That's right, Because even with the volumes of fossils records out there, most people will never be able to examine them and if they could, they would never be able to put the dots together claiming evolution without someone telling them first.
Did we just have an entire thread discussing this yesterday? The majority of people who believe in this stuff, don't have the capacity to do much more then trust the authority figure telling them it is true.
Why is such an extremely simple concept so tough to comprehend by some?
I think it's a matter of protecting the faith more then anything.
And I do not mean that in a malicious way. There was a study circulated not to long ago around here that said people tend to grip onto some beliefs even harder when they know it's wrong. We are seeing something like that where the more clear you put it, the more objection someone will have with it. They will ignore the points that disprove their beliefs and press the issue anyways.
It's not at all the same. While some scientific theories have less evidence to support them, science works the same as it always does. We understand the method and how it gets results. We see those results all the time. Knowing that the same methods are being used is what allows us to have a fairly high degree of trust. It's not faith, and certainly not the essentially blind faith or circular rationalization that religion requires.
No, it's all the same, you just have more faith that science has the right answers. In theory it should, but you have demonstrated nothing to show you know how to check that.
Science isn't just about reproducing anything we see. It's about explaining how things work. We come up with theories about it, repeatedly test them in a variety of ways, reconcile them with all sorts of observations. If it can't be reconciled, it will need to be changed. Science accepts that things will change, especially those things that are supported by only relatively small amounts of evidence, and those theories that are newer and/or on the edges of our current understanding of the universe. There's really no comparison with religion.
lol.. this is the biggest fallacy out there. Try to bring up panspermia within an evolution talk. Try bringing up panspermia within an Abiogenesis talk. Hell, there are entire communities of so called scientists out there trying to claim we observe speciation by changing the definitions of a species, places arbitrary limits on a concept that doesn't politely apply outside the same realm and into the real world, and pointing that out gets you shouted down as if someone took a poll to determine what was right or wrong.
What you claim is supposed to be true in theory, Its not in practice. Just watch the self proclaimed evangelical Atheist on this very site and you will see it's more of a matter of faith then knowledge.
Actually, welding is something you can just pick up like auto repair. In fact, it's relatively easier because you can purchase scrap metal and practice on it until you start perfecting your skills. To this day, when I need to weld something, I grab some scrap and lay a bead or two to get back into the groove as I do not do it enough to stay good at it.
I have picked up old farm welders for $50 at estate auctions. Like I said before, you can be fully outfitted with a working rig for less then $500, substantially less if you look for bargains.
Granted, the second hand welders were not the best, but neither was your $20 socket set. I'm willing to bet that you eventually purchased some better tools and more tools. and if you are only welding once or twice a year like me, they are more then fine for almost every job you need to do.
A high school guidance counselor should never tell someone they can't do anything. Maybe that it's unlikely or will be difficult, but not can't.
A guidance counselor should very well tell someone they cannot do something. The entire job of a guidance counselor is to giude the student into areas they will excel in.If your parents said you are going to college, he made the right call. But that is neither here nor there because continuing to blame him and not yourself will not correct anything you see wrong. Man up, take some responsibility for your own fate, and just do it. You are the master of your own destiny now, not some puke fumbling his way through a job trying to make your guardians happy.
I can say 2+2 is 5. And there certainly are many attempts at trying to prove that. Seriously, do a Google search on it and you will find many convincing attempts that may even be technically accurate.
So yes, by definition, parallel lines will never touch. But if they did, they wouldn't be parallel would they. So what I was talking about isn't something that is default by definition, but stated or implied as fact because we believe it to be the best logical conclusion given the known information available. You would need step by step instruction manual to recreate that because it's an explanation of a process that can't be tested otherwise.
Get back to me when we are using anti-hydrogen or the big bang in real life everyday.
At this point it is only faith as in the way the article intended it to mean. A lot of science is understood in the same way by a lot of people which is why some are drawing the connections between science cults and religions so strongly. The concept and thought process in believing one is right or more right or whatever is almost exactly the same.
Even though you could theoretically reproduce everything in science, you could also theoretically see a miracle or divine interventions to (if it's at all possible). The claim is made, you can in theory experience it yourself, whether it's religious or scientific or something else entirely.
This is interesting because it shows how much faith you have in the ability to do something that is most likely impossible for you to do.
I can start a business and become a millionaire in a short period of time. People do it all the time, it's repeatable and so on. I absolutely can do it too right? Well, if I have the faith that I can, I can try, but nothing is guaranteeing I can achieve this goal, I just know that it can be done by some people.
You see, like in both scenarios, we both lack the funding and time needed to educate or understand the process enough to likely achieve any of the goals we said could be done. In short, you are taking it in faith that you could do that if you could do everything else that seems impossible for you to do at the moment no differently then I would be in believing I could become a millionaire from my own company or that something in a religion is true or not.
Your ideas have intrigued me. Could you please direct me to how I can sign up for your newsletter. I am most interested in your experiments duplicating the creation of antihydrogen as well as recreating the big bang, abiogenesis and whatever else you have used in your methodology in doing so.
Perhaps when you show us how to do that, I can show you how to make a man blind with the touch of my hand.
Interesting. I pretty much thought that was the job of the IDS and rules created in it compounded with securing the servers and limited services being exposed. I didn't realize people actually sat there and watched traffic looking for intruders when they could be pretty much reading the comics in the newspaper waiting for the IDS to send an alarm.
I agree, there would or could be a lot more hacking attempts. I also agree that someone would need to do something about it once it happened. I just wasn't aware of what exactly the IT staff was doing in that regard. I figured 99% of their duties is fielding idiot requests from users who don't understand that just because they set a password with their email, they might not be using the same password when accessing their accounts on the server. Well, that or implementing new functions or altering the existing ones to suit the changes in business needs.
Oh, I see.. It's the free education your pissed about and not the experience you could get on your own.
I just seems to me that if you still feel like you have missed out on something that could aid you in your present career, then it's your failing at this time and not some high school guidance councilor's from years ago.
I'm serious, I have never administrated a large site like that, but I could technically walk away from the sites I do administrate for several months on end and not have to worry about much of anything outside of security vulnerabilities discovered in the mean time.
Am I just not building enough job security into my jobs or is there something seriously different about these sites that require IT staff to constantly be present?
Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.
There is no reason to blame anyone other then himself for not learning to weld. You can be set up with a cheap rig and all the crap you need to learn for less then 500 bucks- cheaper if you look for deals and you won't need to spend it all at once. It can get more expensive if you want to do some of the fancier welding or work with some of the more exotic metals, but for the most part, you wouldn't get that in high school unless you were in a trade class either. Chances are, once you start welding things and talking about it, you will know people who know how to do it too and they will be willing to show you some stuff to boot.
I'm mostly concerned with Net Neutrality insofar as the consumer gets what they paid for or were lead to believe was what they paid for. I also think that existing consumer protection laws already have a large role in this as you cannot market yourself as a lawn mowing service to get people to buy your service then do nothing but sweep the sidewalks.
That is essentially what is happening with the entire consumer pays for X, even though it's up to X, and the ISP purposely refusing to deliver X or up to X based on a third party payment. They cannot have the luxury of claiming the advantage of the third party, then denying that advantage if it doesn't pay them extra money.
In my opinion, a short and simple couple paragraph law could be made that defines what the internet is (the unfettered communications of computers in a network with other networks) and stating that an ISP cannot posit any restrictions, or have restrictions done on their behalf, due to any payment or the lack thereof, paid by any third party on that service unless they are clear and understandable in advertisements and known when the consumer purchased the service or it's a temporary necessity due to an emergency of the network like attacks or to safeguard it from damage but then it can only be temporary for as long as the threat exists.
Maybe throw in a line or two granting penalties of 10 times the cost of service over the time period in violation paid to the consumer, and they will always get what they paid for.
Now, a lot of congress people see this as this type of situation too. It's not that they are concerned with their corporate sponsors over the public, it's that people have some idea that giving the public more then what they pay for is somehow warranted. Attempts to stay away from that is not very few of them actually giving a damn, it's more like keeping it simple.
My point about the Unions was not whether they are needed or not. It was about the concept that makes them up, a single entity speaks for the members under them. It's inseparable from the concept of a corporation and political speech.
And Unions or collective bargaining have a better then level playing field. They are exempt from collaboration and anti trust laws.
Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with you. It specifically said that congress did not give the FCC authority over the internet in the way that net neutrality is concerned. Don't confuse a life guard who has authority over a pool areas with the cops who have authority over the city or county. They are not the same.
The rest of your ramblings are insignificant. Who cares who paid or funded by who in this situation. Take your partisan tripe off to wonderland with the rest of your ideal as they don't belong mixed in the the real facts of the situation. The ruling said congress did not give the FCC the power it claimed to have when it made it's ruling against ComCast. That means the FCC needs to ask congress for the power, not try and change a few things and bypass congress altogether in an attempt to grab a power that courts already said the government agency did not have.
This is not about whether you support Net Neutrality or not, whether your a democrat or republican or not, it has to do with an agency of government being told it did not have the power it was projecting, then instead of getting congress to grant it the power, decided to usurp the process altogether. That is not anything you should want any government agency doing at all. It makes about as much sense as the ATF deciding your in violation of a rule because you don't own a gun when they have no power to make that rule.
I didn't say the term was valid. I said the term did not invalidate anything said.
Please read what was said and not what you want to think was said because a term offended you. Again, I did not say the term or valid, I said the use of it did not invalidate it. I also said do not ignore the facts because you got offended but I guess that was hoping for too much.
The issue is not one of right or wrong with regard to net neutrality here. It's not about protecting the consumer or corporation in the politicians eyes.
It's about a constitutional power given to congress specifically being usurped by the executive and the one thing that congress usually unites on no matter what's at stake, is the retention of their powers.
This really is something that congress will unite on because the underlying fact is not what's trying to be accomplished, but the process that it's being done in.
"Obama's thugs" took nothing away from the intellectual points he made.
While the statement was presented in a confrontational biased light, it still remains factual and correct. Please do not dismiss facts because you don't like who they hurt or how they were mentioned.
I was just throwing things out there that has hit nerved over the last decade or two. There's no relation outside of with one, the others might not be possible so they might be something of the same thing. But it wasn't intentional.
Doesn't change the fact that ISPs are acting like assholes. I understand that they have a fiduciary duty of care to protect their ongoing business affairs and their shareholders, but that doesn't change the fact that they're granted a NATURAL MONOPOLY just to screw over the consumer. If they want their cake and eat it to, then I think Congress needs to get back in session and force the carriers to carry CLECs again at a fixed rate, but this time over copper, fiber, COAX, and any other technology that they're granted a natural monopoly over. The abolishment of the fixed rate is what led AT&T to slither itself back together and push out ALL of their competition off their copper. Now we only have a handful of useful broadband providers that want to add a meter to electrical pulses. Yes, technically electricity isn't free, but its costs are substantially lower than the cost to let's say mine out natural gas, oil, or to find, transport, and clean water.
First, I don't disagree that some ISPs are acting like Asses. But that in and of itself doesn't make much of anything different. Wanting something done and excepting something illegally being done is not a solution.
Second, I agree that their natural monopoly is largely due to a regulatory monopoly and think they shouldn't be looked at independently as they are now. However, that change takes an act of congress, not internal rewording from an agency in some attempt to get around a court ruling saying it didn't have the authority to regulate it.
So it doesn't look like we are in disagreement on a problem, just the current solution..
The issue isn't that you're free to pick your provider, because that's not entirely true. The most consistent internet service will come from fixed lines and those lines are given to specific corporations that don't have their customers best interest in mind. If cable internet didn't exist, DSL would still be a slow and you'd only get it if you live within 1 mile of the CO. If DSL didn't exist, cable internet would be limited, bogged down, and never upgraded to avoid the bottleneck from the technology just being a large LAN. But what competition do these two technologies really halve? 3G? Not even close. 4G? Not even close to being implemented fully. Satellite? Not consistent. So you're stuck with two options, and those two options want to keep competing providers off their granted duopoly and add a toll booth for the consumer that doesn't have any other options. If we take away the monopolies on the poles, then prices will fall and we won't see net neutrality as an issue, the same way we saw the cost of a land line drop and long distance cost dropped. If we force net neutrality, then at least we can have internet that can be used freely without restrictions to competing products and services that the line provider is offering that may be provided somewhere else in the world.
Whoever told you that corporation needed to have their customer's best interest in mind was trying to scam you. Net Neutrality is an issue because no one can agree to what it means and everyone wants to add their restriction to the supposed fix. However, net neutrality should already not be an issue because of fair dealing or fair trading laws already on the books. If Comcast is going to represent part of the internet as the entire internet or represent speeds of X amount, then purposely throttle them back based on someone's business competing with theirs, then they are deceiving the consumer under existing laws. You see, they would be selling something represented as something it clearly is not, and they would be claiming speeds they are purposely not delivering. That's fraud.
I don't have a problem with comcast giving Google extra speed if Google pays. I don't have a problem with Verizon giving Skype or some VoIP application extra speed if they pay more.. As long as customers get what they already paid for and other services are not restricted t
The senate originally was supposed to represent the state in our federal government- not the people. That distinction has moved and been changed but that's the reason why originally, the senators were appointed by the state in whatever way the state thought good at the time. Generally, one person was appointed by the governor and the other was appointed by the legislature of the state and likely was one of them who got elected within the state legislature.
The risk had nothing to so with large states verses small states. It had to do with which body of politics the senate was supposed to represent.
It's a hold over from the original intent of the senate. The senate was originally supposed to represent the state, not half the people of the state. So even with the legislature being bicameral, the balance between them was between the people who had representatives and states who had senators.
The concept was about the representatives of the people being the only ones to initiate taxing the people. That's sort of lost now with the senate being voted directly by the people and not appointed by the state legislatures.
It's amazing how a regulation change that is designed to side step a court ruling denying the right to regulate a certain thing that was made without congressional oversight is somehow now being considered a law buy people who had a lot more bitching to do.
It sort of makes you wonder if you should actually care about what they say when they confuse a regulation with a law, blame congress when the only input congress had was defending the acts of the agency, then go off on a tirade about whatever else they see is wrong.
I'm glad to see Verizon get the cold shoulder, but we know this isn't going to last long. Face it, net neutrality is a pipe dream for those who are technically competent enough to understand but are far outnumbered by the voters who don't understand it, nor do they want to.
Your right, it isn't going to last long. That's because this ruling only said that Verizon filed the challenge too soon. It's purely procedural at this point. When the FCC finishes doing it's crap, the thing will be filed again. If Verizon wins, it isn't because they pulled a fast one, it's because the law supports them and not the FCC which congress doesn't even appear to be supporting in this matter right now.
Just because you want something does not give excuse to ignore the law and do whatever. If we allow that to happen, you will find things like Habeas Corpus, fair trials, indefinite detention, free speech zones, seizures of property without warrant or compensation, and others things off limits whenever others want it to happen. And even if you don't care about that stuff, something one of these days will end up being something you care about. When a government agency acts on it's own to restructure itself in order to get around a court order saying it didn't have the authority to do something and it does impact you, you will be damn glad that others have stood up to it and there is a way out for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, Because even with the volumes of fossils records out there, most people will never be able to examine them and if they could, they would never be able to put the dots together claiming evolution without someone telling them first.
Did we just have an entire thread discussing this yesterday? The majority of people who believe in this stuff, don't have the capacity to do much more then trust the authority figure telling them it is true.
That would make treating something in science as a religion bad too right? But is it caps worthy bad?
I think it's a matter of protecting the faith more then anything.
And I do not mean that in a malicious way. There was a study circulated not to long ago around here that said people tend to grip onto some beliefs even harder when they know it's wrong. We are seeing something like that where the more clear you put it, the more objection someone will have with it. They will ignore the points that disprove their beliefs and press the issue anyways.
No, it's all the same, you just have more faith that science has the right answers. In theory it should, but you have demonstrated nothing to show you know how to check that.
lol.. this is the biggest fallacy out there. Try to bring up panspermia within an evolution talk. Try bringing up panspermia within an Abiogenesis talk. Hell, there are entire communities of so called scientists out there trying to claim we observe speciation by changing the definitions of a species, places arbitrary limits on a concept that doesn't politely apply outside the same realm and into the real world, and pointing that out gets you shouted down as if someone took a poll to determine what was right or wrong.
What you claim is supposed to be true in theory, Its not in practice. Just watch the self proclaimed evangelical Atheist on this very site and you will see it's more of a matter of faith then knowledge.
Actually, welding is something you can just pick up like auto repair. In fact, it's relatively easier because you can purchase scrap metal and practice on it until you start perfecting your skills. To this day, when I need to weld something, I grab some scrap and lay a bead or two to get back into the groove as I do not do it enough to stay good at it.
I have picked up old farm welders for $50 at estate auctions. Like I said before, you can be fully outfitted with a working rig for less then $500, substantially less if you look for bargains.
Granted, the second hand welders were not the best, but neither was your $20 socket set. I'm willing to bet that you eventually purchased some better tools and more tools. and if you are only welding once or twice a year like me, they are more then fine for almost every job you need to do.
A guidance counselor should very well tell someone they cannot do something. The entire job of a guidance counselor is to giude the student into areas they will excel in.If your parents said you are going to college, he made the right call. But that is neither here nor there because continuing to blame him and not yourself will not correct anything you see wrong. Man up, take some responsibility for your own fate, and just do it. You are the master of your own destiny now, not some puke fumbling his way through a job trying to make your guardians happy.
Read what I said again.. I think you missed where I said I could touch a man and make him blind, not see.
I can say 2+2 is 5. And there certainly are many attempts at trying to prove that. Seriously, do a Google search on it and you will find many convincing attempts that may even be technically accurate.
So yes, by definition, parallel lines will never touch. But if they did, they wouldn't be parallel would they. So what I was talking about isn't something that is default by definition, but stated or implied as fact because we believe it to be the best logical conclusion given the known information available. You would need step by step instruction manual to recreate that because it's an explanation of a process that can't be tested otherwise.
Get back to me when we are using anti-hydrogen or the big bang in real life everyday.
At this point it is only faith as in the way the article intended it to mean. A lot of science is understood in the same way by a lot of people which is why some are drawing the connections between science cults and religions so strongly. The concept and thought process in believing one is right or more right or whatever is almost exactly the same.
Even though you could theoretically reproduce everything in science, you could also theoretically see a miracle or divine interventions to (if it's at all possible). The claim is made, you can in theory experience it yourself, whether it's religious or scientific or something else entirely.
This is interesting because it shows how much faith you have in the ability to do something that is most likely impossible for you to do.
I can start a business and become a millionaire in a short period of time. People do it all the time, it's repeatable and so on. I absolutely can do it too right? Well, if I have the faith that I can, I can try, but nothing is guaranteeing I can achieve this goal, I just know that it can be done by some people.
You see, like in both scenarios, we both lack the funding and time needed to educate or understand the process enough to likely achieve any of the goals we said could be done. In short, you are taking it in faith that you could do that if you could do everything else that seems impossible for you to do at the moment no differently then I would be in believing I could become a millionaire from my own company or that something in a religion is true or not.
Your ideas have intrigued me. Could you please direct me to how I can sign up for your newsletter. I am most interested in your experiments duplicating the creation of antihydrogen as well as recreating the big bang, abiogenesis and whatever else you have used in your methodology in doing so.
Perhaps when you show us how to do that, I can show you how to make a man blind with the touch of my hand.
Interesting. I pretty much thought that was the job of the IDS and rules created in it compounded with securing the servers and limited services being exposed. I didn't realize people actually sat there and watched traffic looking for intruders when they could be pretty much reading the comics in the newspaper waiting for the IDS to send an alarm.
I agree, there would or could be a lot more hacking attempts. I also agree that someone would need to do something about it once it happened. I just wasn't aware of what exactly the IT staff was doing in that regard. I figured 99% of their duties is fielding idiot requests from users who don't understand that just because they set a password with their email, they might not be using the same password when accessing their accounts on the server. Well, that or implementing new functions or altering the existing ones to suit the changes in business needs.
Oh, I see.. It's the free education your pissed about and not the experience you could get on your own.
I just seems to me that if you still feel like you have missed out on something that could aid you in your present career, then it's your failing at this time and not some high school guidance councilor's from years ago.
Why not?
I'm serious, I have never administrated a large site like that, but I could technically walk away from the sites I do administrate for several months on end and not have to worry about much of anything outside of security vulnerabilities discovered in the mean time.
Am I just not building enough job security into my jobs or is there something seriously different about these sites that require IT staff to constantly be present?
Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.
There is no reason to blame anyone other then himself for not learning to weld. You can be set up with a cheap rig and all the crap you need to learn for less then 500 bucks- cheaper if you look for deals and you won't need to spend it all at once. It can get more expensive if you want to do some of the fancier welding or work with some of the more exotic metals, but for the most part, you wouldn't get that in high school unless you were in a trade class either. Chances are, once you start welding things and talking about it, you will know people who know how to do it too and they will be willing to show you some stuff to boot.
I'm mostly concerned with Net Neutrality insofar as the consumer gets what they paid for or were lead to believe was what they paid for. I also think that existing consumer protection laws already have a large role in this as you cannot market yourself as a lawn mowing service to get people to buy your service then do nothing but sweep the sidewalks.
That is essentially what is happening with the entire consumer pays for X, even though it's up to X, and the ISP purposely refusing to deliver X or up to X based on a third party payment. They cannot have the luxury of claiming the advantage of the third party, then denying that advantage if it doesn't pay them extra money.
In my opinion, a short and simple couple paragraph law could be made that defines what the internet is (the unfettered communications of computers in a network with other networks) and stating that an ISP cannot posit any restrictions, or have restrictions done on their behalf, due to any payment or the lack thereof, paid by any third party on that service unless they are clear and understandable in advertisements and known when the consumer purchased the service or it's a temporary necessity due to an emergency of the network like attacks or to safeguard it from damage but then it can only be temporary for as long as the threat exists.
Maybe throw in a line or two granting penalties of 10 times the cost of service over the time period in violation paid to the consumer, and they will always get what they paid for.
Now, a lot of congress people see this as this type of situation too. It's not that they are concerned with their corporate sponsors over the public, it's that people have some idea that giving the public more then what they pay for is somehow warranted. Attempts to stay away from that is not very few of them actually giving a damn, it's more like keeping it simple.
My point about the Unions was not whether they are needed or not. It was about the concept that makes them up, a single entity speaks for the members under them. It's inseparable from the concept of a corporation and political speech.
And Unions or collective bargaining have a better then level playing field. They are exempt from collaboration and anti trust laws.
Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with you. It specifically said that congress did not give the FCC authority over the internet in the way that net neutrality is concerned. Don't confuse a life guard who has authority over a pool areas with the cops who have authority over the city or county. They are not the same.
The rest of your ramblings are insignificant. Who cares who paid or funded by who in this situation. Take your partisan tripe off to wonderland with the rest of your ideal as they don't belong mixed in the the real facts of the situation. The ruling said congress did not give the FCC the power it claimed to have when it made it's ruling against ComCast. That means the FCC needs to ask congress for the power, not try and change a few things and bypass congress altogether in an attempt to grab a power that courts already said the government agency did not have.
This is not about whether you support Net Neutrality or not, whether your a democrat or republican or not, it has to do with an agency of government being told it did not have the power it was projecting, then instead of getting congress to grant it the power, decided to usurp the process altogether. That is not anything you should want any government agency doing at all. It makes about as much sense as the ATF deciding your in violation of a rule because you don't own a gun when they have no power to make that rule.
I didn't say the term was valid. I said the term did not invalidate anything said.
Please read what was said and not what you want to think was said because a term offended you. Again, I did not say the term or valid, I said the use of it did not invalidate it. I also said do not ignore the facts because you got offended but I guess that was hoping for too much.
It should be unanimous in the senate too.
The issue is not one of right or wrong with regard to net neutrality here. It's not about protecting the consumer or corporation in the politicians eyes.
It's about a constitutional power given to congress specifically being usurped by the executive and the one thing that congress usually unites on no matter what's at stake, is the retention of their powers.
This really is something that congress will unite on because the underlying fact is not what's trying to be accomplished, but the process that it's being done in.
"Obama's thugs" took nothing away from the intellectual points he made.
While the statement was presented in a confrontational biased light, it still remains factual and correct. Please do not dismiss facts because you don't like who they hurt or how they were mentioned.
I was just throwing things out there that has hit nerved over the last decade or two. There's no relation outside of with one, the others might not be possible so they might be something of the same thing. But it wasn't intentional.
First, I don't disagree that some ISPs are acting like Asses. But that in and of itself doesn't make much of anything different. Wanting something done and excepting something illegally being done is not a solution.
Second, I agree that their natural monopoly is largely due to a regulatory monopoly and think they shouldn't be looked at independently as they are now. However, that change takes an act of congress, not internal rewording from an agency in some attempt to get around a court ruling saying it didn't have the authority to regulate it.
So it doesn't look like we are in disagreement on a problem, just the current solution..
Whoever told you that corporation needed to have their customer's best interest in mind was trying to scam you. Net Neutrality is an issue because no one can agree to what it means and everyone wants to add their restriction to the supposed fix. However, net neutrality should already not be an issue because of fair dealing or fair trading laws already on the books. If Comcast is going to represent part of the internet as the entire internet or represent speeds of X amount, then purposely throttle them back based on someone's business competing with theirs, then they are deceiving the consumer under existing laws. You see, they would be selling something represented as something it clearly is not, and they would be claiming speeds they are purposely not delivering. That's fraud.
I don't have a problem with comcast giving Google extra speed if Google pays. I don't have a problem with Verizon giving Skype or some VoIP application extra speed if they pay more.. As long as customers get what they already paid for and other services are not restricted t
The senate originally was supposed to represent the state in our federal government- not the people. That distinction has moved and been changed but that's the reason why originally, the senators were appointed by the state in whatever way the state thought good at the time. Generally, one person was appointed by the governor and the other was appointed by the legislature of the state and likely was one of them who got elected within the state legislature.
The risk had nothing to so with large states verses small states. It had to do with which body of politics the senate was supposed to represent.
It's a hold over from the original intent of the senate. The senate was originally supposed to represent the state, not half the people of the state. So even with the legislature being bicameral, the balance between them was between the people who had representatives and states who had senators.
The concept was about the representatives of the people being the only ones to initiate taxing the people. That's sort of lost now with the senate being voted directly by the people and not appointed by the state legislatures.
It's amazing how a regulation change that is designed to side step a court ruling denying the right to regulate a certain thing that was made without congressional oversight is somehow now being considered a law buy people who had a lot more bitching to do.
It sort of makes you wonder if you should actually care about what they say when they confuse a regulation with a law, blame congress when the only input congress had was defending the acts of the agency, then go off on a tirade about whatever else they see is wrong.
Your right, it isn't going to last long. That's because this ruling only said that Verizon filed the challenge too soon. It's purely procedural at this point. When the FCC finishes doing it's crap, the thing will be filed again. If Verizon wins, it isn't because they pulled a fast one, it's because the law supports them and not the FCC which congress doesn't even appear to be supporting in this matter right now.
Just because you want something does not give excuse to ignore the law and do whatever. If we allow that to happen, you will find things like Habeas Corpus, fair trials, indefinite detention, free speech zones, seizures of property without warrant or compensation, and others things off limits whenever others want it to happen. And even if you don't care about that stuff, something one of these days will end up being something you care about. When a government agency acts on it's own to restructure itself in order to get around a court order saying it didn't have the authority to do something and it does impact you, you will be damn glad that others have stood up to it and there is a way out for yourself.