Yes and the phone company that owns the lines sets the rates that those lines are sold upon and has total control over how many they are an where they go.
Its not acceptable. Third parties need to be able to run their own cable. Small time ISPs are beholden to the house to house infrastructure of big telecoms. Being beholden to where the trunk lines go is one thing. Being beholden to where the land lines go, their quality, their rates of rental, etc is another.
I should have the right to start up an ISP right now, get enough bandwidth for a hundred homes and just lay cable in the area. Generally speaking indifferent to money this is not legally allowed. They won't let me bury the cable next to all the other cables. And I can't even go wireless because the FCC won't sell me spectrum even if it isn't being used by anyone in the area.
How many phone companies can run land lines in a given area by law?
Typically 1.
Shockingly one telephone company tends to dominate a given area.
How many cable companies can run cable lines in a given area by law?
Typically 1.
Shockingly one cable company tends to dominate a given area.
These are government backed monopolies. Small towns have tried to set up their own internet and have been sued by major telecoms because they have a government backed monopoly.
Remove those limitations and areas with high costs will have little ISPs pop up that serve just a small community and nothing else. Little guys that run their own cable from the trunk to the home/business. That is how you fix it. US internet access is not expensive at the trunk. Its expensive in the distribution because the government forbids competition.
If you think the big player in Cali politics is the evil Koch brothers then you're clueless. The big unions... especially the government unions... teachers unions, cal trans, police/firefighter/etc unions are MASSIVE in cali. Just absurdly hugely powerful.
This bill as I read it, would have limited their ability to automatically put the wages of union members towards political contributions. That is a huge part of their power in the state. These unions are very large and they can kick in huge sums of money to every election and never run dry because they're taking a relatively small portion of every union member's pay check. And they don't need to get your consent to do it. If you work for the government, you probably belong to one of these unions... and if they decide to kick in money it will come out of your non-voluntary dues at the very least.
Because usage is not predictable or more to the point... consistent. A consistent bill is for many superior to an inconsistent one especially when the inconsistent one tends to work out to MORE money then what they paid for the consistent bill.
Look at most countries where people pay a metered internet bill. They tend to pay more.
What is more, we are only in this situation because we've under built our capacity. The US should have a broadband network to rival Germany or Japan. And while we do at the corporate level, at the consumer level we are regularly hosed.
Much of this has to do with anti competition laws that restrict who can operate in given areas.
How many cable companies do you have in your neighborhood? One. How many land line phone companies? One. That right there is a big part of the problem. Set it up so that ANYONE can run a data line so long as they pay a lease on whatever pipe the physical cables are going through... and then let the market work it out.
We pay too much for too little. And these greedy clowns have the audacity to squeeze us more for less.
F' them and f' all the mindless apathetic asshats that consistently let us ALL get screwed by these people.
We like consistent bills. A reliable 50 dollar a month bill is actually a lot better then a variable bill that can double or quadruple unpredictably.
Further, most people will actually pay more under such a system. Remember, we're netflixing and youtubing etc now. Sure, the people htat just do light webbrowsing and email might pay less. But the same people tend to buy cheap internet policies already. Typically around 20 dollars a month or less. While the higher bandwidth policies are around 50 dollars a month.
This change will screw consumers. It will mean less reliability for low bandwidth users and much higher costs for higher bandwidth users.
Look... nearly everything the government has done after 9/11 to stop 9/11 from happening again would not actually stop it from happening.
The people that did that would not have been stopped by more robust baggage screening. Even an air marshal might not have stopped them.
Passenger profiles can stop bad people because it isn't about what clever way they've come up with to sneak something dangerous on to the plane. Rather, you just look for bad people and ignore what is in their baggage because it doesn't matter. That person doesn't fly. This is in large part how the israelis do it. And say what you will about their politics, we can agree that they're under greater threat of terrorism pretty much constantly and yet how many of their planes are hijacked or even interfered with in any way shape or form? Exactly.
This is how you do it. Not by asking people to take their shoes off. You do a background check on every single person that wants to fly. 99.99999 percent of the population will know the bliss of pre-9/11 air travel while a tiny minority will get to spend some uncomfortable time in a back room getting grilled... largely with justification.
Why? Work is one of the things that gives us purpose. And if you have a career it can even define your role in society.
now many people have jobs they hate that don't represent them at all. But maybe if you had more time you might work your way into a more pleasurable career.
Maybe you'd even had an early life career to make a nest egg and then use that to augment a later career that might not pay as well or that might need some start up cash to get going.
Think of the potential for small business. Lets say the pattern might be that when you're very young you wash dishes and mow lawns. When you're a little older you do some horrible desk job in a cubical. And then when you're a bit older you start your own little business that makes you happy and where no one gets to order you around.
Already a lot of people do that. So why not make that a thing.
So long as there were term limits, I don't have a problem with it.
You think there aren't young racists? You do know we have lots of racists under the age of 20... of all races, genders, religious backgrounds, and sexual orientations. Any flavor of person out there is going to come in the racist variety. Welcome to planet earth.
I'd much rather have seasoned racists that have at least been around the block a few times then naive ones that on top of being bigots are also clueless of just about everything.
Here is the thing. Its a zero sum game. Over time assuming your brain didn't rot, you'd have more knowledge and your character would be more seasoned. You'll probably be a better person at 60 then you were at 20 especially if you get to keep a mostly young body. What is more, you'll be more useful to society. You'll pay taxes. You'll participate somewhat intelligently in the political process.
And the whole thing will be a giant hedge against volatile cultural/political/economic trends because the majority of the population will remember previous ages and will know if things can be done better. They'll see things and say "I remember when we didn't have that problem because we didn't do that other thing." And maybe... MAYBE they'll say "okay, lets not do that anymore because it clearly not working out."
Think further of the highly technical professions. Engineers. Doctors. Scientists. Imagine once getting trained up to their profession they could give you a century of useful work before dying. See. That makes them more useful.
Right now we have to invest about 25 years in a person to train them up to that level. From birth to when you could roughly call them an actual scientist or Doctor. But today... they'll probably retire at 50 or 60. Which means you put in 25 years of teaching to get out MAYBE about 25 years of work. And even then there is a horrific failure rate with many people being taught things that they never apply to anything.
Its a question of efficiency. Doubtless you'll argue here that science would stagnate without old scientists dying off and old doctors dying off to make way for newer practitioners that will embrace newer methods. Possibly. Actually, that will in some cases certainly happen. We see it today in several fields. But if its an issue then you can address it. Force them to update at intervals. There are many ways to do that short of death.
A lot of the problems in our society would be corrected if people lived a great deal longer. That is counter intuitive because many people believe we have over population issues. But in the developed world we don't. The issue is actually that our mortality rate exceeds our birth rate. The difference made up in immigration.
Worse, we have big problems with education and not just education but experience. We invest a lot in people for relatively few productive years of service. Imagine if you could train someone up and they'd be viable in that job for 50 years. Obviously some booster training over the years as required. But consider the wealth of knowledge people would bring to the table.
It might stagnate certain segments as industries became saturated with people more accustomed to older tech... but then we might just get standards that update the tech without changing the way you use it.
Who can say. Regardless, life extension would be useful.
That said, I don't think this discovery is going to be particularly useful in it. Sure. Great they're doing this research and good for them for finding something. But the clock they found appears to be correlative instead of causative. Its a log. Its tree rings. It doesn't cause the aging it is instead caused by the aging.
1. As to the mandate, it is not a requirement unless you offer little things like "you can get insurance AFTER you're sick." Well that isn't how insurance works. So yes, if you pervert the whole way insurance works then you need to have silly policies like forcing everyone to join.
2. As to mass genocide, the point was that your argument that SOME of the bill was popular was idiotic given that the whole bill is not. Parts of any bill no matter how abhorrent will be popular. Your comment was a stupid evasion meant to confuse morons. I am not a moron so I don't find it compelling.
3. As to being forced at gun point, if I refuse to join you will shoot me. Not immediately but if I refuse then the government will escalate and eventually I will get shot. That is what backstops your policy. Threats of physical violence. Again, not immediately... but eventually. Because I suspect you're not going to understand this... I'll be explicit. If I don't opt in the IRS will fine me. If I don't pay that IRS fine then IRS will attempt to collect the money through its various tax powers. If I resist those the IRS will go into hostile collections mode and try to get the money ceased. If I resist that then at some point they'll send men with guns after me. Remove that final element and your whole stupid policy falls apart. You need that threat of violence to make the mandate a mandate. That is what backstops your policy. You are putting a gun against my head on this issue. You might want to speak softly about it before pulling the trigger but you are fully wiling to kill me over this issue. And for that I hate you with justification. You're a thuggish piece of shit.
4. As to the mandate and various similar GOP ideas before, why is the GOP suddenly not in favor of your grand scheme? I mean, if it was our idea and we like it so much then we should be all over it... right? Is it because Obama is black? Is it racism? You're a fool. The policy has some similarities but is very different. And even if it were identical it was mostly pushed as a STATE idea and not a federal idea. And even then it was never really vetted by anyone at large. Passing an idea around to a few think tanks doesn't mean millions of people are going to approve it.
As to claiming victory, there are no winners here. You're destroying this country and are too stupid to realize it. Your ideology rots everything it touches. When you win... everyone loses.
Sure... parts of any bad law are popular. I could include a policy of free cookies into a program of mass genocide and we could say "parts of the program are popular"...
Not interested in playing stupid word games with dishonest aholes. Sorry... my common courtesy is exhausted on this issue. This thing needs to be nuked from orbit. Enough stupid evasions, stupid excuses, and absurd morally abhorrent counter arguments.
Let people opt out. If your program isn't garbage then people will ACTUALLY want to be part of it rather then having to be forced into it by literal gun point.
And really given what a joke the roll out was do you HONESTLY think using your ACTUAL HUMAN brain that they had an open bid on this?
Can you for a second bypass the partisan rot and think about this as if it weren't something you're horrifically biased about? TRY. Consider what you know and try to defend how this has played out.
What is more, who bid on it? If multiple companies bid... who were they? The government won't say. You have to submit a freedom of information act request to get that information and of course the government will basically drag their feet on that until they can fake up an answer.
How many of these scandals do we need to go through before you finally understand they're dirty. We're dealing with fundamentally corrupt people here. It can't be explained with incompetence. Its too systematic and methodical. Its corruption. And people like you let them get away with it.
Not only did they not want to go open source they offered the contract to ONE company. There was no open bid.
It gets worse. They also didn't want the programmers available for congressional subpoena. The whole thing was done as secretively and opaquely as possible.
This isn't a failure of system design. Its idiots destroying thing by trying to do everything in the most sneaky and underhanded manner possible.
Answer this... if we knew everything about Obamacare at the time of voting that we know now... would it have passed?
No.
Which is why they don't tell us anything. They don't respect your vote. You don't get to decide. Your opinion is worthless. They will do what they want to do. And if you want something else they will lie to your face.
Was the IRS attacking political opponents of the president on purpose? Of course not. Until it was proven that they were.
Was the NSA tracking Americans domestically intentionally? Of course not. Until it was proven that they were.
Was the ATF selling guns to the drug cartels and then not arresting anyone? Of course not. Until it was proven that they were.
They don't care what is right or wrong or what you want or deserve. All irrelevant.
They have the power and you do what they say or else. The government has gotten completely out of control and it won't get better until pretty much everyone in power is removed.
Write protect the appliances. It is impossible to remotely modify the code then installing malware should be very difficult. The next trick would be making it impossible to pass executable code to the system's ram.
Even if you couldn't accomplish the second part... the first part is easy and it would mean recovering from any breach with a reboot.
There are ways to secure these systems. But ultimately they're going to have to have limited access from remote users. Security updates and modifications to the software should be done locally. That means a hacker needs to gain physical access to the appliance to compromise it. Then you can keep most attacks out with a good lock.
Some will say this defeats the purpose of these systems. That teh whole thing was supposed to be remotely administered from some central computer command center. How much is that dream worth? Is it really worth all this trouble to not send a technician by every so often to make changes?
Hard code and write lock the appliances. Then sleep like a baby.
Not the tea party people... but rather the rabid statists that demonize them because they disagree with their big government agenda.
Understanding was never a priority. Having a discussion was never a priority. Getting to know was never a priority.
And so the statists and those stuck in their echo chamber do not not understand, have not discussed, and really don't know what they're talking about on the subject.
And they won't until they're prepared to put away the petty insults and ACTUALLY make some kind of effort to have an intelligent conversation on the issues.
Till that happens... their comments will remain as mindless as we've come to expect.
A. That tax... sure... many others were passed through no problem. The taxes did go up. And middle class as usual will always pay the biggest price.
B. So let me get this straight. When you covet someone else's money and think you have a right to it and get upset when they try to keep you from taking THEIR money... you don't call that greed.
But when someone acts to protect their own money that they earned from your thievery... that is greed?
Facts aren't relevant to you. You can see what is happening to the french economy. They tested my theory. They jacked up taxes... their elites either left the country or dived deep into tax shelters... revenue collapsed... all of the burden lands on the middle class and the economy's growth is flat at best.
You can see this playing out throughout the socialist countries. They're not doing well. Your parasitic ideology is rotting everything it touches.
So let me get this straight, I am obligated to pay for YOU... forced... at gun point to pay for whatever you want... Or YOU claim that YOU are the serf?
You're a retard. End of discussion. You're either too stupid or too dishonest or too crazy to have this discussion.
You basically just said its too dark out in the sun so you're going to live in a dank cave. Make sense? No. Its an inherent contradiction.
Your policy forces people to pay for you. And if they don't submit to your threats of violence via government goons then YOU call yourself the victim?
Do the human race a favor and kill yourself. You are wasting oxygen.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a shocking idea... why didn't we do this through the states in the first place!?
All the states that want it... get it. All the states that don't... don't.
Democracy. Instead... we have this...
Yes and the phone company that owns the lines sets the rates that those lines are sold upon and has total control over how many they are an where they go.
Its not acceptable. Third parties need to be able to run their own cable. Small time ISPs are beholden to the house to house infrastructure of big telecoms. Being beholden to where the trunk lines go is one thing. Being beholden to where the land lines go, their quality, their rates of rental, etc is another.
I should have the right to start up an ISP right now, get enough bandwidth for a hundred homes and just lay cable in the area. Generally speaking indifferent to money this is not legally allowed. They won't let me bury the cable next to all the other cables. And I can't even go wireless because the FCC won't sell me spectrum even if it isn't being used by anyone in the area.
How many phone companies can run land lines in a given area by law?
Typically 1.
Shockingly one telephone company tends to dominate a given area.
How many cable companies can run cable lines in a given area by law?
Typically 1.
Shockingly one cable company tends to dominate a given area.
These are government backed monopolies. Small towns have tried to set up their own internet and have been sued by major telecoms because they have a government backed monopoly.
Remove those limitations and areas with high costs will have little ISPs pop up that serve just a small community and nothing else. Little guys that run their own cable from the trunk to the home/business. That is how you fix it. US internet access is not expensive at the trunk. Its expensive in the distribution because the government forbids competition.
If you think the big player in Cali politics is the evil Koch brothers then you're clueless. The big unions... especially the government unions... teachers unions, cal trans, police/firefighter/etc unions are MASSIVE in cali. Just absurdly hugely powerful.
This bill as I read it, would have limited their ability to automatically put the wages of union members towards political contributions. That is a huge part of their power in the state. These unions are very large and they can kick in huge sums of money to every election and never run dry because they're taking a relatively small portion of every union member's pay check. And they don't need to get your consent to do it. If you work for the government, you probably belong to one of these unions... and if they decide to kick in money it will come out of your non-voluntary dues at the very least.
So paying for your medical treatment is the same as a side walk?
You remain a moron.
Because usage is not predictable or more to the point... consistent. A consistent bill is for many superior to an inconsistent one especially when the inconsistent one tends to work out to MORE money then what they paid for the consistent bill.
Look at most countries where people pay a metered internet bill. They tend to pay more.
What is more, we are only in this situation because we've under built our capacity. The US should have a broadband network to rival Germany or Japan. And while we do at the corporate level, at the consumer level we are regularly hosed.
Much of this has to do with anti competition laws that restrict who can operate in given areas.
How many cable companies do you have in your neighborhood? One. How many land line phone companies? One. That right there is a big part of the problem. Set it up so that ANYONE can run a data line so long as they pay a lease on whatever pipe the physical cables are going through... and then let the market work it out.
We pay too much for too little. And these greedy clowns have the audacity to squeeze us more for less.
F' them and f' all the mindless apathetic asshats that consistently let us ALL get screwed by these people.
We like consistent bills. A reliable 50 dollar a month bill is actually a lot better then a variable bill that can double or quadruple unpredictably.
Further, most people will actually pay more under such a system. Remember, we're netflixing and youtubing etc now. Sure, the people htat just do light webbrowsing and email might pay less. But the same people tend to buy cheap internet policies already. Typically around 20 dollars a month or less. While the higher bandwidth policies are around 50 dollars a month.
This change will screw consumers. It will mean less reliability for low bandwidth users and much higher costs for higher bandwidth users.
Look... nearly everything the government has done after 9/11 to stop 9/11 from happening again would not actually stop it from happening.
The people that did that would not have been stopped by more robust baggage screening. Even an air marshal might not have stopped them.
Passenger profiles can stop bad people because it isn't about what clever way they've come up with to sneak something dangerous on to the plane. Rather, you just look for bad people and ignore what is in their baggage because it doesn't matter. That person doesn't fly. This is in large part how the israelis do it. And say what you will about their politics, we can agree that they're under greater threat of terrorism pretty much constantly and yet how many of their planes are hijacked or even interfered with in any way shape or form? Exactly.
This is how you do it. Not by asking people to take their shoes off. You do a background check on every single person that wants to fly. 99.99999 percent of the population will know the bliss of pre-9/11 air travel while a tiny minority will get to spend some uncomfortable time in a back room getting grilled... largely with justification.
Why? Work is one of the things that gives us purpose. And if you have a career it can even define your role in society.
now many people have jobs they hate that don't represent them at all. But maybe if you had more time you might work your way into a more pleasurable career.
Maybe you'd even had an early life career to make a nest egg and then use that to augment a later career that might not pay as well or that might need some start up cash to get going.
Think of the potential for small business. Lets say the pattern might be that when you're very young you wash dishes and mow lawns. When you're a little older you do some horrible desk job in a cubical. And then when you're a bit older you start your own little business that makes you happy and where no one gets to order you around.
Already a lot of people do that. So why not make that a thing.
So long as there were term limits, I don't have a problem with it.
You think there aren't young racists? You do know we have lots of racists under the age of 20... of all races, genders, religious backgrounds, and sexual orientations. Any flavor of person out there is going to come in the racist variety. Welcome to planet earth.
I'd much rather have seasoned racists that have at least been around the block a few times then naive ones that on top of being bigots are also clueless of just about everything.
Here is the thing. Its a zero sum game. Over time assuming your brain didn't rot, you'd have more knowledge and your character would be more seasoned. You'll probably be a better person at 60 then you were at 20 especially if you get to keep a mostly young body. What is more, you'll be more useful to society. You'll pay taxes. You'll participate somewhat intelligently in the political process.
And the whole thing will be a giant hedge against volatile cultural/political/economic trends because the majority of the population will remember previous ages and will know if things can be done better. They'll see things and say "I remember when we didn't have that problem because we didn't do that other thing." And maybe... MAYBE they'll say "okay, lets not do that anymore because it clearly not working out."
Think further of the highly technical professions. Engineers. Doctors. Scientists. Imagine once getting trained up to their profession they could give you a century of useful work before dying. See. That makes them more useful.
Right now we have to invest about 25 years in a person to train them up to that level. From birth to when you could roughly call them an actual scientist or Doctor. But today... they'll probably retire at 50 or 60. Which means you put in 25 years of teaching to get out MAYBE about 25 years of work. And even then there is a horrific failure rate with many people being taught things that they never apply to anything.
Its a question of efficiency. Doubtless you'll argue here that science would stagnate without old scientists dying off and old doctors dying off to make way for newer practitioners that will embrace newer methods. Possibly. Actually, that will in some cases certainly happen. We see it today in several fields. But if its an issue then you can address it. Force them to update at intervals. There are many ways to do that short of death.
And of course... population control administered by a benign birth bureaucracy will be better.
I'd rather have over population then that crap.
A lot of the problems in our society would be corrected if people lived a great deal longer. That is counter intuitive because many people believe we have over population issues. But in the developed world we don't. The issue is actually that our mortality rate exceeds our birth rate. The difference made up in immigration.
Worse, we have big problems with education and not just education but experience. We invest a lot in people for relatively few productive years of service. Imagine if you could train someone up and they'd be viable in that job for 50 years. Obviously some booster training over the years as required. But consider the wealth of knowledge people would bring to the table.
It might stagnate certain segments as industries became saturated with people more accustomed to older tech... but then we might just get standards that update the tech without changing the way you use it.
Who can say. Regardless, life extension would be useful.
That said, I don't think this discovery is going to be particularly useful in it. Sure. Great they're doing this research and good for them for finding something. But the clock they found appears to be correlative instead of causative. Its a log. Its tree rings. It doesn't cause the aging it is instead caused by the aging.
1. As to the mandate, it is not a requirement unless you offer little things like "you can get insurance AFTER you're sick." Well that isn't how insurance works. So yes, if you pervert the whole way insurance works then you need to have silly policies like forcing everyone to join.
2. As to mass genocide, the point was that your argument that SOME of the bill was popular was idiotic given that the whole bill is not. Parts of any bill no matter how abhorrent will be popular. Your comment was a stupid evasion meant to confuse morons. I am not a moron so I don't find it compelling.
3. As to being forced at gun point, if I refuse to join you will shoot me. Not immediately but if I refuse then the government will escalate and eventually I will get shot. That is what backstops your policy. Threats of physical violence. Again, not immediately... but eventually. Because I suspect you're not going to understand this... I'll be explicit. If I don't opt in the IRS will fine me. If I don't pay that IRS fine then IRS will attempt to collect the money through its various tax powers. If I resist those the IRS will go into hostile collections mode and try to get the money ceased. If I resist that then at some point they'll send men with guns after me. Remove that final element and your whole stupid policy falls apart. You need that threat of violence to make the mandate a mandate. That is what backstops your policy. You are putting a gun against my head on this issue. You might want to speak softly about it before pulling the trigger but you are fully wiling to kill me over this issue. And for that I hate you with justification. You're a thuggish piece of shit.
4. As to the mandate and various similar GOP ideas before, why is the GOP suddenly not in favor of your grand scheme? I mean, if it was our idea and we like it so much then we should be all over it... right? Is it because Obama is black? Is it racism? You're a fool. The policy has some similarities but is very different. And even if it were identical it was mostly pushed as a STATE idea and not a federal idea. And even then it was never really vetted by anyone at large. Passing an idea around to a few think tanks doesn't mean millions of people are going to approve it.
As to claiming victory, there are no winners here. You're destroying this country and are too stupid to realize it. Your ideology rots everything it touches. When you win... everyone loses.
That's just failing up. If they f up then it should get scrapped.
Sure... parts of any bad law are popular. I could include a policy of free cookies into a program of mass genocide and we could say "parts of the program are popular"...
Not interested in playing stupid word games with dishonest aholes. Sorry... my common courtesy is exhausted on this issue. This thing needs to be nuked from orbit. Enough stupid evasions, stupid excuses, and absurd morally abhorrent counter arguments.
Let people opt out. If your program isn't garbage then people will ACTUALLY want to be part of it rather then having to be forced into it by literal gun point.
Sure... all politicians are bad so of course there is no reason to berate the current crop for being criminals.
Sorry. You can't use the logic of "both sides are bad" to justify the bad people in power.
you have links?... so do I...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-reviewed-only-one-bid-for-obamacare-website-design/article/2537194
And really given what a joke the roll out was do you HONESTLY think using your ACTUAL HUMAN brain that they had an open bid on this?
Can you for a second bypass the partisan rot and think about this as if it weren't something you're horrifically biased about? TRY. Consider what you know and try to defend how this has played out.
What is more, who bid on it? If multiple companies bid... who were they? The government won't say. You have to submit a freedom of information act request to get that information and of course the government will basically drag their feet on that until they can fake up an answer.
How many of these scandals do we need to go through before you finally understand they're dirty. We're dealing with fundamentally corrupt people here. It can't be explained with incompetence. Its too systematic and methodical. Its corruption. And people like you let them get away with it.
Actually the polls have been negative and increasingly so... but Denial is a river in Egypt.
Not only did they not want to go open source they offered the contract to ONE company. There was no open bid.
It gets worse. They also didn't want the programmers available for congressional subpoena. The whole thing was done as secretively and opaquely as possible.
This isn't a failure of system design. Its idiots destroying thing by trying to do everything in the most sneaky and underhanded manner possible.
Answer this... if we knew everything about Obamacare at the time of voting that we know now... would it have passed?
No.
Which is why they don't tell us anything. They don't respect your vote. You don't get to decide. Your opinion is worthless. They will do what they want to do. And if you want something else they will lie to your face.
Was the IRS attacking political opponents of the president on purpose? Of course not. Until it was proven that they were.
Was the NSA tracking Americans domestically intentionally? Of course not. Until it was proven that they were.
Was the ATF selling guns to the drug cartels and then not arresting anyone? Of course not. Until it was proven that they were.
They don't care what is right or wrong or what you want or deserve. All irrelevant.
They have the power and you do what they say or else. The government has gotten completely out of control and it won't get better until pretty much everyone in power is removed.
This isn't hurting the rich.
Read a newspaper. Its hitting the middle class.
People that had healthcare are seeing their premiums double. The majority of the population had healthcare.
Your comment is little more then an admission of ignorance. Kindly shut your mouth and learn. Your stupidity is sadly infectious.
Write protect the appliances. It is impossible to remotely modify the code then installing malware should be very difficult. The next trick would be making it impossible to pass executable code to the system's ram.
Even if you couldn't accomplish the second part... the first part is easy and it would mean recovering from any breach with a reboot.
There are ways to secure these systems. But ultimately they're going to have to have limited access from remote users. Security updates and modifications to the software should be done locally. That means a hacker needs to gain physical access to the appliance to compromise it. Then you can keep most attacks out with a good lock.
Some will say this defeats the purpose of these systems. That teh whole thing was supposed to be remotely administered from some central computer command center. How much is that dream worth? Is it really worth all this trouble to not send a technician by every so often to make changes?
Hard code and write lock the appliances. Then sleep like a baby.
Not the tea party people... but rather the rabid statists that demonize them because they disagree with their big government agenda.
Understanding was never a priority. Having a discussion was never a priority. Getting to know was never a priority.
And so the statists and those stuck in their echo chamber do not not understand, have not discussed, and really don't know what they're talking about on the subject.
And they won't until they're prepared to put away the petty insults and ACTUALLY make some kind of effort to have an intelligent conversation on the issues.
Till that happens... their comments will remain as mindless as we've come to expect.
A. That tax... sure... many others were passed through no problem. The taxes did go up. And middle class as usual will always pay the biggest price.
B. So let me get this straight. When you covet someone else's money and think you have a right to it and get upset when they try to keep you from taking THEIR money... you don't call that greed.
But when someone acts to protect their own money that they earned from your thievery... that is greed?
You remain a moron.
Facts aren't relevant to you. You can see what is happening to the french economy. They tested my theory. They jacked up taxes... their elites either left the country or dived deep into tax shelters... revenue collapsed... all of the burden lands on the middle class and the economy's growth is flat at best.
You can see this playing out throughout the socialist countries. They're not doing well. Your parasitic ideology is rotting everything it touches.
So let me get this straight, I am obligated to pay for YOU... forced... at gun point to pay for whatever you want... Or YOU claim that YOU are the serf?
You're a retard. End of discussion. You're either too stupid or too dishonest or too crazy to have this discussion.
You basically just said its too dark out in the sun so you're going to live in a dank cave. Make sense? No. Its an inherent contradiction.
Your policy forces people to pay for you. And if they don't submit to your threats of violence via government goons then YOU call yourself the victim?
Do the human race a favor and kill yourself. You are wasting oxygen.