That is government granted franchise agreement to the Cable Company.Government rules and regulations caused this mess, and everyone's idea of how to fix it is MORE government solutions.
The first thing you need to realize is.... laying cable or fiber, required for internet, is a natural monopoly. It is exacerbated by government regulation and only providing a limited number of entities access to "Rights of Way" required to put cables in the ground.
Preferably, the municipalities would just bring fibre to everyone, and access to communications would be like getting a Plain old Telephone or Electricity, or other utilities; then you could pick your ISP of choice, just like you call whoever you want on the Telephone.
Yeah, because BOTH the natural and the legal situation AND the lack of foresight by legislators this has created major entities, and realistically, they aren't going away, although I would like them to. Regulation is a good first step, since it's not going to be possible to eliminate these monopolies and have broad competition in the short run, without hurting everyone.
We need network neutrality as long as the monopolies and no competition continue to exist.
We should just accept the regulation and apply it only to providers WHO:
1. Own or partner with internet properties, such as competing video service companies above a certain size, and the neutrality protection rule applies to all companies in the same industry as their in-house service. , AND
2. The operation of any broadband provider in a geographical region where there is not at least 1 competing service of a minimum size with medium of a similar level of mobility and reliability (Wireless not similar to Land) with these competitors offering service to any household in the market (Competitors that only service Urban areas do not count), and the competitors' service is either all 100 Megabits or higher, or within 10% deviation.
Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?
For starters that is a highly-dishonest misattribution of Trump's proposed policies, which are not intolerant.
Anyone who is claiming Trump wants to ban all Mexicans and Muslims based on irrational racial or religious
prejudice is a bold-faced liar.
If you can, then you're just a hysteric fanaticist.
Domestic partnership and marriage are equivalent in all legal respects.
Marriage is a religious sacrament; forcing that to be allowed is called oppressing the people and their traditions, cultures, and religion.
How long a period of non-enforcement, before it becomes officially considered tacit approval ?
The constitution and the laws of the US do not say that the executive may refuse to enforce laws that congress already put into action which were already signed by the executive.
If it applies to this, then my fear would be it applies to all laws.
Next thing you know, the executive could be choosing to allow murders, burglary, or other harrassment of certain citizens who disagree with them on political issues by international criminal entities selling a kill-for-hire service.
The problem is, prisons don't allow long hair, and neither do some employers nor the military.
Prisons and Military are agents of the government, and therefore bound by the constitution..... They have to allow inmates to adhere to their religion, So it should not be an option for the prison to prevent these people from having long hair, unless they can prove there is a reason to the rule beyond expediency, and unreasonable cost to arrange an exception.
As for Employers and private businesses.... Well, I think failing to make accommodations would be extremely shameful; However, it is not the role of government to try and force other people to respect you who might have reasons not to.
In the US most Republicans want to overturn the right of women to have abortions.
Abortions are not a right, never were: have been illegal for the past more than 100 years,
and constitute an infringement of the rights of people who have not been born yet.....
Abortion is arguably worse than slavery in some sense, because at least slavery did not deprive the
enslaved entirely of the possibility to live and have some happiness in life.
Just because the beneficiary of an injustice solely benefits, and the injustice is a reversal of conditions they
created does not make it right.
That said, I think none of the Republican leadership propose to take further actions to ban abortions.
There are more important injustices they are concerned with, to even be cognisant of the issue of abortions.
Both sides of US politics want to control some aspects of individual rights.
I agree. Which is why I would not support the complete platforms of Either of the political parties.
US Republicans largely to seek exceptionalism for Christian values, and impose those on others.
Not true. They seek exceptionalism for traditional American cultural values, however, which Christianity happens to be aligned with,
but that does not mean they are promoting Christianity ---- It means that Christianity has superior compatibility with traditional American values such as tolerance, as compared to other cultures, such as the Islamic culture which advocates suppression of Women, Killing Homosexuals, Killing Non-Believers (Infidels), "Outbreeding the enemy", beating kids, and other violent behaviors.
Frankly the Non-Christian-Value holders are largely more oppressive.
You can still have unfettered individual rights while having exceptionalism for your own countries' traditional values.
People who live in oppressive regimes need anonymity.
Yes, and the "regime" includes not only the government, but people and the condition of society as well.
For example: by being found to having an unpopular view, then people around you such as family might shun you.
In the US, the Democrats and those that support them are oppressive of individual rights.
Many people have had their lives turned upside down, or their careers ruined after frivolously being called a racist, or being falsely accused of a crime that became media-popularized.
The law forbids whatever municipality PayPal is operating in from establishing a city-wide bathroom policy.
What do you think about discriminating against NON-LBGT and getting as much media coverage as possible for the sole purpose of attempting to draw attention to the issue, that the new law allows discrimination, and expediting public outrage against LBGT/Non-LBGT discrimination and legal challenges which are likely to result in court orders against discrimination?
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion
Religion is spelled out as protected in the constitution; this is similar to the rights to your beliefs.
IF you want to say LGBT should be protected as Religion is, then I have no problem with that; It sounds perfectly sensible that THAT, as well as ANY peaceful 1st amendment exercise should have similar protections.
However, Religious beliefs do not exclude you from the law and rules of private institutions in regards to your comings and goings, And businesses don't have to make special accomodations for your religion.
For example: If the company provides free lunches which contain pork; Just because your religion says you cannot eat pork, does not mean you can force them to provide you a special pork-free serving.
Your religion doesn't force businesses to allow your required religious attire, and does not force businesses to let you use a special per-religion bathroom, Unless they choose to do so.
Businesses cannot deny you employment based on your religion; However, your religion cannot just start coming up with willy-nilly demands for them to meet.
That brings up my questions: 1) Which facility are people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) supposed to use? 2) Which facility are people born as hermaphrodites supposed to use?
Whichever facility will not cause a disruption for them to use based on their dominant visible anatomical traits.
They are literally such a small percentage of the population; that it is not even worth considering.
Federal law has priority over state law and federal law does protect.....
OK, then, now that we have that cleared up.... Would you please explain what a "Sanctuary City" is, And "Legalized Pot" in number of states (That contradicts Federal Law) is?
What good reason? How many women have been assaulted by a transgendered person?
Plenty of women have been assaulted by people who were biologically male; the biology gives males increased strength (on average), and increased aggression (on average). If you are suggesting that transgendered people do not assault women, then I would invite you to provide proof of that.
It is the biology that is being discriminated against by having separate bathrooms; not the gender identification.
I'm not 100% sure the separation of bathrooms was originally conceived as a safety issue, although it is obvious it can be.
Male and Female also have distinct biology which requires different bathroom accommodations: Urinals VS Toilets.... Etc
And there are different cultural expectations regarding privacy b/w biological sexes.
Females commonly complain also that Males frequently leave the restroom in smelly conditions.
No they're not--or at least if they do, the laws won't last long. The laws are blatantly unconstitutional and there's a 90%+ chance they won't survive a challenge at the appellate level in a federal court anywhere in the country.
If that's true, then PayPal/etc should just blatantly disregard those laws and mount a legal challenge against the coming enforcement attempts.
That SCOTUS ruling didn't amend the Civil Rights Act or Title 9 protections to include LGBT people though.
The civil rights act has served its purpose and just needs to be repealed at this point, as there are other cases where it's causing harm.
The purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not "Forcing people to be generally inclusive"; it is to eliminate a very specific injustice, which was Slavery, and the Culture surrounding it of oppressing an entire race of people.
LGBT is interesting, But it's not a race of people; It is a new phenomenon, proving it artificial: it is a behavior, a choice, and a lifestyle, and has no merit deserving protected class status, when that status infringes upon the religious rights of other people to decline personally-rendered professional services.
The new law (HB2) states that discrimination is not a cause of action in state courts. This reverses a 30 year precedent.
So what? People will just sue in federal courts, and then congress will eventually penalize the state by taking away tax revenue, to cover the additional expense....
The catch is the terrorists may have invented a "Smart" biased coin which is more likely to land on the opposite side of which it previously landed, Or is otherwise inconsistent between flips in regards to its unfairness (Dependent on initial conditions). Also, it might or might not contain a bit of implanted machinery with a wireless remote to allow the person in line to select whether the coin will flip "Left" or "Right" at the push of a button.
What we have now is a temporary "flattening" of conditions; we will all have effectively-"2" restrictions
Where do pure electric cars fall into this scheme; which effectively have negative emissions (If carrying a bunch of extra passengers who would otherwise be driving their own Gas-burning vehicles) ?
Slashdot Mirror
That is government granted franchise agreement to the Cable Company.Government rules and regulations caused this mess, and everyone's idea of how to fix it is MORE government solutions.
The first thing you need to realize is.... laying cable or fiber, required for internet, is a natural monopoly. It is exacerbated by government regulation and only providing a limited number of entities access to "Rights of Way" required to put cables in the ground.
Preferably, the municipalities would just bring fibre to everyone, and access to communications would be like getting a Plain old Telephone or Electricity, or other utilities; then you could pick your ISP of choice, just like you call whoever you want on the Telephone.
Yeah, because BOTH the natural and the legal situation AND the lack of foresight by legislators this has created major entities, and realistically, they aren't going away, although I would like them to. Regulation is a good first step, since it's not going to be possible to eliminate these monopolies and have broad competition in the short run, without hurting everyone.
We need network neutrality as long as the monopolies and no competition continue to exist.
We should just accept the regulation and apply it only to providers WHO:
1. Own or partner with internet properties, such as competing video service companies above a certain size, and the neutrality protection rule applies to all companies in the same industry as their in-house service.
, AND
2. The operation of any broadband provider in a geographical region where there is not at least 1 competing service of a minimum size with medium of a similar level of mobility and reliability (Wireless not similar to Land) with these competitors offering service to any household in the market (Competitors that only service Urban areas do not count), and the competitors' service is either all 100 Megabits or higher, or within 10% deviation.
Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?
For starters that is a highly-dishonest misattribution of Trump's proposed policies, which are not intolerant. Anyone who is claiming Trump wants to ban all Mexicans and Muslims based on irrational racial or religious prejudice is a bold-faced liar.
He doesn't want anyone to know he's a loser that was born rich.
No... he's self-funded and doesn't want $$$ to be part of his campaign.
And he knows that whenever financial info is published, people with an agenda will find some way of using it against him.
It's simply stupid to publish the information if you are vigorously opposed by extremists and biased media; If you do not have to.
The more I see bullshit like this; the more I like trump.
Call it.... the biggest enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And one of my enemies is batshit insane hysterical leftists.
If you can't then you are ignorant.
If you can, then you're just a hysteric fanaticist. Domestic partnership and marriage are equivalent in all legal respects.
Marriage is a religious sacrament; forcing that to be allowed is called oppressing the people and their traditions, cultures, and religion.
IMO I should be able to click News feed then tick a Checkbox to show 'ONLY Status Updates'
Then go click another link and see 'ONLY Shares', then Tick an extra option to see 'ONLY Shares that Originated from Friends'
Next, there should be an option to see ONLY Shares by Friends in a specified list.
Finally, there should be some checkboxes that allow me to Hide shares that meet certain criteria.
For example: Hide shares that link to an external website
Hide shares that contain certain keywords.
Hide shares that have been shared more than X times.
Hide shares that have more than X likes and fewer than X likes by friends.
ETC.
I should be able to decide what I want to see. Just like with a UseNet reader or E-mail client and Folders/Inbox rules/spam scores.
How long a period of non-enforcement, before it becomes officially considered tacit approval ? The constitution and the laws of the US do not say that the executive may refuse to enforce laws that congress already put into action which were already signed by the executive.
If it applies to this, then my fear would be it applies to all laws.
Next thing you know, the executive could be choosing to allow murders, burglary, or other harrassment of certain citizens who disagree with them on political issues by international criminal entities selling a kill-for-hire service.
The problem is, prisons don't allow long hair, and neither do some employers nor the military.
Prisons and Military are agents of the government, and therefore bound by the constitution..... They have to allow inmates to adhere to their religion, So it should not be an option for the prison to prevent these people from having long hair, unless they can prove there is a reason to the rule beyond expediency, and unreasonable cost to arrange an exception.
As for Employers and private businesses.... Well, I think failing to make accommodations would be extremely shameful; However, it is not the role of government to try and force other people to respect you who might have reasons not to.
In the US most Republicans want to overturn the right of women to have abortions.
Abortions are not a right, never were: have been illegal for the past more than 100 years, and constitute an infringement of the rights of people who have not been born yet.....
Abortion is arguably worse than slavery in some sense, because at least slavery did not deprive the enslaved entirely of the possibility to live and have some happiness in life.
Just because the beneficiary of an injustice solely benefits, and the injustice is a reversal of conditions they created does not make it right.
That said, I think none of the Republican leadership propose to take further actions to ban abortions. There are more important injustices they are concerned with, to even be cognisant of the issue of abortions.
Both sides of US politics want to control some aspects of individual rights.
I agree. Which is why I would not support the complete platforms of Either of the political parties.
US Republicans largely to seek exceptionalism for Christian values, and impose those on others.
Not true. They seek exceptionalism for traditional American cultural values, however, which Christianity happens to be aligned with, but that does not mean they are promoting Christianity ---- It means that Christianity has superior compatibility with traditional American values such as tolerance, as compared to other cultures, such as the Islamic culture which advocates suppression of Women, Killing Homosexuals, Killing Non-Believers (Infidels), "Outbreeding the enemy", beating kids, and other violent behaviors.
Frankly the Non-Christian-Value holders are largely more oppressive.
You can still have unfettered individual rights while having exceptionalism for your own countries' traditional values.
People who live in oppressive regimes need anonymity.
Yes, and the "regime" includes not only the government, but people and the condition of society as well. For example: by being found to having an unpopular view, then people around you such as family might shun you.
In the US, the Democrats and those that support them are oppressive of individual rights. Many people have had their lives turned upside down, or their careers ruined after frivolously being called a racist, or being falsely accused of a crime that became media-popularized.
The law forbids whatever municipality PayPal is operating in from establishing a city-wide bathroom policy.
What do you think about discriminating against NON-LBGT and getting as much media coverage as possible for the sole purpose of attempting to draw attention to the issue, that the new law allows discrimination, and expediting public outrage against LBGT/Non-LBGT discrimination and legal challenges which are likely to result in court orders against discrimination?
That position makes no sense. How can PayPal disregard a law that allows behavior?
By giving Trans-gender people preferential hiring treatment and very clearly stating that in the literature.
Putting a "Trans-Gender People ONLY" sign over certain areas in the public space.
By posting signs on bathrooms that say
Trans-Men and
Men
Plus: Trans-Women
And Women
Or whatever signage they need to do in order to clearly designate the rooms as for use by people who identify as that gender.
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion
Religion is spelled out as protected in the constitution; this is similar to the rights to your beliefs.
IF you want to say LGBT should be protected as Religion is, then I have no problem with that; It sounds perfectly sensible that THAT, as well as ANY peaceful 1st amendment exercise should have similar protections.
However, Religious beliefs do not exclude you from the law and rules of private institutions in regards to your comings and goings, And businesses don't have to make special accomodations for your religion.
For example: If the company provides free lunches which contain pork; Just because your religion says you cannot eat pork, does not mean you can force them to provide you a special pork-free serving.
Your religion doesn't force businesses to allow your required religious attire, and does not force businesses to let you use a special per-religion bathroom, Unless they choose to do so.
Businesses cannot deny you employment based on your religion; However, your religion cannot just start coming up with willy-nilly demands for them to meet.
That brings up my questions: 1) Which facility are people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) supposed to use? 2) Which facility are people born as hermaphrodites supposed to use?
Whichever facility will not cause a disruption for them to use based on their dominant visible anatomical traits.
They are literally such a small percentage of the population; that it is not even worth considering.
Federal law has priority over state law and federal law does protect.....
OK, then, now that we have that cleared up.... Would you please explain what a "Sanctuary City" is, And "Legalized Pot" in number of states (That contradicts Federal Law) is?
What good reason? How many women have been assaulted by a transgendered person?
Plenty of women have been assaulted by people who were biologically male; the biology gives males increased strength (on average), and increased aggression (on average). If you are suggesting that transgendered people do not assault women, then I would invite you to provide proof of that.
It is the biology that is being discriminated against by having separate bathrooms; not the gender identification.
I'm not 100% sure the separation of bathrooms was originally conceived as a safety issue, although it is obvious it can be.
Male and Female also have distinct biology which requires different bathroom accommodations: Urinals VS Toilets.... Etc
And there are different cultural expectations regarding privacy b/w biological sexes.
Females commonly complain also that Males frequently leave the restroom in smelly conditions.
No they're not--or at least if they do, the laws won't last long. The laws are blatantly unconstitutional and there's a 90%+ chance they won't survive a challenge at the appellate level in a federal court anywhere in the country.
If that's true, then PayPal/etc should just blatantly disregard those laws and mount a legal challenge against the coming enforcement attempts.
That SCOTUS ruling didn't amend the Civil Rights Act or Title 9 protections to include LGBT people though.
The civil rights act has served its purpose and just needs to be repealed at this point, as there are other cases where it's causing harm.
The purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not "Forcing people to be generally inclusive"; it is to eliminate a very specific injustice, which was Slavery, and the Culture surrounding it of oppressing an entire race of people.
LGBT is interesting, But it's not a race of people; It is a new phenomenon, proving it artificial: it is a behavior, a choice, and a lifestyle, and has no merit deserving protected class status, when that status infringes upon the religious rights of other people to decline personally-rendered professional services.
No matter how many times more efficient a new tech is; It will never reach or exceed 100% efficiency, because thermodynamics and math say no.
To be 3X as efficient is defined as saying the loss rate is
So at 90% the charger has a loss of L
Thus, if it is 3-times as efficient, then the loss rate is L = 96.66667% * j.
The new law (HB2) states that discrimination is not a cause of action in state courts. This reverses a 30 year precedent.
So what? People will just sue in federal courts, and then congress will eventually penalize the state by taking away tax revenue, to cover the additional expense....
It's a FinFET device. You can represent more than 1 binary bit per transistor by using multi-gate transistors.
The catch is the terrorists may have invented a "Smart" biased coin which is more likely to land on the opposite side of which it previously landed, Or is otherwise inconsistent between flips in regards to its unfairness (Dependent on initial conditions). Also, it might or might not contain a bit of implanted machinery with a wireless remote to allow the person in line to select whether the coin will flip "Left" or "Right" at the push of a button.
Since it's random and all; If they keep sending a number of new bad guys through, instead of just one, someone will get in eventually.
I know you're being silly on purpose, but would a true randomizing device really be necessary?
I have a $0.01 alternative to this randomizer app.... Flip a fair coin. Designate one side of the penny Heads, and the other side tails....
Also, even if they have 50,000 pre-check lanes, the total cost is still only $500.
What we have now is a temporary "flattening" of conditions; we will all have effectively-"2" restrictions
Where do pure electric cars fall into this scheme; which effectively have negative emissions (If carrying a bunch of extra passengers who would otherwise be driving their own Gas-burning vehicles) ?