That's a non-sequitur. They can do those things only because there are no federal laws preventing them.
Some concrete examples - it's federal law/regulation created using the Commerce Clause which (effectively) prevents the sale and ownership of automatic weapons. It's federal law/regulation which prevents the states from regulating radio frequency spectrum.
They're not necessarily in conflict. If I pay for X bandwidth, I should get that on a neutral basis - I'm in control of which content I ask for. If the ISPs want to charge someone else for bandwidth to me above and beyond what I'm already paying for - so for example, I get still good Netflix while simultaneously maxing out torrents on on the bandwidth I'm paying for - I have no problem with that. Of course, if I limit myself so Netflix has ample bandwidth within my subscribed bandwidth, that should be delivered without interference or cost to Netflix.
Netflix/torrents just as examples, I rarely max out my incoming bandwidth for other than short bursts. But perhaps someone wants to pay for minimal bandwidth (1 Mbps), but still get good Netflix (3 Mbps) and VoIP service. Providers should be able to pay for that additional bandwidth as part of a competitive offering. Similarly with QoS even inside the bandwidth I buy - I'd like my VoIP service to be able to have better QoS treatment, so a phone call doesn't degrade when someone else downloads a file. If all packets are treated equally, that's impossible.
The key, it seems to me, is to find some way to ensure that ISPs don't simply overprice bandwidth to the consumer in order to force providers to pay to deliver their content outside the subscribed bandwidth, and therefore gain a competitive advantage for their own offerings.
You've never read the Constitution, have you? Fact is, this would be one of the increasingly rare legitimate uses for Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which gives Congress the power
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
If SCOTUS can claim that growing a garden for personal use is Interstate Commerce, then so to is an automobile company in one state selling cars in another.
They don't have to bribe all 50 states. They only have to convince Congress to exercise its authority over Interstate Commerce to prohibit these anti-competitive state laws.
It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.
But I somehow think his reasoning is more on par with "we don't like people protecting their rights, because it makes it harder for us to violate them."
"Perpetual Motion violates the laws of physics - can't be done, so any patent application is bogus, either wrong or fraudulent, not worth wasting time on."
And yet, our entire universe is in perpetual motion. Poof! you just proved you don't exist.
Is it really too much to expect editors to, well, edit? Despite going back and fixing the first obvious lack of editing, timothy still didn't read the whole thing. There's this
However, devs decided to drop support for ext2/3/4 on external drivers and SD card.
They're apparently dropping support on a single SD card? (it should be "external drives and SD memory cards." Then this:
It seems that ChromiumOS developers can't implement a script or feature to relabel EXT volumes in the left nav that is insertable and has RW privileges using Files.app.
Which is an extremely awkward, if not utterly nonsensical, sentence.
" they are associations of people. If you think they can have their rights reduced at will,"
No, they are a subset of "associations of people." A subset which relies upon specific legal privileges to exist.
"As to a corporation being an artificial legal construct... what isn't?"
One example - I my friends and I get together, take up a collection and print and pass out political leaflets, there's no legal construct - we have every right to do so under "free association." There is absolutely nothing which requires forming a corporation in order to exercise free association. I am saying that if we instead want to incorporate and take advantage of the laws which grant special privileges to corporations, the state has every right to be able to say for what purpose that corporation may be formed, and that includes limiting the speech that corporation may make.
Congress should have the ability to pass legislation restricting the actions of corporations in any way they want.
Corporations are artificial legal constructs which allow special privileges (tax and liability advantages, mainly) to their owners. Since they're constructs of law, they're subject to legal regulation. Corporations are not people, and do not have rights. No right to free speech, no right to vote, etc.
That does not infringe on any individual rights - people still have the right and ability to band together for group speech, etc. They simply can't do it and also gain the special privileges given to corporations.
The very first line of the Constitution helps clarify who they're calling "the people." - "We the People of the United States..."
Or, are you proposing that non-citizens get to vote in elections, as long as they live in a state? "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States."
"I say they weren't actually creating interference,"
Seriously? Really? Not sure if you're stupid or being deliberately obtuse. They knew exactly what they were doing, and it was deliberately interfering with other's use of that spectrum. The FCC agrees.
"they ware well within their rights on their own private property."
Nope. The airwaves are a public resource, and Marriott can only transmit on them under well defined rules, which include not causing deliberate interference to other users. WiFi is a shared medium, and shouldn't be relied upon for business critical needs.
Certainly not. Do you think they're fooling, or even trying to fool anyone into thinking those letters were written and mailed by individuals? Nope. When some congresscritter's office gets mailbags of nearly identical letters, in nearly identical envelopes, they know they didn't come from individuals.
"Look there is no balanced six of one, half a dozen of the other. "
Never mind. You're obviously blinded by partisanship, and unable to think rationally.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. You can't mark the traffic being sent to you. That's so fundamental, it's clear you don't understand how it works.
That's a non-sequitur. They can do those things only because there are no federal laws preventing them.
Some concrete examples - it's federal law/regulation created using the Commerce Clause which (effectively) prevents the sale and ownership of automatic weapons. It's federal law/regulation which prevents the states from regulating radio frequency spectrum.
They're not necessarily in conflict. If I pay for X bandwidth, I should get that on a neutral basis - I'm in control of which content I ask for. If the ISPs want to charge someone else for bandwidth to me above and beyond what I'm already paying for - so for example, I get still good Netflix while simultaneously maxing out torrents on on the bandwidth I'm paying for - I have no problem with that. Of course, if I limit myself so Netflix has ample bandwidth within my subscribed bandwidth, that should be delivered without interference or cost to Netflix.
Netflix/torrents just as examples, I rarely max out my incoming bandwidth for other than short bursts. But perhaps someone wants to pay for minimal bandwidth (1 Mbps), but still get good Netflix (3 Mbps) and VoIP service. Providers should be able to pay for that additional bandwidth as part of a competitive offering. Similarly with QoS even inside the bandwidth I buy - I'd like my VoIP service to be able to have better QoS treatment, so a phone call doesn't degrade when someone else downloads a file. If all packets are treated equally, that's impossible.
The key, it seems to me, is to find some way to ensure that ISPs don't simply overprice bandwidth to the consumer in order to force providers to pay to deliver their content outside the subscribed bandwidth, and therefore gain a competitive advantage for their own offerings.
If SCOTUS can claim that growing a garden for personal use is Interstate Commerce, then so to is an automobile company in one state selling cars in another.
They don't have to bribe all 50 states. They only have to convince Congress to exercise its authority over Interstate Commerce to prohibit these anti-competitive state laws.
It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.
But I somehow think his reasoning is more on par with "we don't like people protecting their rights, because it makes it harder for us to violate them."
Yet another example of violating net neutrality.
"Aluminum tubes! Why else would they ever need to buy aluminum tubes?"
Really. They come free with Cuban cigars.
Who's idea was it to do this Q&A - Slashdot or you?
"Perpetual Motion violates the laws of physics - can't be done, so any patent application is bogus, either wrong or fraudulent, not worth wasting time on."
And yet, our entire universe is in perpetual motion. Poof! you just proved you don't exist.
They're apparently dropping support on a single SD card? (it should be "external drives and SD memory cards." Then this:
Which is an extremely awkward, if not utterly nonsensical, sentence.
"Chromebook is one of the selling laptop on Amazon."
Wow. Really? Timothy strikes again.
"If it is receiving digital information then it is by definition a digital meter."
By that logic, everything is quanta, so there's no such thing as an analog anything.
" they are associations of people. If you think they can have their rights reduced at will,"
No, they are a subset of "associations of people." A subset which relies upon specific legal privileges to exist.
"As to a corporation being an artificial legal construct... what isn't?"
One example - I my friends and I get together, take up a collection and print and pass out political leaflets, there's no legal construct - we have every right to do so under "free association." There is absolutely nothing which requires forming a corporation in order to exercise free association. I am saying that if we instead want to incorporate and take advantage of the laws which grant special privileges to corporations, the state has every right to be able to say for what purpose that corporation may be formed, and that includes limiting the speech that corporation may make.
Congress should have the ability to pass legislation restricting the actions of corporations in any way they want.
Corporations are artificial legal constructs which allow special privileges (tax and liability advantages, mainly) to their owners. Since they're constructs of law, they're subject to legal regulation. Corporations are not people, and do not have rights. No right to free speech, no right to vote, etc.
That does not infringe on any individual rights - people still have the right and ability to band together for group speech, etc. They simply can't do it and also gain the special privileges given to corporations.
Uh, no.
The very first line of the Constitution helps clarify who they're calling "the people." - "We the People of the United States..."
Or, are you proposing that non-citizens get to vote in elections, as long as they live in a state? "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States."
+1.
HP is only a name (run by empty suits) these days.
Packard? Why not Studebaker?
You can't get a network connection from a cell phone via USB? You have a lame cell phone.
"I say they weren't actually creating interference,"
Seriously? Really? Not sure if you're stupid or being deliberately obtuse. They knew exactly what they were doing, and it was deliberately interfering with other's use of that spectrum. The FCC agrees.
"they ware well within their rights on their own private property."
Nope. The airwaves are a public resource, and Marriott can only transmit on them under well defined rules, which include not causing deliberate interference to other users. WiFi is a shared medium, and shouldn't be relied upon for business critical needs.
Failing in your parallel construction, and telling the court you discovered evidence in a way you couldn't have, seems to me to be perjury.
QED
" It's fraudulent."
Certainly not. Do you think they're fooling, or even trying to fool anyone into thinking those letters were written and mailed by individuals? Nope. When some congresscritter's office gets mailbags of nearly identical letters, in nearly identical envelopes, they know they didn't come from individuals.
"Look there is no balanced six of one, half a dozen of the other. "
Never mind. You're obviously blinded by partisanship, and unable to think rationally.
Same reason P.T. Barnum got rich.