I don't get your point, nor why you are at +5 currently. Has Snowden been hacked? Is there even any question?

He appeared supportive of Russia, and explained his reasoning. The government has apparently not been successful at hacking Snowden. The public has tired, as Snowden said, of the constant reports of misconduct.

The government does not win, because lots of people have not, individually, tired.

Did I adequately answer your question? Regardless, will you answer any of mine?

Who said there's no shock? It wasn't me, and it wasn't the article. And the only one in between is you.

You had, apparently, the first post.

Is it really that hard to shout, "Ha, ha, no one is shocked." when no one has replied with at a minimum the requisite, "I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you."?

Beyond illustrating why quotes belong outside the punctuation, this shows that you are either:

1) Minimizing the possibility of a public backlash, of which there clearly is evidence due to the number of anti-responses

or

2) Functionally retarded

Choose wisely: troll or retard, which is it?

"Information wants to be free" is incredibly misunderstood.

First, it is information, and does not want anything. It cannot want anything.

Second, when someone learns something, their first instinct is to share it. Arcade game cheat, little known factoid, best restaurant in a different city, how to apply blush, or really anything that someone deems significant.

Third, publishers took hardcover books and printed them sideways on a magazine press. This was to reduce the loss on the discount.

Fourth, the intent apparently was to make readers of men. This is a business model, unrelated to what information wants or does not want. Whether they covered costs or not, publishers got a huge bulk order which may have sold for 25 cents instead of 200 cents.

I did not read the Council on Books in Wartime link, but I assume that's what people here want to actually discuss.

Nonetheless, this is unrelated to information wanting to be free. Please, just make a goddamned effort to understand words before using them.

Splitting is a bad idea why? Install from the desktop repo, or the server repo, and your problems are solved, right?

Are they not solved? Well use something like Gentoo where the compile is customized for your environment. There is no Gentoo? Why?

Defend your position.

I am not a linux sysadmin. Is there something that cannot be accomplished with a command line?

Compile systemd without getting its mitts into everything, or don't use it. Compile an alternate scheduler.

Can you not do this? The crux of the argument seems to rely on you not being able to do this at all. Otherwise, the answer is to be in charge of the command line.

So what the 1 percenters can afford is the minimum for everyone?

We are talking about a minimum definition, below which is not broadband. If I am a CEO earning $300k/yr and more, and I can afford gigabit internet, should we require that the poorest of the poor have gigabit internet?

If so, who pays the cost of gigabit internet for the poor?

Poor people? Taxpayers? Universal Service Fund?

Back up your position with math. Not with tree huggery, but with numbers in and numbers out.

You missed the point. There are lots of areas that don't reach the minimum. I don't care where you define the minimum, as long as it is not a regression.

How can we raise the minimum if it has not been met?

And how do we not punish companies which failed to meet the target?

This is where we need to define a goal before proceeding. If we raise the minimum and take no other action, have we done anything at all?

We need a really good argument to say that broadband means anything more than "faster than dial-up", until there is no more dial-up.

How I reached this conclusion:

Duh. We need to be debating whether this is reasonable.

I can watch YouTube videos, with minor glitches. Is that a reasonable baseline for broadband considering how many people have dial-up as the only choice?

I see people listing 1080 Netflix as a point of comparison. Is it reasonable to expect 1080 streaming as the basic definition of broadband?

With DVR over cable, I can watch a show and record two others. If Netflix says 5mpbs is required for streaming, that means 15mpbs. Is that how we define the minimum for broadband?

I grew up when 56kb was new, and people would get a second phone line for dual modem 100kbs download. Broadband was anything faster. What has changed since then? Services like Netflix offering more data? More data for luxury does not raise the minimum without some argument behind it.

Rich could be defined as $200k, and they would still be rich.

I don't see what your point is, because the minimum definition does not affect the maximum.

Their respective boards of directors are not trying to pay them for a basic high quality life. They are paying them the equivalent of gigabit fiber. That's still broadband. If we change the definition to be $200k or $100k or $400k, there's still fiber, and there's still faster.

Do you measure speeds to Google only from houses in MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA? Speeds to Netflix from LOS GATOS, CA?

Connecting every point to every other point in Latvia is an easier problem than connecting the tips of Maine, Florida, Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Go on, tell me that Alaska and Hawaii are trivial, or how they aren't in the US, or how they shouldn't factor in to average speeds. Or tell me about how you can get a huge packet round trip from California to Hawaii or Alaska in under X milliseconds. I'm talking about every small town wired to every other one. That's nowhere near the same solution as Latvia.

Population density is not a great argument. But the solution doesn't just scale because the Alaska to Orlando problem is not just Latvia times a scaling factor.

Money is not the only resource. Start again, please.

Because of things like this:

http://bgr.com/2014/08/15/appl...

Investors have filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that the companyâ(TM)s various anti-poaching agreements ultimately hurt the companyâ(TM)s stock. The class action suit was filed last week by Apple shareholder R. Andre Klein and it alleges that the anti-poaching agreements then-CEO Steve Jobs put in place with Google, Intel and other companies were a breach of Appleâ(TM)s responsibility to Shareholders. Klein says the agreements were misleading to investors and ultimately damaged the value of the company.

There is no legal obligation to focus on profits. But there is a legal penalty for losing a shareholder lawsuit. So what happens is, a company announces some new method, described vaguely, for increasing future profits. Shareholders buy. stock prices barely move, or drop because revenue doesn't increase as announced. Now it's fraud.

As a company, traded or not, for the longevity of the company, they have to be focused on profits. If they also give a forward looking statement, even though disclaimers follow, the general idea is that they announced higher future profits, and must deliver. No penalties if they don't, unless a shareholder suit comes along.

How is it unfair? The state gets additional jobs, higher tax revenues (if applicable), and most likely an economic boost from people spending money.

In several financial and political philosophies, companies provide a net benefit and therefore should pay zero taxes. Therefore, it is your position that is unfair.

If a state imposed higher than average taxes, and never negotiated, it would lose employment. If it gave in once, there would be a race to the bottom, which logically is zero taxes. Because business do not change headquarters frequently, this is exactly what is happening, just very slowly.

On a National level, companies can't choose where they are located. But they can choose to declare profits where it is less expensive. So they keep profits offshore instead of bringing home the bacon.

If you owned a business that was subject to both home taxes and away taxes, would that sound fair? If you have a 10% tax rate, but the guys in the parking lot next to you have a 5% rate, would that be fair?

What is fair? You need to define words before you use them. I suppose I should ask, fair to whom? Because that seems to be the crux of your argument.

That's racist!

The problem we have in the US is that firms are given a great deal of leeway to insure that they can charge as high as price as the market will bear,

and as a logical consequence,

but labor is severely restricted in doing the same.

The second is a given, if you understand this:

Maximizing profit is an aspect of capitalism
Minimizing cost is also an aspect of capitalism

Minimizing opportunity for your labor to make itself more profitable is a logical outcome of capitalism. Age and minimum wage laws are anti-capitalistic distortions. The "public justice" GP refers to.

If I were to paraphrase your post, it would be: "Basically yes, also I don't understand capitalism."

If you had a grasp on capitalism, you would say, "... because capitalism, and that's bad". That's where the US economy is - capitalism. And before you say the US is not capitalism, that's because the capitalists have fixed the loopholes that don't favor them, excluding the distortions introduced by public justice.

Bottom line, public justice is needed. Also, understanding where the problem comes from is key to fighting the problem. And any analogy is going to miss important details, so they really are all bad. If you think one aspect is more important, you will think another analogy is more important. Otherwise, maybe not.

For the record, so some retard doesn't make a retard of him or her self, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. Just your way of explaining it. Because if you're going to convince people who don't agree with you, good communication helps.