We have a federal government that wants to let the states handle more of their own shit, and state residents that don't trust federal money for fear of strings attached.
So be it. Seems like a marriage made in hillbilly heaven.
Heartless, but if that is the way a state wants to play it, who am I from another state to argue. On a DOGE note, having 50 states all doing the same things for themselves seems incredibly "inefficient".
I called around a few years ago, to get an additional CAT6 run down the length of my house. One quote was for $600.00 {nope} and another would only offer to install a mesh network. ("Sorry buddy, but I can read a manual for myself, if I wanted mesh.") It was really a joke to get someone who wanted to work for a living. Finally a guy I called dropped one, exactly where I wanted it, for about $150.00. All my non-portable media devices use wired.
Adjusting the router wireless channel[s] and adjusting your router's power to cover only what it needs to, would do a lot more to eliminate neighbor interference than another band would, considering the blockage issues. That isn't a reason for a new band.
For context, I'm an independent voter...
Most people's opinions boil down to two, and only two, things. "Which political party wants it", and "Is that my party?". Don't ever give them the luxury of being "clueless" (aka. ignorant of the facts, their resulting tax numbers, etc.). They're not. People have made a purposeful choice with their eyes wide open. "We don't care what happens, as long as our guy won". That is not going to change until enough of them get "bit" and decide for themselves that party is not the end all to be all. The swing voters who get "bit" will examine their next choice before the next election cycle. "Some" of the more partisan voters will also. Most partisan voters just don't care regardless. They honestly don't care if something is against their own self-interest.
Assuming that higher frequencies are more easily blocked by just about everything, I question the ultimate usability of the spectrum for both Wifi and cell phones. Sure, the spectrum shoudn't have been given to the phone companies, in lieu of wifi use, but I wonder if it will end up being a nothing burger in the end for both. Wireless [home] network situations vary, but having a duel band router in my house hasn't fundamentally chanhged my life. I doubt a (tri-band??) would either.
Trump said two things pre-election that stuck in my mind.
1) I wanna be a dictator.
2) You will never have to worry about voting again.
Congress is already out of their role. Both houses, both parties. The Executive Branch isn't lisening to the Courts. The Courts have no enforcement ability, and they have already arrested one. There is no other branch of government. Step 1) is already accomplished in the practical sense. Dictator...
Seeing that he has done step 1) effectively, I have lost all doubt that he meant Step 2) literally as well, and is quite capable of doing it. I'm waiting to see what form, Step 2) will take.
While I agree with the nature of Justice Alito's dissent, we have never had an administration with the attitude of, "Let's do this quick, before the courts rule against us."
They literally have the power to kick anyone out of the country, even citizens. Revoked citizenship (i.e. Snowden), and off to a foreign prison you go.
Koby, I gotta give you that one. Trump did take over the GOP and taught them a whole new method of politics. I have refered to it before as the "P. T. Barnum method".
It is also true that if the Dems would have "walked away", the GOP would have said, "all this bad is the Dems doing, they walked out". (Not being a justification for them not doing it, just putting it out there.)
The indoctrinated MAGA would of course, believe it. Not that they wouldn't believe anything Trump or Elon says at this point.
"Look the sky is green!" "So at is, Trump. So it is..."
I heard Schumer's rationale on a TV interview. [paraphasing] ... if we don't cooperate now, our lack of cooperation opens the door for Trump to do much worse...{emergency powers, etc.}
In some way it makes sense, but...
If you give the GOP an inch they will always take a mile, AKA history. For what it's worth, perhaps the Dems should have walked out and allow things to get as bad as possible. If it did, maybe some of the voters out there would smarten up just a tad and not put a sociopath in the Oval Office just for the sake of the economy (or so is the excuse anyway).
Our founding fathers envisioned a Congress with a backbone, and a loyalty to country before party. The Congress could undo all of this, if they would agree to. Executive orders, SC decisions, the whole lot, with legislation.
I always thought requiring a credit card for purchase was the altimate age gate. What the hell happened?
If it is a kid using their parent's card without permission, a few hundred calls from adults reversing all those charges would shut that app down pretty quick. If the banks handle it, it's not unconstitutional.
FTC:"Hey banks, charges from this merchant could be scams.Watch out."
All the banks would make it so difficult to complete the transactions, no one would bother, in the end.
DISCLAMER: Not defending anybody's actions...not doubting the DOJ.
But the article did get me wondering if "totally unbiased enforcement" (especially with kids) is even possible without the use of a "zero tolerence policy" which, quite frankly, can be just as bad.
As much as my cynicism of government would like to think that, there is a more practical reason. If only a few people are doing something, the less of the need to regulate it. "It's not that big a problem. Why bother?" Not saying that AI is a problem. AI is just a tool just like anything else, for good or ill.
The same argument could have been made about anything at one time. They didn't feel the need to pass laws about texting and driving until everyone did. Or traffic laws in general, and so on, and so on....
JWST
And now you know why they put the JWST where they did. Somone saw this coming long ago.
Let me access...
We have a federal government that wants to let the states handle more of their own shit, and state residents that don't trust federal money for fear of strings attached. So be it. Seems like a marriage made in hillbilly heaven. Heartless, but if that is the way a state wants to play it, who am I from another state to argue. On a DOGE note, having 50 states all doing the same things for themselves seems incredibly "inefficient".
Wired vs. wireless techs
I called around a few years ago, to get an additional CAT6 run down the length of my house. One quote was for $600.00 {nope} and another would only offer to install a mesh network. ("Sorry buddy, but I can read a manual for myself, if I wanted mesh.") It was really a joke to get someone who wanted to work for a living. Finally a guy I called dropped one, exactly where I wanted it, for about $150.00. All my non-portable media devices use wired.
A new band to help neighbor interference?! LOL!
Adjusting the router wireless channel[s] and adjusting your router's power to cover only what it needs to, would do a lot more to eliminate neighbor interference than another band would, considering the blockage issues. That isn't a reason for a new band.
Totally agree with "Vote them all out"
For context, I'm an independent voter... Most people's opinions boil down to two, and only two, things. "Which political party wants it", and "Is that my party?". Don't ever give them the luxury of being "clueless" (aka. ignorant of the facts, their resulting tax numbers, etc.). They're not. People have made a purposeful choice with their eyes wide open. "We don't care what happens, as long as our guy won". That is not going to change until enough of them get "bit" and decide for themselves that party is not the end all to be all. The swing voters who get "bit" will examine their next choice before the next election cycle. "Some" of the more partisan voters will also. Most partisan voters just don't care regardless. They honestly don't care if something is against their own self-interest.
Slightly skeptical on how much this will "hurt" Wi-fi
Assuming that higher frequencies are more easily blocked by just about everything, I question the ultimate usability of the spectrum for both Wifi and cell phones. Sure, the spectrum shoudn't have been given to the phone companies, in lieu of wifi use, but I wonder if it will end up being a nothing burger in the end for both. Wireless [home] network situations vary, but having a duel band router in my house hasn't fundamentally chanhged my life. I doubt a (tri-band??) would either.
None of them [Amendments] do,anymore.
Trump said two things pre-election that stuck in my mind. 1) I wanna be a dictator. 2) You will never have to worry about voting again. Congress is already out of their role. Both houses, both parties. The Executive Branch isn't lisening to the Courts. The Courts have no enforcement ability, and they have already arrested one. There is no other branch of government. Step 1) is already accomplished in the practical sense. Dictator... Seeing that he has done step 1) effectively, I have lost all doubt that he meant Step 2) literally as well, and is quite capable of doing it. I'm waiting to see what form, Step 2) will take.
Agree with the dissent in theory, but not in this case
While I agree with the nature of Justice Alito's dissent, we have never had an administration with the attitude of, "Let's do this quick, before the courts rule against us." They literally have the power to kick anyone out of the country, even citizens. Revoked citizenship (i.e. Snowden), and off to a foreign prison you go.
Gotta give you that one...
Koby, I gotta give you that one. Trump did take over the GOP and taught them a whole new method of politics. I have refered to it before as the "P. T. Barnum method".
It would be another vector to "Blame the Dems"
It is also true that if the Dems would have "walked away", the GOP would have said, "all this bad is the Dems doing, they walked out". (Not being a justification for them not doing it, just putting it out there.) The indoctrinated MAGA would of course, believe it. Not that they wouldn't believe anything Trump or Elon says at this point. "Look the sky is green!" "So at is, Trump. So it is..."
Yes... but...
I heard Schumer's rationale on a TV interview. [paraphasing] ... if we don't cooperate now, our lack of cooperation opens the door for Trump to do much worse...{emergency powers, etc.} In some way it makes sense, but... If you give the GOP an inch they will always take a mile, AKA history. For what it's worth, perhaps the Dems should have walked out and allow things to get as bad as possible. If it did, maybe some of the voters out there would smarten up just a tad and not put a sociopath in the Oval Office just for the sake of the economy (or so is the excuse anyway).
When was the update?
When did you install the update that required Brother ink?
What the founding fathers envisioned
Our founding fathers envisioned a Congress with a backbone, and a loyalty to country before party. The Congress could undo all of this, if they would agree to. Executive orders, SC decisions, the whole lot, with legislation.
+1
+1
What ever happened to credit cards?
I always thought requiring a credit card for purchase was the altimate age gate. What the hell happened? If it is a kid using their parent's card without permission, a few hundred calls from adults reversing all those charges would shut that app down pretty quick. If the banks handle it, it's not unconstitutional. FTC:"Hey banks, charges from this merchant could be scams.Watch out." All the banks would make it so difficult to complete the transactions, no one would bother, in the end.
What is unbiasd enforcement?
DISCLAMER: Not defending anybody's actions...not doubting the DOJ. But the article did get me wondering if "totally unbiased enforcement" (especially with kids) is even possible without the use of a "zero tolerence policy" which, quite frankly, can be just as bad.
Well...
As much as my cynicism of government would like to think that, there is a more practical reason. If only a few people are doing something, the less of the need to regulate it. "It's not that big a problem. Why bother?" Not saying that AI is a problem. AI is just a tool just like anything else, for good or ill. The same argument could have been made about anything at one time. They didn't feel the need to pass laws about texting and driving until everyone did. Or traffic laws in general, and so on, and so on....
Thanks to Barbara
Now I want to watch it...
cynicism
My cynicism says it won't matter. The GOP will dismantle all this again, later.
History
Isn't book banning how it always starts?