True, but I'd still like to contribute. And to tell the truth, I'd also be serving my incredibly popular homemade pornography. Mostly just me taking naps, but it's HOT!
Your bias is clearly preventing you from making a critical appraisal of political behavior, so instead of treating you like an intelligent human being, I'll just call you a psychotically biased moron. Why? Because your response deserves no better.
Well, according to them, they raised the cap from 250Gb to 300, but that was a complete and utter lie. I made damn sure there was no cap when I signed up, so you can imagine my distress when I got an email with that "good news". So far I've been able to keep them from enforcing it by threatening to take them to court over breach of contract.
Did you know that Netflix uses less bandwidth than NBC?
1. There are already companies with similar franchise agreements - Utilities. Why not just tell cable companies that if they want utility-style local monopolies, they must also be regulated as such.
2. Absolutely not! Do you know what government owns the telephone poles in your town? None. They belong to the phone or power company that put them in the ground. Putting them under common carrier gives basically the same outcome you're looking for.
3. That would be a blatant violation of the Constitution, which specifically prevents the government from interfering with contracts.
Well, the Constitution specifically grants the Federal government the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. The FCC derives it's power from that clause. The internet, like TV, radio, telephones, telegraphs, etc., is prima facie a medium for interstate commerce, therefore the federal government is the only body with the right and authority to regulate it.
You are presenting a false narrative. Conservatives see government as a necessary evil, Liberals see it as a force for good.
Neither are wrong. The tension between the two views keeps things from going off the rails. Without Conservatives restraining the growth of government, corruption will flourish, and private enterprise will be crowded out and the economy will collapse. Without Liberals promoting regulations and social supports, corruption will flourish and people who need a little help will be left out in the cold - leading to social collapse.
Moreover, the two party system establishes checks on each. Democrats keep Republicans honest and vice versa. After decades of Democrats dominating the House, they became incredibly corrupt; leading to a series of scandals that ended with the GOP taking control in '94.
then there is clearly something horribly wrong with our education system. And not just what we already knew was horribly wrong - a brand new horrible wrong to worry about.
I propose a contest to see who can post the funniest joke about this. An "improved" government website is a joke machine in and of itself, but this is also the FCC, post healthcare.gov, and a complaints page to boot!
To call this a comedic goldmine would surely understate the matter.
So far, the only prize I have to offer is the satisfaction of making me laugh.
You must never have seen the classic 1959 Peter Sellers film, "The Mouse that Roared". It's a serious documentary investigating the counter-intuitive results of war with America.
Is there a term that fits better? You are right that the traditional definition of "war" doesn't really fit, but if you look at the modern usage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war?s=t definitions 5-7) you will see that it is absolutely appropriate. I tend to get a bit pedantic with semantics, so I'm not exactly enthusiastic about what has been done to the term (I want to slap LBJ for "The War on Poverty"), but it is what it is.
Unless the people behind the attack are physically located in the US or a nation interested in prosecuting them, there is no authority to turn to, no one to track down and prosecute the offender and no hope of restitution. That is where your car analogy falls apart, as there would be no FBI to get involved.
But under your analogy, leaving cars all over Jersey streets wouldn't be the proper response. Hiring someone to find and beat the perpetrators would be the way to go.
Taking the law into one's own hands is not permissible in civil society. But putting a bounty on the head of an outlaw is something rather different.
It depends where they are based. There are plenty of nations where even if it is technically illegal, law enforcement either doesn't care, has been bought off, or are actually responsible - such as North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but I'd still like to contribute. And to tell the truth, I'd also be serving my incredibly popular homemade pornography. Mostly just me taking naps, but it's HOT!
HAH!
How does letting more workers enter the country lead to jobs moving overseas? Isn't it the exact opposite?
Your bias is clearly preventing you from making a critical appraisal of political behavior, so instead of treating you like an intelligent human being, I'll just call you a psychotically biased moron. Why? Because your response deserves no better.
Idiot.
Well, according to them, they raised the cap from 250Gb to 300, but that was a complete and utter lie. I made damn sure there was no cap when I signed up, so you can imagine my distress when I got an email with that "good news". So far I've been able to keep them from enforcing it by threatening to take them to court over breach of contract.
Did you know that Netflix uses less bandwidth than NBC?
If I didn't have a cap, I'd seed linux distros like crazy.
2. Absolutely not! Do you know what government owns the telephone poles in your town? None. They belong to the phone or power company that put them in the ground. Putting them under common carrier gives basically the same outcome you're looking for.
3. That would be a blatant violation of the Constitution, which specifically prevents the government from interfering with contracts.
It's 100% Constitutional.
Couldn't one argue that the State laws interfere with methods of interstate commerce, thereby violating Federal authority over such commerce?
Neither are wrong. The tension between the two views keeps things from going off the rails. Without Conservatives restraining the growth of government, corruption will flourish, and private enterprise will be crowded out and the economy will collapse. Without Liberals promoting regulations and social supports, corruption will flourish and people who need a little help will be left out in the cold - leading to social collapse.
Moreover, the two party system establishes checks on each. Democrats keep Republicans honest and vice versa. After decades of Democrats dominating the House, they became incredibly corrupt; leading to a series of scandals that ended with the GOP taking control in '94.
So people expect a return on investment, regardless of whether they run a government or a business? Oh no! Whatever will we do?
Though, I suppose it could be that you lack enough data to make substantive claims about it. Either way, you're displaying a lot of ignorance.
There's a HUGE difference between anti-deficit and anti-science.
That's a flu I can use!
then there is clearly something horribly wrong with our education system. And not just what we already knew was horribly wrong - a brand new horrible wrong to worry about.
What, one of those wood tablets? They don't even have wifi!
Or is it too far from the Milky Way?
Why can't they be researching chocolate because it's awesome? I want to "research" some right now!
it should come with free access to Sony's entire music catalog.
To call this a comedic goldmine would surely understate the matter.
So far, the only prize I have to offer is the satisfaction of making me laugh.
To save you some googling: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Is there a term that fits better? You are right that the traditional definition of "war" doesn't really fit, but if you look at the modern usage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war?s=t definitions 5-7) you will see that it is absolutely appropriate. I tend to get a bit pedantic with semantics, so I'm not exactly enthusiastic about what has been done to the term (I want to slap LBJ for "The War on Poverty"), but it is what it is.
Unless the people behind the attack are physically located in the US or a nation interested in prosecuting them, there is no authority to turn to, no one to track down and prosecute the offender and no hope of restitution. That is where your car analogy falls apart, as there would be no FBI to get involved.
But under your analogy, leaving cars all over Jersey streets wouldn't be the proper response. Hiring someone to find and beat the perpetrators would be the way to go.
Taking the law into one's own hands is not permissible in civil society. But putting a bounty on the head of an outlaw is something rather different.
but if Cable companies want to act like local-monopoly utilities, they need to be regulated as such.
It depends where they are based. There are plenty of nations where even if it is technically illegal, law enforcement either doesn't care, has been bought off, or are actually responsible - such as North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, etc.