Well, signing up to initiatives like Kyoto would at least be a start.
Only when they put all nations on the same footing. It's absurd to expect the United States to gut our economy while China brings a new coal power plant online every wekk.
The income tax became necessary when prohibition took alcohol excise taxes away from the government. Funny how it didn't go away when prohibition did, isn't it?
In wireless *anyone* can get a license at put up a wimax tower. You can get towers as cheap as $26,000 and a license for just a couple thousand.
I was involved with a WISP many years ago and I can assure you that it's significantly more complicated than that. You'll need to ensure that your tower is compatible with the zoning law of your municipality. You can count on every local crackpot that believes RF causes cancer or just plain hates to look at towers coming out to the zoning meetings and making life difficult for you. You will probably have to pay a PE (professional engineer) for a site plan and file that plan with the relevant Governmental officials. Lawyers will likely get involved at some point as well.
While it's true that backbone fiber isn't exactly going out of style, a cell tower is certainly a much more elegant solution for the "last mile" problem that's plagued wired broadband providers for years. Now that the price of wireless chipsets has dropped substantially, the only real obstacle is building more towers.
Wireless is a shared medium though. It's always going to run into capacity issues sooner than a switched or dedicated wireline solution. That's just the nature of the beast. It is not possible to promise all of your customers unlimited data and good quality of service on a wireless network.
That's not to say that it isn't a good last mile solution for rural areas but I rather doubt we'll be seeing it displace wireline products in more populated areas anytime soon.....
Last I checked, the first amendment was for people, not corporations.
Last I checked, the first amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law....", not "Congress shall make no law except when the target of that law is a corporation..."
So? That just means Verizon needs to increase the damn network capacity!
You do realize that's easier said than done with a wireless network, right? The only way to add capacity to a wireless network is to deploy more spectrum or base stations. Spectrum licenses cost billions of dollars and only become available every few years. Base stations cost millions each and you can only deploy so many of them before they start to interfere with each other. You also have to contend with local zoning laws and public opinion before you can deploy them.
I hate Verizon's business practices as much as the next guy but it's absurd to expect your wireless data service to function in the same manner as your wireline data service.
Most of us "basement dwellers" don't count the head of the CIA or a President of the United States as a parent, nor were we born into very rich families.
You still can't dismiss the man's accomplishments on that basis. Paris Hilton was born into a richer family than GWB but I don't think it's terribly likely that we'll be seeing her as a Governor or POTUS anytime soon.....
Libel is a civil matter in most (all?) of the US, not a criminal one. Your relief is to sue for damages not to have the person arrested. The burden of proof for libel with a public figure is particularly high too -- people all but accused Bill Clinton of being a murderer but I don't recall any criminal prosecutions or civil suits being filed as a result of it.
But keep in mind that she's a lawyer, and she was arguing the side she'd been hired to argue.
That's a weak rationalization and is totally contradicted by the rest of her paper trail. You don't have to limit her assault on free speech to Citizens United -- Politico had an interesting article about her involvement in the porn wars. She seems to believe that the ends justify the means regardless of whether or not they infringe on the 1st amendment.
I'm not too concerned over it.
Then you haven't been playing attention or don't value your civil liberties.
It's about not allowing corporation to buy up all there air time, or pamphletting every parking lot if disingenuous statement, like yours.
Even if they were doing that (which they aren't...), so what? There isn't a fairness clause in the 1st amendment. We also live in the information age -- there are untold numbers of media sources that are available for consumption. It would be quite impossible for any one entity to dominate them all.
The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is about 150 years old, now.
That's a stupid argument when used in this context. It's not illegal to yell "fire!". It's illegal to commit the crime of reckless endangerment. That crime is not defined as the action of screaming "fire!" It's defined as the commission of an act that a reasonable person should know places other human beings in harms way. Next you'll claim that we don't have free speech because I can't legally say that I'm going to kill you and eat your brains.
Corporations are not voters.
Corporations are collections of individuals, nothing more and nothing less. Individuals own shares. Individuals work for them. Individuals buy their products.
They should not have the right to dominate elections.
They aren't dominating elections. They aren't even dominating the political discourse. Doing so in the day and age of the internet would be impossible. And even if they were dominating it, I don't recall a fairness clause in the 1st amendment. What do you say when individuals like Michael Bloomberg or George Soros spend their millions of dollars trying to dominate a particular issue?
He's the one with the "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" theory of rights.
Please explain to me why punching you in the face is equivalent to publishing my opinions in the printed and/or video media?
How about results at the ballot box? The people who cared enough to drag their asses down to the polling place oppose it by a nearly 3 to 1 margin.....
Actually the vast majority of Democrats voted against Alito (only four voted to confirm him) and exactly half of them (22 of 44) voted against Roberts. This information isn't that hard to find. Next time you should try doing a Google search before you call someone a moron. It might save you from having egg on your face.
That's not about "banning books". It's about banning the political fraud of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to use money to dominate speech.
You can't "dominate" speech. There is nothing stopping anyone from responding to speech. I find the notion that we need to be protected from "dominating" speech to be offensive.
You and I can't afford to publish a 500-page book just to astroturf a statement of endorsement and advertise it well beyond the reasonable costs to promote such a book to its reasonable audience
Two points:
1) You haven't heard of the internet, have you?
2) Even if your argument is true, so what? There isn't a fairness clause in the 1st amendment.
The case was about corporations funding libelous material under the guise of a "concerned citizens" group.
So what? People can rationalize it all they want -- someone that thinks the Federal Government should have the power to prohibit the publication of books scares the hell out of me. I don't care who wrote the book or what the contents are -- the Federal Government does not and should not have the power to ban books.
The democrats are more interested in maintaining their own seats, rather than maintaining party power.
All politicians are interested in that. GOP members of Congress broke with their leadership and the GWB White House on numerous issues. Social Security reform, immigration reform and campaign finance reform all come to mind as issues that a sizable number of GOP'ers broke with their leadership on.
That proves nothing. Sports teams trade away good players all the time. Sometimes they do it because they are rebuilding and need younger players even if they are less experienced. Other times they do it because they can't afford to keep them and would rather get something in a trade than let them go to free agency. Occasionally they even do it to finance a Broadway play, though that one might not have been the best idea in the world....;)
Point is, you can't say GWB was an idiot just because he traded Sammy Sosa.
Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers
I always thought Dubya missed his true calling. He should have been the Commissioner of MLB instead of a politician. Hey, he couldn't do worse than Selig......
Slashdot Mirror
Well, signing up to initiatives like Kyoto would at least be a start.
Only when they put all nations on the same footing. It's absurd to expect the United States to gut our economy while China brings a new coal power plant online every wekk.
is this scenario plausible
No, it's not. Why would someone purposefully cause the value of an investment that they hold to tank?
On the contrary, people can't wait to get internet faster than dialup.
Where I live those people all have DSL. Some have cable too.
What part of "shall make no law" is so hard to understand?
In my state you don't need a permit to do that.
In my state it's illegal.
The income tax became necessary when prohibition took alcohol excise taxes away from the government. Funny how it didn't go away when prohibition did, isn't it?
All bandwidth is fixed, wired or wireless
It's much cheaper/easier to split a DOCSIS or FiOS node than it is to buy more wireless spectrum........
In wireless *anyone* can get a license at put up a wimax tower. You can get towers as cheap as $26,000 and a license for just a couple thousand.
I was involved with a WISP many years ago and I can assure you that it's significantly more complicated than that. You'll need to ensure that your tower is compatible with the zoning law of your municipality. You can count on every local crackpot that believes RF causes cancer or just plain hates to look at towers coming out to the zoning meetings and making life difficult for you. You will probably have to pay a PE (professional engineer) for a site plan and file that plan with the relevant Governmental officials. Lawyers will likely get involved at some point as well.
While it's true that backbone fiber isn't exactly going out of style, a cell tower is certainly a much more elegant solution for the "last mile" problem that's plagued wired broadband providers for years. Now that the price of wireless chipsets has dropped substantially, the only real obstacle is building more towers.
Wireless is a shared medium though. It's always going to run into capacity issues sooner than a switched or dedicated wireline solution. That's just the nature of the beast. It is not possible to promise all of your customers unlimited data and good quality of service on a wireless network.
That's not to say that it isn't a good last mile solution for rural areas but I rather doubt we'll be seeing it displace wireline products in more populated areas anytime soon.....
Last I checked, the first amendment was for people, not corporations.
Last I checked, the first amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law....", not "Congress shall make no law except when the target of that law is a corporation..."
So? That just means Verizon needs to increase the damn network capacity!
You do realize that's easier said than done with a wireless network, right? The only way to add capacity to a wireless network is to deploy more spectrum or base stations. Spectrum licenses cost billions of dollars and only become available every few years. Base stations cost millions each and you can only deploy so many of them before they start to interfere with each other. You also have to contend with local zoning laws and public opinion before you can deploy them.
I hate Verizon's business practices as much as the next guy but it's absurd to expect your wireless data service to function in the same manner as your wireline data service.
At least with the government we have some protections from arbitrary decisions like that.
Ever tried to apply for a concealed carry license in a may-issue jurisdiction?
Most of us "basement dwellers" don't count the head of the CIA or a President of the United States as a parent, nor were we born into very rich families.
You still can't dismiss the man's accomplishments on that basis. Paris Hilton was born into a richer family than GWB but I don't think it's terribly likely that we'll be seeing her as a Governor or POTUS anytime soon.....
Libel has been illegal forever.
Libel is a civil matter in most (all?) of the US, not a criminal one. Your relief is to sue for damages not to have the person arrested. The burden of proof for libel with a public figure is particularly high too -- people all but accused Bill Clinton of being a murderer but I don't recall any criminal prosecutions or civil suits being filed as a result of it.
But keep in mind that she's a lawyer, and she was arguing the side she'd been hired to argue.
That's a weak rationalization and is totally contradicted by the rest of her paper trail. You don't have to limit her assault on free speech to Citizens United -- Politico had an interesting article about her involvement in the porn wars. She seems to believe that the ends justify the means regardless of whether or not they infringe on the 1st amendment.
I'm not too concerned over it.
Then you haven't been playing attention or don't value your civil liberties.
It's about not allowing corporation to buy up all there air time, or pamphletting every parking lot if disingenuous statement, like yours.
Even if they were doing that (which they aren't...), so what? There isn't a fairness clause in the 1st amendment. We also live in the information age -- there are untold numbers of media sources that are available for consumption. It would be quite impossible for any one entity to dominate them all.
The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is about 150 years old, now.
That's a stupid argument when used in this context. It's not illegal to yell "fire!". It's illegal to commit the crime of reckless endangerment. That crime is not defined as the action of screaming "fire!" It's defined as the commission of an act that a reasonable person should know places other human beings in harms way. Next you'll claim that we don't have free speech because I can't legally say that I'm going to kill you and eat your brains.
Corporations are not voters.
Corporations are collections of individuals, nothing more and nothing less. Individuals own shares. Individuals work for them. Individuals buy their products.
They should not have the right to dominate elections.
They aren't dominating elections. They aren't even dominating the political discourse. Doing so in the day and age of the internet would be impossible. And even if they were dominating it, I don't recall a fairness clause in the 1st amendment. What do you say when individuals like Michael Bloomberg or George Soros spend their millions of dollars trying to dominate a particular issue?
He's the one with the "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" theory of rights.
Please explain to me why punching you in the face is equivalent to publishing my opinions in the printed and/or video media?
How about results at the ballot box? The people who cared enough to drag their asses down to the polling place oppose it by a nearly 3 to 1 margin.....
That doesn't usually work here. If it did we would have gutted the 2nd amendment a long time ago.....
They don't have coffee shops in Portugal?
Actually the vast majority of Democrats voted against Alito (only four voted to confirm him) and exactly half of them (22 of 44) voted against Roberts. This information isn't that hard to find. Next time you should try doing a Google search before you call someone a moron. It might save you from having egg on your face.
That's not about "banning books". It's about banning the political fraud of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to use money to dominate speech.
You can't "dominate" speech. There is nothing stopping anyone from responding to speech. I find the notion that we need to be protected from "dominating" speech to be offensive.
You and I can't afford to publish a 500-page book just to astroturf a statement of endorsement and advertise it well beyond the reasonable costs to promote such a book to its reasonable audience
Two points:
1) You haven't heard of the internet, have you?
2) Even if your argument is true, so what? There isn't a fairness clause in the 1st amendment.
Do you have references that these constituents "overwhelmingly favor its repeal"?
I guess you haven't been following the news?
The case was about corporations funding libelous material under the guise of a "concerned citizens" group.
So what? People can rationalize it all they want -- someone that thinks the Federal Government should have the power to prohibit the publication of books scares the hell out of me. I don't care who wrote the book or what the contents are -- the Federal Government does not and should not have the power to ban books.
The democrats are more interested in maintaining their own seats, rather than maintaining party power.
All politicians are interested in that. GOP members of Congress broke with their leadership and the GWB White House on numerous issues. Social Security reform, immigration reform and campaign finance reform all come to mind as issues that a sizable number of GOP'ers broke with their leadership on.
That proves nothing. Sports teams trade away good players all the time. Sometimes they do it because they are rebuilding and need younger players even if they are less experienced. Other times they do it because they can't afford to keep them and would rather get something in a trade than let them go to free agency. Occasionally they even do it to finance a Broadway play, though that one might not have been the best idea in the world.... ;)
Point is, you can't say GWB was an idiot just because he traded Sammy Sosa.
Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers
I always thought Dubya missed his true calling. He should have been the Commissioner of MLB instead of a politician. Hey, he couldn't do worse than Selig......