Private companies are not covered by the first amendment. They own the infrastructure, and may do with it as they please. They don't even have to tell you the rules they choose to operate by. As it should be. Our government, on the other hand, operates under the Constitution. Argue about how that would effect things all you like, try to spin that it wouldn't matter. But the fact exists, there is precedent to go by, and your arguments will need to take that into account, or be irrelevant.
Mueller is impartial and is in no way seeking to influence the elections. He is not a Democrat he is a Republican. But first and foremost, he is an honest law man who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, and he takes that very, very seriously. He will not use what he knows to influence the election in any way, as that would make his investigation political.
Look, there are two possibilities. One, we can have cheap Internet with net neutrality jut like the rest of the developed world, or two: we are failures who can't do what other countries can do.But honestly, it sounds like your issue is not with the expense, but with net neutrality regulations themselves. You don't want them, the expense was just the excuse,
But it hasn't. You just keep making counter factual assertions. The rest of the developed world has cheaper, faster Internet, with net neutrality. Your pro-free market, anti-regulation theory says that is not possible. So something in your theory must be wrong, because you keep making incorrect conclusions.
But it is possible to have cheaper, faster Internet with net neutrality. So how does it happen? You say it can't happen, but it has happened, multiple times, in multiple countries.
Just looking at countries that already have net neutrality laws and cheaper, faster Internet service, we can already tell it works fantastically well. Why would it be any different here?
That's absolutely untrue, and in any case is simply acceding all power to some faceless corporation. You are basically saying service providers experience no market forces and can set their prices arbitrarily high. As counterexample, let me introduce you to the Internet in the rest of the developed world. Plenty of countries (but not all) have lower prices and faster speeds than we do here in America. We just let our ISPs directly dictate policy to our government, and engage in other non market based shenanigans.
ISPs can accept lower profits if they want to stay in the game. We have the power to force them to do that.
It's a story written by Paul Mavrides, you've honestly never heard of the Church of the SubGenius or Bob Dobbs? You should have gotten a copy in your Nerd Starter Pack. Sad, you are missing out on some really good comedy. Here's a link https://www.amazon.com/Book-Su...
(originally published in "Bob's" Big Book of Fables for Sleepy-Heads, Simon & Schuster, 1943)
Once upon a time!
Care Dog was strolling along on a bright, sunny Summer's day. Sweet-hearted fellow that he was, he enjoyed the beautiful singing of the birds and the comforting buzz of the bees. He was on the road through Sweet-Wood Forest, with Care-A-Lot town far behind him, when quite suddenly he happened upon Pee Bear, who was sitting right in the middle of the road. That rascally Pee Bear was picking fat gray ticks off of his feces-encrusted sphinctor area, and popping them into his mouth, chewing them with a look of glee.
"Pee Bear! You shouldn't be picking ticks off your fanny and eating them!" scolded Care Dog, who was naturally concerned for the health of all the animals in the forest.
"Go fuck yourself ragged, Care Dog... with a big dick, with BIG RED STRAPS!" cursed Pee Bear, who seemed to be in quite a nasty mood. "These fucking shit-ticks are driving me crazy!" He bent over to gnaw feverishly at his own rectum. Urgent little whines of relief mingled with yelps of pain.
"B-but Pee Bear!" said Care Dog, his feelings hurt. "Those ticks are all covered with your poo-poo! They could be carrying a terrible disease! Why, you might die from eating them!"
Pee Bear stopped his butt-chewing then, and looked up at Care Dog with an expression of pure hate.
"Me and everything else in this forest is half dead already, you stupid sap! Look around you, Care Dog! This whole forest is dying, the humans of Realworld Land did it, and there isn't a Jesus-fucking thing anybody's gonna do about it. You and all your precious fellow Cute-A-Lots, and me, and everything else that lives in this forest, we're all going to die. Nothing can stop the living hell on earth that's coming -- not all the rainbows and hearts and flowers and unicorns, and pretty little tick-less baby-faced simpering liberal goody-two-shoes TV stars like you, in the universe! These festering mutated ticks on my anus -- they're but the barest glimpse of the suffering in store for you! Yes, even you, Care Dog! Your "Loving God" is about to abandon you, and your world -- and mine! -- to a fate unimagined in your most unspeakable nightmares. And for what? For nothing! So don't give me your sappy sweetie-weetie CRAP, you pathetic eunuch of a cutesy-putesy pile of shit!!! Now leave me alone and let me deal with this horrible itching in peace! -- if there is such a thing as peace in this fucked world."
Care Dog was stricken! He didn't know what to say. He knew that Pee Bear only needed a little love and understanding -- but the tormented Bear of the Bathrooms looked as if he would strike him if he said a word!
What was Care Dog to do?
But then, upon seeing the big tears welling up in the eyes of the poor Canine of Kindness, Pee Bear got a crafty look in his eye. He hung his head and apologized.
"Oh, I'm so sorry, Care Dog. Can you forgive me? I'm just been in such a bad mood lately, what with these ticks and vermin eating away at my poor asshole." He smiled his sweetest sad smile at Care Dog, and shuffled his feet bashfully to show that he was sorry.
Care Dog wiped the tears away and looked up hopefully, "You... you really mean it, Pee Bear?"
"Sure, Care Dog. In fact, why don't you come closer? There's a present I'd like to give you."
Trustingly, Care Dog walked towards Pee Bear. In his childlike innocence, he hadn't even noticed that that wily Bear had extended his huge, hideous bear dick from its furry sheath. Its pointed tip glistened with a quivering drop of anticipatory "gleet." The hairy base of it writhed with fleas.
Care Dog sniffed the air. "Say, do you smell something dead, Pee Bear?" (Care Dog quickly dismissed the ridiculous, primitive urge that always made him want to find any dead thing and roll around on it. That wasn't the kind of thing that polite dogs did!)
Then he saw that Pee Bear wore a very strange expression. Why was he l
One big scrubber on one chimney is much easier and cheaper than a million such scrubbers on car exhaust pipes. Also, China currently has twice the kilowatts of renewable energy as the US does. They are the world leader in green energy, a place that could have, and should have been ours. But we're a corporate kleptocracy and have a vested interest in denying the need for green power.
Key marketing principle, maybe. Are you saying you honestly think Google is a good and moral corporation? Not for over a decade, if it ever was. Okay, maybe you work there, and you aren't a bad guy, and nobody you work with is a bad guy. But Google exists for one purpose, to make its shareholders money. If it comes down to losing money or doing a bad thing, Google does the bad thing, like every corporation. Don't be brainwashed just because they pay the bills for you.
The only landmark Google mentions in my city is Firestone. Every single time I drive by a Firestone. "Keep going straight past the Firestone I didn't even need to mention because you don't need a landmark to go straight." Don't try to paint Google as some saintly, charitable organization. That "Do no evil" ship sailed years ago.
Is this a parody of senile elderly right wingers, or do you really think random all caps words, incomplete sentences, and ridiculous bragging are a good form of argumentation?
Oh cut the bullshit, eating soybeans does not make anyone "weak and effeminate." The number of ridiculous logical leaps in your argument renders it completely unscientific. Just because soybeans have some estrogen-like compounds in them does not mean they have enough to produce any real effect. But more importantly, you are flat out wrong about the effects of estrogen, which is produced in men's bodies as well as women's. Just read any recent bodybuilding publication to see them crowing about how much estrogen can do just the opposite, and help men build muscle mass. https://www.ironmanmagazine.co... https://www.bodybuilding.com/f...
Uh, the original AC I was responding to seemed in favor of repealing net neutrality. Someone else came along and explained the ACs post in terms of regulatory capture. It had nothing to do with regulatory capture, it was an idiotic post conflating free speech with net neutrality, and claiming that somehow, net neutrality endangers free speech. It doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong.
I know what the term regulatory capture means and I realize that's what Pai is doing. Yes, we can assume that Comcast and other ISPs have captured the FCC. My point is that the original AC I was responding to is conflating free speech and net neutrality, which are simply not the same thing. Then someone else chimed in, trying to explain what the original AC was saying. I found that explanation lacking, and a bit vague, thus my quizzical phrasing.
This is the post we are commenting on:
"They are the same things in that Net Neutrality is supposed to make sure that all packets are treated equally, which is what "free speech" means legally - all speech is to be treated equally. If you allow me to say that white people are evil, you have to let me say black people are evil. You can't ban one and not the other. That's how free speech works. Net neutrality is the same principle applied to packets.
EDIT - Of course/. has a politically correct speech filter that doesn't allow the proverbial "N" word, thus ironically making my point."
So, where in that do YOU see commentary on regulatory capture? I don't see it.
I'm a network administrator for the State of New Mexico and have been since the days of leased T1 lines. I know more about business class connections than you seem to.
Across my ISP's network, obviously they don't control traffic on the wider Internet and have no say in how much bandwidth content providers purchase. But if I buy X speed from them, I expect X speed in and out on a fairly regular basis. A little bit of slow down here and there is okay, I know ISPs sell more bandwidth to endpoints than they have in connections to tier 3 backbone providers.
Slashdot Mirror
Private companies are not covered by the first amendment. They own the infrastructure, and may do with it as they please. They don't even have to tell you the rules they choose to operate by. As it should be. Our government, on the other hand, operates under the Constitution. Argue about how that would effect things all you like, try to spin that it wouldn't matter. But the fact exists, there is precedent to go by, and your arguments will need to take that into account, or be irrelevant.
What absolute bullshit.
Mueller is impartial and is in no way seeking to influence the elections. He is not a Democrat he is a Republican. But first and foremost, he is an honest law man who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, and he takes that very, very seriously. He will not use what he knows to influence the election in any way, as that would make his investigation political.
Look, there are two possibilities. One, we can have cheap Internet with net neutrality jut like the rest of the developed world, or two: we are failures who can't do what other countries can do.But honestly, it sounds like your issue is not with the expense, but with net neutrality regulations themselves. You don't want them, the expense was just the excuse,
But it hasn't. You just keep making counter factual assertions. The rest of the developed world has cheaper, faster Internet, with net neutrality. Your pro-free market, anti-regulation theory says that is not possible. So something in your theory must be wrong, because you keep making incorrect conclusions.
But it is possible to have cheaper, faster Internet with net neutrality. So how does it happen? You say it can't happen, but it has happened, multiple times, in multiple countries.
Just looking at countries that already have net neutrality laws and cheaper, faster Internet service, we can already tell it works fantastically well. Why would it be any different here?
That's absolutely untrue, and in any case is simply acceding all power to some faceless corporation. You are basically saying service providers experience no market forces and can set their prices arbitrarily high. As counterexample, let me introduce you to the Internet in the rest of the developed world. Plenty of countries (but not all) have lower prices and faster speeds than we do here in America. We just let our ISPs directly dictate policy to our government, and engage in other non market based shenanigans.
ISPs can accept lower profits if they want to stay in the game. We have the power to force them to do that.
I'm sure that "Waiting for someone to tell you into what to think" sounds perfectly fine in the original Russian, but to American ears it sounds off.
Your grammar seems a bit odd. Is English not your first language?
Came here for this reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's a story written by Paul Mavrides, you've honestly never heard of the Church of the SubGenius or Bob Dobbs? You should have gotten a copy in your Nerd Starter Pack. Sad, you are missing out on some really good comedy. Here's a link https://www.amazon.com/Book-Su...
(Trust me, it's relevant.)
(originally published in "Bob's" Big Book of Fables for Sleepy-Heads, Simon & Schuster, 1943)
Once upon a time!
Care Dog was strolling along on a bright, sunny Summer's day. Sweet-hearted fellow that he was, he enjoyed the beautiful singing of the birds and the comforting buzz of the bees. He was on the road through Sweet-Wood Forest, with Care-A-Lot town far behind him, when quite suddenly he happened upon Pee Bear, who was sitting right in the middle of the road. That rascally Pee Bear was picking fat gray ticks off of his feces-encrusted sphinctor area, and popping them into his mouth, chewing them with a look of glee.
"Pee Bear! You shouldn't be picking ticks off your fanny and eating them!" scolded Care Dog, who was naturally concerned for the health of all the animals in the forest.
"Go fuck yourself ragged, Care Dog... with a big dick, with BIG RED STRAPS!" cursed Pee Bear, who seemed to be in quite a nasty mood. "These fucking shit-ticks are driving me crazy!" He bent over to gnaw feverishly at his own rectum. Urgent little whines of relief mingled with yelps of pain.
"B-but Pee Bear!" said Care Dog, his feelings hurt. "Those ticks are all covered with your poo-poo! They could be carrying a terrible disease! Why, you might die from eating them!"
Pee Bear stopped his butt-chewing then, and looked up at Care Dog with an expression of pure hate.
"Me and everything else in this forest is half dead already, you stupid sap! Look around you, Care Dog! This whole forest is dying, the humans of Realworld Land did it, and there isn't a Jesus-fucking thing anybody's gonna do about it. You and all your precious fellow Cute-A-Lots, and me, and everything else that lives in this forest, we're all going to die. Nothing can stop the living hell on earth that's coming -- not all the rainbows and hearts and flowers and unicorns, and pretty little tick-less baby-faced simpering liberal goody-two-shoes TV stars like you, in the universe! These festering mutated ticks on my anus -- they're but the barest glimpse of the suffering in store for you! Yes, even you, Care Dog! Your "Loving God" is about to abandon you, and your world -- and mine! -- to a fate unimagined in your most unspeakable nightmares. And for what? For nothing! So don't give me your sappy sweetie-weetie CRAP, you pathetic eunuch of a cutesy-putesy pile of shit!!! Now leave me alone and let me deal with this horrible itching in peace! -- if there is such a thing as peace in this fucked world."
Care Dog was stricken! He didn't know what to say. He knew that Pee Bear only needed a little love and understanding -- but the tormented Bear of the Bathrooms looked as if he would strike him if he said a word!
What was Care Dog to do?
But then, upon seeing the big tears welling up in the eyes of the poor Canine of Kindness, Pee Bear got a crafty look in his eye. He hung his head and apologized.
"Oh, I'm so sorry, Care Dog. Can you forgive me? I'm just been in such a bad mood lately, what with these ticks and vermin eating away at my poor asshole." He smiled his sweetest sad smile at Care Dog, and shuffled his feet bashfully to show that he was sorry.
Care Dog wiped the tears away and looked up hopefully, "You... you really mean it, Pee Bear?"
"Sure, Care Dog. In fact, why don't you come closer? There's a present I'd like to give you."
Trustingly, Care Dog walked towards Pee Bear. In his childlike innocence, he hadn't even noticed that that wily Bear had extended his huge, hideous bear dick from its furry sheath. Its pointed tip glistened with a quivering drop of anticipatory "gleet." The hairy base of it writhed with fleas.
Care Dog sniffed the air. "Say, do you smell something dead, Pee Bear?" (Care Dog quickly dismissed the ridiculous, primitive urge that always made him want to find any dead thing and roll around on it. That wasn't the kind of thing that polite dogs did!)
Then he saw that Pee Bear wore a very strange expression. Why was he l
One big scrubber on one chimney is much easier and cheaper than a million such scrubbers on car exhaust pipes. Also, China currently has twice the kilowatts of renewable energy as the US does. They are the world leader in green energy, a place that could have, and should have been ours. But we're a corporate kleptocracy and have a vested interest in denying the need for green power.
Key marketing principle, maybe. Are you saying you honestly think Google is a good and moral corporation? Not for over a decade, if it ever was. Okay, maybe you work there, and you aren't a bad guy, and nobody you work with is a bad guy. But Google exists for one purpose, to make its shareholders money. If it comes down to losing money or doing a bad thing, Google does the bad thing, like every corporation. Don't be brainwashed just because they pay the bills for you.
The only landmark Google mentions in my city is Firestone. Every single time I drive by a Firestone. "Keep going straight past the Firestone I didn't even need to mention because you don't need a landmark to go straight." Don't try to paint Google as some saintly, charitable organization. That "Do no evil" ship sailed years ago.
Is this a parody of senile elderly right wingers, or do you really think random all caps words, incomplete sentences, and ridiculous bragging are a good form of argumentation?
Wait, are you saying that if it turns out later that he was wrong, then he's not right?
Oh cut the bullshit, eating soybeans does not make anyone "weak and effeminate." The number of ridiculous logical leaps in your argument renders it completely unscientific. Just because soybeans have some estrogen-like compounds in them does not mean they have enough to produce any real effect. But more importantly, you are flat out wrong about the effects of estrogen, which is produced in men's bodies as well as women's. Just read any recent bodybuilding publication to see them crowing about how much estrogen can do just the opposite, and help men build muscle mass.
https://www.ironmanmagazine.co...
https://www.bodybuilding.com/f...
No one is denying that residential is oversubscribed, what exactly is your point though?
Uh, the original AC I was responding to seemed in favor of repealing net neutrality. Someone else came along and explained the ACs post in terms of regulatory capture. It had nothing to do with regulatory capture, it was an idiotic post conflating free speech with net neutrality, and claiming that somehow, net neutrality endangers free speech. It doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong.
I know what the term regulatory capture means and I realize that's what Pai is doing. Yes, we can assume that Comcast and other ISPs have captured the FCC. My point is that the original AC I was responding to is conflating free speech and net neutrality, which are simply not the same thing. Then someone else chimed in, trying to explain what the original AC was saying. I found that explanation lacking, and a bit vague, thus my quizzical phrasing.
This is the post we are commenting on:
"They are the same things in that Net Neutrality is supposed to make sure that all packets are treated equally, which is what "free speech" means legally - all speech is to be treated equally. If you allow me to say that white people are evil, you have to let me say black people are evil. You can't ban one and not the other. That's how free speech works. Net neutrality is the same principle applied to packets.
EDIT - Of course /. has a politically correct speech filter that doesn't allow the proverbial "N" word, thus ironically making my point."
So, where in that do YOU see commentary on regulatory capture? I don't see it.
I'm a network administrator for the State of New Mexico and have been since the days of leased T1 lines. I know more about business class connections than you seem to.
Across my ISP's network, obviously they don't control traffic on the wider Internet and have no say in how much bandwidth content providers purchase. But if I buy X speed from them, I expect X speed in and out on a fairly regular basis. A little bit of slow down here and there is okay, I know ISPs sell more bandwidth to endpoints than they have in connections to tier 3 backbone providers.
About fifteen years ago, if I remember correctly, but that meme may have started even earlier.