Consumers should indeed pay for data they use. The argument is ISPs shouldn't be able to attach to Netflix quasi-permanently by slowing them down, when nothing in my contract allows that. I pay for the data rate the ISP guarantees. If it isn't enough, increase the fee rather than extort some of what I pay Netflix by hurting Netflix-and-me's connection.
It's the light of day ISPs are smarmily trying to hide from.
Government should only use AI to view and catalog and track people by actual individual faces, walking gait, clothes, clothing style probabilities, license plate, vehicle type, vehicle damage deltas, phone emissions, Bluetooth reflections, WiFi reflections, infrared, night vision, and more all feding into a live tracker database panopticon they can just type your name into to find where you are right now.
Adding skin color to that is racist and just going too far!!!
I have literally found myself in this situation: TV on, Netflix streaming, Big Brother livestream running, game (Warcraft) idling running, and surfing on a web site.
Only in that country though. Germany, 30% German 70% anything else. France, 30% French 70% anything else. Italy, 30% Italian 70% anything else. Spain 30% Spanish 70% anything else.
You can't have Sweden 30% Swedish + 30% German + 30% French + 30% Italian + 30% Spanish +...+
Just logically there are more than 4 countries in Europe, so the total would be over 100%.
Even EU bureaucracy isn't quite that bad,
yet.
I think it's locally-produced content, not language.
So 3000 size cagalog means an additkonal 1000 Germany items and 1000 Spane items and 1000 France items and 1000 Netherlands items and...
So the 3000 items is just a small fraction of the content they will have to produce to meet this law.
There was a case where a sex offender was banned from social media like facebook. The government said this didn't violate their Constitutional First Amendment rights because they still had access to other social networks like The Paula Deen Network.
If The Paula Deen Network's good enough for the government, there is no anti-trust issue!
Governmemts can ease off antitrust investigations in exchange for helping spy on people (we will ignore for now wiggling fingers behind the back for "donations", the source and driver of much corruption in the world).
These are restrictions on government officials using twitter, not twitter.
You want to argue government gets to slap a label on a private entity dealing with speech, and presto! No more first amendment, which includes the right not to say something, which both twitter and twitter's users have and use.
Given the motivation is not concern for speech, but to hurt a political opponent, it is even more disgusting and unconstitutional.
It's like adding "paper" to common carrier, so now all newspaper editorial pages must budget for opposing viewpoints or go to jail.
I'm tired of this "common carrier" concept -- oh boy! Another way to work around the First Amendment so government can control private speech!
Toss it, at least in situations like this. There is no limit to the amount of speech the Internet can carry, so any ultimately scarcity-based argument fails.
Exactly. It isn't a restriction on twitter -- it is a restriction on govenment officials. Twitter can offer features but that doesn't mean officials can use them against the law.
Whether the ruling is correct or not, especially given the driving force of the suit likely wasn't really concern over speech but another attempt to hurt the president politically, is a separate issue.
The #1 office perk is getting a paycheck. Health insurance is a close second. Bathrooms will be up there above natural light as well.
Norm MacDonald: "This week in a new study, HR advisory firm Future Workplace announced the second most popular workplace perk was health insurance. The most popular? Whores!" (Stares at audience in silence.)
It may not be illegal, but happily taking Russian hacking intel is a horrid black eye for any politician, and deservedly so.
Ironically, paying for it might indeed implicate him in the crime as hacking is illegal. Taking it free can arguably be freedom of speech, as per a journalist organization. But woe be to he who pays for the hacking...or the leak.
There is a difference between covering up said crime under investigation, and some tangential crime, such as Clinton lying under oath about sex "with that woman".
It was just as well he wasn't removed from office for such a thing, as opposed to the reason for the investigation, Whitewater.
The SC has ruled the second amendment is not limited to arms in use when it was written. This is why anti-taser laws are being overturned left and right.
People who suggest otherwise are already wrong when the words pass their lips.
There's a reason they test in Arizona and California.
I wanna see these things take icy turns at reasonable speed, and avoid skids better than humans and recover from them better than humans.
We will still have lawyer problems with dollar signs in their eyes as they sue for accidents, claiming facetiously they are improving the quality when in fact they may be delaying mass roll out, leading to tens of thousands of extra deaths per year, for years or decades.
Imagine 100% roll out, and deaths drop from 35,000 a year to 1200, but the 1200 are AI screwups.
That's an unbelievable field day for lawsuits, even though the net effect is so many lives saved. And worldwide...?
Fed regulation overrides state laws if the fed law says so, or even gets near it. There's a thing called the dormant commerce clause that says if Congress passes a weak regulation, that it is them saying no state may override the nothingness Congress deliberately set in place. Maybe they just need to consider a part of a bill, then leave that part out, and by passing the bill without that part, the fact they deliberately declined to regulate something implies no state may either.
Remember all this the next time Democrats control Washington. You will flip your philosophy faster than a steamed White Castle, and shout the joys of federal enforcement and regulation trumping states doing what they want.
Both you, and who you responded to, fancy yourselves the real deal, but you are botb part of the problem.
Well that's the thing. On this issue, philosophy switches sides. Suddenly Republicans find great value in the feds enforcing uniformity, and the Democrats are woke to the joys of states experimenting.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem for Venezuela is a lack of freedom and a corrupt government that stands in the way of free people making their lives better.
Consumers should indeed pay for data they use. The argument is ISPs shouldn't be able to attach to Netflix quasi-permanently by slowing them down, when nothing in my contract allows that. I pay for the data rate the ISP guarantees. If it isn't enough, increase the fee rather than extort some of what I pay Netflix by hurting Netflix-and-me's connection.
It's the light of day ISPs are smarmily trying to hide from.
THIS SHOULD BE DISALLOWED!
Government should only use AI to view and catalog and track people by actual individual faces, walking gait, clothes, clothing style probabilities, license plate, vehicle type, vehicle damage deltas, phone emissions, Bluetooth reflections, WiFi reflections, infrared, night vision, and more all feding into a live tracker database panopticon they can just type your name into to find where you are right now.
Adding skin color to that is racist and just going too far!!!
I have literally found myself in this situation: TV on, Netflix streaming, Big Brother livestream running, game (Warcraft) idling running, and surfing on a web site.
I should back up farther when changing Spanish to Spain.
Only in that country though. Germany, 30% German 70% anything else. France, 30% French 70% anything else. Italy, 30% Italian 70% anything else. Spain 30% Spanish 70% anything else.
You can't have Sweden 30% Swedish + 30% German + 30% French + 30% Italian + 30% Spanish +...+
Just logically there are more than 4 countries in Europe, so the total would be over 100%.
Even EU bureaucracy isn't quite that bad,
yet.
I think it's locally-produced content, not language.
So 3000 size cagalog means an additkonal 1000 Germany items and 1000 Spane items and 1000 France items and 1000 Netherlands items and...
So the 3000 items is just a small fraction of the content they will have to produce to meet this law.
There was a case where a sex offender was banned from social media like facebook. The government said this didn't violate their Constitutional First Amendment rights because they still had access to other social networks like The Paula Deen Network.
If The Paula Deen Network's good enough for the government, there is no anti-trust issue!
Governmemts can ease off antitrust investigations in exchange for helping spy on people (we will ignore for now wiggling fingers behind the back for "donations", the source and driver of much corruption in the world).
Nah, this never happens. Nevermind.
"Your MOM goestocollege"
These are restrictions on government officials using twitter, not twitter.
You want to argue government gets to slap a label on a private entity dealing with speech, and presto! No more first amendment, which includes the right not to say something, which both twitter and twitter's users have and use.
Given the motivation is not concern for speech, but to hurt a political opponent, it is even more disgusting and unconstitutional.
It's like adding "paper" to common carrier, so now all newspaper editorial pages must budget for opposing viewpoints or go to jail.
I'm tired of this "common carrier" concept -- oh boy! Another way to work around the First Amendment so government can control private speech!
Toss it, at least in situations like this. There is no limit to the amount of speech the Internet can carry, so any ultimately scarcity-based argument fails.
Exactly. It isn't a restriction on twitter -- it is a restriction on govenment officials. Twitter can offer features but that doesn't mean officials can use them against the law.
Whether the ruling is correct or not, especially given the driving force of the suit likely wasn't really concern over speech but another attempt to hurt the president politically, is a separate issue.
The #1 office perk is getting a paycheck. Health insurance is a close second. Bathrooms will be up there above natural light as well.
Norm MacDonald: "This week in a new study, HR advisory firm Future Workplace announced the second most popular workplace perk was health insurance. The most popular? Whores!" (Stares at audience in silence.)
How long until his new show is on?
It may not be illegal, but happily taking Russian hacking intel is a horrid black eye for any politician, and deservedly so.
Ironically, paying for it might indeed implicate him in the crime as hacking is illegal. Taking it free can arguably be freedom of speech, as per a journalist organization. But woe be to he who pays for the hacking...or the leak.
There is a difference between covering up said crime under investigation, and some tangential crime, such as Clinton lying under oath about sex "with that woman".
It was just as well he wasn't removed from office for such a thing, as opposed to the reason for the investigation, Whitewater.
Not technically true. Only if you are an applicant plowing through the Justice Department the hard way.
The president is under no such constraint if he does not wish to be, nor can Congress add conditions to the exercise of a direct presidential power.
Nixon (and draft dodgers under Carter) are such examples.
The SC has ruled the second amendment is not limited to arms in use when it was written. This is why anti-taser laws are being overturned left and right.
People who suggest otherwise are already wrong when the words pass their lips.
I first read that as Scientists Make a Touch Toilet That Rolls and Scrolls
Which would be sooooo much cooler.
There's a reason they test in Arizona and California.
I wanna see these things take icy turns at reasonable speed, and avoid skids better than humans and recover from them better than humans.
We will still have lawyer problems with dollar signs in their eyes as they sue for accidents, claiming facetiously they are improving the quality when in fact they may be delaying mass roll out, leading to tens of thousands of extra deaths per year, for years or decades.
Imagine 100% roll out, and deaths drop from 35,000 a year to 1200, but the 1200 are AI screwups.
That's an unbelievable field day for lawsuits, even though the net effect is so many lives saved. And worldwide...?
Thanks, lawyers.
See also robot surgeons.
Fed regulation overrides state laws if the fed law says so, or even gets near it. There's a thing called the dormant commerce clause that says if Congress passes a weak regulation, that it is them saying no state may override the nothingness Congress deliberately set in place. Maybe they just need to consider a part of a bill, then leave that part out, and by passing the bill without that part, the fact they deliberately declined to regulate something implies no state may either.
Remember all this the next time Democrats control Washington. You will flip your philosophy faster than a steamed White Castle, and shout the joys of federal enforcement and regulation trumping states doing what they want.
Both you, and who you responded to, fancy yourselves the real deal, but you are botb part of the problem.
Well that's the thing. On this issue, philosophy switches sides. Suddenly Republicans find great value in the feds enforcing uniformity, and the Democrats are woke to the joys of states experimenting.
That's 2010 baloney. The monolith corrupted him the same way it corrupted the monkeys so they picked up a weapon.
Thumbing without editing because auto-correct based on key layout's likely mispresses is patented...
Maybe he'd have died fat and happy by now if hebhadn't been fougbt so hard all along the way.
It's a huge state -- ya got a lotta woik ahead of u!