AC doesn't know what a natural monopoly is. AC probably thinks they are an expert on economics. AC only reads a certain kind of website.

This is true; however, it seems the net neutrality is going to become a partisan issue, because Comcast et al can use GOP economic rhetoric (baseless or not), and the GOP leadership think the money is worth the political risk.

Once anything becomes a partisan issue, then tribalism replaces sanity. Expect some GOP faithful computer geeks to slowly edge towards the party line.

If you have questions, then you should find credible sources with information. You can follow the references to actual peer reviewed original research on the subject. If you really want to understand, then you'll need to do a graduate degree on it.

You can do something called "accounting", where you sum up the amounts of CO2 coming from different sources.

Behold the contrarian school of science, where assertions require no studies, and are just known to be correct because they have a pleasant ring to the political faithful.

Projection is not a river in Egypt.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. If you add acid to something, are you making it more acidic? That's another way of looking at it. Meanwhile, you're successfully shelved the real issue by splitting hairs over a pointless distinction, which is precisely how deep contrarian arguments go.

I love how you moved straight past the content of the comment to reveal your political stripes on the issue. Suppose you think you know a lot about it.

That's why you have to follow the science, and not the cranks. Otherwise you might be a crank yourself. (Cranks never know that they are cranks.)

Sharks are part of a food chain.

Sounds like you were busy proving the grand-parents point, and without any trace of irony.

Those lazy people with their army of lawyers and capital hill lobbyists, writing laws to enrich themselves...

The way to do that is to nationalise natural monopolies (say the internet pipes), and privatize the rest (say, selling bandwidth to customers). The people who bankroll much of the libertarian movement have a conflict of interest when it comes to monopolies, which is why we never have this important conversation. Interesting how libertarians are so credulous to crony capitalist talking points.

Most problems happen because people have different interpretations of events as they unfold. The "bad cop" really isn't the specific problem. (They may, for example, tamper with the camera, or turn it off before doing something illegal.) The thing is that the video feed gives a strong defense against false complaints, and also ensures that cops who get to "crazy" will get their asses handed to them in court. Everyone responds to incentives, and the camera is an incentive for everyone to be on their best behaviour.

The fundamental problem is "who watches the watchers?". The courts, apparently, yet bring charges against the police is nigh on impossible. Reforming the law could easily put good cops in more dangerous positions. Yet we know there is a problem, because, according FBI/Police internal investigations, police never make mistakes: the officer is always exonerated. Internal affairs has every incentive to do this. And people respond to incentives, ya know? But suddenly with the appearance of body cameras, people report far less harassment from police. Perhaps the cameras put people on good behaviour, or perhaps the police are behave better, or probably both. But the fact that charges against police _increase_ leaves a clue that something was rotten. I'm all for cameras if people behave better around them.