Mozilla: If it is of any significant size, make it an Addon, not "Integrated." Include the Addon if you want, but please remember the original mission of Firefox- small, fast, secure (at least, that is how I remember it).
There are, in fact, cases where the "www" is necessary to make a site work. For example, a main domain controlled by a different company than the "www" and without a redirect or using a different site alltogether. Hiding the "www" is just going to make matters worse in the long run. If a user is telling someone a URL and they DID have to use "www" to get there and yet read it off a screen that hides the "www", it will cause problems.
Google, STOP trying to hide and "simplify" everything- not everything in life is simple nor fits into what you think it should be like...
>"even more deficit spending...now to the tune of $1 Trillion per year, and every year, now that he and the Republicans"
Ha! Nice try. Deficit spending is just as rampant if not more under Democrats- it has to be, when you want even bigger government and more and more social programs; and yet "can't" raise taxes.
Spending money we don't have and crony capitalism is NON-PARTISAN. People are only elected that promise more "stuff" and yet at no more expense. Surprise, that means deficit and more national debt. The only solutions are a combination of:
1) Smaller and less government 2) Less spending 3) More taxes and revenue 4) Less corruption
And probably all of those in equal measure. None are popular with all segments (most with none), and many forces- voters, industries/corporations, unions, lobbyists, and "establishment" politicians will ALL fight one or more aspects of it.
And we are ALREADY paying for it, dearly. The national debt is already bigger than our GDP and we have to THROW AWAY over $300 BILLION dollars a year just to service that debt without even paying a penny to reduce it. And when the interest rates and debt go up more, it could be a HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR EXPENSE in just 10 years!
>"I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae."
+1000
I come to Slashdot because I want news about technology. Not more never-ending political crap. I wish we, the users, had more power to zap such stuff right off the server.
>"If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones."
Or better yet, don't approve ANY political stories, unless they *really* relate to technology. And even then, perhaps to have at least a little impartiality.
>"Considering Uber is so evil Microsoft is playing catch up, So the real question is, what actual benefit are they trying to get from this?"
Simple, perhaps it is active all the time- so now they can track you more, know what you are doing in your OWN vehicle, sell that info to insurance companies, have it waiting for subpoenas, and other great stuff.
"Warning: the installer includes (optional) bundleware in the form of Adaware Internet Security and the Opera web browser."
"You can download the Windows app right now, and BitTorrent promises that a Mac version is in the works."
So it is a mystery binary blob, which is scary enough with something like this, but it is also not available for Linux. Good thing I didn't have any interest in the first place:)
>"Ultimately I don't know what that court case would look like, but I bet it will turbo charge the argument that social media needs to be regulated like a public unity or a common carrier."
Indeed it would. These social media platforms seem to want to control their content and yet at the same time being insulated from liability/responsibility for that manipulation. It can't really work both ways at the same time. Having their own USERS regulate and moderate and control the content is one thing (and not the "thing" they are doing). But, otherwise, they are not acting like a common carrier by censoring, ranking, labeling, and skewing things the way they like.
>"Keep hearing this claim but never see any evidence. Surely if it was true someone would have used packet capture to prove it by now."
If they are doing it "right" then perhaps it isn't that easy to know. So although one would think someone would notice something right now, perhaps not. One thing is certain- with a binary blob (like Chrome) it is hard to analyze beyond what it puts on the network.
>"You think this was "different" during Net Neutrality? Service throttling has been happening for a long time, and is needed for certain applications to functions properly. Traffic is being shaped all the time."
Indeed it is/was. But people are desperate to somehow make these things "Net Neutrality" issues because it fits with their agenda to show how the world is now ending.
Net neutrality had to do with slowing down traffic to or from specific places based on paid or other agreements with those sites or competitors. This is just about throttling video so as not to saturate the network. Streaming video is 1,000 times more network traffic than just about anything else- texting, browsing the web, looking at maps, sending Email, etc. Mobile carriers were also messing with "transcoding" the video to be lower resolution and lower quality bit-rates to better match "mobile" (AKA "small screen where res isn't as important) devices. But shaping/throttling has the same effect- the video site will drop to a lower res/bitrate automatically to prevent pausing/buffering.
I don't like video site throttling/shaping, but I can understand why they are doing it. There isn't an unlimited amount of bandwidth. Not on their interconnect swith the rest of the Internet, not on their internal networks, not in their sub-stations, not to the towers, and not across the wireless spectrum. People want zero throttling, unlimited data, and no caps (and low prices with no overage fees and no premium fees). That isn't going to happen. If it did, then everyone will have connectivity and speed problems as the network is swamped by people watching 4K cat videos all day long...
>"I thought there were some constitutional protections in the US to prevent this type of thing from happening, but I guess not."
Not directly, but indirectly, yes:
"Congress shall make no law [...]abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"No person shall [...] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>"See the problem yet? Or are you still in denial?"
Show me the contract they signed. If it fails to say anything about data caps with throttling, then you can call me in denial. I have a feeling the contract plainly states the terms that Verizon used.
>"but everyone should be in favor of these modifications that can transform people's lives from suffering to joy and freedom."
I can totally understand why some people are worried about tampering with human DNA. The worst case scenario with doing so is screwing up the collective gene pool. But there is another alternative- in cases of severe disease, one option would be to sterilize the person getting the gene treatment so they can't have any children. That way the risk is only confined to the consenting adult. There are ethical issues with this too, of course, but they seem to be rather small considering the benefits of being cured. Many with severe genetic-based diseases would already have chosen to not have kids because of the risk or physically unable to do so because of the disease or because of age. They could even have gametes frozen pre-treatment, possibly to be used later.
Without risk to others, there is no moral/ethical ground to deny someone any treatment they want, as long as they understand the risks and costs.
You can if you are the government. They already have plenty of spectrum allocated to themselves. And they are certainly way, way large enough to do so.
>"we've granted the cell phone companies a spectrum monopoly"
There is limited spectrum, so there has to be some rules. Also, it isn't technically a monopoly, there are currently 4 large available to everyone that covers everywhere in addition to numerous small players..
>"As for negotiating, They can't negotiate since the kind of spectrum that reaches out to where the fires are was sold to Verizon.
You are saying a major player/customer like a State can't negotiate for a better plan? I think that is doubtful.
>"As for a metered plan, screw that noise. It's a public good (radio waves) and the fire department."
Blah, blah, "save the children" again. There is nothing wrong with a metered plan and paying for what is actually used. It doesn't matter what the data is used for. Besides, how do WE know all the data in this case was actually business related?
>"Just use eminent domain to require them to provide unlimited service to emergency services"
They could. But all this noise is about net neutrality, which it is not. Or about Verizon doing something strange, unusual, or unknown, which it is not. Or about it "saving the children"-like stuff, which it is not. They don't need "unlimited" service, they just need a metered service... just like most things are metered (gas, water, electricity, traditional long distance, 411 service, plumbers, taxi fares, etc). It is, literally, exactly what they need, and Verizon absolutely would sell them such a plan.
>"in blind obedience to some capitalist idea"
Your continued religion of Socialism keeps shining through... This article is about some stupid government officials (who you apparently think are so capable of running and regulating everything) who can't read or understand typical mobile contracts... ones that all the rest of us seem to understand quite well. It would be different if the article were about an ACTUAL use case where the government couldn't negotiate a workable contract for the data they [actually] need. But I bet such a use case doesn't exist.
>"The flexible screen on the prototype has a resolution of 2K. So more mid-tier mobile phone of yore"
Right, because a 6" screen should be 8K or 24K or 300K or something like that. So important for using that small, flexible, curled, toilet paper roll thing... nothing else in the design matters much when it is only 2K.
OMG! Give it a rest!!! If they didn't want a capped with throttled data plan, then they should should have:
1) Negotiated some other deal 2) Signed up for a metered plan 3) Found some other vendor or 4) Built their own mobile system
I mean, it is NOT A SECRET that [perhaps all] so-called "unlimited" data plans throttle after a cap. READ YOUR CONTRACT. It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited". It is not Verizon's "duty" to read your minds and adjust their plans to whatever use the government agency wants to use it for, to, oh.... "save the children" or whatnot. They are not shaping of traffic based on where the data was coming from or going to, it is just a cap and then throttled after that. Old "unlimited at full speed" plans ended many years ago and consumers HATED overage charges and unpredictable bills that came before, so this cap-then-throttle concept is what replaced it. Again, you might not like it, but that is WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR!!
If the mobile industry (and pretty much all ISP's now) definition of "unlimited" is what needs attacking, perhaps choosing a new name for it would help, then that is the domain of the FTC, not the FCC.
>"Except those living north of about 45 degrees, sure... "
Good point. I could definitely see a good argument about northern latitudes using standard time while further south uses summer time. That would still work quite well, as long as it never changes.
>"Noon (12PM) should be in the middle of the day, not an hour before it. Otherwise calling PM at all is a complete misnomer."
Also true:)
But I will take more usable daylight over correctness of noon, anytime. Besides, with the system we have now, "noon" is wrong half the year already and it doesn't cause any issue that I know about.
Of course, ANYTHING that keeps the time from CHANGING twice a year is better than what we have now. I would even accept a compromise- split the difference by moving time 1/2 hour forward of standard time and hold it there:)
>"I don't want it! I think we should be on Daylight Savings Time year around. We don't need more light in the evening."
We do in the winter; for many it is already dark, so it doesn't matter much. So I would say most don't need any more light in the morning most of the year, if not all of the year, which is effectively what going to standard time does. In modern times, most people would much rather have more light after work, when we can enjoy and used it. As it is now, I have to get up in the dark and get home in the dark (or nearly so) in the winter, and that really is yucky.
>"The recommendation for now is to stick to summer time year-round"
BINGO. Nearly all of us want EXACTLY THAT and have for many, many years now. Go on summer time and just LEAVE IT THERE PERMANENTLY. PLEASE DO IT.... then maybe the USA can follow...
>"I guess both 3D TV owners will have to decide if they prefer non-existent 8K content over non-existent 3D content."
I love 3D content and bought quite a bit of it for my 75" 3D 4K set. At the viewing normal distance of 15-20 feet from a 75" screen, there would be no visible difference between 4K and 8K. None. Zero. It actually exceeds any human's biology. There is already barely any difference between quality 1080P upscaled to 4K and actual 4K content, itself. Perhaps on a 200+ inch TV it might matter- but I doubt most people will have room for that (or $ for that either) and it would be way uncomfortable sitting too close to that, so you have to move to 30+ feet back and then it won't matter the resolution, yet again.
This 8K stuff is just a useless marketing gimmick to get people to buy new stuff, AGAIN. Some people might not LIKE 3D, and that is understandable, but it is absolutely visible, and can add a lot to the experience.
>"I voted green because I wanted to vote for someone who supports internet freedom and a better world. If you voted Trump or Clinton but you want a free internet you did it wrong."
Because of the spoiler effect of our system:
If you voted Green, you actually voted for Trump. If you voted Libertarian, you actually voted for Hillary. If you voted Constitution, you actually voted for Hillary.
>"What you missed is only the Republican party has attempted to make an issue out of "States Rights". The point is the hypocrisy. Just like passing a massive unfunded tax cut means you should be laughed at if you complain about the deficit."
That is, indeed, a good point. Neither party really cares about the deficit or debt, ultimately. They just continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. This is a result of a government that is far too large, far too remote, far too powerful, far too corrupt, and has far, far, too many people "dependent" on it- they simply can't do the unpopular things anymore.
Somehow, regardless of the party, platform, promises, or philosophy, the end results seem to inevitably be: borrow more, spend more.
>"You refuse to vote for them because they are not viable, yet they are not viable because people like you refuse to vote for them. Ergo, you are the problem. It is silly to vote for what you don't want, and then complain when you get it."
The problem is the voting SYSTEM. It is the system that creates a two-party-only system and prevents any real change. So yes, most of us DO end up voting for what we don't want because it end up being the "lesser of two evils". We can't necessarily vote for who we want because that vote is thrown away and we end up essentially handing over power to the more of the two evils. And since it really is nearly impossible in any real election that matters to have more than a D and R count, the other parties either never produce compelling enough candidates or never form as a party to begin with... because.... what's the point?
Third-parties of ANY type almost always do more harm than good because of the spoiler effect. And it is really sad. We deserve better. We deserve more choice and competition. The only way this will ever change is to have some type of ranked choice voting system.
And it *is* possible to have such a change, since the handling of voting is primarily a State issue, so getting such a change pushed through is possible. It will be slow and difficult, but it has an almost 100% more likely chance to succeed than repeatedly throwing away votes on 3rd parties (at least in important elections).
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla: If it is of any significant size, make it an Addon, not "Integrated." Include the Addon if you want, but please remember the original mission of Firefox- small, fast, secure (at least, that is how I remember it).
There are, in fact, cases where the "www" is necessary to make a site work. For example, a main domain controlled by a different company than the "www" and without a redirect or using a different site alltogether. Hiding the "www" is just going to make matters worse in the long run. If a user is telling someone a URL and they DID have to use "www" to get there and yet read it off a screen that hides the "www", it will cause problems.
Google, STOP trying to hide and "simplify" everything- not everything in life is simple nor fits into what you think it should be like...
>"even more deficit spending...now to the tune of $1 Trillion per year, and every year, now that he and the Republicans"
Ha! Nice try. Deficit spending is just as rampant if not more under Democrats- it has to be, when you want even bigger government and more and more social programs; and yet "can't" raise taxes.
Spending money we don't have and crony capitalism is NON-PARTISAN. People are only elected that promise more "stuff" and yet at no more expense. Surprise, that means deficit and more national debt. The only solutions are a combination of:
1) Smaller and less government
2) Less spending
3) More taxes and revenue
4) Less corruption
And probably all of those in equal measure. None are popular with all segments (most with none), and many forces- voters, industries/corporations, unions, lobbyists, and "establishment" politicians will ALL fight one or more aspects of it.
And we are ALREADY paying for it, dearly. The national debt is already bigger than our GDP and we have to THROW AWAY over $300 BILLION dollars a year just to service that debt without even paying a penny to reduce it. And when the interest rates and debt go up more, it could be a HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR EXPENSE in just 10 years!
https://www.thebalance.com/int...
>"The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting"
Indeed it is. It is 100% the problem, and on every level of government elections. And we *CAN* fix it, although it won't be easy.
http://fairvote.org/
>"I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae."
+1000
I come to Slashdot because I want news about technology. Not more never-ending political crap. I wish we, the users, had more power to zap such stuff right off the server.
>"If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones."
Or better yet, don't approve ANY political stories, unless they *really* relate to technology. And even then, perhaps to have at least a little impartiality.
>"This smells like a format war or at the very least more consumer confusion."
To me, this smells like typical marketing crap.
>"Considering Uber is so evil Microsoft is playing catch up, So the real question is, what actual benefit are they trying to get from this?"
Simple, perhaps it is active all the time- so now they can track you more, know what you are doing in your OWN vehicle, sell that info to insurance companies, have it waiting for subpoenas, and other great stuff.
I am not interested in this software, but:
"Warning: the installer includes (optional) bundleware in the form of Adaware Internet Security and the Opera web browser."
"You can download the Windows app right now, and BitTorrent promises that a Mac version is in the works."
So it is a mystery binary blob, which is scary enough with something like this, but it is also not available for Linux. Good thing I didn't have any interest in the first place :)
>"Ultimately I don't know what that court case would look like, but I bet it will turbo charge the argument that social media needs to be regulated like a public unity or a common carrier."
Indeed it would. These social media platforms seem to want to control their content and yet at the same time being insulated from liability/responsibility for that manipulation. It can't really work both ways at the same time. Having their own USERS regulate and moderate and control the content is one thing (and not the "thing" they are doing). But, otherwise, they are not acting like a common carrier by censoring, ranking, labeling, and skewing things the way they like.
>"Keep hearing this claim but never see any evidence. Surely if it was true someone would have used packet capture to prove it by now."
If they are doing it "right" then perhaps it isn't that easy to know. So although one would think someone would notice something right now, perhaps not. One thing is certain- with a binary blob (like Chrome) it is hard to analyze beyond what it puts on the network.
>"You think this was "different" during Net Neutrality? Service throttling has been happening for a long time, and is needed for certain applications to functions properly. Traffic is being shaped all the time."
Indeed it is/was. But people are desperate to somehow make these things "Net Neutrality" issues because it fits with their agenda to show how the world is now ending.
Net neutrality had to do with slowing down traffic to or from specific places based on paid or other agreements with those sites or competitors. This is just about throttling video so as not to saturate the network. Streaming video is 1,000 times more network traffic than just about anything else- texting, browsing the web, looking at maps, sending Email, etc. Mobile carriers were also messing with "transcoding" the video to be lower resolution and lower quality bit-rates to better match "mobile" (AKA "small screen where res isn't as important) devices. But shaping/throttling has the same effect- the video site will drop to a lower res/bitrate automatically to prevent pausing/buffering.
I don't like video site throttling/shaping, but I can understand why they are doing it. There isn't an unlimited amount of bandwidth. Not on their interconnect swith the rest of the Internet, not on their internal networks, not in their sub-stations, not to the towers, and not across the wireless spectrum. People want zero throttling, unlimited data, and no caps (and low prices with no overage fees and no premium fees). That isn't going to happen. If it did, then everyone will have connectivity and speed problems as the network is swamped by people watching 4K cat videos all day long...
>"I thought there were some constitutional protections in the US to prevent this type of thing from happening, but I guess not."
Not directly, but indirectly, yes:
"Congress shall make no law [...]abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"No person shall [...] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>"You are wrong, the contract is in Ars Technica along with the complaint."
I am unable to locate the contract on the article:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
>"See the problem yet? Or are you still in denial?"
Show me the contract they signed. If it fails to say anything about data caps with throttling, then you can call me in denial. I have a feeling the contract plainly states the terms that Verizon used.
>"but everyone should be in favor of these modifications that can transform people's lives from suffering to joy and freedom."
I can totally understand why some people are worried about tampering with human DNA. The worst case scenario with doing so is screwing up the collective gene pool. But there is another alternative- in cases of severe disease, one option would be to sterilize the person getting the gene treatment so they can't have any children. That way the risk is only confined to the consenting adult. There are ethical issues with this too, of course, but they seem to be rather small considering the benefits of being cured. Many with severe genetic-based diseases would already have chosen to not have kids because of the risk or physically unable to do so because of the disease or because of age. They could even have gametes frozen pre-treatment, possibly to be used later.
Without risk to others, there is no moral/ethical ground to deny someone any treatment they want, as long as they understand the risks and costs.
>"You can't build your own mobile system"
You can if you are the government. They already have plenty of spectrum allocated to themselves. And they are certainly way, way large enough to do so.
>"we've granted the cell phone companies a spectrum monopoly"
There is limited spectrum, so there has to be some rules. Also, it isn't technically a monopoly, there are currently 4 large available to everyone that covers everywhere in addition to numerous small players..
>"As for negotiating, They can't negotiate since the kind of spectrum that reaches out to where the fires are was sold to Verizon.
You are saying a major player/customer like a State can't negotiate for a better plan? I think that is doubtful.
>"As for a metered plan, screw that noise. It's a public good (radio waves) and the fire department."
Blah, blah, "save the children" again. There is nothing wrong with a metered plan and paying for what is actually used. It doesn't matter what the data is used for. Besides, how do WE know all the data in this case was actually business related?
>"Just use eminent domain to require them to provide unlimited service to emergency services"
They could. But all this noise is about net neutrality, which it is not. Or about Verizon doing something strange, unusual, or unknown, which it is not. Or about it "saving the children"-like stuff, which it is not. They don't need "unlimited" service, they just need a metered service... just like most things are metered (gas, water, electricity, traditional long distance, 411 service, plumbers, taxi fares, etc). It is, literally, exactly what they need, and Verizon absolutely would sell them such a plan.
>"in blind obedience to some capitalist idea"
Your continued religion of Socialism keeps shining through... This article is about some stupid government officials (who you apparently think are so capable of running and regulating everything) who can't read or understand typical mobile contracts... ones that all the rest of us seem to understand quite well. It would be different if the article were about an ACTUAL use case where the government couldn't negotiate a workable contract for the data they [actually] need. But I bet such a use case doesn't exist.
>"Jeez, enough already."
On that we can agree!
>"The flexible screen on the prototype has a resolution of 2K. So more mid-tier mobile phone of yore"
Right, because a 6" screen should be 8K or 24K or 300K or something like that. So important for using that small, flexible, curled, toilet paper roll thing... nothing else in the design matters much when it is only 2K.
OMG! Give it a rest!!! If they didn't want a capped with throttled data plan, then they should should have:
1) Negotiated some other deal
2) Signed up for a metered plan
3) Found some other vendor
or
4) Built their own mobile system
I mean, it is NOT A SECRET that [perhaps all] so-called "unlimited" data plans throttle after a cap. READ YOUR CONTRACT. It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited". It is not Verizon's "duty" to read your minds and adjust their plans to whatever use the government agency wants to use it for, to, oh.... "save the children" or whatnot. They are not shaping of traffic based on where the data was coming from or going to, it is just a cap and then throttled after that. Old "unlimited at full speed" plans ended many years ago and consumers HATED overage charges and unpredictable bills that came before, so this cap-then-throttle concept is what replaced it. Again, you might not like it, but that is WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR!!
If the mobile industry (and pretty much all ISP's now) definition of "unlimited" is what needs attacking, perhaps choosing a new name for it would help, then that is the domain of the FTC, not the FCC.
>"Except those living north of about 45 degrees, sure... "
Good point. I could definitely see a good argument about northern latitudes using standard time while further south uses summer time. That would still work quite well, as long as it never changes.
>"Noon (12PM) should be in the middle of the day, not an hour before it. Otherwise calling PM at all is a complete misnomer."
Also true :)
But I will take more usable daylight over correctness of noon, anytime. Besides, with the system we have now, "noon" is wrong half the year already and it doesn't cause any issue that I know about.
Of course, ANYTHING that keeps the time from CHANGING twice a year is better than what we have now. I would even accept a compromise- split the difference by moving time 1/2 hour forward of standard time and hold it there :)
>"I don't want it! I think we should be on Daylight Savings Time year around. We don't need more light in the evening."
We do in the winter; for many it is already dark, so it doesn't matter much. So I would say most don't need any more light in the morning most of the year, if not all of the year, which is effectively what going to standard time does. In modern times, most people would much rather have more light after work, when we can enjoy and used it. As it is now, I have to get up in the dark and get home in the dark (or nearly so) in the winter, and that really is yucky.
>"The recommendation for now is to stick to summer time year-round"
BINGO. Nearly all of us want EXACTLY THAT and have for many, many years now. Go on summer time and just LEAVE IT THERE PERMANENTLY. PLEASE DO IT.... then maybe the USA can follow...
>"I guess both 3D TV owners will have to decide if they prefer non-existent 8K content over non-existent 3D content."
I love 3D content and bought quite a bit of it for my 75" 3D 4K set. At the viewing normal distance of 15-20 feet from a 75" screen, there would be no visible difference between 4K and 8K. None. Zero. It actually exceeds any human's biology. There is already barely any difference between quality 1080P upscaled to 4K and actual 4K content, itself. Perhaps on a 200+ inch TV it might matter- but I doubt most people will have room for that (or $ for that either) and it would be way uncomfortable sitting too close to that, so you have to move to 30+ feet back and then it won't matter the resolution, yet again.
This 8K stuff is just a useless marketing gimmick to get people to buy new stuff, AGAIN. Some people might not LIKE 3D, and that is understandable, but it is absolutely visible, and can add a lot to the experience.
>"I voted green because I wanted to vote for someone who supports internet freedom and a better world. If you voted Trump or Clinton but you want a free internet you did it wrong."
Because of the spoiler effect of our system:
If you voted Green, you actually voted for Trump.
If you voted Libertarian, you actually voted for Hillary.
If you voted Constitution, you actually voted for Hillary.
>"What you missed is only the Republican party has attempted to make an issue out of "States Rights". The point is the hypocrisy. Just like passing a massive unfunded tax cut means you should be laughed at if you complain about the deficit."
That is, indeed, a good point. Neither party really cares about the deficit or debt, ultimately. They just continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. This is a result of a government that is far too large, far too remote, far too powerful, far too corrupt, and has far, far, too many people "dependent" on it- they simply can't do the unpopular things anymore.
Somehow, regardless of the party, platform, promises, or philosophy, the end results seem to inevitably be: borrow more, spend more.
>"You refuse to vote for them because they are not viable, yet they are not viable because people like you refuse to vote for them. Ergo, you are the problem. It is silly to vote for what you don't want, and then complain when you get it."
The problem is the voting SYSTEM. It is the system that creates a two-party-only system and prevents any real change. So yes, most of us DO end up voting for what we don't want because it end up being the "lesser of two evils". We can't necessarily vote for who we want because that vote is thrown away and we end up essentially handing over power to the more of the two evils. And since it really is nearly impossible in any real election that matters to have more than a D and R count, the other parties either never produce compelling enough candidates or never form as a party to begin with... because.... what's the point?
Third-parties of ANY type almost always do more harm than good because of the spoiler effect. And it is really sad. We deserve better. We deserve more choice and competition. The only way this will ever change is to have some type of ranked choice voting system.
http://fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And it *is* possible to have such a change, since the handling of voting is primarily a State issue, so getting such a change pushed through is possible. It will be slow and difficult, but it has an almost 100% more likely chance to succeed than repeatedly throwing away votes on 3rd parties (at least in important elections).