patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,497 comments by 15,735 users - Booger, declarethecauses, Patrick, stereotomy, Tenpoundbass online now
« First « Previous Comments 12 - 15 of 15 Search these comments
12
theoakman
@
2019 Dec 6, 4:55pm
WookieMan says
Decades ago, we had a descrambler to get all the PPV movies and events for free. At one point, the company most have sold their list to the cable company and the cable company was threatening us with a lawsuit. They said we could settle out for $10k. We told them to go F themselves. They never followed through with their threats.
Liberal_in_blackface saysThe last thing I would want is to be involved into FBI investigation when somebody downloads (or uploads) some pedo shit over the connection with my name on the account.
Yup X10. I don't even like having a guest network and allowing people on it. My former employer would incentive potential tenants with free internet all the time. I'm not sure the damages, but he got fucked by one of his tenant stealing movies. Didn't cause long term harm, but it was one of those ISP attorneys that get the info on what was stolen and send the letter to the account holder. Basically settle for $1k or go to court and lose and pay $20k. It's a scam, but totally legal. Fuck attorneys. (although my old boss deserved it, lol).
Decades ago, we had a descrambler to get all the PPV movies and events for free. At one point, the company most have sold their list to the cable company and the cable company was threatening us with a lawsuit. They said we could settle out for $10k. We told them to go F themselves. They never followed through with their threats.
13
Karloff
@
2019 Dec 6, 5:17pm
Karloff
@
2019 Dec 6, 5:17pm
Buying votes with other people's money. Doesn't this maneuver ever get old?
It's come to the point where I believe people who have a negative financial balance with the system (meaning they receive more in government aid than they put in) should be ineligible to vote. That's the only way we'll ever put a stop to people voting for more handouts that others are forced to pay for with the threat of violence.
The only problem with such a system is that it encourages the establishment to put as many people into poverty situations as possible to take them out of the voting pool which means there are fewer voters to pander to.
It's come to the point where I believe people who have a negative financial balance with the system (meaning they receive more in government aid than they put in) should be ineligible to vote. That's the only way we'll ever put a stop to people voting for more handouts that others are forced to pay for with the threat of violence.
The only problem with such a system is that it encourages the establishment to put as many people into poverty situations as possible to take them out of the voting pool which means there are fewer voters to pander to.
14
Onvacation
@
2019 Dec 6, 5:33pm
Onvacation
@
2019 Dec 6, 5:33pm
Karloff says
Agreed!
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."
Benjamin Franklin
I fear we are almost there.
It's come to the point where I believe people who have a negative financial balance with the system (meaning they receive more in government aid than they put in) should be ineligible to vote. That's the only way we'll ever put a stop to people voting for more handouts that others are forced to pay for with the threat of violence.
Agreed!
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."
Benjamin Franklin
I fear we are almost there.
15
SunnyvaleCA
@
2019 Dec 6, 10:53pm
Liberal_in_blackface says
Maybe fixing that should be part of legislative changes: IP owners have to prove, specifically, the person that is sharing content; they can't just go after the provider.
zzyzzx saysSunnyvaleCA saysAs for lowering costs, perhaps there could be some law that forbids ISPs from writing contracts that don't allow you to share your service with neighbors (especially in apartment buildings). If you pay for service, you can use it any way you want.
What is preventing you from doing that now?
The last thing I would want is to be involved into FBI investigation when somebody downloads (or uploads) some pedo shit over the connection with my name on the account.
Maybe fixing that should be part of legislative changes: IP owners have to prove, specifically, the person that is sharing content; they can't just go after the provider.
« First « Previous Comments 12 - 15 of 15 Search these comments
Article starts off with fairly reasonable-sounding and noble goals. Maybe similar to programs that pushed electricity, water, and telephone service to under-served / poor communities.
And then we get some details...
So it's a "jobs program" for unions and work is conditioned of being only for special people who have special labor rules.
Isn't the whole idea of setting aside parts of the country for "native peoples of North America" is that they can continue to live a stone-age lifestyle? If they want to enter the
17th century21st century, they should integrate with society.But what will it cost us, Bernie?
This is but an estimate for a single part of his plan. Of course the actual cost will be much higher, the goals will not quite be reached, and there will be other huge additional payments for other aspects.
What, if anything should the federal government's roll in high-speed internet be? I'll grant that the service lends itself to monopolies and anti-competitive behavior. My part of Sunnyvale has only a single provider; there's no fiber or DSL, just Comcast.
Some discussion questions:
• Maybe the federal government should employ some anti-trust action, help to stimulate competition, and let the private companies vie for customers.
• As for lowering costs, perhaps there could be some law that forbids ISPs from writing contracts that don't allow you to share your service with neighbors (especially in apartment buildings). If you pay for service, you can use it any way you want.