Well, they're only protected against that one single source of access. Cable has no defense against wireless and/or DSL, for example. And satellite is everywhere.
That concept may have been valid, but either it isn't any longer or it very soon won't be.
What do telcos get out of net neutrality? The same thing they're getting now - the ability to price Internet service at whatever rate they think the market will bear without concern or liability over the specific content that flows over their network.
Except that's not true, is it? They lose pricing abilities that they presently have in exchange for naught.
The knowledge that Internet service will be billed the same way as phone, electrical, and natural gas service - it doesn't matter what you're using it for, just how much of it you wish to consume at a given moment.
This is also not true. I can't call China (or Verizon) without additional fees. Will long distance be free by legal mandate now as well?
Whether anyone would find discriminated service valuable, though, remains to be seen.
Oh I don't know. I think an internet without any illegal/limitless filesharing on it might be a lot more pleasant. Could you imagine the reduction in traffic if people only downloaded what they had actually purchased, rather than entire seasons of Anime DVD's they never actually intend to watch?
Sure it is, the target could swallow it wrong and choke on it.
It is my understanding that you would need a much larger rocket to attain that kind of distance. Wire-guided rockets are sometimes that big, but I'm not aware of any of the little ones having performance characteristics of that type.
Right, but lottery-winning odds are outside of the ROE, which would be the point. Theoretically one of the Iraqis could spit a pumpkin seed far enough and in just the right way to kill a soldier, but that's not enough to justify death either.
I disagree. Your point would be better made by requiring the government purchase all the wire they wish to have powers over. Let there be no privately-owned comms and the problem goes away.
That is to say, a group of people forming a corporation get full protection, but a group of people forming a government do not appear to have any property rights at all under the actual working libertarian philosophy.
This is largely accurate. The chief reason being, you or I or anyone can trivially form a corporation. Try that with a government. These are not equitable entities. Further, when was the last time a corporation imprisoned anyone?
So while governments, corporations and chess clubs are all comprised of gathered individuals, the context of their powers is different.
You'd ascribe governmental powers to everyone's property, while I'm suggesting we limit the corporation's power only over their own.
Back to the original point, though, didn't we require by law that the copper be available for use by competing corporations at a low fixed cost? I remember reading about community-owned internet ventures trying it out. In the end I think they decided that without the profit motive that it wasn't compelling enough to pursue.
In point of fact, those children were only maimed. They both survived.
From this and the other points I can see that you're really not all that well informed on what actually happened. Which is fine, but then why try and advocate it?
Then again, from my point of view, it would be really difficult to advocate what happened knowing all the facts. So perhaps that's that.
So you believe that corporations should be allowed to use any old dirty tricks they want, and we should simply wait until enough people catch on and decide not to do business with them? That approach leads to fascism, my friend, and then you won't get to vote with your wallet, because there won't be any non-fascist options.
Perhaps, but what is more fascist than telling a business owner that they have no power over their own property? Seriously, if CableCompany runs all that copper to those homes at their own cost, signs up customers of their own free will, provides them with the service as advertised, who is the government to intervene?
I understand the concept. And I like it. I just feel there exists no power under the United States government to apply it. Maybe, maybe on the backbone(s) where there are commons-claims to be made, but even at the last mile?
Put it this way, should we grant this power - to force telcos to do business only as we see fit - what did they gain in return? What do the people gain? What, also do we lose?
I guess I'm rather neutral about Net Neutrality...
Colloquial speech. But if you're uncertain, please do feel free to look at the range readout and look up the characteristics of those weapons. Could be I have them switched, but again due to personal experience with how far that really is, I'd be really impressed to see anything rocket-propelled (without guidance) fly that far. Especially at a street price where an average Iraqi could be aiming it at an Apache.
Those are all fine points, to be sure, and worthy of discussion. But the one that caught my attention was this being about the US. However, at your suggestion I'd gladly reply to these you have outlined as well:
1) Assange (and Wikileaks) will certainly exercise editorial control over what gets posted and what does not. There's no real reason to expect otherwise. However, this would be an excellent argument for OpenLeaks or what-have-you. Multiple sources for this type of information will lead to greater coverage and publication.
2) Indeed. There likely are no rules when engaged in play at that particular level.
3) I'm not informed well enough to know for certain if this statement is true, but I can certainly counter by stating that Assange clearly is not the concept, so there's little lost in his loss as an individual. The jinni is out of the bottle.
Anyway, the point is if you're not a fan of Assange - use OpenLeaks instead. If you're not a fan of the internet, well, build a time machine I guess.
And if you are seen with a weapon in a combat zone, you are legally classified as an illegal combatant. This means you can be legally executed on the stop.
That's not true. READ THE ROE. Wikileaks had them up in both versions (timely and current) and both made 'exigent threat' relatively clear. This, by the way, is why they had to radio in for permission. If you were right, they would have simply fired. But they didn't do that. They called home, lied, then fired. That is salient.
Ignoring the fact this comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything...
Ah, well that explains a lot. So you're unaware that the Apache crew not only fired on the reporters but also the family that stopped to pick up the wounded? I suggest you watch the video. Because from where I sit the illegal actions of the second part (firing on the van) illustrates the frame of mind within the first part (firing on the reporters) and these illustrate together that the Apache crew desired to murder as many as possible as their primary goal. Watch the video...
At which point do they know children are in the vehicle?
At the point just prior to them requesting permission to fire, of course. SURELY they would NEVER fire into a civilian space without reconning their targets FIRST? This IS what you're claiming, yes? That the targets were properly reconned and the firing was perfectly legal, due to the war? If I'm refuting the wrong claim, that's totally cool, just say so.
I'd also add that if we're convinced that we have to send soldiers over there to kill their children so we can fly in safety then we ought to reconsider our priorities. The point at which we're justifying the murder of the legally innocent is the point where we're morally bankrupt. Or, is it your position that the weapon-wielding six year old should be tried as an adult? Or, rather, executed on the spot without trial?
A) Weapons were not illegal in Iraq. 'Having a weapon' was absolutely NOT the sole criteria under the ROE. Look it up.
B) A minivan is not a weapon. Nor is an ambulance. Not even when it belongs to the enemy.
C) Which uniform should the little kids have been wearing on their way to school (or what-have-you)? Have we forgotten that this wasn't a warzone but a city street?
Justifications can be made for their behavior, but doing so when it is absolutely clear that they were in the wrong is an equal wrong to killing those civilians yourself.
That's simply not true. Both versions were made available the very same day on the very same website. Check the timestamps on the two clips posted to YouTube - they're identical. They show 4/3/10. The website went up on 4/5, I believe, and the news outlets seem to have gotten ahold of it a few days later.
So yeah, you're wrong. With all due respect, I'd genuinely like to know - are you repeating a falsehood or making things up or what?
Scroll down. It seems she originally claimed he only molested her in her sleep (which fits with my assessment), and then allowed him to continue doing whatever they were doing for a week.
I don't know for sure what that is, but the word 'rape' as I know it wouldn't apply to such goings on...
As for the 'pattern of conduct' I think that's largely irrelevant. Neither of the women in this context were beyond reproach - one being a groupee and the other sleeping with a colleague. Yes there appear to be people with poor morals involved here. In fact there appear to be THREE such people involved here...
It is conceivable that they mistook the event at 2:43 in the YouTube video, when the (large) camera was pointed directly at them, as an RPG being aimed at them, but if anyone was looking down the camera that the recording came from, they knew it wasn't fired.
This, by the way, is moot because you can see the range readout on the weapon's sight at this time as well. That Apache is resting at over double the effective range of every Soviet-designed RPG. They had time to figure it out, and elected to lie instead. Then later, when they had used up all their rounds, they went off on a rocket-firing spree. They were clearly going for a 'high score'.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they're only protected against that one single source of access. Cable has no defense against wireless and/or DSL, for example. And satellite is everywhere.
That concept may have been valid, but either it isn't any longer or it very soon won't be.
What do telcos get out of net neutrality? The same thing they're getting now - the ability to price Internet service at whatever rate they think the market will bear without concern or liability over the specific content that flows over their network.
Except that's not true, is it? They lose pricing abilities that they presently have in exchange for naught.
The knowledge that Internet service will be billed the same way as phone, electrical, and natural gas service - it doesn't matter what you're using it for, just how much of it you wish to consume at a given moment.
This is also not true. I can't call China (or Verizon) without additional fees. Will long distance be free by legal mandate now as well?
Whether anyone would find discriminated service valuable, though, remains to be seen.
Oh I don't know. I think an internet without any illegal/limitless filesharing on it might be a lot more pleasant. Could you imagine the reduction in traffic if people only downloaded what they had actually purchased, rather than entire seasons of Anime DVD's they never actually intend to watch?
You've got a fine point there, but the car would likely have belonged to my dad. And be on your grandad's property.
Sure it is, the target could swallow it wrong and choke on it.
It is my understanding that you would need a much larger rocket to attain that kind of distance. Wire-guided rockets are sometimes that big, but I'm not aware of any of the little ones having performance characteristics of that type.
Again, do feel free to look it up.
The effort to not only build it, but to maintain it and keep it as a marketable product, is less than trivial.
Plus, I highly doubt you can make an intellectual argument that everyone in Bell's age understood what nuances Net Neutrality would bring with it.
And they're doing all the work (or are paying others to do it.)
I don't think there's a valid parallel for wires in any other fabric of government.
Right, but lottery-winning odds are outside of the ROE, which would be the point. Theoretically one of the Iraqis could spit a pumpkin seed far enough and in just the right way to kill a soldier, but that's not enough to justify death either.
Point being - gender roles exist and the implicit expectation is for the male to pursue the female.
I'll object only to the claim that I am the one less informed. This has been established in the inverse.
Ah, but the government pours those roads and sidewalks... That's salient.
I disagree. Your point would be better made by requiring the government purchase all the wire they wish to have powers over. Let there be no privately-owned comms and the problem goes away.
That is to say, a group of people forming a corporation get full protection, but a group of people forming a government do not appear to have any property rights at all under the actual working libertarian philosophy.
This is largely accurate. The chief reason being, you or I or anyone can trivially form a corporation. Try that with a government. These are not equitable entities. Further, when was the last time a corporation imprisoned anyone?
So while governments, corporations and chess clubs are all comprised of gathered individuals, the context of their powers is different.
You'd ascribe governmental powers to everyone's property, while I'm suggesting we limit the corporation's power only over their own.
Back to the original point, though, didn't we require by law that the copper be available for use by competing corporations at a low fixed cost? I remember reading about community-owned internet ventures trying it out. In the end I think they decided that without the profit motive that it wasn't compelling enough to pursue.
In point of fact, those children were only maimed. They both survived.
From this and the other points I can see that you're really not all that well informed on what actually happened. Which is fine, but then why try and advocate it?
Then again, from my point of view, it would be really difficult to advocate what happened knowing all the facts. So perhaps that's that.
So you believe that corporations should be allowed to use any old dirty tricks they want, and we should simply wait until enough people catch on and decide not to do business with them? That approach leads to fascism, my friend, and then you won't get to vote with your wallet, because there won't be any non-fascist options.
Perhaps, but what is more fascist than telling a business owner that they have no power over their own property? Seriously, if CableCompany runs all that copper to those homes at their own cost, signs up customers of their own free will, provides them with the service as advertised, who is the government to intervene?
I understand the concept. And I like it. I just feel there exists no power under the United States government to apply it. Maybe, maybe on the backbone(s) where there are commons-claims to be made, but even at the last mile?
Put it this way, should we grant this power - to force telcos to do business only as we see fit - what did they gain in return? What do the people gain? What, also do we lose?
I guess I'm rather neutral about Net Neutrality...
Colloquial speech. But if you're uncertain, please do feel free to look at the range readout and look up the characteristics of those weapons. Could be I have them switched, but again due to personal experience with how far that really is, I'd be really impressed to see anything rocket-propelled (without guidance) fly that far. Especially at a street price where an average Iraqi could be aiming it at an Apache.
Those are all fine points, to be sure, and worthy of discussion. But the one that caught my attention was this being about the US. However, at your suggestion I'd gladly reply to these you have outlined as well:
1) Assange (and Wikileaks) will certainly exercise editorial control over what gets posted and what does not. There's no real reason to expect otherwise. However, this would be an excellent argument for OpenLeaks or what-have-you. Multiple sources for this type of information will lead to greater coverage and publication.
2) Indeed. There likely are no rules when engaged in play at that particular level.
3) I'm not informed well enough to know for certain if this statement is true, but I can certainly counter by stating that Assange clearly is not the concept, so there's little lost in his loss as an individual. The jinni is out of the bottle.
Anyway, the point is if you're not a fan of Assange - use OpenLeaks instead. If you're not a fan of the internet, well, build a time machine I guess.
How often has a woman sent you flowers?
And if you are seen with a weapon in a combat zone, you are legally classified as an illegal combatant. This means you can be legally executed on the stop.
That's not true. READ THE ROE. Wikileaks had them up in both versions (timely and current) and both made 'exigent threat' relatively clear. This, by the way, is why they had to radio in for permission. If you were right, they would have simply fired. But they didn't do that. They called home, lied, then fired. That is salient.
Ignoring the fact this comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything...
Ah, well that explains a lot. So you're unaware that the Apache crew not only fired on the reporters but also the family that stopped to pick up the wounded? I suggest you watch the video. Because from where I sit the illegal actions of the second part (firing on the van) illustrates the frame of mind within the first part (firing on the reporters) and these illustrate together that the Apache crew desired to murder as many as possible as their primary goal. Watch the video...
At which point do they know children are in the vehicle?
At the point just prior to them requesting permission to fire, of course. SURELY they would NEVER fire into a civilian space without reconning their targets FIRST? This IS what you're claiming, yes? That the targets were properly reconned and the firing was perfectly legal, due to the war? If I'm refuting the wrong claim, that's totally cool, just say so.
I'd also add that if we're convinced that we have to send soldiers over there to kill their children so we can fly in safety then we ought to reconsider our priorities. The point at which we're justifying the murder of the legally innocent is the point where we're morally bankrupt. Or, is it your position that the weapon-wielding six year old should be tried as an adult? Or, rather, executed on the spot without trial?
Do you hear what you're saying???
Well, now you know.
Compare:
Yes, other documents have been released, but you can substitute "US" for scientology or whatever other institution/organization you like.
with
You're saying this is not a PR war between Assange and the US that has little or nothing to do with better govt?
Please don't move the goalposts. That's considered cheating. You made a false claim and got called out on it. It happens.
Well, sir, I've sighted in and hit targets at those ranges and can tell you that it is a ridiculously long distance. RPG's cannot go that far. Period.
Have you ever bought a woman flowers?
Three points:
A) Weapons were not illegal in Iraq. 'Having a weapon' was absolutely NOT the sole criteria under the ROE. Look it up.
B) A minivan is not a weapon. Nor is an ambulance. Not even when it belongs to the enemy.
C) Which uniform should the little kids have been wearing on their way to school (or what-have-you)? Have we forgotten that this wasn't a warzone but a city street?
Justifications can be made for their behavior, but doing so when it is absolutely clear that they were in the wrong is an equal wrong to killing those civilians yourself.
That's simply not true. Both versions were made available the very same day on the very same website. Check the timestamps on the two clips posted to YouTube - they're identical. They show 4/3/10. The website went up on 4/5, I believe, and the news outlets seem to have gotten ahold of it a few days later.
So yeah, you're wrong. With all due respect, I'd genuinely like to know - are you repeating a falsehood or making things up or what?
Scroll down. It seems she originally claimed he only molested her in her sleep (which fits with my assessment), and then allowed him to continue doing whatever they were doing for a week.
I don't know for sure what that is, but the word 'rape' as I know it wouldn't apply to such goings on...
As for the 'pattern of conduct' I think that's largely irrelevant. Neither of the women in this context were beyond reproach - one being a groupee and the other sleeping with a colleague. Yes there appear to be people with poor morals involved here. In fact there appear to be THREE such people involved here...
It is conceivable that they mistook the event at 2:43 in the YouTube video, when the (large) camera was pointed directly at them, as an RPG being aimed at them, but if anyone was looking down the camera that the recording came from, they knew it wasn't fired.
This, by the way, is moot because you can see the range readout on the weapon's sight at this time as well. That Apache is resting at over double the effective range of every Soviet-designed RPG. They had time to figure it out, and elected to lie instead. Then later, when they had used up all their rounds, they went off on a rocket-firing spree. They were clearly going for a 'high score'.
You're saying this is not a PR war between Assange and the US that has little or nothing to do with better govt?
What's the basis for your assertion that, for example, the Church of Scientology is an institution of the United States Government?