Once sufficient bandwidth is in place, it costs an ISP nothing

Bzzz! Hold it right there! What is "sufficient bandwidth" and is it ever in place? What if twice more of your subscribers have signed-up with Netflix — the company is enjoying amazing growth of subscriber base? What was "sufficient" two months ago no longer is and you have to spend real money again. In this regard bandwidth really is like tangible goods.

Charging the streaming customers for downloading much more than others finances the further increases in spending.

More generally, however a private company wishes to charge its customers should not even be a matter of public debate — much less actual regulation. The only legitimate role of government here is to encourage other private companies to compete — competition being the best judge of both the possible and the affordable.

Is there any actual evidence of this? Statistics of box-office receipts versus sexual appeal, or something?

How about this?

It seems much more likely that Hollywood has a looks discrimination policy

Hollywood aren't the consumers of the actors' work. They are the middlemen. We — the world-wide audience of viewers — discriminate. We want to be entertained by sexually-appealing people, which generally means younger ones. There is no escaping this — trying to legislate it away is just the kind of stupidity, for which California has been known (and mocked) for decades.

(Heinlein's Friday (1982) is a good example of such mocking...)

You're changing the subject from candidates to the actions of angry activists.

Nope. The "angry activists" were the subject of your post. If they can organize themselves into a mob sufficiently threatening to warrant cancelling a major campaign event in a major city, alluding to roughing them up may not be particularly outrageous.

Tempers always flare in a run-up to elections. But Conservatives, for better or worse, are always behind Democrats' "rank-and-file" in violence (and you better pray, we stay that way). Heck, absent Conservatives to beat up, Democrats some times attack other Democrats. In this recent incident in Cleveland, for example, KKK, BLM, and Westboro Baptist "Church" — three Democratic Party outfits — have been reported as throwing urine at each other!

I know BLM can get out of hand some times but to hear you talk about them it sounds like they're part of some super conspiracy

They certainly are a conspiracy, though, of course, not the "civilization-ending" kind. 70% of the protesters arrested in Charlotte, for example, were from other states — somebody organized them and paid their travel (and lodging) expenses.

Probably, the same body, that fanned the Ferguson killing of a thug trying to get to policeman's gun beyond all proportion — and popularized the "Hands up don't shoot" lie . Now, has Hillary Clinton been behind it? Maybe not. But she certainly did try to earn the thugs' support by soliciting endorsement of the deceased thug's mother.

he has eluded [sic] to the beating of ejected protesters as being acceptable several times on film

His opponents are all about violence. They openly advocate it. Trump's rally in Chicago had to be cancelled, because of the threats of violence. A US President better be ready to respond to violent threats with overwhelming violence of our own. The era of apologizing and paying off the little bullies is over.

Now, has Donald Trump used violence in personal matters? Evidently not...

So i guess i have to change the question... are you a fucking nazi, fucking stupid, or just a fucking liar.

All three, pal, all three. Deplorable me...

Normally political advertising is clearly labeled.

Is it?

Maybe, it should be — but any attempts to legally require such labeling, would violate the First Amendment.

We complain about lobbyists... but this is so much worse

Lobbying and "this" are both about citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Deal with it.

It's probably not a good idea to use Tor anymore.

You should use Tor — and other systems intended to enhance privacy — just to keep it legal to use them. Rights not exercised are rights lost. This is also why you should be able to burn somebody's Holy Book every once in a while, refuse police' request to search your car, and carry (or, at least, own) a firearm.

"I haven't run an exit relay since."

Yep, that may very well have been the objective (even if secondary): let's go, guys, either we bust the porn-peddler this morning, or, at least, put the fear of God into these proxy-running hippies.

News just in - explosions send shit everywhere. Even on "the edge of the atmosphere".

Obviously, not even a nuclear blast on the Earth's surface would send anything into orbit. So, the deeper into the gravity well you get, the bigger explosions you can "afford" without creating any more space-junk.

And my "plan" did not involve very strong blast — just enough to break the contraption into several pieces. It and can be calculated so that any shrapnel would still end up burning in the air even if not right away. Besides, for all we know, their anti-satellite weapons may not be of the kinetic/exploding kind at all — simply drilling or sawing into a satellite would break it apart...

a lot of stuff goes up and stays up for a long time.

And now to my second point, which is that the Chinese may not care. Not to say, I don't — but we aren't talking about what we'd prefer...

Just letting it fall is better than a lot of other options

That may well be true. But neither of us advises Chinese government, who, for example, may have a secondary objective of showing off their orbital weapons again...

If such an invention, whatever it will be, that really cures all (or even merely most) illnesses, ever comes to fruition, why should it not be treated as Uber et al are treated today?

That is, why wouldn't Mark and Priscilla be asked pointed questions about doctors and nurses who — despite spending years and thousands of dollars on education and certification — will become obsolete? What of the hospitals and other health-care infrastructure, that is no longer necessary?

Will we be expected to sympathize with the struggling medical personnel beating up staff of whatever corporation/organization is set up to make the new method and burn their vehicles? Will we have "insightful" comments on Slashdot demanding "level playing field" between this hypothetical new method and the old ones?

Will the FDA meekly disband itself, or will they keep fighting for relevance (and their cushy jobs) the way cities' "Taxis and Limousine" commissions do today?

We've been at each other's throats over these topics over the years. I'm going to try it one more time without injuring anyone with a dialogue. Well, not really a dialogue, because my opponent shall be imaginary. But I don't expect too many people to disagree with him:

Are ideas — pure ideas — valuable? That is, if you've thought of something interesting, are you a richer person, than you were right before that?

Yes, they are valuable.

Who is the owner of that value?

Whoever thought of it!

What if multiple people have thought of the same thing?

Well, if it is so obvious, maybe, it really has no special value.

Indeed, so let's stick to the non-obvious ideas.

If multiple people think of the same non-obvious idea, I guess, it should belong to whichever one of them thought of it first.

How would we know, which one them did?

They will register their idea.

Ok, once the ownership of the idea is established, what can be done with it?

Something cool should be made based on it.

By who?

By the owner...

But he is an inventor — not necessarily an entrepreneur.

Ok, by the owner or whoever he sells/leases his idea to.

At what price?

At whatever they agree upon between themselves.

So, an idea can be sold — like more tangible property?

Yes!

Can it then be resold, if the current owner no longer wants it?

Yeah...

Can it also be stolen then? Used by someone, who neither thought of it first nor purchased it from the inventor or an earlier buyer?

Ok, yes, it pains me to admit it, but the term "theft" is not as inappropriate here as I once thought...

Can the owner — be they the original inventor or someone who honestly purchased or inherited or otherwise legally obtained it — sue such a thief for damages?

Yes, Ok, he can. But I'll still spit on him and call him names — such as "patent troll"!

Profit!!