http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141111-titan-lake-island-space-science/

New images from Titan. But arent we all really wondering if any of the guys in mission control are wearing non feminist approved clothing?

New images from Titan. But arent we all really wondering if any of the guys in mission control are wearing non feminist approved clothing?

Not I. And there's nothing like a good batch of cool space photos to take one's mind off of more mundane matters!

Why is Ted Cruz so fucking stupid?

From Patrick's article: "Franken is a longtime proponent of net neutrality, or the idea that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally."

Franken is also a proponent of government regulation of the Internet - ostensibly to ensure net neutrality, but once the government gets its hands on something, it doesn't hold on loosely.

Franken said. "This is about reclassifying something so it stays the same. This would keep things exactly the same that they've been."

Uh, Al, we don't want the Internet to be kept exactly the same as it is. We want it to grow and develop, as it has in the current absence of government regulation.

We don't need the government regulating the Internet as a utility. We had that with the telephone and cable television. In both cases, regulation stifled innovation and led to non-competitive pricing.

The courts broke the federal government's stranglehold on telephony; and satellite television and DSL broke it's stranglehold on cable television. Service, content, and delivery have only improved since those strangleholds were broken.

Cruz hit back at Franken in his own video: "We want a whole lot more of this," Cruz says in the video, waving an iPhone in the air, which he used as a proxy for innovation that can occur in the absence of government regulation. "And a whole lot less of this," he adds, pointing to a rotary phone, a symbol of an industry he says was "frozen in place" by regulation.

Turns out Cruz isn't as stupid as Patrick wants us to think he is.

In addition, government regulation of the Internet is based on a false assumption - namely that delivery methodology and consumption of the Internet will remain as it is now. That assumption is crumbling as wireless technology and apps have already changed the way we get access to and use the Internet.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-web-is-dying-apps-are-killing-it-1416169934

Net neutrality is a great concept, but government-enforced net neutrality is a recipe for disaster.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

"Amazing as it seems, under these regulations federal bureaucrats in the 1970s decided whether AT&T could move beyond standard black telephones to offer Princess phones in pink, blue and white. A Title II Internet would give regulators similar authority to approve, prioritize and set 'just and reasonable' prices for broadband, the lifeblood of the Internet."

You do not want the government regulating the Internet.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-what-a-tangled-web-obama-weaves-1416180120

New images from Titan. But arent we all really wondering if any of the guys in mission control are wearing non feminist approved clothing? ~ Posted by: lujlp at November 17, 2014 11:27 PM

They're not going to be happy until we're all wearing matching "Lost in Space" jumpsuits, driving matching pod cars, and eating gray government-approved food-like substances available in one of one flavor.

If you want a good look into how the telephone companies functioned as regulated utilities in the '70s, look at the Carterphone case.

Disingenuous, Conan. Very sad. I used to think higher of you.

The internet has been progressing just fine on its own. Keeping things as they are would allow the internet to continue to progress as it is wont to do.

But I will agree with you on one point. Ted Cruz isn't really stupid. He's just taking advantage of peoples' ignorance and attempting to associate net neutrality with a program that Conservatives have never backed.

Cruz is a corporate puppet who is allowing his strings to be pulled quite nicely. Yes, we do want net neutrality. Yes, Conan, even you do. We want all internet traffic to be treated equally, not precedence given to the Koch brothers and screw everyone else. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would take their side. You pull "class warfare" out like it's a rabbit from a hat, every time someone points out the gross and completely unjustifiable class imbalance.

Oh, waaaaah. Protect the gazillionaires. They're so...so...so...persecuted.

And by the way, the rotary phone analogy is quite beyond idiotic. In case no one told you, Conan, we don't use rotary phones any more. In fact, most phones are cordless these days, and have speed dial, caller id and other bells and whistles.

So, pointing to a rotary phone to suggest an industry that has stagnated, it a little like pointing to a Studebaker and saying, "See? The auto industry has stagnated!"

Insert eyeroll here.

Disingenuous?

You're not old enough to remember "The Phone Company" are you?

Obama wants to regulate the internet under Title II of the Telecommunication Act, the very act that stifled telephony innovation for over sixty years. And I quote:

"To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to classify internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act." ~ Barack Obama on November 10, 2014

Obama is prepared to abandon the 1996 bipartisan agreement of government neutrality toward the Internet and regulate it under Title II - just like our national telephone system was from 1913 until 1984.

In 1974, the Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against AT&T (ironic since the US government gave the monopoly to AT&T in the first place) and in 1984, the Bell System was broken up according to an agreement reached between AT&T and the government.

The breakup led to a surge of competition in long distance service from companies like Sprint and MCI, resulting in competitive pricing and lower long distance rates.

It also led to competition in the delivery of television signals, since broadcasters had previously relied on AT&T's Long Lines network (microwave and coax) to carry their signal. With the break-up, RCA and others began offering space on satellite signals at very competitive rates. This switch helped to usher in the age of cable television.

The AT&T break-up also meant that new telephone models (like the Princess phone which came in colors other than black) didn't need regulatory approval before they could be introduced.

The break-up also led to the widespread adoption of the touch-tone phone. The touch-tone phone was invented in 1963 but didn't become commonplace until the 1980s. The regulated monopoly phone system in existence in the 1960s and 1970s still used analog PBX switches (no incentive to improve signal capacity or quality - no competition). Competitors after the break-up had digital PBX switches.

Another obstacle to the pre-break-up switch to touch-tone phone was the fact that in those days, almost everybody leased their phones from the phone company and the regulated monopoly phone company didn't encourage the adoption of technology which required extensive modifications to the PBX network. As a result, you got rotary phones for far longer than you should have.

Side note: my grandmother was the last person in her small town to surrender her leased rotary phone - she gave it up in the early '90s. Until then, the local phone company had to carry her phone on the books as a depreciating asset and maintain a PBX that could handle pulse dialing.

These innovations you point to, Patrick, as evidence the system worked weren't actually adopted until after the government-regulated phone monopoly was abolished and competition was introduced. They're actually evidence that less regulation works better and encourages innovation.

This is why we don't want the government to regulate the Internet under Title II. We've seen the results of government regulation of telecommunication and technology and they're not pretty.

...Conan. Very sad. I used to think higher of you. ~ Posted by: Patrick at November 18, 2014 1:12 PM

I really don't care what you think of me, Patrick, until you learn to think for yourself and consider all sides of an issue.

I've yet to see you slam the intelligence or integrity of even one Democrat the way you reflexively hurl insults at Republicans and anyone who disagrees with the Democratic Party's talking points.

You're not the political independent you keep insisting you are. You've let yourself become a puppet for the ugly side of the Democratic Party.

==============================

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the net neutrality issue.

Bandwidth hogs like Netflix and Pandora have no incentive to reduce their footprints since the ISP customer is the one paying the costs for the work needed to increase capacity to handle the stress that streaming content places on the system. As a result, the ISP, not the content provider, bears the brunt of customer disgruntlement over the higher costs. Right now, you're paying for your neighbors' decisions to give up cable and use streaming video exclusively. And you blame Comcast for charging you more.

Likewise, no one wants to have to pay cable television rates for Netflix because your ISP wants you to use their streaming video service instead.

However, as defined by the Democrats right now, "net neutrality" doesn't mean an open Internet, it means government regulation of the Internet.

Ironically, that regulation could lead [once more] to monopoly service providers; and then to restricted content - all in the name of net neutrality.

Better that the government leaves the Internet alone - as both parties agreed in 1996.

Yes, that means the ISP with a streaming video service will be able to charge Netflix, but the customer is also free to watch Netflix on a cell phone or signal-enabled tablet through an app. They're free to switch ISPs (no monopolies).

On the Internet, content is king, not the delivery method.

==============================

So, what's really driving the Democrats' zeal to regulate the Internet?

One theory:

Coaxial cable and DSL will be obsolete some day. People are using their cell phones and apps to do things they used to need an ISP to do. Newer delivery methods may not be taxable in the same way the existing ones are.

That means government revenues from current-technology ISPs (cable companies and phone companies) are in danger of drying up. The Democrats want to keep that revenue stream and are trying to do that by regulating the Internet as a whole, no matter the delivery technology.

Kinda like how the government isn't making as much money from gasoline taxes as it used to and now the Democrats want to charge a mileage tax (in addition to the gasoline taxes).

Corporations ain't the only ones that can be greedy.

I looked up the Carterphone, Cousin Dave. I remember wondering, when I was a kid, how McGarret's radio could talk to a telephone. Very interesting historical tidbit.

I also remember when I was a kid and how exciting and turbulent it seemed when the AT&T monopoly was crumbling and then when the effects of the "any lawful device" ruling began being felt. It seemed like new phone stuff was constantly being invented.

I was in elementary school when my parents got our first non-black non-rotary phones. We got a white and a blue Princess model. The phone company came out and installed phone jacks so we could plug them in. It was very exciting, almost risque, back then to have something other than a black standard phone.

After that, my dad bought a speaker box for the phone so we could have family calls to distant relatives. My mother kept leaning into it to speak.

My parents held out on getting an answering machine, but finally relented. They never really adapted themselves to that device and hated leaving messages on one. Today, my dad refuses to set up his voice mail.

And, yes, we were actually the last family on the block to get cable television and a VHS machine.

I had a deprived childhood.

Happily, I don't share my parents' Luddite tendencies and am very fond of my gadgets.

You really shouldn't expect someone who approves of government-controlled health care not to support government control of Internet access.
They will say up is down and white is black if they think that either it will make them feel better about themselves or bring them something for "free".

By the way – did you know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must approve every label on alcoholic beverages sold in the United States?

Is your web page federally approved?

Conan: Corporations ain't the only ones that can be greedy.

No, but when individuals get greedy, they're generally happy with a few thousand or possibly millions. When corporations get greedy, they tend to crave hundreds of billions.

Conan: I've yet to see you slam the intelligence or integrity of even one Democrat the way you reflexively hurl insults at Republicans and anyone who disagrees with the Democratic Party's talking points.

Apparently, you were sick the days I comment on Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, talk about Obama's penchant for not minding his own business. I did just now post about Al Sharpton. Does that count?

I also, some weeks ago, commented on Jesse Jackson's disgusting conduct at Ferguson, when he begged for money for his own church, rather than the indigent community itself.

Conan: You're not the political independent you keep insisting you are. You've let yourself become a puppet for the ugly side of the Democratic Party.

When you can stop borrowing your talking points from Sean Hannity, Mr. Class Warfare, I might consider your points worth considering.

But when your reflexive response to gross class inequality is scream about class warfare, you're in no position to call anyone a puppet, Pinocchio.

No, but when individuals get greedy, they're generally happy with a few thousand or possibly millions. When corporations get greedy, they tend to crave hundreds of billions. ~ Posted by: Patrick at November 19, 2014 7:02 AM

When governments get greedy, they're not ever satisfied. They'll take hundreds of billions, your personal freedoms, and anything else not nailed down.

When unions get greedy, companies go belly up and jobs are lost. Just ask Detroit.

==============================

When you can stop borrowing your talking points from Sean Hannity, Mr. Class Warfare, I might consider your points worth considering. ~ Posted by: Patrick at November 19, 2014 7:38 AM

I think I've watched Sean Hannity once in my life. That was back when he had Alan Colmes on his show. And I've never quoted him nor borrowed talking points from him.

What I'm calling "class warfare" is the Democrats insistence on demonizing the economically better-off as greedy and "not paying their fair share." They're stirring up resentment and envy rather than addressing the economic underpinnings of the growing inequality. That's probably to cover up the fact that their policies have largely caused the growing inequality that they are now greedily cashing in on.

Aaron Renn, in City Journal points out the political cynicism of the Democrats’ position on inequality:

[F]or liberal mayors, middle-class decline is convenient and politically advantageous. Much of America’s moneyed elite has already shifted its allegiance to the Left, especially in cities. Wealthy, educated urbanites hold generally liberal social values and can afford the higher taxes ‘blue’ cities like Chicago impose—especially when those taxes help pay for the upscale amenities they desire. Even when the mayoral administration is less friendly, the urban elite tends to get its needs met. At the same time, the urban poor have remained loyal to the Democrats, no matter how little tangible improvement liberal policies make in their lives. And the various unions, community organizers, and activist groups that advocate for the poor profit handsomely from the moneys directed toward liberal antipoverty programs.

The Democratic Party is the party of inequality. They are the political faction that has a vested interest in inequality, because they depend on appeals to guilt and envy. To upper-middle-class elites, they promise to alleviate any spiritual discomfort caused by contemplating their relative good fortune, by the easy expedient of voting to spend a little extra money on welfare handouts—preferably the money of somebody just a little bit richer than them—rather than doing anything that would actually help the city’s poor find jobs and housing and transportation. For the poor, they promise to take the rich down a notch and distribute some of the loot.

==============================

Apparently, you were sick the days I comment on Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, talk about Obama's penchant for not minding his own business. I did just now post about Al Sharpton. Does that count? ~ Posted by: Patrick at November 19, 2014 7:35 AM

I was there.

As for Ted Kenndy and Barney Frank, you called two former Democratic politicians (one dead and one retired) "moral cesspools." For active Democratic politicians, you pull your punches.

As for your Sharpton comment, I agree that "Reverend Al" should do jail time just like Leona Helmsley did. In your comment, you posted that Al Sharpton "disgusts" you (for his tax evasion, presumably), but you didn't call him names, insult his intelligence or integrity, or spew vitriol. You left it at "disgusts."

For active and former Republican politicians, however, you blow a gasket: "Governor Chris Christie is a fatassed, lying, faux-compassionate piece of shit...." and "Why is Ted Cruz so fucking stupid?"

Mind you, I'm not in agreement with Ted Cruz on much. He has been far too willing to play brinksmanship with legislation rather than work out a compromise and actually govern the country. I didn't like Paul Ryan and Patty Murray's budget compromise, but at least it was an effort to govern rather than pitch a collective temper tantrum - a tactic in far too much use on both sides of the aisle.

==============================

On a side note, has anyone else noticed that when large men lose significant amounts of weight quickly, they end up looking like their heads are too large for their bodies?

Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton both used to be large men and have recently lost a lot of weight. Now, both of them look like their heads are enormous.

Is your web page federally approved? ~ Posted by: Radwaste at November 18, 2014 5:40 PM

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Conan: As for your Sharpton comment, I agree that "Reverend Al" should do jail time just like Leona Helmsley did. In your comment, you posted that Al Sharpton "disgusts" you (for his tax evasion, presumably), but you didn't call him names, insult his intelligence or integrity, or spew vitriol. You left it at "disgusts."

Doesn't he disgust you, too?

Actually, it's not for income tax evasion. I consider that actually relatively minor compared to his other offenses.

Neither he nor Jesse Jackass felt the need to apologize for maligning the Duke Lacrosse players. Does anyone doubt that had it been Rush Limbaugh or some other white person maligning an all-black basketball team, that these two hypocrites wouldn't be at the forefront demanding an apology?

Don't you agree?

And I have also pointed out that Al Sharpton first came to public knowledge for defending Tawanda Brawley. Now that she's been proven a liar, the question in my mind is, "Why is Al Sharpton still listened to? Why is he still famous?"

Sharpton and Jackson are both slime, although I consider Jackson to be the less slimy of the two.

Better?

And why Obama is reducing himself by giving his ear to Sharpton is beyond me. Sharpton should have as much input into who the next AG should be as you or I.

And be fair, Conan. I didn't just say that Sharpton "disgusts" me. I said I can't think of anyone that disgusts me more. That would include Ted Cruz, incidentally.

Patrick, you and I are aligned in being bewildered by Sharpton's continued influence (both in its duration and its scope). Jackson's, too.

"It also led to competition in the delivery of television signals, since broadcasters had previously relied on AT&T's Long Lines network (microwave and coax) to carry their signal. "

As an aside, in the early '80s I worked for a company that made video switching equipment. We designed and built a large video switching center for Pacific Bell's Los Angeles office. Nearly all of the ABC/NBC/CBS video going in and out of L.A. went through that office. We installed the system in 1983, just as C-band satellite was really starting to take off. Although it was a slick system for its day, I can't help but wonder how long it remained in service. I'm guessing it was scrapped by 1988, if not sooner. And Pac Bell paid millions for it.