According to US *CIVILIAN* law. Military Law is a whole different ballgame. You're caught on the battlefield with a weapon or in a support role without a uniform? Consider yourself an illegal combatant, and be lucky you weren't executed on the spot as per the Geneva Conventions.
Good thing that no one goes by your reckoning.. considering up to 25% of detainees have gone back to fight. Who knows how many have gone back to support or recruit.
Yeah, 1 out of 4 odds of releasing a psychopathic mass murderer on the world. GOOD THING you're not in control Captain Statistics.
Awww, muffin. It's tough when you have your cherished world view challenged, isn't it? Maybe what should really happen, is that you should go back to your little internet cave at huffingtonpost and you can spew your slander, distorted ideologies and hate speech with only certified like-minded individuals.
OSTENSIBLY? Lol! You say that like it's only POSSIBLE that the CCCP was a threat to the US!
I have an idea for you. Why don't you try to not be so arrogant and preachy? The USA will continue to do what it takes to secure itself, even as you Euroweenies let your countries be overrun, be subverted and economically destroyed.
Good luck with that, by the way!
How does seeing the world was white and black equate to viewing your country as white? Where does having absolutes in values equate to absolute patriotism to ones country? Faulty logic, as usual.
Also, you DO realize where Saddam got just about EVERYTHING ELSE he had... right?
I truly hope you or anyone that thinks like you are never in any position to inflict your utopian truthspeak on the world. Just because a person does not understand something doesn't mean it won't happen. However, it's significantly less likely to happen if the person does understand it and it's consequences.
Violently crushed.. lol.. if your product has sufficient value, they won't be able to crush them. Please, find me a place where no such tiny companies currently exist.
Really? I don't recall Walmart forcing me to put a license plate on my car or to not hit people I think are dumb. Maybe you should look up the word "governing" and then "force" before you try to combine them again.
Why do you presume that the government has "incentive" to protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? The only one that has "incentive" to protect that is *yourself.* This is why giving that power over to the government is a problem. You really think that a corporation is going to start restricting customers to the point where it is a net loss on their end? You do realize they would only get money from content providers if the content provider provides content? That means they have to have customers. If you are saying they're an untrustworthy monopoly, that's entirely different and there are anti-trust regulations for that. Any other thrust into regulation is just a predisposition to tyranny against your fellow man.
Really? Does the First Amendment dictate that all religions or philosophies must be taught in unwilling churches? No? Probably not, right? Might be good to rethink your analogy.
The problem comes from the definition of "bill piecemeal" or "throttle abusively." Who defines that? How is it an abuse to use a service that you WILLINGLY pay for. That you CHOOSE to use and abide by their TOS? If they're following this *MUTUALLY AGREED* contract... please explain where the abuse is? Just because you don't *like* it doesn't make it abuse. All you're doing is proving there is a big market for a service that doesn't have these problems. Maybe you should start your own ISP instead of trying to restrict everyone elses ISP? Just a thought.
Unless it's not all there is. Since you've now given the "freedom" government a club to use against the "censor" industry. It's just a matter of time until the government "censors" take that club from the "freedom" government.
Don't worry, we won't say we told you so when it happens. It's not the freedom we object to.. it's the club.
How many Federal Governments do you have to select amongst? How many local ISP's do you have to select amongst? How many Federal Governments have force to apply against you should you not comply with their rules? How many local ISP's have force to apply against you should you not comply with their rules?
Good corporations, especially large good corporations, are very good at finding the answer to those supposedly open ended questions. If it ends up hurting their profit, they *WILL* in almost every case change course.
Politicians, on the other hand, don't always get the message from elections (ie. 1+trillion lame-duck session spending spree attempt.)
Wrong. The customers of those companies did not find value in their products. How that came to be is irrelevant. Unless you want to consider every business failure to be a failure of management rather than a success of the market.
Really? Cost of adjusting the Government to you if you don't like it: Buying a presidential election, becoming an outlaw or funding a revolution.
Cost of adjusting a companies behavior to you: Organize a boycott, angry emails to executives, refusing to buy service.
Gee, which one costs more? Which one is more responsive?
Then find an ISP that doesn't do that and pay the cost for it. If you think a company is a monopoly then petition the government to give redress via anti-trust laws. Don't hinder everyone else with your short sighted tyranny.
Slashdot Mirror
According to US *CIVILIAN* law. Military Law is a whole different ballgame. You're caught on the battlefield with a weapon or in a support role without a uniform? Consider yourself an illegal combatant, and be lucky you weren't executed on the spot as per the Geneva Conventions.
Good thing that no one goes by your reckoning.. considering up to 25% of detainees have gone back to fight. Who knows how many have gone back to support or recruit.
Yeah, 1 out of 4 odds of releasing a psychopathic mass murderer on the world. GOOD THING you're not in control Captain Statistics.
How about the hundreds of thousands of Iraq war documents? Or the list of sensitive US locations? Yeah, those are some pretty foolish things to leak.
Awww, muffin. It's tough when you have your cherished world view challenged, isn't it? Maybe what should really happen, is that you should go back to your little internet cave at huffingtonpost and you can spew your slander, distorted ideologies and hate speech with only certified like-minded individuals.
OSTENSIBLY? Lol! You say that like it's only POSSIBLE that the CCCP was a threat to the US! I have an idea for you. Why don't you try to not be so arrogant and preachy? The USA will continue to do what it takes to secure itself, even as you Euroweenies let your countries be overrun, be subverted and economically destroyed. Good luck with that, by the way!
How does seeing the world was white and black equate to viewing your country as white? Where does having absolutes in values equate to absolute patriotism to ones country? Faulty logic, as usual. Also, you DO realize where Saddam got just about EVERYTHING ELSE he had... right?
I don't think you understand "free market" if you think it accepts fraud as legitimate.
I truly hope you or anyone that thinks like you are never in any position to inflict your utopian truthspeak on the world. Just because a person does not understand something doesn't mean it won't happen. However, it's significantly less likely to happen if the person does understand it and it's consequences.
You mean ARPANET? Geez, what could that possible have to do with the military-industrial complex? Man.. I have *no* idea..
Sarcasm aside, you should think about fallback plans.
Violently crushed.. lol.. if your product has sufficient value, they won't be able to crush them. Please, find me a place where no such tiny companies currently exist.
Really? I don't recall Walmart forcing me to put a license plate on my car or to not hit people I think are dumb. Maybe you should look up the word "governing" and then "force" before you try to combine them again.
Why do you presume that the government has "incentive" to protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? The only one that has "incentive" to protect that is *yourself.* This is why giving that power over to the government is a problem. You really think that a corporation is going to start restricting customers to the point where it is a net loss on their end? You do realize they would only get money from content providers if the content provider provides content? That means they have to have customers. If you are saying they're an untrustworthy monopoly, that's entirely different and there are anti-trust regulations for that. Any other thrust into regulation is just a predisposition to tyranny against your fellow man.
Really? Does the First Amendment dictate that all religions or philosophies must be taught in unwilling churches? No? Probably not, right? Might be good to rethink your analogy.
The problem comes from the definition of "bill piecemeal" or "throttle abusively." Who defines that? How is it an abuse to use a service that you WILLINGLY pay for. That you CHOOSE to use and abide by their TOS? If they're following this *MUTUALLY AGREED* contract... please explain where the abuse is? Just because you don't *like* it doesn't make it abuse. All you're doing is proving there is a big market for a service that doesn't have these problems. Maybe you should start your own ISP instead of trying to restrict everyone elses ISP? Just a thought.
Unless it's not all there is. Since you've now given the "freedom" government a club to use against the "censor" industry. It's just a matter of time until the government "censors" take that club from the "freedom" government.
Don't worry, we won't say we told you so when it happens. It's not the freedom we object to.. it's the club.
That's it. *That's* all there is.
How many Federal Governments do you have to select amongst? How many local ISP's do you have to select amongst? How many Federal Governments have force to apply against you should you not comply with their rules? How many local ISP's have force to apply against you should you not comply with their rules?
With a heaping dose of mass delusion.
Excellent summation against Net Neutrality.
You start an ISP that caters to this seemingly large market and make a fortune. Weird how that works, eh?
One person, one vote in the matters of the application of force. One dollar, one vote in the matters of market choice. Understand the difference?
Good corporations, especially large good corporations, are very good at finding the answer to those supposedly open ended questions. If it ends up hurting their profit, they *WILL* in almost every case change course.
Politicians, on the other hand, don't always get the message from elections (ie. 1+trillion lame-duck session spending spree attempt.)
Wrong. The customers of those companies did not find value in their products. How that came to be is irrelevant. Unless you want to consider every business failure to be a failure of management rather than a success of the market.
Really? Cost of adjusting the Government to you if you don't like it: Buying a presidential election, becoming an outlaw or funding a revolution.
Cost of adjusting a companies behavior to you: Organize a boycott, angry emails to executives, refusing to buy service.
Gee, which one costs more? Which one is more responsive?
I guess Al would have to start making funny jokes first.
Then find an ISP that doesn't do that and pay the cost for it. If you think a company is a monopoly then petition the government to give redress via anti-trust laws. Don't hinder everyone else with your short sighted tyranny.