Yeah, three voices all spouting the same popular opinions. Who said that having multiple copies of the same opinion was a good thing?

There is a significant difference between an unpopular candidate not finding funding for his speech to be heard and the government legislatively taking his ability to speak away. In the former, an unpopular candidate may have sufficient money of his own to pay for his own speech; in the latter he is legally prohibited from spending his own money to speak.

A more textbook example of a violation of the first amendment, and the reason why the first amendment is necessary in the first place, would be hard to find.

Those who didn't toe the party line wouldn't be party candidates, and it would be the parties who do the work to get the signatures to get the money.

I don't know why a "tighter" (closer?) election is necessarily a good thing, and you really need a citation for the ridiculous claim that limiting the number of voices in an election to the popular opinions would make it any more interesting, or that "more participation" is defacto a good thing.

In other words, only the popular opinions get to be heard and the unpopular ones have no chance at all.

What laws were bought?

It's hard to get upset over three politicians who wanted to support the merger and asked Comcast for help writing a letter to the FCC. I'm more upset that the politicians are writing letters AT ALL, since that's an open attempt at speaking over the voices of their constituents who are capable of writing their own letters. I.e., a city councilor or mayor who writes a letter on behalf of his city is stealing the speech from all the people who don't agree with his opinion.

Only because the stock price would plummet and the company would be worth only the value of the plant. At that point Time-Warner buys it from bankruptcy for a pittance and the merger happens anyway.

What significant difference is there between nobody paying their cable bill and everyone cancelling service? A couple of months into the former and service would be cancelled automatically AND the company would have a large amount of write-off for the bad debts.

What color is the sky on your world, Cliff? Why not ask for unicorns while you're at it? Who PAYS for all this infrastructure upgrade if there are no subscribers?

If he is powerless to ticket you, that means you're out of his jurisdiction and doesn't have authority to stop you.

The reason the local cop on the interstate didn't stop you for "blowing by" him was probably because he was there doing something else that he was called to assist with. There's no other reason for him to be there if it isn't in his jurisdiction.

OMG, you do NOT want law enforcement to become a guessing game of "what is the intent of the traffic signal". There is never a debate about whether you "fully stopped" or "almost", that's pretty easy for an observer to tell, and you get to debate it with the judge where that debate belongs. As well as the "intent" debate. As far as law enforcement goes, the "intent" of any traffic signal (i.e. "stop sign" or "red light") is that you stop. Period. End of sentence. If the municipality that installed the signal didn't want you to stop, they would have installed a yield or yellow flasher.

Really? I found it valuable to be able to browse the local shop to see what new magazines (or old ones I didn't know about) were available, to look inside to see what they contained. When I got interested in something, I could see what was available, and I could see covers that hinted that maybe I'd like to read what was inside. If I didn't see what I wanted, I could ask the owner and she'd help me find what I needed. In most cases, I'd walk out of the shop with what I wanted -- immediate delivery.

Compare this to Barnes and Noble (one of the "winners" in this competition.) I have an electronic subscription to a magazine. It is supposed to renew automatically, and they sent me an email a month ago telling me it would renew three weeks ago. So far, it hasn't renewed. I got the paper copy of the magazine, and BN touts that "nook magazines" are delivered before the paper versions are. I contacted support. They apologized that the most recent issue hadn't been put in my library and they'd look into it. I told them it was obvious why -- they hadn't renewed the subscription. They're still "looking into it" and it's been a week.

Even better, when the current issue is put in my library, since they've dropped their Windows Nook reader (without saying anything, it took a round of email with support to find out why it just wouldn't log in to their server) I now must rely on an Android app to download my copies, and then I can copy the file out of the app's content directory to put it where I want it to be. The only way to know which is the correct file is to look at the creation date, the name is unintelligible gibberish. Fortunately this magazine is DRM-free, so I don't have to go through the steps of uploading the file to my PC to remove the DRM and then redownload it to read it using my reader of choice.

Oh, this Nook App has the wonderful property that it shows only a few characters of the name of the content along with the cover. So, unless I know the cover image of the issue of the magazine I want to read, I get to see "Asimo ... 2015" as the identification. Which month? That info is contained only on the cover icon which is unreadable because it is so small. The "competitor" free app does much better, and B&N don't give a damn how hard it is to identify content.

So, when you say "the best competitor won", that's your opinion. It may be the opinion of many people, but it isn't a fact. What is more likely is that "the most convenient" or "the cheapest" competitor won, but that's not always "the best". Were it "the best", then why do people go to brick and mortar's to browse for things to buy before they buy online?

It was a technological "revolution" that allowed a company in Seattle, Washington to become a competitor with the Borders store in my town (and in all the other cities). If you want to claim that "competition is good" and then limit your definition to "competition that is only the same sized business located in the same city doing things the same way", you've lost all basis for your claim.

And a competitor can get those same "sweat" deals by signing a franchise agreement. That agreement will cost them a few percent of their revenue. That's not enough to stop them.

Of course they would. What they scream about is irrelevant. The grocery store on the corner isn't happy when another grocery store opens across the street, either. None of the grocery stores in town were happy when Walmart opened their grocery store here, and none of the general merchandise stores were happy when Walmart announced plans for a superstore here.

Because people on /. love to guess about details when those guesses can be used to ridicule or embarrass someone.

A group I know recently took three quads to a beach to do some scientific research. Bought with limited funds so they aren't just toys, they're tools that need to be used properly and maintained for multiple uses.

Only one came back. Two of them wound up in the ocean.

Low battery return functions only work if they trigger far enough in advance that they can make it back to safety. The one I have (a $500 DJI) has such a function. The last time I flew it to "low battery", it had about enough battery left to make a controlled descent from directly overhead. Even if it had sufficient battery, the return algorithm is to climb to 20' and then fly to home and then descend. There's no sensors in the quad to notice that there's a 30' tree or building betwixt it and home.

Except as a proof-of-concept regarding GPS jamming around a sensitive target, or to determine the security response to such an event. Not every 'proof of concept' has to deal exclusively with the specific hardware being tested, it can be a "proof of concept" for the entire process.

I'm sorry, but you're assuming the security around the whitehouse is run by morons who couldn't imagine the use of a simple quad. I'm going to guess that they probably already know about the possibility.

You're assuming that the pre-planned response if someone shines a laser pointer through Potus' window is to have the President of the US hide for the next few days. Somehow I doubt that's the reaction you'd get when you try it. For a bad guy, it would be valuable to know what the response IS to such an event, so that during any potential confusion some other method of attack can be used to accomplish whatever goal is desired.

You know, if you're going to try to do something bad to someone who is well defended, it is important to probe the responses so you can determine weaknesses or what other things you'll have to deal with.

As far as the size of the drone, I recall an episode of one of the recently ubiquitous gun-shop television shows where they designed and built a quad with a gun. It wasn't a huge quad they needed to carry that weight. They were also carrying a lot of extra weight since they were using a stock handgun. Get rid of all the useless stuff, like the stock, the magazine, etc, until you have a simple tube with a firing pin and it would weigh a lot less. A single-use barrel, thermal firing, you could probably get it down to weigh less than a GoPro. You could probably 3-D print the thing as part of the quad's chassis.

In the 1700s, printing presses were owned by people who had money to own such things. It has always been the case that people who have money have more ability to express their speech than someone who doesn't. The founders weren't ignorant boobs, they were people who had printing presses or access to them.

This "equate money with speech" is a fiction. The truth is, money is a prerequisite for ANYONE to have effective speech, especially today, but still true in the 1700s. By cutting someone's access to money, you cut his access to effective speech, thereby limiting his right to free speech. I'll point to the use of "free speech zones" at political conventions as an example of the technical existence of free speech but the practical effect of limiting it severely, which is what saying "you can say whatever you want but you can't spend money to buy TV or radio advertising to say it..." is equivalent to.

The case you are probably alluding to was just one example of PEOPLE who banded together to pool their money to buy airtime to exercise their right to free speech. Yes, they incorporated, but that's a red herring. At the base, they were people, and people are the ones who have the rights.

A lot earlier than that, if you block expenditures by people who pool their money, you will GUARANTEE that the only people who can speak effectively are those who are rich all by themselves. The government already has free (as in beer) speech -- it's called "franking", or "spending taxpayer dollars on advertising", or "town hall meetings".

Those are called "laws", and we have a Constitution that limits what laws the government is supposed to be able to enact. One of the bits of our Constitution talks about speech and the limits on laws regarding such. Telling ten people that they cannot put their money together so they can buy a radio ad that none of them can afford individually, while allowing one person who can afford such an ad to buy time, is a fundamentally flawed and ethically bankrupt attempt at silencing people you don't agree with. Nobody complains about Citizens United when it allows unions to buy airtime, they only complain about the "corporation" that wanted to buy airtime for an anti-Hilary movie.

Competition is great. For the customer. For awhile. Not so good for the businesses that are competing. Perhaps you've heard of the term "dumping"? That's when a "competitor" can afford to sell below cost just to drive his competition out of business. Great for the customer, until the competition goes away and prices go back up.

We used to have a great small local magazine shop in this town. Borders moved in. They had books and magazines and a coffee shop and ... all in one place. The local shop was driven out of business. Bad for them. Then Borders lost the competition with B&N (and Amazon) and they have now gone away. It's an hour drive to the closest full-service shop. This competition turned out just great for the local shop, Borders, and the customers in this town, didn't it?

Before you lecture me on how I should have shopped at the local dealer to support them, I did, and it wasn't enough to keep them alive.

Cable companies aren't like Borders. People don't buy services from more than one cable company at a time and if they aren't cable customers by now they likely won't become one just because competition moves in. At best, a new cable company can split the existing customer base. That's not enough to cover the fixed costs for plant, and certainly not enough to provide return on investment for over-building the existing system. The incumbent has a significant advantage because he's likely paid off a lot of the investment in the plant and equipment and can cut his prices to keep the new guy from making any money at all. Yes, that's good for the customer, except the customers of the new guy, and only as long as it takes for the new guy to give up and go away.

I bet Adam Smith would have understood that. I bet he'd understand when a company does a business plan and sees that there is no money to be made from competing in a limited, existing marketplace with high startup costs. I bet he'd understand why it takes a company the size of Google to do that kind of thing, and even then they're not rushing into the market.

So, the fact remains, it isn't the few percent skimmed from the cable companies in franchise fees that prevents competition. It's the ability to predict a negative return on investment for any new competitor, especially for the first few years, that keeps them from wasting their time and money.

If you disagree, you are free to dump a few million into competing with Comcast in our fair city and prove me wrong. I doubt I'd switch service to a start-up with no track record, but show me your list of services and we'll see.

It's not the few percent franchise fee that limits competition, it's the knowledge that a second franchisee for the same function would be splitting the available market and nobody would make a profit without raising prices -- and reducing the overall market.

While there may be a few people in an area who would actually start buying services from the new competitor because they aren't the existing company, they aren't enough to cover the fixed costs of running a second cable company in that area. If one cable company has 50% saturation (half the available consumers), then a second company can plan on splitting that number with the existing company and you can't profit if you have only 25% saturation. Not without raising rates. The fixed costs for plant as services are just too high.

So you're saying that a photon coming off the foot of David Beckham, or a spit-photon thrown by Nolan Ryan, travels slower than a photon normally would?

Shhh ... this is how the SSC scientists make their beer money -- tricking the locals into betting like that.

Not very much noise, and if the car is already slowing to stop at an intersection or to make a turn, that tire noise is very low. Below the other noises on the street. I've been on the streets, both as a pedestrian and a bicyclist, and had an electric car sneak up on me from behind before, and I know it isn't the safest way to run things.

There is no reason to make a vehicle that can kill someone who mistakenly steps in front of it as quiet as possible. You might notice that trucks (even those with diesel engines that make considerable noise) are usually equipped with backup alarms to create noise to alert people in the area that he's backing up.

The demand for silence on the streets is ridiculous, and the claim that the next guy makes about billions of people living on the streets needing absolute silence even more so.

You're lying again. He didn't claim to be David Duke, he claimed to be "David Duke without all the baggage". Without all the baggage. All the baggage. That baggage includes a lot of stuff, not just the one or two things you want to pretend it does.

He also said: "I didn't know who all of these groups were, and I detest any kind of hate group", and "For anyone to suggest that I was involved with a group like that is insulting and ludicrous." The latter covers your attempts pretty well.

Just addressing a convention does NOT create an association. This is the same kind of nonsense that McCarthy used to find communists, and if it applies to Scalise then it applies to Obama and Biden and a lot of other people for their associations, too.

No, he was SAYING exactly the OPPOSITE. "Without all the baggage". ALL. You keep trying to hang baggage on him that he never had in the first place.

And could you please make some attempt at punctuation so we know where one sentence ends and the next begins?

I don't know what you think you know about me, but I'm simply pointing out 1) your lies (about Byrd) and 2) your hypocrisy (by accepting guilt by association as valid against Scalise but not when it comes to Obama.) That's not being an "ideologue", that's being honest.

Your repeated attempts at trying to hang labels on a Republican and ignoring the same kinds of actions when it comes to a Democrat implies otherwise. I'm trying to get you to treat both the same but you seem unwilling to do that. I'd prefer it if you treated both the same and understood that guilt by association is a bad way of judging people, but I'd at least appreciate it if you were consistent in your use of guilt by association.

And the only evidence you have of racism against Scalise is that he spoke at a convention organized by a KKK member. That's guilt by association. Let's try this to see if you get the point. You are asked by a local scoutmaster to speak to a group of scouts about some topic you are an expert on. You happily agree to do so, and your talk is a great success. A week later the scoutmaster is arrested for sexual abuse of some of his troop. Are you a pedophile because you spoke at a meeting arranged by a pedophile? If it were Steve Scalise who gave that talk, you'd be hanging that baggage on him, I expect, but if it were you you'd certainly proclaim your innocence. And only an idiot would think that your talk to his troop proved your affiliation with his crime.

It's good that you seem to know what racism is, but you've still failed miserably at identifying them or acting consistently in trying to do so. I don't know why you keep doing that.

If you want me to take you seriously when it comes to your alleged identification of racists, then you'll have to be consistent. Either you'll claim that Obama is a racist/homophobe for his association with Byrd and his speech at his funeral lauding the man, which means "guilt by association" is your method of identifying racists and you're doing it with Scalise, or you'll be a hypocrite and let Obama off the hook while trying to skewer Scalise for things he didn't do OR say.