http://www.dispatch.com/conten...

I'm not sure Obama can politically afford to get too carried away with bombing ISIS. Whether it is true or not, there is plenty of talk that Obama allowed this to happen by not keeping troops in Iraq longer. He blames the Iraqi government for not updating the SOFA agreements but people have been claiming that Hillary (presumable under Obama's orders) kept increasing demands that couldn't be met by the Iraqi government. He then declared his campaign promise has been realized and ended the war on terror to boot.

So how does he go back and say the war on terror is not over, how does he come back and say we need to go back into Iraq after claiming the people foreseeing this were nutters, how does he do this without giving credibility to all those decrying our exist from the world or who said if we did not lead in Syria, something evil would fill the void. The problem is, he seems to believe that if we mind our own business, the world will not hate us, will not want to kill us, and situations like this will not exist.

Now I will admit that all that may not be 100% true, but it is the perception people are getting and it is the perception he seems to be afraid of when he has to acknowledge his foreign policy was a failure, that his plans for peace didn't work. This is what he is up with, he is either claimed to be wrong on everything and allow it to happen, or he has to admit he was wrong and do something about it that goes against what he seems to believe.

I dropped that comic because it does appear that he is more occupied playing golf than the problems in the world. But to be fair, if you can golf somewhat well, it is a relaxing and peaceful time in which you can actually think things through. This is probably why so much business gets done on the gold course.

I'm sorry but where have you been these last few months?

Iraq has been asking the US to send in the troops for a while now. We have been ignoring them and playing games claiming that the Maliki government caused ISIS to happen and more or less forced him out of office before we would help. Now we are doing limited bombings and offering strategy meetings with about 1000 troops in the area supposedly to protect US personnel. We were going to go in and rescue some people on a mountain but I guess they were either killed or escaped by other means. We did drop food and water I think.

http://www.dispatch.com/conten...

The Universal Service Principal is hardly a common concept yet there is the capability of other countries to allow competition both at an infrastructure and access level. I think you will also find that there is absolutely no USP for internet access above an abysmally low level.

I'm not even sure how this is relevant. In other countries, they throw acid in the face of women who do not cover their face and execute gays. What do we learn from this? Other countries do things differently and some things may pass as appropriate but it doesn't mean it will here.

And no, I'm not comparing torturing women or killing gays to giving away the internet, I'm saying that their structures are different, their governments are different, so what they do doesn't always line up with ours.

More fundamentally though I do not understand why you feel there should be no competition at a municipal level. A township has no requirement, legally or morally, to support a different township through subsidisation. And that is exactly what you are arguing by saying the cash cows need to exist to fund other areas. If a local government feels that its population is being inadequately served then it actually HAS the moral imperative to fix that if it can. Now if it invests in infrastructure which it then operates itself or sells to a private entity and as a result improves the standards for its constituents it has done EXACTLY what it exists to do.

Wrong.. The federal government as well as the local government have given these companies monopolies specifically in order to support different townships. It is all regulated at a government level and these companies have published rates on file at their state public utilities commission.

Now, by fixing it, you are correct. It is the duty of the local governments to impose rules that fix the broken monopolies and force them to invest in new infrastructure is that is necessary. And when they do, there is usually a rider placed on the bills like when one city decides that all their utility lines must be moved under ground (which is becoming a common occurrence today). So the city, and/or townships (in my state, they are two different things) can and should fix the problems. They just don't need to have the government competing with an entity it already controls and taking the low hanging fruits and sticking those entities with the more expensive clients.

Imagine if you owned a business that sold gasoline. You have a cost you have to recover. Now imagine the city stepping in and underselling you and using tax payer funds in order to do so. But while the city is not subject to it's own taxes, you are and while the city doesn't have to jump through regulatory hoops, you do. So what would you think about the city all the sudden driving you out of business with tax payer funds?

Good start. Now, recall that the constitution granted power over navigable waterways, post offices,
and post roads, to the federal government. In other words, ALL telecommunication (known in
the eighteenth century) was to be managed by Congress, which can (and probably should)
defer details to one or more semiautonomous agencies: thus, the FCC.

Well, for the post offices and post roads, it specifically gives the federal government the ability or authority to create them but does not in any way give them the ultimate authority over all forms of them. If that was the case, the streets running to and from the post office and your house would be owned, maintained, and controlled by the federal government and not your local municipality or state government where applicable. Also, competitors to the post office wouldn't be around so FedEx, UPS, DHL and the likes would not be possible independent of the government.

As for waterways, that's actually an extraction of the interstate commerce clause and not specifically in the US constitution. I believe it was around 1824 when a conflict over licensing or registration requirements came into effect and the supreme court sided with the federal government due to the interstate commerce clause. So I'm not sure that is a real strong argument but I won't dispute it in practice.

But the big problem with all this is the semi-autonomous agencies or to be more precise, unelected political appointments not in the judicial branch but in agencies with the power to alter, create, and enforce and/or punish regulations which become laws or have the effect of laws instead of congress actually following the constitutionally provided method of creating federal laws.

Alas, Congress isn't totally clear in their guidance to the FCC (which is limited by the statutes that
created it), and the FCC has too much history to sort through, and too few options that can be swiftly
invoked. Getting the states to stop prohibiting telecommunications is very much in the
public interest, and isn't at all contrary to the Constitution.

It very much is contrary to the US Constitution. If congress has the power to act, then congress itself should act. What you are advocating for is a political appointee, independent of the US constitution and with the stroke of a pen, altering, removing, or negating state and local laws that it does not like and that you do not like without regard to any reason the state or local laws were put in place or the wished of the electorate within those jurisdictions.

If and as Congress clearly decides that e-mail (the kind of mail everyone uses nowadays)
is a 'post roads and post offices' function, they can bypass any state or even municipal
attempt to monopolize/throttle. It can also be treated as 'interstate commerce', which has
a good size body of settled law, of course, and also supports federal primacy.

If they so choose, then they should do so. The problem is, they are not doing so which is why the warning was made. It's basically saying what you do is not set in stone and can be undone just as easily so make sure you have good enough reasoning that any political appointee in the future would also support the move.

The republicans are voting against their best interest because they don't understand the issues and think they're making the smart choice.

Actually, they get to decide what their best interest is and it may not be what you want it to be. That is the problem with Freedom, there is always someone who thinks you are only free if you believe and think exactly as they do.

I'm betting they understand the issues better than you do and choose the sides they do specifically because of it. I know I do.

It likely would depending on the second factor.

This is basically a phishing attack. It only uses the meta data of the memory to prompt a fake logon screen around the time you would expect one. So lets say your second factor is your home wireless network ssid and if you are not on it, it asks for a second passphrase. If they can time a popup asking for it right after the fish your normal log on, you basically give it to them unless you notice it.

Corect me if i'm wrong.

In desktop and server os'the memory allocation is controlled by the os. So couldn't a solution be having the OS control direct memory acces and just present the ap with a table in order to mimic current practices and backwards compatability? Or would that be too much overhead for these devices?

Or am i way off base here?

Nah.. its the same as always. Those who could actually use an automobile analogy always got modded up.

Its probably because people could actually understand and relate to the point but the line is more fuzzy than a corvette screaming by at 140mph (~225kph) while you are going slower than traffic in the fast lane.

Do you guys go to some seminar to get things so clearly wrong? The supremacy clause does not invalidate anything i said. It even specifically requires the acts of government to be in accourdance with the constitution in order to be the dupreme law if the land.

The supremacy clause does not in any way give the feds carte blache over the country.

Wow.. this is simple highschool civics. Even directly reading the supremacy clause would have given you a clue.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Read what you just copy and pasted. It says made in pursuance thereof. It does not in any way shape or form say the feds can do anything they want- it says inly laws made in accordance with the constitution are supreme laws of the land.

The you should discard your made up facts and get some real ones. FDR was the reason for the expansion of the interstate commerce clause which has been taken to extremes today in government. No one disputes that who knows what they are talking about.

Sigh.. just because you cannot live without facebook does not mean the internet or even access faster than dial up is a vital or essential part of anything.

And if you think the poor and minority class is under served, it can be remedied by mandating access without putting the government into direct competition with the private sector.

Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Even Wikipedia gets it right. Sigh..
Perhaps you should explore the articles of confederation and why it was replaced by the US constitution before trying to give a history lesson.

As for expansion of federal power, its been ongoing ever since 1776 with notable events being the US Constitution,

I think I know where you are going wrong here. Either you have no reading comprehension, English is not your first language, or you are intentionally ignoring what was said in order to inject some comment as if you had meaning and insight. What part of "FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes" is so difficult to understand? I guess it would be the words modern and day when put together.

Just because Jackson ignored the Supreme court doesn't really have much to do with the modern day unless you somehow construe it to be the reasoning for FDR's actions involving the SCOTUS.

Nope, I'm thinking the US constitution that replaced the articles of confederacy. Like I said, this is fifth grade history.

What do you think this is for?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...