Chicago, DC, LA
Chicago, DC, LA
You can't buy away competition without big government collusion.
Here are a couple differences between drinking too much water and too big of government: 1) the number of affected people (one vs Millions), 2) You have to try to drink too much water vs natural progression of governance.
Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy not because it isn't true, it is a logical fallacy because it isn't always true; sometimes is not good enough in logic. The question is, have you seen government that has grown too big?
Here are a few acronyms that most citizens hate: IRS, NSA, CIA, DHS
Lastly, is there anyone that can seriously argue that government is not big enough?
Or, you can realize that Broadband is as simple as building out a new Fiber infrastructure, replacing Cable, using the model I've suggested.
Municipalities build out the infrastructure using one time Bond money, building a CO-LO facility and auction space to CONTENT and INTERNET providers. All last mile connections terminate in the CO-LO and a network technician processes connection requests from customers, "I want Time-Warner" or "I want Comcast", or "I want Google", who then patches customer to provider.
The cable is not owned by any single vendor, and there is competition for customers individually. No need for any regulation, and market forces will lower costs to the end user. AND things like the Comcast/Netflix argument simply disappears.
Well, if you keep voting for the same thing, expecting different results, who is the crazy one?
I know, how about taking the fucking power away from people we have no access to and giving it back to the people to live their lives as they see fit? Oh right, because (R) want to toss Grandma off a cliff and (D) are in bed with the Islamists (IOW
Oh, don't forget to mention Somalia in your next reply.
Autonomous drones show intent, where a drunk security guy doesn't (this case).
We keep voting the same people, same two corrupt parties into office. If that doesn't signify cultural acceptance I don't know what does.
The original poster implied it wasn't culturally acceptable in the US, and I was making it clear that under certain circumstances and depending on how you look at things, it is culturally acceptable, just narrower in scope.
AND if you ask me, it is always has been and will be culturally acceptable until such time as we start tossing the likes of everyone involved in things like TARP I and II in jail.
More security requires more diligence, which is often inconvenient. More security requires everyone to be secure, not just some, and that is definitely inconvenient, and requires trust that others are not putting you in danger (insecure), which requires compliance checks and verification, which is inconvenient. Technology can take the edge off the inconvenience, but isn't the panacea that everyone wants it to be.
The weakest link in security is people. Always has been, always will be.
It is culturally acceptable in the US, especially when dealing with Congress and other Politicians, if done according to political campaign contribution laws.
Drone's aren't a real issue. They haven't been an issue, and they are likely not to be an issue.
The simple $2 fix is to jam the frequencies used by drones. Doesn't even need to be all that powerful, just directional antenna pointed at the drone.
The amount of PANIC in people is ridiculous. I work for a school district, and three schools went on full "LOCKDOWN!!!" because someone called a report of someone walking down the street with a "GUN!!!!". Turns out it was a man with a cane.
So, lets panic! It seems to be all the rage!
They don't actually work "real crimes" anymore. They have automated systems which allow you to file a police report that they can then ignore. However if you're sleeping in a park, it takes three cop cars and a supervisor to harass you.