You don't seem to have noticed the "exchanged" part of that definition. This implies that there is an equitable exchange going on here, which is what Comcast wants. An equitable exchange. Level3 doesn't want such an exchange.
And I think you missed this part:
The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic; instead, each derives revenue from its own customers.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. If Comcast is allowed to get away with this, then Time Warner can charge Level 3. Then AT&T can charge Level 3. Then Verizon and Sprint will charge Level 3. Then these companies will charge each and every web page and web service to be allowed access so their customers can access web content.
Eventually, you're going to end up with different ISP's having access to different web pages/services. For example, you might be allowed to only use Google, Netflix, and Slashdot on Time Warner. Comcast will grant you access to Yahoo, Redbox and Engadget. On your Microsoft phone, you will have access to Bing, MSN, and MSN (through payoffs to each carrier). Carriers/ISPs will advertise that they allow for more web pages than their competition and charge their customers (You and me) for the privilege to access the only the content served from the highest bidder. Meaning if you are content provider, you better have a big bank roll as the amount you are willing to pay will have a direct effect on the amount of customers that want to access your service.
If its been nearly 50 years then it ain't that big of a problem.
Back when TV's had one small speaker, no this was not that big of problem. Now, even my TV has two speakers, each that is multi-times more powerful than what my old TV had. And still, I don't even use those. Today, my TV is pushed digitally through my Dolby 5.1 receiver with 125 watts going to each of the speakers with another 100 watts for the independently power sub woofer. When the sound volume suddenly shoots shoots up 30%, you, and everyone else knows it. Sorry, but 700 watts of those stupid Kit-Kat people crunching out their "Give Me a Break" jingle is pretty damn annoying.
I also noticed that the problem really isn't noticeable on our old-school upstairs TV that still has the single, low powered speaker.
Slashdot may have political bias, but when it comes to tech, no party or ideology gets off the hook.
I'd sooner suspect your bias, for linking to TheHill, than Slashdot's.
Thanx. That one flew under my radar. Still, it mentions only one site that was taken over. THIS site contains an update that lists many more that have been taken over. And, NO, it's not TheHill.com.
But back to my original point. Shouldn't there be comparisons to Nazi book burnings or something? I know we would have seen that comparison made three years ago. I wonder what has changed since then.
How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?
Looks to me that the web is falling under the control of DHS. We all know how much a threat bit-torrent search engines are to national security.
If this would have happened three years ago, Slash would have posted this article three times with 750 comments each talking about how Bush is a tyrant trying to seize and solidify power. Now in 2010, not a peep.
They really need to buy an ARM user and get their GPU's into mobile devices, provided they can make them sip power instead of gulp it like a 6ltr Dodge Charger
Doesn't NVidia make the Tegra/Tegra2 processors for mobile devices?
Yes, those Democrats sure do want to discourage people from having conservative thoughts. That's why they have a 24 hour media machine that scares the bejesus out of people, claiming that sinister conservatives are destroying the fabric of America, building a knee-jerk association in peoples' heads between "conservative" and "anti-American traitor," selectively editing out-of-context video footage to make people from groups that liberals don't like look bad...
No, wait, those are the OTHER guys. I know Slashdot has been getting somewhat more paranoid and wingnutty, but seriously. Have you LOOKED at the Democrats, who couldn't even "suppress the conservative thought" inside their own damn caucus for two years? Breathe, come back from conspiracytown, and join us back in the real world.
Have you LOOKED at MSNBC? Were you not watching CNN when a reporter called a giant Hitler at a protest a George Bush "look-alike".
I understand that it's hard to recognize bias when it's bias you agree with, but seriously man, open your eyes! Say what you will about Bill O'Reilly, but I've never seen a conservative on Olbermann's show.
How does that help people buying current 1.6 phones because they don't know any better, and then wondering why so many apps are unavailable on their devices?
If Google doesn't start forcing carriers/vendors to upgrade their handsets in a timely manner, no amount of SDK wizardry is going to help.
I agree with this, but unfortunately, since Android is Open Source, Google can't force manufacturers to do anything at all.
The only power Google has is with the App Market. I would love to see Google do what you suggest and start limiting what kind of backward compatibility is offered in the Market. There is absolutely no reason that a new phone should be released running Android 2.1. NO REASON AT ALL! Google could limit Market licenses and block any phone released in the past 6 months that's not running Froyo. There is no excuse for the Samsung Epic to still be running 2.1. Hell, for that matter, there is no good reason that the HTC Hero can't have Froyo running.
Then the GOP would not have a way to scare people into voting against their own interests.
Strange. The GOP hasn't been in charge in over two years, yet the worst of TSA has happened during that time. Tell me, how has the evil GOP been able to do their evil, dastardly deeds while having no "official" power? Are they Sith? Are they sacrificing kittens to Satan? Tell me, how is the all powerful GOP able to do this?
More importantly, what scenarios do you have to concoct in your head to justify your blaming of the GOP for this? How do you put aside all logic and reasoning to make yourself believe it? I really want to know.
Remember, patriotism is abandoning our liberties and principles to fight terrorism in order to preserve our... uh... profit margins?
Yeah. TSA is seriously boosting its profits. I'm sure the TSA CEO can look forward to a hefty bonus this Christmas. Who is the CEO of TSA anyway? I'm also sure the airlines are licking their chops waiting for the big profits generated by people who decide to drive or take the train rather than get molested by TSA agents.
anyone who says libertarian doesn't understand the conflict in the term. it's basically republicans who don't want to be called republicans or someone who hates both parties but still leans republican. if someone declares themselves independent libertarian, then they're more acknowledging that they don't necessarily align with "libertarian" views. I have a friend like this, and it's basically republican but he doesnt' want to admit it.
I like to think of a Libertarian as a Republican that smokes pot and/or downloads porn. It could also be a Democrat who hates paying taxes to a federal government that either wastes the money or gives to someone who does not deserve it.
How can one be fiscally conservative (spend less money) and simultaneously be socially liberal (spend more money on those sad, pitiful poor people)?
Simple... Smaller Government, period!
Libertarians want the federal government to get out of everything that someone else can do. If the states can do the job, let the states do it. If the private sector can do the job, let the private sector do it. The only things the federal government should be doing is what is spelled out in The Constitution, per the 10th Amendment. If there is a job the Feds should be doing that is not spelled out in the Constitution, then the Constitution should be amended to give the Feds that power. The government should never stand in the way of your success. The government should never stand in the way of your failure. You should be free to do either. There can be no success without the possibility of failure. This is what is meant by fiscally conservative.
As for things like smoking pot or being gay or women being allowed to walk around in public topless, Libertarians don't care. As long as your actions don't endanger or strip the rights of another, then you should be free to do it. This is what is meant by socially liberal. It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with freedom.
There are only two nations with the resources, will, and motive to attack Iran's nuclear ambitions in this way: America and Israel.
It figures that hegemony would lead either state to such an antagonistic stance.
You forgot all or Europe, India, and much of the Arab world. Very few want to see a nuclear Iran. For that matter no one wants to see any country in that area of the world become a nuclear power. The US and Israel are the only ones who are not too pansy to say anything about it.
I agree. It makes perfect sense and is entirely reasonable that someone would do something like that. Surely it makes more sense to assume that than to assume that someone who has actively sought to try and hide her communication from being archived has.... wait for it... actually hidden her communication.
Look, I agree that it smells fishy. Then again, Obama stalling on releasing his birth certificate smells fishy. Does that mean I'm a wacko if I go around saying that Obama is not an American citizen? You bet it does. You could say the same thing for Sarah Palin's email. Yeah, it looks fishy that she deleted them. But you know what, if someone hacked my email and posted all my emails, complete with pictures of my teenage daughters for the whole world to see... I'd delete them too! All of them.
Yes, Sarah Palin is a public figure, but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to have complete access to everything she, and her kids do. I mean, she could have conducted government business in her bed with her husband Todd. Does that mean we need to place a camera in her room to make sure that she's not trying to hide anything in there? What if she completes state business on the crapper? Do we need to mic her toilet and install a live, 24-hr webcam? Of course not! She may be a public figure, but that doesn't give you access to every aspect of her life.
I don't see people screaming for Obama's Blackberry text logs. Why Sarah Palins? I don't agree with a witch hunt. I really don't agree a witch hunt that is one sided. It's one thing for the press (or hackers) to go over the line and be overzealous in their investigative reporting. It's something else entirely when they only do it one side.
The not-a-real-hack revealed that Palin had been using her private Yahoo email account to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability.
...and that, as you stated, has never been proven, nor can it ever be. No one knows what was in the emails and no one will ever know. That's why it's not really fair to claim as fact that Sarah Palin was using Yahoo email to "...to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability."
As for your email, it could have been deputy chief of staff asking Palin if his/her email to Arnold stating, "I, as a private citizen and in no way relating to my duties as an employee of the state of Alaska, think your policy sux and you have a stupid name" spells Arnold's name correctly. We don't know and we will never know.
How about the one from her deputy chief of staff's official government account with the subject "Draft Letter to Governor Swarzenegger / Container Tax"?
Was that official government business? Was she sending this letter to Gov Arnold in her official capacity as governor? Was the email actually sent to Gov Arnold from her Yahoo account or was she requesting editing help from someone else?
Again, I would not consider asking for an opinion of a "draft" letter to be official government business. Now if a letter was sent to the CA governor trying to set up some type of deal, say to set up an energy trade or something, you'd have something. But that's not what this was. This was a draft letter that may or may not have been sent to Gov Arnold. This request for edit help on this draft letter had absolutely no effect on Alaskan policy.
Right. I've seen the emails. Now which of these are official Alaska government business? There may be some politics in there, but I'd be offended if she was using official Alaskan email servers for politics. So, which of these emails contain business of the government of Alaska?
The not-a-real-hack revealed that Palin had been using her private Yahoo email account to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability.
I don't remember seeing that. I remember that is what people were looking for, but nothing was found as I recall. Seeing as how the messages were posted online, can you direct me to the emails where she was doing gov't business on her Yahoo account to hide from FOIA requests?
When you say the Fed's now deciding what's best for all 50 states, that certainly does simplify a very complex legal situation to the point of uselessness.
You clearly don't have the faintest inkling of how much the health insurance laws vary -- and still do vary from state to state, or the depth to which they each subdivide things in wholly different ways from each other.
You might as well say that every state now has the same population and size, too, with each citizen being precisely the same height, weight, age, and gender. It would be no less ridiculous and wrong.
I remember many years ago when Newt Gingrich was on MTV being asked questions about his underwear. One of the kids there was steaming about a Republican plan to ease federal restrictions on water testing. I remember the kids screaming, "How does dirty water improve my life?!!?"
Newt's reply was something like the following, "Look, right now we have one set of regulations for all 50 states. There is a pesticide that is only used on pineapple crops. All 50 states must test for this pesticide. Does it really make sense for Alaska to test its water supply for a pesticide that is only used in Hawaii?"
Let the states decide what is best for its citizens. If there are 50 different laws regulating insurance, then so be it. The insurance companies will just have to deal with it. If it's too much for them, then they may need to move out of some states. If a state is being under served, then they need to reconsider their regulations.
Granted, it's not perfect. Right now, states make their own rules about what goes into gasoline. Refineries need make several different blends to meet the needs of each individual state's regulations. A blanket set of rules for all 50 states might make refining more efficient and drive down prices some, but the same blend that works in Detroit in December probably won't do as well in Florida.
The same goes for health care. What works in one place may not do well in others. Let each local state government decide what works best for them. Just like you said, "You might as well say that every state now has the same population and size, too, with each citizen being precisely the same height, weight, age, and gender. It would be no less ridiculous and wrong." Exactly! Because all states have the differing needs, no plan that covers all 50 states will effectively meet the needs of each as well as they could do for themselves.
I will grant that some federal regulation may be a good thing. I wouldn't have a problem with a mandate that states that health insurance companies must cover contraceptives or not drop coverage if someone loses their job due to an illness. Hell, I don't even have a problem with forcing insurance companies to cover patients with pre-existing conditions. But to state that everyone must have health insurance doesn't make sense for everyone. To a person that lives in a small town with one doctor that everyone knows personally, insurance may not be necessary. There are still parts of the country where people barter for medical services. Overly broad regulations may not make sense for these people.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to have noticed the "exchanged" part of that definition. This implies that there is an equitable exchange going on here, which is what Comcast wants. An equitable exchange. Level3 doesn't want such an exchange.
And I think you missed this part:
The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic; instead, each derives revenue from its own customers.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. If Comcast is allowed to get away with this, then Time Warner can charge Level 3. Then AT&T can charge Level 3. Then Verizon and Sprint will charge Level 3. Then these companies will charge each and every web page and web service to be allowed access so their customers can access web content.
Eventually, you're going to end up with different ISP's having access to different web pages/services. For example, you might be allowed to only use Google, Netflix, and Slashdot on Time Warner. Comcast will grant you access to Yahoo, Redbox and Engadget. On your Microsoft phone, you will have access to Bing, MSN, and MSN (through payoffs to each carrier). Carriers/ISPs will advertise that they allow for more web pages than their competition and charge their customers (You and me) for the privilege to access the only the content served from the highest bidder. Meaning if you are content provider, you better have a big bank roll as the amount you are willing to pay will have a direct effect on the amount of customers that want to access your service.
If its been nearly 50 years then it ain't that big of a problem.
Back when TV's had one small speaker, no this was not that big of problem. Now, even my TV has two speakers, each that is multi-times more powerful than what my old TV had. And still, I don't even use those. Today, my TV is pushed digitally through my Dolby 5.1 receiver with 125 watts going to each of the speakers with another 100 watts for the independently power sub woofer. When the sound volume suddenly shoots shoots up 30%, you, and everyone else knows it. Sorry, but 700 watts of those stupid Kit-Kat people crunching out their "Give Me a Break" jingle is pretty damn annoying.
I also noticed that the problem really isn't noticeable on our old-school upstairs TV that still has the single, low powered speaker.
nature would be vastly different in different places in the universe.
The laws of chemistry and physics work the exact same everywhere in the universe.
Although I do agree with your premise that life elsewhere can, and will probably look totally different than anything we could have imagined.
The answer that everyone seems to be gravitating towards is the obvious one - just use less.
From a guy using an electricity powered computer to post an electronic message over an electricity powered Internet.
"You First" doesn't begin to cover it.
Actually, Slashdot posted it yesterday: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1450257/US-Government-Seizes-Torrent-Search-Engine-Domain
The same day as your link.
Slashdot may have political bias, but when it comes to tech, no party or ideology gets off the hook.
I'd sooner suspect your bias, for linking to TheHill, than Slashdot's.
Thanx. That one flew under my radar. Still, it mentions only one site that was taken over. THIS site contains an update that lists many more that have been taken over. And, NO, it's not TheHill.com.
But back to my original point. Shouldn't there be comparisons to Nazi book burnings or something? I know we would have seen that comparison made three years ago. I wonder what has changed since then.
How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?
Looks to me that the web is falling under the control of DHS. We all know how much a threat bit-torrent search engines are to national security.
If this would have happened three years ago, Slash would have posted this article three times with 750 comments each talking about how Bush is a tyrant trying to seize and solidify power. Now in 2010, not a peep.
They really need to buy an ARM user and get their GPU's into mobile devices, provided they can make them sip power instead of gulp it like a 6ltr Dodge Charger
Doesn't NVidia make the Tegra/Tegra2 processors for mobile devices?
Yes, those Democrats sure do want to discourage people from having conservative thoughts. That's why they have a 24 hour media machine that scares the bejesus out of people, claiming that sinister conservatives are destroying the fabric of America, building a knee-jerk association in peoples' heads between "conservative" and "anti-American traitor," selectively editing out-of-context video footage to make people from groups that liberals don't like look bad...
No, wait, those are the OTHER guys. I know Slashdot has been getting somewhat more paranoid and wingnutty, but seriously. Have you LOOKED at the Democrats, who couldn't even "suppress the conservative thought" inside their own damn caucus for two years? Breathe, come back from conspiracytown, and join us back in the real world.
Have you LOOKED at MSNBC? Were you not watching CNN when a reporter called a giant Hitler at a protest a George Bush "look-alike".
I understand that it's hard to recognize bias when it's bias you agree with, but seriously man, open your eyes! Say what you will about Bill O'Reilly, but I've never seen a conservative on Olbermann's show.
How does that help people buying current 1.6 phones because they don't know any better, and then wondering why so many apps are unavailable on their devices?
If Google doesn't start forcing carriers/vendors to upgrade their handsets in a timely manner, no amount of SDK wizardry is going to help.
I agree with this, but unfortunately, since Android is Open Source, Google can't force manufacturers to do anything at all.
The only power Google has is with the App Market. I would love to see Google do what you suggest and start limiting what kind of backward compatibility is offered in the Market. There is absolutely no reason that a new phone should be released running Android 2.1. NO REASON AT ALL! Google could limit Market licenses and block any phone released in the past 6 months that's not running Froyo. There is no excuse for the Samsung Epic to still be running 2.1. Hell, for that matter, there is no good reason that the HTC Hero can't have Froyo running.
Spoken like someone without the need to travel, nor children. Fail.
So you have no regard for the safety of your children traveling with you? Parenting fail.
Then the GOP would not have a way to scare people into voting against their own interests.
Strange. The GOP hasn't been in charge in over two years, yet the worst of TSA has happened during that time. Tell me, how has the evil GOP been able to do their evil, dastardly deeds while having no "official" power? Are they Sith? Are they sacrificing kittens to Satan? Tell me, how is the all powerful GOP able to do this?
More importantly, what scenarios do you have to concoct in your head to justify your blaming of the GOP for this? How do you put aside all logic and reasoning to make yourself believe it? I really want to know.
Remember, patriotism is abandoning our liberties and principles to fight terrorism in order to preserve our... uh... profit margins?
Yeah. TSA is seriously boosting its profits. I'm sure the TSA CEO can look forward to a hefty bonus this Christmas. Who is the CEO of TSA anyway? I'm also sure the airlines are licking their chops waiting for the big profits generated by people who decide to drive or take the train rather than get molested by TSA agents.
anyone who says libertarian doesn't understand the conflict in the term. it's basically republicans who don't want to be called republicans or someone who hates both parties but still leans republican. if someone declares themselves independent libertarian, then they're more acknowledging that they don't necessarily align with "libertarian" views. I have a friend like this, and it's basically republican but he doesnt' want to admit it.
I like to think of a Libertarian as a Republican that smokes pot and/or downloads porn. It could also be a Democrat who hates paying taxes to a federal government that either wastes the money or gives to someone who does not deserve it.
How can one be fiscally conservative (spend less money) and simultaneously be socially liberal (spend more money on those sad, pitiful poor people)?
Simple... Smaller Government, period!
Libertarians want the federal government to get out of everything that someone else can do. If the states can do the job, let the states do it. If the private sector can do the job, let the private sector do it. The only things the federal government should be doing is what is spelled out in The Constitution, per the 10th Amendment. If there is a job the Feds should be doing that is not spelled out in the Constitution, then the Constitution should be amended to give the Feds that power. The government should never stand in the way of your success. The government should never stand in the way of your failure. You should be free to do either. There can be no success without the possibility of failure. This is what is meant by fiscally conservative.
As for things like smoking pot or being gay or women being allowed to walk around in public topless, Libertarians don't care. As long as your actions don't endanger or strip the rights of another, then you should be free to do it. This is what is meant by socially liberal. It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with freedom.
It's usually taking the next step after somebody else has done the hard work of creating a market.
Remind me again, who created that market that the iPad was in?
Palm.
There are only two nations with the resources, will, and motive to attack Iran's nuclear ambitions in this way: America and Israel.
It figures that hegemony would lead either state to such an antagonistic stance.
You forgot all or Europe, India, and much of the Arab world. Very few want to see a nuclear Iran. For that matter no one wants to see any country in that area of the world become a nuclear power. The US and Israel are the only ones who are not too pansy to say anything about it.
I agree. It makes perfect sense and is entirely reasonable that someone would do something like that. Surely it makes more sense to assume that than to assume that someone who has actively sought to try and hide her communication from being archived has .... wait for it ... actually hidden her communication.
Look, I agree that it smells fishy. Then again, Obama stalling on releasing his birth certificate smells fishy. Does that mean I'm a wacko if I go around saying that Obama is not an American citizen? You bet it does. You could say the same thing for Sarah Palin's email. Yeah, it looks fishy that she deleted them. But you know what, if someone hacked my email and posted all my emails, complete with pictures of my teenage daughters for the whole world to see... I'd delete them too! All of them.
Yes, Sarah Palin is a public figure, but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to have complete access to everything she, and her kids do. I mean, she could have conducted government business in her bed with her husband Todd. Does that mean we need to place a camera in her room to make sure that she's not trying to hide anything in there? What if she completes state business on the crapper? Do we need to mic her toilet and install a live, 24-hr webcam? Of course not! She may be a public figure, but that doesn't give you access to every aspect of her life.
I don't see people screaming for Obama's Blackberry text logs. Why Sarah Palins? I don't agree with a witch hunt. I really don't agree a witch hunt that is one sided. It's one thing for the press (or hackers) to go over the line and be overzealous in their investigative reporting. It's something else entirely when they only do it one side.
...and there's no way to prove either way...
DING-DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!
The original post said:
The not-a-real-hack revealed that Palin had been using her private Yahoo email account to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability.
...and that, as you stated, has never been proven, nor can it ever be. No one knows what was in the emails and no one will ever know. That's why it's not really fair to claim as fact that Sarah Palin was using Yahoo email to "...to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability."
As for your email, it could have been deputy chief of staff asking Palin if his/her email to Arnold stating, "I, as a private citizen and in no way relating to my duties as an employee of the state of Alaska, think your policy sux and you have a stupid name" spells Arnold's name correctly. We don't know and we will never know.
How about the one from her deputy chief of staff's official government account with the subject "Draft Letter to Governor Swarzenegger / Container Tax"?
Was that official government business? Was she sending this letter to Gov Arnold in her official capacity as governor? Was the email actually sent to Gov Arnold from her Yahoo account or was she requesting editing help from someone else?
Again, I would not consider asking for an opinion of a "draft" letter to be official government business. Now if a letter was sent to the CA governor trying to set up some type of deal, say to set up an energy trade or something, you'd have something. But that's not what this was. This was a draft letter that may or may not have been sent to Gov Arnold. This request for edit help on this draft letter had absolutely no effect on Alaskan policy.
Try again.
Right. I've seen the emails. Now which of these are official Alaska government business? There may be some politics in there, but I'd be offended if she was using official Alaskan email servers for politics. So, which of these emails contain business of the government of Alaska?
The not-a-real-hack revealed that Palin had been using her private Yahoo email account to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability.
I don't remember seeing that. I remember that is what people were looking for, but nothing was found as I recall. Seeing as how the messages were posted online, can you direct me to the emails where she was doing gov't business on her Yahoo account to hide from FOIA requests?
Thanx.
I thought religious fundamentalists are merely a subset of anti-science loons.
You do realize that the one who originally theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest, right?
You could even call him the "Father" of the Big Bang.
Freedom of speech is a something the government is not supposed to infringe upon.
People infringe upon other people's free speech all the time.
Right. They are called brownshirts.
I would go a bit further...
His right to express himself doesn't include a right to silence others.
No. This punk is nothing more than a digital brownshirt, trying to silence those who he disagrees with.
Sorry, but silencing others is NOT protected as free speech.
When you say the Fed's now deciding what's best for all 50 states, that certainly does simplify a very complex legal situation to the point of uselessness.
You clearly don't have the faintest inkling of how much the health insurance laws vary -- and still do vary from state to state, or the depth to which they each subdivide things in wholly different ways from each other.
You might as well say that every state now has the same population and size, too, with each citizen being precisely the same height, weight, age, and gender. It would be no less ridiculous and wrong.
I remember many years ago when Newt Gingrich was on MTV being asked questions about his underwear. One of the kids there was steaming about a Republican plan to ease federal restrictions on water testing. I remember the kids screaming, "How does dirty water improve my life?!!?"
Newt's reply was something like the following, "Look, right now we have one set of regulations for all 50 states. There is a pesticide that is only used on pineapple crops. All 50 states must test for this pesticide. Does it really make sense for Alaska to test its water supply for a pesticide that is only used in Hawaii?"
Let the states decide what is best for its citizens. If there are 50 different laws regulating insurance, then so be it. The insurance companies will just have to deal with it. If it's too much for them, then they may need to move out of some states. If a state is being under served, then they need to reconsider their regulations.
Granted, it's not perfect. Right now, states make their own rules about what goes into gasoline. Refineries need make several different blends to meet the needs of each individual state's regulations. A blanket set of rules for all 50 states might make refining more efficient and drive down prices some, but the same blend that works in Detroit in December probably won't do as well in Florida.
The same goes for health care. What works in one place may not do well in others. Let each local state government decide what works best for them. Just like you said, "You might as well say that every state now has the same population and size, too, with each citizen being precisely the same height, weight, age, and gender. It would be no less ridiculous and wrong." Exactly! Because all states have the differing needs, no plan that covers all 50 states will effectively meet the needs of each as well as they could do for themselves.
I will grant that some federal regulation may be a good thing. I wouldn't have a problem with a mandate that states that health insurance companies must cover contraceptives or not drop coverage if someone loses their job due to an illness. Hell, I don't even have a problem with forcing insurance companies to cover patients with pre-existing conditions. But to state that everyone must have health insurance doesn't make sense for everyone. To a person that lives in a small town with one doctor that everyone knows personally, insurance may not be necessary. There are still parts of the country where people barter for medical services. Overly broad regulations may not make sense for these people.