Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (1011531)	4/15/2017 2:42:30 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574186

‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’: GOP’s Sensenbrenner calls Internet optional as FCC readies to limit broadband International Business Times INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES 15 APR 2017 AT 06:53 ET rawstory.com April 14, 2017 AJ Dellinger Posted with permission from International Business Times As Republican lawmakers continue to defend their decision to vote to roll back a set of broadband privacy rules that would have required internet service providers to ask for permission before collecting user data, the Federal Communications Commission is readying more drastic changes to the regulatory oversight of the internet. In a town hall appearance held on Thursday, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. defended his decision to vote to repeal the Broadband Consumer Privacy Rules passed by the FCC last October by arguing that “nobody’s got to use the internet.” Read: Congress Decides To Kill Rules Preventing ISPs From Collecting, Selling Data When a constituent attending the event in Wisconsin’s fifth district raised the issue that she has only one ISP available in her neighborhood and now has little recourse to protect her personal information from her internet provider, Sensenbrenner responded: “You know, nobody’s got to use the internet….I don’t think it’s my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising through your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it and then you take it upon yourself to make the choice.” The congressman’s press office doubled down on this, responding to a tweet claiming Sensenbrenner said “not to use the internet” by stating, “Actually, he said that nobody has to use the internet. They have a choice.” Sensenbrenner’s view contrasts with that of the United Nations, which has labeled internet access a basic human right, and with most trends that see more and more reliance on internet access to partake in other basic tasks, from completing school work to searching for employment. Read: Senate Democrats Press ISPs To Disclose User Data Policies While Sensenbrenner’s belief that “nobody’s got to use the internet” may be incorrect, new plans set to be voted on by the FCC might ensure that more people find themselves in the same situation as the congressman’s constituent who only has one choice for internet service providers. A proposal set to be voted on by the commision on April 20 that would redefine “sufficient competition” in the business broadband market. Under the new rule, a county would be considered “competitive” if just 50 percent of businesses in the area are within half a mile of a location served by a broadband provider or if 75 percent of Census blocks in the county have access to a cable provider. The proposal came under fire from the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, which published a filing with the FCC Thursday that the new rules would not be suitable proof of competition and may leave some businesses without access to sufficient internet service. Assuming the vote passes, it will mark the latest in a concerted effort to roll back Obama-era mandates designed to expand internet access. The FCC also undid a rule that required Charter to compete with other broadband providers and blocked ISPs from offering subsidized internet services to low-income Americans.

To: i-node who wrote (1011531)	4/15/2017 5:00:55 PM
From: Taro	2 Recommendations Recommended By i-node miraje Respond to of 1574186

I fully agree. Whereas in my case the moral considerations have always been my pilot light in this matter. Cannot think of any worse perversion, than the medical doctor, who prior to inserting the needle disinfects the same in order to avoid infections added, only to moments later open for the free flow of that cocktail poisonous mixed drink injected right into the arteries of the human he ist still catering to... :( Down to the basics, no man IMHO has the right to kill another man unless defending himself or his family against an immediate life threat. I have felt very strongly about this since being very young.

To: i-node who wrote (1011531)	4/15/2017 7:05:44 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574186

I'm glad to see you wavering on the death penalty. That means you're thinking. The reason every Western democracy, except this one, has outlawed the death penalty is because it is a primitive idea left over from yesteryear; and we still know so little about how the human mind works. So yes it is immoral. For example, what about a person that kills someone, but is of limited intelligence and cannot understand what they've done? The most important thing about that situation is that the person was not capable of making a rational decision, therefore society, while they need to remove that person, does not need to, and should not, torture them. They were innocent in the sense of their inability to do anything about it. So a Humane Society simply separates them out and gives them life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The same can be said of a killer who was abused as a child. Because we weep for the child, we do not need to torture the adult and resultant person. We just need to remove them from society. Revenge to either of the above people is mean, stupid and barbaric.Why liberals do not support it and conservatives do, in the main. Says something about both tribes I should think. One fights for humanity and the other throws gasoline on inhumanity. So a humane and sophisticated society simply separates that person from society so they can't harm anyone. The problem with this right wing hunger for revenge, is that it is stupid and uncivilized and destructive to a society. What does it teach our children? Our civilization came from our thoughtfulness of how humans should be governed. Not by Kings, or dictators or tribal chiefs, but by people elected by the people according to the rule of law as put forth by the people. So as to avoid torture.