I, personally, agree but in American law there has to be an intent to kill. Merely killing with a full knowledge that that's the outcome but with no actual intent tends to be considered manslaughter or accidental.
F1 drivers can handle such collisions, but they use safety harnesses rather than seatbelts. Harnesses, incidentally, that seem less failure prone than seatbelts in the event of an accident.
Of course, the total destruction in this case makes that a moot point.
SUVs are not terribly safe vehicles anyway, but it's hard to see what could have been done here. Airbags on the front of the vehicle? Ejector seats? I'm not sure either would have worked.
The design I would prefer would provide that in three layers.
1. There should be a formal set of openly published theorems (similar to those used by SEL4) that show that all the key functions meet a specification a logician could understand. The average MITS won't understand these theorems, but they know other people, people not in the company, can and that those other people include celebrity geniuses like BiaSciLab. People they can trust to bluntly tell them if there's a problem.
2. There should be complete compliance with the Rainbow Series to A1 and Common Criteria to EAL7 or modern equivalent. The MITS won't understand this, either, but if it's the best of the best for spook stuff by the spookiest of spooks, it's stuff the experts on keeping secrets and keeping them untainted hold in awe.
3. In addition to the electronic ballot, a physical one should be printed with highly stable indelible ink on parchment-grade paper. There's your pen and pencil. Since it would be hard to lose both electronic and physical copies, you've stronger security than either alone. That, the MITS can understand easily.
So, two independent groups of two independent types of experts, plus their own judgement on what they can see with their own eyes. I don't see you can improve much on that.
(Electronic ballots should be encrypted copies of what is on the paper. Parchment paper is important because it lasts 800-1,000 years and is a harder challenge for opportunistic criminals. A lot of election issues suggest spur of the moment disorganised crime. This makes this sort of crime easy to detect.)
The first Linux distro I used was MCC. Which was the first Linux distro.
I've since used SLS, Slackware, Gentoo, Red Hat, Fedora, Centos, RHEL, Scientific Linux, Rocks, Debian, SuSE, Ubintu, Kubuntu, Mint and Linux From Scratch. Montavista is not really a distro, but I've used that too.
Of these, I think Ubuntu had the best drivers and Gentoo the best build system. None are quite what I want, so I end up rebuilding most of the system anyway.
The lack of a Linux Desktop is chiefly down to OSDL botching up that particular effort by holding closed-door meetings with vendors and running projects that never really went anywhere.
By failing to work properly with vendors, we had no drivers. Without those, nothing else could happen.
(The difficulty of getting things in the kernel, leading to a lot of abandoned, led me to develop FOLK, which inspired other megapatchsets, which in turn eventually led to the development tree. I still fight hard for obscure but important projects to be better-known, as kernel progress hinges on people knowing what's out there. However, driver issues are due to paranoid, intransigent vendors.)
Microsoft likely blackmailed some vendors, a crime for which it should have been broken up. It should have been broken up in 1998 anyway.
But the lack of a decent video system (XFree suffered a political meltdown, and Berlin folded due to design problems) and audio issues (OSS was a mess, ALSA lacked features, PulseAudio ditto) meant vendors had no incentive to provide drivers. To them, Linux was expensive to support with no return.
Since then, Linux has churned a little. Reliability has dropped a little, as has performance. I don't buy it does more as I roll my own kernels so I know exactly what they should be doing.
They're still miles ahead of Windows, several decades ahead of BSD and some diagonal in the spacetime continuum ahead of the dozen or so other OS' I've used. But benchmarks increasingly put Windows ahead of Linux for database and webserver activity. That's... unthinkable. It certainly isn't tolerable.
If Linux doesn't regain the lead, it is going to be on shaky ground, whatever Linus thinks the kernel can do. At this point, and with so much more experience in the enterprise than Microsoft, Linux' developers should find the problems in the kernel and core system, fix them and work from there.
(That's why my wishlist, in another post, involves fixing infrastructure in Linux. That's essential for there to be a Linux.)
Unnetworked is part of the problem. It means voting machines tally and store, the source of most of the defects.
Second, that's not a high number. Machines that tally just store a number. It's long past the point where ID is checked. All you need is to preload 40,000 votes in a test (corrupt official) - and that has happened in the past - or you have ten people load in 4,000 votes at the time in precincts with low turnout, OR you hack the election database where the tallies are stored.
Any of those will work and you know they will because you will have been instructed on this.
There are tried methods, but few of them true. In paper elections, it was common for officials to discover ballot boxes or misplaced ballot papers after the election. Party workers were also routinely accused of falsely claiming authority to collect absentee ballots and destroying ones for rival parties.
Voting stations were also suspect, with election officials accused of tampering.
In other words, an awful lot of institutionalised vote fraud by the parties.
It got so bad, countries were planning on sending in international election monitors after the 2000 election. America avoided it by refusing them visas.
Voting machines can be made to work, but that requires a lot of money, very careful regulation, extremely high (Orange Book A1+ is your starting point) standards, extremely thorough security and sufficient will to live. It also requires you to forget almost everything you think an electronic voting machine would do, AKA everything Diebold said.
No private enterprise will attempt such a thing, the return for them is too low and they don't have the mad skills needed anyway.
Government can't do it, GOTS software is banned in the name of free enterprise. Besides, they don't have the staff either, and won't offer the budget needed.
1. A return of hardened gentoo and grsecurity's compliance with the GPL 2. A proper audit of the kernel and critical components to eliminate defects 3. A formal analysis of SELinux along the lines of SEL4 4. 7N reliability 5. Proper funding of RTLinux and further integration into mainstream 6. VST and malloc replacement Hoard as part of a standard Linux distro 7. Third-party maintenance of abandoned architectures 8. Rewrites of XTank, NV and PHIGS 9. Ports of Elite: Dangerous and Cubase A. Hewlett-Packard's pluggable scheduler B. Kernel config supporting hardware detection for suggesting defaults C. Usable Gnome and KDE D. Replace Systemd with something not made by committee E. Addition of Occam-Pi/Guppy, Verified C and SystemC to LLVM F. Harness for loading Linux modules onto alternate physical devices
First, the study is incapable of distinguishing drinking from other risky behaviour drinkers may indulge in. It assumes behaviours are independent, when in fact they are not.
Second, of the five Blue Zones, four involve drinking. The French Paradox also does. France's contribution to the debate shows that the change in drink of choice altered outcomes, showing isolating the variable of alcohol may not be sensible to begin with.
The evidence should surely concern the amount per person so affected, not the absolute amount. To argue the evidence isn't worth $4 billion is stupid. Let's say there are 10 million subscribers affected by deceptive practices. The evidence would then only have to be worth $400, because that's the impact on an individual.
I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.
Secondly, if a company needs to practice deliberate, wilful deceptive marketing, it should probably have its business license suspended. It obviously is in no shape to compete on merit.
First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture. (Note: I've worked at NASA.) This means that accidents might not happen the first time, or the twenty first. Each spin that ends up OK will convince others that it's safe, when it's really just lucky. Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening physically and electrically, and an ultrasound scan of metal items before and after the series of runs to determine how they're handling the stress.
Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs. SpaceX is cheap because it cuts corners. Some of those corners weren't needed. Some were. We aren't going to get told enough information to determine which is which, and failure rates with such small numbers are statistically meaningless.
Third, I don't see the added value. The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal (so you don't need the extra weight on board and can avoid ice buildup).
Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky. They failed to put the car on the intended orbit by a few million miles. Buggy software in a rocket is never good, but said buggy software controls the refuelling systems and we've seen where that goes. All over the landscape. Now, SpaceX and NASA want to do this with people on board.
One or two accidents could put back space research 20+ years. Such an accident at NASA nearly resulted in Hubble plunging to Earth as an uncontrolled missile, due to a delayed repair mission. We can't afford to be trapped on this badly degraded mudball any longer than necessary. We need successes, even if that ups the cost by a dollar or two. I care more about success for these missions than I care about SpaceX shareholders. The shareholders will live. The astronauts might very well not.
It's obvious Trump is off his nut, but he still got elected Resident of the White House.
It was obvious there was only ever going to be less money for the NHS on leaving the EU, but a side of the bus slogan still swung the Brexit referendum.
It was obvious the Internet was originally Title 2, but many Americans still naively believe Obama created network neutrality by executive order.
It is obvious that the planet is warming faster than it has ever done in the past 250 million years, and that the isotopes show it's carbon put there by human activity, but still people blame volcanoes and sunspots or pretend it isn't happening at all.
There are still people who think that the modern Microsoft isn't their father's Microsoft, despite identical tactics, which they excuse on the grounds of slogan.
Based on various measures of knowledge and cognitive ability relative to what could be expected at a given age, Americans underperform on average by about 19%. The British by 18%. This matters, as suppressed cognitive function is linked to paranoia, a swing to the right and violent tendencies.
(I'd point out that this does not mean that there aren't highly intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people on the right. This is an impact of inability, you can't reverse the statement and assume it's true. See logical fallacies.)
Once, Facebook was a second-rate MySpace. Once, Slashdot reached an audience greater than that of most national newspapers.
The web changes daily on reach.
In comparison, Comcast has been taken to court for deliberately bulldozing through the lines of rivals. The same Comcast that successfully lobbied the FCC for the power to run a protection racket and burn down websites that didn't pay up.
Trump says anyone wanting to promote views other than his should be shut down and excluded from the intertubes, but his abuse and rants should be glorified for he is the God of Covfefe!
Find me the interstate that is yours and yours alone and you'll have an argument. Until then, you've not offered an argument. I have no problem paying 33 cents per city in America, as a one-off fee, provided it's not all of them at once.
Is your family less deserving? No. Get your local authority to duplicate the effort, performance and reliability. I'll pay the 33 cents for it. It's still not YOUR internet, any more than that's your telephone system or your water mains. It's your community's. And I'll pay 33 cents in a one-off charge to make your community less stupid, less ignorant and more employable. That's a good investment. If I can spend 33 cents to turn half the unemployed in your area into employed, then I end up saving more than 33 cents because that'll reduce the cost of goods and services. That's how you should invest.
But is it an investment you have the courage to make? Do you have the courage to upgrade your community's infrastructure from the feeble, pathetic cart tracks that Comcast and AT&T have provided to the autobahns they could have?
Do you have the courage to pay other communities a whopping 33 cents to upgrade their cart tracks to information superhighways? You've probably wasted more than that on overpriced beer. Thrown it away with no return. You have no problem throwing away 33 cents, but you have a problem spending it on boosting the nation?
More businesses, more people employed, means lower Federal deficits and lower tax burdens. You actually get back more than those 33 cents. A little delayed gratification might be in order. Spend 33 cents now, get back $100 tax rebate the following year because the burden on the government was that much lower. You don't want that $100? Fine, I'm sure the 1%ers will be happy for your donation towards their drinks bill.
But you don't care. You're not interested in cause and effect, you're not interested in who you live around, you're not interested in quality of life or the cost of products on shelves. You just want those 33 cents. Right?
I doubt it.
I am certain you'd rather see cheaper products and that $100. Not a problem. You just need to spend 33 cents today on municipal Internet equal to or better than that in Chattanooga. Money for nothing and your flicks for free.
You're so hung up about the individual. There are no individuals at the municipal level. It's all for one and one for all.
As for skin colour - who cares? I judge people by the content of their character. Besides, a fibre's a fibre. It connects to a house. Just the house. Not the people. Nobody runs fibre to people. Those sorts of implants don't exist yet.
And let's see. $111 million divided by 340 million... 33 cents, on average.
The highest paid person in the US earns something like $23 million a year before bonuses, although I did hear of someone earning $54 million before bonuses.
Somehow, I doubt you paid even the 33 cents.
You probably lose more than that in a year from defective vending machines and misplaced change.
Instead, you could have invested it in a stronger America with (gasp) jobs and stuff.
I don't like morons. Easy way to not have morons is to help pay for other people's schools.
I don't like rotting food. Best way to avoid it is to help pay for other people's infrastructure.
The ongoing costs are negligible per person, per consumer. The initial cost is the only significant quantity and even that, diluted over 340 million people over several years, isn't much.
Actually, it's effectively more people than that, as the Feds get taxes other than income but you're treating all tax as income.
The amount I pay Comcast (who, incidentally, deliver less than a tenth of what I pay for and who have illegal non-compete agreements with other ISPs) in a month is probably more than I've contributed to Chattanooga's Internet since it's inception.
How much would I, personally, have if I'd kept Chattanooga ignorant and isolated? Not much. Not nearly as much as I've gained from them strengthening their economy and thus not only placing less of a drain on society but actually giving back.
Gaining more this way is equivalent to losing the other way. Why would I want to lose, if it's a choice?
I've worked in both laying ISP infrastructure and operating it. It's not difficult or expensive, just tedious. You don't need constant upgrades, just better management and a willingness to not cut corners.
In other words, I know from experience in running infrastructure that most ISPs are defrauding their customers and lying to the politicians and courts about the need to do so.
How is rewarding that behaviour going to pay for my Internet?
What it will do to my Internet is increase restrictions and increase price whilst reducing service. Pay more, get less. No thanks.
I think the Chattanooga experiment should be not only legal in every town and city but encouraged with the stipulation that it's a minimum of 10 gigabits to the home actual rate and five nines reliable.
That way, there's no claim over competition as no ISP offers that. If it's that expensive to do, the taxes would be impossible. If it's not expensive, it's for the ISPs to explain to customers why they're better despite lying about what can be delivered.
You can choose not to use Facebook. Most areas have a no-compete agreement between ISPs that mean you get a choice of one. To switch ISP, you must sell your house, resign from your place of work and disrupt your children's education. And the new ISP can then do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I, personally, agree but in American law there has to be an intent to kill. Merely killing with a full knowledge that that's the outcome but with no actual intent tends to be considered manslaughter or accidental.
Money and glory are feishized. Sometimes, fetishes are lethal.
F1 drivers can handle such collisions, but they use safety harnesses rather than seatbelts. Harnesses, incidentally, that seem less failure prone than seatbelts in the event of an accident.
Of course, the total destruction in this case makes that a moot point.
SUVs are not terribly safe vehicles anyway, but it's hard to see what could have been done here. Airbags on the front of the vehicle? Ejector seats? I'm not sure either would have worked.
Yet alcohol abuse is lower in countries where the drinking age is between 0-5.
The design I would prefer would provide that in three layers.
1. There should be a formal set of openly published theorems (similar to those used by SEL4) that show that all the key functions meet a specification a logician could understand. The average MITS won't understand these theorems, but they know other people, people not in the company, can and that those other people include celebrity geniuses like BiaSciLab. People they can trust to bluntly tell them if there's a problem.
2. There should be complete compliance with the Rainbow Series to A1 and Common Criteria to EAL7 or modern equivalent. The MITS won't understand this, either, but if it's the best of the best for spook stuff by the spookiest of spooks, it's stuff the experts on keeping secrets and keeping them untainted hold in awe.
3. In addition to the electronic ballot, a physical one should be printed with highly stable indelible ink on parchment-grade paper. There's your pen and pencil. Since it would be hard to lose both electronic and physical copies, you've stronger security than either alone. That, the MITS can understand easily.
So, two independent groups of two independent types of experts, plus their own judgement on what they can see with their own eyes. I don't see you can improve much on that.
(Electronic ballots should be encrypted copies of what is on the paper. Parchment paper is important because it lasts 800-1,000 years and is a harder challenge for opportunistic criminals. A lot of election issues suggest spur of the moment disorganised crime. This makes this sort of crime easy to detect.)
The first Linux distro I used was MCC. Which was the first Linux distro.
I've since used SLS, Slackware, Gentoo, Red Hat, Fedora, Centos, RHEL, Scientific Linux, Rocks, Debian, SuSE, Ubintu, Kubuntu, Mint and Linux From Scratch. Montavista is not really a distro, but I've used that too.
Of these, I think Ubuntu had the best drivers and Gentoo the best build system. None are quite what I want, so I end up rebuilding most of the system anyway.
The lack of a Linux Desktop is chiefly down to OSDL botching up that particular effort by holding closed-door meetings with vendors and running projects that never really went anywhere.
By failing to work properly with vendors, we had no drivers. Without those, nothing else could happen.
(The difficulty of getting things in the kernel, leading to a lot of abandoned, led me to develop FOLK, which inspired other megapatchsets, which in turn eventually led to the development tree. I still fight hard for obscure but important projects to be better-known, as kernel progress hinges on people knowing what's out there. However, driver issues are due to paranoid, intransigent vendors.)
Microsoft likely blackmailed some vendors, a crime for which it should have been broken up. It should have been broken up in 1998 anyway.
But the lack of a decent video system (XFree suffered a political meltdown, and Berlin folded due to design problems) and audio issues (OSS was a mess, ALSA lacked features, PulseAudio ditto) meant vendors had no incentive to provide drivers. To them, Linux was expensive to support with no return.
Since then, Linux has churned a little. Reliability has dropped a little, as has performance. I don't buy it does more as I roll my own kernels so I know exactly what they should be doing.
They're still miles ahead of Windows, several decades ahead of BSD and some diagonal in the spacetime continuum ahead of the dozen or so other OS' I've used. But benchmarks increasingly put Windows ahead of Linux for database and webserver activity. That's... unthinkable. It certainly isn't tolerable.
If Linux doesn't regain the lead, it is going to be on shaky ground, whatever Linus thinks the kernel can do. At this point, and with so much more experience in the enterprise than Microsoft, Linux' developers should find the problems in the kernel and core system, fix them and work from there.
(That's why my wishlist, in another post, involves fixing infrastructure in Linux. That's essential for there to be a Linux.)
Unnetworked is part of the problem. It means voting machines tally and store, the source of most of the defects.
Second, that's not a high number. Machines that tally just store a number. It's long past the point where ID is checked. All you need is to preload 40,000 votes in a test (corrupt official) - and that has happened in the past - or you have ten people load in 4,000 votes at the time in precincts with low turnout, OR you hack the election database where the tallies are stored.
Any of those will work and you know they will because you will have been instructed on this.
There are tried methods, but few of them true. In paper elections, it was common for officials to discover ballot boxes or misplaced ballot papers after the election. Party workers were also routinely accused of falsely claiming authority to collect absentee ballots and destroying ones for rival parties.
Voting stations were also suspect, with election officials accused of tampering.
In other words, an awful lot of institutionalised vote fraud by the parties.
It got so bad, countries were planning on sending in international election monitors after the 2000 election. America avoided it by refusing them visas.
Voting machines can be made to work, but that requires a lot of money, very careful regulation, extremely high (Orange Book A1+ is your starting point) standards, extremely thorough security and sufficient will to live. It also requires you to forget almost everything you think an electronic voting machine would do, AKA everything Diebold said.
No private enterprise will attempt such a thing, the return for them is too low and they don't have the mad skills needed anyway.
Government can't do it, GOTS software is banned in the name of free enterprise. Besides, they don't have the staff either, and won't offer the budget needed.
But it could be done.
Except that Google is replacing it with an in-house kernel.
1. A return of hardened gentoo and grsecurity's compliance with the GPL
2. A proper audit of the kernel and critical components to eliminate defects
3. A formal analysis of SELinux along the lines of SEL4
4. 7N reliability
5. Proper funding of RTLinux and further integration into mainstream
6. VST and malloc replacement Hoard as part of a standard Linux distro
7. Third-party maintenance of abandoned architectures
8. Rewrites of XTank, NV and PHIGS
9. Ports of Elite: Dangerous and Cubase
A. Hewlett-Packard's pluggable scheduler
B. Kernel config supporting hardware detection for suggesting defaults
C. Usable Gnome and KDE
D. Replace Systemd with something not made by committee
E. Addition of Occam-Pi/Guppy, Verified C and SystemC to LLVM
F. Harness for loading Linux modules onto alternate physical devices
First, the study is incapable of distinguishing drinking from other risky behaviour drinkers may indulge in. It assumes behaviours are independent, when in fact they are not.
Second, of the five Blue Zones, four involve drinking. The French Paradox also does. France's contribution to the debate shows that the change in drink of choice altered outcomes, showing isolating the variable of alcohol may not be sensible to begin with.
You have two options.
1. Companies can't censor, only governments.
2. Break up Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast.
The evidence should surely concern the amount per person so affected, not the absolute amount. To argue the evidence isn't worth $4 billion is stupid. Let's say there are 10 million subscribers affected by deceptive practices. The evidence would then only have to be worth $400, because that's the impact on an individual.
I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.
Secondly, if a company needs to practice deliberate, wilful deceptive marketing, it should probably have its business license suspended. It obviously is in no shape to compete on merit.
First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture. (Note: I've worked at NASA.) This means that accidents might not happen the first time, or the twenty first. Each spin that ends up OK will convince others that it's safe, when it's really just lucky. Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening physically and electrically, and an ultrasound scan of metal items before and after the series of runs to determine how they're handling the stress.
Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs. SpaceX is cheap because it cuts corners. Some of those corners weren't needed. Some were. We aren't going to get told enough information to determine which is which, and failure rates with such small numbers are statistically meaningless.
Third, I don't see the added value. The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal (so you don't need the extra weight on board and can avoid ice buildup).
Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky. They failed to put the car on the intended orbit by a few million miles. Buggy software in a rocket is never good, but said buggy software controls the refuelling systems and we've seen where that goes. All over the landscape. Now, SpaceX and NASA want to do this with people on board.
One or two accidents could put back space research 20+ years. Such an accident at NASA nearly resulted in Hubble plunging to Earth as an uncontrolled missile, due to a delayed repair mission. We can't afford to be trapped on this badly degraded mudball any longer than necessary. We need successes, even if that ups the cost by a dollar or two. I care more about success for these missions than I care about SpaceX shareholders. The shareholders will live. The astronauts might very well not.
Asking if there another Facebook is like asking if there another MySpace or another Usenet.
I will allow you to determine the relationship.
It's obvious Trump is off his nut, but he still got elected Resident of the White House.
It was obvious there was only ever going to be less money for the NHS on leaving the EU, but a side of the bus slogan still swung the Brexit referendum.
It was obvious the Internet was originally Title 2, but many Americans still naively believe Obama created network neutrality by executive order.
It is obvious that the planet is warming faster than it has ever done in the past 250 million years, and that the isotopes show it's carbon put there by human activity, but still people blame volcanoes and sunspots or pretend it isn't happening at all.
There are still people who think that the modern Microsoft isn't their father's Microsoft, despite identical tactics, which they excuse on the grounds of slogan.
Based on various measures of knowledge and cognitive ability relative to what could be expected at a given age, Americans underperform on average by about 19%. The British by 18%. This matters, as suppressed cognitive function is linked to paranoia, a swing to the right and violent tendencies.
(I'd point out that this does not mean that there aren't highly intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people on the right. This is an impact of inability, you can't reverse the statement and assume it's true. See logical fallacies.)
Once, Facebook was a second-rate MySpace. Once, Slashdot reached an audience greater than that of most national newspapers.
The web changes daily on reach.
In comparison, Comcast has been taken to court for deliberately bulldozing through the lines of rivals. The same Comcast that successfully lobbied the FCC for the power to run a protection racket and burn down websites that didn't pay up.
Trump says anyone wanting to promote views other than his should be shut down and excluded from the intertubes, but his abuse and rants should be glorified for he is the God of Covfefe!
Find me the interstate that is yours and yours alone and you'll have an argument. Until then, you've not offered an argument. I have no problem paying 33 cents per city in America, as a one-off fee, provided it's not all of them at once.
Is your family less deserving? No. Get your local authority to duplicate the effort, performance and reliability. I'll pay the 33 cents for it. It's still not YOUR internet, any more than that's your telephone system or your water mains. It's your community's. And I'll pay 33 cents in a one-off charge to make your community less stupid, less ignorant and more employable. That's a good investment. If I can spend 33 cents to turn half the unemployed in your area into employed, then I end up saving more than 33 cents because that'll reduce the cost of goods and services. That's how you should invest.
But is it an investment you have the courage to make? Do you have the courage to upgrade your community's infrastructure from the feeble, pathetic cart tracks that Comcast and AT&T have provided to the autobahns they could have?
Do you have the courage to pay other communities a whopping 33 cents to upgrade their cart tracks to information superhighways? You've probably wasted more than that on overpriced beer. Thrown it away with no return. You have no problem throwing away 33 cents, but you have a problem spending it on boosting the nation?
More businesses, more people employed, means lower Federal deficits and lower tax burdens. You actually get back more than those 33 cents. A little delayed gratification might be in order. Spend 33 cents now, get back $100 tax rebate the following year because the burden on the government was that much lower. You don't want that $100? Fine, I'm sure the 1%ers will be happy for your donation towards their drinks bill.
But you don't care. You're not interested in cause and effect, you're not interested in who you live around, you're not interested in quality of life or the cost of products on shelves. You just want those 33 cents. Right?
I doubt it.
I am certain you'd rather see cheaper products and that $100. Not a problem. You just need to spend 33 cents today on municipal Internet equal to or better than that in Chattanooga. Money for nothing and your flicks for free.
You're so hung up about the individual. There are no individuals at the municipal level. It's all for one and one for all.
As for skin colour - who cares? I judge people by the content of their character. Besides, a fibre's a fibre. It connects to a house. Just the house. Not the people. Nobody runs fibre to people. Those sorts of implants don't exist yet.
Log on to a server there.
Next!
And let's see. $111 million divided by 340 million... 33 cents, on average.
The highest paid person in the US earns something like $23 million a year before bonuses, although I did hear of someone earning $54 million before bonuses.
Somehow, I doubt you paid even the 33 cents.
You probably lose more than that in a year from defective vending machines and misplaced change.
Instead, you could have invested it in a stronger America with (gasp) jobs and stuff.
Not really.
I don't like morons. Easy way to not have morons is to help pay for other people's schools.
I don't like rotting food. Best way to avoid it is to help pay for other people's infrastructure.
The ongoing costs are negligible per person, per consumer. The initial cost is the only significant quantity and even that, diluted over 340 million people over several years, isn't much.
Actually, it's effectively more people than that, as the Feds get taxes other than income but you're treating all tax as income.
The amount I pay Comcast (who, incidentally, deliver less than a tenth of what I pay for and who have illegal non-compete agreements with other ISPs) in a month is probably more than I've contributed to Chattanooga's Internet since it's inception.
How much would I, personally, have if I'd kept Chattanooga ignorant and isolated? Not much. Not nearly as much as I've gained from them strengthening their economy and thus not only placing less of a drain on society but actually giving back.
Gaining more this way is equivalent to losing the other way. Why would I want to lose, if it's a choice?
I've worked in both laying ISP infrastructure and operating it. It's not difficult or expensive, just tedious. You don't need constant upgrades, just better management and a willingness to not cut corners.
In other words, I know from experience in running infrastructure that most ISPs are defrauding their customers and lying to the politicians and courts about the need to do so.
How is rewarding that behaviour going to pay for my Internet?
What it will do to my Internet is increase restrictions and increase price whilst reducing service. Pay more, get less. No thanks.
I think the Chattanooga experiment should be not only legal in every town and city but encouraged with the stipulation that it's a minimum of 10 gigabits to the home actual rate and five nines reliable.
That way, there's no claim over competition as no ISP offers that. If it's that expensive to do, the taxes would be impossible. If it's not expensive, it's for the ISPs to explain to customers why they're better despite lying about what can be delivered.
Life is perfectly fair. The laws of physics care nothing for you status, colour, race or gender.
People aren't fair, but that's because people are stupid.
You can choose not to use Facebook. Most areas have a no-compete agreement between ISPs that mean you get a choice of one. To switch ISP, you must sell your house, resign from your place of work and disrupt your children's education. And the new ISP can then do the same.
Facebook is liable for content, ISPs are not.