if we want Net Neutrality back. I know it's not popular to bring up politics (which is odd, since this discussion couldn't get any less political) but the ruling party has always been opposed to NN. Their arguments are pretty straight forward: It's undue and unnecessary regulation that stifles innovation. Let the Market sort it out.
There's plenty of counter arguments that I want get into. I don't want to get off track anymore. Bottom line is this: The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation. It just so happens to be one that's popular with techies. Said it before, say it again: If you elect a party that takes as a central tenet that regulation is usually unnecessary, bad and a drain on Free Market principles you're going to have to accept the results. Net Neutrality is fundamentally incompatible with that ideology.
banks are closing branches like crazy because of lack of demand. The nail in the coffin was when you could deposit checks via a smart phone app. It's not self service killing bank teller jobs, it's entirely new servicing options that make them obsolete.
EZ pass is a poor example. There's a pretty high mark up to get one in most places. Also they're not much use if you aren't commuting to work. You're not gonna get enough use out of them. Now, if Trump goes through with privatizing our infrastructure and every road's a toll road we'll all have EZ pass. Then that'll be it for toll booth operators.
I'm wondering if we're gonna have to have a major airline accident over a population center from some kid's $500 drone before somebody takes action. Or am I just completely off base here? I don't know enough about aviation to say for sure and the articles I've read don't really touch on the issue. Most of the news outlets seem to have sided with the hobbyists over the FAA here.
and existed before the complex games companies play to keep things in patent control.
And yes, they were massively funding research. Not into new antibiotics, because that's a fairly recent issue (last 20 years tops). But the cancer drugs that kept my kid alive were invented by the government (or Europe, research into childhood diseases isn't profitable enough to do it here in the States and, well, aforementioned tax cuts).
but not for the reasons you're probably thinking. Those words weren't uttered by a government agent (one of those paid for my kid's cancer treatments and the research that made those treatments possible). They come from a right wing think tank. They were engineered to make the working class turn on each other and on the primary source of organized power they possess: Democracy.
new antibiotics aren't going to be profitable. For one thing the drug companies make plenty on the existing ones. For another they're too essential for life, so they're prone to price controls. We could make them profitable enough but only by allowing business practices similar to what Epipen's Pharma Bro did.
This is what "Austerity" and rampant non-stop tax cuts gets you. This is something the government needs to step in and do. The days of one bright guy with a petri dish making a major breakthrough are gone. It takes hundreds of years for that guy to get lucky and strike gold. In the meantime we've got millions dying. Said it before, say it again: For anything more important than a twinkie you need an organized response, i.e. the government.
you don't need that many experienced people to keep an eye on the young'uns. Older people just can't work as hard, and like it or not age related cognitive decline is real.
Instead of trying to come up with excuses why older employees should work into their 60s+ we should be figuring out what to do with people as their productivity declines. That's a touchy subject though because the only real solution is income redistribution and nobody likes that...
there's bits and pieces of road way everywhere the cops don't watch. I talked to a guy recently who rented a Mazarti for his birthday and had it up to top speed. The gearheads keep track of blind spots in the cops radar and share the info. Now, I suppose that's ridiculously dangerous for us non-gear heads if we happen to be on the road with them, but it is what it is.
if you don't live in Detroit. If you live in a poor neighborhood they're not that green and there's drug dealers around. But besides that you're looking at travel. That means gas and a reliable car that can get you to and fro. Me? I've been stuck with a beater for years since everytime I get some money saved something blows up in my face. It's all I can do to stay out of debt. And I live a pretty modest life (no drink, no smokes, aforementioned beater car, don't eat out much, wear cheap cloths) and I make a lot more than the median. But my rent alone is 30% of my income (again, not that nice a place in not that nice a city).
Face it, income inequality is catching up with America. It's never been far behind. The difference is we have cheap electronics & telecom so we can see it coming and pretend it doesn't exist. That might or might not be an improvement on the days when we just didn't know about it.
and without a pointless race to the bottom. And I'm an American, and I look on with envy at people who don't treat being overworked and underpaid as a badge of honor.
It's about all I can afford. I'm not going to do any travel. I can't afford it. I could wander around the neighborhood or go to a park I suppose, but the kid's a bit old for that. A trip down to one of the lakes burns gas and puts miles on my old car. So yeah, "staycation" it is.
and their health care. Trump ran a populist campaign with big promises for people kicked out of the middle class by globalism. If you're an ex-auto worker in Detroit or a laid off coal miner in Ohio you don't give a flying fark about Net Neutrality. You're making $9/hr at Walmart and/or McDonald's. You want you're $30/hr Union job back, and Trump promised that.
Hilary ignored the swing states at her peril. She only shifted left when it was clear Bernie would win if she didn't. She's was always a terrible candidate that the corporate Dems shoved down our throats. These people aren't dumb or superstitious, they're being actively ignored. This is what happens when you abandon a large percentage of your population to poverty and dismiss there concerns as stupidity. Bernie didn't do that. The "Justice Democrats" (google it) aren't. If the rest of us keep doing it we're gonna be a third world hell hole in 20 years as those folks drag us down trying to find a solution in a world that's leaving them behind.
I've said this before, but we can get it back. It does mean we're gonna have to vote for the kinds of politicians who support Net Neutrality. We had one, but we replace him with somebody from the other side 'o the tracks....
See here. Comey was asked to drop the Flynn investigation. This is more or less fact now (memo's are admissible as evidence). So no, I'm not saying the FBI director is lying. I'm saying he's telling the truth and Trump broke the law by obstructing justice. Unless Trump is above the law he is due to be impeached. Again, is there a flaw here I don't see?
This is another case of "The cover up is worse than the crime". Bill Clinton didn't break the law getting a blow job, he broke the law lying about it under oath. Now, if a regular guy lied about getting a blow job to a judge he'd probably get a fine and let off. If a regular guy interfered in a police investigation I don't think he'd get let off with a fine.
I'd genuinely like to know. What am I missing. I just don't see how this is _not_ obstruction of justice. You can argue that Comey lied, I suppose. But otherwise Trump told Comey to drop an investigation into one of his people. That's pretty much a textbook example of Obstruction of Justice AFAIK. Then again, IANAL so take that with a grain of salt. Bill the Clinton perjured himself and managed 8 years. But what he did was a _lot_ less serious. Lying about a side piece isn't remotely in the same boat as doing favors for a semi-hostile nation in exchange for money...
Again, am I missing something? Is there any way for this to end without impeachment? I suppose if the speaker is a Republican he can just decline to bring impeachment. That's his prerogative, but the last time that happened (Nixon) they were afraid of losing the House over it. Are they safe now? There's been a lot of Gerrymandering. Maybe they just don't care. But if that's true it's frightening. It means we're no longer a nation of laws, but of men...
he's admitted in absolutely no uncertain terms that he interfered with Comey's investigation. That's obstruction of justice. Full Stop. Am I missing something where that's _not_ an impeachable offense? Whatever happened to the rule of law? Even Hilary got an investigation (that concluded with no charges being filed, I might add). What do you think would've happened if Obama fired Comey during that investigation? What possible reason could there be _not_ to impeach him? I'm waiting...
to vote the other side in 2018. It's that simple. Vote the other side. Heck, if you're genuinely conservative you'll vote the other side next election just for the sake of gridlock (conservative meaning you're opposed to change). But either way, we've got one side in complete control and it's meant that all our checks and balances have collapsed. And if you're waiting for the current House Speaker to step up well.... I won't stop you from holding your breath. Asphyxiation is probably preferable to the current situation.
just like they're taking it away, we can get it back. Vote the other side in 2018. Then Vote the other side in 2022. Tell all your friends and family to do the same. We can take it back. It's not theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
if we want Net Neutrality back. I know it's not popular to bring up politics (which is odd, since this discussion couldn't get any less political) but the ruling party has always been opposed to NN. Their arguments are pretty straight forward: It's undue and unnecessary regulation that stifles innovation. Let the Market sort it out.
There's plenty of counter arguments that I want get into. I don't want to get off track anymore. Bottom line is this: The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation. It just so happens to be one that's popular with techies. Said it before, say it again: If you elect a party that takes as a central tenet that regulation is usually unnecessary, bad and a drain on Free Market principles you're going to have to accept the results. Net Neutrality is fundamentally incompatible with that ideology.
TLDR; Vote in your Mid Terms.
banks are closing branches like crazy because of lack of demand. The nail in the coffin was when you could deposit checks via a smart phone app. It's not self service killing bank teller jobs, it's entirely new servicing options that make them obsolete.
EZ pass is a poor example. There's a pretty high mark up to get one in most places. Also they're not much use if you aren't commuting to work. You're not gonna get enough use out of them. Now, if Trump goes through with privatizing our infrastructure and every road's a toll road we'll all have EZ pass. Then that'll be it for toll booth operators.
I could just call a cab with proper insurance.
this makes a lot of sense. I see hospital choppers all the time and a drone could screw one of those up real quick.
it's going to be the occasional one off, like most airline accidents. It's just those usually kill people. Sometimes lots of people.
I'm wondering if we're gonna have to have a major airline accident over a population center from some kid's $500 drone before somebody takes action. Or am I just completely off base here? I don't know enough about aviation to say for sure and the articles I've read don't really touch on the issue. Most of the news outlets seem to have sided with the hobbyists over the FAA here.
and existed before the complex games companies play to keep things in patent control.
And yes, they were massively funding research. Not into new antibiotics, because that's a fairly recent issue (last 20 years tops). But the cancer drugs that kept my kid alive were invented by the government (or Europe, research into childhood diseases isn't profitable enough to do it here in the States and, well, aforementioned tax cuts).
but not for the reasons you're probably thinking. Those words weren't uttered by a government agent (one of those paid for my kid's cancer treatments and the research that made those treatments possible). They come from a right wing think tank. They were engineered to make the working class turn on each other and on the primary source of organized power they possess: Democracy.
Worked too.
new antibiotics aren't going to be profitable. For one thing the drug companies make plenty on the existing ones. For another they're too essential for life, so they're prone to price controls. We could make them profitable enough but only by allowing business practices similar to what Epipen's Pharma Bro did.
This is what "Austerity" and rampant non-stop tax cuts gets you. This is something the government needs to step in and do. The days of one bright guy with a petri dish making a major breakthrough are gone. It takes hundreds of years for that guy to get lucky and strike gold. In the meantime we've got millions dying. Said it before, say it again: For anything more important than a twinkie you need an organized response, i.e. the government.
you don't need that many experienced people to keep an eye on the young'uns. Older people just can't work as hard, and like it or not age related cognitive decline is real.
Instead of trying to come up with excuses why older employees should work into their 60s+ we should be figuring out what to do with people as their productivity declines. That's a touchy subject though because the only real solution is income redistribution and nobody likes that...
there's bits and pieces of road way everywhere the cops don't watch. I talked to a guy recently who rented a Mazarti for his birthday and had it up to top speed. The gearheads keep track of blind spots in the cops radar and share the info. Now, I suppose that's ridiculously dangerous for us non-gear heads if we happen to be on the road with them, but it is what it is.
who in their right mind would run flash on by default?
I say massive data breach. Let's call the whole thing off.
if you don't live in Detroit. If you live in a poor neighborhood they're not that green and there's drug dealers around. But besides that you're looking at travel. That means gas and a reliable car that can get you to and fro. Me? I've been stuck with a beater for years since everytime I get some money saved something blows up in my face. It's all I can do to stay out of debt. And I live a pretty modest life (no drink, no smokes, aforementioned beater car, don't eat out much, wear cheap cloths) and I make a lot more than the median. But my rent alone is 30% of my income (again, not that nice a place in not that nice a city).
Face it, income inequality is catching up with America. It's never been far behind. The difference is we have cheap electronics & telecom so we can see it coming and pretend it doesn't exist. That might or might not be an improvement on the days when we just didn't know about it.
and that ones just getting started.
and without a pointless race to the bottom. And I'm an American, and I look on with envy at people who don't treat being overworked and underpaid as a badge of honor.
It's about all I can afford. I'm not going to do any travel. I can't afford it. I could wander around the neighborhood or go to a park I suppose, but the kid's a bit old for that. A trip down to one of the lakes burns gas and puts miles on my old car. So yeah, "staycation" it is.
and their health care. Trump ran a populist campaign with big promises for people kicked out of the middle class by globalism. If you're an ex-auto worker in Detroit or a laid off coal miner in Ohio you don't give a flying fark about Net Neutrality. You're making $9/hr at Walmart and/or McDonald's. You want you're $30/hr Union job back, and Trump promised that.
Hilary ignored the swing states at her peril. She only shifted left when it was clear Bernie would win if she didn't. She's was always a terrible candidate that the corporate Dems shoved down our throats. These people aren't dumb or superstitious, they're being actively ignored. This is what happens when you abandon a large percentage of your population to poverty and dismiss there concerns as stupidity. Bernie didn't do that. The "Justice Democrats" (google it) aren't. If the rest of us keep doing it we're gonna be a third world hell hole in 20 years as those folks drag us down trying to find a solution in a world that's leaving them behind.
I've said this before, but we can get it back. It does mean we're gonna have to vote for the kinds of politicians who support Net Neutrality. We had one, but we replace him with somebody from the other side 'o the tracks....
See here. Comey was asked to drop the Flynn investigation. This is more or less fact now (memo's are admissible as evidence). So no, I'm not saying the FBI director is lying. I'm saying he's telling the truth and Trump broke the law by obstructing justice. Unless Trump is above the law he is due to be impeached. Again, is there a flaw here I don't see?
This is another case of "The cover up is worse than the crime". Bill Clinton didn't break the law getting a blow job, he broke the law lying about it under oath. Now, if a regular guy lied about getting a blow job to a judge he'd probably get a fine and let off. If a regular guy interfered in a police investigation I don't think he'd get let off with a fine.
I'd genuinely like to know. What am I missing. I just don't see how this is _not_ obstruction of justice. You can argue that Comey lied, I suppose. But otherwise Trump told Comey to drop an investigation into one of his people. That's pretty much a textbook example of Obstruction of Justice AFAIK. Then again, IANAL so take that with a grain of salt. Bill the Clinton perjured himself and managed 8 years. But what he did was a _lot_ less serious. Lying about a side piece isn't remotely in the same boat as doing favors for a semi-hostile nation in exchange for money...
Again, am I missing something? Is there any way for this to end without impeachment? I suppose if the speaker is a Republican he can just decline to bring impeachment. That's his prerogative, but the last time that happened (Nixon) they were afraid of losing the House over it. Are they safe now? There's been a lot of Gerrymandering. Maybe they just don't care. But if that's true it's frightening. It means we're no longer a nation of laws, but of men...
he's admitted in absolutely no uncertain terms that he interfered with Comey's investigation. That's obstruction of justice. Full Stop. Am I missing something where that's _not_ an impeachable offense? Whatever happened to the rule of law? Even Hilary got an investigation (that concluded with no charges being filed, I might add). What do you think would've happened if Obama fired Comey during that investigation? What possible reason could there be _not_ to impeach him? I'm waiting...
to vote the other side in 2018. It's that simple. Vote the other side. Heck, if you're genuinely conservative you'll vote the other side next election just for the sake of gridlock (conservative meaning you're opposed to change). But either way, we've got one side in complete control and it's meant that all our checks and balances have collapsed. And if you're waiting for the current House Speaker to step up well.... I won't stop you from holding your breath. Asphyxiation is probably preferable to the current situation.
just like they're taking it away, we can get it back. Vote the other side in 2018. Then Vote the other side in 2022. Tell all your friends and family to do the same. We can take it back. It's not theirs.
it was Malice. The EPA used to prevent that kind of malice from manifesting. Now it doesn't.
2.2 billion isn't even a drop in the bucket. That's one Saturn V (adjusted for inflation).
You're talking about Cash For Clunkers. The tax breaks were the same no matter what you bought. If you bought a hybrid you did much better.
Yes, our system of government sucks. It was designed from the get go to take care of wealthy land owners.