Most major ISPs need to quit focusing on quarterly profits and figuring out new ways to screw over their customers(Comcast) and actually do their jobs properly.
Gasp! What are you, some sort of evil Communist heretic pinko Nazi?!?!
Exactly. And even if such evidence existed, I wouldn't take it as particularly conclusive. New products are used by early adopters, who tend to be more savvy in the field in question. Release it to the general public, and you're going to have a bunch of idiots using it in idiotic ways.
A woman I used to know told me once about a recent doctor's visit in which, after some tests, he told her she had a benign tumor that was not harmful and was unlikely to become malignant or cause any real problems for her. And she said that the doc straight-up admitted to her that the only reason he was even telling her about it is because he had known her for many years and knew she was grounded enough to take the news without overreacting in some stupid way. Unfortunately, that is the world we live in.
this is all a symptom of the real problem: the lack of meaningful competition.
Every time you say this, I wonder what the alternative is. Providing connectivity requires infrastructure; to compete with Comcast or TWC, you have to be a company of comparable size.
This is a market that is highly prone to the formation of natural monopolies, for the same basic reason that the delivery of water and electricity is, and it ought to be handled the same way: by classifying and regulating internet connectivity providers as public utilities.
There's no secret, and the assertion at the top of the article that the idea of the 4th Amendment not protecting foreigners is "questionable" because it says "people," not "citizens," is absolutely ridiculous, on factual accuracy grounds alone.
The 4th Amendment doesn't say "people." It says "the people." That's important, because the 4th Amendment doesn't exist in isolation; it's an amendment to the Constitution, and the term "The People" is defined at the very beginning of the Constitution as the citizens.
What exactly does "about" collection mean? If I have an email conversation with someone discussing the War on Terror, and I happen to mention someone like Osama bin Laden, does that somehow make me a target?
I'm already only three steps removed from him if we're going to play Five Degrees of Osama Bacon: my grandfather (a telecommunications engineer) did some work for the bin Laden family. He says that they're pretty decent people overall. (This was several decades ago, before I was born and before Osama was radicalized.) Does this somehow implicate me, then?
Unfortunately you cannot tell a ISP that provides service to millions of people to 'leave the game'.
"Play by the rules or leave the game" was meant to be understood together, as a choice to be made. And IMO it's extremely applicable. Shut down bad ISPs and watch new companies show up to fill the void.
the PS4 is still a better value at the same price. Xbox One can't even run games in 1080p. What kind of "next-gen" console is that?
If you want to play console games in 1080p, you could get a PS4 ($400 and up,) or... an Ouya, for under $100.
As I've said before, all the news coming out of both Sony and Microsoft about the latest generation just serves to make the Ouya look better and better.
The Kinect is an amazing bit of technology far ahead of it's competitors
[citation needed]
Last I heard, the Kinect was still a gimmicky toy that is essentially useless if you don't have a living room approximately the size of an aircraft hangar, because there are serious technical issues with discerning depth up close that they haven't been able to work out yet. Nothing amazing about that.
No, pretending there's a middle ground to find is what got us into this mess, one compromise at a time. Sometimes, when someone pushes far enough, you just have to realize it. You have to say, like Tevye from Fiddler On The Roof, "No, there is no other hand!"
We've reached that point here. Internet access has reached a status of importance in our everyday lives matched only by basic utilities such as water and electricity, and it's time for that simple fact to receive legal recognition. Well past time, in fact, and if any Internet company doesn't like the idea of being treated and regulated as a public utility, screw them. They can play by the rules or leave the game.
Congress is too politicized. There are a bunch of Republicans who want President Obama impeached, mainly for bogus reasons, and because they're The Enemy, Democrats circle the wagons and completely ignore all of the perfectly legitimate reasons why he should be thrown out.
Not having seen these recuts, I find it very difficult to believe that one could simply carve a good movie out of those three monstrosities. Maybe not a movie, but you ought to check out the webcomic Darths & Droids.
The premise is that Star Wars never existed, until one day a tabletop gaming group gets together to run the DM's newest adventure, a space opera involving diplomat-knights wielding laser swords. Check the link (first comic) to get the basic idea presented better than I can explain it.
It manages to be a better prequel trilogy than George Lucas's by using screenshots following the basic progression of the movie but replacing the dialog. And it even succeeds at turning Jar-Jar into a likeable character! (No, I'm serious. Check it out...)
The decline in the economy has been going on since the Nixon administration, which did any number of disastrous things for our country. To name just a few of the many examples:
1) China. This is pretty self-explanatory. You know how they say "only Nixon could go to China"? Don't you wish, looking back now, that he hadn't? 2) Establishing the modern health insurance system, with full knowledge that it would lead to increased costs for worse results. 3) Doing away with the Gold Standard. You know that chart that's been going around for the last several months, showing how back in the 70s, increases in productivity stopped being matched by increases in the average citizen's standard of living? Well, guess what happened exactly at the divergence point. (Apparently there are several slightly different versions of the chart, presenting the same data in different ways. Here's one, for anyone who hasn't seen it.) 4) Appointing a traitor to the Supreme Court. Ever heard of Lewis Powell? Probably not, if you weren't both alive and really paying attention back then. But he's the father of modern corporatism, the man who radicalized the Chamber of Commerce and turned Ralph Nader--the man who has saved more lives with his work than any American but Jonas Salk--into a pariah in the business community. And Richard Nixon appointed him to the Supreme Court! While there, he wrote the majority opinion in the Belloti case, which laid the foundation for the ongoing dismantlement of campaign finance law ever since, culminating in recent abominations like the Citizens United case and the McCutcheon case. (It's worth noting that John Roberts was an ardent disciple of Powell's.)
I could go on, but that's more than enough to make my point. If you want to know where the country started going downhill and why, look at the Nixon administration.
By "innocuous," do you mean "responsible for more death and misery than every war in the history of the world put together," or do you mean "I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm going to claim alcohol isn't all that harmful"?
You really should have a look at your history before posting stuff like this. While I don't agree with a lot of the crap he's pulled, there is really no good argument to be made that Crimea "does not belong to Russia."
It was a USSR-era screwup that placed Crimea--a region where the vast majority of citizens are ethnic Russians, not Ukranians, who speak Russian, not Ukranian, and identify with Russian culture, not Ukranian culture--as part of the Ukraine. Imagine if, for some bizarre reason, Montana had spent the last few decades as a part of Canada, and now both the people of Montana and the US government were saying "Montana really should be part of the USA like it always has been."
substances ... that pose no danger to anyone other than the user, and sometimes not even to the user
Anyone who says this knows nothing whatsoever about drugs. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is an entirely false argument. If you want to know just how bad it is, do what I did sometime: go work in rehab for a while and get to know some of the patients. Learn their stories, see what "non-dangerous" drugs have done to their lives, (and invariably to the lives of their friends and families as well,) and then just try to say it's a "victimless crime."
The only problem with the War on Drugs is that there isn't one and never has been. If we treated it as an actual war, things would be very different.
And yes, I'm completely serious. Think of it this way. If I murder you with a knife, or a gun, and you die within a few seconds or minutes and then it's all over, people would rightfully say I'm a horrible person that deserves everything the justice system throws at me.
But if I murder you with an addiction, if I reduce you to perpetual poverty, cripple your free will, fill the life of your family and friends with grief and heartache for years and decades, send your health into a downward spiral from which it will never fully recover, (even if you do somehow escape and "get clean,") possibly cause you to turn to violent crime yourself as a means of feeding the habit, and only let you die after everything that gives meaning and value and happiness to your life has been sucked from you, somehow I would be treated less badly as a drug dealer than as a murderer, even though what I have done is so much worse.
When you can explain why that makes any sense whatsoever, then your arguments about scaling back drug policy might be worth listening to. Until then, please don't meddle in things you don't understand.
What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it's almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed - fully understood - that sticks; right in there somewhere.
On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Nationalize the Last Mile
Gasp! What are you, some sort of evil Communist heretic pinko Nazi?!?!
On the post: FDA Drives Medical Innovation Overseas As 23andme Looks Elsewhere To Help People
Re:
A woman I used to know told me once about a recent doctor's visit in which, after some tests, he told her she had a benign tumor that was not harmful and was unlikely to become malignant or cause any real problems for her. And she said that the doc straight-up admitted to her that the only reason he was even telling her about it is because he had known her for many years and knew she was grounded enough to take the news without overreacting in some stupid way. Unfortunately, that is the world we live in.
On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality
Every time you say this, I wonder what the alternative is. Providing connectivity requires infrastructure; to compete with Comcast or TWC, you have to be a company of comparable size.
This is a market that is highly prone to the formation of natural monopolies, for the same basic reason that the delivery of water and electricity is, and it ought to be handled the same way: by classifying and regulating internet connectivity providers as public utilities.
On the post: DOJ Says Americans Have No 4th Amendment Protections At All When They Communicate With Foreigners
Re: Re:
The 4th Amendment doesn't say "people." It says "the people." That's important, because the 4th Amendment doesn't exist in isolation; it's an amendment to the Constitution, and the term "The People" is defined at the very beginning of the Constitution as the citizens.
On the post: DOJ Still Trying To Hide The Fact It Flat Out Lied To The Supreme Court About Domestic Surveillance
I'm already only three steps removed from him if we're going to play Five Degrees of Osama Bacon: my grandfather (a telecommunications engineer) did some work for the bin Laden family. He says that they're pretty decent people overall. (This was several decades ago, before I was born and before Osama was radicalized.) Does this somehow implicate me, then?
On the post: Contrary To What Big Broadband Players Will Say, The FCC Has Acted Many Times To Protect Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Play by the rules or leave the game" was meant to be understood together, as a choice to be made. And IMO it's extremely applicable. Shut down bad ISPs and watch new companies show up to fill the void.
On the post: Xbox One Caves Again: Console Will Now Be Offered Sans Kinect
Re:
If you want to play console games in 1080p, you could get a PS4 ($400 and up,) or... an Ouya, for under $100.
As I've said before, all the news coming out of both Sony and Microsoft about the latest generation just serves to make the Ouya look better and better.
On the post: Xbox One Caves Again: Console Will Now Be Offered Sans Kinect
Re:
[citation needed]
Last I heard, the Kinect was still a gimmicky toy that is essentially useless if you don't have a living room approximately the size of an aircraft hangar, because there are serious technical issues with discerning depth up close that they haven't been able to work out yet. Nothing amazing about that.
On the post: Xbox One Caves Again: Console Will Now Be Offered Sans Kinect
Re: finally
On the post: Contrary To What Big Broadband Players Will Say, The FCC Has Acted Many Times To Protect Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
We've reached that point here. Internet access has reached a status of importance in our everyday lives matched only by basic utilities such as water and electricity, and it's time for that simple fact to receive legal recognition. Well past time, in fact, and if any Internet company doesn't like the idea of being treated and regulated as a public utility, screw them. They can play by the rules or leave the game.
On the post: Mexican Activists' Stop-ACTA Victory: 'We Did It First, And We Did It Better'
Re: US Constitution
On the post: Mexican Activists' Stop-ACTA Victory: 'We Did It First, And We Did It Better'
Re: Desserto
On the post: Another Improvement To The Star Wars 'New' Trilogy Torpedoed By Copyright
Re: unspeakable numbers
Maybe not a movie, but you ought to check out the webcomic Darths & Droids.
The premise is that Star Wars never existed, until one day a tabletop gaming group gets together to run the DM's newest adventure, a space opera involving diplomat-knights wielding laser swords. Check the link (first comic) to get the basic idea presented better than I can explain it.
It manages to be a better prequel trilogy than George Lucas's by using screenshots following the basic progression of the movie but replacing the dialog. And it even succeeds at turning Jar-Jar into a likeable character! (No, I'm serious. Check it out...)
On the post: Yes, President Obama's Patent Office Started Approving Basically All Patent Applications Again
Re: Re:
1) China. This is pretty self-explanatory. You know how they say "only Nixon could go to China"? Don't you wish, looking back now, that he hadn't?
2) Establishing the modern health insurance system, with full knowledge that it would lead to increased costs for worse results.
3) Doing away with the Gold Standard. You know that chart that's been going around for the last several months, showing how back in the 70s, increases in productivity stopped being matched by increases in the average citizen's standard of living? Well, guess what happened exactly at the divergence point. (Apparently there are several slightly different versions of the chart, presenting the same data in different ways. Here's one, for anyone who hasn't seen it.)
4) Appointing a traitor to the Supreme Court. Ever heard of Lewis Powell? Probably not, if you weren't both alive and really paying attention back then. But he's the father of modern corporatism, the man who radicalized the Chamber of Commerce and turned Ralph Nader--the man who has saved more lives with his work than any American but Jonas Salk--into a pariah in the business community. And Richard Nixon appointed him to the Supreme Court! While there, he wrote the majority opinion in the Belloti case, which laid the foundation for the ongoing dismantlement of campaign finance law ever since, culminating in recent abominations like the Citizens United case and the McCutcheon case. (It's worth noting that John Roberts was an ardent disciple of Powell's.)
I could go on, but that's more than enough to make my point. If you want to know where the country started going downhill and why, look at the Nixon administration.
On the post: Vladimir Putin Restricting Naughty Language And 'Unregistered' Bloggers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Drug policy
Just wondering.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really need to read up on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.
On the post: Vladimir Putin Restricting Naughty Language And 'Unregistered' Bloggers
It was a USSR-era screwup that placed Crimea--a region where the vast majority of citizens are ethnic Russians, not Ukranians, who speak Russian, not Ukranian, and identify with Russian culture, not Ukranian culture--as part of the Ukraine. Imagine if, for some bizarre reason, Montana had spent the last few decades as a part of Canada, and now both the people of Montana and the US government were saying "Montana really should be part of the USA like it always has been."
Would you condemn that? I wouldn't.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Drug policy
Anyone who says this knows nothing whatsoever about drugs. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is an entirely false argument. If you want to know just how bad it is, do what I did sometime: go work in rehab for a while and get to know some of the patients. Learn their stories, see what "non-dangerous" drugs have done to their lives, (and invariably to the lives of their friends and families as well,) and then just try to say it's a "victimless crime."
The only problem with the War on Drugs is that there isn't one and never has been. If we treated it as an actual war, things would be very different.
And yes, I'm completely serious. Think of it this way. If I murder you with a knife, or a gun, and you die within a few seconds or minutes and then it's all over, people would rightfully say I'm a horrible person that deserves everything the justice system throws at me.
But if I murder you with an addiction, if I reduce you to perpetual poverty, cripple your free will, fill the life of your family and friends with grief and heartache for years and decades, send your health into a downward spiral from which it will never fully recover, (even if you do somehow escape and "get clean,") possibly cause you to turn to violent crime yourself as a means of feeding the habit, and only let you die after everything that gives meaning and value and happiness to your life has been sucked from you, somehow I would be treated less badly as a drug dealer than as a murderer, even though what I have done is so much worse.
When you can explain why that makes any sense whatsoever, then your arguments about scaling back drug policy might be worth listening to. Until then, please don't meddle in things you don't understand.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
-- Cobb, Inception
Next >>