An exercise bike doesn't go anywhere. My hiking boots do. I've got good rain gear and good cold weather gear and good traction gear - all of which cost me a fraction of the cost of a Peloton. I've got no shortage of mountains to explore.
One thing that people who don't understand the broadcasting business get wrong is that a network wants to miss its rating targets by a small margin in a major event. You can always compensate advertisers for slightly low ratings by giving them time in other sporting events. If you go wildly over on ratings, you can't charge more than your negotiated rate. You make the best profit by overpromising slightly.
Effectively, there is no difference. Once a secret is known by "the American Public" it is also known by China, Russia, N Korea, etc.
The concern is more over the secrets that are known to China, Russia, North Korea, and whoever your bogeyman-du-jour is, and are still kept from the American public. I'm betting that's most classified information.
(There's also the stuff that's classified simply because the culture in the agencies is that if it isn't highly classified, it can't possibly be important, because nothing of any real importance ever happens in the white world.)
US carriers often offer introductory rates to new customers and then overcharge renewing customers, so in many areas, switching carriers every couple of years is a major saving in cost to the customer. Before number portability was required, the carriers had you over a barrel, since few people are willing to change their contact number that often.
Generally, service drops - from the curb to the house, basically - have been installed at the builders' or customers' expense since forever. I'd be fine with that if the telcos and cable providers hadn't expanded that to include wiring that's off my property. I'm not in a position to negotiate with the township for utility access along the right-of-way or with the power company for the use of their poles. It's particularly obnoxious when a company cuts an exclusive deal for a right of way and then doesn't wire it but sits on it so that nobody else can provide service.
I'm also for repeal of the universal service fee since there is no universal service mandate any longer.
Yeah. I lost my Verizon POTS a few years ago when my Circuit failed. They told me that there were no free pairs and put a cellular terminal in the house to serve the inside wiring. They tell the regulators that my community is provisioned with FIOS because there are a couple of houses in one little corner of the town who have it from the next town over. Apparently all this is legal and they get to collect the universal service fees for doing bupkis.
In at least one of those, the individual in question had been banned by American Airlines for insisting on flying maskless, but thought that the 'I've been banned for assaulting the Capitol' would make better video.
Is there a case on point that violent retaliation by police against jurors that convict a fellow officer is inappropriate police behaviour?
The more outrageous the crime by police, the less likely that there will be a case on point - and therefore the more likely that they will be immunized.
If you're really lucky and willing to spend the effort that'll be by forcing education and a better life on the next generation of trailer trash. If not it'll be after burying the violent extremists after they kick off the next civil war.
And said violent extremists are much better armed, and operate under color of law. (Every police department in the nation is run by them. Every one - don't defend your posh suburban one just because they're nice to you.)
What happens after they win the next civil war by exterminating what today is the majority? It's hard for me to see a scenario that doesn't end with the whole world in ashes, because someone in the middle of one of the coming succession of coups d'état will surely decide that if they go down, they'll go down with their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
In many cases, because said slaves were mortgaged to the hilt, and the manumission wouldn't be lawful unless the slaves were owned free and clear. The 'manumission upon death' was more like 'if there's anything left over after the debts are paid, free them.'
Jefferson, in particular, was known for living beyond his means.
Which doesn't exonerate his other sins.
People are complicated. He drafted a brilliant statement of ideals that he failed catastrophically to live up to.
No, this is, "I'm sorry, we're going to have to raise our rates because we've insisted on paying ourselves more money for our programming. It's out of our hands, because we wouldn't bend in dictating terms to ourselves. You'll have to take it up with us, not us."
I read 'swap out the US Government' as 'swap out the US Government's current slate of officers,' as opposed to 'swap out the US's form of government.' The former is appearing increasingly necessary in all three branches, and there are numerous offices in at least the Executive and Legislative branches that indeed appear to be walking affronts to the Constitution.
Section 230 doesn't protect editorializing. The First Amendment does that.
You seem to be arguing that once the operators of a platform have editorial content, anywhere on the platform, that they lose Section 230 protection for anything posted by users. In effect, you consider all speech on the platform to be from a single speaker.
In other words, if I am entertaining Alice and Bob in my parlor, and Bob tells a lie, I'm not allowed to point out the lie to Alice without then becoming subject to prosecution for anything that either Alice or Bob might say? In such a regime, I obviously can't have guests in my house at all.
Shortly before the advent of the Great Plague, I was in a doctor's waiting room, and two angry mountain men were conversing loudly a little bit away from me. One was complaining how unfair it was that the city people got all the best from government, because they always outvoted the country folk. All their taxes went 'downtown' with nothing to show for it. What's worse, the power company was building a wind farm in their town, and had convinced a couple of farmers to sell their land!
Apparently, "majority rule" was manifestly unfair in their eyes, and the sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer was exploitative. Also, the net flow of tax money runs in the opposite direction, but let's not confuse the issue with more facts.
I get the impression that to a great many people, something is "fair" only if they get their way in every particular, and who cares whether anyone else might find it fair?
I'd have to check on the regulatory history of 47 USC 97.205(g).
It used to be that the control operator of a repeater was indeed responsible for monitoring what went over the repeater, and in cases of abuse, being able to silence the abuser via a control link. (And could still be held responsible for the first F-bomb to drop. Surprisingly, I don't know of any repeater system that was designed with the infamous 7-second delay to give a control op time to react.) The control operator of the repeater and the control operator of the originating station were jointly and severally responsible.
The FCC enforcement of Amateur Radio, back then, was relatively friendly; 'self-policing' was a concept. The exception cases (the first F-bomb drops before the operator can command the control link) were handled with selective enforcement. The regulatory environment got considerably more adversarial over time, and obviously in a hostile environment, 'you are responsible for what someone else said.' is an unsustainable posture. I'm glad they fixed that part.
Make it illegal for the community to do it, and then don't do it yourself, either.
Instead, spin off your operation to someone who acquires it in a leveraged buyout (translation: by the subsidiary with the subsidiary's money), and then let the new company go bankrupt. Steal the assets and turn the rest over to yet another buyer, because there's one born every minute.
Oh yes, and continue to pocket the universal service fee while abandoning even the idea of universal service. Or, really, service at all. The providers would love a world in which they can continue to collect fees while entirely avoiding the hurly-burly of actually doing business.
I'd cite Verizon's abandonment of Vermont as an example, except that there are now co-ops emerging because the big carriers have pretty much abandoned the state, and even the bottom-feeders like FairPoint and Consolidated are pretty much dumping it, so you start seeing operations like Mansfield and VTel beginning to move in. I expect the big boys will drop the hammer on those soon enough, though.
excuse me, why would I want one of these things?
An exercise bike doesn't go anywhere. My hiking boots do. I've got good rain gear and good cold weather gear and good traction gear - all of which cost me a fraction of the cost of a Peloton. I've got no shortage of mountains to explore.
NBC
NBC: Nothing But Commercials
One thing that people who don't understand the broadcasting business get wrong is that a network wants to miss its rating targets by a small margin in a major event. You can always compensate advertisers for slightly low ratings by giving them time in other sporting events. If you go wildly over on ratings, you can't charge more than your negotiated rate. You make the best profit by overpromising slightly.
Re: Re:
The concern is more over the secrets that are known to China, Russia, North Korea, and whoever your bogeyman-du-jour is, and are still kept from the American public. I'm betting that's most classified information.
(There's also the stuff that's classified simply because the culture in the agencies is that if it isn't highly classified, it can't possibly be important, because nothing of any real importance ever happens in the white world.)
Re: Re: Re:
US carriers often offer introductory rates to new customers and then overcharge renewing customers, so in many areas, switching carriers every couple of years is a major saving in cost to the customer. Before number portability was required, the carriers had you over a barrel, since few people are willing to change their contact number that often.
Re: Better
Generally, service drops - from the curb to the house, basically - have been installed at the builders' or customers' expense since forever. I'd be fine with that if the telcos and cable providers hadn't expanded that to include wiring that's off my property. I'm not in a position to negotiate with the township for utility access along the right-of-way or with the power company for the use of their poles. It's particularly obnoxious when a company cuts an exclusive deal for a right of way and then doesn't wire it but sits on it so that nobody else can provide service.
I'm also for repeal of the universal service fee since there is no universal service mandate any longer.
Re: Re: Re:
In the US they can say that you are served if they have a customer anywhere in your census tract.
Re: Re:
Yeah. I lost my Verizon POTS a few years ago when my Circuit failed. They told me that there were no free pairs and put a cellular terminal in the house to serve the inside wiring. They tell the regulators that my community is provisioned with FIOS because there are a couple of houses in one little corner of the town who have it from the next town over. Apparently all this is legal and they get to collect the universal service fees for doing bupkis.
Re: Meanwhile on Twitter
In at least one of those, the individual in question had been banned by American Airlines for insisting on flying maskless, but thought that the 'I've been banned for assaulting the Capitol' would make better video.
Re: The rule stands: 'Only call the cops if you want someone dea
Is there a case on point that violent retaliation by police against jurors that convict a fellow officer is inappropriate police behaviour?
The more outrageous the crime by police, the less likely that there will be a case on point - and therefore the more likely that they will be immunized.
Re: Re: The New American Exceptionalism
And said violent extremists are much better armed, and operate under color of law. (Every police department in the nation is run by them. Every one - don't defend your posh suburban one just because they're nice to you.)
What happens after they win the next civil war by exterminating what today is the majority? It's hard for me to see a scenario that doesn't end with the whole world in ashes, because someone in the middle of one of the coming succession of coups d'état will surely decide that if they go down, they'll go down with their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
Re:
In many cases, because said slaves were mortgaged to the hilt, and the manumission wouldn't be lawful unless the slaves were owned free and clear. The 'manumission upon death' was more like 'if there's anything left over after the debts are paid, free them.'
Jefferson, in particular, was known for living beyond his means.
Which doesn't exonerate his other sins.
People are complicated. He drafted a brilliant statement of ideals that he failed catastrophically to live up to.
Re:
No, this is, "I'm sorry, we're going to have to raise our rates because we've insisted on paying ourselves more money for our programming. It's out of our hands, because we wouldn't bend in dictating terms to ourselves. You'll have to take it up with us, not us."
Re: Re: So basically…
(untitled comment)
He declassified only the stuff that incriminates Clinton in the But Her Emails scandal, and the Great Russian Hoax.
Anything that fails to incriminate Clinton is still classified.
Synecdoche
I read 'swap out the US Government' as 'swap out the US Government's current slate of officers,' as opposed to 'swap out the US's form of government.' The former is appearing increasingly necessary in all three branches, and there are numerous offices in at least the Executive and Legislative branches that indeed appear to be walking affronts to the Constitution.
(untitled comment)
Don't put a Qiui on your ui-ui!
Re:
Section 230 doesn't protect editorializing. The First Amendment does that.
You seem to be arguing that once the operators of a platform have editorial content, anywhere on the platform, that they lose Section 230 protection for anything posted by users. In effect, you consider all speech on the platform to be from a single speaker.
In other words, if I am entertaining Alice and Bob in my parlor, and Bob tells a lie, I'm not allowed to point out the lie to Alice without then becoming subject to prosecution for anything that either Alice or Bob might say? In such a regime, I obviously can't have guests in my house at all.
over-represented, and not a majority
Shortly before the advent of the Great Plague, I was in a doctor's waiting room, and two angry mountain men were conversing loudly a little bit away from me. One was complaining how unfair it was that the city people got all the best from government, because they always outvoted the country folk. All their taxes went 'downtown' with nothing to show for it. What's worse, the power company was building a wind farm in their town, and had convinced a couple of farmers to sell their land!
Apparently, "majority rule" was manifestly unfair in their eyes, and the sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer was exploitative. Also, the net flow of tax money runs in the opposite direction, but let's not confuse the issue with more facts.
I get the impression that to a great many people, something is "fair" only if they get their way in every particular, and who cares whether anyone else might find it fair?
(untitled comment)
I'd have to check on the regulatory history of 47 USC 97.205(g).
It used to be that the control operator of a repeater was indeed responsible for monitoring what went over the repeater, and in cases of abuse, being able to silence the abuser via a control link. (And could still be held responsible for the first F-bomb to drop. Surprisingly, I don't know of any repeater system that was designed with the infamous 7-second delay to give a control op time to react.) The control operator of the repeater and the control operator of the originating station were jointly and severally responsible.
The FCC enforcement of Amateur Radio, back then, was relatively friendly; 'self-policing' was a concept. The exception cases (the first F-bomb drops before the operator can command the control link) were handled with selective enforcement. The regulatory environment got considerably more adversarial over time, and obviously in a hostile environment, 'you are responsible for what someone else said.' is an unsustainable posture. I'm glad they fixed that part.
(untitled comment)
Make it illegal for the community to do it, and then don't do it yourself, either.
Instead, spin off your operation to someone who acquires it in a leveraged buyout (translation: by the subsidiary with the subsidiary's money), and then let the new company go bankrupt. Steal the assets and turn the rest over to yet another buyer, because there's one born every minute.
Oh yes, and continue to pocket the universal service fee while abandoning even the idea of universal service. Or, really, service at all. The providers would love a world in which they can continue to collect fees while entirely avoiding the hurly-burly of actually doing business.
I'd cite Verizon's abandonment of Vermont as an example, except that there are now co-ops emerging because the big carriers have pretty much abandoned the state, and even the bottom-feeders like FairPoint and Consolidated are pretty much dumping it, so you start seeing operations like Mansfield and VTel beginning to move in. I expect the big boys will drop the hammer on those soon enough, though.
More comments from Another Kevin >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Another Kevin.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt