than just pay sticker price from the car factory direct.
And how does one go about doing that? I thought most states made that illegal in the same of supporting local businesses.
Bigotry in general is more about the systems that society has in place that combine to make it so that people with certain backgrounds are disadvantaged with respect to others. These systems are extremely varied and reinforced by a variety of societal traditions, personal prejudices, business practices, government practices, and more.
At an individual level, bigotry involves supporting and continuing those systems of oppression, whether consciously or unconsciously.
I will agree with that. But sometimes it feels like in the effort to remove bigotry (which I'm all for), some legitimate differences between groups of people (which aren't in place due to society) are getting covered over, even to our detriment.
There also has to be a limit to how much work the government can compel people to do for free to help them uncover evidence
That's an easy answer, nothing for free. The government is willing to pay for this work. No involved is talking about unpaid work.
And if you don't think Internet access is a limited quantity, I invite you to spend a summer in La Verkin, Utah -- Population 4,060, and not worth U.S. West's time to put in high speed network access for anyone.
It sounds like people in La Verkin do have internet access, just perhaps at the speeds you want. My point is that adding everyone in La Verkin doesn't reduce my ability to access the internet.
Everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who is posting on Slashdot against the idea already has Internet access!
"I've got mine, and screw everyone else, even if getting a cut-down version would be astronomically better than what they currently have!"
The "I've got mine" attitude works a whole lot more for a limited commodity, not so well as adding another node to a network. Plus, given that this wireless Facebook access wouldn't allow for access to Slashdot, it's not hypocritical to the Slashdot crowd.
But since this offering doesn't prevent other ISPs from making competing offers (either free or for-pay), this offering simply provides people more choices which inherently cannot make them worse off.
But sometimes it does harm them. There's goodness in net neutrality. If a lower cost offering exists, which limits the information the people can get, they may not accept the full internet (even if available to them), because it will cost more. As a result the people are unknowingly harmed, because they won't chose to get full access to the plethora of ideas which exist on a net neutral internet.
You mean like the Republicans did?
I suspect they are wishing that they had tried harder.
after what she and the DNC did to Sanders
You mean, put forth effort to try and have their own parties nominee be an actual member of the party? Not someone who has always declared themselves as a member of a different party? Oh, the horror.
I'm afraid it could end up hurting compatibility and consistency of domain names
Right, and so when most people notice that the internet isn't working anymore, they'll get their tech savvy friends to fix the internet for them, which will involve using US based DNS again.
But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow, AND have potentially fractured standards.
It's not as simple as us controlling it versus "them" controlling it. Unfortunately, the us-vs-them portrayal resonates better as a compact political sound-bite.
I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're saying that as being a good thing, or a bad thing? Do you really think that if a country runs a different DNS service, that it won't just result in most every citizen trying to work around it to get to the "real" internet?
It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln