Political Calls are "Protected Speech" under the USA Constitution.
As soon as the source is instructed to stop calling, they fall under the DNC.
i.e., Protected Speech.
Harassment has never been protected speech, and getting calls multiple times a day pleading with me to vote for X, from fake caller ID numbers with fake contact numbers in the message, are harassment. When the caller ID is valid, it requires just once telling the robocaller to remove your number from the list to put the "protected speech" into unprotected status.
This is actually Public Knowledge
Ahh, we've identified a political robocall shill, I see.
It's long past time for the edges to be making the decisions,
It is too easy for the vast number of input streams to overpower the "edges". Also, this requires the edges to be doing constant processing, consuming battery power, and will not work at all if the edge device is turned off or out of service area.
When email spam started to be a problem, lots of "edge" solutions started popping up. Procmail was just one. Eventually, however, the load on the core systems became so high that core filters were required. In other words, if the core data transport is so busy transporting stuff that the edges are almost unanimously going to bit bucket that they cannot carry valid data anymore, then the time to move the filtering away from the edges has come. And we hit that limit a long time ago. Nobody can afford the time wasted downloading every piece of email just so the local device can decide that it comes from a spammer and will be tossed. Imagine having your webmail client contact the server to find 1000 email messages waiting, then waiting for it to scan through all 1000 to detect spam or blocked messages. And only then do you get to look at your email.
Wireless data is a limited resource. Wasting it by sending everything to a phone to let the phone decide means that everyone will get less of what they want. While the edges may now be smart enough (not all of them are, despite your claim to the contrary) the cost of getting the data there for them to make the decisions is too high.
[1]If consumer flat rates can't pay for the network, charge the spammers more. They're business accounts anyway. Different rules.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how text message can and does work. For example, how does ATT charge Gmail more for email sent via gmail?
assuming all the text messages are from an authentic (Non-Spoofed) source.
Assuming there is no problem to solve, there is no problem to solve.
That's what assuming all text messages are from authentic, non-spoofed sources would mean.
How your cellular carrier determines if my email address is valid, authentic, and non-spoofed is a question left for the astute reader, because that would be required knowledge to make your assumption valid.
I don't agree with centralized... the federal do-not-call list is a giant fiasco.
It is a fiasco for two reasons. 1) there is little or no visible feedback that anything is done when someone complains of a violation. I complained many times about a harassing political campaign and have heard nothing back at all. 2) there is usually no information that can help the FTC find the violators. Spoofed caller ID prevents a large number of complaints, and prevents the FTC from finding anyone.
block whomever they want by phone number or IP address or email or whatever will actually work.
The same spoofed caller ID that prevents the FTC from doing anything also prevents this blocking. I.e., "whatever will actually work" is information that the consumer does not have and cannot find.
And telecoms should have the legal authority to block any known or suspected criminal communications with a due process appeals process in the courts.
I use Twillio to send important doctor appointment reminders,
Right there is the problem. Everyone who sends spam and junk texts and junk emails thinks their shit is so important that they should not be blocked from sending it. Every one of the spammers thinks that way. You NEED these ED meds! You NEED to speak to Russian women! You NEED our help to clean the viruses off your computer! You NEED a back brace! You NEED a third party to remind you about a doctor's appointment! Yada yada yada.
So the fact that YOU think that way speaks volumes.
and the user cannot access that data purely because of artificial means that benefits anybody other than the patient,
It takes me a half an hour to walk into the local medical device supplier and get a printout that the government will accept. It once took a day because I had changed suppliers and they had to get the account control away from the old company.
Free. This costs them money.
Either Sleepyhead is relied upon to get the data,
I would be fascinated to hear from the people who try to send in "Sleepyhead" reports for their commercial driver's or pilot's licenses, and if the US government agencies involved accept third-party open-source software decoding the data.
or the data the CPAP collects cannot be read at all, defeating the purpose of the CPAP.
I think the "purpose" of the CPAP is medical, not just to generate data. That the data is needed by some people so they can keep their jobs is a side-effect, not an end goal of the system.
Nope, that they are complicit, even participatory in the whole process of harm that has been inflicted upon America is the reason.
You do realize, I hope, that every penny you have deposited in a bank is not just sitting in the bank twiddling its thumbs waiting for you to come take it back out. It is being loaned to other people -- house loans, car loans, building loans, etc. That makes you complicit, even participatory in every "process of harm" that someone who borrowed that money does. Well, I suppose you can try rationalizing your involvement by claiming that your money is entirely in the reserve that is in the local branch to deal with daily transactions. But then, you'd be liable for the murder and mayhem if someone goes to the bank, cashes a check to get cash to buy a gun, and then shoots someone with it. Your money was involved. Oh, the humanity!
Or maybe you might think for a second and realize that people who have retirement accounts don't usually specify which specific stocks they want to buy. There's a manager that does that for them. That means they are not complicit, not participatory, in the "process of harm". They're just trying to save money so they can live after they retire.
Phhht. It's hyperbole like "execute the stockholders" that makes discussions so much fun, isn't it?
No, it's because your Local Community setup an exclusive Franchise deal. If they changed their zoning and right of way access laws, anybody could run an ISP.
Name one community that thinks it has the right to franchise ISPs, much less grant exclusive franchises. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just one.
I'll help you out. "Comcast" is not the answer. Franchises for Comcast are for the cable TV operation, not ISP, and they do not have exclusive franchises anywhere. Tell me any community that banned Earthlink or AOL or any other ISP from their area because they gave an exclusive franchise to someone else.
I'll also point out that franchising is not accomplished via zoning laws. A "zoning law" that specified one ISP would be called a "bill of attainder" and is unconstitutional.
But more than 30% of the country only have access to one broadband provider.
You have to actually read that article to see that it refers to wired broadband, and that it comes from a very very biased source. It's odd how every time someone actually provides specific location data it turns out there are a lot of providers. You just have to look. About a year ago there was a big hoopla about a town in Colorado that implemented municipal broadband because Comcast was the only option. Except, if you looked, you could find 11 different ISPs serving that town.
In other words, you dismiss my anecdotal evidence, but rely heavily on other people's because it fits your viewpoint.
So let's stipulate the actual legal definition of monopoly: Now do you want to tell us how the fuck that's not a monopoly?
More profanity posing as rational argument. And I'll say it again: I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT COMCAST IS NOT A MONOPOLY IN MANY PLACES IN THE COUNTRY. Go back one sentence and read that again. Look up the words you don't understand. They just aren't a dejure monopoly, they are a defacto one. And they aren't a monopoly of ANY kind for ISP or video content delivery services. When you can find half a dozen other providers, then the one you hate really isn't a monopoly, no matter how much you hate them.
This is getting tiresome. You want to debate whether Comcast is some kind of monopoly, and the only point I wanted to make is that Comcast is NOT a monopoly of any kind using your "can't stop buying from them" definition. I've never said they weren't a monopoly at some things, but you can't seem to see those words.
The service monopolies Comcast has are not an anti-trust issue because they're government-granted service monopolies. You don't need anti-trust to dissolve that type of monopoly. The government simply has to rescind the monopoly they (foolishly) granted, and allow other cable companies to offer competing service.
This very thing was enacted in federal law more than 25 years ago. That's how long exclusive franchises (the method of implementing "government-granted monopolies") have been illegal.
Notice the inrush of competition? No? Well, maybe that's not because there is some "government-granted monopoly" at work, but simple economic forces. You can't force companies to do business in your city. If they don't think they can make a profit, they won't bother trying.
So, your shocking revelation is that "not having any choices" is very different from "not being able to stop buying from them". I stand corrected.
Stop being an asshole. I corrected you on a definition of "monopoly". Get over it.
But in many places in the United States, Comcast is the very definition of a monopoly. Is that not true?
In many places, Comcast is the very definition of "defacto monopoly" for "cable-delivered video services." That doesn't mean you can't stop buying from them. You can easily stop. In fact, the huge number of "cord cutters" proves this to be true.
They are NOT the definition of a "video delivery service" or "ISP" monopoly, however. There are too many of both for anyone to claim Comcast has a monopoly in either.
If they're the only supplier of broadband,
They are not. I've already pointed out as an example, for just my small city, 8 different broadband providers, and I'm using two of them on a regular basis. Comcast isn't even the cheaper of the two. You just have to look, and be open to seeing something that conflicts with the meme that "evil Comcast is evil monopoly...".
how the everloving fuck is that not a monopoly?
Profanity doesn't make you look smarter. I never said they weren't a monopoly of some kind for cable video services. In fact, I've been pretty clear in saying they are. They are NOT a monopoly as an ISP, nor are they a monopoly for video content delivery.
What I replied to is YOUR DEFINITION of monopoly, which was absurd. By YOUR DEFINITION they are NOT a monopoly, because you can, indeed, stop buying services from them quite easily. They may balk at letting you go, but when you stop paying them they'll stop providing service. And getting your local franchise authority in the loop will make it happen faster. But you can stop buying from them, which according to the definition you provided earlier, means they are not a monopoly.
Don't be an asshole. If you want to say something, use your words.
Don't be an asshole yourself. I used my words, quote correctly. "Monopoly" does not mean "can't stop doing business with them". It never has. It never will. It means there is a sole source for something. Whether you actually buy whatever that is or not is irrelevant.
Want an example? There is a monopoly here for residential natural gas service. Fact. I don't have to buy from them, and were I to be a current customer I could easily stop buying from them. There is also a monopoly for wired telephone service. I do currently buy from them, but if I wanted to I could easily stop buying from them.
In other words, I do not think that word means what you think it does. I said it in a semi-humorous way, attempting to make a well-known reference to "The Princess Bride", but apparently that went over your, and other people's, head.
You even looked the word up, but in your haste to be personally insulting you didn't bother to read the definition. Show me in the definition of "monopoly" where it says anything about not being able to stop buying from them. What it does mean is that you can't buy it from someone else, but "stop buying" and "buy from someone else" are two, pretty clearly different things.
but you're still picking nits over this "monopoly" business. There is no competition in the service or content distribution markets, except from the bootleggers.
I understand that you don't want to admit that you got caught making a patently absurd claim, especially in a discussion of "There Are Too Many Streaming Services", but that's what I replied to, and that alone.
And since your dismissing out of hand a perfectly suitable solution,
I'm not dismissing your perfect solution, I'm not discussing it at all. The solution to the "Comcast/Time Warner government-protected monopoly" is already enacted, and it has nothing to do with the railroads.
The telecommunications law did nothing to the railroads. The fact is that government-granted cable monopolies are prohibited by federal law, and there has never been a government-granted monopoly on video content delivery or ISP services. You've now you've gone so far out in left field that you won't be able to make it back in time for dinner when you bring up how this law affected the railroads. Good night. Discuss the railroads with someone else.
And this is an outright lie:
I didn't say what you quoted.
Again, the streaming issue
And now you're back at something is irrelevant to the ridiculous claim you made that I replied to.
For video content, which is the topic of discussion here? Hulu, Netflix, Sling, HBO, fubo, DirectTV, CBS, etc. For ISP? Google is your friend, it will tell you what is available in your area. For example, in Denver alone there are 8 residential and 11 business class services (a few do both). That's not counting the 3 mobile ISPs, which can serve as home services with the right hardware. For my small city there are 7 different residential and business services, and the list shows 3 mobile (which is incorrect because I'm using a fourth one that isn't listed right now.)
But your claim was not just a lack of competition, but a government-protected monopoly. First, there is no monopoly, which is pretty obvious from the title of the article: "There Are Way Too Many...". It's also hard to claim "monopoly!" with a straight face when I can point to ten other providers in just my area. Second, government monopolies for cable TV are prohibited BY FEDERAL LAW, enacted more than 20 years ago. There never have been government monopolies for ISP or video content services. Maybe that's why There Are Way Too Many Streaming Services?
I was responding to a comment about Concast/Time Warner.
Yes, that was obvious.
And besides, the distribution problem is what led to the streaming problem.
The "streaming problem" comes from the business plan for distribution of video content. Audio content has been distributed for many decades by thousands of radio stations, and to manage that large number of content users a central copyright payment system was created. Video has been an order of magnitude smaller, thus a central system was not needed.
What I replied to, however, was the claim that there was "government protection" for a monopoly, which is both absurd in the face of how many video distribution services there are today, and the lack of government monopoly status for either company.
The issue with Comcast and Time Warner is that it's a government protected monopoly.
You realize you are making this claim in a discussion entitled "There Are Way Too Many Streaming Services", don't you? If there are too many services, how can two of them be a monopoly? And since the government didn't grant them one, how is it government protected?
The home point is set when GPS lock is achieved at powerup. This is automatic, for just the reason you described.
The home point is set only AFTER the GPS position is valid. Before the GPS position is determined, the home point is invalid. Taking off before the home point is set prevents the home point from being set, and if "go home" is activated the aircraft will attempt to "go home" wherever home says. Which may be 10,000 miles away.
I have an app on the tablet I use when flying, which is turned off when I'm not flying. Or the network is turned off. Either way.
It's pretty well known that the flight data goes back to DJI. There's at least one site that converts the encrypted or encoded data back to usable form. It's a reasonable defense against people who do something stupid while flying and the device runs away from them, and then claim it is DJI's fault. For example, if you fly before the home point is set, and then hit a limit that triggers "go home", the aircraft will happily fly off towards someplace else. That's not DJI's fault.
You mean days after the election, past all the meddling he has already done, now is when Kemp pretends to step back?
Do you have a cite proving all this "meddling" he has done?
And you do know that the process is actually not over, and that he might have had more influence now on the state-wide recount if/when it happens than he had over picking polling places or rejecting invalid voter registrations? No, maybe you don't.
But keep flinging mud against the wall. Maybe something will stick if you just throw it often enough and hard enough.
Again, NO. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible.
"Ultimately responsible" does not mean "does". As I've pointed out more than once already, the FACT is that the COUNTY election office runs the elections in each county, NOT the Secretary of State.
Or did you think it was a coincidence that there is just one state run site that tells you where/when to vote
Do I think there is a consolidation of the county data at a state site? Of course. Do you really think that the existence of a state website that contains county data proves that the state mandates what the counties do? Gosh, I'll go create a central website that lists info for all the states and then I'll be in charge of all the state voting processes. Not.
and that all of the counties just happen to use the same voting machines
I don't know that they all use the same voting machines. I know that in at least one state they do not.
and same requirements?
The REQUIREMENTS are a matter of law, which is created by the legislature, not the Secretary of State. And in this case, the procedure was in place before Kemp became, and then left, the office. And the requirement that voter registrations must be correct is, besides common sense, a matter of law.
How far are you going to go to try to create some fictional problem where none actually exists?
Slashdot Mirror
Political Calls are "Protected Speech" under the USA Constitution.
As soon as the source is instructed to stop calling, they fall under the DNC.
i.e., Protected Speech.
Harassment has never been protected speech, and getting calls multiple times a day pleading with me to vote for X, from fake caller ID numbers with fake contact numbers in the message, are harassment. When the caller ID is valid, it requires just once telling the robocaller to remove your number from the list to put the "protected speech" into unprotected status.
This is actually Public Knowledge
Ahh, we've identified a political robocall shill, I see.
It's long past time for the edges to be making the decisions,
It is too easy for the vast number of input streams to overpower the "edges". Also, this requires the edges to be doing constant processing, consuming battery power, and will not work at all if the edge device is turned off or out of service area.
When email spam started to be a problem, lots of "edge" solutions started popping up. Procmail was just one. Eventually, however, the load on the core systems became so high that core filters were required. In other words, if the core data transport is so busy transporting stuff that the edges are almost unanimously going to bit bucket that they cannot carry valid data anymore, then the time to move the filtering away from the edges has come. And we hit that limit a long time ago. Nobody can afford the time wasted downloading every piece of email just so the local device can decide that it comes from a spammer and will be tossed. Imagine having your webmail client contact the server to find 1000 email messages waiting, then waiting for it to scan through all 1000 to detect spam or blocked messages. And only then do you get to look at your email.
Wireless data is a limited resource. Wasting it by sending everything to a phone to let the phone decide means that everyone will get less of what they want. While the edges may now be smart enough (not all of them are, despite your claim to the contrary) the cost of getting the data there for them to make the decisions is too high.
[1]If consumer flat rates can't pay for the network, charge the spammers more. They're business accounts anyway. Different rules.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how text message can and does work. For example, how does ATT charge Gmail more for email sent via gmail?
assuming all the text messages are from an authentic (Non-Spoofed) source.
Assuming there is no problem to solve, there is no problem to solve.
That's what assuming all text messages are from authentic, non-spoofed sources would mean.
How your cellular carrier determines if my email address is valid, authentic, and non-spoofed is a question left for the astute reader, because that would be required knowledge to make your assumption valid.
I don't agree with centralized... the federal do-not-call list is a giant fiasco.
It is a fiasco for two reasons. 1) there is little or no visible feedback that anything is done when someone complains of a violation. I complained many times about a harassing political campaign and have heard nothing back at all. 2) there is usually no information that can help the FTC find the violators. Spoofed caller ID prevents a large number of complaints, and prevents the FTC from finding anyone.
block whomever they want by phone number or IP address or email or whatever will actually work.
The same spoofed caller ID that prevents the FTC from doing anything also prevents this blocking. I.e., "whatever will actually work" is information that the consumer does not have and cannot find.
And telecoms should have the legal authority to block any known or suspected criminal communications with a due process appeals process in the courts.
Wow. Simply wow.
I visited my carrier's website and there was no portal I could find for services to contact the carrier about being blocked.
If you have a cell carrier that does not have a customer support telephone number, you need to get a better carrier.
I use Twillio to send important doctor appointment reminders,
Right there is the problem. Everyone who sends spam and junk texts and junk emails thinks their shit is so important that they should not be blocked from sending it. Every one of the spammers thinks that way. You NEED these ED meds! You NEED to speak to Russian women! You NEED our help to clean the viruses off your computer! You NEED a back brace! You NEED a third party to remind you about a doctor's appointment! Yada yada yada.
So the fact that YOU think that way speaks volumes.
and the user cannot access that data purely because of artificial means that benefits anybody other than the patient,
It takes me a half an hour to walk into the local medical device supplier and get a printout that the government will accept. It once took a day because I had changed suppliers and they had to get the account control away from the old company.
Free. This costs them money.
Either Sleepyhead is relied upon to get the data,
I would be fascinated to hear from the people who try to send in "Sleepyhead" reports for their commercial driver's or pilot's licenses, and if the US government agencies involved accept third-party open-source software decoding the data.
or the data the CPAP collects cannot be read at all, defeating the purpose of the CPAP.
I think the "purpose" of the CPAP is medical, not just to generate data. That the data is needed by some people so they can keep their jobs is a side-effect, not an end goal of the system.
Nope, that they are complicit, even participatory in the whole process of harm that has been inflicted upon America is the reason.
You do realize, I hope, that every penny you have deposited in a bank is not just sitting in the bank twiddling its thumbs waiting for you to come take it back out. It is being loaned to other people -- house loans, car loans, building loans, etc. That makes you complicit, even participatory in every "process of harm" that someone who borrowed that money does. Well, I suppose you can try rationalizing your involvement by claiming that your money is entirely in the reserve that is in the local branch to deal with daily transactions. But then, you'd be liable for the murder and mayhem if someone goes to the bank, cashes a check to get cash to buy a gun, and then shoots someone with it. Your money was involved. Oh, the humanity!
Or maybe you might think for a second and realize that people who have retirement accounts don't usually specify which specific stocks they want to buy. There's a manager that does that for them. That means they are not complicit, not participatory, in the "process of harm". They're just trying to save money so they can live after they retire.
Phhht. It's hyperbole like "execute the stockholders" that makes discussions so much fun, isn't it?
Disincorporate Comcast in the entirety and execute the stockholders.
For that you'll have to wait until January, when the new Congress gets seated.
It's refreshing to see someone admit that the Democrats are willing to kill people just because they're retirement plan includes tech stocks.
No, it's because your Local Community setup an exclusive Franchise deal. If they changed their zoning and right of way access laws, anybody could run an ISP.
Name one community that thinks it has the right to franchise ISPs, much less grant exclusive franchises. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just one.
I'll help you out. "Comcast" is not the answer. Franchises for Comcast are for the cable TV operation, not ISP, and they do not have exclusive franchises anywhere. Tell me any community that banned Earthlink or AOL or any other ISP from their area because they gave an exclusive franchise to someone else.
I'll also point out that franchising is not accomplished via zoning laws. A "zoning law" that specified one ISP would be called a "bill of attainder" and is unconstitutional.
But more than 30% of the country only have access to one broadband provider.
You have to actually read that article to see that it refers to wired broadband, and that it comes from a very very biased source. It's odd how every time someone actually provides specific location data it turns out there are a lot of providers. You just have to look. About a year ago there was a big hoopla about a town in Colorado that implemented municipal broadband because Comcast was the only option. Except, if you looked, you could find 11 different ISPs serving that town.
In other words, you dismiss my anecdotal evidence, but rely heavily on other people's because it fits your viewpoint.
So let's stipulate the actual legal definition of monopoly: Now do you want to tell us how the fuck that's not a monopoly?
More profanity posing as rational argument. And I'll say it again: I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT COMCAST IS NOT A MONOPOLY IN MANY PLACES IN THE COUNTRY. Go back one sentence and read that again. Look up the words you don't understand. They just aren't a dejure monopoly, they are a defacto one. And they aren't a monopoly of ANY kind for ISP or video content delivery services. When you can find half a dozen other providers, then the one you hate really isn't a monopoly, no matter how much you hate them.
This is getting tiresome. You want to debate whether Comcast is some kind of monopoly, and the only point I wanted to make is that Comcast is NOT a monopoly of any kind using your "can't stop buying from them" definition. I've never said they weren't a monopoly at some things, but you can't seem to see those words.
The service monopolies Comcast has are not an anti-trust issue because they're government-granted service monopolies. You don't need anti-trust to dissolve that type of monopoly. The government simply has to rescind the monopoly they (foolishly) granted, and allow other cable companies to offer competing service.
This very thing was enacted in federal law more than 25 years ago. That's how long exclusive franchises (the method of implementing "government-granted monopolies") have been illegal.
Notice the inrush of competition? No? Well, maybe that's not because there is some "government-granted monopoly" at work, but simple economic forces. You can't force companies to do business in your city. If they don't think they can make a profit, they won't bother trying.
So, your shocking revelation is that "not having any choices" is very different from "not being able to stop buying from them". I stand corrected.
Stop being an asshole. I corrected you on a definition of "monopoly". Get over it.
But in many places in the United States, Comcast is the very definition of a monopoly. Is that not true?
In many places, Comcast is the very definition of "defacto monopoly" for "cable-delivered video services." That doesn't mean you can't stop buying from them. You can easily stop. In fact, the huge number of "cord cutters" proves this to be true.
They are NOT the definition of a "video delivery service" or "ISP" monopoly, however. There are too many of both for anyone to claim Comcast has a monopoly in either.
If they're the only supplier of broadband,
They are not. I've already pointed out as an example, for just my small city, 8 different broadband providers, and I'm using two of them on a regular basis. Comcast isn't even the cheaper of the two. You just have to look, and be open to seeing something that conflicts with the meme that "evil Comcast is evil monopoly...".
how the everloving fuck is that not a monopoly?
Profanity doesn't make you look smarter. I never said they weren't a monopoly of some kind for cable video services. In fact, I've been pretty clear in saying they are. They are NOT a monopoly as an ISP, nor are they a monopoly for video content delivery.
What I replied to is YOUR DEFINITION of monopoly, which was absurd. By YOUR DEFINITION they are NOT a monopoly, because you can, indeed, stop buying services from them quite easily. They may balk at letting you go, but when you stop paying them they'll stop providing service. And getting your local franchise authority in the loop will make it happen faster. But you can stop buying from them, which according to the definition you provided earlier, means they are not a monopoly.
Do you want them to be a monopoly or not?
Don't be an asshole. If you want to say something, use your words.
Don't be an asshole yourself. I used my words, quote correctly. "Monopoly" does not mean "can't stop doing business with them". It never has. It never will. It means there is a sole source for something. Whether you actually buy whatever that is or not is irrelevant.
Want an example? There is a monopoly here for residential natural gas service. Fact. I don't have to buy from them, and were I to be a current customer I could easily stop buying from them. There is also a monopoly for wired telephone service. I do currently buy from them, but if I wanted to I could easily stop buying from them.
In other words, I do not think that word means what you think it does. I said it in a semi-humorous way, attempting to make a well-known reference to "The Princess Bride", but apparently that went over your, and other people's, head.
You even looked the word up, but in your haste to be personally insulting you didn't bother to read the definition. Show me in the definition of "monopoly" where it says anything about not being able to stop buying from them. What it does mean is that you can't buy it from someone else, but "stop buying" and "buy from someone else" are two, pretty clearly different things.
and "monopoly" means, you can't stop doing business with them.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
but you're still picking nits over this "monopoly" business. There is no competition in the service or content distribution markets, except from the bootleggers.
I understand that you don't want to admit that you got caught making a patently absurd claim, especially in a discussion of "There Are Too Many Streaming Services", but that's what I replied to, and that alone.
And since your dismissing out of hand a perfectly suitable solution,
I'm not dismissing your perfect solution, I'm not discussing it at all. The solution to the "Comcast/Time Warner government-protected monopoly" is already enacted, and it has nothing to do with the railroads.
The law... Look what it did to the railroads.
The telecommunications law did nothing to the railroads. The fact is that government-granted cable monopolies are prohibited by federal law, and there has never been a government-granted monopoly on video content delivery or ISP services. You've now you've gone so far out in left field that you won't be able to make it back in time for dinner when you bring up how this law affected the railroads. Good night. Discuss the railroads with someone else.
And this is an outright lie:
I didn't say what you quoted.
Again, the streaming issue
And now you're back at something is irrelevant to the ridiculous claim you made that I replied to.
Where is the competition to Comcast/Time Warner?
For video content, which is the topic of discussion here? Hulu, Netflix, Sling, HBO, fubo, DirectTV, CBS, etc. For ISP? Google is your friend, it will tell you what is available in your area. For example, in Denver alone there are 8 residential and 11 business class services (a few do both). That's not counting the 3 mobile ISPs, which can serve as home services with the right hardware. For my small city there are 7 different residential and business services, and the list shows 3 mobile (which is incorrect because I'm using a fourth one that isn't listed right now.)
But your claim was not just a lack of competition, but a government-protected monopoly. First, there is no monopoly, which is pretty obvious from the title of the article: "There Are Way Too Many ...". It's also hard to claim "monopoly!" with a straight face when I can point to ten other providers in just my area. Second, government monopolies for cable TV are prohibited BY FEDERAL LAW, enacted more than 20 years ago. There never have been government monopolies for ISP or video content services. Maybe that's why There Are Way Too Many Streaming Services?
I was responding to a comment about Concast/Time Warner.
Yes, that was obvious.
And besides, the distribution problem is what led to the streaming problem.
The "streaming problem" comes from the business plan for distribution of video content. Audio content has been distributed for many decades by thousands of radio stations, and to manage that large number of content users a central copyright payment system was created. Video has been an order of magnitude smaller, thus a central system was not needed.
What I replied to, however, was the claim that there was "government protection" for a monopoly, which is both absurd in the face of how many video distribution services there are today, and the lack of government monopoly status for either company.
The issue with Comcast and Time Warner is that it's a government protected monopoly.
You realize you are making this claim in a discussion entitled "There Are Way Too Many Streaming Services", don't you? If there are too many services, how can two of them be a monopoly? And since the government didn't grant them one, how is it government protected?
The Secretary of State is not a corporate CEO, and the county elections offices are not his branch offices. Please stop making stupid arguments.
The home point is set when GPS lock is achieved at powerup. This is automatic, for just the reason you described.
The home point is set only AFTER the GPS position is valid. Before the GPS position is determined, the home point is invalid. Taking off before the home point is set prevents the home point from being set, and if "go home" is activated the aircraft will attempt to "go home" wherever home says. Which may be 10,000 miles away.
I have an app on the tablet I use when flying, which is turned off when I'm not flying. Or the network is turned off. Either way.
It's pretty well known that the flight data goes back to DJI. There's at least one site that converts the encrypted or encoded data back to usable form. It's a reasonable defense against people who do something stupid while flying and the device runs away from them, and then claim it is DJI's fault. For example, if you fly before the home point is set, and then hit a limit that triggers "go home", the aircraft will happily fly off towards someplace else. That's not DJI's fault.
You mean days after the election, past all the meddling he has already done, now is when Kemp pretends to step back?
Do you have a cite proving all this "meddling" he has done?
And you do know that the process is actually not over, and that he might have had more influence now on the state-wide recount if/when it happens than he had over picking polling places or rejecting invalid voter registrations? No, maybe you don't.
But keep flinging mud against the wall. Maybe something will stick if you just throw it often enough and hard enough.
Again, NO. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible.
"Ultimately responsible" does not mean "does". As I've pointed out more than once already, the FACT is that the COUNTY election office runs the elections in each county, NOT the Secretary of State.
Or did you think it was a coincidence that there is just one state run site that tells you where/when to vote
Do I think there is a consolidation of the county data at a state site? Of course. Do you really think that the existence of a state website that contains county data proves that the state mandates what the counties do? Gosh, I'll go create a central website that lists info for all the states and then I'll be in charge of all the state voting processes. Not.
and that all of the counties just happen to use the same voting machines
I don't know that they all use the same voting machines. I know that in at least one state they do not.
and same requirements?
The REQUIREMENTS are a matter of law, which is created by the legislature, not the Secretary of State. And in this case, the procedure was in place before Kemp became, and then left, the office. And the requirement that voter registrations must be correct is, besides common sense, a matter of law.
How far are you going to go to try to create some fictional problem where none actually exists?