... so you're saying there isn't enough capitalism? I would agree... your wording sounded like you were blaming capitalism for dumb things the government does.
If you're saying the issue is that the free market is not being permitted to address the situation by allowing competing interests to force a reasonable product quality standard at a competitive price... then I agree.
I know it is a good thing but you do anyway. You use the fact that I have a record against me while of course be shielded from counter claims against your own record because you are a coward.
No ad hominem from you will be accepted. We're going to skip over any other reference to me or you because neither is relevant to the discussion. And even if they were, you are personally unable to make any argument of that nature being an AC. End of story.... reading through your post to see if you have anything to say that isn't an ad hominem... nothing.
not when the license is not generally offered to anyone on reasonable terms.
Lets say I say anyone can do a thing... they just need a license... and then I make a point of never issuing such licenses to anyone except two companies under any circumstances.
That's a de facto ban.
De jure you can make any claim you want but it won't be intellectually honest in the face of a de facto ban.
Look guys... we can jerk each other off until our eyes melt... but at the end of the day the reality is the reality is the reality. And we can either get real here or all we're doing is jerking each other off.
The de facto reality is that only a few large companies are ever issued these licenses and acquiring these licenses is unreasonable for anyone else.
Even google is having a hard time obtaining these licenses on places where the duopolies are strong. That should give you an idea of how fucking stupidly impossible it is for anyone to get a foot in the door when multi billion dollar corporations are saying that they can't even fucking bribe their way in most of the time for a reasonable fee.
I was reading a long complaint from Centurylink that cox/time warner are blocking them from service provision in some areas.
I've had this argument a million times on this board and it always boils down to some fool that will reflexively make any fucking stupid argument he can think of to defend the status quo. It is not credible.
"The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete."
That is what I said. Now... I never said nor implied congress. I can show bills if you want. But I won't permit you to strawman my position by redefining my words as other than they were.
If you accept that you have no power to change my argument then I can move on. If you refuse to accept that then we really can't go anywhere because I will not tolerate a strawman.
I have hallmarks because i'm not an AC shithead that hides his history.
You have nothing because you hides his history.
Thus like most AC shitheads you presume to use my lack of cowardice against me yet of course when I point out your lack of a record you're going to feel that is unfair somehow.
On any issue that regards me as a person or a poster you can eat every dick in the universe. You have no right to do that absent at least logging in.
As to who responded to whom...there were people below you that responded to you. Your inability to read is not my problem.
Anyway... as I said, someone else already dealt with you in this thread. You can continue with me but since you're such a degenerate piece of shit I'm just going to use those opportunities to shit talk.
If you want a real discussion... log in. If you don't, and you start opening your stupid posts with something like "oh here is something I know about this poster because he logs in unlike me"... I'm going to assume you just want to shitpost. Which is fine. I can shit post right back at you.
If you want to be serious... be serious. If you want to be treated like a rampant fuckwit...then carry on as you are now.
Further, the issue is local... but generally consistent throughout the country. The law was federal but it was repealed I think in the mid 90s. Regardless, if you look at what backbone bandwidth costs... basically nothing... you can see that the only justifiable cost would be running from the trunk to the house. The problem with the fee system is that if you then price out the cost of fiber per person... and work in depreciation... The costs drop to something like ten dollars per person assuming total replacement every 10 years which is conservative.
Yep and its quiet affordable. I've done the math. I can personally afford to wire my neighborhood. When you say "do you know how much this costs" you're likely talking about an entire city all in one go.
That's like asking "Do you know how much it would cost to build 2000 sandwich shops"... Just talking about me running cable in my own area.
And if it were so expensive that I wouldn't be able to do it, then you wouldn't need to make it illegal to stop me. you do because you know fucking well that I would if I were not legally forbidden.
Which means you're either suffering from weapons grade cognitive dissonance or you're just telling stupid lies.
Because here is the thing... if you REALLY thought the cost structure would stop me... you'd just rely on that. You don't. Which means you either know it won't and are lying... or you were told some bullshit by some people that knew better and you're so mind fucked by it that you can't really process this on your own.
Coward that won't even use a fake name presumes to sockpuppet out some stupid response... no need... others already dealt with you before I even noticed your stupid response. Also, nice to know you're following me around the forum now.
I don't follow you around... I don't care about you. But you... you seem to think I'm worth following.
Seems someone matters more to one than the other. Another win for me.
It ends the gun control debate. The debate shouldn't have even happened. We have a second amendment. What about that do people not understand? Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment.
Absent that, this is a hostile action to subvert our democracy. And actions taken to subvert the government's ability to enact illegal legislation are all to the good.
This ends the debate. You can't stop the guns now. And this won't stop at the US now... it will go global. Gun regulations from pole to pole will be so much paper.
The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete.
I cannot lay cable against my cable company even in my own neighborhood. Last mile internet delivery is granted through local franchises and no one is permitted to trespass these. I can't pay a poll fee. I can't pay a conduit fee. I cannot run cable.
I could very easily run fiber for my whole neighborhood RIGHT NOW giving everyone in my immediate area gigabit internet... on MY resources. The whole city? Obviously not. I'm just some guy. But my neighborhood... easy. But the law won't let me.
And people don't connect this reality with the fact that they get raped by the cable companies.
Imagine if there were but one sandwich shop... imagine how absurdly abusive it would be with prices, service, product quality. It would be bad.
Well, that is what you've done with the exclusive franchise agreements. We don't need to nationalize our ISPs. We need to let more people... ideally everyone... run cable.
Here some unimaginative fellow will say something like "I don't want lots of cables run along my street"... well, if lots of cables are being run then you don't see that because they'll be buried in a conduit.
Next I might get someone saying something like "we don't have conduits right now to handle something that we're not at this moment doing"... to which I can only say "uh duh"... and yet if we changed the rules this sort of thing would become standard. Not literally tomorrow but within a few years.
And what would government control? Well... the conduits. They'd have a network of pipes that people could run cable through and that they'd charge a flat fee to anyone running cable per foot or mile or whatever the proper distance is... The government wouldn't have to keep up with new technology or worry about anything in the pipe especially besides where the pipe went and how much room there was in the pipe for more cable. That's it.
Set America free and the internet issue is GONE. The cable companies in that environment will either offer competitive non-fucking-stupid service... or go out of business. Like a light.
And I won't have to listen to fucking communists talk about how everything would be better if we just let the government take control over everything.
You morons are so inclined to redefine words when they judge your various beliefs to be bad that it renders you collectively incoherent and frequently situationally illiterate.
I agree with all that but would add that Anon posts need to go. There's no reason why people can't use a signed account to make posts.
Here someone will say "but the moderation"... yeah, and this fellow just talked about ways to remove all those problems. So once those are gone... no argument for Anon posts remains. Which means a radical reduction in sockpuppet bullcrap.
I love how every person advocating censorship always retreats to the legal definition as if that includes all forms of censorship and not merely those prohibited by the government for the government under law.
I never said they couldn't stick their dick in a blender. I just said there would be fucking consequences.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
You'll be bypassed. Press the red button and see if it doesn't shock you this time, primate.
Beyond that, you're not blocking literal neo nazis, literal jihadists that are talking about genociding people, and other such things.
So if your priorities are donald fucking trump and not that... then you have no honest interest in actually restricting hate speech or whatever your vague mission statement is... you're rather after gaining some sort of political advantage.
And was is worse... you don't seem to grasp that Trump will martyr himself on the issue and use the censorship as a campaign prop thus causing him to actually profit more from this hamfisted stupidity than it will hurt him.
Just leave him be... saying 'well we can legally do something stupid" doesn't mean the thing isn't idiotic. You can legally stick your dick in a blender too. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.
... and remain a viable place for people to voice their ideas.
If Twitter becomes a progressive hug box then that's all it will be... and its value as a company will be very low.
This is a mistake a lot of social media outlets are making recently. They think "oh we want to get rid of all the things that look icky to some people"... the problem is that "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it." which means if twitter censors people... they will appear to large portions of the user base as "damaged"... and they will be bypassed.
Twitter cannot ban something like trump because he's clearly very popular with a large number of people.
What is more, Twitter is letting ISIS say what they want... how crazy do you have to be to think Trump should be censored but ISIS shouldn't?
Anyone that has seen what goes into becoming a teacher or who knows the nonsense teachers are put through by School Districts... its a mess.
School Vouchers would do a lot to address the problem because it would put a knife to the throat of failed schools... compete or be replaced. No survivors.
Look, I've seen what has been going on in Los Angeles Unified School District... its a nightmare. The whole thing needs to be atomized. Break the institution up into individual schools and create an environment where nothing is too big to fail. Bad institutions don't survive. Good institutions become examples for how to do it right.
Slashdot Mirror
... so you're saying there isn't enough capitalism? I would agree... your wording sounded like you were blaming capitalism for dumb things the government does.
If you're saying the issue is that the free market is not being permitted to address the situation by allowing competing interests to force a reasonable product quality standard at a competitive price... then I agree.
I know it is a good thing but you do anyway. You use the fact that I have a record against me while of course be shielded from counter claims against your own record because you are a coward.
No ad hominem from you will be accepted. We're going to skip over any other reference to me or you because neither is relevant to the discussion. And even if they were, you are personally unable to make any argument of that nature being an AC. End of story. ... reading through your post to see if you have anything to say that isn't an ad hominem... nothing.
Your post is null. Try again.
not when the license is not generally offered to anyone on reasonable terms.
Lets say I say anyone can do a thing... they just need a license... and then I make a point of never issuing such licenses to anyone except two companies under any circumstances.
That's a de facto ban.
De jure you can make any claim you want but it won't be intellectually honest in the face of a de facto ban.
Look guys... we can jerk each other off until our eyes melt... but at the end of the day the reality is the reality is the reality. And we can either get real here or all we're doing is jerking each other off.
The de facto reality is that only a few large companies are ever issued these licenses and acquiring these licenses is unreasonable for anyone else.
Even google is having a hard time obtaining these licenses on places where the duopolies are strong. That should give you an idea of how fucking stupidly impossible it is for anyone to get a foot in the door when multi billion dollar corporations are saying that they can't even fucking bribe their way in most of the time for a reasonable fee.
I was reading a long complaint from Centurylink that cox/time warner are blocking them from service provision in some areas.
I've had this argument a million times on this board and it always boils down to some fool that will reflexively make any fucking stupid argument he can think of to defend the status quo. It is not credible.
forbidding people to compete by law is not a failure of capitalism.
Try again.
Except I can't lay cable and neither can any company that doesn't have a franchise license and that is why we have duopoloies.
Stay down.
Like the food supply, right?
Give up.
"The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete."
That is what I said. Now... I never said nor implied congress. I can show bills if you want. But I won't permit you to strawman my position by redefining my words as other than they were.
If you accept that you have no power to change my argument then I can move on. If you refuse to accept that then we really can't go anywhere because I will not tolerate a strawman.
Every attempt simply outputs: Error line 1
I didn't say anything about congress until you asked for a citation and I gave a listing of different options.
Saying I made it sound like congress was full of something when I didn't reference congress at all is a non-starter.
Rephrase your argument of I'm going to assume you're too triggered and I won't be able to have a productive discussion.
I think I'll let the liquefy setting on the blender speak for itself... then we'll see what they can sell their stock for... :)
I have hallmarks because i'm not an AC shithead that hides his history.
You have nothing because you hides his history.
Thus like most AC shitheads you presume to use my lack of cowardice against me yet of course when I point out your lack of a record you're going to feel that is unfair somehow.
On any issue that regards me as a person or a poster you can eat every dick in the universe. You have no right to do that absent at least logging in.
As to who responded to whom...there were people below you that responded to you. Your inability to read is not my problem.
Anyway... as I said, someone else already dealt with you in this thread. You can continue with me but since you're such a degenerate piece of shit I'm just going to use those opportunities to shit talk.
If you want a real discussion... log in. If you don't, and you start opening your stupid posts with something like "oh here is something I know about this poster because he logs in unlike me"... I'm going to assume you just want to shitpost. Which is fine. I can shit post right back at you.
If you want to be serious... be serious. If you want to be treated like a rampant fuckwit...then carry on as you are now.
Any of them. You want individual campaigns cited, speeches made, bills put to the floor or what?
Because asking for something like this is really sort of baffling to me.
Why would you be surprised that a socialist would want to nationalize something? That's sort of their go to answer for everything.
the greater unpleasantness is their business.
If they become a progressive hugbox... they're over.
So by all means... suck on that shotgun barrel and see what where that takes you... I suspect it will be all over the ceiling in gobby dripping bits.
Citation on what? The franchises?
Further, the issue is local... but generally consistent throughout the country. The law was federal but it was repealed I think in the mid 90s. Regardless, if you look at what backbone bandwidth costs... basically nothing... you can see that the only justifiable cost would be running from the trunk to the house. The problem with the fee system is that if you then price out the cost of fiber per person... and work in depreciation... The costs drop to something like ten dollars per person assuming total replacement every 10 years which is conservative.
Yep and its quiet affordable. I've done the math. I can personally afford to wire my neighborhood. When you say "do you know how much this costs" you're likely talking about an entire city all in one go.
That's like asking "Do you know how much it would cost to build 2000 sandwich shops"... Just talking about me running cable in my own area.
And if it were so expensive that I wouldn't be able to do it, then you wouldn't need to make it illegal to stop me. you do because you know fucking well that I would if I were not legally forbidden.
Which means you're either suffering from weapons grade cognitive dissonance or you're just telling stupid lies.
Because here is the thing... if you REALLY thought the cost structure would stop me... you'd just rely on that. You don't. Which means you either know it won't and are lying... or you were told some bullshit by some people that knew better and you're so mind fucked by it that you can't really process this on your own.
Either way... pitiful.
Coward that won't even use a fake name presumes to sockpuppet out some stupid response... no need... others already dealt with you before I even noticed your stupid response. Also, nice to know you're following me around the forum now.
I don't follow you around... I don't care about you. But you... you seem to think I'm worth following.
Seems someone matters more to one than the other. Another win for me.
Tootles.
It ends the gun control debate. The debate shouldn't have even happened. We have a second amendment. What about that do people not understand? Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment.
Absent that, this is a hostile action to subvert our democracy. And actions taken to subvert the government's ability to enact illegal legislation are all to the good.
This ends the debate. You can't stop the guns now. And this won't stop at the US now... it will go global. Gun regulations from pole to pole will be so much paper.
The cable companies rape us and the socialists salivate at the chance of nationalizing things because a monopolized market has been created where no one is allowed to compete.
I cannot lay cable against my cable company even in my own neighborhood. Last mile internet delivery is granted through local franchises and no one is permitted to trespass these. I can't pay a poll fee. I can't pay a conduit fee. I cannot run cable.
I could very easily run fiber for my whole neighborhood RIGHT NOW giving everyone in my immediate area gigabit internet... on MY resources. The whole city? Obviously not. I'm just some guy. But my neighborhood... easy. But the law won't let me.
And people don't connect this reality with the fact that they get raped by the cable companies.
Imagine if there were but one sandwich shop... imagine how absurdly abusive it would be with prices, service, product quality. It would be bad.
Well, that is what you've done with the exclusive franchise agreements. We don't need to nationalize our ISPs. We need to let more people... ideally everyone... run cable.
Here some unimaginative fellow will say something like "I don't want lots of cables run along my street"... well, if lots of cables are being run then you don't see that because they'll be buried in a conduit.
Next I might get someone saying something like "we don't have conduits right now to handle something that we're not at this moment doing"... to which I can only say "uh duh"... and yet if we changed the rules this sort of thing would become standard. Not literally tomorrow but within a few years.
And what would government control? Well... the conduits. They'd have a network of pipes that people could run cable through and that they'd charge a flat fee to anyone running cable per foot or mile or whatever the proper distance is... The government wouldn't have to keep up with new technology or worry about anything in the pipe especially besides where the pipe went and how much room there was in the pipe for more cable. That's it.
Set America free and the internet issue is GONE. The cable companies in that environment will either offer competitive non-fucking-stupid service... or go out of business. Like a light.
And I won't have to listen to fucking communists talk about how everything would be better if we just let the government take control over everything.
So... you've confused yourself? No one was talking about YOU saying someone can or cannot speak as being censorship.
however if twitter censors someone then they censored them.
Obviously.
I mean... this is obvious and you're not seeing it...
saying someone can't speak is not censorship?
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
You morons are so inclined to redefine words when they judge your various beliefs to be bad that it renders you collectively incoherent and frequently situationally illiterate.
While twitter might prefer to blend their penis in a garbage disposal... it my hypothesis that they would not enjoy that situation.
Apparently others disagree as to the pleasurableness or desirableness of that situation. I must leave this to personal preference.
I suggest you look up the pain olympics if you're really interested in seeing where your idea will take you.
I agree with all that but would add that Anon posts need to go. There's no reason why people can't use a signed account to make posts.
Here someone will say "but the moderation"... yeah, and this fellow just talked about ways to remove all those problems. So once those are gone... no argument for Anon posts remains. Which means a radical reduction in sockpuppet bullcrap.
I love how every person advocating censorship always retreats to the legal definition as if that includes all forms of censorship and not merely those prohibited by the government for the government under law.
I never said they couldn't stick their dick in a blender. I just said there would be fucking consequences.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
You'll be bypassed. Press the red button and see if it doesn't shock you this time, primate.
Beyond that, you're not blocking literal neo nazis, literal jihadists that are talking about genociding people, and other such things.
So if your priorities are donald fucking trump and not that... then you have no honest interest in actually restricting hate speech or whatever your vague mission statement is... you're rather after gaining some sort of political advantage.
And was is worse... you don't seem to grasp that Trump will martyr himself on the issue and use the censorship as a campaign prop thus causing him to actually profit more from this hamfisted stupidity than it will hurt him.
Just leave him be... saying 'well we can legally do something stupid" doesn't mean the thing isn't idiotic. You can legally stick your dick in a blender too. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.
... and remain a viable place for people to voice their ideas.
If Twitter becomes a progressive hug box then that's all it will be... and its value as a company will be very low.
This is a mistake a lot of social media outlets are making recently. They think "oh we want to get rid of all the things that look icky to some people"... the problem is that "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it." which means if twitter censors people... they will appear to large portions of the user base as "damaged"... and they will be bypassed.
Twitter cannot ban something like trump because he's clearly very popular with a large number of people.
What is more, Twitter is letting ISIS say what they want... how crazy do you have to be to think Trump should be censored but ISIS shouldn't?
Nutty people.
Anyone that has seen what goes into becoming a teacher or who knows the nonsense teachers are put through by School Districts... its a mess.
School Vouchers would do a lot to address the problem because it would put a knife to the throat of failed schools... compete or be replaced. No survivors.
Look, I've seen what has been going on in Los Angeles Unified School District... its a nightmare. The whole thing needs to be atomized. Break the institution up into individual schools and create an environment where nothing is too big to fail. Bad institutions don't survive. Good institutions become examples for how to do it right.
Absent this I have no faith in the system.