Perhaps one day in the future, scientists will invent a way to make exercise machines that do not require internet access. Such an amazing and fantastic invention will be locked up behind patents.

In order to do facial recognition on someone pulled over, they need to momentarily remove their mask.

At that point, they may now be in violation of some local mask mandate, which they can now be cited for.

Someday, in the future, scientists may be able to invent a way to manufacture automobiles that do not require microprocessors.

What? You mean 5G is not as effective at causing covid-19 cases as people on the intarweb tubes are saying?

Why tax only Netflix?

What about:
HBO
Showtime
Amazon Prime
Starz
Hulu
Disney+
Peacock (nbc)
(many others... Pluto, Tubi, etc)
YouTube TV
and for that matter . . . YouTube

News sites: CNN, CBS, NBC, etc because they have videos.

From there we could add Vimeo.
Twitter (has videos)
Facebook

Idea: why don't we just create different taxes for every possible site on the intarweb tubes! A new government agency could be created (with adequate funding) to provide a web site with all of the different tax rates that apply to every site on the internet. (Including taxes to look at the government internet tax site.)

To ensure proper enforcement, all ISPs could be required to monitor every internet site you visit to ensure the correct taxes are paid. This also makes is super convenient for you because your ISP can now consolidate all of the taxes into a single item on your bill, along with a new fee for doing this!

It seems like a win-win solution for everyone!

I thought the Republicans were against, uh, no, in favor of, no, against, uh ... no, in favor of, um, errrr.... against censorship?

The dogs can be retrained to detect the difference in odor of legally obtained marijuana from illegally obtained marijuana.

That is no different than getting a warrant for all stores on the block to provide their security camera footage from as far back as they have any. And not just on the block, but in the entire city. That way we can find out who broke in to this one specific location.

The problem is simply that the warrant is too broad in time and space. That can apply to any kind of warrant. It doesn't mean that geofence and timefence warrants are inherently evil given a proper scope.

I think that geo-fence and time-fence warrants are simply a tool. One that can be misused.

In the case of Jan 6, most people in that place and time are at least people of interest. Other evidence, especially video and photos, would make them suspects.

Mobile device tracking of time/location should be only part of a case against someone. Not the entire case. Why were they there? And why at that particular time? If nothing else, the location data is simply to undermine any statements they make that they weren't there. (but their device was there)

I also remember a case from years ago, in Europe, where people were using tampered credit cards and chips at retail stores. Police got the list of persons at that time and place, along with security footage. Then at all of the different locations and times where the fraud occurred, over time, a pattern emerged of a small group who were involved. Security footage helped. This enabled further investigation which discovered irrefutable evidence.

I'm not sure it is an absolute bad thing to use this as part of an investigation, or as an investigation technique. But it must be understood that all it is, is simply a fact about someone's device being at a certain time and place.

There are some good police officers. Over 90% of police officers give the rest a bad name.

Call him a CTE. Copyright Trolling Entity.

Dear AT&T,

After your customers become accustomed to paying extra to not be in the slow lane, there is another way you can improve customer service.

Charge customers a new fee that insures there are not arbitrary random dropouts in their connection.

Your customers will be glad you are looking out for their best interests by offering a service that ensures steady connections.

Sincerely,

. . . breathing.

Dear ISP,

Please try building the bestest, fastest, cheapest big-dumb-pipe possible, while charging enough to build and maintain your infrastructure and make a profit.

That's it! Nothing more.

No zero rating. No trying to own content providers. No negotiating special deals with content providers. Just be the best at what your business actually advertises.

It is a time honored way of doing business. Yes, really.

But . . . some local taxpayers would be funding this but might not use it.

Yes, but (1) most people need working internet in the 21st century, and (2) childless people pay for public education because having it is important to the community and society at large. Consider what happens to a community without usable or affordable internet access. Or electricity, or indoor plumbing, etc.

Bu, bu, but . . . community broadband would be a government handout!

No. People would have to pay for it. Even if it were free, it is being paid for by taxpayers who are local to the area where it is offered. And their representatives must vote for it.

But . . . the government shouldn't be getting in to the broadband business! Competing with local providers.

This is only happening because of the local providers' total inability or unwillingness to build something even minimally usable and/or affordable in this community.

But . . . the local government would have to manage this going forward.

Yes, just as they manage other infrastructure. Roads. Bridges. Parks. Traffic signals. Street lights. Sometimes: trash collection, recycling, municipal water, etc.

But . . . the government would be competing with ISPs!

Yes, again due to the ISPs inability or unwillingness to provide any reasonable alternative.

BUT . . . Waaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Texas got all of the Energy Independence and Deregulation that it wanted. And the consequences that go with it. It saves the poor energy corporations money to under-build facilities or not build to handle foreseeable weather conditions.

It seems like everything is working as intended. What's the problem?

Dear Newspapers

While I greatly appreciate your efforts to get your just and deserved revenue by charging other internet web sites for linking to your news articles, I feel there is another source of revenue you are overlooking. You are leaving money on the table.

You should also be charging all ISPs and internet backbone providers that carry any traffic between your news site and someone who reads your advert... er, um, I mean reads your articles.

Those ISPs and internet backbones are making money from people reading your news articles. They should have to pay their fair share to carry your copyrighted articles to end user's eyeballs.

Please give this matter all the consideration it is due.

Sincerely,

1. For disfavored companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, etc), it is censorship to moderate content that violates the company's TOS.

2. For favored companies (Parler, Frank, Conservapedia) it is censorship to prevent those companies from moderating to protect us all from wrong-think leftist political views which fail to pwn-the-libs.

"Humor is so subjective." -- Emperor Cartagia of the Centauri Republic