I've been actually watching the way these big telcos and cable companies work,
Have you also been watching how 80% of internet's physical nodes are located or controlled by your country despite the complains from all the world?
And they speak about "neutrality"...
Is anybody here saying the dinosaur is dead? Actually, in other parts of the world I understand the speeds we here in the US consider "fast" would be regarded as almost painfully slow. So--- the rest of the world has done wonders with 20%, and I can only imagine it's some idea of US security/we invented it/copyright/patents and I don't know what all else slowing things down about getting more physical nodes online elsewhere in the world.
As the United States moves to regulate broadband Internet service as a public utility, the Netherlands offers a rare case study of what could await American consumers and companies. The Netherlands was the second country in the world to adopt so-called open Internet rules, after Chile. ... As with the American plan, Dutch carriers cannot discriminate among types of content, say by putting the brakes on data-hungry services like movie streaming. Nor can they charge extra for faster speeds and more reliable connections to the Internet’s pipelines, which could give deep-pocketed technology companies an advantage over fledgling start-ups. ... Consumers have not cried foul en masse over the costs. Dutch consumer groups say cellphone and cable packages in the last two years have remained relatively stable, with contracts priced at as little as $25 a month for the ability to stream online content. The average cellphone contract in the Netherlands is about one-third the price of an equivalent plan in the United States.
Sophie van Haasen, 31, a social worker, uses her mobile data package to stream music online through her Spotify account, and she said she was thinking about signing up for Netflix, mostly to watch the series “House of Cards.” She pays about $35 a month for her cellphone, and $40 for home broadband.
That's very nice. But the reality is that police don't respect you, the civilian. Shouldn't respect be a two way street?
When our political masters decide demonstrations or political unrest is to be suppressed, the police will do so even when blatantly unconstitutional. They have no problem pounding you to settle “unrest.”
Look at the New York City republican party convention. The demonstrators were peaceful but convention organizers and goers felt uneasy. Mayor Bloomberg listened and told his police to get the demonstrators off the streets and keep them off the streets.
Normally, a demonstration with demonstrators blocking traffic are given a disorderly summons to appear in court, provided they have valid ID's. But in this case mass arrests were initiated by corralling demonstrators with moving barriers whereupon they were brought to an abandoned pier on the Hudson river and held. Even when the magistrates told the city to move them to the courts for disposition the police refused. They kept holding them. Finally they were moved when the city was told that police and city officials will be held in contempt and the city would be significantly fined for each demonstrator held illegally.
To initiate this action a meeting was help by the mayor's office, police officials and the city lawyers. The message from the Mayor was “get them off the streets. Don't worry about constitutional issues. The city counsel will take care of legal issues.”
When all was said and done the demonstrators were kept off the streets without the opportunity to get counsel or a court arraignment hearing, causing a chilling effect on subsequent demonstrations. Subsequently charges were dropped and years later millions were paid to demonstrators who were illegally held. A cost of doing business. New York City pays about 200 million every year due to police malfeasance.
Instead of debating shoot to wound (which is not practical) or shoot to whatever, just train not to shoot. England with its mostly unarmed police manage.
Quote
Michael Brown’s death was part of a tragic and unacceptable pattern: Police officers in the United States shoot and kill civilians in shockingly high numbers. How many killings are there each year? No one can say for sure, because police departments don’t want us to know.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, in 2013 there were 461 “justifiable homicides” by police — defined as “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.” In all but three of these reported killings, officers used firearms.
The true number of fatal police shootings is surely much higher, however, because many law enforcement agencies do not report to the FBI database. Attempts by journalists to compile more complete data by collating local news reports have resulted in estimates as high as 1,000 police killings a year. There is no way to know how many victims, like Brown, were unarmed.
By contrast, there were no fatal police shootings in Great Britain last year. Not one. In Germany, there have been eight police killings over the past two years. In Canada — a country with its own frontier ethos and no great aversion to firearms — police shootings average about a dozen a year.
Is it too much to ask for the US police to be civilized or to be trained to become civilized as is in most first class countries?
The laws in the US are written to effectively give police immunity. Unlike regular citizens, with police shootings you have to prove that the police acted purposefully in a malicious manner.
Quote
Things reached fever pitch when Seattle police officer Ian Birk shot and killed John T. Williams, an unarmed Native American woodcarver. Williams was walking on a downtown Seattle street, tool in hand. As he crossed the street in front of a police car, the officer got out, followed Williams and ordered him to drop his knife.
Just seven seconds later, when Williams failed to comply, the officer shot him multiple times. Later, that officer testified he felt threatened.
Like the shooting of Michael Brown, this case went to local and state authorities for review of possible criminal charges. In January 2011, a local inquest jury found that the officer was not in danger, and that Williams (who had hearing impairments) did not have adequate time to drop his knife.
But a majority of jurors also found that the officer did believe Williams was a threat. They made this seemingly contradictory ruling because the state sets a very high legal burden for prosecuting police. Under state law, the prosecutor must prove an officer acted with malice and without a good faith belief the shooting was justified. There was insufficient evidence to meet that standard, so the local state prosecutor determined state charges could not be brought.
Quote
After looking at the facts, we concluded that we couldn’t bring criminal civil rights charges. Federal law sets a very high bar, and essentially requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer intended to deprive a person of his civil rights. Evidence that an officer feared for his life or acted according to training could defeat such a case. It is exceedingly difficult to prove such specific motivation.
Which is why in overwhelming cases police shootings are not prosecuted. And if you do have some evidence of the above the evidence to the Grand Jury can be tailored to not meet the proof needed for prosecution.
A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.
Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.
Quote
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.
Quote
A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.
Its not a police psychology problem.
Its a military and police psychology problem. Americans fawn over anything having to do with the police and military. We're inundated by that stuff.
In most American fairs or large exhibitions there is a military presence or display and often a police demonstration. You will always see the public fawning and drooling over the displays and demonstrations by their "heroes", like 2 year olds getting candy.
Video of the moments after black teenager Michael Brown was fatally shot by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, indicates that a witness on the scene said the unarmed 18-year-old's hands were raised when he was killed.
The cell phone footage, released by CNN, of two construction workers at the scene early last month appears to support accounts by other witnesses that Brown was retreating or surrendering when he was shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, legal experts said on Friday.
The video shows one of the men raising his hands immediately after the fatal shooting and shouting, "He had his fuckin' hands up."
The way it works is that the prosecutor submits the witnesses.
Witnesses are interviewed by prosecutors and detectives assigned to the prosecutor. If some witnesses says the Brown's hands are up and others say they were not, those witnesses may be told their stories are not consistent with what others told. They will be badgered to "be sure of the truth, are you really, really sure because your story is inconsistent with what we heard. We really need the truth. You are under oath and we'd hate for you to be found guilty of perjury."
In all the excitement no one is really sure. The witnesses will say so and not brought to the Grand Jury due to unreliable testimony.
That does happen. I don't know if it happened in Ferguson.
I wouldn't be so sure about testimony from the AF community proving innocence of the cop.
We do know that construction workers who worked at the incident site stated that Ferguson was backing up with his hands up when shot multiple times.
The thing about American grand juries is that it is run by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is the one who decides what evidence is submitted to the Grand Jury. Hence the saying that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
It also works the other way around. A prosecutor can selectively submit to lessen the chance of indictment. That rarely happens, but does happen.
This prosecutor is very, very pro-cop. His father was a cop who was shot and died in the line of duty.
FERGUSON, Mo. - The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown has deep family roots among police: his father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for St. Louis' police department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect.
This churlishness over salutes highlights the degeneration of American society.
No president before Reagan saluted. That includes real patriots and presidents who were in the military like T Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Now we have this faux patriotism and love of country which has to be shown by salutes and politicians standing before phalanxes of the American flag. Also, make sure an American flag lapel is worn.
Politicians don't have the balls to stop this bs. They're so very scared of being labeled un-american or unpatriotic.
Who would have thought that the necessary political test for patriotism and love of country is the wearing of a flag lapel, of giving the correct salute and of having a phalanx of flags behind you when giving a speech.
Proud Irish Americans? Not only a great example of hypocrisy but the same lot were deeply involved in crime and corruption right across American history. Even during the Civil War thousands refused to fight in it and went on a destruction sweep through New York burning, looting and hanging blacks. The army had to be called in so their weakness is a long term thing.. However i will say this. Your lot of murdering scumbags would have been ideal recruits for IS. One major difference though in that IS fights in the face whereas your pals don't as they haven't got the balls. Same mentality and cruelty so your corner fits in quite neatly with this thread so thanks for the reminder.
It was murdering Irish scum, as you refer to the Irish, that helped saved your bacon during WW 1. The Irish fighting 69th Regiment fought to preserve your degenerate British empire for another 20 years.
RJ, it has nothing to do with us being "softies" and everything to do with being litigious in general. I could wish we were becoming softies. That might be fixable. I'm not so sure there is a fix for greed though.
Yeah, I'm kinda disgusted by the whole sodden mess, but there doesn't seem to be any end in sight.
It also has to do with softness. Just look at freerangekids.com at the many examples of stupidity. So many worrying about every little thing and just begging or approving of governmental laws and regulations for control and restrictions hoping to ensure an absolutely risk free environment.
....During the American revolution, I'm sure the British said the same about American "terrorist." Look at those "terrorists" hiding their weapons in their houses. When they formed their militias, those colonial terrorists actually brought their muskets from their farmhouses instead of keeping them stockpiled in armories as decent armies do. Did you consider the American revolutionaries, who kept their weapons at home, little bitches?......
There is no possible comparison whatsoever between the Cowardly Hamas of 2014, & the American Patriots of 1776 ...... None whatsoever.
I'm not the one who made the connection between hiding weapons at home and "cowardly little bitches."
I know the American revolutionaries were not cowardly. You should not assume the Hamas terrorists or freedom fighters are also cowardly. For Hamas, the easy, lucrative and comfortable thing would be to make an "accommodation" with the US and Israel. You'll then see the US government flying in tons of 100 dollar bills to personally give to Hamas leaders. That's what we did for the warlords in Afghanistan when they reached an "accomodation" with us.
Has Israel had 400 children killed in this latest event? Has it had 2,000 iilled altother? Nope a handful outside of the military
Did Israel act like a bunch of little bitches hiding their weapons in civilian neighborhood, knowing that will get innocent people killed? I have to wonder of the Palestinians wouldn't have their state already, if not for Hamas. Today Israel and Hamas signed a three day truce. Let's see how long it takes for Hamas to break it.
I understand the GAZA population density is similar to an American city. The whole area is like a city.
Which brings up the problem, where are weapons supposed to be hidden? In armories? I doubt Israel would allow Hamas to create and keep armories. In police stations? To have weapons concentrated in police stations would make it very easy for Israel to confiscate them.
So enlighten me where you think the weapons should be kept.
During the American revolution, I'm sure the British said the same about American "terrorist." Look at those "terrorists" hiding their weapons in their houses. When they formed their militias, those colonial terrorists actually brought their muskets from their farmhouses instead of keeping them stockpiled in armories as decent armies do. Did you consider the American revolutionaries, who kept their weapons at home, little bitches?
A change of policy regarding our puppet 51st state is needed. Or, in the event that Israel chooses to ignore our directives, I say we pull the plug on funding, arms, etc. and see if they do not learn their lesson.
You're wrong about the relationship.
The de facto state of affairs, if not de jure, is that the US is a vassal of Israel. Why? US politicians have made it such.
Watch any address of the Israeli PM to the US congress. You will see the congressmen wildly cheering and applauding as if its a personal visitation by the Messiah. No one, not even any president gets that response.
See the latest - where we have congressmen and senators lining up and fighting to show they are more pro-Israel than anyone else.
Israel wants more money for Iron Dome? No problem. This usual dysfunctional congress suddenly woke up, like a Vampire from its grave at night, and instantly passed a $225 million appropriation for Iron Dome. Two days later the bill was signed by the president.
Compare that to Sandy aid to the Northeast. Congress was hedging and delaying until the Northeast congress critters reminded other regions that they have been previous recipient of much Federal aid when they needed it. For Israel there is no hedging.
At the State Department we used to predict that if Israel's prime minister should announce that the world is flat, within 24 hours Congress would pass a resolution congratulating him on the discovery."- A CHANGING IMAGE, Richard H. Curtiss Foreign Service Officer
Well string I seen a newspaper article and a mention on television so millions were aware of this latest disgrace. So being so known kind of covers the thing.
So have I, in many media outlets.
The 800 babies and children thrown into a pit in one religious orphanage (so much for respectful sanctity life), the Magdalene Sisters, the government reports detailing the very many horrific cases of physical and sexual child abuse...
When I see a post asking for links, my response in cases like this, where its so easy to find is "do you own research." I don't know why some need to have everything handed on a silver platter.
I remember reading the written papers by our founders on the 2nd Amendment. They wrote that the amendment is to protect the people against a national army, despotic power, using local organized militias. The papers were quite obvious the right to arms were because of the need to arm local militias.
The NRA has part of the 2nd Amendment engraved on their building. They left the part about "militias" out of their engraving.
Guns can obviously restricted. Many states have gun control laws which are legal. That is why the NRA goes into paroxysm with threats to politicians because they damn well know laws to restrict guns can be passed.
