Other Libertarian here. ISPs are a product of government collusion (monopoly) practices. The further a government is away from me, the less I trust it.
That being said, we do not need MORE regulation of ISPs, we need out of the box thinking to reframe the last mile problem. I have NO problem with a local municipality running last mile service, as long as I get to choose which provider gets to my house. This would require Fiber to the premise, running back to a COLO that is rented (funded) out to service providers to provide ANYTHING they want to the customer. A choice of four or six providers at the COLO to choose from, and a simple Network VLAN change to change providers.
THIS would negate the need for ANY regulation. If Johnny Christian wants to have Jesus.net cable co, he can get it. If Mary Rotten wants all porn and drug channels, she is free to choose that. Comcast will be forced to stop playing games, because they will lose customers if they throttle YouTube and Netflix.
Almost all problems we have right now, are caused by last mile monopolies. Lets inject CHOICE, rather than regulation into the market.
I realize it. Probably more than liberals who think they are entitled to the leisure time and disposable income. Free spending US citizens aren't the problem, the problem is people buying Chinese because it is %5 cheaper, not realizing that %5 keeps their neighbor employed. But lets tax those that earn a living here, so that we can have more people leisure time and non-disposable income (i.e. unemployed)
You forgot Somalia! Yeah, strawman argument is complete. Because it is all or nothing!
It is a global market, because labor in China (and elsewhere) is cheap. Move your factory to China, build the product saving tons in labor, increase profit, lower prices. Move your factory to China, avoid environmental regulations in the US, and the US is polluted with China Smog, and you get to save on costs, increasing profit, lowering prices.
Most decisions aren't stupid. See the above, moving to China was "smart", right up and until American Workers can't buy what you're manufacturing, because nobody has jobs. Short Term decisions keeping you competitive isn't stupid, Long term decisions that put you out of business aren't stupid either. What is stupid is having policies as if they have no impact on costs of doing business and doing proper cost benefit analysis. Which is part of the point I was trying to make.
Having Kyoto rules in place in the US, makes no sense when China and India (1/3 Population of the world) are busy taking all the slack created by companies unable to compete... globally... because it costs them a lot more. At that point, you're saying you'd rather them go out of business, the jobs moved to China, and China export its smog to the US. It solves NOTHING while making policy makers feel good (while flying around on corporate jets, living in mansions).
I don't believe what you're trying to say I believe. There has to be some sort of balanced approach to global economies and managing to grow our economy with good paying jobs so we don't have to have 50 million people on food stamps because good jobs are gone and the only place hiring is Walmart (selling Chinese goods).
If you believe the 5.9 % unemployment rate is accurate, by all means, keep voting more Obama and Democrats, and blaming evil corporations and republicans. EVERYONE has a role in our collective failure.
I'm not complaining about racism here, this is not about race. This is about unfair playing field across national lines. It is cheaper to hire Indian workers than it is to hire American workers. The problem is, many left-wing types price US workers out of the market (albeit unintentionally) with regulations and taxes that foreign workers can simply avoid. When you add up all the "feel good" taxes, regulations, requirements and laws American workers face, it is easy to simply say, "I can hire four Indians, or one American".
Guess which one YOU would pick given the same situation?
It is a global marketplace, and we should start realizing it in our policies and laws.
The difference between Facebook and Amazon, with Facebook, you are the product, not the customer; with Amazon, you are the customer, not the product being sold.
You can have absolute freedom, if you have a government system designed in a way that realizes that one cannot stop bad things from happening. Freedom being exercising free will for one's own self determination, without harming others. The problem is, we have people who want to prevent all bad things from happening, so we outlaw all sorts of things, preventing people from the POSSIBILITY of harming others. So we outlaw pot, guns, alcohol (and then legalize it again). Sometimes the laws we draft cause more harm to society trying to protect it, than having no laws would.
Criminal law is a contract with society, and why I support very harsh punishment for people who break real criminal laws, and changing the laws so that "victimless crimes" are removed from the books. THAT is our social construct for our society. However, it also must be tempered with mercy, or it becomes too harsh for people who make simple mistakes that harm others.
As I like to say, "freedom is messy". If you're free, then you're free to do the wrong thing. Freedom requires trust that most of the time, people WILL choose to do the right thing. Freedom also requires that we allow people to screw up. Freedom also requires understanding that "bad things" will happen.
I make the analogy that Freedom is like base jumping. It is really fun when everything goes right, but when it goes wrong, it is horrible. However, we don't stop base jumper simply because bad things happen occasionally, for that is the cost of jumping off tall objects.
We must remember this when security vs freedom arguments erupt. The timid slaves want to be taken care of, but we must remind them, that not everyone wants to be a slave.
"please provide your argument as to why a same-sex couple is inferior to a heterosexual couple."
Lesbians have no ability to relate to male children in a way a dad can. Gay dads have no ability to relate to girls on their period for the first time. THIS is sociological issues, and while not unique to Gay / Lesbian couples, affects all of them. I know, because while I raised three daughters, I was sure glad there was a mom there to relate to them in ways I couldn't. And I grew up with a mom that raised three boys, and she didn't have a clue how to raise boys without my dad being there.
Now, I am also mostly sure that if my dad died, my mom could raise us boys, and if my wife had died, I could raise three daughters, the experience was BEST because there was a mom and a dad. Best means something, even if liberals think it is a dirty word.
"If the spouse hadn't agreed then they would not have had the children."
Because that spouse was irrelevant to the biologic process. It would be like saying "My parents said I could get pregnant, so I did", or "My best friend agreed I could get pregnant" or "God told me to get pregnant."
Because you can't see the issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Your original argument is that children are better off with two parents raising them. That is a matter of sociology, not biology."
From a sociological point of view, a small close knit clan of related people are the best choice, and that starts with biological parents. Modern techniques on getting pregnant not withstanding. Trying to make the case that Lesbian or Gay couples are EQUAL to biological parents (all other things being equal) is just plain silly. But I understand why you do it.
The problem here is that AGW supporters loved to toss Hurricanes out as "proof" of global warming AND evidence that GW makes Hurricanes worse. The problem is neither is factual, and neither is even remotely accurate. Making falsifiable claims is one reason why I don't listen to AGW proponents any longer. They are just Religious nutjobs, using quasi-science to foist their belief systems on to others. Here is more detailed and significant analysis that basically makes "hurricanes" a non-issue and why the AGW proponents should stop using hurricanes as "proof" of anything.
Here is a good outline of the problem:http://www.growth-dynamics.com/news/DEC27_04.htm
I would qualify the final resolution with this My statement, is 100% accurate "mutual agreement whenever possible."
By donating sperm the man consented, and by using the sperm one of the women consented. The other woman wasn't involved in that choice except by some OTHER convention; she wasn't needed for the "decision" but was involved to make it seem like it was needed.
So technically speaking, the second woman was not needed, and is irrelevant to biology of "choice", if you want to go there.
Many religions have backup called "god parents", who are sworn to carry out the raising of kids if parents are deceased. Grandparents, aunts and uncles and even adult children are used by many extended families. You don't need "three" parents, you need only one. But two are better.
Unless you're speaking about Polygamy, in which case, why limit it to three?;)
I know what is best for children in general, there are exceptions for every rule. There are good Homosexual parents, and bad ones. There are good Heterosexual parents, and bad ones. Generally speaking, what is BEST for kids (all other things equal) is to have two parents, one male, one female. Moral equivocation cannot negate biology. Nature is such a hater like that.
" No man was involved in the decision making process."
A man was involved. He had a decision. So technically, you're completely incorrect. Just because he was removed from the final "decision" doesn't mean he didn't have a choice to make.
Unless you're suggesting the lesbians took his sperm by force. Which case, they should be in jail.
Children are and should be a decision made by a woman
It actually takes two to create children. The fact that 9 Months is taken residence in the womb (and subject to termination right up and sometimes passed delivery), is simply a liberal convenience. Two Males cannot create a child, neither can two females. Both are inconvenient biological facts liberals don't actually like (its unfair, you homophobic bastard).
And children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a single woman COULD raise a child, typically most women do not have the luxury of means to provide for a child by themselves. So, unless you're talking about just the 9 months of pregnancy, I would suggest that children should be a choice made by a man, and a woman together in mutual agreement whenever possible.
Yeah, I am a hater for wanting the best for children.
Last night, we isolated a handful of our impacted servers and at this time we have no evidence of a compromise to user data... that we want to admit to
1) I am not a kneejerk anything. But from your "Faux News" comment I can deduce you love MSNBC!
But since you asked, I am a libertarian, and don't think the answer to everything is "more government regulation". The problem with people like you, you don't know that you are your own worst enemy. Big Business uses the "Regulation" by government because people like you use "Regulation" to regulate big business. All the while supporting big business (the kinds you like) and big government donors like a convicted felon like Soros donating huge amounts of money. Personally, the issue you and I have with Net Neutrality is easily solvable, without a single regulation, if we simply change the model for the last mile from "Comcast owned" to "Municipality owned", and use a COLO capability for end users to choose their provider. This all goes away by changing the endpoint of the problem, while empowering end users.
2) I understand ALEC, and I understand "control of the internet". I don't want ANYONE to control the internet. Because there are people that WANT to control the internet, like China, and Iran. There is a fundamental difference in our understanding, because the moment you say you want to control the internet, whatever you mean by that, then you're just like China and Iran, only differing on where you want control. The moment GOVERNMENT gets involved, is the moment you see NSA, IRS, FBI.... feel like they can monitor everything, in the name of the children or grandpa. BUT I also realize that there are a lot of stupid people who want the nanny state to take care of them and protect them, because it is easier to be a slave than a free man.
The problem is comparing unlike sample sizes. Which you admit exists, but you ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative you like. Historical records prior to about 1900 are subject to interpretation and error. Additionally, weather (hurricanes) is not something we can count towards (or against) AGW, or so we are told when there is a five year period without a major hurricane.
Vehicle safety is a great analogy. The Global Warming activists want us to go from 1950's cars (1954 Bel Air) with no safety features to modern Safety and efficient (Tesla) overnight. they don't realize the progression from 1950s cars "beautiful stylish", to modern "they all look the same" cars over night.
Interestingly, you randomly choose years to fit your criteria.1851-1900 = 49 years. 1901-1950 = 49 years, 1950-1975 = 25 years, 1976-2000=24 years, 2000-2012 = 12 years...
See the problem yet? Of course not, the problem doesn't fit the narrative, so we ignore the problem .
They have been saying this for YEARS now, and there hasn't been a major hurricane in how many years?
It is predictions and statements like this that have people like me scratching our heads. None of the predictions of doom have happened. Polar Bears are not drowning either. When people are caught lying, repeatedly, people stop believing them. This is what happens when people stop reading fairy tales and start creating them using "Science" as a backdrop.
But women are the one's who are truly disenfranchised.
This is widely reported as "fact", when the reality is, it is more or less assumption. Just because we THINK something is true, doesn't make it so. Lack or representation doesn't mean wholesale disenfranchisement. Even spotty disenfranchisement doesn't mean wholesale.
The problem is, equivocation, where one person disenfranchised means "we need reform now!" in a certain PC crowd. The fact is, nobody knows how much of it is self regulated (like males at beauty school), because men tend to have different interests than women tend to have.
The real question is, are women encouraged and supported, or are they discouraged, or something neutral. Perhaps we could do more to promote it, but if those efforts do not improve results (like they haven't) perhaps it isn't the field that is the problem, but rather those (women) choosing not going into that field.
Slashdot Mirror
Other Libertarian here. ISPs are a product of government collusion (monopoly) practices. The further a government is away from me, the less I trust it.
That being said, we do not need MORE regulation of ISPs, we need out of the box thinking to reframe the last mile problem. I have NO problem with a local municipality running last mile service, as long as I get to choose which provider gets to my house. This would require Fiber to the premise, running back to a COLO that is rented (funded) out to service providers to provide ANYTHING they want to the customer. A choice of four or six providers at the COLO to choose from, and a simple Network VLAN change to change providers.
THIS would negate the need for ANY regulation. If Johnny Christian wants to have Jesus.net cable co, he can get it. If Mary Rotten wants all porn and drug channels, she is free to choose that. Comcast will be forced to stop playing games, because they will lose customers if they throttle YouTube and Netflix.
Almost all problems we have right now, are caused by last mile monopolies. Lets inject CHOICE, rather than regulation into the market.
Rule number 1, if you don't want to be tracked, do not go online.
Rule number 2, if you go online, use disposable account, or incognito mode.
Rule number 3, use different browsers for different tasks. Social Media in Firefox, Chrome for Shopping, IE for catching virus' (joke)
Rule number 4, use Adblock and discard cookies upon close.
"Why shouldn't people be entitled to leisure time and disposable income?"
The fact that you ask the question, indicates that you don't realize what "entitled" means. Who is going to "provide" this entitlement?
I realize it. Probably more than liberals who think they are entitled to the leisure time and disposable income. Free spending US citizens aren't the problem, the problem is people buying Chinese because it is %5 cheaper, not realizing that %5 keeps their neighbor employed. But lets tax those that earn a living here, so that we can have more people leisure time and non-disposable income (i.e. unemployed)
You forgot Somalia! Yeah, strawman argument is complete. Because it is all or nothing!
It is a global market, because labor in China (and elsewhere) is cheap. Move your factory to China, build the product saving tons in labor, increase profit, lower prices. Move your factory to China, avoid environmental regulations in the US, and the US is polluted with China Smog, and you get to save on costs, increasing profit, lowering prices.
Most decisions aren't stupid. See the above, moving to China was "smart", right up and until American Workers can't buy what you're manufacturing, because nobody has jobs. Short Term decisions keeping you competitive isn't stupid, Long term decisions that put you out of business aren't stupid either. What is stupid is having policies as if they have no impact on costs of doing business and doing proper cost benefit analysis. Which is part of the point I was trying to make.
Having Kyoto rules in place in the US, makes no sense when China and India (1/3 Population of the world) are busy taking all the slack created by companies unable to compete ... globally ... because it costs them a lot more. At that point, you're saying you'd rather them go out of business, the jobs moved to China, and China export its smog to the US. It solves NOTHING while making policy makers feel good (while flying around on corporate jets, living in mansions).
I don't believe what you're trying to say I believe. There has to be some sort of balanced approach to global economies and managing to grow our economy with good paying jobs so we don't have to have 50 million people on food stamps because good jobs are gone and the only place hiring is Walmart (selling Chinese goods).
If you believe the 5.9 % unemployment rate is accurate, by all means, keep voting more Obama and Democrats, and blaming evil corporations and republicans. EVERYONE has a role in our collective failure.
I'm not complaining about racism here, this is not about race. This is about unfair playing field across national lines. It is cheaper to hire Indian workers than it is to hire American workers. The problem is, many left-wing types price US workers out of the market (albeit unintentionally) with regulations and taxes that foreign workers can simply avoid. When you add up all the "feel good" taxes, regulations, requirements and laws American workers face, it is easy to simply say, "I can hire four Indians, or one American".
Guess which one YOU would pick given the same situation?
It is a global marketplace, and we should start realizing it in our policies and laws.
The difference between Facebook and Amazon, with Facebook, you are the product, not the customer; with Amazon, you are the customer, not the product being sold.
You can have absolute freedom, if you have a government system designed in a way that realizes that one cannot stop bad things from happening. Freedom being exercising free will for one's own self determination, without harming others. The problem is, we have people who want to prevent all bad things from happening, so we outlaw all sorts of things, preventing people from the POSSIBILITY of harming others. So we outlaw pot, guns, alcohol (and then legalize it again). Sometimes the laws we draft cause more harm to society trying to protect it, than having no laws would.
Criminal law is a contract with society, and why I support very harsh punishment for people who break real criminal laws, and changing the laws so that "victimless crimes" are removed from the books. THAT is our social construct for our society. However, it also must be tempered with mercy, or it becomes too harsh for people who make simple mistakes that harm others.
As I like to say, "freedom is messy". If you're free, then you're free to do the wrong thing. Freedom requires trust that most of the time, people WILL choose to do the right thing. Freedom also requires that we allow people to screw up. Freedom also requires understanding that "bad things" will happen.
I make the analogy that Freedom is like base jumping. It is really fun when everything goes right, but when it goes wrong, it is horrible. However, we don't stop base jumper simply because bad things happen occasionally, for that is the cost of jumping off tall objects.
We must remember this when security vs freedom arguments erupt. The timid slaves want to be taken care of, but we must remind them, that not everyone wants to be a slave.
"please provide your argument as to why a same-sex couple is inferior to a heterosexual couple."
Lesbians have no ability to relate to male children in a way a dad can. Gay dads have no ability to relate to girls on their period for the first time. THIS is sociological issues, and while not unique to Gay / Lesbian couples, affects all of them. I know, because while I raised three daughters, I was sure glad there was a mom there to relate to them in ways I couldn't. And I grew up with a mom that raised three boys, and she didn't have a clue how to raise boys without my dad being there.
Now, I am also mostly sure that if my dad died, my mom could raise us boys, and if my wife had died, I could raise three daughters, the experience was BEST because there was a mom and a dad. Best means something, even if liberals think it is a dirty word.
"If the spouse hadn't agreed then they would not have had the children."
Because that spouse was irrelevant to the biologic process. It would be like saying "My parents said I could get pregnant, so I did", or "My best friend agreed I could get pregnant" or "God told me to get pregnant."
Because you can't see the issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Your original argument is that children are better off with two parents raising them. That is a matter of sociology, not biology."
From a sociological point of view, a small close knit clan of related people are the best choice, and that starts with biological parents. Modern techniques on getting pregnant not withstanding. Trying to make the case that Lesbian or Gay couples are EQUAL to biological parents (all other things being equal) is just plain silly. But I understand why you do it.
The problem here is that AGW supporters loved to toss Hurricanes out as "proof" of global warming AND evidence that GW makes Hurricanes worse. The problem is neither is factual, and neither is even remotely accurate. Making falsifiable claims is one reason why I don't listen to AGW proponents any longer. They are just Religious nutjobs, using quasi-science to foist their belief systems on to others. Here is more detailed and significant analysis that basically makes "hurricanes" a non-issue and why the AGW proponents should stop using hurricanes as "proof" of anything.
Here is a good outline of the problem :http://www.growth-dynamics.com/news/DEC27_04.htm
Here is an outline that proves my point ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Or here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Or here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/0...
Or here (pay attention to Fig 3-6) https://coaps.fsu.edu/papers/r...
I would qualify the final resolution with this My statement, is 100% accurate "mutual agreement whenever possible."
By donating sperm the man consented, and by using the sperm one of the women consented. The other woman wasn't involved in that choice except by some OTHER convention; she wasn't needed for the "decision" but was involved to make it seem like it was needed.
So technically speaking, the second woman was not needed, and is irrelevant to biology of "choice", if you want to go there.
Many religions have backup called "god parents", who are sworn to carry out the raising of kids if parents are deceased. Grandparents, aunts and uncles and even adult children are used by many extended families. You don't need "three" parents, you need only one. But two are better.
Unless you're speaking about Polygamy, in which case, why limit it to three? ;)
I know what is best for children in general, there are exceptions for every rule. There are good Homosexual parents, and bad ones. There are good Heterosexual parents, and bad ones. Generally speaking, what is BEST for kids (all other things equal) is to have two parents, one male, one female. Moral equivocation cannot negate biology. Nature is such a hater like that.
" No man was involved in the decision making process."
A man was involved. He had a decision. So technically, you're completely incorrect. Just because he was removed from the final "decision" doesn't mean he didn't have a choice to make.
Unless you're suggesting the lesbians took his sperm by force. Which case, they should be in jail.
Children are and should be a decision made by a woman
It actually takes two to create children. The fact that 9 Months is taken residence in the womb (and subject to termination right up and sometimes passed delivery), is simply a liberal convenience. Two Males cannot create a child, neither can two females. Both are inconvenient biological facts liberals don't actually like (its unfair, you homophobic bastard).
And children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a single woman COULD raise a child, typically most women do not have the luxury of means to provide for a child by themselves. So, unless you're talking about just the 9 months of pregnancy, I would suggest that children should be a choice made by a man, and a woman together in mutual agreement whenever possible.
Yeah, I am a hater for wanting the best for children.
Last night, we isolated a handful of our impacted servers and at this time we have no evidence of a compromise to user data ... that we want to admit to
FTFY
Hey, you sound like Republicans during GWB years!
1) I am not a kneejerk anything. But from your "Faux News" comment I can deduce you love MSNBC!
But since you asked, I am a libertarian, and don't think the answer to everything is "more government regulation". The problem with people like you, you don't know that you are your own worst enemy. Big Business uses the "Regulation" by government because people like you use "Regulation" to regulate big business. All the while supporting big business (the kinds you like) and big government donors like a convicted felon like Soros donating huge amounts of money. Personally, the issue you and I have with Net Neutrality is easily solvable, without a single regulation, if we simply change the model for the last mile from "Comcast owned" to "Municipality owned", and use a COLO capability for end users to choose their provider. This all goes away by changing the endpoint of the problem, while empowering end users.
2) I understand ALEC, and I understand "control of the internet". I don't want ANYONE to control the internet. Because there are people that WANT to control the internet, like China, and Iran. There is a fundamental difference in our understanding, because the moment you say you want to control the internet, whatever you mean by that, then you're just like China and Iran, only differing on where you want control. The moment GOVERNMENT gets involved, is the moment you see NSA, IRS, FBI .... feel like they can monitor everything, in the name of the children or grandpa. BUT I also realize that there are a lot of stupid people who want the nanny state to take care of them and protect them, because it is easier to be a slave than a free man.
The problem is comparing unlike sample sizes. Which you admit exists, but you ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative you like. Historical records prior to about 1900 are subject to interpretation and error. Additionally, weather (hurricanes) is not something we can count towards (or against) AGW, or so we are told when there is a five year period without a major hurricane.
Vehicle safety is a great analogy. The Global Warming activists want us to go from 1950's cars (1954 Bel Air) with no safety features to modern Safety and efficient (Tesla) overnight. they don't realize the progression from 1950s cars "beautiful stylish", to modern "they all look the same" cars over night.
Interestingly, you randomly choose years to fit your criteria.1851-1900 = 49 years. 1901-1950 = 49 years, 1950-1975 = 25 years, 1976-2000=24 years, 2000-2012 = 12 years ...
See the problem yet? Of course not, the problem doesn't fit the narrative, so we ignore the problem .
" and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes."
They have been saying this for YEARS now, and there hasn't been a major hurricane in how many years?
It is predictions and statements like this that have people like me scratching our heads. None of the predictions of doom have happened. Polar Bears are not drowning either. When people are caught lying, repeatedly, people stop believing them. This is what happens when people stop reading fairy tales and start creating them using "Science" as a backdrop.
And, Allison Grimes is "Pro Coal" ... at least for now, and for long enough to win an election. Stop pretending that only one side lies.
http://freebeacon.com/politics...
But women are the one's who are truly disenfranchised.
This is widely reported as "fact", when the reality is, it is more or less assumption. Just because we THINK something is true, doesn't make it so. Lack or representation doesn't mean wholesale disenfranchisement. Even spotty disenfranchisement doesn't mean wholesale.
The problem is, equivocation, where one person disenfranchised means "we need reform now!" in a certain PC crowd. The fact is, nobody knows how much of it is self regulated (like males at beauty school), because men tend to have different interests than women tend to have.
The real question is, are women encouraged and supported, or are they discouraged, or something neutral. Perhaps we could do more to promote it, but if those efforts do not improve results (like they haven't) perhaps it isn't the field that is the problem, but rather those (women) choosing not going into that field.
Not everything is bad just because it is uneven.