I am. But what about the right of free association?
GoFundMe is a company. They gave up the right of "free association" when they formed a company that allows anyone to use their services for fundraising, at least according to the public accomodations law in Colorado and many other states. That's why there's now a case in front of SCOTUS about this issue.
But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
It is within the constitutional rights of the baker in the Colorado case to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, and it does not violate anyone's rights when he refuses to bake a cake for a same sex couple. (They have no constitutional right to a cake baked by any specific person.)
They are not, as many commenters here are claiming, stopping people from offering financial support.
The baker in Colorado was not stopping the couple from buying a cake from someone else.
Were you aware that you were making excellent arguments supporting the refusal by a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples? Just curious if that's deliberate.
I think 98 million arrests out of a population of 300 million people seems extremely high.
Over seven years, and considering that some people are arrested on a weekly or monthly basis, I don't think it's out of line. It says "98 million arrests", not "98 million different people arrested..."
Why not just cc them on every order our troops receive?
Because not every use of drones is in support of troop activities?
Are we frikkin idiots or something?
I think that term applies. The military uses DJI aircraft for some things; it also has an entire arsenal of other drones that aren't connected to DJI for use in military ops.
What's next, buying our radios from North Korea?
I hear we buy the plates that the officers eat chow on from China. Just a rumor, but that's enough to throw accusations.
I'll agree that Universities have a vested interest in the preservation of knowledge, and so should do better.
That does not mean that they should try to maintain FTP or Gopher servers to access information, just that the information should still be online. The fact that a 23 year old book lists "broken links" is, well, yawn, and the fact that someone complains about it is a hoot.
Its not aging, commercialism has pushed everything else out.
Sorry, but wrong. The creation of a commercial site somewhere on the web does not "push out" another site or server. It's not a zero sum game; one old site has to die when a new site is created. I've had a website online for most of that 23 years. I've never once gotten a notice from anyone that the space we needed by Amazon or any other commercial internet data provider. True, I no longer run a gopher or WAIS server, but that's because as the operating systems updated those servers were no longer part of the distributions.
What this nit is complaining about is that a 23 year old book on technology talks about technology that has been obsolete for a long time already. Does he expect to buy a book on analog TV transmission technology and expect to find a plethora of analog TV stations he can access?
I have a book on early radio technology that I could sell him -- but he'd going to be very disappointed when he cannot find all the spark gap transmitters it talks about.
It wasn't taken by the state or the people, and you can't sue the ocean.
Non-sequitor. He has lost something of value. Period.
I'd tell them what I would tell anyone who buys oceanfront property: if you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to buy it.
If you cannot afford to lose your car, you cannot afford to buy it. No, it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world, does it?
The point is that there are steps that could be taken with no detriment to the public to protect someone's beach-front property, but because the "public" owns the beach upon which a few rocks would be placed to dissipate the wave energy before it reaches the cliff, it cannot be done. This is a clear case where the public ownership of the beach does not benefit the neighboring property owner.
Not everyone. There are times when it will impede the neighboring landowner from taking preventive measures to stop the erosion of his property by the ocean that everyone has access to. Putting in rip rap need not impede the public access to the beach, but it is prohibited anyway.
They've also tried to sue for "loss of value", but they always lose because the property they bought never included the beach in the first place.
The issue is when the property itself becomes "beach" because the owner cannot make any attempts at stopping it. Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.
The code of conduct simply calls for respect, which seems pretty reasonable to me.
That may be the intent of what was quoted, but the intent and the actual implementation are two very different things. A code of conduct that "simply" calls for respect would say it that way. "You will show respect for others in your interactions...". This is a statement of an affirmative action -- you will do, and we expect you to do, X. That is how you simply call for respect.
This is the quote as it was actually written:
We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone.... In particular, we don't tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups.
This is a call for punishment for behaving in a certain way. Unfortunately, the punishment specified for that behavior is the exact same behavior applied to the original perpetrator . "You must not exclude people for any reason, otherwise we will exclude you." You don't create an inclusive environment by practicing exclusion.
Now, I accept the intent to call for a display of respect (not actual respect, since you cannot demand that people feel a certain way, only that they act a certain way). I wish such an environment existed on more software projects. But the issue is not what you think the intent is but the actual wording and result of that intent.
Yes, any code of conduct if misapplied is tyrannical,
A code of conduct does not have to be applied to be hypocritical, if it prohibits one kind of behavior while using that exact behavior to punish code violators.
(I personally love how "equal rights and equal opportunities" to some mean that they have to choose who to hire based on their gender because the company has too few women in it)
There is a simple reason for that: it is very hard to measure "opportunity" or "equal rights", but it is trivial to count heads. This is why gender equity always reverts to counting heads.
This is why schools who do not want to face Title IX problems from government regulators will cancel popular boys sports programs when they are unable to interest an equal number of girls to play something, anything. You cannot say 'girls at this school don't want to play sports' is the reason why 10% of the boys but only 5% of the girls are involved in athletics. Nobody cares about native "interest", only that you aren't doing enough to make them interested. Your failure to express gender equity is not because you didn't try, but because you failed to achieve equal outcomes. Outcome is more important than actual equality of opportunity.
Since head counts are the only easy measurement (albeit a proxy for what is intended), head counts are the weapon of choice, and equal headcounts the expected outcome, of anyone who challenges gender equity in any area.
Presumably that would mean reinstating sanctions, which cause extensive harm to ordinary people.
Not according to the Cuban government. Everything was wine and roses during the time of sanctions. As in, "what sanctions are you talking about, comrade?"
You wouldn't be saying that the Cuban government was lying about such stuff, would you?
Even if they did, perhaps we should agree that even if nations can't be nice to each other's diplomats they should try to keep the regular people out of it.
So "regular people" are off-limits, but diplomats are fair game? Obviously they can't be fair to each others' diplomats.
How many deaf Russians had to cut their stays in the US short because they went deaf in Russian embassies, again?
Yes, it'll all be covered if you're paying on a company credit card.
Try charging $1000 of hookers and blow on the company credit card and see how much is covered. "All" is a very wrong word to be using.
"Hookers and blow" is excessive, I'm really talking about a few hundred or so in charges.
This whole discussion started when you defended the act of running up the bill to get back at the employer who fired them. We're not talking about reasonable travel expenses when you talk about running up the bill. A few hundred or so dollars in run-up charges won't be covered by any sane travel department.
Yes, they WILL be covered, because the company has to pay the credit card.
You've never contested a charge, have you? But even if the company pays the card off, that doesn't mean that the employee will not get the money withheld from his last paycheck. And when he tries to sue, he's going to lose when the employer shows what the charges were for. You do realize, I hope, that when you charge something on a company credit card the company owns the account and has full access to all the records that go with it, like copies of charge slips and billing info. "Why is the hotel charge only $200 a night for the first four nights you were there, and then the day you were fired it went up to $1000/night? Oh, look, mini-bar and pay-porn movies." And then they'll notice the $250 dinners. You won't have the excuse that you were entertaining clients because you don't work for the company anymore and those will be yours to pay, too. That $1000 in chips you charged to the room, well, that's just outright theft.
but it'll cost the company a lot more in legal fees and lawyer time then they'll get back for $1000 of charges or less.
Now I know you've never been to Vegas. Otherwise, you'd know that it is trivial to run up a lot more than $1000 in charges in just one night of glorious revenge. But anyway,
you know that last paycheck you thought you were getting? Surprise, we deducted the cost of the hookers and blow, and the excessive mini-bar, and the "table games" you put on the company credit card. And we've filed charged for theft, since you knew you were not authorized any of that and charged it to the company.
Per-diem rate? WTF is that?
You never have traveled. "Per-diem" is the standard reimbursement limit for travel, based on normal costs in the area you've traveled to. "Per day" is the English translation. So much for a hotel, so much for breakfast, so much for lunch, so much for dinner. Whether the company you work for calls it that or not, there are still reasonable and justifiable limits on travel expenses. No company tells an employee on travel to "spend all you want, we'll cover it all no matter what you spend it on."
No, it's not "fraud" to charge stuff to your company's expense account that's exorbitant,
You're right, it is theft. Quibble over what it is called, but it's still crime, it's outside the scope of justifiable expenses, and the company does not have to pay for it.
that's the stupidest thing I've read all day.
I'd say the claim that a company is responsible for all travel expenses, even when they're being run up in revenge for being fired, is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Claiming that the company has to cover all the expenses if they are on the company credit card is a very close second.
Hello 911, someone is being attacked, but I don't want to tell you where???
Hello 911, someone is being attacked and I'll gladly tell you where, but I want to control what information is being sent to you about who I am and where.
Or, "hello 911, someone is selling drugs on the corner of X and Y streets and you don't need to know who is reporting... oh, my phone snitched on me as I was snitching on the heavily armed drug dealers?"
This is why everyone should learn the non-911 version of the local emergency services number, at least for their area. The phones have no magic to detect "emergency calls", only "calls to specific numbers".
by sending them on *company-approved* travel, the company is responsible for all their travel bills. That includes any extra hotel charges and airline fees.
You must have never traveled for any company ever in your lifetime. "All" is a very inappropriate word here. Try "per-diem". Try making unjustifiable changes to your itinerary and getting the company to pay for the change fee. Nope. Try checking a couple extra bags to carry all the stuff you bought while on that trip -- same "nope" for those fees. Order a couple rounds of room service for all your buddies, nope, not covered, nor is getting a suite when you had a single booked.
and would probably require suing them, which certainly won't be worth it.
Because they'd lose. "Hookers and blow" on the hotel bill are not legitimate travel expenses, nor would a $1000 dinner be. And $300 on the mini-bar bill? Ha.
There's no fraud; all those expenses are justifiable travel expenses.
Now I know you've never traveled for a company. "Run up the mini bar bill and bill some table time as well..." Anything over the authorized per-diem rate is on their own dime and deliberately trying to charge it to the company is fraud, even if you consider it "justifiable travel expenses". Whatever you "bill" for gambling is never a justifiable expense.
(I'm not so sure about "table time" though,
Which is it, ALL or maybe not so much? Are all you actually claiming now is that the original travel expenses are all you are referring to and you didn't mean to join the discussion to defend the act of running up the bills and billing for extraneous stuff?
Please name two examples of such cases.
You can't.
Chattanooga, TN; Longmont, CO. This article refers to the multitudes of legal battles led by incumbent cable companies over municipal attempts at cherry-picking the internet services, which everyone on/. knows about and uses as hate-fodder for those cable companies. Everyone except you, it seems.
Because all the muni-broadband projects have gone above and beyond the minimum standards that the local franchise contracts specify,
Bullshit. Municipal fiber internet does not provide the cable television service or the local origination channels. It's cherry-picking the ISP service.
Furthermore, it's doing so as a non-profit, tax-payer backed entity with no need to show a return on investment, so it can undercut the rates not only because they don't have to provide all the services as the incumbent but don't have the cost of shareholder return on investment.
otherwise there would be no need for the municipality to get into the broadband business.
And you just admitted that you know they are cherry-picking the broadband internet part of the business.
No, not "this". Best internet that he's willing to pay for.
I've got fiber strung on the pole outside outside my house, about thirty feet away. Verizon won't let me touch it. FIOS is not available.
Isn't it a shame that Verizon and FIOS are the only two possible internet providers in the whole world?
My guess is that one of the nearby corporations (GE, SI, Environmental One) have a dedicated lease.
They're getting their internet from somewhere. That "somewhere" is selling it to them. I bet if you tried harder you could find someone to sell it to you, too.
Irritates me to no end, since Spectrum has no competition and acts accordingly.
Spectrum has competition, it's just more expensive than you are willing to pay. That's the whole point of my asking you if you'd asked Level 3 or other major backbone.
Since the same p(y) code is transmitted on L1 and L2 from each satellite, can't that be used to model ionospheric effects?
Perhaps. But since the errors due to the ionosphere and troposphere can be measured, along with errors in satellite location and clock signals, that is how DGPS and RTK GPS are done.
If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies
(a) Authority to award franchises; public rights-of-way and easements; equal access to service; time for provision of service; assurances
(1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter,
1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant
an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive
franchise.
You mean like that law, which was enacted in 1992, and makes it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to any cable company?
and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.
There is no law that prohibits this. Some cities have. The challenges occur when the cities try to form their own cable companies in direct competition with an incumbent to whom they have awarded a franchise and which rules they wish to ignore. In other words, the cities are trying to operate without the same restrictions they have put upon the company they want to compete with. I think any company that has to make a profit to stay in business and has had specific requirements for service put upon them by the local government would be a bit miffed when that government that can operate on the public dime at a loss wants to cherry-pick away the most profitable services without having to provide the rest. Do you expect them to be altruistic in the face of non-profit taxpayer-backed competition for the prime services?
Slashdot Mirror
I am. But what about the right of free association?
GoFundMe is a company. They gave up the right of "free association" when they formed a company that allows anyone to use their services for fundraising, at least according to the public accomodations law in Colorado and many other states. That's why there's now a case in front of SCOTUS about this issue.
But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
It is within the constitutional rights of the baker in the Colorado case to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, and it does not violate anyone's rights when he refuses to bake a cake for a same sex couple. (They have no constitutional right to a cake baked by any specific person.)
They are not, as many commenters here are claiming, stopping people from offering financial support.
The baker in Colorado was not stopping the couple from buying a cake from someone else.
Were you aware that you were making excellent arguments supporting the refusal by a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples? Just curious if that's deliberate.
I love how you invent a whole new narrative for BLM that appears to have little or nothing to do with what BLM is about.
"It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement." -- BLM
If you look up the Black Liberation Movement that BLM refers to, you will see that the Black Panther Party was a part of that movement, too.
I think 98 million arrests out of a population of 300 million people seems extremely high.
Over seven years, and considering that some people are arrested on a weekly or monthly basis, I don't think it's out of line. It says "98 million arrests", not "98 million different people arrested..."
Why not just cc them on every order our troops receive?
Because not every use of drones is in support of troop activities?
Are we frikkin idiots or something?
I think that term applies. The military uses DJI aircraft for some things; it also has an entire arsenal of other drones that aren't connected to DJI for use in military ops.
What's next, buying our radios from North Korea?
I hear we buy the plates that the officers eat chow on from China. Just a rumor, but that's enough to throw accusations.
Link to the original, post your modified version here.
He said post somewhere normal.
I'll agree that Universities have a vested interest in the preservation of knowledge, and so should do better.
That does not mean that they should try to maintain FTP or Gopher servers to access information, just that the information should still be online. The fact that a 23 year old book lists "broken links" is, well, yawn, and the fact that someone complains about it is a hoot.
Its not aging, commercialism has pushed everything else out.
Sorry, but wrong. The creation of a commercial site somewhere on the web does not "push out" another site or server. It's not a zero sum game; one old site has to die when a new site is created. I've had a website online for most of that 23 years. I've never once gotten a notice from anyone that the space we needed by Amazon or any other commercial internet data provider. True, I no longer run a gopher or WAIS server, but that's because as the operating systems updated those servers were no longer part of the distributions.
What this nit is complaining about is that a 23 year old book on technology talks about technology that has been obsolete for a long time already. Does he expect to buy a book on analog TV transmission technology and expect to find a plethora of analog TV stations he can access?
I have a book on early radio technology that I could sell him -- but he'd going to be very disappointed when he cannot find all the spark gap transmitters it talks about.
It wasn't taken by the state or the people, and you can't sue the ocean.
Non-sequitor. He has lost something of value. Period.
I'd tell them what I would tell anyone who buys oceanfront property: if you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to buy it.
If you cannot afford to lose your car, you cannot afford to buy it. No, it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world, does it?
The point is that there are steps that could be taken with no detriment to the public to protect someone's beach-front property, but because the "public" owns the beach upon which a few rocks would be placed to dissipate the wave energy before it reaches the cliff, it cannot be done. This is a clear case where the public ownership of the beach does not benefit the neighboring property owner.
does not mean that Codes of Conduct are inherently wrong.
Codes of Conduct which are hypocritical and self-contradictory are, indeed, inherently wrong.
was well recognized and benefits everyone.
Not everyone. There are times when it will impede the neighboring landowner from taking preventive measures to stop the erosion of his property by the ocean that everyone has access to. Putting in rip rap need not impede the public access to the beach, but it is prohibited anyway.
They've also tried to sue for "loss of value", but they always lose because the property they bought never included the beach in the first place.
The issue is when the property itself becomes "beach" because the owner cannot make any attempts at stopping it. Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.
A quick normalization on these two lines will tell you that in Sweden about 15% of applicants to CS programs are female.
Can you blame them? What woman would want to apply for entrance to a "technical hogschool"?
The code of conduct simply calls for respect, which seems pretty reasonable to me.
That may be the intent of what was quoted, but the intent and the actual implementation are two very different things. A code of conduct that "simply" calls for respect would say it that way. "You will show respect for others in your interactions ...". This is a statement of an affirmative action -- you will do, and we expect you to do, X. That is how you simply call for respect.
This is the quote as it was actually written:
This is a call for punishment for behaving in a certain way. Unfortunately, the punishment specified for that behavior is the exact same behavior applied to the original perpetrator . "You must not exclude people for any reason, otherwise we will exclude you." You don't create an inclusive environment by practicing exclusion.
Now, I accept the intent to call for a display of respect (not actual respect, since you cannot demand that people feel a certain way, only that they act a certain way). I wish such an environment existed on more software projects. But the issue is not what you think the intent is but the actual wording and result of that intent.
Yes, any code of conduct if misapplied is tyrannical,
A code of conduct does not have to be applied to be hypocritical, if it prohibits one kind of behavior while using that exact behavior to punish code violators.
(I personally love how "equal rights and equal opportunities" to some mean that they have to choose who to hire based on their gender because the company has too few women in it)
There is a simple reason for that: it is very hard to measure "opportunity" or "equal rights", but it is trivial to count heads. This is why gender equity always reverts to counting heads.
This is why schools who do not want to face Title IX problems from government regulators will cancel popular boys sports programs when they are unable to interest an equal number of girls to play something, anything. You cannot say 'girls at this school don't want to play sports' is the reason why 10% of the boys but only 5% of the girls are involved in athletics. Nobody cares about native "interest", only that you aren't doing enough to make them interested. Your failure to express gender equity is not because you didn't try, but because you failed to achieve equal outcomes. Outcome is more important than actual equality of opportunity.
Since head counts are the only easy measurement (albeit a proxy for what is intended), head counts are the weapon of choice, and equal headcounts the expected outcome, of anyone who challenges gender equity in any area.
they probably didn't know they were damaging the diplomats hearing.
"Hey, Juan, that was Oswaldo on the phone. He said to turn off the listening device, it's unintentionally hurting people and we can't do that."
"What you say, man? I can't hear you. Speak louder..."
Presumably that would mean reinstating sanctions, which cause extensive harm to ordinary people.
Not according to the Cuban government. Everything was wine and roses during the time of sanctions. As in, "what sanctions are you talking about, comrade?"
You wouldn't be saying that the Cuban government was lying about such stuff, would you?
Even if they did, perhaps we should agree that even if nations can't be nice to each other's diplomats they should try to keep the regular people out of it.
So "regular people" are off-limits, but diplomats are fair game? Obviously they can't be fair to each others' diplomats.
How many deaf Russians had to cut their stays in the US short because they went deaf in Russian embassies, again?
Yes, it'll all be covered if you're paying on a company credit card.
Try charging $1000 of hookers and blow on the company credit card and see how much is covered. "All" is a very wrong word to be using.
"Hookers and blow" is excessive, I'm really talking about a few hundred or so in charges.
This whole discussion started when you defended the act of running up the bill to get back at the employer who fired them. We're not talking about reasonable travel expenses when you talk about running up the bill. A few hundred or so dollars in run-up charges won't be covered by any sane travel department.
Yes, they WILL be covered, because the company has to pay the credit card.
You've never contested a charge, have you? But even if the company pays the card off, that doesn't mean that the employee will not get the money withheld from his last paycheck. And when he tries to sue, he's going to lose when the employer shows what the charges were for. You do realize, I hope, that when you charge something on a company credit card the company owns the account and has full access to all the records that go with it, like copies of charge slips and billing info. "Why is the hotel charge only $200 a night for the first four nights you were there, and then the day you were fired it went up to $1000/night? Oh, look, mini-bar and pay-porn movies." And then they'll notice the $250 dinners. You won't have the excuse that you were entertaining clients because you don't work for the company anymore and those will be yours to pay, too. That $1000 in chips you charged to the room, well, that's just outright theft.
but it'll cost the company a lot more in legal fees and lawyer time then they'll get back for $1000 of charges or less.
Now I know you've never been to Vegas. Otherwise, you'd know that it is trivial to run up a lot more than $1000 in charges in just one night of glorious revenge. But anyway, you know that last paycheck you thought you were getting? Surprise, we deducted the cost of the hookers and blow, and the excessive mini-bar, and the "table games" you put on the company credit card. And we've filed charged for theft, since you knew you were not authorized any of that and charged it to the company.
Per-diem rate? WTF is that?
You never have traveled. "Per-diem" is the standard reimbursement limit for travel, based on normal costs in the area you've traveled to. "Per day" is the English translation. So much for a hotel, so much for breakfast, so much for lunch, so much for dinner. Whether the company you work for calls it that or not, there are still reasonable and justifiable limits on travel expenses. No company tells an employee on travel to "spend all you want, we'll cover it all no matter what you spend it on."
No, it's not "fraud" to charge stuff to your company's expense account that's exorbitant,
You're right, it is theft. Quibble over what it is called, but it's still crime, it's outside the scope of justifiable expenses, and the company does not have to pay for it.
that's the stupidest thing I've read all day.
I'd say the claim that a company is responsible for all travel expenses, even when they're being run up in revenge for being fired, is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Claiming that the company has to cover all the expenses if they are on the company credit card is a very close second.
Missing this article.
Hello 911, someone is being attacked, but I don't want to tell you where???
Hello 911, someone is being attacked and I'll gladly tell you where, but I want to control what information is being sent to you about who I am and where.
Or, "hello 911, someone is selling drugs on the corner of X and Y streets and you don't need to know who is reporting ... oh, my phone snitched on me as I was snitching on the heavily armed drug dealers?"
This is why everyone should learn the non-911 version of the local emergency services number, at least for their area. The phones have no magic to detect "emergency calls", only "calls to specific numbers".
by sending them on *company-approved* travel, the company is responsible for all their travel bills. That includes any extra hotel charges and airline fees.
You must have never traveled for any company ever in your lifetime. "All" is a very inappropriate word here. Try "per-diem". Try making unjustifiable changes to your itinerary and getting the company to pay for the change fee. Nope. Try checking a couple extra bags to carry all the stuff you bought while on that trip -- same "nope" for those fees. Order a couple rounds of room service for all your buddies, nope, not covered, nor is getting a suite when you had a single booked.
and would probably require suing them, which certainly won't be worth it.
Because they'd lose. "Hookers and blow" on the hotel bill are not legitimate travel expenses, nor would a $1000 dinner be. And $300 on the mini-bar bill? Ha.
There's no fraud; all those expenses are justifiable travel expenses.
Now I know you've never traveled for a company. "Run up the mini bar bill and bill some table time as well..." Anything over the authorized per-diem rate is on their own dime and deliberately trying to charge it to the company is fraud, even if you consider it "justifiable travel expenses". Whatever you "bill" for gambling is never a justifiable expense.
(I'm not so sure about "table time" though,
Which is it, ALL or maybe not so much? Are all you actually claiming now is that the original travel expenses are all you are referring to and you didn't mean to join the discussion to defend the act of running up the bills and billing for extraneous stuff?
Please name two examples of such cases. You can't.
Chattanooga, TN; Longmont, CO. This article refers to the multitudes of legal battles led by incumbent cable companies over municipal attempts at cherry-picking the internet services, which everyone on /. knows about and uses as hate-fodder for those cable companies. Everyone except you, it seems.
Because all the muni-broadband projects have gone above and beyond the minimum standards that the local franchise contracts specify,
Bullshit. Municipal fiber internet does not provide the cable television service or the local origination channels. It's cherry-picking the ISP service.
Furthermore, it's doing so as a non-profit, tax-payer backed entity with no need to show a return on investment, so it can undercut the rates not only because they don't have to provide all the services as the incumbent but don't have the cost of shareholder return on investment.
otherwise there would be no need for the municipality to get into the broadband business.
And you just admitted that you know they are cherry-picking the broadband internet part of the business.
/\ this.
No, not "this". Best internet that he's willing to pay for.
I've got fiber strung on the pole outside outside my house, about thirty feet away. Verizon won't let me touch it. FIOS is not available.
Isn't it a shame that Verizon and FIOS are the only two possible internet providers in the whole world?
My guess is that one of the nearby corporations (GE, SI, Environmental One) have a dedicated lease.
They're getting their internet from somewhere. That "somewhere" is selling it to them. I bet if you tried harder you could find someone to sell it to you, too.
Irritates me to no end, since Spectrum has no competition and acts accordingly.
Spectrum has competition, it's just more expensive than you are willing to pay. That's the whole point of my asking you if you'd asked Level 3 or other major backbone.
Since the same p(y) code is transmitted on L1 and L2 from each satellite, can't that be used to model ionospheric effects?
Perhaps. But since the errors due to the ionosphere and troposphere can be measured, along with errors in satellite location and clock signals, that is how DGPS and RTK GPS are done.
Why would anyone accept anything less than that as a baseline?
Because they don't need it?
I have the fastest Internet available in my area.
Have you? Have you called Level 3 or other major backbone to see?
If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies
You mean like 47 CFR 5, which says in part:
You mean like that law, which was enacted in 1992, and makes it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to any cable company?
and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.
There is no law that prohibits this. Some cities have. The challenges occur when the cities try to form their own cable companies in direct competition with an incumbent to whom they have awarded a franchise and which rules they wish to ignore. In other words, the cities are trying to operate without the same restrictions they have put upon the company they want to compete with. I think any company that has to make a profit to stay in business and has had specific requirements for service put upon them by the local government would be a bit miffed when that government that can operate on the public dime at a loss wants to cherry-pick away the most profitable services without having to provide the rest. Do you expect them to be altruistic in the face of non-profit taxpayer-backed competition for the prime services?