I want Internet WITHOUT CAPS.. If i pay for 3Mbit or 10MBit or 25Mbit then I WANT ALL OF THAT 24/7

So you want your ISP to build out support for all of it's users to pay for the max throughput of each modem on it's network on it's back end?

Somehow I don't think you'll be able to afford that cost... nor will the grandma down the street who pays $40 for high speed internet so she can Facebook with her kids and church friends, as well as Skype with her grandkids once a week... and who ultimately subsidizes your existing internet connection.

Or you can make sure your wife likes the same college sports as you... then have epic battles over the professional level...

Unless friend is also a cord cutter and you can't go in a bar because you're under 21 or your kid wants to watch with you.

Which is why I take my 2 year old to the family section of a local bar to watch college football on certain Saturdays in the fall because I'm not willing to pay for BTN to catch the games which aren't on ABC or ESPN.

TV just doesn't unite the culture like it once did

That might depend upon the culture of the water cooler you hang out at... the fact that Game of Thrones is said to still be the most pirated tv show in history suggests otherwise.

I am aware of such trends with many a youth, but that does not mean that 'nobody' != 'Everyone I know'.

As said by myself and others... texting remains an important thing to many a person who may be outside of your circle as well as mine.

Hell, I demand that anyone sending me a text message reimburse me the 25 cent cost for me to receive it (as I have no texting plan).

So I have to borrow someone's Apple device and make a change because Apple is unwilling/unable to offer... say a web based portal to manage this? Or simply not deliver messages to no longer existing devices?

Wow... I'm rather glad I've never owned an iPhone, I'd hate to live in that sort of world of forced buy in that exists even after you leave it.

Who is this 'nobody'?

When I was on the way to the airport to pick up my 65 year old father today, he texted me from his iPhone to say they had landed.

My mother and her Blackberry are the same.

Just because you may not text does not mean that there aren't plenty of people who do not have enough of an understanding to use alternative services and simply stick with what comes for 'free' and already on the device.

No, think I'll point out that you're a cunt and move on.

So first you fail to support any of your arguments, and after being called on it, opt to instead break out personal ones which are even harder to prove? Well played!

You aren't worth my time.

Yet you just had to come back and spend your precious time to say that.

Doesn't that kind of demonstrate how little what you say is actually based on facts?

You fail at basic logic, conversation, intelligence and engaging my interest.

I'm still waiting for evidence of any of those... yet the existence of the above post proves the opposite of the last one... as you just had to come back one last time.

It's ok, I'll wait... I'm always quite patient with children. ... or would you like to act like a rational and mature adult and specifically say how I am wrong in my claim that in fact the OP was correct (and you wrong), that "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners" based on the New Jersey law, as well as those proposed in other states?

Don't worry, I'll be back to check on this thread a today and tomorrow... and if you still find yourself unwilling or unable to answer... we'll know the truth.

It's been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And despite the ramblings of Harry Reid, hardly half of the country knows who they are.

You may need to work on picking better boogie men.

The idea behind "one man one vote" principles is EXACTLY equality of speech. Nobody is supposed to have more or less say.

You are conflating two related, but not identical issues.

In an election each legal voter has but a single vote.

During the other 364.9998 days of the year when you are not voting, we have a good bit more freedom of speech.

1. Some speak more than others
2. Some speak more eloquently than others
3. Some speak louder than others
4. Some speak to more easily influenced people
5. Some speak to people whose influence carries more weight

If you do not like what others are saying, you are free to disagree, just as I am doing with you here. If you do not think you are being heard, you may use other mediums to get your message out, don't whine because someone is more eloquent than you, speaks louder than you or is seen/heard by more than you... as by doing so you demonstrate that you only seek equality of outcomes.

When did you get your /. account? When you were 6? Your UID suggests you've either been around for a while... or got it from someone older.

In either case, it's quite clear that the age of the UID is not a reflection of your own maturity.

I replied to someone stating, "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners." by challenging that assertion.

I saw that... you assertion was incorrect, something I commented on.

Your comment on the New Jersey gun law does not refute my argument that the iP1 is not a threat (veiled or otherwise).

So not only do we have a reading completion fail on your part... but a failure to cite anything or give supportive arguments of your case.

This whole conversation can be pretty much boiled down to:

AC: "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners"
You: These guns don't pose a threat to legal gun rights
Me: They do, consider this law in New Jersey.
You: What the fuck are talking about? I'm fucking full of myself
Me: Smaller words explanation
You: Fuck you've fuck not fuck refuted fuck a fuck word fuck of fuck my fuck argument.

You initially replied with a baseless claim which I disproved with a single link... then you go on to claim that it does not in fact refute your claim... interesting logic, care to explain how that works?

Yes, the existence of the iP1 gives the excuse to more states to pursue measures which would require that kind of technology is mandated in firearms going forward... which is a direct threat to those of us who prefer reliable firearms that we ourselves can easily service & control.

It is the same as if we had legislation being pushed in multiple states (and passed in one) which required DRM for all digital media after a certain date... and the understandable outrage from those who prefer to be in full control of what they purchase whenever a newer/better system is being pushed forward by this group or that... the reaction to is something that is on display on /. quite often.

What does this have to do with the woman? I don't know? She's a convenient target of those who wish to be more active/aggressive? Though again, you do not see me defending such actions here.

If you wish to attempt to move to the goal posts or change the context argument, that is your right, at least be honest enough about it.

The courts have ruled against Bundy repeatedly and demanded that he pay grazing fees and fines. He refuses to pay...

I don't think anyone is disputing that... other than perhaps Mr Bundy.

Perhaps the government had other options that would have worked better, but the one they chose is well within the constitution and the history of this country.

So because something has been done in past... it should be the first choice when more modern, reliable and less threat of violence prone means are commonly employed?

Nonsense!

When you default on your student loan, credit card or child support payments... the government *generally* doesn't come kicking down your door and seizing the property from your home or business... they tend to garnish your wages... or even march down to the court house, get a court order, fetch the local Sherriff, then go into your local bank and have your bank account frozen and it's contents seized up to the level of the order.

Maybe Bundy is a cash only man, or doesn't actually have a penny to his name either in a bank or under his mattress... I don't know.

The attempted seizure of his assets (which by some estimates would have cost the BLM about as much as they were hoping to get out of it) was poorly executed and even more poorly thought out. Period. Quit trying to make excuses.

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so poor.

You made a statement, I replied to some of it.

Did I mention the women? Did I say she was to blame for anything? Did I attempt to justify the actions of those who posted her info (assuming you wish to throw this out there as well)? No, I simply cited news of a law which you ignored which runs contrary to part of your initial statement... that no one is being forced to buy this type of firearm. A law which is similar to others being pushed in other states that would one day require purchase of such items.

Would you like me to spell it out again... and using smaller words?

Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.

The Georgia law is nothing new, here in Washington state I can legally carry concealed (or open) in a bar or restaurant which services alcohol... so long as I stay on the right side of a magical little line that separates the area which is restricted to those over 21 and where under 21ers can be.

The funny thing about the 'family' sections of such places is you can still get a drink there as well... assuming you are of age... and do so legally even when carrying.

This is the same faux outrage we see over 'stand your ground' laws... which exist in all but 16 states, and people forget what already exists elsewhere and seems to be working ok as is.