Boy, isn't the citizen in this case that we're talking about lucky? Apparently she only had a 1% chance of winning her lawsuit! According to you, that is.

Maybe not directly, but it's coming out of the pockets of the town, which employs the police. So if you're the mayor or councilman or whatever, and you want to make sure chunks of your budget aren't flying into the hands of people being harassed by the police, you're damn sure going to tell the chief to tell his cops he's not arresting people anymore for filming cops. I have a feeling they'll get the message.

There's more responsibility than that placed upon the police, which you would've seen if you'd done a 5-second search instead of just read a shitty slashdot summary:

"However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties."

You can read even more (imagine that! read to educate yourself!) here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

yeah, we COULD accomplish these things. Problem is, we wouldn't. Except in that one country where there's no government and they have clean water and clean air and electricity, and yes, even roads that you can safely drive 70 mph on. Where is that again? RIght, in the figment of an AC's mind.

It's stupid to think that just because "Apple makes it's [sic] money from selling devices", that they don't want to make even more money by using the data that they already have from spying on you.

Oh, well if COMCAST says it, it must be true.

It was. http://science.slashdot.org/co...

I think the 'woosh' is yours. Parent is pointing out that there are states where it's ridiculously easy to buy guns, and those guns can easily be transported to areas where gun ownership is more restricted. However, the same is not true of cocaine, which can't easily be bought legally.

I like how you picked just one network (MSNBC) as an example of a "24-hour propaganda network run for their benefit". Gee, I wonder which way your political leanings flail. /sarcasm

MSNBC was politically left-wing long before Comcast even started talking about buying them, and in fact, before we even had a Democrat president. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP then, and the executive branch. But nice try.

The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop framing the problem as "left vs. right", and start framing it as "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us", then maybe we'll see something happen. Until then, you're part of the problem.

Spoiler alert: the article basically spends most of its time saying "Larry Page is a genius, and like many geniuses, is socially awkward." Wow. How ground-breaking.

That said, I did find it interesting enough to keep reading it.

"The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962) was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act

I get the outrage over the FCC making this happen today, but where's the outrage over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals basically forcing them to make this rule?

Honest question from me (because maybe I'm missing something): Didn't the FCC attempt to block large service providers from blocking or "unreasonably discriminating" against online content? And then in January, the court smacked them down and said "you don't have the power to do that." Seems like the FCC are not the worst bad guys here.

The parent obviously has no idea what "depth of field" means, so why bother arguing?

AC makes completely made-up claim, film at 11.

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

The Rice-Texas throwaway line was merely one humorous insertion while Kennedy was making a larger point. The continuation of this urban legend about people cheering for the football team should annoy you.

You're making a gross exaggeration. The focus of that part of the speech was about going to the moon. The line "Why does Rice play Texas" was just one example out of several offered up as "hard things":

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."