AT&T has access to certain cable channels, Comcast has access to other certain cable channele, while Verizon has a different access.
Now since they have a "non-competing clause" they don't involve in each other's markets, now with certain channels available to certain providers, that now limits as to what content each provider provides. IE. Comcast broadcasts NBC, AT&T broadcasts Time Warner or CBS, while Verizon broadcasts ABC (As a pure example.)
NOW the Telco's *COULD* and probably will, cite freedom of expression, but.... this will ultimately also lead to a limitation of sharing and dissemination of information, while also curtailing the freedom of expression to choose what news to consume by the consumer.
**CAVEAT** This is a purely hypothetical situation at this point, but it is also the path that I see the telcos going down.
so what he said, that he cannot pardon anyone who has not stood in a court of trial... does that mean that EVERY TURKEY pardoned by presidents has been a lie? want to see those turkey trials!
will they enforce net neutrality if either the fcc/ftc/all of congress' switchboards burn down due to over use because everyone calling in over an extended period of time?
Let's ban encryption, yes a literal fuck-ton of bad shit will happen. Chaos will reign, and the FBI/CIA will be totally useless, as they will be overwhelmed with calls of computer/identity fraud/theft.
BUT.
On the other hand we will no longer have to take govt officials to court over emails that they don't want made public, because they will by nature, be public anyway because there will be NO encryption.
here's the problem, and it highlight Trump's presidency, and Sanders' run. Establishment politics. Legislators in Washington have tribal mentality, on BOTH sides.
But really, this highlights what, at least myself, has been saying for a while now. It's about trust, we don't trust our government. And now the NSA/FBI surveillance defenders are learning that lesson the hard way.
1) at what point does a fetus become a human. I would say at birth. However, what is currently on the books (at least in the US) generally is 2nd or 3rd trimester (unless either the mother or the fetus is in imminent danger).
2) At what point is taking a human life unacceptable, this is a lot more complicated as it is dictated by circumstances present at the time, there are laws and court rulings and military reviews detailing as to the legality of taking a human life. But to humor you, I will go with my previous statement as to the 20-24 week. That seems to be the best balance between the two viewpoints.
biologically speaking, a fetus is nothing more than a tumor, or a parasite.
I am partial to Mike here, Educate the person/persons on the procedure, the risks, etc. IF she still wants to go through with it, then it is up to the govt to provide a safe (as can be) and clean environment to do so.
shit... that actually happened? this is, quite literally, like the morning after heavy drinking and waking up next to some woman you don't know and wondering how you got to that point in life.
On the post: AT&T Tells FCC That Giving Its Own Content An Unfair Market Advantage Is Good For Consumers
here is the end result of no net neutrality
Now since they have a "non-competing clause" they don't involve in each other's markets, now with certain channels available to certain providers, that now limits as to what content each provider provides. IE. Comcast broadcasts NBC, AT&T broadcasts Time Warner or CBS, while Verizon broadcasts ABC (As a pure example.)
NOW the Telco's *COULD* and probably will, cite freedom of expression, but.... this will ultimately also lead to a limitation of sharing and dissemination of information, while also curtailing the freedom of expression to choose what news to consume by the consumer.
**CAVEAT**
This is a purely hypothetical situation at this point, but it is also the path that I see the telcos going down.
On the post: Woman Sues Google Because SEO Guy Wrote A Mean Blog About Her Company
"Dear Dawn Bennet/DJ Bennet LLC.
Kindly fuck off.
sincerely Google."
On the post: President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong
On the post: Germany Wants To Hold Facebook Criminally Liable If It Doesn't Find & Delete 'Hate' Speech
On the post: Trump, GOP Prepare To Gut FCC Boss Tom Wheeler's Populist Reforms...Under The False Banner Of Populist Reform
On the post: Rutgers Lecturer Forcibly Sent For Psych Evaluation By NYPD For Some Tweets About The Election
On the post: Will Cutting Off Ads From Google & Facebook Really Stop Fake News?
On the post: One Fish Two Fish, We Will Sue Fish: Seuss Lawyers Hop On Pop Art
On the post: Comey Can't Say How Often Encryption Thwarts Investigations, But Probably A Lot
Lets do it!
BUT.
On the other hand we will no longer have to take govt officials to court over emails that they don't want made public, because they will by nature, be public anyway because there will be NO encryption.
On the post: China Finds Something Else To Regulate, Brings In Its First Law For The Film Industry
Re:
On the post: Long Time Mass Surveillance Defenders Freak Out Now That Trump Will Have Control
But really, this highlights what, at least myself, has been saying for a while now. It's about trust, we don't trust our government. And now the NSA/FBI surveillance defenders are learning that lesson the hard way.
On the post: What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) at what point does a fetus become a human. I would say at birth. However, what is currently on the books (at least in the US) generally is 2nd or 3rd trimester (unless either the mother or the fetus is in imminent danger).
2) At what point is taking a human life unacceptable, this is a lot more complicated as it is dictated by circumstances present at the time, there are laws and court rulings and military reviews detailing as to the legality of taking a human life. But to humor you, I will go with my previous statement as to the 20-24 week. That seems to be the best balance between the two viewpoints.
On the post: What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am partial to Mike here, Educate the person/persons on the procedure, the risks, etc. IF she still wants to go through with it, then it is up to the govt to provide a safe (as can be) and clean environment to do so.
On the post: What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
T-O-M-U-C-H-Y-E-L-L-I-N-G-!-!
On the post: What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
On the post: Are Robot Scalpers Ripping You Off? Do We Need Government To Stop It?
On the post: Despite ESPN Whining, Nielsen Confirms Historic Subscriber Losses For Channel
On the post: Las Vegas PD Continues To Use Faulty $2 Drug Field Tests Because Convictions Matter More Than Justice
Next >>