Posts by Tom 13 7544 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
So Rip, you say you just crawled out from under your rock yesterday after 20 years?
I have no idea what you've been smoking, but it has obviously rotted your brain. If Congress were willing to use that play, The Big 0 wouldn't be issuing executive amnesty to all illegal aliens. The rest of your tripe is just as boggle minded.
But, on the other hand, it is quite clear that the proposed net neutrality rules do NOT include content
If for no other reason than the proposed rules have not been published and therefore NO ONE besides the commissioners knows what's in the actual proposal.
But fascists have never get facts get in the way of their propaganda, so I suppose that's to be expected.
While politicians are indeed a cowardly lot, I'm not sure this particular criticism is deserved. Certainly they do currently benefit from the complexity of the system as they can hand out favors to preferred constituents.
BUT
Can you point to some general point of agreement in the general population about how best to reform the situation? I can't. Even if I choose the relatively small subset of conservative Republicans within the US there isn't agreement on how to reform the system. About 40% want a flat tax (one tax rate for everybody optional exclusion on some base amount of income) and about 40% want a sales tax which they call the Fair Tax. One thing both groups tend to overlook in their rhetoric promoting their cause is that even if the whole country (less chance of that then the Flat vs Fair people agreeing) suddenly agreed on one of these two choices, you'd still need an IRS-like agency that defines what actually gets taxed, collects it, and enforces the rules about collection.
My own position on the issue is that while the Fair Tax is economically more efficient, if we are to maintain a just society we need to use the Flat Tax. Only if each citizen is equally at risk to damage from the government will each protect the others as he would protect himself.
The Washington Post's function was never to disseminate news. Like many papers in the UK, it was founded with the express purpose of advocating for the advancement of a particular political party. In this case it happened to be the Democrats. Which means that if the Post is coming out against this FCC rule grab, the details are worse than the FCC's Republican members have said they are.
how come the Washington Post is able to opine on a set of regulatory proposals which haven't even been made public yet.
That's easy. As THE go to source for leaks in DC, the FCC Democrats have already passed them a copy of the proposals on the assumption the Post would flack for them. That the Post isn't is seriously bad news.
In itself, this is an extraordinary turnaround given that no one seriously considered Congressional legislation as even a remote possibility just a few weeks ago.
Because I made exactly these points 7 days ago here on El Reg, and collected the obligatory 4 downvotes from the freetards and fascists who want their will imposed on everyone without even a basic check on reality:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/2433390
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/2433395
They were even posted in another Kieren McCarthy hit piece. I guess the somewhat more conciliatory tone of this article means truth is finally beginning to penetrate the zone of propaganda.
Personally I think electric cars are a joke and I expect him to lose his shirt on this particular venture. Fortunately for him, he has several so he can afford to lose a few.
BUT
I don't begrudge him the effort to make it work. It's HIS money, not mine. He earned it. Who knows, he might be right, I might be wrong. If he is, and he makes it truly economical (not workable because politicians have fiddled with electric car economics) we all win.
It's nice that you feel that way, but let's take a look what it actually says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key phrase in here is "...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..." Now we've grown accustomed to a certain process in common law where we get to see the warrants and the claims made in the warrant. But that doesn't actually prevent Congress from making explicit laws regarding how some warrants are issued for a particular set of codified offenses. Which is what Congress did with the various laws usually lumped under Patriot Act. They've specified what constitutes probable cause, someone is affirming the accusation, and a court consisting of Presidential appointees who are approved by Congress is overseeing it. The only difference between it and another court is that because it deals with national security, Congress has deemed it appropriate to keep the proceedings secret. From a purely legal standpoint where you can't assume guilt, it therefore conforms to the law. From a practical standpoint it can be corrupt as all hell. That doesn't change the legality of it.
Ought to, yes. Does is a whole other issue. Even when they do, there's a lot of leeway in the system. That's one of the ways you get rulings from different judges that conflict so that an appellate court has to decide which of the conflicting decisions is correct. The other way of course is the judge ignores his responsibility and rules as he pleases. You see a lot of that in Cali and Mass.
Regardless of what the judge does, plaintiff has to start at the lowest level and work his way up the system.
Not anymore. The exact date of its death is in question. Some trace it to Roe v Wade, some to Miranda v Arizonna, others to Brown v Board of Education, still others to Plessy v Ferguson. A few people even trace it back to Marbury v Madison. But which ever case you want to pick, how SCOTUS votes is now more important the actual words of the Constitution itself.
You can't figure it out because you and the rest of your liberal ilk threw out the Constitution a long time ago. Held to it's proper small sphere the federal government wouldn't be a problem. When we started out the feds handled national defense, interstate trade disputes and a few other things. Law enforcement was strictly from States, counties, and cities. If that were still the case, even TPP as passed wouldn't be the problem it is, because 95% of law enforcement activity would not be impacted by it. It's only the total integration, of the federal government into every other level of government that yields the danger.
The EFF is splitting hairs to save face. El Reg got it right.
The law takes effect once passed by Congress and is either signed by the President or Congress overrides his veto. It is in effect until such time as it is repealed or overturned by the courts. So a failure to rule upholds the law.
Not making a moral judgement, this is how law is reasoned.
You've only seen their installed kit. I use to do IT support work for the offices from which they dispatch their contractors to install those security systems. If I had a son or a daughter, I would not let them work in such a place. Those places were downright scary. When I got back from one of them I told my boss "I'd rather you sent me to southeast DC to yell N****er at the top of my lungs than go back to that place." And that's something every white boy knows to never, ever do.
No they don't. If they did they wouldn't walk away, they'd run.
Back in the pre-internet days I worked for a firm that wanted to make your house SMART. They developed a controller for it, wiring, and a number of devices that would let you program control of just about everything in your house. They even included specs for natural gas appliances in your house. Some of the ideas were completely daft, like using your phone to call your house to program your VCR to record a program (what's the point if you forgot to put a bank tape in the VCR?). One of the ideas the market droid threw out was integrating home security systems into the mix. The IT people had all kinds of ideas for ways to connect things up. Fortunately the boffin in charge of the IT development also had an eye on the legal. All of the proposed solutions opened the company up to entirely too much liability. So the security systems were never integrated into the system. Given they needed to know who you were, what your phone number was, and where your house was it was a hell of a lot easier to secure that than it is with world + dog knocking on your IoT security system.
Absolutely false. Liberals are the utopian optimists who think nothing can ever go wrong with their plans to improve people other than themselves. We conservatives take quite a dim view of that because we've had to clean up so many of their utopian failures. Hitler for instance, even though you keep trying to fob him off on us. He had a utopian vision for the future of his people. And of course Mao with the Great Leap Forward. Then there were Lenin and Stalin. I could go on, but there's really no need.
Well that study was flawed wherever you found it. The numbers are more like 35 right/25 left/40 center. Where it gets skewed is that the 25% who are left want to get in everybody's face about their morality while the 35% just want to be left alone. The 40% are ambivalent and take no interest one way or the other.
This article completely avoids the real heart of the problem. Since lawyers were discussing the issue amongst themselves, they chose completely irrelevant bits over which to argue.
I've been through this a couple of times with a lawyer. I copied a set of bylaws from another 501(c)3 in which I'd been a member and added a few clauses about membership requirements and rights when the board seeks to remove an elected officer. One of the big items I wanted to add was that any member could call for a vote to override a board decision, which is an even more simplified version of what's being proposed here. The problem is that only the board members are indemnified under law when you form a corporation. If all of the members make that sort of a decision, the indemnity is broken and each and every member of the corporation becomes liable joint and severally for any injuries and/or damages that might arise from such a decision.
We wound up compromising to a vote of no confidence on any board decision, which worked for a while. But over time the lawyer drew more and more of the work into the board. He's still with the corporation. I've left in disgust. I continue to hear about the ongoing shenanigans of the corporation through a friend. This continues to reinforce my disgust. This is the last year they'll run their primary activity in Baltimore. Next year they'll move to DC. Two years ago they undertook an auxiliary activity in Las Vegas. They've lost money badly in Vegas and while a non-profit shouldn't make money, they shouldn't lose money either. I understand they're raising membership fees this year to build a nest egg for the move to DC. Interestingly, the amount by which they are raising membership rates almost exactly matches the amount of money they've lost in Vegas. I expect it to crash and burn any day now. I understand their current yearly budget is around $3 million, with about half that amount currently in the bank, so this isn't exactly a small operation.
Also, a lot of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" coupled with tight budgets. I recall doing some temp work at the time of Y2K. My job was to go around to airports, plug is a floppy disk, run the scan, and put in another floppy disk to which the data was written. The systems we were scanning were hideously old by non-airport business standards, but were state of the art for them. Granted I was on the opposite side of the pond, but that's one commonality I expect the two systems have regardless of national pride or vested interests.
The problem with that is that the economically illiterate cannot get it through their thick skulls that:
1. There isn't enough money in luxuries to run the modern state even sans welfare.
2. By definition a luxury good has a highly elastic demand curve which further adversely affects item #1.
But these are par for the course when some can post
Which is nonsensical in an economy where work is scarce.
with a straight face. If work is scarce, by definition there isn't enough money in the economy for the luxury of a welfare state.
Make no mistake about it, the welfare state is the ultimate luxury good. If we were all just a little above the edge of starvation there wouldn't be any question about whether or not you worked. If you didn't work, you couldn't eat. Period. We did this experiment about 400 years ago. Communism, aka the welfare state, failed badly. We shouldn't continue to try to replicate it and expect different results.
That's because you can't think.
No one is in favor of them having a monopoly. And we'd entirely support an action by the appropriate agency to ensure competition in all areas. But that's NOT what the FCC is proposing because the FCC doesn't actually have that authority. That power lies with the FTC. Instead what it is proposing to merge the Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner oligopoly into a government controlled monopoly just like Ma Bell was before its court ordered break up.
The reason why the FCC rules are purely unconstitutional is plainly written in the third paragraph of your article, yet you glide over it as if it were not there:
...FCC did push ahead with Title II classification (which seemed likely), it would probably forebear all but six of its 76 sections.
When you impose Title II, but forebear 92% of the law, you aren't enacting a rule you, are changing the law. ONLY CONGRESS HAS THAT AUTHORITY. Period. Full Stop. Do not pass Go. Do NOT collect $200.
There is probably no company better positioned in the world to spark imagination among children and adults for making IoT happen.
There shouldn't be, but the sad truth is, Radio Shack can't do that anymore. In the race to the lowest paid sales clerk they lost that capacity. This is the biggest reason why they are going bankrupt.
The only reason why the NSA-GCHQ sharing relationship is still legal today is because of a last-minute clean-up effort by Government to release previously secret 'arrangements'.
You'll note that this quote is from one of your advocates. It clearly states that had the government NOT undertaken the clean-up effort, it would still be illegal. So it wasn't the third party that made it legal it was the government.
Yes, it was all after the fact. And it can be criticized, but if you don't keep your facts straight, they're going to tear you up. I might join them when they do.
yet somehow or another they still don't get it when I tell them
"You need to carry Tropicana orange juice in the six-pack single serving box." This isn't optional and it isn't for me. Roomie grabs one each morning as part of the breakfast he eats during the hour long drive to work.
I know, I know. Not something you Brits come across all that often, but I expect the underlying problem still exists and expresses itself differently in your country.
Because they ARE discounters. They've taken the big box approach, but scaled it down somewhat. Stacks of the bulk cartons instead of proper shelves, no staff for bagging, etc.
My dad shops there because he loves pinching pennies. But the very first time I accompanied him into the store he turned to me and said "You have to check the dates on everything because they don't always remove the expired items." His first job was as a stock boy at the local grocery store, so failure to properly rotate stock irritates him to no end.
It depends.
And that's the biggest issue with the legal system as it actually works in the US today. You can't actually KNOW the law until you've gone to court, a jury has decided, and a judge has ruled.
To some extent even though you're transient, it is a home. To a greater extent than your standard apartment/house/flat long term rental the hotel retains significant rights including letting the police in. But exactly where a given case falls is likely to depend more on the judge's political leanings than anything actually related to the rule of law.
In the US gambling on this order of magnitude is always associated with The Mob, i.e. breaking people's legs, machine guns, and murder for hire. In Vegas, the mob had enough influence in government that their practices got legalized. Yeah, people like Trump have tried to clean it up, but NYC/Jersey would be the next city after Vegas most commonly associated with The Mob by US citizens. So over here it is tightly linked to "stuff that might lead to death or disablement".
so is McCarthy. This is the way ALL the games are played inside the Beltway and anyone who works here knows it. Congress setups up some special tax break that is supposed to benefit a select group of people (usually women, blacks, and sometimes small business but it can be just about anybody). The big players aren't allowed to get those contracts/benefits. But they are allowed to partner with other companies. So the big guys set up shell corps that qualify for the special benny, partner with them and win the contracts. It's always done nice and legal and yes it all stinks. But it isn't anything new. Dish just played the game the same way everybody else did.
In my case I work for an outfit that qualifies under both small business and minority owned because the owner's ethnicity traces to the Indian peninsula. We're partnered with a 5000+ employee woman owned business. The other minor partner is Latino owned and a small business. Might also pick up the woman benny because the owner's wife is the HR person and probably has shares in the company. Previously I've worked for an actual small business (12 people white owner, didn't last) that was absorbed by a small business woman and black owner company that lost its woman and black bennies when it became employee-owned (owner died and they needed to pump as much money out to his inheritors as possible with the lowest possible tax impact).
Except that none of what you posted about America is in fact true. That's just you projecting hatred. Because I am in fact a free trade advocate. Less red tape and lower import taxes improves everybody's lot. If the Japanese can, after including the cost of shipping across an ocean, produce something more cheaply than we can, they ought to get the sale. Same thing the other way around. But none of that is related in anyway to safety regulations. Unless you have overwhelming evidence that the so-called safety regulations are in fact a sham to protect local production. But that would be readily provable because the cars they make wouldn't meet their own regulations.
Don't we think that this is actually a really nasty, manipulative and on the face of it quite frightening thing to attempt?
Yes we do. It once even achieved its archtype on this planet. But it isn't PC to reference those events in this debate, especially as so much of the rest of the Warmist agenda matches that regime's agenda.
Nothing good comes of this sort of behaviour.
No it doesn't. Alas, not much ever changes in the world. I do have to give him props for openly admitting to his evil plan. But then so did those guys we're not allowed to reference in this debate.
At some point it will actually get a LOT hotter. Fortunately for us, we believe that is several million years in the future. In the meantime, sometimes it does, sometimes it cools. Oddly enough, these changes are on the same order of magnitude as the temperature changes on Earth although I haven't checked for correlation.
Actually it was. Yes, the first part was predicting what would happen. But the second part was about resetting the foundations of society by manipulating it. As eventually revealed, the First Foundation is about the hard sciences while the Second Foundation is about the soft sciences, that is, exactly the sort of thing Professor Fruitcake is involved in.
Yes it was all very fanciful in Asimov's writings. But you should still get it correct.
He was downvoted because Dotcon has a contingent of Mansonite-like followers on this site. Post anything hinting at the truth about him and it generates down votes. Wear them as a badge of honor. In addition to trawling actual Dotcon stories, they like to trawl Snowden et al. Stories.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
