was the letter I got yesterday saying they were doing it effective immediately with a 2 month 'grace' period. They'd back down several times. What's more they've been trying to merge and buy smaller cable companies and data caps were one of the reasons they got blocked. That's why I brought up anti-trust. Cox (and Comcast) both want to expand by buying up competitors and were doing several pro customer business practices to try getting the regulators on their side. Now that the regulators have changed they don't need to do that anymore. As the head of the FCC said, we can all just move.
I'll have to switch to business internet to get away from them. And I know this is going to make folks uncomfortable but let's face it, this is a direct response to the new administration's policy in regard to both Internet providers and anti trust law.
if she was denied entry because she is Muslim or comes from a Muslim country. I as an American have a 1st amendment right to have my government not enact laws respecting the establishment of a religion.
Trump's repeatedly called it a Muslim ban. Should we be surprised when his administration starts arbitrarily denying visas to Muslims. If anything the fact that it's not one of the six countries makes it more suspect. I've also seen it argued in the thread that the kid & their parents might try refusing to go back home. If that's the case we're got a bigger problem. A country we are at war with and occupying is so unstable it's people are fleeing? A war that's over a 15 years long with no end in site? And a kid trying to get ahead in the world using technology. Seems to me everything's in order for a perfect cluster fuck.
of our entire immigration process. Think about it this way, when your boss goes on a tirade you take notice, right? How about your Bosses boss going on a tirade? Now ratchet that all the way up to President. That's what's happened here.
we're too broke to date let alone have kids and there's not much religious opposition to birth control left. Most still want to raise a family, but we're reasonable enough to know we can't afford to and even when we're not, well, there's that 'too broke to date' thing rearing it's head again.
But Congress recently passed a law making arbitration clauses binding and the Supreme Court upheld it. So no, you can sue under State law. It's preempted by Federal.
it only matters on/. because we're nerds and the Internet is tech and we like tech. Most folks don't care. They're wondering if they're job's going away or if they can fix their car or what happens when their kid's 18 and they've got nothing to pay for college with.
If you want people to care about your issues you have to care about theirs. The word for it is "solidarity".
though not always. It's the only remedy the working class has left. Voting doesn't work. We're more or less an oligarchy and even if we weren't single issue voters plus our winner take all system means we're boned. What do you do with gun fans that will vote away every economic issue on the off chance that somebody is going to outlaw assault rifles? Or the Cuban voters still punishing the left for Castro? Or the Religious Right? As for the American left wing, they're a lose confederacy at best that lacks the cohesion of the right wing. So unless the pro-corp right wing agenda's your bag you're pretty much SOL.
but the way to correct a past mistake isn't to double down and keep making it. Yes, we should probably get the money back, but it's a little late for that. Cut the loses and move on.
As for the buy backs, it hasn't stopped VOIP carriers, Cable companies and cell companies from competing. As the saying goes: Nothing's stopping you from forming your own telecom and competing. Sure, you'd have to innovate like crazy but that's exactly the kinds of innovation we want to see. That's where we get 5G, fibre and other services. Sure, they'll be a lot more expensive, but that'll eventually trickle down like cell phones did in the 80s and 90s.
and lots of free wifi out there. There's also cheap cell phones with limited data plans. Buddy of mine's got burner phones he buys for $20/pop and gives to his kids on road trips to watch low res youtube videos over 3G. 1 gig of data a month and pays about $9 to top them off with data every 3 months.
There are alternatives. The question is do we as a society want to subsidize folks with less money to have more access than is strictly necessary? I'd personally say yes, since I want their kids to have easy access to the vast stores of information online growing up. But a lot of folks not only don't want to pay for it but don't want kids to have all that info. Some for religious reasons. Some for social.
private bans are still OK. It's a grey area since there's speech involved on both sides. But then again if an ex-con was told they couldn't shop at Walmart there wouldn't even be a case.
Surprised it took so long. I actually just wanted to see some real discussion. We nerds are pretty attached to our Internet and other Telecom services. So anything that threatens those gets shot down pretty fast./. is the home of a lot of libertarians who just want the government to get out of the way. But it does bug me that as soon as one of their personal issues crops up they're looking for some help. That's not a uniquely/. thing either. It's all over the country. We see it with disaster relief where Congress Critters fight against aid to other districts, sometimes even in the same state and then fight _for_ aid for their district.
I was hoping to kick the hornet's nest and see what came out. Maybe get a good, honest discussion about government's role in services. I guess my posts didn't do a good enough job kicking since I'm pretty disappointed with the comments so far.
We've got plenty of competing products already. There's Google Fibre, 4G, Satelite, Cable and even dial up internet. I can watch Youtube, Netflix and Hulu on my phone just fine. Heck, with T-Mobile I don't even pay extra.
If you're talking about the line poles, well, AT&T paid to put those up, didn't they? Why shouldn't they have the right to say what's done with them?
They broke the Bell's up decades ago. The problem was solved. Again, why can't we just step back and let the free market sort it all out?
After all, Asia isn't a free market. They're some hybrid of Communism. People can vote with their wallets. If company pollutes people will stop buying from them until they clean up their act. Or move away from the pollution. Or any one of a number of free market solutions.
And if you accept that the free market should best sort these things out then this is the way to go. Let the two parties take care of it and if people don't like it they can vote with their wallets. Someone's bound to come along and compete directly with AT&T, right?
and I can't say I disagree with the assumptions. What I wonder is where are the conservative, right wing/.tters to defend it? Do they just avoid articles like this one?
Maybe it's a defensive posture to an attack on our favorite hobby. But I'm used to a few of the libertarian types to offer up something besides "of course they don't want to work, not enough reward". Of course, that's perfectly compatible with their ideals but it doesn't address the elephant in the room, which is young men not working enough to have families. For one thing our economy needs them to grow and take care of the old (or we need to bring immigrants over, e.g. H1-Bs) and for another most folks _want_ to start a family. Maybe us nerds can't because, well, we're nerds, but that doesn't preclude us from wanting too.
Like I said, it's odd that/. is so united on this front.
so it never occurred to them to have minimum wage laws. For all practical purposes they have minimum wage laws, they're just enforced by Unions (which are themselves quasi-government bodies in many countries).
Basically, they've achieved the same thing with a different set of laws. Government intervention was still necessary to prevent worker abuse. They just went about it a different way.
paying people less money than it takes to live then you've broken the social contract between Job Creator and worker. If that contract is broken then I see no reason why the workers shouldn't take their own steps to fix it. And the sane thing to do is organize. There's Unions, but why stop there? If we're going to have a contract why should it be verbal only. Make it law.
That's what minimum wage is. It's codifying that social contract. It's saying: "If you can't run a business that pays people enough to live you have no business (sic) being in business". If we as a civilization can't pull that off what's left for us but anarchy? And yeah, I know a lot of/.tters like the sound of anarchy. It's not nearly as nice as it sounds. No AC, you get sick from the water and before you know it folks turn it into a dictatorship just to get the trains running on time.
they capped CEO pay to something like 20x the lowest paid employee (can't remember the scale but it was pretty high). It worked great. If the CEO wanted more pay they had to pay better. Naturally the law didn't last long.
Slashdot Mirror
was the letter I got yesterday saying they were doing it effective immediately with a 2 month 'grace' period. They'd back down several times. What's more they've been trying to merge and buy smaller cable companies and data caps were one of the reasons they got blocked. That's why I brought up anti-trust. Cox (and Comcast) both want to expand by buying up competitors and were doing several pro customer business practices to try getting the regulators on their side. Now that the regulators have changed they don't need to do that anymore. As the head of the FCC said, we can all just move.
I'll have to switch to business internet to get away from them. And I know this is going to make folks uncomfortable but let's face it, this is a direct response to the new administration's policy in regard to both Internet providers and anti trust law.
if she was denied entry because she is Muslim or comes from a Muslim country. I as an American have a 1st amendment right to have my government not enact laws respecting the establishment of a religion.
Trump's repeatedly called it a Muslim ban. Should we be surprised when his administration starts arbitrarily denying visas to Muslims. If anything the fact that it's not one of the six countries makes it more suspect. I've also seen it argued in the thread that the kid & their parents might try refusing to go back home. If that's the case we're got a bigger problem. A country we are at war with and occupying is so unstable it's people are fleeing? A war that's over a 15 years long with no end in site? And a kid trying to get ahead in the world using technology. Seems to me everything's in order for a perfect cluster fuck.
that we'd be turning away people to come to tech events because their home country is so rotten they might not go back?
Obama wasn't using Immigration policy as political capital. It was just one more thing he did because he was president.
of our entire immigration process. Think about it this way, when your boss goes on a tirade you take notice, right? How about your Bosses boss going on a tirade? Now ratchet that all the way up to President. That's what's happened here.
the "Travel Ban" sets an overall hostile tone resulting in more visas being declined for sketchy reasons.
we're too broke to date let alone have kids and there's not much religious opposition to birth control left. Most still want to raise a family, but we're reasonable enough to know we can't afford to and even when we're not, well, there's that 'too broke to date' thing rearing it's head again.
But Congress recently passed a law making arbitration clauses binding and the Supreme Court upheld it. So no, you can sue under State law. It's preempted by Federal.
it only matters on /. because we're nerds and the Internet is tech and we like tech. Most folks don't care. They're wondering if they're job's going away or if they can fix their car or what happens when their kid's 18 and they've got nothing to pay for college with.
If you want people to care about your issues you have to care about theirs. The word for it is "solidarity".
though not always. It's the only remedy the working class has left. Voting doesn't work. We're more or less an oligarchy and even if we weren't single issue voters plus our winner take all system means we're boned. What do you do with gun fans that will vote away every economic issue on the off chance that somebody is going to outlaw assault rifles? Or the Cuban voters still punishing the left for Castro? Or the Religious Right? As for the American left wing, they're a lose confederacy at best that lacks the cohesion of the right wing. So unless the pro-corp right wing agenda's your bag you're pretty much SOL.
but the way to correct a past mistake isn't to double down and keep making it. Yes, we should probably get the money back, but it's a little late for that. Cut the loses and move on.
As for the buy backs, it hasn't stopped VOIP carriers, Cable companies and cell companies from competing. As the saying goes: Nothing's stopping you from forming your own telecom and competing. Sure, you'd have to innovate like crazy but that's exactly the kinds of innovation we want to see. That's where we get 5G, fibre and other services. Sure, they'll be a lot more expensive, but that'll eventually trickle down like cell phones did in the 80s and 90s.
and lots of free wifi out there. There's also cheap cell phones with limited data plans. Buddy of mine's got burner phones he buys for $20/pop and gives to his kids on road trips to watch low res youtube videos over 3G. 1 gig of data a month and pays about $9 to top them off with data every 3 months.
There are alternatives. The question is do we as a society want to subsidize folks with less money to have more access than is strictly necessary? I'd personally say yes, since I want their kids to have easy access to the vast stores of information online growing up. But a lot of folks not only don't want to pay for it but don't want kids to have all that info. Some for religious reasons. Some for social.
private bans are still OK. It's a grey area since there's speech involved on both sides. But then again if an ex-con was told they couldn't shop at Walmart there wouldn't even be a case.
Surprised it took so long. I actually just wanted to see some real discussion. We nerds are pretty attached to our Internet and other Telecom services. So anything that threatens those gets shot down pretty fast. /. is the home of a lot of libertarians who just want the government to get out of the way. But it does bug me that as soon as one of their personal issues crops up they're looking for some help. That's not a uniquely /. thing either. It's all over the country. We see it with disaster relief where Congress Critters fight against aid to other districts, sometimes even in the same state and then fight _for_ aid for their district.
I was hoping to kick the hornet's nest and see what came out. Maybe get a good, honest discussion about government's role in services. I guess my posts didn't do a good enough job kicking since I'm pretty disappointed with the comments so far.
We've got plenty of competing products already. There's Google Fibre, 4G, Satelite, Cable and even dial up internet. I can watch Youtube, Netflix and Hulu on my phone just fine. Heck, with T-Mobile I don't even pay extra.
If you're talking about the line poles, well, AT&T paid to put those up, didn't they? Why shouldn't they have the right to say what's done with them?
They broke the Bell's up decades ago. The problem was solved. Again, why can't we just step back and let the free market sort it all out?
After all, Asia isn't a free market. They're some hybrid of Communism. People can vote with their wallets. If company pollutes people will stop buying from them until they clean up their act. Or move away from the pollution. Or any one of a number of free market solutions.
This would be a complete non-issue without it. But I'm guessing tens of millions of dollars of transactions went through in that moment.
There'd be nothing to capture, right? Eliminate the government and you eliminate the abuses.
And if you accept that the free market should best sort these things out then this is the way to go. Let the two parties take care of it and if people don't like it they can vote with their wallets. Someone's bound to come along and compete directly with AT&T, right?
and I can't say I disagree with the assumptions. What I wonder is where are the conservative, right wing /.tters to defend it? Do they just avoid articles like this one?
/. is so united on this front.
Maybe it's a defensive posture to an attack on our favorite hobby. But I'm used to a few of the libertarian types to offer up something besides "of course they don't want to work, not enough reward". Of course, that's perfectly compatible with their ideals but it doesn't address the elephant in the room, which is young men not working enough to have families. For one thing our economy needs them to grow and take care of the old (or we need to bring immigrants over, e.g. H1-Bs) and for another most folks _want_ to start a family. Maybe us nerds can't because, well, we're nerds, but that doesn't preclude us from wanting too.
Like I said, it's odd that
so it never occurred to them to have minimum wage laws. For all practical purposes they have minimum wage laws, they're just enforced by Unions (which are themselves quasi-government bodies in many countries).
Basically, they've achieved the same thing with a different set of laws. Government intervention was still necessary to prevent worker abuse. They just went about it a different way.
paying people less money than it takes to live then you've broken the social contract between Job Creator and worker. If that contract is broken then I see no reason why the workers shouldn't take their own steps to fix it. And the sane thing to do is organize. There's Unions, but why stop there? If we're going to have a contract why should it be verbal only. Make it law.
/.tters like the sound of anarchy. It's not nearly as nice as it sounds. No AC, you get sick from the water and before you know it folks turn it into a dictatorship just to get the trains running on time.
That's what minimum wage is. It's codifying that social contract. It's saying: "If you can't run a business that pays people enough to live you have no business (sic) being in business". If we as a civilization can't pull that off what's left for us but anarchy? And yeah, I know a lot of
they capped CEO pay to something like 20x the lowest paid employee (can't remember the scale but it was pretty high). It worked great. If the CEO wanted more pay they had to pay better. Naturally the law didn't last long.