But thats the thing, they cant squeeze that extra money out of me. Once I get passed the "introductory price" where its cheap, I call and ask to cancel it, when they ask why, I tell them because the intro price is over and I don't want to pay full, and the customer service rep just gives me another 6 months or a year at my current price, if they don't, which hasn't happened yet, I would cancel it and sign back up in a few weeks and get the intro rate again.
You have options, don't let yourself be bullied or be labeled a victim.
Why not, the good people of our small towns and countrysides subsidize the ever lasting cycle of inner-city welfare recipients. (The modstick will sting for that one) All joking aside, I used to live in a rural area (northern MN), and there were/are currently no options for broadband (parents and lil bro still on dial-up). If they really wanted or needed it, they would move 15-20 miles and live near the "city" (population still less than 3k). If a demand is created, a business that wants a profit will swoop in to fill that demand, as always, for a price.
If its not worth boycotting, you are not being overcharged. If it wasn't worth more to you than the money you are paying, you wouldn't be purchasing it.
Correct, in the US today, conservatism has become classical liberalism (strong on free markets, Laissez-Faire, individual responsibility) and liberalism has become pretty much just social liberalism, which as I understand, is heavy on regulation of the economy and a state-provided welfare system (per wiki, Consider the accumulation of wealth by a small group as a threat to liberty).
I can see where you're coming from on this, but I guess I look at it from a view where when you know you can't fix something, you realized tinkering with something you don't know much about, you should just leave it alone. I see this as the relationship the government should have with the economy, you don't know how to fix it, you have never been able to fix it, so just stay out of it. Any government interference just lengthens the amount of time it takes for the market to reach an equilibrium.
I would have to agree with this, I just refer to UN resolutions that back up my stance since some people see themselves as citizens of the world or citizens of the UN, rather than their respective countries.
UN did nothing other than talk and send letters, when they obviously had the resources to exercise an actual action to stop the invasion if they were against it, not taking measures to stop it is the same as support on the world stage. Popular support existed before the war started and during much of the beginning. Once it started getting hairy, as war always does, then the media took a sharp turn and much of the quickly-forgetful everything-needs-to-be-perfect loudmouth part of the populace followed. There was never a majority against it in the US. Refer to my sig for the explanation on that.
What initial arguments have I let go of? Also, you speak of Iraqi weapons factories as they are ran like a Taco Bell. Claiming ignorance is a useless defense. Like the people working at and running the place were like "What? Inspectors? UN? There is an authority outside of Saddam? No you cant come in here, I don't believe you"
Taking an intro course nuclear power doesn't necessarily make you a nuclear engineer, just as receiving an intro to circuitry class doesn't make you an electrical engineer.
He was a farmer, teacher, and career politician. He had a generic science degree, no specialized field of study (or in-depth knowledge of any subject). Not an engineer by any measuring stick I know of.
This is key, it doesn't take more than one location to hide bio weapons.
These historical huge demonstrations of concerned citizens were a dead giveaway, weren't they?
Probably going to get hit with the modstick for this one, but thats because the people who continue to support the war until the job is done are/were at work./sarcasm
So true, we need to start electing engineers. While lawyers focus on ideological agendas, engineers focus on efficiency and effectiveness. (Just an observation, of course there are ideological engineers and efficiency-focused lawyers, but as a whole, lawyers are looking out for themselves and engineers try and see the big picture and how everything is interrelated.)
There were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq until few days before the invasion
Just being in the country doesn't mean that they were able to do any actual inspecting. And the agreement stated that weapon inspectors be able to inspect, not just get handed a bunch of paper work from Saddam that of course say he doesn't have anything hes not supposed to have. As far as the country's citizens not wanting the war, that is immaterial, Iraq broke an agreement and then must deal with its consequences. On top of that, how do you know the citizens didn't support it? There weren't elections held to let the people decide, and I have never known the media not to jump on an anti-war bandwagon. The polls were created to make news and shape opinion, not to report actual data.
The resolution itself (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm) states:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Just because the UN didn't feel like following through with their threats, doesn't mean the US, UK, or any other country had to lay down. Oh, and Koffi Annan has the spine of a marshmallow.
I supposed the sovereignty is arguable depending on your definition. Per Merriam-Webster:
"sovereign: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere."
I guess Saddam was the supreme authority in Iraq being a dictator and all, but at the same time he did not have supreme authority because of the UN resolution that forced him to accept UN weapons inspectors. He did allow them in for a while, but eventually stopped. That is why on:
November 8, 2002: The U.N. Security Council adopts Resolution 1441 declaring Iraq has violated previous resolutions calling for disarmament and cooperation with weapons inspectors.
Which is why they were invaded, and I could've sworn I saw many troops with the little UN blue flag in Iraq during the meaty part of the war.
Or did you just fail to notice that the majority of American people trusted George Bush Jr. to invade a country on completely false pretenses
Dont forget the UN and every other country in the world that invaded Iraq with the US, not due to WMD's, but due to Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in. Iraq was not a sovereign nation, it was part of a ceasefire agreement where they promised to allow weapons inspectors in, and when they refused, they were then subject to the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
I usually catch things like this, but didnt this time. Nice one, which I had mod points for this AC.
So I have come to realize that most slashdotters are for net neutrality, but I am still confused as to why?
You have options, don't let yourself be bullied or be labeled a victim.
Nope, our system pumps water straight from the ground, and sewage goes to a tank which gets pumped by a private company every couple years.
Why not, the good people of our small towns and countrysides subsidize the ever lasting cycle of inner-city welfare recipients. (The modstick will sting for that one) All joking aside, I used to live in a rural area (northern MN), and there were/are currently no options for broadband (parents and lil bro still on dial-up). If they really wanted or needed it, they would move 15-20 miles and live near the "city" (population still less than 3k). If a demand is created, a business that wants a profit will swoop in to fill that demand, as always, for a price.
If its not worth boycotting, you are not being overcharged. If it wasn't worth more to you than the money you are paying, you wouldn't be purchasing it.
Correct, in the US today, conservatism has become classical liberalism (strong on free markets, Laissez-Faire, individual responsibility) and liberalism has become pretty much just social liberalism, which as I understand, is heavy on regulation of the economy and a state-provided welfare system (per wiki, Consider the accumulation of wealth by a small group as a threat to liberty).
I can see where you're coming from on this, but I guess I look at it from a view where when you know you can't fix something, you realized tinkering with something you don't know much about, you should just leave it alone. I see this as the relationship the government should have with the economy, you don't know how to fix it, you have never been able to fix it, so just stay out of it. Any government interference just lengthens the amount of time it takes for the market to reach an equilibrium.
I would have to agree with this, I just refer to UN resolutions that back up my stance since some people see themselves as citizens of the world or citizens of the UN, rather than their respective countries.
Your numbers are incorrect.
That would be cool. we havent had a libertarian in office since the founding of this country.
UN did nothing other than talk and send letters, when they obviously had the resources to exercise an actual action to stop the invasion if they were against it, not taking measures to stop it is the same as support on the world stage. Popular support existed before the war started and during much of the beginning. Once it started getting hairy, as war always does, then the media took a sharp turn and much of the quickly-forgetful everything-needs-to-be-perfect loudmouth part of the populace followed. There was never a majority against it in the US. Refer to my sig for the explanation on that.
I am speaking of elected leadership, not assumed leadership.
What initial arguments have I let go of? Also, you speak of Iraqi weapons factories as they are ran like a Taco Bell. Claiming ignorance is a useless defense. Like the people working at and running the place were like "What? Inspectors? UN? There is an authority outside of Saddam? No you cant come in here, I don't believe you"
Taking an intro course nuclear power doesn't necessarily make you a nuclear engineer, just as receiving an intro to circuitry class doesn't make you an electrical engineer.
Not promptly providing access is proof they are trying to hide something.
He was a farmer, teacher, and career politician. He had a generic science degree, no specialized field of study (or in-depth knowledge of any subject). Not an engineer by any measuring stick I know of.
This is key, it doesn't take more than one location to hide bio weapons.
Probably going to get hit with the modstick for this one, but thats because the people who continue to support the war until the job is done are/were at work. /sarcasm
So true, we need to start electing engineers. While lawyers focus on ideological agendas, engineers focus on efficiency and effectiveness. (Just an observation, of course there are ideological engineers and efficiency-focused lawyers, but as a whole, lawyers are looking out for themselves and engineers try and see the big picture and how everything is interrelated.)
Just being in the country doesn't mean that they were able to do any actual inspecting. And the agreement stated that weapon inspectors be able to inspect, not just get handed a bunch of paper work from Saddam that of course say he doesn't have anything hes not supposed to have. As far as the country's citizens not wanting the war, that is immaterial, Iraq broke an agreement and then must deal with its consequences. On top of that, how do you know the citizens didn't support it? There weren't elections held to let the people decide, and I have never known the media not to jump on an anti-war bandwagon. The polls were created to make news and shape opinion, not to report actual data.
Just because the UN didn't feel like following through with their threats, doesn't mean the US, UK, or any other country had to lay down. Oh, and Koffi Annan has the spine of a marshmallow.
Just being in the country does not mean that they were able to complete their job of inspecting labs.
Which is why they were invaded, and I could've sworn I saw many troops with the little UN blue flag in Iraq during the meaty part of the war.
Dont forget the UN and every other country in the world that invaded Iraq with the US, not due to WMD's, but due to Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in. Iraq was not a sovereign nation, it was part of a ceasefire agreement where they promised to allow weapons inspectors in, and when they refused, they were then subject to the consequences.
I hate those pigtail lights. Makes me feel like I'm still at work or school when at home using that disgusting white lighting.