Nice strawman. It's not about "the world ending" or "higher taxes" or "world government" at all. I don't know how you people twist a bit of warming into crap like that. We're burning fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and it's causing warmer temperatures. Those warmer temperatures will cause economic losses, so to cut our losses we should cut carbon dioxide emissions by generating electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.
Limiting carbon emissions carries its own severe economic impact, yet that seems to be the only one the climate change believers want considered as a solution. There have been numerous proposals that would work to cool the planet if that's what we want to do, and do it at much lower cost and without limiting carbon output. Primum non nocere.
Yeah, it's not a constructive attitude to take. But, if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity, and that's not going to endear me to them. And in a broader sense regarding "liberals", tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance. Same with religion - if I'm convinced that anyone not worshipping God is helping the devil to destroy the world, then I'm not really going to be sympathetic to atheists or other religions. Of course to someone who disagrees with me on any of these positions, I'm just some nutjob. But if I'm right, well, what otherwise outrageous actions are acceptable in order to save the world?
That's the "He was coming right for me!" defense, in which the actual threat doesn't matter, it's how you perceive it. I have a certain amount of sympathy for that in a life-or-death situation, but not in circumstances where there's lots of time for cool reflection. Taking the animus to the extreme where people want their opponents muzzled, imprisoned, or dead, as some have, isn't going to advance things, it's going to engender a war.
And reliability, and maintenance costs, and bandwidth costs, and probably things I'm overlooking as an outsider to the jobs.
That's enough to make it a complex system with multiple solutions for local minima.
And probably most important: taxation and regulation. Those have a profound effect on the bottom line.
That was my thought. I don't even understand why the Koch brothers care. They don't have a dog in this fight. Why on earth go to the trouble of opposing net neutrality? I wonder if they walk around city parks slapping ice cream out of little kids' hands. It's not like they want the ice cream for themselves, they just don't want anybody else enjoying their treats.
The whole thing also flies in the face of the usual conservative talking points, that they're pro small business. Well, you eliminate net neutrality and new, small, innovative players who can't afford to pay for the "fast lane" suffer. There is no idealogical reason for conservatives to oppose net neutrality. It's simply a knee jerk reaction, libs are for it so we must be against it!
I don't know what conservatives think, because I'm not one, but I know that the prospect of the FCC getting its nose under the tent in regulating the internet fills me with dread. As for the Koch brothers, maybe they're thinking the same. And slapping ice cream out of toddler's hands is Michelle Obama's thing, is it not? Makes them fat.
Clearly they dont get the concept of net neutrality because I dont know a single person who is opposed to this
They exist, and I've talked to them. With a little more thought on the subject, I may become one of their number. Like Pauline Kael, you live in a rather special world: "I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know."
Isn't that their whole ideology, that the world isn't fair?
And isn't their opponents' crie de guerre,"leveling the playing field"?
I'm Finnish. Both us and Swedes have alcohol monopoly, and had it for a very long time. It works wonders and is a part of preventive measures against alcohol abuse in countries where winter darkness is massive.
It's always discouraging to me when it's foreigners who use the correct word, 'preventive' rather than 'preventative' as many Americans do. Sigh.
Everyone likes accountability when they have control over it. The cops would have control over the tapes, right? So they get to choose which parts to show and which parts to "inconveniently lose."
One small problem with that theory... if they "inconveniently lose" a critical bit of video evidence at trial, the defense would savage them for it, and the jury is likely to let that fact color their decision in a way that is not advantageous to the prosecution.
The Rialto experiment has shown that in all instances where force was used, the cameras were turned on, so the "conveniently lose" scenario isn't borne out by at least one real-world study. I went looking, and couldn't find any mention of whether or not a cop could "lose" a video even if s/he wanted to. The only control mentioned was the ability to turn it on or off, they're mandated to turn it on before encounters with the public, and apparently always do.
The camera itself might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the salary of a cop, but it would still require a massive database and supporting infrastructure to run/maintain the entire implementation. Nor would it change the fact that people would still bring (founded and unfounded) lawsuits against the police.
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
Are you arguing that no data is better than some data? We have that today and look what it's getting us. Even if use of cameras doesn'r solve all problems, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, IMO. Even in your scenario what would happen without a camera is the cops would testify that they saw it happening and the Black victim would be in the same situation. At least with cameras you remove any subjectivity or outright bias on the cops' part.