Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 04 2017, @08:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-shafted dept.

For decades, people in the US have been given a song and dance by the telecoms about how tax cuts, surcharges, and a long list of other expenses are necessary for telecoms to "invest" in infrastructure. The concessions are granted again and again, but the investments are never actually made. In all, US taxpayers have paid $400 Billion in taxes and Internet surcharges for fiber optic upgrades that never happened.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @09:45PM (24 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @09:45PM (#605320)

    Look past your identity and start to think about the way things are structure, and how they instead could be structured.

    If you think of yourself as a member of Civilization, then you should be excited about figuring out how society could be organized to have as little coercion as possible. So, why are you so mad?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @09:52PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @09:52PM (#605326)

    He's mad because government is the new God and you're committing deicide against his faith.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 04 2017, @10:23PM (3 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday December 04 2017, @10:23PM (#605354) Homepage Journal

      He's mad because government is the new God and you're committing deicide against his faith.

      There is no "god." There is just the universe and the collections of matter and energy within it, their interactions modulated by physical constants [physics.info].

      Is that you, Bruce Benson?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:46PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:46PM (#605615)

        It's clear you've been intellectually outclassed.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:57PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:57PM (#605755)

          Its funny, you think you're so superior yet the users on this site consistently mod you down. There should be enough libertarians / free market enthusiasts to mod you up, but I guess even they think you're full of shit.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:56PM (#605898)

            Give us until the UTC rollover. We spent our 10 mods points for the day before we got this far.

            Not all of us are as rabidly prolific as the resident authoritarians.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday December 04 2017, @10:10PM (17 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday December 04 2017, @10:10PM (#605345) Homepage Journal

    ook past your identity and start to think about the way things are structure, and how they instead could be structured.

    If you think of yourself as a member of Civilization, then you should be excited about figuring out how society could be organized to have as little coercion as possible. So, why are you so mad?

    I'm not mad, and certainly not at you. I'm mildly amused at your naivete and poor grasp of history, civics and, most importantly, human nature. As such, the overriding feeling I have for you is pity.

    Is our society perfect? Is our form of government ideal? The answer is "no" to both questions.

    However, one of the nice things about our form of government is that the governed have the power to change it.

    For that to be successful, we need a well-informed citizenry.

    Unfortunately, that's an area where we've failed pretty badly (as your poorly thought out and naive arguments illustrate)

    There are many reasons for this, not least of which are those with anti-citizen agendas (the fossil fuel industry, for one) and lots of resources, who use those resources to spread FUD, lies and attempt (often successfully) to corrupt government at all levels.

    What's more, as more FUD, lies and misinformation are spread by those who wish to Dominate you politically, economically and socially, reasoned arguments are drowned out.

    That part makes me sad, not mad.

    But please, by all means, cling to your illusions and delusions. I'm sure they're much more satisfying than the world as it really is.

    Cultures and societies change slowly. Assuming we, as a nation, can get past the lies and FUD, we can work together to correct the errors of the past and create a society of which we're all proud to be a part. Perhaps you'll join us in that effort someday. If not, as I said, you won't be missed.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:35PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:35PM (#605361)

      >not mad
      >sanguine: bloody, blood-thirsty
      hmmmm

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Zinho on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:35PM (14 children)

        by Zinho (759) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:35PM (#605720)

        >not mad
        >sanguine: bloody, blood-thirsty
        hmmmm

        Is English your native language? You may want to read up a bit on the various usages of the word "sanguine" and its history. [merriam-webster.com]
        I've never once heard it used to mean "bloodthirsty", and have only infrequently used it to refer to the color red. Give our friend NotSanguine's posting history I'm confident that they are referring to the ancient Greek concept of humorism [wikipedia.org] and its related temperaments. [wikipedia.org]

        --
        "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:01AM (13 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:01AM (#605901)

          Is English your native language? You may want to read up a bit on the various usages of the word "sanguine" and its history.
          I've never once heard it used to mean "bloodthirsty"

          Considering its historical usage as evidenced by today's dictionary definitions, perhaps it it is you who should read more books of substance instead of watching just funny cat videos.

          Give our friend NotSanguine's posting history

          Past performance is not indicative of future results. I liked his reasoning at some point in the past. He's gone completely off the rails of reason as of late.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:33AM (11 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:33AM (#605914) Homepage Journal

            Give our friend NotSanguine's posting history

            Past performance is not indicative of future results. I liked his reasoning at some point in the past. He's gone completely off the rails of reason as of late.

            Okay AC, I'll bite. Please provide any evidence that I've "gone off the rails."
            I promise you, I'm just as big an asshole as I've always been. That's not going to change.

            Here's a little mechanical turk task for you. I'll pay you in a +1 mod point for your post. Find two posts where I contradict myself. Even better, find two posts where my reasoning has changed, except in cases where I was just wrong and have admitted as such.

            There are quite a few posts, so if you want that mod point, better get cracking.

            I'd be quite interested at what you consider to be changes in my reasoning or sanity.

            Oh, and by the way, I chose 'NotSanguine' long ago, back when I got my 5-digit green site ID. I chose it to represent (with mild sarcasm) my expectations for the future. That'd be definition 1 [dictionary.com]:

            adjective
            1. cheerfully optimistic, hopeful, or confident: a sanguine disposition; sanguine expectations.
            2. reddish; ruddy: a sanguine complexion.
            3. (in old physiology) having blood as the predominating humor and consequently being ruddy-faced, cheerful, etc.
            4. bloody; sanguinary.
            5. blood-red; red.
            6. Heraldry. a reddish-purple tincture.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:23AM (8 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:23AM (#606000)

              Please provide any evidence that I've "gone off the rails."

              You missed the most important part of the phrase. " I wrote: He's gone completely off the rails of reason.

              I care little about your demeanor so long as you can espouse and logically defend an idea. I for some reason pegged you as a reasonably-consistent fellow at some point in the past. You've recently convinced me of my error with the last few days being the final nail of confirmation.

              There are several ways to engage in discussion over ideas. Telling others to shut up or get out is something I'd expect out of a child, not a reasonable adult who is seeking to engage other adults in a discussion of ideas.

              You're offering mod points? Mod points are typically being used around here as an ineffectual substitute for reasoned disagreement. I read at -1 since the SN tech crew has been doing great at keeping the true spammers at bay.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:34AM (7 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:34AM (#606008) Homepage Journal

                You missed the most important part of the phrase. " I wrote: He's gone completely off the rails of reason.

                I care little about your demeanor so long as you can espouse and logically defend an idea. I for some reason pegged you as a reasonably-consistent fellow at some point in the past. You've recently convinced me of my error with the last few days being the final nail of confirmation.

                Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean I'm not making reasoned arguments.

                You've asserted that I've abandoned reason -- show me evidence that isn't just "but, but, but you're wrong!" or "But, but, but you're being [mean|a jerk|an asshole|whatever]!" As yet, I haven't seen any.

                There are several ways to engage in discussion over ideas. Telling others to shut up or get out is something I'd expect out of a child, not a reasonable adult who is seeking to engage other adults in a discussion of ideas.

                Unless I'm missing something, you're grossly misconstruing my words. As I've suggested to others, if you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. My name is right at the top of my posts. I wonder why you're not willing to do the same?

                As to the "substance" of your criticism, I don't see the issue.

                You must be confusing me with someone else, as I have *never* told anyone to "shut up or get out." The freedom to express oneself (no matter how naive, obnoxious or dumb) is treasured here on SN and is one of the reasons I've stayed here. I disagree with many on this site and have certainly told them they are wrong, assholes, stupid, misinformed, uneducated and a raft of other things. But I have never, and will never, on this site (or anywhere else for that matter) tell someone that they aren't allowed to express their thoughts, ideas and opinions. I may ignore them, but I would never attempt to silence them.

                In the cases where I've suggested that someone leave the United States, It's *always* because they have outright said that the United States is "a violently-imposed monopoly that keeps its citizens in line at the point of a gun," (apologies if that's not an accurate quote, but it certainly covers the sentiment) or express similar disdain for the US, its laws, culture or system of government. If someone thinks the place is so awful, and are unwilling to work to make it better, why would they want to stay?

                What's more, in just about every one of those cases, I've implored, requested or suggested that perhaps said person might want to work to change the U.S. for the better. Failing that, if they see things as that horrendous for them here, I imagine that leaving would be a pleasure and a relief. Further, I've *never* demanded or insisted that *anyone* go anywhere. That's up to them.

                The gist is that pretty much every time I've said something like that has been (sometimes more pleasantly, sometimes much less so) along the lines of "well, if you think that the US is so awful, either work to change it for the better or go somewhere more to your liking."

                In most cases (unless I've already done so in that thread) I try to explain why I disagree and give examples as to why I think their argument is lacking. If that's not being reasonable, I don't know what is.

                So please, come (if you're not already here) to the United States. You are welcome on my lawn. But if you think the U.S. is an authoritarian hell hole, why would you want to come (or stay)?

                I welcome your opinions and your comments. However, I do take issue with your bald assertion that I've abandoned reason because you think I'm being a jerk and are unwilling to provide *anything* to back up that assertion.

                Yes, I can be a jerk. Yes, I'm frequently snarky and sometimes even unpleasant. That doesn't mean (or even imply) that I've abandoned reason.

                You're offering mod points? Mod points are typically being used around here as an ineffectual substitute for reasoned disagreement. I read at -1 since the SN tech crew has been doing great at keeping the true spammers at bay.

                That may well be. However, I don't use them as such. My "offer," such as it was, was designed to be obnoxious. Perhaps obnoxious enough to get to you to actually present *any* detail WRT your incorrect and nasty assertion. Apparently, I wasn't obnoxious enough. More's the pity.

                I also read at '-1' whether I have mod points or not. Whether the spammers and trolls are out in force or not. Although I do agree that the admins have done a good job getting rid of the worst morons. Good show, SN!

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:21AM (6 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:21AM (#606037)

                  You must be confusing me with someone else, as I have *never* told anyone to "shut up or get out." [...] In the cases where I've suggested that someone leave the United States, It's *always* because they have outright said that the United States is "a violently-imposed monopoly that keeps its citizens in line at the point of a gun"

                  Telling someone who is being critical of the USA to leave does indeed carry the implication of "like it or leave it", or as I put it, "shut up or get out". Regardless of your intentions, telling someone to leave a country they are being critical of is... a very simplistic dismissal of their complaints. It seems FAR more potentially productive to merely state why their complaints are invalid as you see them to be, because by offering your own criticism of their criticism, ideas are now actually being discussed rather than dismissed out of hand.

                  Regarding frustration with other ACs... sigh [soylentnews.org], I know the feeling too well. I do what I can and try to be clear and concise while trying to use nothing other than testable reasoning.

                  The direct risk to people who are working to change the USA for the better are enormous. People who show some signs of success are considered the greatest of threats: just ask Bernard von NotHaus [wikipedia.org], Shaeffer Cox [freeschaeffer.com], Gavin [wearechange.org] Seim [youtube.com], two generations of the Bundy family [oathkeepers.org] ranchers, along with many, many more.

                  I suspect you will want to engage next on the matter of "working within the system" to change it. Rather than take up a thread like that here, I recommend we continue that (or what I suspect will shortly morph into that) in this other thread [soylentnews.org] we are already both active on.

                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:32AM (5 children)

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:32AM (#606053) Homepage Journal

                    I suspect you will want to engage next on the matter of "working within the system" to change it. Rather than take up a thread like that here, I recommend we continue that (or what I suspect will shortly morph into that) in this other thread [soylentnews.org] we are already both active on.

                    Nope.

                    Despite what you think, you're free to do what you like, wherever you are.

                    I'm going to go to Heinlein again [goodreads.com]:

                    I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

                    I believe this and have for a *long* time. The key phrase is "...I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

                    This conversation has been fun. Thanks.

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @03:02PM (4 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @03:02PM (#606148)

                      Likewise, I have enjoyed our conversation and am starting to have my mind changed yet again in regards to your reasonableness.

                      On a side note, I was a rabid fan of Heinlein (probably still am, but I'm finding his lack of new works unsettling). In addition to his thought-provoking better-known novels, I started to pick up a bit of the arc of his changing viewpoint on life throughout the time he spent writing his books. Take Back Your Government [wikipedia.org] had him as a Democrat (albeit of the 1930s era), and one of his earlier novels made an intriguing case for central government control of currency along with the equivalent of a "living wage", not something I'd expect most to see from an author with a general reputation for being a foaming-at-the-mouth individualist. His account of his own behavior juxtaposed with his wife's during their world tour in Tramp Royale [wikipedia.org] was almost startling.

                      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:25PM (3 children)

                        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:25PM (#606420) Homepage Journal

                        I've read them both, and as many of his published works as I've been able to find over the years. Heck, I even wrote a research paper about aspects of his work in secondary school.

                        And you should read "Take Back Your Government" again. It doesn't advocate *anything* like you advocate.

                        And yes, Heinlein correctly predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years before it happened. He was a pretty smart guy.

                        What's more, except in fictional (and not in all of those) settings, Heinlein believed in our republican (small 'r') form of government.

                        Were Heinlein still alive (it sucks that death causes writer's block), I'd be interested in what he'd have to say to you. I imagine it would be more concise and less accommodating to you than I have been.

                        --
                        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:15AM (2 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:15AM (#606671)

                          I am not using an appeal to authority, not Heinlein's nor anyone elses'. I can make my own case for my own argument with my own words. [soylentnews.org]

                          Holding Robert Heinlein out as some sort of prophet, rather than as someone with thought-provoking ideas filling his books, is dangerous to critical thinking. Trying to use a book written in the 1960s based on political experiences from the 1930s which was dug up and published in the 1990s as a unflinching standard for advice in 2017 is illustrative of the danger.

                          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:09AM (1 child)

                            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:09AM (#606683) Homepage Journal

                            Holding Robert Heinlein out as some sort of prophet, rather than as someone with thought-provoking ideas filling his books, is dangerous to critical thinking. Trying to use a book written in the 1960s based on political experiences from the 1930s which was dug up and published in the 1990s as a unflinching standard for advice in 2017 is illustrative of the danger.

                            WTF are you blathering on about?

                            Yes, Heinlein was a smart guy. But I didn't recommend his books to you. Nor did I hold him out as some sort of prophetic thinker.

                            He wrote well, told some good stories, and had some insight into human nature.

                            Don't try to put words in my mouth.

                            Go fuck yourself Scrutinizer. I'm sick of this conversation and I'm sick of your inane and naive blather. Go bug someone else.

                            --
                            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:20AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:20AM (#606688)

                              WTF are you blathering on about? Yes, Heinlein was a smart guy. But I didn't recommend his books to you.

                              You did.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:27AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:27AM (#606001)

              Oh, and by the way, I chose 'NotSanguine' long ago

              That's nice. Doesn't change the fact that English words - including sanguine - often have multiple and varied meanings [dictionary.com].

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:36AM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:36AM (#606009) Homepage Journal

                Oh, and by the way, I chose 'NotSanguine' long ago

                That's nice. Doesn't change the fact that English words - including sanguine - often have multiple and varied meanings [dictionary.com].

                And the multiple definitions confused you? Poor baby. That's why I bothered to explain. I wouldn't want you to get your knickers in a twist over a misunderstanding.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:42PM

            by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:42PM (#606379) Journal

            Considering its historical usage as evidenced by today's dictionary definitions, perhaps it it is you who should read more books of substance instead of watching just funny cat videos.

            Put down the comic books? Cat videos?

            NotSanguine and you have hashed out the dictionary thing already, so I'll leave that alone. The tone of your reply suggests you took my comment personally, and it wasn't meant that way. I have no idea who you are, how old you are, where you live, etc, so my question of whether your first language were English was sincere, not rhetorical. There are lots of people on this site with English as good as yours who have never lived in or visited an English-speaking country, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

            Past performance is not indicative of future results.

            I'm actually partial to using them as indicators, [wikipedia.org] although I agree that they're not an absolute guarantee. In this case, NotSanguine confirmed my guess, [soylentnews.org] so I'm satisfied with my analysis.

            --
            Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:03AM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:03AM (#605441)

      you should be excited about figuring out how society could be organized to have as little coercion as possible.

      I'd rather be excited about figuring out how to stop, or even slow down society from moving inexorably against the interests of the majority, against the welfare of future generations (who will, in all likelihood outnumber us), and against the welfare of the environment which is, after all, the source and sustainer of humanity.

      After all that, yeah, coercion is in there somewhere... was somebody extraordinarily coerced as a child?

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Tuesday December 05 2017, @07:42PM

    by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @07:42PM (#605777) Journal

    Look past your identity and start to think about the way things are structure, and how they instead could be structured.
    If you think of yourself as a member of Civilization, then you should be excited about figuring out how society could be organized to have as little coercion as possible. So, why are you so mad?

    I've heard this before... [soylentnews.org]

    Note that your critical questions are based on a foundation of uncertainty: What happens when a person doesn't agree? Well, what you're talking about is a case that is not well defined; what's wrong with pointing out the virtue in really thinking about how to define such cases in a way that reduces the feeling of coercion for all parties involved? That should be a topic that excites those who are interested in building a civilized society.

    Building a civilized society and living in a civilized society are two distinct activities, and it is appropriate to dissociate the one from the other. Building a society generally happens where one has failed and another needs to take its place; such events are called "revolutions", and they are typically both violent and extremely rushed for time. In the best case scenario they are meticulously planned out, with a lot of thought in advance regarding what sort of society should be set up afterwards. In some cases this was done well, in others not so much. [existentialcomics.com] (give this link a chance, it's on topic even though it takes a while to get to the point).

    I think the reason for the outrage you get in response to your posts is that you use a lot of absolute language, stridently decrying the failings you perceive in society. You insist that your opinions are obviously true, and interpret contradictory arguments as personal attacks. It is easy to read into the thread of your comments that you believe our forum members have not thought through their opinions and don't have an appreciate of history; in fact, you've said exactly that in the past: [soylentnews.org]

    As far as being a repititious [sic] troll who doesn't comprehend what he's saying and has no appreciation for history, well, the feeling is mutual; that's how the rest of your "ideas" and "responses" appear to me

    Believe it or not, may of us have read Locke, Hobbes, Marx, Hamilton, and others; this site frequently discusses the philosophy of government and directions we'd like to see society move. This is the second time that I've seen you suggest that a commenter is uninterested in making society better because they disagree with you; you misunderstand the situation. We've see the results of the long discussions on government and its ideal forms, and recognize the absurdities that our world's finest thinkers have reached as conclusions. [existentialcomics.com] We also recognize that the discussion of how to form a new government from scratch is an intellectual exercise in most cases, since revolutions don't happen every day. Those of us who engage in such exercises expect a fairly high standard of those who participate, since they need to stand toe-to-toe with big-name philosophers from our past.

    Bringing this post back to my original statement, you should also be warned that mistrust of those with a revolutionary zeal is a both common and appropriate reaction from those living in a civilized society. Loudly proclaiming that rapid, fundamental changes to society are needed immediately is an indicator the the proclaimer is OK with there being blood on the streets to make it happen. Be glad that they are only reaching for their mod points and not their guns as a response. It's fine to have a discussion of ideal government; please temper it with a bit of humility rather than hubris.

    --
    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]