"Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that"
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
Granted. But cost isn't the only concern. Timeliness is very important too, for example losing a military satellite during its launch implies not only the extra time needed to build another very complex satellite but also the added time before the new satellite becomes operational, a delay which may not be acceptable. In that context, losing 1 in 6 satellites (which could easily imply losing two in a row) is very likely to be unacceptable, especially when compared with the near perfect success rate of the current rockets used to launch these types of satellites.
When it settles down, I'm guessing mostly to the bottom of rivers, lakes or the ocean, or when it rains it ends up in sewer systems and from there it also goes to the bottom of rivers, lakes or the ocean.
I thought the answer was clear and someone was just trying to get me to explain the obvious:
The man would be discriminated against when compared to workers with the same skills who get payed more based on their ability to negotiate, in other words, the man's lower salary is based on his ability to negotiate rather than his ability to do the job.
"I'm sorry, but socialism has basically fucked up just about everything it's ever been exposed to"
Public ownership is common in the US, and many many other countries in the world including those with the highest living standards, in other words, a mix of socialism and capitalism is the norm.
So when he said "I would love to have some socialism driving the development of new technology" I'm assuming he meant he would like to see some new tech driven more by user interests and less by the drive for profits at the expense of consumer choice.
Well you might call it silly but it's still true that problems with the market are often less about there being too many regulations and more about regulations that are ineffective or unenforced.
By the way, I was responding to the comment "The free market failed miserably here."
"And how exactly is it the regulators' fault when two monopolies agree not to compete? Or when an ISP influences state legislatures to kill municipal wifi projects?"
It's the regulators' fault when regulations are inadequate?
Good regulations : effective antitrust laws and enforcement of those laws, effective lobbying regulations, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
"Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that"
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
"That's the way the Middle East is. Any one group gets too much power and they usually become assholes."
No that's not the way the Middle East is' anymore than that's the way anywhere else is.
Granted. But cost isn't the only concern. Timeliness is very important too, for example losing a military satellite during its launch implies not only the extra time needed to build another very complex satellite but also the added time before the new satellite becomes operational, a delay which may not be acceptable. In that context, losing 1 in 6 satellites (which could easily imply losing two in a row) is very likely to be unacceptable, especially when compared with the near perfect success rate of the current rockets used to launch these types of satellites.
"The thing is, up until recently there was no lower price contractor..."
The thing is, he said for satellites that cost billions space x is still too unreliable, so not an option.
"And how is this different from hillary's email server?"
You tell me, or tell me how it's the same if that's what you mean.
"Where does it get blown to"
When it settles down, I'm guessing mostly to the bottom of rivers, lakes or the ocean, or when it rains it ends up in sewer systems and from there it also goes to the bottom of rivers, lakes or the ocean.
"Let's implement a real Muslim ban, unlike the watered down stuff to try to get through the courts."
Religious bans are illegal
"If some academic out there actually came up with 31 genders..."
I'm not sure it was an academic, more likely it was someone from the lunatic fringe of some protest movement.
0 ?
I thought the answer was clear and someone was just trying to get me to explain the obvious:
The man would be discriminated against when compared to workers with the same skills who get payed more based on their ability to negotiate, in other words, the man's lower salary is based on his ability to negotiate rather than his ability to do the job.
Haha, just try speaking like that on tv or in most public venues.
"Associate" is just the friendly way to refer to your employees in front of ... "
It is also demeaning for the employee to be used as a marketing gimmick.
"If a man negotiates poorly with respect to his peers and consequently gets paid less than them, is he being discriminated against?"
Yes
Traditional discrimination doesn't simply go away on its own or because the discriminated raise their demands.
it's not because someone finds something stupid that it's not true:
http://www.reuters.com/article...
It's actually a common stance.
"you don't get to ignore the constitution just because it is inconvenient."
Ha Ha, that has nothing to do with this.
Unless you're trying to start a fake narrative ...
"I'm sorry, but socialism has basically fucked up just about everything it's ever been exposed to"
Public ownership is common in the US, and many many other countries in the world including those with the highest living standards, in other words, a mix of socialism and capitalism is the norm.
So when he said "I would love to have some socialism driving the development of new technology" I'm assuming he meant he would like to see some new tech driven more by user interests and less by the drive for profits at the expense of consumer choice.
"The free market could decide this for itself,"
The 'free market' doesn't exist in that sense, markets are always run according to various sets of rules.
"Been done since 1984"
At least, and it hasn't got much better since then. The examples of human and computer generated 'Vivaldi' pieces in the story make that clear.
Well you might call it silly but it's still true that problems with the market are often less about there being too many regulations and more about regulations that are ineffective or unenforced.
By the way, I was responding to the comment "The free market failed miserably here."
"And how exactly is it the regulators' fault when two monopolies agree not to compete? Or when an ISP influences state legislatures to kill municipal wifi projects?"
It's the regulators' fault when regulations are inadequate?
Good regulations : effective antitrust laws and enforcement of those laws, effective lobbying regulations, and so on.
I was hoping for a comment (done), not a zero.
Funny I was just thinking of this yesterday -- extremism is a problem, oppression is a cause
No. Because EULA.
"The free market failed miserably here."
That market depends on good regulations, so it isn't really the market that failed, it's bad regulations.