You spent several posts trying to defend your assumed support of Jesus for capitalism. And now you suddenly claim you never said he was a capitalist? Technically, no you didn't say he was a capitalist. You said he would embrace capitalism instead of communist bullshit. I posted some quotes and said he doesn't sound like much of a capitalist. You disagreed. Now you're apparently backing away from that. That's fine.
If you're not going to say what he IS, then the discussion is free to move to what he IS NOT. And I said he is not a communist or a socialist. So? The fact that Jesus is not a communist does not exclude your "huge range of options."
Perhaps that is what you wish you said or meant to say. However, it is simple to look at the thread above and see that you actually said: What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism... I didn't make any claims to Jesus's support for any economic system, that was you, remember?
Frankly I don't know why you're hung up on Jesus and the Bible in this discussion
I'm not "hung up" on Jesus and the Bible. You took the conversation there and I disagreed with your spurious claim.
...And in the question "What Would Jesus Do?" the operative word is WOULD. Not DID. It's not "What DID Jesus Do." So the question of whether Jesus WAS a capitalist or a communist is neither here nor there. Those concepts were not well formed back then. Jesus was none of those things, which is why I said it's highly unlikely that you'll find quotes espousing any economic system.
I didn't claim he was a capitalist or communist, only that your original claim was bullshit. If you want to believe that Jesus would be the Wolf of Wall Street rather than Mother Teresa, feel free. Just realize that you have no actual support for the idea.
Modern countries with great safety nets for the poor, like say Denmark, are "more capitalist" than, say, the USSR. Therefore "more capitalist" societies can do a better job at providing safety nets. And I'm not just being tongue-in-cheek here or arguing on a technicality -- I think it's the fact that Denmark is more capitalist than the USSR that gives them the wealth to provide those safety nets. And ultimately safety nets are as much a function of wealth as government type or economic system.
Wow. Denmark is your example of a more capitalist society? Denmark has the highest total tax pressure in the world. It has the smallest private sector in Europe and supports one of the biggest public sectors. It is generally considered one of the most socialist nations today and the antithesis of what capitalists want in their world. Denmark’s people also constantly rank among the happiest in the world and they work far less hours than Americans, while enjoying excellent infrastructure, health care, and other measures of quality of life.
If Jesus says "Sell everything and give it to the poor" that doesn't become a commandment, it just means Jesus wants you to give to the poor, and ideally give enough that it makes you uncomfortable.
You remind me of too many Christians who give a bad name to that Jesus guy. He apparently made some pretty clear statements but you're sure he didn't really mean them. Between me and you, I'm okay with you not caring what Jesus said, or not believing that the Bible accurately reflects it, or any other host of arguments. But to claim that he didn't mean what he said is a pretty weak one.
You posted some stuff from the Bible that was supposed to show Jesus endorsing communism, and I don't think it did.
Again, your simplistic black or white view makes the conversation difficult. I never said he endorsed communism. I said he wasn't a capitalist. There is a huge range of options between those two. But you've assumed that someone opposing unbridled capitalism must be a communist.
Seriously, if you don't want to have a discussion, why did you bother posting?
I enjoy a good conversation but posts like yours tend to irritate me. I say things that I normally wouldn't or come off ruder than I probably should have. The views you've shared on this thread are terribly simplistic and unrealistic. Posting stuff like
capitalism has created more wealth for the poor and meek than any other economic system. While millions starved under Communism, the more capitalist grew rich and developed social safety nets for the poor...What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism.
indicates that you have a very shallow understanding of economics, history, and religion. You've done nothing thus far to disabuse me of that notion. Perhaps they don't really represent your thoughts, but what you've posted really leaves little room for discussion. Capitalism does not exist in the real world. Neither does communism. Capitalism is a brutal system that results in most of the wealth concentrated at the top, some middle class trying to grab their piece of the pie, and a lot of really poor people at the bottom. Communist systems theoretically eliminate this huge disparity but have little incentive for growth and are inherently unworkable because they require people in charge who will take advantage. What you have in the real world is a mix of these and other economic systems in various quantities. More capitalistic societies have done poorer at providing safety nets for those that the capitalists build their wealth upon. Less capitalistic societies have done poorer at harnessing human ingenuity and sustaining growth.
You equate selling all of your possessions, giving the money to the poor, and giving up your life to follow Jesus with selling some stuff and giving a pittance to charity? The rest of your retorts are equally ridicules and ill conceived.
"Oh gee, capitalism sounds evil, Jesus wouldn't approve, let's just be communist even though it makes everyone's lives worse."
Your fascination with capitalism vs communism and the good/evil nature of these theoretical economic systems is juvenile. I never suggested that either system is good or bad. I merely pointed out the error of your WWJD comment.
The fact that you refer to a contraceptive as a recreational drug speaks volumes. Whether you're trolling or willfully ignorant, I've wasted enough time on this thread.
They do not want their health insurance plan to cover contraceptives. The pill is a contraceptive. Despite many other common usage by doctors, that still is the only on-label use for it. None of the other common usages of the pill will be covered if the religious groups are successful. It doesn't matter the reason the doctor wants to prescribe it; it will not be covered. Why do you pretend otherwise?
Really? The common off-label uses of the pill suddenly makes it not a contraceptive? If being used for a teenager with heavy and irregular periods, it no longer prevents pregnancy? Your attempted analogies aren't even close to the actual discussion here.
Matthew 19:20-22 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
Luke 12:32-34 Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God
Luke 12:16-20 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
Luke 12:22-26 Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?
I haven't tried it myself but I read the review on Anand's site a month or so ago and they were very impressed with how it worked. NVIDIA's Tegra 4 SOC has a quad-core CPU plus a low-powered fifth core invisible to the OS. Apparently NVIDIA is using some proprietary algorithms on this "stealth core" to handle the stylus processing.
I'm guessing you didn't bother to read anything about the product before posting? I consider hitting a $200 price point with nice hardware very worthy of mention. Also of interest is the high quality stylus support implemented without the need for specialized hardware and the first Android tablet from NVIDIA and their manufacturing model of providing reference models for their partners to brand and sell.
Stop saying "free storage". It's not. There are two things. First, the power co doesn't "store" those electrons, they SELL THEM. It's more like a loan, and you're the bank.
To the homeowner it is storage - I generate more power than I need during the day and I'm allowed to use that excess power in the evenings. Without the power company and their grid, I would have to implement my own storage system with batteries. Regardless of how the electricity utility balances it on their side, they are providing me the service of electricity storage.
Second, they power co benefits from your electrons. During peak times, which is generally when the sun is shining and people have their AC cranked, the power co would normally have to send tons of power out, losing a TON in the transmission due to capacitance and resistance loss. Until we get superconducting wiring to the transformers, they suffer loss. But when someone sends power to a nearby neighbor, far fewer electrons are lost and the power company charges them the full amount, yet would have to send far more energy from the power plant if not for that neighbor.
They benefit only if they need those electrons at the time I'm putting them there. If they can't count on my power generation (which they can't), then they still have pay for the electricity from a traditional source (e.g. coal-fired power plant).
I can't speak to the specifics of the Austin Energy system but as an IT manager in the public utility space, I can promise you that few CIS/billing system upgrades go well and most people who go through one swear off ever doing it again. Many utilities are still stumbling along on legacy systems written 30-40 years ago on platforms increasingly difficult to support and customized in house by staffs outsourced in the past decade. The rules and regs vary from state to state and business logic is often very different between types of utilities, but the consultant or salesperson will assure you that they can handle your RFP without issue. Once you figure out otherwise, you are deep into a project that you're unlikely to do again in your career.
However, if Austin Energy is getting misreads from an AMR or AMI setup (my assumption given your comment about a smart meter), something is really wrong. That isn't bleeding edge technology and lots of companies have been doing it for years. Our limited AMR deployment generates near zero complaints about misreads, unlike our manual reads or estimates. We estimate that a full AMR rollout would eliminate nearly 40% of the calls to our call center.
Tell the school to kiss your ass. They don't have the power to say how your kid gets to school or how they get home. They will certainly try to pretend that they do and will make a bunch of noise. But that's about all they can do.
Some will have you arrested. This dad wasn't allowed to walk into the school and pick up his kid. Instead, he was expected to stand outside in a line with vehicles for 40 minutes.
Even younger than that. My wife is fortyish and remembers it. It was common for parents to basically kick kids out of the house so they could have some time to themselves.
I'm not yet fortyish and that's how it worked in my house as a kid. Mom literally locked the door and we weren't allowed back in the house until dinner time.
Not with Apple, and AppleCare. If they have the same system in an Apple store often they'll just swap it out if something is really wrong...
Yes, if you are lucky and the folks at the store are able to successfully diagnose the problem, have spare equipment in stock, and are willing to make the exchange for you. Of course, for me the nearest Apple store is a three hour drive into a neighboring state so that's not a great answer.
I was a long time Newegg customer and fan until my Black Friday laptop two years ago. They shipped me a DOA unit (which was a common issue in this model as comments after Black Friday revealed). They were reasonably quick to suggest a few basic troubleshooting items and issue an RMA. Then it went to hell. Long story short, they received my laptop then lost it. They lied to me repeatedly, blamed it on the carrier, refused to cooperate with the carrier (who was willing to cover it despite the obvious problems with Newegg's story), and strung out the process over several months. I eventually filed a claim with my credit card company and got my money back. I have refused to deal with them since. I don't remember being treated so poorly by any vendor in the past decade.
I fail to understand why international espionage comes as a shock to anyone.
Look at the submitter. He's also one of the most active posters in the thread. This is propaganda from 'cold fjord' - a straw man that he builds, feigning outrage about run-of-the-mill international spying in hopes of distracting you from the massive illegal surveillance of ordinary US citizens practiced by the US government.
So you can get to the front of the security line, see the x-ray machines, metal detectors, scanners, etc., you're free to turn around and leave, and the TSA cannot prevent you from leaving.
It's a fourth amendment issue only if they prevent you from voluntarily leaving after deciding that you'd feel violated.
"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami. Such passengers will be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.
Once you are near the TSA security check points, you are not allowed to leave. The "Don't touch my junk" guy was told that he was being ejected from the airport while simultaneously being told that he would be arrested and fined $11,000 if he tried to leave. Not only was the underwear dude in San Diego arrested, another passenger who filmed the encounter on her iPhone also was arrested and had her phone confiscated for "illegally filming".
I believe that you've misunderstood my response to the GP...
Also, your "basic economics" argument is fairly blind in that it relies on economics to solve every problem. If we depended on "basic economics" for all of our progress, the Internet would probably never have been invented in the first place. It was developed by ARPA [wikipedia.org] which, as a military research agency, is not governed or funded by "basic economics" but rather by cold war paranoia.
The GP suggested that allowing multiple carriers to build competing, redundant infrastructure would somehow solve the lack of competition. He implied that the market would magically fix everything. My argument isn't blind to other options. In fact, in another post in this thread I pointed out that a better solution is to have the government own the local infrastructure or at least require that the local utility provides transportation services to anyone who wants to use their pipes.
But if you want to beat the economics drum, consider the South Korean [cnn.com] model wherein the infrastructure is funded by the government and shared by private enterprises that rent the infrastructure and compete on service and performance aspects rather than infrastructure related ones.
Again, you're not arguing against me but the GP to which I responded. I agree. Provide the access as a government service and let private companies compete for the service.
One minor point with your post:
You have a point about companies requiring an incentive to invest, but last time I checked, margins for these enormous cable companies is about 8% -- not a bad ROI at all.
First 8% is not a strong return. I work for a regulated public utility and our maximum rate of return is capped in the 9.5% to 10% range (it varies from year to year). To investors, we are a safe and slow bet - as long as we do things right they aren't going to lose money but even 10% isn't sexy. Second, whatever the return achieved by cable companies, there's no way they are going to get that kind of return in a competitive market. They make their money in monopoly arrangements where most of their customers choose the incumbent provider or no service. My point was that the ROI isn't there for these same companies to build a network where someone else already has one and already has most of the customers.
I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to post your anti-Netflix bullshit. As pointed out in a sibling post already, Netflix hosts on AWS and your claims about Netflix randomly switching carriers doesn't even make sense.
Further, Netflix has built its own CDN hardware and network and tried very hard to work with ISPs to get this equipment in their data centers. They've deployed CDN units to hundreds of ISPs but the big boys won't play. I don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that these ISPs also sell content and have no desire to improve Netflix's performance.
Here's the thing - that is so expensive to do, that it's not going to be a half-dozen; at any one time in may be one or two. And what is so bad about allowing that?
In my county, there is one option for Internet service - the local cable company. The franchise agreement is not exclusive. However, there is no way for a second company to show reasonable ROI on duplicating the existing infrastructure in order to compete. They are better off finding another area where they can be the exclusive provider or simply buying the other company. Basic economics makes your suggestion bad for everyone but the company who owns the only network in the neighborhood.
ever since those heady days of the first internet rush it's been only mediocrity from cable companies and DSL providers alike. So I say let whoever has the capital literally pave a path to my door.
Again, you miss the realities of simple business economics. What is the motivation for someone else to build an expensive network where there already are incumbent providers? They have to convince you to leave your current company or bring something so new and exciting that they create new customers, and in such quantities to show sufficient returns on the capital invested.
I work for a public utility. We are regulated by the state PUC and are capped at 9.5% - 10% profit (it varies from year to year). We primarily distribute natural gas but the state also requires that we offer transportation services for anyone who wants it. A customer can go to any producer or interstate transporter with connections to our pipe network, buy their own gas, and have it delivered via our pipes. While this could work, the customer contracts are complex and billing is complicated.
It seems much simpler to make the local network a government-owned facility to which any number of carriers can connect at defined delivery points. This eliminates your problem of multiple carriers digging up the street for their own last mile and there is no need for another regulated utility.
Actually, isn't this the guy who was a director of something at AOL during their years of rot and a director of user experience at the shithole known as Yahoo?
Slashdot Mirror
I never said he was a capitalist.
You spent several posts trying to defend your assumed support of Jesus for capitalism. And now you suddenly claim you never said he was a capitalist? Technically, no you didn't say he was a capitalist. You said he would embrace capitalism instead of communist bullshit. I posted some quotes and said he doesn't sound like much of a capitalist. You disagreed. Now you're apparently backing away from that. That's fine.
If you're not going to say what he IS, then the discussion is free to move to what he IS NOT. And I said he is not a communist or a socialist. So? The fact that Jesus is not a communist does not exclude your "huge range of options."
Perhaps that is what you wish you said or meant to say. However, it is simple to look at the thread above and see that you actually said: What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism... I didn't make any claims to Jesus's support for any economic system, that was you, remember?
Frankly I don't know why you're hung up on Jesus and the Bible in this discussion
I'm not "hung up" on Jesus and the Bible. You took the conversation there and I disagreed with your spurious claim.
...And in the question "What Would Jesus Do?" the operative word is WOULD. Not DID. It's not "What DID Jesus Do." So the question of whether Jesus WAS a capitalist or a communist is neither here nor there. Those concepts were not well formed back then. Jesus was none of those things, which is why I said it's highly unlikely that you'll find quotes espousing any economic system.
I didn't claim he was a capitalist or communist, only that your original claim was bullshit. If you want to believe that Jesus would be the Wolf of Wall Street rather than Mother Teresa, feel free. Just realize that you have no actual support for the idea.
Modern countries with great safety nets for the poor, like say Denmark, are "more capitalist" than, say, the USSR. Therefore "more capitalist" societies can do a better job at providing safety nets. And I'm not just being tongue-in-cheek here or arguing on a technicality -- I think it's the fact that Denmark is more capitalist than the USSR that gives them the wealth to provide those safety nets. And ultimately safety nets are as much a function of wealth as government type or economic system.
Wow. Denmark is your example of a more capitalist society? Denmark has the highest total tax pressure in the world. It has the smallest private sector in Europe and supports one of the biggest public sectors. It is generally considered one of the most socialist nations today and the antithesis of what capitalists want in their world. Denmark’s people also constantly rank among the happiest in the world and they work far less hours than Americans, while enjoying excellent infrastructure, health care, and other measures of quality of life.
If Jesus says "Sell everything and give it to the poor" that doesn't become a commandment, it just means Jesus wants you to give to the poor, and ideally give enough that it makes you uncomfortable.
You remind me of too many Christians who give a bad name to that Jesus guy. He apparently made some pretty clear statements but you're sure he didn't really mean them. Between me and you, I'm okay with you not caring what Jesus said, or not believing that the Bible accurately reflects it, or any other host of arguments. But to claim that he didn't mean what he said is a pretty weak one.
You posted some stuff from the Bible that was supposed to show Jesus endorsing communism, and I don't think it did.
Again, your simplistic black or white view makes the conversation difficult. I never said he endorsed communism. I said he wasn't a capitalist. There is a huge range of options between those two. But you've assumed that someone opposing unbridled capitalism must be a communist.
Seriously, if you don't want to have a discussion, why did you bother posting?
I enjoy a good conversation but posts like yours tend to irritate me. I say things that I normally wouldn't or come off ruder than I probably should have. The views you've shared on this thread are terribly simplistic and unrealistic. Posting stuff like
capitalism has created more wealth for the poor and meek than any other economic system. While millions starved under Communism, the more capitalist grew rich and developed social safety nets for the poor...What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism.
indicates that you have a very shallow understanding of economics, history, and religion. You've done nothing thus far to disabuse me of that notion. Perhaps they don't really represent your thoughts, but what you've posted really leaves little room for discussion. Capitalism does not exist in the real world. Neither does communism. Capitalism is a brutal system that results in most of the wealth concentrated at the top, some middle class trying to grab their piece of the pie, and a lot of really poor people at the bottom. Communist systems theoretically eliminate this huge disparity but have little incentive for growth and are inherently unworkable because they require people in charge who will take advantage. What you have in the real world is a mix of these and other economic systems in various quantities. More capitalistic societies have done poorer at providing safety nets for those that the capitalists build their wealth upon. Less capitalistic societies have done poorer at harnessing human ingenuity and sustaining growth.
You equate selling all of your possessions, giving the money to the poor, and giving up your life to follow Jesus with selling some stuff and giving a pittance to charity? The rest of your retorts are equally ridicules and ill conceived.
"Oh gee, capitalism sounds evil, Jesus wouldn't approve, let's just be communist even though it makes everyone's lives worse."
Your fascination with capitalism vs communism and the good/evil nature of these theoretical economic systems is juvenile. I never suggested that either system is good or bad. I merely pointed out the error of your WWJD comment.
The fact that you refer to a contraceptive as a recreational drug speaks volumes. Whether you're trolling or willfully ignorant, I've wasted enough time on this thread.
They do not want their health insurance plan to cover contraceptives. The pill is a contraceptive. Despite many other common usage by doctors, that still is the only on-label use for it. None of the other common usages of the pill will be covered if the religious groups are successful. It doesn't matter the reason the doctor wants to prescribe it; it will not be covered. Why do you pretend otherwise?
Really? The common off-label uses of the pill suddenly makes it not a contraceptive? If being used for a teenager with heavy and irregular periods, it no longer prevents pregnancy? Your attempted analogies aren't even close to the actual discussion here.
Matthew 19:20-22 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
Luke 12:32-34 Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God
Luke 12:16-20 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
Luke 12:22-26 Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?
Doesn't sound like much of a capitalist to me...
Birth control pills are hormones and are prescribed for more than just preventing pregnancies.
I haven't tried it myself but I read the review on Anand's site a month or so ago and they were very impressed with how it worked. NVIDIA's Tegra 4 SOC has a quad-core CPU plus a low-powered fifth core invisible to the OS. Apparently NVIDIA is using some proprietary algorithms on this "stealth core" to handle the stylus processing.
I'm guessing you didn't bother to read anything about the product before posting? I consider hitting a $200 price point with nice hardware very worthy of mention. Also of interest is the high quality stylus support implemented without the need for specialized hardware and the first Android tablet from NVIDIA and their manufacturing model of providing reference models for their partners to brand and sell.
No mod points today but I agree 1000% on The Omnivore's Dilemma.
So yeah.. What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism..
Assuming you believe the New Testament of the Bible represents the words, or at least the intent, of Jesus, you can just see what Jesus had to say.
Armchair communists are so stupid.
Rabid Christian Capitalists are hypocrites and, generally speaking, embarrassingly ignorant of both economics and religion.
Stop saying "free storage". It's not. There are two things. First, the power co doesn't "store" those electrons, they SELL THEM. It's more like a loan, and you're the bank.
To the homeowner it is storage - I generate more power than I need during the day and I'm allowed to use that excess power in the evenings. Without the power company and their grid, I would have to implement my own storage system with batteries. Regardless of how the electricity utility balances it on their side, they are providing me the service of electricity storage.
Second, they power co benefits from your electrons. During peak times, which is generally when the sun is shining and people have their AC cranked, the power co would normally have to send tons of power out, losing a TON in the transmission due to capacitance and resistance loss. Until we get superconducting wiring to the transformers, they suffer loss. But when someone sends power to a nearby neighbor, far fewer electrons are lost and the power company charges them the full amount, yet would have to send far more energy from the power plant if not for that neighbor.
They benefit only if they need those electrons at the time I'm putting them there. If they can't count on my power generation (which they can't), then they still have pay for the electricity from a traditional source (e.g. coal-fired power plant).
I can't speak to the specifics of the Austin Energy system but as an IT manager in the public utility space, I can promise you that few CIS/billing system upgrades go well and most people who go through one swear off ever doing it again. Many utilities are still stumbling along on legacy systems written 30-40 years ago on platforms increasingly difficult to support and customized in house by staffs outsourced in the past decade. The rules and regs vary from state to state and business logic is often very different between types of utilities, but the consultant or salesperson will assure you that they can handle your RFP without issue. Once you figure out otherwise, you are deep into a project that you're unlikely to do again in your career.
However, if Austin Energy is getting misreads from an AMR or AMI setup (my assumption given your comment about a smart meter), something is really wrong. That isn't bleeding edge technology and lots of companies have been doing it for years. Our limited AMR deployment generates near zero complaints about misreads, unlike our manual reads or estimates. We estimate that a full AMR rollout would eliminate nearly 40% of the calls to our call center.
Tell the school to kiss your ass. They don't have the power to say how your kid gets to school or how they get home. They will certainly try to pretend that they do and will make a bunch of noise. But that's about all they can do.
Some will have you arrested. This dad wasn't allowed to walk into the school and pick up his kid. Instead, he was expected to stand outside in a line with vehicles for 40 minutes.
Even younger than that. My wife is fortyish and remembers it. It was common for parents to basically kick kids out of the house so they could have some time to themselves.
I'm not yet fortyish and that's how it worked in my house as a kid. Mom literally locked the door and we weren't allowed back in the house until dinner time.
Not with Apple, and AppleCare. If they have the same system in an Apple store often they'll just swap it out if something is really wrong...
Yes, if you are lucky and the folks at the store are able to successfully diagnose the problem, have spare equipment in stock, and are willing to make the exchange for you. Of course, for me the nearest Apple store is a three hour drive into a neighboring state so that's not a great answer.
I was a long time Newegg customer and fan until my Black Friday laptop two years ago. They shipped me a DOA unit (which was a common issue in this model as comments after Black Friday revealed). They were reasonably quick to suggest a few basic troubleshooting items and issue an RMA. Then it went to hell. Long story short, they received my laptop then lost it. They lied to me repeatedly, blamed it on the carrier, refused to cooperate with the carrier (who was willing to cover it despite the obvious problems with Newegg's story), and strung out the process over several months. I eventually filed a claim with my credit card company and got my money back. I have refused to deal with them since. I don't remember being treated so poorly by any vendor in the past decade.
I fail to understand why international espionage comes as a shock to anyone.
Look at the submitter. He's also one of the most active posters in the thread. This is propaganda from 'cold fjord' - a straw man that he builds, feigning outrage about run-of-the-mill international spying in hopes of distracting you from the massive illegal surveillance of ordinary US citizens practiced by the US government.
So you can get to the front of the security line, see the x-ray machines, metal detectors, scanners, etc., you're free to turn around and leave, and the TSA cannot prevent you from leaving.
I'm afraid you're wrong.
It's a fourth amendment issue only if they prevent you from voluntarily leaving after deciding that you'd feel violated.
"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami. Such passengers will be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.
Once you are near the TSA security check points, you are not allowed to leave. The "Don't touch my junk" guy was told that he was being ejected from the airport while simultaneously being told that he would be arrested and fined $11,000 if he tried to leave. Not only was the underwear dude in San Diego arrested, another passenger who filmed the encounter on her iPhone also was arrested and had her phone confiscated for "illegally filming".
What's your position on this now?
I believe that you've misunderstood my response to the GP...
Also, your "basic economics" argument is fairly blind in that it relies on economics to solve every problem. If we depended on "basic economics" for all of our progress, the Internet would probably never have been invented in the first place. It was developed by ARPA [wikipedia.org] which, as a military research agency, is not governed or funded by "basic economics" but rather by cold war paranoia.
The GP suggested that allowing multiple carriers to build competing, redundant infrastructure would somehow solve the lack of competition. He implied that the market would magically fix everything. My argument isn't blind to other options. In fact, in another post in this thread I pointed out that a better solution is to have the government own the local infrastructure or at least require that the local utility provides transportation services to anyone who wants to use their pipes.
But if you want to beat the economics drum, consider the South Korean [cnn.com] model wherein the infrastructure is funded by the government and shared by private enterprises that rent the infrastructure and compete on service and performance aspects rather than infrastructure related ones.
Again, you're not arguing against me but the GP to which I responded. I agree. Provide the access as a government service and let private companies compete for the service.
One minor point with your post:
You have a point about companies requiring an incentive to invest, but last time I checked, margins for these enormous cable companies is about 8% -- not a bad ROI at all.
First 8% is not a strong return. I work for a regulated public utility and our maximum rate of return is capped in the 9.5% to 10% range (it varies from year to year). To investors, we are a safe and slow bet - as long as we do things right they aren't going to lose money but even 10% isn't sexy. Second, whatever the return achieved by cable companies, there's no way they are going to get that kind of return in a competitive market. They make their money in monopoly arrangements where most of their customers choose the incumbent provider or no service. My point was that the ROI isn't there for these same companies to build a network where someone else already has one and already has most of the customers.
I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to post your anti-Netflix bullshit. As pointed out in a sibling post already, Netflix hosts on AWS and your claims about Netflix randomly switching carriers doesn't even make sense.
Further, Netflix has built its own CDN hardware and network and tried very hard to work with ISPs to get this equipment in their data centers. They've deployed CDN units to hundreds of ISPs but the big boys won't play. I don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that these ISPs also sell content and have no desire to improve Netflix's performance.
Here's the thing - that is so expensive to do, that it's not going to be a half-dozen; at any one time in may be one or two. And what is so bad about allowing that?
In my county, there is one option for Internet service - the local cable company. The franchise agreement is not exclusive. However, there is no way for a second company to show reasonable ROI on duplicating the existing infrastructure in order to compete. They are better off finding another area where they can be the exclusive provider or simply buying the other company. Basic economics makes your suggestion bad for everyone but the company who owns the only network in the neighborhood.
ever since those heady days of the first internet rush it's been only mediocrity from cable companies and DSL providers alike. So I say let whoever has the capital literally pave a path to my door.
Again, you miss the realities of simple business economics. What is the motivation for someone else to build an expensive network where there already are incumbent providers? They have to convince you to leave your current company or bring something so new and exciting that they create new customers, and in such quantities to show sufficient returns on the capital invested.
I work for a public utility. We are regulated by the state PUC and are capped at 9.5% - 10% profit (it varies from year to year). We primarily distribute natural gas but the state also requires that we offer transportation services for anyone who wants it. A customer can go to any producer or interstate transporter with connections to our pipe network, buy their own gas, and have it delivered via our pipes. While this could work, the customer contracts are complex and billing is complicated.
It seems much simpler to make the local network a government-owned facility to which any number of carriers can connect at defined delivery points. This eliminates your problem of multiple carriers digging up the street for their own last mile and there is no need for another regulated utility.
Actually, isn't this the guy who was a director of something at AOL during their years of rot and a director of user experience at the shithole known as Yahoo?