As long as we are pretending fan fiction is close to workable reality, we might as well also inject the claim that it could have been avoided long before G.W. Bush was president if President Clinton would have supported the Kurds when they attempted to overthrow Saddam back in the mid 90's.
Of course a lot can be said about other actions if they had been taken. For instance, President Clinton also had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden before 9/11 but chose not to for probably good reasons (too many civilian casualties would have incurred)
Hind sight is always better then the fog of reality in real time I guess. It's fun to look back and think what if something was done differently but if seems to be a mighty powerful word. If the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit. If the rabbit didn't stop to shit, the dog would have never caught him. How true either of those statements could be is just a guess, but if we knew, it still wouldn't be as real as what really happened.
I do not disagree with your sentiment, I just perceive Obama's dilemma as being such that he will loose face whichever way he goes so I think he is going to pick whatever is most favorable to him according to the people he cares to impress.
Otherwise, who is going to pay him $2mil a speech or give his daughters a cushy job so his future is secure......It's like drawing a line in the sand and having Russia bail them out when it appears that not only was it crossed, but they were pissing all over your sand castle while doing it.
I'm reminded of an old asterix and obelix cartoon where in one of the scenes, asterix is in a roman tower and obelix outside and they try to go to each other pummeling the Romans along the way just to realize they switched places and have to do it again. Near the end, a roman soldier cries out, maybe if we are quiet, they won't see us or something like that.
Ignoring those differences is probably the "stupidest most arrogant statement I have read in a long time".
Also, I do not really care about what you think is barbaric. We are not Europe and Europe is not us. We have different ways and different outcomes and this is by design.
I was wondering the same thing. A possible answer might be that if the limb isn't there long enough, the ability to send the neurons along the proper paths may be lost so capturing them closer to home might be a better solution. Or it could be because the implants are already installed for other purposes in the patients they are studying and getting the control process to work is more important at this stage than how it is eventually used. It could be that they plan on moving the control devices later and taking advantage of the others.
Something else I was thinking about, how long before something like this can control the entire body making it possible for dead people to be artificially resurrected and have a computer installed in the brain. sort of electric zombies or something. Perhaps this will end up with robots being mind controlled also- where an operator thinks about grasping an object in a hazardous area and the robot does so as naturally as a human could via a prosthetic. This might make dangerous situations like entering a burning building or a fukishima type plant disaster easier due to a lot of the controls being created for human interaction verses remote robotics.
I'm not sure Obama can politically afford to get too carried away with bombing ISIS. Whether it is true or not, there is plenty of talk that Obama allowed this to happen by not keeping troops in Iraq longer. He blames the Iraqi government for not updating the SOFA agreements but people have been claiming that Hillary (presumable under Obama's orders) kept increasing demands that couldn't be met by the Iraqi government. He then declared his campaign promise has been realized and ended the war on terror to boot.
So how does he go back and say the war on terror is not over, how does he come back and say we need to go back into Iraq after claiming the people foreseeing this were nutters, how does he do this without giving credibility to all those decrying our exist from the world or who said if we did not lead in Syria, something evil would fill the void. The problem is, he seems to believe that if we mind our own business, the world will not hate us, will not want to kill us, and situations like this will not exist.
Now I will admit that all that may not be 100% true, but it is the perception people are getting and it is the perception he seems to be afraid of when he has to acknowledge his foreign policy was a failure, that his plans for peace didn't work. This is what he is up with, he is either claimed to be wrong on everything and allow it to happen, or he has to admit he was wrong and do something about it that goes against what he seems to believe.
I dropped that comic because it does appear that he is more occupied playing golf than the problems in the world. But to be fair, if you can golf somewhat well, it is a relaxing and peaceful time in which you can actually think things through. This is probably why so much business gets done on the gold course.
I'm sorry but where have you been these last few months?
Iraq has been asking the US to send in the troops for a while now. We have been ignoring them and playing games claiming that the Maliki government caused ISIS to happen and more or less forced him out of office before we would help. Now we are doing limited bombings and offering strategy meetings with about 1000 troops in the area supposedly to protect US personnel. We were going to go in and rescue some people on a mountain but I guess they were either killed or escaped by other means. We did drop food and water I think.
The Universal Service Principal is hardly a common concept yet there is the capability of other countries to allow competition both at an infrastructure and access level. I think you will also find that there is absolutely no USP for internet access above an abysmally low level.
I'm not even sure how this is relevant. In other countries, they throw acid in the face of women who do not cover their face and execute gays. What do we learn from this? Other countries do things differently and some things may pass as appropriate but it doesn't mean it will here.
And no, I'm not comparing torturing women or killing gays to giving away the internet, I'm saying that their structures are different, their governments are different, so what they do doesn't always line up with ours.
More fundamentally though I do not understand why you feel there should be no competition at a municipal level. A township has no requirement, legally or morally, to support a different township through subsidisation. And that is exactly what you are arguing by saying the cash cows need to exist to fund other areas. If a local government feels that its population is being inadequately served then it actually HAS the moral imperative to fix that if it can. Now if it invests in infrastructure which it then operates itself or sells to a private entity and as a result improves the standards for its constituents it has done EXACTLY what it exists to do.
Wrong.. The federal government as well as the local government have given these companies monopolies specifically in order to support different townships. It is all regulated at a government level and these companies have published rates on file at their state public utilities commission.
Now, by fixing it, you are correct. It is the duty of the local governments to impose rules that fix the broken monopolies and force them to invest in new infrastructure is that is necessary. And when they do, there is usually a rider placed on the bills like when one city decides that all their utility lines must be moved under ground (which is becoming a common occurrence today). So the city, and/or townships (in my state, they are two different things) can and should fix the problems. They just don't need to have the government competing with an entity it already controls and taking the low hanging fruits and sticking those entities with the more expensive clients.
Imagine if you owned a business that sold gasoline. You have a cost you have to recover. Now imagine the city stepping in and underselling you and using tax payer funds in order to do so. But while the city is not subject to it's own taxes, you are and while the city doesn't have to jump through regulatory hoops, you do. So what would you think about the city all the sudden driving you out of business with tax payer funds?
Good start. Now, recall that the constitution granted power over navigable waterways, post offices, and post roads, to the federal government. In other words, ALL telecommunication (known in the eighteenth century) was to be managed by Congress, which can (and probably should) defer details to one or more semiautonomous agencies: thus, the FCC.
Well, for the post offices and post roads, it specifically gives the federal government the ability or authority to create them but does not in any way give them the ultimate authority over all forms of them. If that was the case, the streets running to and from the post office and your house would be owned, maintained, and controlled by the federal government and not your local municipality or state government where applicable. Also, competitors to the post office wouldn't be around so FedEx, UPS, DHL and the likes would not be possible independent of the government.
As for waterways, that's actually an extraction of the interstate commerce clause and not specifically in the US constitution. I believe it was around 1824 when a conflict over licensing or registration requirements came into effect and the supreme court sided with the federal government due to the interstate commerce clause. So I'm not sure that is a real strong argument but I won't dispute it in practice.
But the big problem with all this is the semi-autonomous agencies or to be more precise, unelected political appointments not in the judicial branch but in agencies with the power to alter, create, and enforce and/or punish regulations which become laws or have the effect of laws instead of congress actually following the constitutionally provided method of creating federal laws.
Alas, Congress isn't totally clear in their guidance to the FCC (which is limited by the statutes that created it), and the FCC has too much history to sort through, and too few options that can be swiftly invoked. Getting the states to stop prohibiting telecommunications is very much in the public interest, and isn't at all contrary to the Constitution.
It very much is contrary to the US Constitution. If congress has the power to act, then congress itself should act. What you are advocating for is a political appointee, independent of the US constitution and with the stroke of a pen, altering, removing, or negating state and local laws that it does not like and that you do not like without regard to any reason the state or local laws were put in place or the wished of the electorate within those jurisdictions.
If and as Congress clearly decides that e-mail (the kind of mail everyone uses nowadays) is a 'post roads and post offices' function, they can bypass any state or even municipal attempt to monopolize/throttle. It can also be treated as 'interstate commerce', which has a good size body of settled law, of course, and also supports federal primacy.
If they so choose, then they should do so. The problem is, they are not doing so which is why the warning was made. It's basically saying what you do is not set in stone and can be undone just as easily so make sure you have good enough reasoning that any political appointee in the future would also support the move.
The republicans are voting against their best interest because they don't understand the issues and think they're making the smart choice.
Actually, they get to decide what their best interest is and it may not be what you want it to be. That is the problem with Freedom, there is always someone who thinks you are only free if you believe and think exactly as they do.
I'm betting they understand the issues better than you do and choose the sides they do specifically because of it. I know I do.
This is basically a phishing attack. It only uses the meta data of the memory to prompt a fake logon screen around the time you would expect one. So lets say your second factor is your home wireless network ssid and if you are not on it, it asks for a second passphrase. If they can time a popup asking for it right after the fish your normal log on, you basically give it to them unless you notice it.
In desktop and server os'the memory allocation is controlled by the os. So couldn't a solution be having the OS control direct memory acces and just present the ap with a table in order to mimic current practices and backwards compatability? Or would that be too much overhead for these devices?
Nah.. its the same as always. Those who could actually use an automobile analogy always got modded up.
Its probably because people could actually understand and relate to the point but the line is more fuzzy than a corvette screaming by at 140mph (~225kph) while you are going slower than traffic in the fast lane.
Do you guys go to some seminar to get things so clearly wrong? The supremacy clause does not invalidate anything i said. It even specifically requires the acts of government to be in accourdance with the constitution in order to be the dupreme law if the land.
The supremacy clause does not in any way give the feds carte blache over the country.
Wow.. this is simple highschool civics. Even directly reading the supremacy clause would have given you a clue.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Read what you just copy and pasted. It says made in pursuance thereof. It does not in any way shape or form say the feds can do anything they want- it says inly laws made in accordance with the constitution are supreme laws of the land.
The you should discard your made up facts and get some real ones. FDR was the reason for the expansion of the interstate commerce clause which has been taken to extremes today in government. No one disputes that who knows what they are talking about.
Sigh.. just because you cannot live without facebook does not mean the internet or even access faster than dial up is a vital or essential part of anything.
And if you think the poor and minority class is under served, it can be remedied by mandating access without putting the government into direct competition with the private sector.
Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.
Even Wikipedia gets it right. Sigh.. Perhaps you should explore the articles of confederation and why it was replaced by the US constitution before trying to give a history lesson.
As for expansion of federal power, its been ongoing ever since 1776 with notable events being the US Constitution,
I think I know where you are going wrong here. Either you have no reading comprehension, English is not your first language, or you are intentionally ignoring what was said in order to inject some comment as if you had meaning and insight. What part of "FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes" is so difficult to understand? I guess it would be the words modern and day when put together.
Just because Jackson ignored the Supreme court doesn't really have much to do with the modern day unless you somehow construe it to be the reasoning for FDR's actions involving the SCOTUS.
Ok, I will try to explain this a simple as I can in order to keep it short.
The cable and telcos have to offer service to unprofitable areas as well as the profitable areas and charge the same rates for both. This is part of their ability to have a monopoly in the area. Now, in some areas, there is competition but not because the infrastructure was duplicated but because they had to lease it to the competition at costs of operating it and also serve those not profitable areas.
So a municipality steps up and uses tax dollars to build out new infrastructure that competes with these other setups. They then go into direct competition with them and suck up the profitable areas leaving the cable and telcos with only the unprofitable areas and a few stragglers in the profitable areas.
The end result is, or could very well be, that not enough profit is left available for the telcos and cable companies to do upgrades in those areas. And before you think they are rich companies over flowing with cash, first, they typically segregate their areas of operations where time warner of Atlanta might be a different company from time warner of Columbus Ohio but owned by a parent company. Each area would be separate as far as financials go. Second, if their cash cows disappear, they will likely no longer be overflowing with cash.
Also the municipal only doing the infrastructure is not really what is being considered here. What is being considered is the municipality selling off their excess bandwidth and purchasing more in order to go into direct competition with the cable and telcos. Some of the plans I have seen deliver the product free of monthly charge and is based on taxes paid. This is like the cable and telcos being able to charge each and every citizen of an area whether they have the service or not.
But I like your idea of the municipality owning and providing infrastructure that others lease until another recession hits and they neglect it because revenue is down or some loon gets elected mayor and decides to divert the funding for it to something else he things is more important like flags and colored lights lining the main street going through town or a brick crosswalk on one of the busiest intersections that has regular truck traffic (Yes, both have happened in my town- had to put a levee on the ballot in order to fix potholes because they spent that money on other shit) in order to enhance curb appeal.
So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support because the other side will try to repeal it. How would anything get done? At that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. Did he even listen to what he said?
Well, no. The FCC does not make laws, it makes regulation with the force of laws without congress voting on all the regulations. What he is saying is that whatever they do, a republican chairperson can undo. Don't bother with extreme partisan hacks because it will not last when another party is in charge of the FCC. That is sort of the challenge of having regulatory bodies appointed with the power of law, they need to have sound enough reasoning for all their actions in order to prevent the next appointment from undoing them. That is all he is saying.
I swear, man. Congresscritters sound more like whiny children every day. This is the epitome of politicians' refusal to compromise on anything. The general intelligence of people in politics must steadily be dropping. They better stay where they are because they sure can't do anything else.
You mean the one thing the federal government does that it is constitutionally empowered to do is the one thing you are wanting to single out as your example?
That's exactly right. The federal government is not sovereign over everything in the US. The entire concept was that it was supposed to be spelled out in the constitution and the states which were separate countries only gave up or surrendered the amount of sovereignty to the federal government that was in the US constitution. This is fifth grade history BTW. Over the years, the federal government has been granted more powers by the expansion of several elements within the US constitution by the courts. This expansion is in ways not originally foreseen by the founders or the interpretations of the constitution until it happened. FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes came at a constitutional impasse in which his new deal legislation was deemed unconstitutional and he basically said "so what, I'm the executive and I can enforce it" while the democrat congress threatened to expand the supreme court seats until they could pack enough party supporters in that they had a majority. The end result, before everything blew apart, the Supreme Court ended up allowing the New Deal provisions as a means of the interstate commerce clause. This is why things like the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to companies with less than a certain amount of revenue or some other substantial impact on interstate commerce and will default to whatever the state minimum wage is.
Bravo indeed. That was what made America the finest in the world at one time. We have lost that position and lost the constitutional separations.
Do you just not understand what you are saying or are you somehow brainwashed?
You just said that republican politicians are open about lining their pockets while democrats hide it because it's what their voters want. This is the same as saying the republican voters know what they are voting for and democrat voters keep getting the misled in order to vote democrat and you think the republican voters are the idiots?
It seems like you should have another word in there or direct your comment towards another group of people.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as we are pretending fan fiction is close to workable reality, we might as well also inject the claim that it could have been avoided long before G.W. Bush was president if President Clinton would have supported the Kurds when they attempted to overthrow Saddam back in the mid 90's.
Of course a lot can be said about other actions if they had been taken. For instance, President Clinton also had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden before 9/11 but chose not to for probably good reasons (too many civilian casualties would have incurred)
Hind sight is always better then the fog of reality in real time I guess. It's fun to look back and think what if something was done differently but if seems to be a mighty powerful word. If the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit. If the rabbit didn't stop to shit, the dog would have never caught him. How true either of those statements could be is just a guess, but if we knew, it still wouldn't be as real as what really happened.
I do not disagree with your sentiment, I just perceive Obama's dilemma as being such that he will loose face whichever way he goes so I think he is going to pick whatever is most favorable to him according to the people he cares to impress.
Otherwise, who is going to pay him $2mil a speech or give his daughters a cushy job so his future is secure......It's like drawing a line in the sand and having Russia bail them out when it appears that not only was it crossed, but they were pissing all over your sand castle while doing it.
I'm reminded of an old asterix and obelix cartoon where in one of the scenes, asterix is in a roman tower and obelix outside and they try to go to each other pummeling the Romans along the way just to realize they switched places and have to do it again. Near the end, a roman soldier cries out, maybe if we are quiet, they won't see us or something like that.
Go back and read what I said again.
Ignoring those differences is probably the "stupidest most arrogant statement I have read in a long time".
Also, I do not really care about what you think is barbaric. We are not Europe and Europe is not us. We have different ways and different outcomes and this is by design.
Or it could be simply internet penetration.
According to the US census stats, it appears that 86% of individuals in Massachusetts live in household that have internet access while only 64% in Mississippi do. (according to the Table 1. Reported Internet Usage for Individuals 3 Years and Older, by Selected Characteristics: 2012)
I would be interested in finding how much this usage or penetration correlates to the speeds or if it could be correlated to scores also.
I was wondering the same thing. A possible answer might be that if the limb isn't there long enough, the ability to send the neurons along the proper paths may be lost so capturing them closer to home might be a better solution. Or it could be because the implants are already installed for other purposes in the patients they are studying and getting the control process to work is more important at this stage than how it is eventually used. It could be that they plan on moving the control devices later and taking advantage of the others.
Something else I was thinking about, how long before something like this can control the entire body making it possible for dead people to be artificially resurrected and have a computer installed in the brain. sort of electric zombies or something. Perhaps this will end up with robots being mind controlled also- where an operator thinks about grasping an object in a hazardous area and the robot does so as naturally as a human could via a prosthetic. This might make dangerous situations like entering a burning building or a fukishima type plant disaster easier due to a lot of the controls being created for human interaction verses remote robotics.
http://www.dispatch.com/conten...
I'm not sure Obama can politically afford to get too carried away with bombing ISIS. Whether it is true or not, there is plenty of talk that Obama allowed this to happen by not keeping troops in Iraq longer. He blames the Iraqi government for not updating the SOFA agreements but people have been claiming that Hillary (presumable under Obama's orders) kept increasing demands that couldn't be met by the Iraqi government. He then declared his campaign promise has been realized and ended the war on terror to boot.
So how does he go back and say the war on terror is not over, how does he come back and say we need to go back into Iraq after claiming the people foreseeing this were nutters, how does he do this without giving credibility to all those decrying our exist from the world or who said if we did not lead in Syria, something evil would fill the void. The problem is, he seems to believe that if we mind our own business, the world will not hate us, will not want to kill us, and situations like this will not exist.
Now I will admit that all that may not be 100% true, but it is the perception people are getting and it is the perception he seems to be afraid of when he has to acknowledge his foreign policy was a failure, that his plans for peace didn't work. This is what he is up with, he is either claimed to be wrong on everything and allow it to happen, or he has to admit he was wrong and do something about it that goes against what he seems to believe.
I dropped that comic because it does appear that he is more occupied playing golf than the problems in the world. But to be fair, if you can golf somewhat well, it is a relaxing and peaceful time in which you can actually think things through. This is probably why so much business gets done on the gold course.
I'm sorry but where have you been these last few months?
Iraq has been asking the US to send in the troops for a while now. We have been ignoring them and playing games claiming that the Maliki government caused ISIS to happen and more or less forced him out of office before we would help. Now we are doing limited bombings and offering strategy meetings with about 1000 troops in the area supposedly to protect US personnel. We were going to go in and rescue some people on a mountain but I guess they were either killed or escaped by other means. We did drop food and water I think.
http://www.dispatch.com/conten...
I'm not even sure how this is relevant. In other countries, they throw acid in the face of women who do not cover their face and execute gays. What do we learn from this? Other countries do things differently and some things may pass as appropriate but it doesn't mean it will here.
And no, I'm not comparing torturing women or killing gays to giving away the internet, I'm saying that their structures are different, their governments are different, so what they do doesn't always line up with ours.
Wrong.. The federal government as well as the local government have given these companies monopolies specifically in order to support different townships. It is all regulated at a government level and these companies have published rates on file at their state public utilities commission.
Now, by fixing it, you are correct. It is the duty of the local governments to impose rules that fix the broken monopolies and force them to invest in new infrastructure is that is necessary. And when they do, there is usually a rider placed on the bills like when one city decides that all their utility lines must be moved under ground (which is becoming a common occurrence today). So the city, and/or townships (in my state, they are two different things) can and should fix the problems. They just don't need to have the government competing with an entity it already controls and taking the low hanging fruits and sticking those entities with the more expensive clients.
Imagine if you owned a business that sold gasoline. You have a cost you have to recover. Now imagine the city stepping in and underselling you and using tax payer funds in order to do so. But while the city is not subject to it's own taxes, you are and while the city doesn't have to jump through regulatory hoops, you do. So what would you think about the city all the sudden driving you out of business with tax payer funds?
Well, for the post offices and post roads, it specifically gives the federal government the ability or authority to create them but does not in any way give them the ultimate authority over all forms of them. If that was the case, the streets running to and from the post office and your house would be owned, maintained, and controlled by the federal government and not your local municipality or state government where applicable. Also, competitors to the post office wouldn't be around so FedEx, UPS, DHL and the likes would not be possible independent of the government.
As for waterways, that's actually an extraction of the interstate commerce clause and not specifically in the US constitution. I believe it was around 1824 when a conflict over licensing or registration requirements came into effect and the supreme court sided with the federal government due to the interstate commerce clause. So I'm not sure that is a real strong argument but I won't dispute it in practice.
But the big problem with all this is the semi-autonomous agencies or to be more precise, unelected political appointments not in the judicial branch but in agencies with the power to alter, create, and enforce and/or punish regulations which become laws or have the effect of laws instead of congress actually following the constitutionally provided method of creating federal laws.
It very much is contrary to the US Constitution. If congress has the power to act, then congress itself should act. What you are advocating for is a political appointee, independent of the US constitution and with the stroke of a pen, altering, removing, or negating state and local laws that it does not like and that you do not like without regard to any reason the state or local laws were put in place or the wished of the electorate within those jurisdictions.
If they so choose, then they should do so. The problem is, they are not doing so which is why the warning was made. It's basically saying what you do is not set in stone and can be undone just as easily so make sure you have good enough reasoning that any political appointee in the future would also support the move.
Actually, they get to decide what their best interest is and it may not be what you want it to be. That is the problem with Freedom, there is always someone who thinks you are only free if you believe and think exactly as they do.
I'm betting they understand the issues better than you do and choose the sides they do specifically because of it. I know I do.
It likely would depending on the second factor.
This is basically a phishing attack. It only uses the meta data of the memory to prompt a fake logon screen around the time you would expect one. So lets say your second factor is your home wireless network ssid and if you are not on it, it asks for a second passphrase. If they can time a popup asking for it right after the fish your normal log on, you basically give it to them unless you notice it.
Corect me if i'm wrong.
In desktop and server os'the memory allocation is controlled by the os. So couldn't a solution be having the OS control direct memory acces and just present the ap with a table in order to mimic current practices and backwards compatability? Or would that be too much overhead for these devices?
Or am i way off base here?
Nah.. its the same as always. Those who could actually use an automobile analogy always got modded up.
Its probably because people could actually understand and relate to the point but the line is more fuzzy than a corvette screaming by at 140mph (~225kph) while you are going slower than traffic in the fast lane.
Do you guys go to some seminar to get things so clearly wrong? The supremacy clause does not invalidate anything i said. It even specifically requires the acts of government to be in accourdance with the constitution in order to be the dupreme law if the land.
The supremacy clause does not in any way give the feds carte blache over the country.
Wow.. this is simple highschool civics. Even directly reading the supremacy clause would have given you a clue.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Read what you just copy and pasted. It says made in pursuance thereof. It does not in any way shape or form say the feds can do anything they want- it says inly laws made in accordance with the constitution are supreme laws of the land.
The you should discard your made up facts and get some real ones. FDR was the reason for the expansion of the interstate commerce clause which has been taken to extremes today in government. No one disputes that who knows what they are talking about.
Sigh.. just because you cannot live without facebook does not mean the internet or even access faster than dial up is a vital or essential part of anything.
And if you think the poor and minority class is under served, it can be remedied by mandating access without putting the government into direct competition with the private sector.
Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Even Wikipedia gets it right. Sigh..
Perhaps you should explore the articles of confederation and why it was replaced by the US constitution before trying to give a history lesson.
I think I know where you are going wrong here. Either you have no reading comprehension, English is not your first language, or you are intentionally ignoring what was said in order to inject some comment as if you had meaning and insight. What part of "FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes" is so difficult to understand? I guess it would be the words modern and day when put together.
Just because Jackson ignored the Supreme court doesn't really have much to do with the modern day unless you somehow construe it to be the reasoning for FDR's actions involving the SCOTUS.
Nope, I'm thinking the US constitution that replaced the articles of confederacy. Like I said, this is fifth grade history.
What do you think this is for?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...
Ok, I will try to explain this a simple as I can in order to keep it short.
The cable and telcos have to offer service to unprofitable areas as well as the profitable areas and charge the same rates for both. This is part of their ability to have a monopoly in the area. Now, in some areas, there is competition but not because the infrastructure was duplicated but because they had to lease it to the competition at costs of operating it and also serve those not profitable areas.
So a municipality steps up and uses tax dollars to build out new infrastructure that competes with these other setups. They then go into direct competition with them and suck up the profitable areas leaving the cable and telcos with only the unprofitable areas and a few stragglers in the profitable areas.
The end result is, or could very well be, that not enough profit is left available for the telcos and cable companies to do upgrades in those areas. And before you think they are rich companies over flowing with cash, first, they typically segregate their areas of operations where time warner of Atlanta might be a different company from time warner of Columbus Ohio but owned by a parent company. Each area would be separate as far as financials go. Second, if their cash cows disappear, they will likely no longer be overflowing with cash.
Also the municipal only doing the infrastructure is not really what is being considered here. What is being considered is the municipality selling off their excess bandwidth and purchasing more in order to go into direct competition with the cable and telcos. Some of the plans I have seen deliver the product free of monthly charge and is based on taxes paid. This is like the cable and telcos being able to charge each and every citizen of an area whether they have the service or not.
But I like your idea of the municipality owning and providing infrastructure that others lease until another recession hits and they neglect it because revenue is down or some loon gets elected mayor and decides to divert the funding for it to something else he things is more important like flags and colored lights lining the main street going through town or a brick crosswalk on one of the busiest intersections that has regular truck traffic (Yes, both have happened in my town- had to put a levee on the ballot in order to fix potholes because they spent that money on other shit) in order to enhance curb appeal.
Well, no. The FCC does not make laws, it makes regulation with the force of laws without congress voting on all the regulations. What he is saying is that whatever they do, a republican chairperson can undo. Don't bother with extreme partisan hacks because it will not last when another party is in charge of the FCC. That is sort of the challenge of having regulatory bodies appointed with the power of law, they need to have sound enough reasoning for all their actions in order to prevent the next appointment from undoing them. That is all he is saying.
I do not think I can disagree with that.
You mean the one thing the federal government does that it is constitutionally empowered to do is the one thing you are wanting to single out as your example?
Wow..
That's exactly right. The federal government is not sovereign over everything in the US. The entire concept was that it was supposed to be spelled out in the constitution and the states which were separate countries only gave up or surrendered the amount of sovereignty to the federal government that was in the US constitution. This is fifth grade history BTW. Over the years, the federal government has been granted more powers by the expansion of several elements within the US constitution by the courts. This expansion is in ways not originally foreseen by the founders or the interpretations of the constitution until it happened. FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes came at a constitutional impasse in which his new deal legislation was deemed unconstitutional and he basically said "so what, I'm the executive and I can enforce it" while the democrat congress threatened to expand the supreme court seats until they could pack enough party supporters in that they had a majority. The end result, before everything blew apart, the Supreme Court ended up allowing the New Deal provisions as a means of the interstate commerce clause. This is why things like the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to companies with less than a certain amount of revenue or some other substantial impact on interstate commerce and will default to whatever the state minimum wage is.
Bravo indeed. That was what made America the finest in the world at one time. We have lost that position and lost the constitutional separations.
Do you just not understand what you are saying or are you somehow brainwashed?
You just said that republican politicians are open about lining their pockets while democrats hide it because it's what their voters want. This is the same as saying the republican voters know what they are voting for and democrat voters keep getting the misled in order to vote democrat and you think the republican voters are the idiots?
It seems like you should have another word in there or direct your comment towards another group of people.