to think you can do nothing and seek change in competition is foolishly naive
Except that where it's allowed to work, it usually works really well. The only thing pushing back against it are entrenched lefty entities like teachers union bosses and the city/county councils with which they have an ugly little symbiotic relationship at the expense of students and their families.
I think it's fear - fear of losing what they have accrued
No, it's some experience and wisdom - and realizing where prosperity comes from. As you get older, you realize that it doesn't come from the government, it comes from producing it. Being old enough to have some perspective teaches you that the prosperity pie isn't of a fixed size. That those who want to make a living being the government middleman who carves up the pie and distributes it in exchange for power have a vested interest in trying to fool inexperienced younger people into thinking that the only reason they're not more prosperous yet is because someone else is, instead. That's the central thesis of lefty politics, and it's the false premise upon which a hundred million people died in the last century's misadventures in utopian collectivism, which always leads to collectivism by force. Older people have a better sense of the longer view, of causality, and history. They get it. And more of them drift towards a world view that pushes back against what they know to be a hugely destructive force.
This isn't about conserving what they've accrued. It's about conserving the engine of prosperity.
Thank God we're gonna limit the poor's access to information!
What, by taking away all of their favorite lefty news anchors because they're sexual predators, or by making them stay in union-run public schools that don't care at all about their education?
On behalf of everyone who's experienced something that doesn't have a conventional explanation... go fuck yourself.
Have you ever noticed how hostile are the people who don't want anyone to point out they've imagined stuff? The closer a person gets to the threshold of admitting they've grasped onto a phony supernatural or extraterrestrial explanation for something, the angrier they get at everyone else who rolls their eyes because they've already figured out it was phony. Based on your anger, you're now very close to finally admitting that to yourself.
You can always tell when the news is hurting liberals' feelings, because they mark down any mention of it as trolling. Like clockwork! Perhaps they'll continue to make the same sorts of mistakes in that regard that cost them nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their backs on Clinton out of disgust.
And it's one of the main reasons she lost the election. Which the Dems still can't get over, which has resulted in the increasingly unhinged nonsense we see going on. All the more interesting, now that we see how much partisan support for her inside Obama's DoJ directly involved working to make sure she stayed out of legal jeopardy specifically to make sure she'd win the election.
The changing stories from those involved as their lies were exposed? FAKE NEWS!!!
In the sense that anything along those lines has anything at all to do with the "Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to hack the election" narrative, yes, it IS fake news. Which you know.
This is exactly how we wind up with a flood of fake-prescription contact lenses showing up on the dead bodies of young people who've overdosed on astigmatism correction at night clubs.
Or maybe the tone of outrage here, is a bit absurd? If you want to deliberately falsify the documentation needed to purchase something you're going to wear in your own eyes to correct your own vision... so what? Now, if this was a story about someone pretending to be an optometrist or ophthalmologist messing with other people's vision, that would be different. But this? Stop it. Really.
When you plea deal you don't plea guilty to the worst of the charges
And when you're a special counsel on a limitless witch hunt, you don't dole out a couple of lame indictments having nothing whatsoever to do with the "election hacking and collusion" you're theoretically investigating if you've actually got more. Multiple entities have been looking into this for over a year and have produced exactly zero evidence to support the phony narrative. Which you know.
Which are for acts that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "hacking the election" or "collusion" in the sense that the lefty media is so unhinged about pretending has happened. All that's really happening is that we're finding out that Hillary Clinton only avoided being indicted because partisan supporters in the FBI and DOJ decided to save her bacon for purely political reasons. And then she lost anyway, because she's an awful, unlikable person and was a terrible candidate, and the Dems still can't get over their terrible choice. So they've got people like you shilling for them, trying to pretend that an indictment for something that a guy did before there even WAS a Trump campaign, and which has nothing to do with the empty matter under investigation, is somehow proof of Trump working with the Russians to "hack the election." Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
You are using the time-honored practice of citing events that somewhat resemble what you're talking about, but which are factually - and substantially - NOT what you're claiming. In other words, you're lying, and you know it. Even the "couple of criminal convictions" you mention have nothing to do with what you're talking about. So why lie about it? Who are you talking to, that you think they're so dumb and unable to follow the actual words of the indictments?
Neither of which are in any trouble, whatsoever, for anything having to do with "campaign collusion with the Russians" or the like. Which you know, but are carefully avoiding because it takes the fun out of your narrative.
Yes, I do realize that. And when you're talking about a rule that forces private businesses to give up control of their own communications and property, it calls for actual legislation. Just like actual legislation from congress explicitly sets some boundaries within which the FAA must (and must not) regulate some aspects of remote controlled aircraft.
Because after all these decades of doing nothing, now that it's GONE we can come up with something better.
I know, everything was such a disaster in 2015. Just horrible. It's no wonder Obama waited years and years after having the power to do something about it, to... do what the huge corporate donors at places like Google and Amazon wanted him to do.
that's actually not harming anyone
Sure, unless you're, perhaps, a small company trying to set up rural users with fixed wireless service, or some other activity that's very important to people you don't care about.
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law?
Among other reasons, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER A LAW. If you think it SHOULD be a law, rather than an Obama-era edict to apply a decades old telephone framework to modern networking, then you should be delighted this is gone, and seeking to get some actual legislation in place. Something that reflects an era after rotary dial phones.
No, the founding principle of "the internet" was "let's make sure our missile research people in the DoD can get data moved around between them and some universities who are working on our strategic deterrent against the soviets."
Pretty much everything else has been private companies investing billions of dollars to get their own networks to talk to other people's networks. There is no "the internet" anyway. Just a lot of individual networks with a wide range of agreements between private parties who carry traffic across each others' infrastructure at great expense to the people who own them. Those peering arrangements are not some mandatory unicorn utopia of equality of service across all networks. Never has been.
that is if you want to send your children to school and have them come home at night safely
The principal threat to children at school is in a handful of specific urban areas where local drug gangs and imported organized crime organizations (like MS-13) fight it out for turf in the area, and recruit from those schools using violence to intimidate kids into joining (or dying). The groups in question consider things like your idea of a gun confiscation from those on record as having purchased them to be absolutely hilarious. Because they don't care to give theirs up, and are thrilled when the households the prey on are known to be easier victims. The overwhelming majority of such crime takes place in liberal-run cities that, in practice, have already made the possession of guns essentially impossible... for law abiding citizens. The notion of causality you're putting forth, as you surely know, is complete BS. The solution is the control of crime and criminals, not inanimate objects.
That's a silly and completely inaccurate over-simplification, and you know it. Regardless, the topic at hand is whether or not it's the local jurisdiction vs. the FAA that regulates air space. It's the FAA. The fact that you can't fly your toy quad copter in suburban Maryland or Virginia (let alone downtown) is NOT a matter dreamed up by or enforced by authorities in MD, VA, or DC. Want to run a food truck in one of those places? Yeah, you're dealing with local agencies. Want to take a drone photo of your food truck from 15 inches or 15 feet in the air, below tree-top level? That's the FAA stopping you from doing that, not any local authority.
Looks like this has actually gotten think time in legal circles.
As have the parental rights of gray aliens who come here on UFOs and impregnate human women. Also, legal circles have debated whether or not Bigfoot should enjoy the same legal protections as other native Americans. Yes, "legal circles" contemplate all sorts of things. This is already well settled. Airborne guns are in routine use by military and law enforcement, and are allowed by civilians only under very, very specific circumstances requiring a lengthy permit process (culling herds using a sharpshooter in a helicopter, for example).
Slashdot Mirror
to think you can do nothing and seek change in competition is foolishly naive
Except that where it's allowed to work, it usually works really well. The only thing pushing back against it are entrenched lefty entities like teachers union bosses and the city/county councils with which they have an ugly little symbiotic relationship at the expense of students and their families.
I think it's fear - fear of losing what they have accrued
No, it's some experience and wisdom - and realizing where prosperity comes from. As you get older, you realize that it doesn't come from the government, it comes from producing it. Being old enough to have some perspective teaches you that the prosperity pie isn't of a fixed size. That those who want to make a living being the government middleman who carves up the pie and distributes it in exchange for power have a vested interest in trying to fool inexperienced younger people into thinking that the only reason they're not more prosperous yet is because someone else is, instead. That's the central thesis of lefty politics, and it's the false premise upon which a hundred million people died in the last century's misadventures in utopian collectivism, which always leads to collectivism by force. Older people have a better sense of the longer view, of causality, and history. They get it. And more of them drift towards a world view that pushes back against what they know to be a hugely destructive force.
This isn't about conserving what they've accrued. It's about conserving the engine of prosperity.
I know. We should go back to when the government called things like this a "man-involved disaster."
I'm perfectly capable of stating what needs to be said without getting angry
I know, it's like smoking, right? You could quit any time but you just don't want to. That little outburst was just for fun, I guess.
Thank God we're gonna limit the poor's access to information!
What, by taking away all of their favorite lefty news anchors because they're sexual predators, or by making them stay in union-run public schools that don't care at all about their education?
On behalf of everyone who's experienced something that doesn't have a conventional explanation... go fuck yourself.
Have you ever noticed how hostile are the people who don't want anyone to point out they've imagined stuff? The closer a person gets to the threshold of admitting they've grasped onto a phony supernatural or extraterrestrial explanation for something, the angrier they get at everyone else who rolls their eyes because they've already figured out it was phony. Based on your anger, you're now very close to finally admitting that to yourself.
I'll support anything that makes Harry Reid look like an even bigger idiot.
Impossible. But I'll support anything that helps break down the media walls that were put up to keep people in his party from seeing that.
You seem awfully sensitive about this, as you express yourself socially to another user.
Says the guy who could have been interacting with all of us in person, instead of using this social media platform.
You can always tell when the news is hurting liberals' feelings, because they mark down any mention of it as trolling. Like clockwork! Perhaps they'll continue to make the same sorts of mistakes in that regard that cost them nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their backs on Clinton out of disgust.
And it's one of the main reasons she lost the election. Which the Dems still can't get over, which has resulted in the increasingly unhinged nonsense we see going on. All the more interesting, now that we see how much partisan support for her inside Obama's DoJ directly involved working to make sure she stayed out of legal jeopardy specifically to make sure she'd win the election.
The changing stories from those involved as their lies were exposed? FAKE NEWS!!!
In the sense that anything along those lines has anything at all to do with the "Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to hack the election" narrative, yes, it IS fake news. Which you know.
This is exactly how we wind up with a flood of fake-prescription contact lenses showing up on the dead bodies of young people who've overdosed on astigmatism correction at night clubs.
... so what? Now, if this was a story about someone pretending to be an optometrist or ophthalmologist messing with other people's vision, that would be different. But this? Stop it. Really.
Or maybe the tone of outrage here, is a bit absurd? If you want to deliberately falsify the documentation needed to purchase something you're going to wear in your own eyes to correct your own vision
When you plea deal you don't plea guilty to the worst of the charges
And when you're a special counsel on a limitless witch hunt, you don't dole out a couple of lame indictments having nothing whatsoever to do with the "election hacking and collusion" you're theoretically investigating if you've actually got more. Multiple entities have been looking into this for over a year and have produced exactly zero evidence to support the phony narrative. Which you know.
Except for the guilty pleas...
Which are for acts that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "hacking the election" or "collusion" in the sense that the lefty media is so unhinged about pretending has happened. All that's really happening is that we're finding out that Hillary Clinton only avoided being indicted because partisan supporters in the FBI and DOJ decided to save her bacon for purely political reasons. And then she lost anyway, because she's an awful, unlikable person and was a terrible candidate, and the Dems still can't get over their terrible choice. So they've got people like you shilling for them, trying to pretend that an indictment for something that a guy did before there even WAS a Trump campaign, and which has nothing to do with the empty matter under investigation, is somehow proof of Trump working with the Russians to "hack the election." Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
You are using the time-honored practice of citing events that somewhat resemble what you're talking about, but which are factually - and substantially - NOT what you're claiming. In other words, you're lying, and you know it. Even the "couple of criminal convictions" you mention have nothing to do with what you're talking about. So why lie about it? Who are you talking to, that you think they're so dumb and unable to follow the actual words of the indictments?
Flynn and Papadopoulos.
Neither of which are in any trouble, whatsoever, for anything having to do with "campaign collusion with the Russians" or the like. Which you know, but are carefully avoiding because it takes the fun out of your narrative.
justice is slow in usa
Or maybe it's pretty quick, now that DOJ is under new management.
Yes, I do realize that. And when you're talking about a rule that forces private businesses to give up control of their own communications and property, it calls for actual legislation. Just like actual legislation from congress explicitly sets some boundaries within which the FAA must (and must not) regulate some aspects of remote controlled aircraft.
Because after all these decades of doing nothing, now that it's GONE we can come up with something better.
I know, everything was such a disaster in 2015. Just horrible. It's no wonder Obama waited years and years after having the power to do something about it, to ... do what the huge corporate donors at places like Google and Amazon wanted him to do.
that's actually not harming anyone
Sure, unless you're, perhaps, a small company trying to set up rural users with fixed wireless service, or some other activity that's very important to people you don't care about.
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law?
Among other reasons, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER A LAW. If you think it SHOULD be a law, rather than an Obama-era edict to apply a decades old telephone framework to modern networking, then you should be delighted this is gone, and seeking to get some actual legislation in place. Something that reflects an era after rotary dial phones.
No, the founding principle of "the internet" was "let's make sure our missile research people in the DoD can get data moved around between them and some universities who are working on our strategic deterrent against the soviets."
Pretty much everything else has been private companies investing billions of dollars to get their own networks to talk to other people's networks. There is no "the internet" anyway. Just a lot of individual networks with a wide range of agreements between private parties who carry traffic across each others' infrastructure at great expense to the people who own them. Those peering arrangements are not some mandatory unicorn utopia of equality of service across all networks. Never has been.
that is if you want to send your children to school and have them come home at night safely
The principal threat to children at school is in a handful of specific urban areas where local drug gangs and imported organized crime organizations (like MS-13) fight it out for turf in the area, and recruit from those schools using violence to intimidate kids into joining (or dying). The groups in question consider things like your idea of a gun confiscation from those on record as having purchased them to be absolutely hilarious. Because they don't care to give theirs up, and are thrilled when the households the prey on are known to be easier victims. The overwhelming majority of such crime takes place in liberal-run cities that, in practice, have already made the possession of guns essentially impossible ... for law abiding citizens. The notion of causality you're putting forth, as you surely know, is complete BS. The solution is the control of crime and criminals, not inanimate objects.
Congress is the DC government.
That's a silly and completely inaccurate over-simplification, and you know it. Regardless, the topic at hand is whether or not it's the local jurisdiction vs. the FAA that regulates air space. It's the FAA. The fact that you can't fly your toy quad copter in suburban Maryland or Virginia (let alone downtown) is NOT a matter dreamed up by or enforced by authorities in MD, VA, or DC. Want to run a food truck in one of those places? Yeah, you're dealing with local agencies. Want to take a drone photo of your food truck from 15 inches or 15 feet in the air, below tree-top level? That's the FAA stopping you from doing that, not any local authority.
Looks like this has actually gotten think time in legal circles.
As have the parental rights of gray aliens who come here on UFOs and impregnate human women. Also, legal circles have debated whether or not Bigfoot should enjoy the same legal protections as other native Americans. Yes, "legal circles" contemplate all sorts of things. This is already well settled. Airborne guns are in routine use by military and law enforcement, and are allowed by civilians only under very, very specific circumstances requiring a lengthy permit process (culling herds using a sharpshooter in a helicopter, for example).