While I agree with what the article is saying, something seems off with the claims made by DSLreports.
It claims we're behind Uruguay? I lived in Uruguay for 2 years, in several different areas of that country both inside the main city of Montevideo and in the countryside, and I can firmly tell you that almost no one there has internet in their home. They all go to internet cafe's to use the internet.
It makes perfect sense for a business to have a faster internet connection than a personal home does, so I'm just saying that they seem to be coming to a conclusion without really looking at some of the reasons why the countries might show a higher speed then we typically have here.
I agree that ISP's in the US are not competing at all and that it is causing a major lag in the speeds we have available here.
"Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism "
Wait, so creating political propaganda is an act of terrorism? Doesn't that make all politicians terrorists?
I'm sorry, but I got the unique chance (if you can call it that) to try developing on the Blackberry Playbook before it was released at the company I worked for at the time, and all I can say is that it is a piece of absolute crap.
When your devices OS can't even get the spec right for the language you chose to use, how on earth is anyone supposed to make anything for your device? That combined with the fact that it was slower than mud, and you have another happy paperweight courtesy of Blackberry.
I still stand confused as to how they apply the DMCA to this at all. The anti-circumvention clause is about protections put in place to prevent copying. What do these locks on the phones have to do with copying the phone???
This has nothing to do with religious anything. Choosing to have an abortion is the exact equivalent of choosing to murder someone. The fetus is alive, whether you like it or not.
Pretending that this is a religious issue is simply ridiculous. By your logic, my saying that murder is wrong is just as much religious intolerance as saying that abortion is wrong.
And yes, law should remove the option, the same as it does with many things. Laws in our country are based on what the majority of the ppl believe (most of the time). If those beliefs are because of their religion, that's fine. Sometimes things we don't like will be made into law, that's one sometimes unfortunate side of democracy. Welcome to it.
The problem is simply that you didn't make a statement on any of the issues in that article, but simply linked to it as the basis of your statement on the hopelessness of civil liberties in the candidates.
Nothing in that article presented any evidence to support that conclusion, all it did was spit out statements and come to this hopeless conclusion. The few facts presented were on what Obama has done.
I simply hate seeing a statement of hopelessness when I believe the situation is not nearly that bad.
Yep, because examples given to illustrate a point must be exactly the same as that point to be worth anything.
The fact that you can take the example completely outside the context it was given does not invalidate the point that was made.
It fascinates me how ppl can think that women have some "right" to an abortion after having chosen consensually to have sex.
And no, I do not care what candidates Romney may have chosen to support, as that does not say much, if anything, about what his personal beliefs are on any given point. As has been so aptly pointed out by others here, sometimes you have to choose between the better of 2 evils. His supporting a candidate does not equal his agreeing with everything that candidate says or does.
I have looked at what he has said and done personally on the issue, and that is the only thing that can be considered proof of what he will do should he get into office.
Really? This is the article you choose to use to make your point?
Let me just pull apart one piece of this before I blatantly ask you where the heck you think your evidence is coming from:
"If Mitt Romney wins on Tuesday, a lot of things could change: Medicare could be turned into a voucher system;"
Ok, definitely worthy of concern, but not in and of itself bad. More details needed.
"Medicaid could be substantially cut."
All I have to say here is "Citation needed". Medicaid has already been substantially cut, and with Romney's intention to kill Obamacare, what makes you think it will be further cut?
"Any Supreme Court vacancies would be filled with conservative jurists hostile to abortion rights"
Abortion is not a right.
", attempts to rectify racial inequality"
??? What law exists anywhere today that encourages racial inequality??? Sure there are ppl out there who still choose to think that way, but the laws made acting on that illegal a long time ago.
", or rein in the influence of money in politics."
And how exactly is anyone supposed to do that? You can't prevent ppl from accepting money, no matter how bad doing so is.
" The Affordable Care Act, which will guarantee health insurance coverage for millions of Americans, could be toast."
Seriously??? Do I really need to point out just how stupid this argument is? I'll assume no for now and wait to see what others say about it.
The rest of the article just continues a rant without any evidence provided. While I do not agree with everything Romney says or plans to do, I cannot understand the temptation by so many to pretend he is something that he is not.
I agree with you on so many things, Mike, I just couldn't handle seeing this line of misinformation on an article that is little more than a rant of hopelessness without giving some comment back to it.
"his blatent disrespect against women and their right to choose"
Ya, cause they didn't have any choice when decided to have sex in the first place, right?
You don't get to complain after you run the red light that you weren't given a choice as to whether you wanted someone to hit you or not. Choices are yours to make. The consequences to those choices are not.
"It is doubtful that Congress would stamp with approval a procedural rule permitting a corporate defendant to intentionally violate the laws of this country, yet evade the jurisdiction of United States' courts by purposefully failing to establish an address here."
So let me get this straight, the judge thinks that everyone in the world has to obey U.S. laws? If I don't live in your country, I can break any stupid law you make all I dang well please! What the heck makes this judge think Congress even has the power to choose whether or not to "approve" a law that would try to force the entire world to bow to U.S. wishes???
The only thing at issue here is that people in the U.S. were able to do business with a corporation that was outside the U.S. without having to actually go there, and we apparently can't handle that idea.
Quit pretending that signing a contract where you are bound to accomplish something in some set period of time is even remotely the same as signing a contract for a job that says either party can terminate it at any time for any reason and maybe we'll care what you have to say.
Until then, I'm beginning to think that obvious troll is obvious.
Of course we would, if that was in any way what we were saying.
The contract they entered into is not even remotely like an employment contract, so I have to tell you yet again, you're mixing 2 completely different things.
The contract they signed was along the lines of one a contractor would sign. Once signed, they are bound by it's terms until they've fulfilled them, period. This is not the same thing as signing a contract for a job where you get paid for showing up every day.