So which of these options makes Racist a protected class? "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation."
Is he claiming it is a mental disability or a religion?
Probably sexual orientation, since he only wants to have sex with those of his own race.
The more freedom we have the messier it is. When people are allowed to do what they want, some of them will do things that are destructive. Freedom allows them to do that. We have to clean up after them when they do, and punish them for their acts, though.
Maybe we should be celebrating how much freedom we have?
The jails are run by the Sheriff's department, and our current Sheriff is Bill Gore, who was the FBI agent who gave the shoot-to-kill order at Ruby Ridge, then refused to testify to Congress over what happened.
This is the thread where he gave the game away. In some posts he knows what net neutrality is and in others he doesn't; in some posts he knows specifics about network operation and in others he talks about the Internet like it's magic; his arguments range from strawmen to "if you don't like your ISP, you can just move to another city." Not good trolling at all; much too sloppy and obvious.
I've never advocated for net neutrality. I don't favor government control of the internet, and think the whole thing is overblown. You are flat-out lying.
I've yet to hear a valid reason I can't pay my ISP extra to block malicious websites or give me more bandwidth if I need it.
As for moving if you don't like your ISP: people have moved for all kinds of reasons. Look at the exodus from high-tax states to low-, or no-, tax states. Why is it beyond the pale for people to move to get better access to the internet?
Because I'm already fucking paying for a smooth streaming experience. Intentionally taking it away from me and then offering to give it back in exchange for an additional fee is not the screamin' deal you seem to think it is.
You're already paying for your local ISP to cache all websites locally so there is no slow down? Do you believe your ISP has unlimited storage and can keep local copies of whatever website you might happen to visit so the "smooth streaming experience" you are paying for is never interrupted?
Your ISP is like your phone company, allowing you to contact the businesses that you want to. Would you accept phone companies deciding who you can ring?
For one thing, which websites have been blocked that you want the government to take over policing every move by ISPs? And if a phone company blocked calling a certain number, users would switch to a different phone company. The same goes with ISPs.
I'd also like ISPs to block access to malicious websites. Why should my paying them extra to do so be illegal?
[T]he fact is the internet is alot like the roadway system. the idea behind NN is that ISPs can't just plop down a road closed -detour or narrow the street without a legit reason, or worse, enact toll booths at all points coming and going.
Why would someone using a lot of bandwidth not be a "legit" reason? Or a website that degrades service to users? And there are toll booths all over the place. Ever been to a New England state?
"I don't need it, so nobody else does either" arguments are invalid.
Just because you want unfettered access to every single website doesn't mean you should have the government take control of the internet to police what ISPs are doing. I know of no one who's died from YouTube, or Netflix, buffering. Sure, it's inconvenient, but there are more than one ISPs available, and more than one city you can live in. Vote with your feet and your dollars and the best ISPs will come out on top. Demanding the government control what ISPs are doing will never get them to improve in the ways you think they will; they will only improve in ways to hide their actions.
Net neutrality deals with the content that those lines carry. If your neighbor watches Netflix while you watch YouTube (or vice versa) the ISP is not allowed to tweak the delivery so Netflix comes out smooth in HD because the ISP is getting paid extra by Netflix.
Net Neutrality is about being neutral to the content, be it video vs text vs sound, or source, be it Amazon vs YouTube vs Netflix vs Bob's video emporium.
If an ISP says, "Hey! Do you like Netflix? We do too! So we partnered with Netflix to offer you a smooth streaming experience!"
Why should that be illegal? If I don't want Netflix, why would I care if my ISP slows it down? And if my ISP slows it down, I can use a different ISP that doesn't.
I might understand if I needed Netflix, or any other website, to stay alive, but I don't.
It's like saying a grocery store must carry every single type of product, because we don't want them favoring any specific distributor.
So if my next door neighbor uses 5 TB of data a month, and I use 100 MB a month, why should it be illegal for our ISP to charge him more than me, or even slow his down so my internet isn't at a crawl?
It looks like the future is going to be made up solely of ISPs who deliver everything entertainment. You'll get your TV, movies, music, and ePubs through the internet, and cable and satellite TV will go the way of the 8-track. This just accelerates the process.
"lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it."
The key word in that sentence is control. That's all that matters.
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
Re:
Probably sexual orientation, since he only wants to have sex with those of his own race.
On the post: Federal Court Shuts Down IMDb-Targeting 'Anti-Ageism' Law Permanently
You could start any discussion of California law these days with this admonition.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Freedom is messy
Maybe we should be celebrating how much freedom we have?
On the post: County Gov't Tries To Dodge Liability In Jailhouse Deaths By Intimidating The Journalist Who Exposed Them
Just an FYI
Source: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/oct/29/ticker-remember-ruby-ridge-sheriff-gore/#
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, we are moving soon to get better service.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never advocated for net neutrality. I don't favor government control of the internet, and think the whole thing is overblown. You are flat-out lying.
I've yet to hear a valid reason I can't pay my ISP extra to block malicious websites or give me more bandwidth if I need it.
As for moving if you don't like your ISP: people have moved for all kinds of reasons. Look at the exodus from high-tax states to low-, or no-, tax states. Why is it beyond the pale for people to move to get better access to the internet?
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're already paying for your local ISP to cache all websites locally so there is no slow down? Do you believe your ISP has unlimited storage and can keep local copies of whatever website you might happen to visit so the "smooth streaming experience" you are paying for is never interrupted?
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A distinction without a difference.
And why would blocking malicious websites be "extortion?" Your word choice is ludicrous on its face.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If government has no control, they can't punish criminal behavior.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For one thing, which websites have been blocked that you want the government to take over policing every move by ISPs? And if a phone company blocked calling a certain number, users would switch to a different phone company. The same goes with ISPs.
I'd also like ISPs to block access to malicious websites. Why should my paying them extra to do so be illegal?
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would someone using a lot of bandwidth not be a "legit" reason? Or a website that degrades service to users? And there are toll booths all over the place. Ever been to a New England state?
Just because you want unfettered access to every single website doesn't mean you should have the government take control of the internet to police what ISPs are doing. I know of no one who's died from YouTube, or Netflix, buffering. Sure, it's inconvenient, but there are more than one ISPs available, and more than one city you can live in. Vote with your feet and your dollars and the best ISPs will come out on top. Demanding the government control what ISPs are doing will never get them to improve in the ways you think they will; they will only improve in ways to hide their actions.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re:
And if I want to pay my ISP extra to prioritize my access, why should that be illegal?
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re:
If an ISP says, "Hey! Do you like Netflix? We do too! So we partnered with Netflix to offer you a smooth streaming experience!"
Why should that be illegal? If I don't want Netflix, why would I care if my ISP slows it down? And if my ISP slows it down, I can use a different ISP that doesn't.
I might understand if I needed Netflix, or any other website, to stay alive, but I don't.
It's like saying a grocery store must carry every single type of product, because we don't want them favoring any specific distributor.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Wow!
I'll have to make sure my wife knows how insightful I am! It might allow me to win an argument or two! (maybe!)
So do I get to wear a tiara???
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
On the post: The Gorilla Channel Satire Demonstrates The Ridiculousness Of Banning Fake News
Just sayin'!
On the post: Those Annoying Cable Channel Blackouts Are Only Going To Get Worse In 2018
On the post: DHS Documents Show Harassment And Intrusive Device Searches Are A Common Occurrence At US Borders
On the post: Charter, Disney Execs Pledge To Crack Down On Streaming Password Sharing 'Piracy'
The key word in that sentence is control. That's all that matters.
Next >>