19guid

7 ms·

1.
Nick Gillespie Debates Net Neutrality with Tom Wheeler on NPR(reason.com)
2 points by 19guid 9y ago|0 comments
2.
Net Neutrality Supporters Should Actually Hate the Regulations They're Endorsing(reason.com)
1 points by 19guid 9y ago|0 comments
3.
by 19guid 9y ago
> Can't have that if there is no competitive ISP you can change to, if you don't like this NN violating ISP. Sure, but that indicates a need for competition, not net neutrality. As I said in another comment, even if it prevents
4.
by 19guid 9y ago
1. Even if it prevents some of the worst abuses by incumbents, net neutrality regulation isn't going to create more competition. In fact, if net neutrality regulation creates additional compliance costs it might actually reduce competi
5.
by 19guid 9y ago
I think it makes sense because retail ISPs operate in a two-sided market. Comcast provides access to Internet services, which customers want and are willing to pay for. Similarly, Comcast provides access to customers, which the Internet com
6.
by 19guid 9y ago
I've posted this comment before in another thread: I oppose net neutrality regulation. In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as it does not h
7.
by 19guid 9y ago
Per CDC (2014), the marriage rate in the United States is 6.9/1000 people while the divorce rate is 3.2/1000 people. [1] I'd say that's very high. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-di
8.
by 19guid 9y ago
The answer is probably no. Requiring a person to unlock a device is not prohibited by the Fifth Amendment simply because the device contains incriminating information that would otherwise be inaccessible to police. If the police have a vali
9.
by 19guid 9y ago
I think it's more likely that there's a history here that we're not aware of. His complaint suggests he's been arguing with Google's management for some time, and that this memo was the last straw.
10.
by 19guid 9y ago
That's why the parent said "legally in the US", not "at the border".
11.
by 19guid 9y ago
Or even: \ls
12.
How to Worry about Climate Change(nationalaffairs.com)
1 points by 19guid 9y ago|0 comments
13.
How to Worry about Climate Change(nationalaffairs.com)
2 points by 19guid 9y ago|0 comments
14.
by 19guid 9y ago
Huh? Section 33 hasn't just been used once. Quebec used to invoke section 33 on every piece of legislation passed by the National Assembly.
15.
by 19guid 9y ago
I oppose net neutrality regulation. In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as it does not have an anti-competitive effect. For example, I don'
16.
by 19guid 9y ago
I agree that bandwidth is not scarce in the same way as other goods. However, the fact remains that network infrastructure is expensive and it makes sense to pass more of the costs of that infrastructure onto those who derive more value fro
17.
by 19guid 10y ago
Alternatively, why doesn't the gay couple just go somewhere else? I would imagine that only a very small minority of bakers/photographers/florists have strong feelings on this issue, so it's not like it would be difficul
18.
by 19guid 10y ago
This is true. The case is stronger if the baker designs a custom cake or has to write a message on the cake, or if the florist designs a custom floral arrangement.
19.
by 19guid 10y ago
The cases I listed above all involve sole proprietorships or closely-held companies, so compelling the business to engage in protected speech is tantamount to compelling the individual who owns the business to engage in protected speech. I
20.
by 19guid 10y ago
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I imagine you would agree that a journalist still engages in protected speech when he writes articles in exchange for compensation. Why isn't a photographer also engaging in protected speech when
21.
by 19guid 10y ago
Serving drinks is not protected speech; taking a photograph is.
22.
by 19guid 10y ago
In the context of expressive services like wedding photography, yes. The government should not be allowed to compel protected speech, even when such compulsion would be in the public interest. That's the price we pay for liberty. I don
23.
by 19guid 10y ago
I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected s
24.
by 19guid 10y ago
Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwi
25.
by 19guid 10y ago
Well, a zygote is a developing human being while a placenta is clearly not. You don't have to believe in a soul to think that all human beings -- regardless of their stage of development -- merit legal protection.
26.
by 19guid 10y ago
The argument is fairly straightforward if you accept -- as pro-lifers do -- that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn child. Parents have a prima facie duty of care towards their children by virtue of the biological connection be
27.
by 19guid 10y ago
You don't have to believe in God to make the argument that an embryo is a developing human being who is therefore worthy of legal protection. There are plenty of secular pro-lifers. [1] [1] http://www.secularprolife.org&#x2F
28.
by 19guid 10y ago
> It’s Googley to stand up for diversity and inclusion, such as protesting against binary gendering on toilets So if I support binary gendering on toilets, I'm not welcome at Google? Why has it become necessary to subscribe to a par