Show cash on hand, show borrowing capacity, show a business plan.

It can be a phased rollout (don't need to have the entire network built to light it up), but reasonably rapid, and not just "attractive markets first." (can't say "we'll do Richguy Heights in 2016, and then 2% of Poverty Falls per year for the next 50 years").

Those aren't franchise monopolies. Franchise monopolies have been illegal for around 20 years. FiOS doesn't violate cable monopoly rights because those rights don't exist, not because of the physical medium Verizon chose to use. You're absolutely right about the easements (and, more importantly, rights of way on public property). Again, if you want to start a competing service, you're welcome to do so, but the municipality won't just let you build what you want, where you want (i.e. you can't just cherry pick serving densely populated rich neighborhoods), just as the cable and Telco provider weren't allowed to only serve part of the municipality.

It's not illegal at all - how do you think Verizon is rolling out FiOS? If you wanted to launch the Raymorris Cable Company, and deploy service in NYC, you could certainly do so, provided you (a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern, and (b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods.

I don't have data handy with a +/-40 break point, but while Sanders did dominate in 18-24 (65/27), 24-34 was essentially tied (45/44), and Clinton won handily 35-44 (54/34). So, overall, Sanders probably had an edge for under 40 as a whole, but it's around 55/45, not "just about all". http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/1...

Well, clearly some of your countrymen can, since there are around 25k Norwegian-born people living in the US, vs. only about 9k US-born people living in Norway.

This isn't that unusual - if you buy a dead tree newspaper, that doesn't mean that you get one without the ads.

I'm glad it makes you feel good, but pretty much all you've done is get the algorithm to ignore all your flags going forward.

Facebook's in the business of selling ads. If they keep adblockers from working, then some people will just put up with the ads, and some people will stop using Facebook. I bet the second group is actually pretty darn small (/. readers are HIGHLY non-representative of the population as a whole), and, since they aren't generating any revenue for FB, I don't think they'll be crushed to see them go.

I believe that Hogan sued both Gawker as a company and Denton personally - he's jointly and severally liable for the judgment.

If you're filing for bankruptcy, you have to list all your creditors. If you don't list something, then you risk having it not be covered by the bankruptcy.

In NYC, they've hired the USPS to do Sunday deliveries, just for Amazon packages. Weird to see a USPS truck with the back filled entirely with Amazon boxes. The USPS gets the extra revenue, the employees that want it get overtime, and people get their packages on Sunday. Pretty slick.

That's what a compelling "state" interest is - the state being the people. The question is, do the rest of us have an interest in this speech NOT taking place that's compelling enough to justify prohibiting an individual from engaging in that speech.

True, but that's not what was at issue here. The question was, could you ban somebody from blasting their political message into your bedroom at four in the morning, but not ban someone from blasting their charitable message. And the answer was no.

There have been restrictions based on calling, but there's general agreement that calling somebody is a form of speech, and deserves some form of protection, although by no means unlimited protection (hence you have the TCPA, the do-not-call list, etc.). The do-not-call list has held up thus far partly because it's limited generally to commercial calling, and commercial speech receives less protection, in general, than other kinds of speech.

The judge didn't rule that political robocalls couldn't be banned, but rather that you couldn't JUST ban political robocalls. Generally, content-based restrictions on speech face a much higher hurdle than form-based restrictions. If the law had banned ALL robocalls, it might still have been overturned, but by only trying to ban SOME robocalls, the law was banning speech based on its content (political vs. charity message), and that's a very tough hurdle to get over.