That would work...except that the employer insisted that she keep the phone with her and powered on at all times. According to the claim, she was on call for client emergencies, even when off the clock.

ISP should be limited to purchasing more bandwidth and using anti-bufferbloat AQMs, but no throttling or QoS.

QoS may be hard. But it's necessary, because streaming and TCP don't play well together.

Streaming requires low latency, low jitter, low packet loss, and has a moderate and limited (in absence of compression, typically constant) bandwidth. TCP, when being used for things like large file transfers, increases speed to consume ALL available bandwidth at the tightest choke point, and divide it fairly among all TCP connections using the choke point. It discovers the size of the choke point by expanding until packets are dropped, and signals other TCP connections by making their packets drop. The result that TCP forces poor QoS onto streams unless the infrastructure is massively oversized.

This can be fixed by a number of traffic management schemes. But they all have this in common:
  - They treat different packets differently.
  - The infrastructure can be misused for competitive advantage and other unfair business practices.

The PROBLEM is not the differing treatment of different packages (which can help consumers), but the misuse of the capability (to hurt consumers).

So IMHO an "appropriate legal remedy", under current legal theories, is not to try to force ISPs to treat all packets the same (and break QoS), but to limit the ISPs ability and incentives to misuse the capability.

So the appropriate regulation is not communications technical regulation, but consumer protection and antitrust law:
  - Consumer fraud law should already cover misbehavior that penalizes certain traffic flows improperly. (What is "internet service" if it doesn't handle whatever end-to-end traffic is thrown at it, just for starters) Ditto charging extra for better packet treatment rather than just fatter pipes, charging anyone other than their base customers for the service, or heavily penalizing packets of customers (or the customers themselves) whose usage is problematic for the ISP but within the advertised service. If current law needs a tweak, the enforcement infrastructure is already there should Congress choose to commit the tweak and use it.
  - Penalizing packets of competitors for its own services, or giving appropriate handling to its own packets of a type and not to that of others, is anticompetitive behavior. Indeed, having such services in the same company AT ALL, let alone forming conglomerates that include both "content" creation and Internet service distributing it, is a glaring conflict-of-interest, of the sort that led to the historic breakups of AT&T and Standard Oil. Antitrust law is up to the problem: Just use it.

(I put quotes around "appropriate legal remedy" above, because I think that a free market solution would be even better. Unfortunately, we don't have a free market in ISP services, due to massive, government-created or government-ignored barriers to entry. And we aren't likely to see one in the near future - or EVER, unless the government power-wielders get it through their skulls that "competition" and its free-market betnefits don't kick in until there are at least three, and usually until there are four or more, competitors for each customer. (This "Two-is-competition, Hey! Where's the market benefits?" error has been built into communication law ever since the allocation of bandwidth for the early, analog, AMPS cellphone service.) With only two "competitors", market forces drive them to cartel-like behavior and all-the-market-will-bear pricing, without any collusion at all.)

It's an interesting question. On the other hand, most collisions are something a human driver could have avoided somehow...but didn't.

I would be shocked if they didn't "know" something like it. I can't imagine any car (let alone the entire group of 44 which didn't have a collision) doing a full year of city driving without encountering multiple situations where another driver failed to appropriately yield the right of way.

Well said.

I wish racists would also understand that their behavior is actually the cause of what they complain about. Therefore the solution is to get rid of the racists. Since we cannot just murder the useless low iq wastes of lives as they deserve, like John Brown would, then I suppose I have to make peace with a very very slow remedial hand holding education for the moronic pieces of shit. So thank you.

more poverty = more crime

more blacks = more poverty, because of racism and history

so when you are a racist, you are simply identifying yourself as the cause of the problem

you are what is wrong with the world

world war ii marked the last time that racist thought had any serious sway in the most developed parts of the world. and the massive orgy of horrors of that war is pretty much the direct result of racist thinking. it burned itself out and proved to the world all that it was really worth

after that, racism still existed, and always will exist, but went into permanent decline. now it simply lurks in the shadows amongst the socially retarded losers and assorted hate filled douchebags. and that's where it will lie, some fungus in the basement

racism is done, don't let it bother you, it will never hold dominance in the developed world again. it's called progress, and progress is real. the only reason we would ever backslide is some sort of serious disruption of civilization. otherwise, all that remains now is the slow but inevitable extension of tolerance to parts of the world still with racist, sectarian, and tribal thinking

the point is that in your life you don't deal with races, you deal with individuals. you don't buy a newspaper from the black race, you buy it from jeff. you don't work in cubicle next to the indian race, you work next to sanjay

but if you wish your interactions with those people to be according to your low iq racism, you get a quality of interaction equivalent to that ignorant guide

if you say {X} because you know sanjay likes the seattle seahawks, you have gained a friend. if you say {Y} because all indian people smell, you work next to a stranger who doesn't know you, and will never know you, because all you show him is ignorance

so you're simply saying you wish to have a degraded dull life, interacting with other people according to crude socially retarded thoughts. your words are simply a slightly more roundabout way of identifying yourself as a socially developmentally disabled moron, with a pathetic life who behaves badly to other people and whom no one really knows

Cite? A credible one, I mean.

an intelligence and social skillset better than yours

we have a black president and he's one of if not the most cerebral president we've ever had, at least since wilson

you evalute the *individual* you stupid ignorant piece of shit

there are violent dumb black people. and intelligent peaceful black people. violent dumb white people. and intelligent peaceful white people

there is absolutely no value, none, in grouping people by skin color, hair color, eye color, or any other random bullshit that the dim minds of mouth breathing racist losers glom onto

you meet someone, you get to know them, you make a judgment of their character

but if you just look at someone, see their skin, and make an evaluation of their *character* based on that, you're a repugnant shitbag whose "thought" processes are low iq and immoral

absolutely no way to south korea or japan. racist, insular societies. foreigners are put in a legal, social, and psychological bubble and stay there. doesn't matter if you've lived there 20 years and know the language like a native. you're different, you stay different, and you don't get to be treated the same, ever

What we should be doing is looking at what *actually happens*

people die due to the carelessness and irresponsibility of others all the time

i agree, i don't care about regulating hauling, i just want to see law enforcement crack down on shoddy roof rack and bungie cord arrangements. it's not industrious, it's cheap and dangerous to the rest of us. i don't care if the person is hauling it themselves, they are haulers from craigslist, or whatever: pull them over, fine them, then make them pay to get a professional to pick up their crap on the side of the highway an deliver it, right there and then

great, until you hit a pothole and kill the guy in the car behind you on the highway

i don't know about regulating hauling, but i wouldn't mind seeing the police pull over and arrest some of the flimsy crap i've seen barely secured to trucks and SUVs going 70 in the highway

healthcare tourism is a thing: people will go to thailand or mexico to get operations or drugs because it is 1/10th - 1/100th of the cost in the USA. often you can fly there, have a lush vacation, and come home, and actually spend less. so i wouldn't worry about healthcare unless you require cutting edge care. in which case make your way to canada or europe to get care as good or better than the usa, and no $500,000 bill

and yes, judging by his story he's close to singapore, so he may be doing some sort of visa run. it might be legal grey area, but it's not immoral or unethical so you can live with yourself. besides, the topic is american jobs going overseas. if that's acceptable to malaysia and the usa, then what this guy is doing should be fair game too, regardless of actual legal details

hi

i'm just commenting to let you know your comment is completely unread

good luck on developing a social life

xoxox