Dear Mr. Wheeler, As an American citizen, I wanted to voice my opposition to the FCC's crippling new regulations that would put federal bureaucrats in charge of internet freedom, and urge you to stop these regulations before they're enacted. If the federal government goes through these plans to regulate the internet, I know that the internet will change -- and not for the better. [ INSERT VARIANT PARAGRAPH COMMENT HERE ] Like many Americans, I believe that the internet should remain free of government control and unnecessary regulation -- just as it has for the last twenty years of unprecedented growth. Please stop the FCC's dangerous new regulations, and protect the future of internet freedom here in America. Sincerely, [APPLICANT NAME] [APPLICANT HOME ADDRESS]
As for the "VARIANT PARAGRAPH COMMENT", apparently you were given several selections to choose from, including the following:
The Internet is the biggest economic, intellectual, and artistic success story of the century, and it rose up because of free people, not stifling government. The federal government needs to keep its hands off the Internet. It is not broken, and it does not need to be fixed. It is the federal government, not the Internet, that is broken, and in need of fixing.
One can make an appeal to justice for persecuted cable companies:
Before our government can handcuff a citizen, it must have some reasonable evidence that they have done something wrong. Before the FCC places regulatory handcuffs on Internet providers, shouldn't the government present evidence that they have actually done something wrong?
Or maybe this is your style:
The ideological leader of the angry liberals calling for you to reduce the Internet to a public utility is Robert McChesney, the avowed Marxist founder of the socialist group Free Press. In an interview with SocialistProject.ca, McChesney said: âoeWhat we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility...At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.â In a country of over 300 million people, even an extremist like McChesney can find, perhaps, millions of followers. But you should know better than to listen to them.
Unfortunately third party support for it sucks. It's the AmigaOS of tablet operating systems, kinda sorta. Hey, Microsoft, have you heard of this new, 30 year old, technology called MVC? Developers love it, and it makes it relatively easy to produce frameworks that allow completely different user interfaces that use entirely different paradigms to be targeted by the same application. There's another company that makes both desktop and tablet operating systems (ironically, currently not merge
No, they are not. Every ISP is required to offer this service
There's no law requiring them to. Only the largest ISPs offer this. The smaller ones don't. And if you don't want filtering then you can choose "No thanks", therefore the customer is not forced into doing anything except clicking "No thanks".
if one of the major ISPs tried that Cameron would be closing that loophole pretty quickly.
How? There's no law! Currently an ISP can just say "no" and if pressured tell people they can use a different ISP. It's unlikely that the government could even get this law through. The ISPs would actually be obliged to fight it and since the Lib-Dems mostly oppose laws to force this, it wouldn't become law unless Labour felt particularly puritanical.
Jackson ends up telling NO story - just a vomit of computer-guided coloured lights. Sound and fury, signifying nothing...
I was more worried about replenishing Red Vines, than seeing what happened next.
As a result, the money is stolen not from the customers, but from the bank itself.
"Party on, Garth."
Bizarre argumentation. One hardly knows where to begin with your assumptions and red-herring analogies.
To address your first point - with it's ill-considered implications of parity between democracy, capitalism and actual worth or value: Commercial success at this scale simply indicate how thoroughly that vulgarity and thoughtlessness have been cultivated and encouraged by this media-driven culture over the past 90-100 years or so.
When people make "free choices" in such a society, they do so in appalling ignorance, with a maximum of empty stimulation. This is the post-Edward Bernays world.
The vulgarity of this decadent age. So? He rapes the corpse of JRR Tolkien and that's just fine if it earns a bauble and a penny?
That was a case of "resource constraint".
I AM one of those "small musicians and authors".
I have the attention span of a housefly. I had heard and already forgotten about two of them.
If we start doing major exploration of deep space we're gonna need to use less ambiguous names for the sun and moon, as other planets may have a sun and moon.
We will never do major exploration of deep space where we get closer to another star than to this one. If we do, humanity can define two constants in file headers.