deploy a *token* amount of FiOS in areas where it's the most profitable and lowest cost
Actually it's the opposite from all the FIOS deployments I've seen or heard about. The big shiny new cities packed full of rich people get utterly left out, while FIOS gets deployed to the cheapest, least-dense areas.
Though I don't have any first-hand knowledge, it appears that Verizon is deploying FIOS aggressively where population density is lowest, and the POTS lines were substantially more expensive to maintain. Typically, that means the cities get left out, while the suburbs get blanketed.
However, that's not really a good thing for the suburbs. Once you've got FIOS coverage, Verizon won't offer $10/month DSL service, and you'll be paying a minimum of $60/month for their lowest-speed internet service. If you want a landline phone and TV with your internet, the figures look better, but most people have cell phones, and many people that want high-speed internet don't want plain old "cable" TV service, so it's a bit of a plot to prop-up their dying businesses by tying them like an anchor around the neck of high-speed internet.
In the end, the local cable TV company was nice enough to offer FASTER internet service, for 1/3rd the price, though that has since slightly increased.
Poster says "government" you switch to "Democrats".
No, poster said "liberal's" and "Obamacare". You are taking one tiny bit I quoted, and taking it completely out of context to make an absolutely idiotic, inaccurate argument.
I'm not sure how you got your numbers, but I assume it was some simple error like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
I'm not sure how you got your numbers, but I assume it was some simple error like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
I'm not sure how you got those numbers, but I assume it was something simple like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
How many elderly could get along without Social Security and Medicare?
It's not some insidious scheme that makes the public believes that Social Security provides a valuable public service, and that it's the morally responsible thing to do. Before SS, there were still plenty of seniors, they just had to go to extremes like eat cat food to survive. On moral grounds, the public does not believe in letting people fall that far, even if they've made foolish investments, so that's the program we have.
The numbers certainly don't lie. Centuries of charity didn't reduce or eliminate poverty. Modern government programs have proven vastly more effective at doing so.
Had I invested that money with the same success as my other investments I would be a multimillionaire.
With a high-risk strategy, there is an opportunity for high rewards, but also complete losses. Social Security is more like an extremely safe investment, where you don't have ample growth, but you do have a guaranteed return. Just consider it one part of your diversified investment, instead of money "stolen" from you.
Since the U.S. doesn't have a state run oil company, U.S. consumers get no special benefit from oil and natural gas production in the US being at an all time high.
You are quite wrong.
"In 1975, the U.S. government banned crude oil exports with only some limited exceptions".
See: "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-163, EPCA)"
Amtrak does indeed lose money, but that's probably because gas taxes are far too low, and the state and federal government are losing huge amounts of money building and maintaining roads and bridges as well... If driving was more expensive, trains would be a better barrgain.
The USPS is a terrible example. Up until this year, they would have been profitable, if not for congress forcing them to pre-fund their retirement/pension plan, like no other company needs to do. USPS has been trying to drop Saturday service for years, which would bring them back to profitability, while still having better service than UPS which also doesnt do Saturday delivery withoout an extra fee. But UPS isnt saddled with congress pushing them around with ridiculous restrictions.
Fedex is a slightly different story, but with their "SmartPost" service, they are basically depending on the USPS to do their parcel deliveries for them, so if USPS disappears, Fedex wont be profitable, either.
GP said $7k OVER 8 YEARS. The math is different if you completely ignore some of the units involved.
The San Jose Mercury website doesnt show the article you claim to have cited, and I absolutely dont believe the claims of $10 000 rate increases, and are probably arrived at by upgrading to vastly better health insurance coverage plans.
Everything you said from start to finish is 100% factually incorrect, and easily provable. It's a paranoid rant that is directly contrary to reality.
"The Obamacare bill as passed was not what the Democrats wanted"
The bill was passed ENTIRELY by Democrats, with zero Republican support. How can it *possibly* be something they didnt want?
"Once implemented, government programs only get bigger, never smaller. The Democrats know this."
I find it funny that morons blame Democrats for all the big government spending, when it's REPUBLICAN presidents and congresses that have had the largest deficits in all of modern history.
And it's completely untrue that government programs always grow and are never elminated... MANY programs under FDR didnt work out as planned, and were eliminated. Programs that had run their course were dropped. Under Regan, all the state mental health institutions were shuttered, which is a major cause of the mass shootings we've seen lately. NASA has been very aggressively pared back, year after year, for decades now. There are innumerable other examples. The programs that stay with us are the ones everyone sees to be working, and doing a useful public service.
I hope you get help for your mental disabilities as well. Start off by taking Fox News off your TV, and Rush Limbaugh stations off your radio.
Which statement of the GP's is "just plain wrong",
Well:
"Obamacare is their attempt to get the majority of the population dependent on government for medical care."
Since the vast majority of people will continue to pay unsubsidized price of their health insurance to private companies, there is no possible way this statement, which is the crux of his entire statement, can possibly be true.
"Get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Then nobody dare oppose them"
The federal programs instituted by FDR have been around for about 70 years now, and Democrats have most definitely NOT stayed in power that whole time. Even if there was the slightest bit of truth to this claim, all the Republicans have to do is promise not to take away Obamacare, and they're right back on-par with Democrats, aren't they? Besides, Republicans are facing a demographic shift that is promising to make them non-viable in national politics in just a decade or so, meaning Democrats don't have to do ANYTHING to undermine them. The Republicans have done a superb job undermining themselves.
"What you are seeing is the liberal's strategy for staying in power."
In fact Obamacare was terribly unpopular, and numerous Democratic senators lost their seats specifically because they voted for it. They must have voted for it for other reasons than political expediency.
"Imagine the power they will wield when they can threaten to shut down the government and take away your health care."
Except it's always Republicans threatening to shut down the government, and taking away or "privatizing" government services.
Every single sentence in his post is quite easily provably factually incorrect. And the implication of some vast, sinister conspiracy makes it troll/flamebait.
"obamacare" will RAISE the health care costs for average family of four by over $7K from 2014 to 2022.
If the $18.23/person/month price increase means health insurance companies will have to actually pay to treat their paying customer's medical bills, instead of immediately canceling the insurance policies of the majority of those who start costing them money, or capping their benefits at a few thousand per year and forcing them to max out their credit cards, mortgage their homes, and go into bankruptcy ("Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical.") when they actually get sick, it will be MONEY WELL SPENT.
You know people were talking about jet engines in the 1920's, right? You realize the first working prototypes appeared in the 1930's, right? We're talking what, over 80 years ago? You'd think that in 80 years or so a country with almost 2 billion people might be able to produce a few individuals smart enough to work out and advance on these concepts.
Nobody said China can't build a turbine engine. However, that doesn't follow that they can design and build extremely efficient engines like the GEnx. The US remains the #1 manufacturing economy because of its high-tech products that surpass what any other country can do. Turbines (GE, Pratt&Whitney), Jets (Boeing), heavy machinery (Caterpillar), efficient diesel and internal combustion engines (GM, Ford, GE, Caterpillar, Cummins, Mack), etc.
Those are hugely important areas of the US and world economy, where trade secrets are worth many trillions of dollars.
But guess what, America? You're out of money.
Oh? And here I though the US was the single biggest economy by FAR, even with a far smaller population than China and many others.
But a cellular telephone can only draw so much total power (in terms of Joules or kiloWatt-hours or horsepower-fortnights or whatever) before its battery is charged, and then they tend to sip current.
Yup. UNLESS: "your charger or phone misbehave at all... Something simple like leaving a navigation app running in the background could do it."
Your reading comprehension skills are shining as much as ever.
You called me incompetent, first. Later on, I described your commentary as flippant and hysteric, but not before I praised your obvious superiority.
I said nothing flippant nor hysteric. Instead I explained in great details why your suggestion could get people killed. I called you incompetent because you made it extremely clear that you are. Suggesting emergency procedures that could get people killed is about the worst possible thing that can be done on/. yet you make no excuses nor apologies for it.
Alternatively, can we get some simple, easy software which rotates video easily? Pictures are a breeze, video seemingly not. It's 2013 already!
A single image is always going to be easier to modify than 100,000 images (ie. a video). That said, kmenc15, virtualdub, etc., can easily flip, rotate, gamma correct, crop, or do many other modifications to your video.
And what happens if the firewall is already compromised when the firemen arrive?
Well then, I guess there will be "flames [venting] upwards into the front trunk section" when they arrive. And then they will put the fire out.
Notice nobody said "OH GOD! DON'T EVER PUNCTURE THE FIREWALL! GAAH!" And even if they had, we already have a video showing that the earth isn't going to implode if that does happen, as it did here...
So you immediately admit to extremely limited experience, and yet that doesn't prevent you from mouthing off on a topic you know little about.
Of course I knew that when you were pretending you knew anything about car electrical system... Actually, it was probably long before that, when I added you to my foes list, however long ago.
Meanwhile, it is reasonably common for mobile cell phone chargers these days to be able to deliver 1A at 5V, or 5 Watts.
I'll take you 3 seconds on Amazon to find car chargers that draw and output more than that... But you prefer to play dumb. (At least, I assume you're PLAYING). And you're going to great lengths to stress this one point (that you're still wrong on, and which can't possibly redeem your foolish idea) after I pointed out all the innumerable other errors in your previous statements. A mighty attempt at backpedaling, indeed.
But if you want me to be as hysteric and flippant about it as you seem prone to doing
I never understood why people try to deflect their own mistakes and incompetence by name calling, and generally being argumentative fools. I've been around long enough not to be bothered by such things, and anyone else reading through this discussion can easily see the whole thread, and will know exactly who is the one continually spouting utter nonsense.
Samsung is more likely to get in trouble with the law, because they have shown a 20-year pattern of not giving two shits about the law.
Unless you can show examples of Samsung breaking the law in the same industry as Apple, there's no reason to believe Apple is any better. And going with Samsung's copying of Apple's "rounded corners" will just get you laughed off of/.
and now what amounts to industrial espionage while making a Federal Court an accomplice.
Except that's not at all what happened here. Plenty of law firms have mixed-up paperwork in the past, on far more important matters than this. If Samsung was at all guilty, they wouldn't have blatantly admitted to it, openly and completely unnecessarily.
Fortunately for everyone, and as proven daily by millions of users of cheap Chinese car chargers, it's very cheap to make a switching power supply of reasonable efficiency.
Except, of course, the cheap ones are NOT SPSes.
instead of the 19 Watts you claim
You might want to remember that you're the one that pulled that number out of your backside, not me.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's the opposite from all the FIOS deployments I've seen or heard about. The big shiny new cities packed full of rich people get utterly left out, while FIOS gets deployed to the cheapest, least-dense areas.
Though I don't have any first-hand knowledge, it appears that Verizon is deploying FIOS aggressively where population density is lowest, and the POTS lines were substantially more expensive to maintain. Typically, that means the cities get left out, while the suburbs get blanketed.
However, that's not really a good thing for the suburbs. Once you've got FIOS coverage, Verizon won't offer $10/month DSL service, and you'll be paying a minimum of $60/month for their lowest-speed internet service. If you want a landline phone and TV with your internet, the figures look better, but most people have cell phones, and many people that want high-speed internet don't want plain old "cable" TV service, so it's a bit of a plot to prop-up their dying businesses by tying them like an anchor around the neck of high-speed internet.
In the end, the local cable TV company was nice enough to offer FASTER internet service, for 1/3rd the price, though that has since slightly increased.
A little effort on your part would prevent your statements looking quite so stupid:
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2013/samsungs-big-move-into-ebooks/
No, poster said "liberal's" and "Obamacare". You are taking one tiny bit I quoted, and taking it completely out of context to make an absolutely idiotic, inaccurate argument.
That's not true in the slightest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png
I'm not sure how you got your numbers, but I assume it was some simple error like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
That's not true in the slightest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png
I'm not sure how you got your numbers, but I assume it was some simple error like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
No, in fact I know that you're utterly wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png
I'm not sure how you got those numbers, but I assume it was something simple like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
The "special benefit" is that the US is closed market, and consumers do NOT have to compete with higher paying consumers on the international market.
There's certainly no denying that natural gas is cheaper in the US than elsewhere.
It's not some insidious scheme that makes the public believes that Social Security provides a valuable public service, and that it's the morally responsible thing to do. Before SS, there were still plenty of seniors, they just had to go to extremes like eat cat food to survive. On moral grounds, the public does not believe in letting people fall that far, even if they've made foolish investments, so that's the program we have.
The numbers certainly don't lie. Centuries of charity didn't reduce or eliminate poverty. Modern government programs have proven vastly more effective at doing so.
With a high-risk strategy, there is an opportunity for high rewards, but also complete losses. Social Security is more like an extremely safe investment, where you don't have ample growth, but you do have a guaranteed return. Just consider it one part of your diversified investment, instead of money "stolen" from you.
Thanks for the link to the SJM article, but sadly I don't see any further info on the crazy claim in there, either.
You are quite wrong.
"In 1975, the U.S. government banned crude oil exports with only some limited exceptions".
See: "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-163, EPCA)"
NATO is still in-force, and was pretty recently beneficial to the US in getting other countries to send forces into Afghanistan.
You are quite wrong.
"In 1975, the U.S. government banned crude oil exports with only some limited exceptions".
See: "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-163, EPCA)"
Amtrak does indeed lose money, but that's probably because gas taxes are far too low, and the state and federal government are losing huge amounts of money building and maintaining roads and bridges as well... If driving was more expensive, trains would be a better barrgain.
The USPS is a terrible example. Up until this year, they would have been profitable, if not for congress forcing them to pre-fund their retirement/pension plan, like no other company needs to do. USPS has been trying to drop Saturday service for years, which would bring them back to profitability, while still having better service than UPS which also doesnt do Saturday delivery withoout an extra fee. But UPS isnt saddled with congress pushing them around with ridiculous restrictions.
Fedex is a slightly different story, but with their "SmartPost" service, they are basically depending on the USPS to do their parcel deliveries for them, so if USPS disappears, Fedex wont be profitable, either.
GP said $7k OVER 8 YEARS. The math is different if you completely ignore some of the units involved.
The San Jose Mercury website doesnt show the article you claim to have cited, and I absolutely dont believe the claims of $10 000 rate increases, and are probably arrived at by upgrading to vastly better health insurance coverage plans.
Everything you said from start to finish is 100% factually incorrect, and easily provable. It's a paranoid rant that is directly contrary to reality.
"The Obamacare bill as passed was not what the Democrats wanted"
The bill was passed ENTIRELY by Democrats, with zero Republican support. How can it *possibly* be something they didnt want?
"Once implemented, government programs only get bigger, never smaller. The Democrats know this."
I find it funny that morons blame Democrats for all the big government spending, when it's REPUBLICAN presidents and congresses that have had the largest deficits in all of modern history.
And it's completely untrue that government programs always grow and are never elminated... MANY programs under FDR didnt work out as planned, and were eliminated. Programs that had run their course were dropped. Under Regan, all the state mental health institutions were shuttered, which is a major cause of the mass shootings we've seen lately. NASA has been very aggressively pared back, year after year, for decades now. There are innumerable other examples. The programs that stay with us are the ones everyone sees to be working, and doing a useful public service.
I hope you get help for your mental disabilities as well. Start off by taking Fox News off your TV, and Rush Limbaugh stations off your radio.
Well:
"Obamacare is their attempt to get the majority of the population dependent on government for medical care."
Since the vast majority of people will continue to pay unsubsidized price of their health insurance to private companies, there is no possible way this statement, which is the crux of his entire statement, can possibly be true.
"Get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Then nobody dare oppose them"
The federal programs instituted by FDR have been around for about 70 years now, and Democrats have most definitely NOT stayed in power that whole time. Even if there was the slightest bit of truth to this claim, all the Republicans have to do is promise not to take away Obamacare, and they're right back on-par with Democrats, aren't they? Besides, Republicans are facing a demographic shift that is promising to make them non-viable in national politics in just a decade or so, meaning Democrats don't have to do ANYTHING to undermine them. The Republicans have done a superb job undermining themselves.
"What you are seeing is the liberal's strategy for staying in power."
In fact Obamacare was terribly unpopular, and numerous Democratic senators lost their seats specifically because they voted for it. They must have voted for it for other reasons than political expediency.
"Imagine the power they will wield when they can threaten to shut down the government and take away your health care."
Except it's always Republicans threatening to shut down the government, and taking away or "privatizing" government services.
Every single sentence in his post is quite easily provably factually incorrect. And the implication of some vast, sinister conspiracy makes it troll/flamebait.
If the $18.23/person/month price increase means health insurance companies will have to actually pay to treat their paying customer's medical bills, instead of immediately canceling the insurance policies of the majority of those who start costing them money, or capping their benefits at a few thousand per year and forcing them to max out their credit cards, mortgage their homes, and go into bankruptcy ("Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical.") when they actually get sick, it will be MONEY WELL SPENT.
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2009/08/articles/series/special-comment/health-insurance-rescission-three-times-more-likely-than-losing-russian-roulette/
http://www.seiu.org/2012/03/lifetime-caps-on-health-insurance-coverage-are-gone.php
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/index.html?_s=PM:HEALTH
Nobody said China can't build a turbine engine. However, that doesn't follow that they can design and build extremely efficient engines like the GEnx. The US remains the #1 manufacturing economy because of its high-tech products that surpass what any other country can do. Turbines (GE, Pratt&Whitney), Jets (Boeing), heavy machinery (Caterpillar), efficient diesel and internal combustion engines (GM, Ford, GE, Caterpillar, Cummins, Mack), etc.
Those are hugely important areas of the US and world economy, where trade secrets are worth many trillions of dollars.
Oh? And here I though the US was the single biggest economy by FAR, even with a far smaller population than China and many others.
You sure didn't look much.
Yup. UNLESS: "your charger or phone misbehave at all... Something simple like leaving a navigation app running in the background could do it."
Your reading comprehension skills are shining as much as ever.
I said nothing flippant nor hysteric. Instead I explained in great details why your suggestion could get people killed. I called you incompetent because you made it extremely clear that you are. Suggesting emergency procedures that could get people killed is about the worst possible thing that can be done on /. yet you make no excuses nor apologies for it.
A single image is always going to be easier to modify than 100,000 images (ie. a video). That said, kmenc15, virtualdub, etc., can easily flip, rotate, gamma correct, crop, or do many other modifications to your video.
Well then, I guess there will be "flames [venting] upwards into the front trunk section" when they arrive. And then they will put the fire out.
Notice nobody said "OH GOD! DON'T EVER PUNCTURE THE FIREWALL! GAAH!" And even if they had, we already have a video showing that the earth isn't going to implode if that does happen, as it did here...
So you immediately admit to extremely limited experience, and yet that doesn't prevent you from mouthing off on a topic you know little about.
Of course I knew that when you were pretending you knew anything about car electrical system... Actually, it was probably long before that, when I added you to my foes list, however long ago.
I'll take you 3 seconds on Amazon to find car chargers that draw and output more than that... But you prefer to play dumb. (At least, I assume you're PLAYING). And you're going to great lengths to stress this one point (that you're still wrong on, and which can't possibly redeem your foolish idea) after I pointed out all the innumerable other errors in your previous statements. A mighty attempt at backpedaling, indeed.
I never understood why people try to deflect their own mistakes and incompetence by name calling, and generally being argumentative fools. I've been around long enough not to be bothered by such things, and anyone else reading through this discussion can easily see the whole thread, and will know exactly who is the one continually spouting utter nonsense.
Okay... Allow me to counter with:
Apple Guilty of Price Fixing
Unless you can show examples of Samsung breaking the law in the same industry as Apple, there's no reason to believe Apple is any better. And going with Samsung's copying of Apple's "rounded corners" will just get you laughed off of /.
Except that's not at all what happened here. Plenty of law firms have mixed-up paperwork in the past, on far more important matters than this. If Samsung was at all guilty, they wouldn't have blatantly admitted to it, openly and completely unnecessarily.
Except, of course, the cheap ones are NOT SPSes.
You might want to remember that you're the one that pulled that number out of your backside, not me.