You are not misremembering, at one point WSJ published a lot of insightful business and economic commentary, and kept politics contained in the opinion pages. Now political narrative dominates all aspects and as a result business and economic aspect suffer. I stopped reading it for this reason - profit has no ideology, moment you view data through a lens of politics is the moment you stop noticing opportunities.

Nice strawman. It's not about "the world ending" or "higher taxes" or "world government" at all. I don't know how you people twist a bit of warming into crap like that. We're burning fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and it's causing warmer temperatures. Those warmer temperatures will cause economic losses, so to cut our losses we should cut carbon dioxide emissions by generating electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.

Yeah, it's not a constructive attitude to take. But, if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity, and that's not going to endear me to them. And in a broader sense regarding "liberals", tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance. Same with religion - if I'm convinced that anyone not worshipping God is helping the devil to destroy the world, then I'm not really going to be sympathetic to atheists or other religions. Of course to someone who disagrees with me on any of these positions, I'm just some nutjob. But if I'm right, well, what otherwise outrageous actions are acceptable in order to save the world?

And reliability, and maintenance costs, and bandwidth costs, and probably things I'm overlooking as an outsider to the jobs.

That's enough to make it a complex system with multiple solutions for local minima.

That was my thought. I don't even understand why the Koch brothers care. They don't have a dog in this fight. Why on earth go to the trouble of opposing net neutrality? I wonder if they walk around city parks slapping ice cream out of little kids' hands. It's not like they want the ice cream for themselves, they just don't want anybody else enjoying their treats.

The whole thing also flies in the face of the usual conservative talking points, that they're pro small business. Well, you eliminate net neutrality and new, small, innovative players who can't afford to pay for the "fast lane" suffer. There is no idealogical reason for conservatives to oppose net neutrality. It's simply a knee jerk reaction, libs are for it so we must be against it!

Clearly they dont get the concept of net neutrality because I dont know a single person who is opposed to this

Isn't that their whole ideology, that the world isn't fair?

I'm Finnish. Both us and Swedes have alcohol monopoly, and had it for a very long time. It works wonders and is a part of preventive measures against alcohol abuse in countries where winter darkness is massive.

One small problem with that theory... if they "inconveniently lose" a critical bit of video evidence at trial, the defense would savage them for it, and the jury is likely to let that fact color their decision in a way that is not advantageous to the prosecution.

The camera itself might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the salary of a cop, but it would still require a massive database and supporting infrastructure to run/maintain the entire implementation. Nor would it change the fact that people would still bring (founded and unfounded) lawsuits against the police.

What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?