Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:The law has changed since 1934 (ie 1996) (Score 1) 175

I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules. I'm still trying to figure out why a state would ever deny an internet provider permission to be a lifeline provider. It can't be a profit-maker for those internet providers. It can't be that there aren't poor people who need service in the provider's area, or there would be no lifeline business. It can only be that the state did not wish for there to be broadband at all under the universal lifeline rules.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 175

Without electoral weighting, lots of people who don't bother to vote now because it is pointless (like in my state) would be up at the crack of dawn, in line at the polling places, waiting their turn to cancel out the votes of bicoastal pricks or flyover hicks.

You can't really have it both ways. Without the electoral college, the popular majority would be the list of counties here and we know how those counties voted. This would not have biased the election further in Trump's favor.

Comment Re:You may not like this (Score 1) 175

No, the founders who raped their slaves were not Democrats. The founders had a "Democratic-Republican" party, which is also referred to as "Jeffersonian Republicans" or "The First Republican Party" and isn't the Democratic party, and the other party at the time was the Federalist party.

Each of the amendments started out with the decision that the intent of the founders wasn't going to matter any longer. Any future amendment must do so as well.

Democrats fought to keep slavery, and they fought to prevent women from voting.

Well, that's really bad. But the Democrats wisely decided to stop doing those things. In the years that the Democrats cut their ties with the segregationist portion of Southern voters, spanning from the Goldwater to the Nixon campaigns, the Republicans took them up. So we're now in the position that the Republicans are the political heirs of the 1964 Democrats. So having taken over the bad stuff the Democrats used to do, you are not in a good position to revile us for our past sins.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 175

We have no idea what would have happened if the election had been done by different rules.

Actually, we do. We counted the votes, and not just the Electoral College votes, but the votes in every district across the entire country.

If you are trying to say that people would have voted differently if the rules for counting votes were different, that might have been true if the rules gave the people a different way to actually influence the vote, for example the Condorcet method or its variants that are commonly called "ranked choice" or "instant run-off".

But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 175

If you'd like to crow about the achievements of the Republican party, be sure to include this one: The decision in Rowe v. Wade was written by a Republican, Harry Blackmun, appointed by Nixon. He was seated on a Republican panel with appointees going back to Roosevelt who all agreed with him, with the exception of Rhenquist. The two Democrats seated nullified each other.

One could rightfully wonder why the Republican party ever turned from that decision.

What radicalized the Republican party? I think the Southern Strategy was the start. Having been so radicalized, what even gives them the right to call themselves "The party of Lincoln" any longer?

Comment Re:Give the conspiracy stuff a rest (Score 1) 175

I think you can go on to the article without arguing with me about the summary. The issue at hand is that 12 states challenged FCC because those states did not approve a set of companies to be lifeline broadband providers, and then FCC went ahead and approved them. Unlike Chairman Pal, I believe this is indeed a Federal responsibility due to the Postal Clause of the Constitution and the Communications Act of 1934.

I am at the moment lacking information regarding what other internet providers those states approved, whether they approved any at all, and what the grounds for not approving a company to provide lifeline service (which can't be a profit-maker) could be except to deny access to the potential customers. In other words, I'm really suspicious of the states in question.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 175

The statement I took issue with was about "the people" voting for him. This is a separate issue from the rules of the electoral college and who won the electoral college. The electoral college is used to choose the winner of an election, but is at best a distorted rendering of the will of the people.

What about the people who didn't vote? Are you trying to say that the decision might have been conclusive for Trump except that a lot of presumptive Trump supporters did not vote because they knew their vote would not count? I find it difficult to believe, and can't say I have much sympathy for folks who don't vote anyway.

If you want to be more concrete than "President Cookie Monster", it would be the Bush v. Gore contest of 2000.

Comment Re:Bad summary (Score 1) 175

It seems that not everybody knows about the Communications Act of 1934. That is when Congress gave the regulation of communications to the FCC as a Federal responsibility. In the Constitution, we have Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, the "Postal Clause", empowering Congress to establish post offices and post roads for carriage of mail between post offices. Logically this extends to other forms of communications, and justifies the action of Congress in 1934.

Comment Re:I hope this trend continues. (Score 1) 175

What about your family? This is in theory, because I don't know anything about your family and don't want to insult your family. If you grew up in a bad family situation and achieved all of that, that would be an achievement indeed. If you didn't, you might not have been in the same situation as a lot of the poor.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 175

We do have the issue that Congress granted the responsibility to regulate communications to the FCC with the Communications Act of 1934. So, this is not really a state issue at all. I also question that all 50 states are uniformly set up to make this approval, or are interested in taking it on.

Comment Re:Give the conspiracy stuff a rest (Score 2) 175

Uh, I'm not sure you actually got what is going on. FCC is going to cave on it's previously-ongoing legal defense of an extension to include broadband in the lifeline communications subsidy. FCC will stop approving broadband providers who wish to participate in the program and will instead allow states to make this decision. States don't actually have the constitutional responsibility to govern communications, that is given to the Federal government by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934. States are unlikely to have a program to approve broadband lifeline subsidies in place at present because it's a Federal responsibility, and even given the FCC Chairman's odd justification states aren't necessarily going to be eager to take this on.

Slashdot Top Deals

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth