Because the other 100,000 towns, the ones you failed to mention at all, arent interested.

Stop promoting greater tyranny in order to solve lesser tyranny.

Here we see an ignorant net neutrality drone that doesnt know the whole history....

Cogent wanted a free peering arrangement with Level 3 when Cogent was sending more data to Level 3 than Level 3 was sending to Cogent. Level 3 outright refused.

Now Level 3 wants a free peering arrangement with other people when Level 3 is sending more data to them than they are sending to Level 3. These others are refusing.

You wonder what caused Level 3 to completely change direction on the issue? Well I'm going to clue you the fuck in. When Level 3 was against arbitrary free peering they werent the ISP of Netflix. In fact, the ISP they had issue with, Cogent, *was* the Netflix ISP.

The facts of this matter are specifically that no ISP has charged Netflix enough to cover the costs of being Netflix's ISP without issues, and that includes Level 3 and Cogent before them. Its Netflix that benefits from cheaper costs, so its Netflix that in the end is ultimately responsible for footing the bill for the consequences of going with the cheapest option.

The end result of all this however is not bad, because Netflix putting equipment on your local ISP's network is more efficient than Netflix paying their own ISP a rate that supports the extra interconnects that they would otherwise need with your local ISP. Increased efficiency benefits everyone involved, including Netflix, Level 3, Verizon/Comcast, and You. All of you benefit. The prior arrangement (the one that Net Neutrality proponents want to perpetuate) is one where only Netflix benefits by allowing them to continue to underpay for their level of service in perpetuity. Not only does that only benefit Netflix, it hurts everyone else including You.

I con't see where you can deduce much from who someone follows, since after all the old adage goes "Keeps your friends close and your enemies closer".

You know what, at this point I don't care if Google vows to sell every single bit of traffic I send through them, or changes the business vow to "Do Evil Whenever Possible", I want Google Fiber regardless of the cost to any freedoms or privacy I may enjoy now.

I had fiber years ago and have missed it ever since, living under the Rule Of Comcast... so I don't care what happens anymore, just let Google consume all network providers everywhere.

the happiest and richest countries in the world are in northern europe, and they are a solid stable mixture of capitalism and socialism

it is true that pure socialist, or pure capitalist countries, are terrible societies

the best is a mix, the middle, not an extreme

social safety nets remove the unjust and abusive extremes of pure capitalism

nevermind that pure capitalism isn't a meritocracy at all, it's a static class of structure of a few ultrarich and a sea of miserable poor

capitalism is just a tool, not a religion. the idea is to put capitalism to work, and have government structures that mitigate the injustices and imbalances that capitalism inevitably creates

to worship the idea of capitalism as some sort of perfect utopia is naive, ignorant, and just dumb, really. it reveals a lack of education and a heavy indoctrination into a dimwitted propaganda without any critical thought

You can (even in uniform) refuse an "unlawful" order, according to the UCMJ.

Yes. You will have to justify it though.

Anyway, back to the previous comment:

there's a magical difference between sworn and unsworn.

It's not magical. It's "military" and "civilian". If you're military then the UCMJ replaces the civilian laws.

if they ask a hacker to create a virus ....

The military does not create the weapons that it uses. It buys them from civilians. The M-16? Parts made by Mattel. The same company that makes Barbie dolls. So a soldier would probably NOT be writing that virus. It would be a civilian contractor or other government agency (NSA).

I think the concept here has gotten lost.

The problem is that if your INITIAL sorting is based upon who can pass Basic Training and such, you will probably exclude people with more valuable skills.

There is nothing stopping the Army from creating a new field and assigning some lieutenants to it. Those lieutenants are the ones that "pull the trigger".

But the network scans, evaluations, compromises and such can all be done by GS contractors. The lieutenants would be the equivalent of "script kiddies" at worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_service_pay_scale)

But to have a whole group of 'different' Army folks - not such a good idea.

100% agreement.

If they are NOT going to be deployed then hire them as GS whatever.

If they ARE going to be deployed to a situation where they can be shot then they need combat training.

You still can't beat Monopoly.

You think that having to say what you've worked on for a day for which you were paid, and what you intend to work on for the next paid day is abuse? Then you are spoilt beyond belief.

As to working hours, if you don't enjoy what you're doing, then go home when you've done your hours for the day. If that's not acceptable where you work, there's plenty of ordinary paying jobs where it is.

Good luck with that. Your Ford Focus is probably not as safe at 60 MPH as my BMW 328xi

To a large extent that depends on the tires as much as the car.

But generally speaking, here are no very many high performance cars on the road, so even if they would travel a bit faster on average because it's safer, a measured average would yield a speed limit reasonable for all modern cars.

Some people are blessed with the right bodies and cars to drive safely at 120 MPH on 60 MPH limited road

That's true and they can and do; but it doesn't have much to say about what a speed limit should be.

Over thousands of drivers that single driver doubling the limit has no effect on the average recorded speed, so the only conclusion we can reach that is you are an idiot (or just very bad at math, though frankly from the hostility evidenced I'd bet on idiot).

You'd lose on the Zuckerberg element of that wager.

http://www.google.co.uk/search...

If they are set up to maximize revenue, aren't they also in places where a lot of people are speeding?

That means they are set were the speed most people feel comfortable driving is faster than the posted limit - in other words in places where the limit is wrong, as on average drivers pick a reasonable speed. If you have a lot of people speeding in an area, the limit needs to change - not the people.

The exceptions are places like school zones where there are good reasons why people should be traveling slower than the road allows for.

Is there some particular reason speed cameras are bad?

They are bad (or at least do no good) if they do not slow people down, even worse if they are well marked and do cause people to slow down - a rapid slowdown is often the cause of accidents (as we see with red light cameras) and even if there is not an accident it can create a huge wave of disruption for traffic behind due to a wave effect...

If it's not doing any good, may cause harm, and just exists as an extra tax on the unwary then there's no point in having it.

One other side effect that is not often thought about is that if there are a lot of speed camera around (like in the UK) there are fewer police actually patrolling and stopping people who are actually dangerous (server around other drivers, blocking the left lane, etc) or even just helping motorists with issues if the car has trouble.