillary is actually elected, and the religious right figures out that she is the "Woman riding the Beast"....
You're assuming that hanging Chris Stephens out to dry in Libya wasn't treason. Of course you'll excuse that treason because it was one of your own doing it. So... I am not impressed.
Both side (R and D) are treasonous. And excusing bad behavior by pointing to worse behavior is hardly ethical either.
Sometimes I wonder if transparency advocates won't be happy until they've stapled a Google Glass onto the head of every government employee recording a 24 hour stream of their every sight and utterance.
That is actually a great idea! I don't trust politicians at all. This would greatly enhance my trust in them if I knew which lobbyists had their ear. I abhor the secrecy of modern politics.
What is hypocritical is Clinton herself being on the "private email is wrong" bandwagon when Bush was doing it, then turning around and doing it herself. It isn't hypocritical to STOP doing something after being caught, it is excusing yourself when you are caught, after complaining about it in others.
There is a clear double standard, or worse, expectation of bad ethical choices by the Clintons, which are excuse because "its the Clintons"
And she is also on record saying she used multiple devices, and then lying yesterday saying she didn't want to use multiple devices (convenience). The only "convenient" thing she has is losing her memories.
Physical Security is just part of security. The issue is that it seems to be the only verifiable security measure taken place. If you cannot verify security, often done by third party consultants, you cannot verify anything. Basically this comes down to "Trust Me" by a Clinton. And while Clinton Sock-Puppets trust her Implicitly, doesn't mean I should. In fact, those same Sock-Puppets wouldn't accept that answer from anyone with an (R) after their name.
IMHO, Hillary is unfit to be President, or Secretary of State. And that says a lot about the whole current Administration and their whole "I just found out about this from the news" is tiresome excuse of incompetence or willful (criminal) ignorance (take your pick)
If its against the law, then prosecute her. If its not and its just a guideline, then its using the rules
So, when questions of "ethics" comes up, you'll always side on the "If it isn't illegal, it is okay" even if it is a "Tea Bagger".
Some how, I doubt you'll be as lenient on them as you are on Hillary. Doubles-standard SOP for the Clintons is a national pastime for the DNC and their sock puppets. My guess, is you were one of those people whining about Palin during her email issues.
They didn't go after Bush for WMD, because... wait for it... they said the exact same thing as Bush!
Unless you're telling me that Hillary, who was briefed by the same people as Bush, had access to Bill, and everything else and said "Iraq has WMD" is somehow less complicit in the run up to the war. The dirt was on just about everyone.
AND we'll never know what Hillary did to her email. Because we just have to "trust" her.
My guess, is that all those supporting Hillary right now, all of them, would be apoplectic if anyone with an (R) after their name did the same thing. There is a double-standard in politics, people EXPECT the Clinton's to be sleazeballs, and all but excuse it as SOP.
I bet if it was Palin, their cries would be a whole lot different (and they were). So much for "any appearance of impropriety" charge made by the Liberals on Conservatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Last mile problem can be fixed with a BOND measure and building out Municipal Fiber, back hauled to a COLO were providers can fight for customers. IF we quit trying to fix the wrong problem it is much easier to fix.
Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S.
Yes, through Franchise agreements with local municipalities. The problem we're dealing with isn't the CONTENT on the wire, it is the wire itself. And since this is networking, and not water or electricity or gas, we can route DIFFERENT products down the same pathway.
THE solution is to build out COLO facilty and bring last mile into a this shared facility, where you can order whatever product and services from whomever offers it, and pay a one time connect fee (or have the provider pay it for you). The last mile infrastructure is Municipally owned, and you are free to choose between any vendor to provide service.
Once you break the problem of the last mile, you don't need regulation, price controls or anything else, the market will fix itself.
ADVERTISEMENT EXAMPLE "Why go with Comcast who restricts your access to sites like Netflix? Go with Archangel Cable and have UNLIMITED and UNRESTRICTED internet, cable and voice for half the price of Comcast"
does not intend to set rates or add new taxes to broadband bills.
The government lies about its intentions. PERIOD. UNLESS it is actually written in law that they CANNOT set rates or add new taxes, you can be assured that they WILL set rates and increase taxes. And when has government ever not met a tax that it didn't like?
The problem is, if reporting 5 instead of 2 doesn't work, because of a defect in BIOS/Firmware, it isn't the fault of LINUX, it is a fault of defective by design hardware.
IF Dell doesn't support 5 properly, then it is defective. PERIOD. Buy the product, and return it defective to the place of purchase. Either that, or find a computer that actually works at 5, and post it on a hardware compatibility list somewhere, along with naming and shaming DELL for having defective hardware.
neither are justifiable
Exactly. The way I see it.
GWB = Back-channel communication (off the record) (Very Bad) 8 out of 10
HRC = FULL Control of ALL communication, apart from established rules, regulations and laws (Worse than Very Bad) 10 out of 10
Makes what happened during Nixon years look tame (ironic considering HRC being on the Watergate prosecution team) ;)
There is a typical flaw in defending the likes of HRC, "The other side does it too!"
The base is a deflection and changing the subject to take the focus off the current crime. Pointing to the wrongs of others is no excuse for the current wrongs.
Liberals saying "Bush did it too" doesn't make what HRC did okay. Nor does Republicans saying "We learned this from the Clintons" excuse their behavior.
What we are talking here is the LEADING candidate for the (D) for president, doing exactly what she said was criminal when Bush did it, and yet she felt entitled to do it anyway, and now is justifying it in all sorts of distracting ways.
But there is at least ONE major difference between GWB and HRC actions, HRC came after GWB's and that there were additional rule, regulations and laws that were developed to restrict it from happening again. And not only did HRC violate those rules, regulations and laws, she did so knowing they were ethically wrong (having made the case against GWB).
I am not defending GWB here, in fact, I'm using it as a springboard to show that what HRC did was much much worse.
No, ALL. As in 100%. If any (R) had set up a private server, and never used a .GOV email account, ALL of them would be going apeshit crazy. ALL of them.
I'm not a (R), so I can't speak for (R). The hypocrisy is HRC railing against all the (R) for doing LESS than what she has actually admitted to. So, which is it? Cool idea or criminal? Depends on which HRC you ask and when, doesn't it?
You introduced a fallacy, namely that I said YOU did anything at all.
Sarah Palin's email issue was a "phoney scandal" drummed up by left wing haters, and resolved with one of them hacked into her account looking for incriminating evidence ... and found none. But until then, the haters kept mentioning "appearances of impropriety" as if that was enough reason to keep her from the VP spot.
Keep in mind, I am not a Sarah Palin fan, and have other reasons to keep her from office, all of which were basically the same reasons I didn't vote for Obama either (lack of experience).
I am NOT a republican apologist. I just see that the left wing has a high standard of hypocrisy going on here, including HRC who lambasted the Bush Admin for much less than she has been caught doing here. She can't even hold up to her own "values" (malleable as they are).
The question is, is using private email for official government use, under the retention policies, laws and rules apply to Clinton equally as it does for everyone else or not? Because, there are several people who have been tried and convicted for less than what Clinton has DONE (admitted to). Just asking how much of a Clinton apologist you are.
More like "guidelines" than actual rules.
The issue is, we don't know if it violated any laws, because we don't have access to the information from that email server. She may have, she may not have broken the law. We don't know, and cannot possibly know. Obfuscation happens to be against the law, predating email systems. This case CLEARLY falls under those statutes. Just because "on the internet" isn't specified, doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
Funny, the left's view of Sarah Palin's Email usage was a BIG concern 8 years ago. Funny how "Big Concern" becomes "Low Grade" depending on which party you're rooting for.
unwanted emails permanently disappear from the .gov
Because, the system is NOT being administered by those who would delete the emails. This means, all email is archived BEFORE it is actually delivered; out of the reach of the users. The users could delete the email, but a copy would remain on the permanent archive system.
In HRC case, none of those safeguards were/are in place, and we just have to trust that she is telling the truth, because we'll never know. Which is kind of why she did it that way.
Because .... Obama just found out about it in the news (really!!)
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k...
Haven't we seen that exact same excuse before, is he out of touch or what? He didn't notice the non .GOV email address?
First off, I am a (L), so I don't support either (R) or (D) parties.
Walker is clean, having been washed through three elections including one Recall. The dirt on him is clean dirt (i.e. "old news")
Most (R)s I know don't want another Bush III either. What is becoming clear with the Bush/Clinton Part 2 anointing process, even to (D) and (R) alike, is that BOTH parties are bought and paid by special interests. The question is, which of the two parties fractures first, leaving their party with split votes for the other guy/gal?
And from my casual non-scientific polling, most (D) are more capable of holding their noses while voting for the "lessor of two evils" than most (R)s are.
AND just wait till Hillary is actually elected, and the religious right figures out that she is the "Woman riding the Beast" ....
She is also on record as using multiple devices, so even that is an "untruth"
You're assuming that hanging Chris Stephens out to dry in Libya wasn't treason. Of course you'll excuse that treason because it was one of your own doing it. So ... I am not impressed.
Both side (R and D) are treasonous. And excusing bad behavior by pointing to worse behavior is hardly ethical either.
Sometimes I wonder if transparency advocates won't be happy until they've stapled a Google Glass onto the head of every government employee recording a 24 hour stream of their every sight and utterance.
That is actually a great idea! I don't trust politicians at all. This would greatly enhance my trust in them if I knew which lobbyists had their ear. I abhor the secrecy of modern politics.
What is hypocritical is Clinton herself being on the "private email is wrong" bandwagon when Bush was doing it, then turning around and doing it herself. It isn't hypocritical to STOP doing something after being caught, it is excusing yourself when you are caught, after complaining about it in others.
There is a clear double standard, or worse, expectation of bad ethical choices by the Clintons, which are excuse because "its the Clintons"
And she is also on record saying she used multiple devices, and then lying yesterday saying she didn't want to use multiple devices (convenience). The only "convenient" thing she has is losing her memories.
Physical Security is just part of security. The issue is that it seems to be the only verifiable security measure taken place. If you cannot verify security, often done by third party consultants, you cannot verify anything. Basically this comes down to "Trust Me" by a Clinton. And while Clinton Sock-Puppets trust her Implicitly, doesn't mean I should. In fact, those same Sock-Puppets wouldn't accept that answer from anyone with an (R) after their name.
IMHO, Hillary is unfit to be President, or Secretary of State. And that says a lot about the whole current Administration and their whole "I just found out about this from the news" is tiresome excuse of incompetence or willful (criminal) ignorance (take your pick)
If its against the law, then prosecute her. If its not and its just a guideline, then its using the rules
So, when questions of "ethics" comes up, you'll always side on the "If it isn't illegal, it is okay" even if it is a "Tea Bagger".
Some how, I doubt you'll be as lenient on them as you are on Hillary. Doubles-standard SOP for the Clintons is a national pastime for the DNC and their sock puppets. My guess, is you were one of those people whining about Palin during her email issues.
They didn't go after Bush for WMD, because ... wait for it ... they said the exact same thing as Bush!
Unless you're telling me that Hillary, who was briefed by the same people as Bush, had access to Bill, and everything else and said "Iraq has WMD" is somehow less complicit in the run up to the war. The dirt was on just about everyone.
That is why they didn't go after Bush.
AND we'll never know what Hillary did to her email. Because we just have to "trust" her.
My guess, is that all those supporting Hillary right now, all of them, would be apoplectic if anyone with an (R) after their name did the same thing. There is a double-standard in politics, people EXPECT the Clinton's to be sleazeballs, and all but excuse it as SOP.
I bet if it was Palin, their cries would be a whole lot different (and they were). So much for "any appearance of impropriety" charge made by the Liberals on Conservatives.
To be fair ... Obama just found out about it via the news media (really!!!)
“The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” Obama told CBS News.
Next up? "I will get to the bottom of this"
Followed by .. "Not a smidgen of evidence"
And lastly ... "Phony Scandal"