Economics. She's for more taxes, more regulation and more redistribution. He's for less. Social. She's pro gun control, pro choice, pro normalizing contraception, pro gay. He's anti. Defense. They are pretty close though he is a quite a bit more hawkish.
I'd say they disagree substantially more than 2 random Americans would.
They aren't. But you were arguing it was unthinkably expensive not marginally worse or close to break even. Home solar gives a good example of a simple change we can implement that is affordable that isn't "$12 a gallon gas" I don't own solar because I live in NJ and don't have a southern facing roof. If I lived in the south half of USA I would have solar. Even in NJ I considered a small system to cut my electric bill.
You can buy a LEC you don't have to go to all that much trouble. There are ones all over the company to sell.
As far as long range wiifi towers all over the place... most likely that falls under the FCC and they would tell you no. The FCC is currently focused on moving everything else off, including government reserved and television, to make room for cell. They aren't going to want to use up lots of bandwidth for wifi.
Besides all that sounds much more expensive then just paying for port. The LEC would be happy to buy more port is someone else was guaranteeing it, they just don't to make the investment themselves. So tell the LEC you will buy the port and setup a local ISP using them as your local backbone. I think you lose but at least it is cheaper.
Remember that's the price after the $2t is spent. I have friends who have solar $5-15k one time and they are often profitable (i.e. they generate more electricity than they use). Expensive yes. Unthinkably expensive no.
Yes I'm unfamiliar. But I wouldn't confuse ticket price too much with fees. For example in the USA fees are 90% of ticket price on an opening movie. The money is made on soda and popcorn.
We can generate huge amounts of electricity with green technology. We can switch to electric cars and use electricity to heat homes (except in the very coldest climates) We can use natural gas rather than diesel for trucks.
Total cost for that green power with a modern electric grid is about $2t. Spread over a decade that's $200b per year. No horrors needed. Except that SUV may be gone. Say for example you make it 100% government funded and tax gas / oil to pay for it. An extra $1 per gallon = $31.50 per barrel. $31.50 per barrel * 7b of US consumption per year = $220.5b. Of course as the electricity comes on line you'll want to drive the gas tax up high on purpose to switch people over to electricity. But that's fine it will fund other areas of government and replace other taxes.
Of course they did. The shift from DOS to Windows is what caused the shift from Lotus-1-2-3, WordPerfect and Harvard Graphics to Excel, Word and PowerPoint.
Oracle / IBM aren't interested in their direction. Contributing changes back would be a lot of work. My guess is they want to grab the improvements for the period of time while the projects are close enough, and if it becomes too much work to maintain the code ports they just stop and let the projects fork further apart.
Well first off they don't own the infrastructure. The only infrastructure they have access to the infrastructure that is already at capacity, i,e. they sold all the port. If they want more infrastructure someone has to come up with the cash. Your LEC doesn't want to. AT&T is not going to undercut their own LEC and sell port to a 3rd party, unless the town made it very worth their while. It would be cheaper for the town to just guarantee the port, or just buy the LEC and run it as a municipal service. Even if AT&T were going to sell more port, the economics for a new LEC would be worse than for the existing LEC.
It is pretty easy. Someone has to come up with millions of dollars to create more port. They aren't doing that because they are jerks, they aren't doing it because they don't see enough market to justify the risk. That is your LEC isn't doing it without a subsidy of some nature. So as a town either pay the subsidy via. a guarantee or just cofund the port or subsidize the purchase for residents. Those are your options. Port costs money. The same as if the town needed an extra 5000 cars they can't create them by trying to void dealership agreements someone has to buy an extra 5000 cars.
Every cable franchise agreement I am familiar with is non-exclusive. I.e., not a monopoly. Why would it be? The municipalities are keeping the door open to competitors who will also pay their franchise fees into the general fund.
Mostly it is a monopoly because the local government doesn't want two companies tearing up the street. They often also have control. GP isn't wrong about the monopoly issue.
I'm sorry, what? You mean if Egypt had monopolistic cable companies they wouldn't have had a coup?
No. Civil disruption like blocking traffic, or having to get rights of way on private lands. Not disruption like tanks rolling down the street. There are levels of disruption.
The question wasn't made made, the question was "CO2 is 99% produced by burning fossile fuels". Nothing about man made in there. I'm not being an idiot you are simply saying false stuff. There is a torrent of CO2 produced by rotting vegetation but what is driving up the levels (mostly) is burning fossil fuels. That's not the same thing at all as saying fossil fuels produce 99% of the CO2.
Because plants rotting is the same process just happening faster. And if you claim that most CO2 being released is from fossil fuels, that false, much less 99%. You were wrong.
This is a good reply. Grandparent was however arguing about extinction. Most of your post is of the form "X is bad". My post wasn't "X doesn't matter" but rather "X isn't sufficient to cause human extinction".
_____
That being said. A few points.
The EPA disagrees that extra heat and CO2 don't matter. Wheat and Soy production rise 30% per acre in their opinion double if we can double CO2 levels with the understanding the crops might have to shift north.
Drought is the big problem. A good irrigation system has been the solution to inconsistent water supply for 6000 years. Humans know how to move large quantities of water, assuming they can get large quantities of water. Increased rainfall means they can get it. Given time to adapt I can't see how higher C02, more temperature and more water isn't a huge net positive for agriculture in general.
Now that's not to say what is grown where by whom won't have to change. So for example areas where wheat is grown in today might have to move to warmer plants like high sugar fruits (banana) take over. Wheat moves north.
Our worst years as far as bad climate (around 2003) our yields were still higher than in the early 1980s during the best years. I do not believe food is a winning argument for climate change. In general I think there needs to be a lot of evidence that: more water in the atmosphere, more CO2, more reflection of sunlight and more heat are not all pretty good things for plants on average.
I believe in climate change, I support green energy and I still think that is fear mongering.
I'm not sure what above you think is a huge sacrifice. I don't think it is that huge a sacrifice. I think the majority of Americans would be willing to sign on to a regulated transition towards green fuels and a global system to help enforce it.
I'm losing your argument about Republicans, and I wasn't talking politicians I was talking Republican voters. 20% of the voters need to change their mind on this issue.
So the local government forced them to lobby for the municipal monopolies?
Sort of. Given the way you are phrasing things I think you are making assumptions that are false. Local governments regulate the sorts of activities cable companies need to engage in, like digging up land to lay cable. Once you decide to dig up land and lay cable you do so under the rules of a utility. The structure of utilities in most places was a government monopoly, where the government oversees pricing and at the same time the utility has protections against competition. That reduces the civil disruption. There wasn't any lobbying required. This was the structure in place before they started.
As for insulting everyone's intelligence. Government utility regulation in the US dates back decades before cable. Unless you are claiming they own time machines, no they had nothing to do with it. That's not to say they may not like the system in some ways while disliking it in others, but they are not the cause.
Verizon LECs abandon copperlines.... Running the PSTN is extremely expensive. Business has been slashing their phone usage for decades. It isn't profitable to maintain that infrastructure anymore. If the local people want those services they could buy the LEC and run it as a town service at a loss or pay a subsidy.
There is no more port available sounds like a good excuse.
If your locality wants to step up to the plate and guarantee revenue there will be more port. Get 100 of your neighbors who agree with you and go to a town council meeting to propose a guarantee.
I'm sorry. We have a country with almost all major services well behind the western world. We have a lower practical population density than most other countries because of suburban living. We come in 9 and you are throwing a fit. That's better than our bridges, our roads, our schools, our hospitals... I'm thrilled we ranked that high.
Slashdot Mirror
There are 3 major clusters of issues:
Economics. She's for more taxes, more regulation and more redistribution. He's for less.
Social. She's pro gun control, pro choice, pro normalizing contraception, pro gay. He's anti.
Defense. They are pretty close though he is a quite a bit more hawkish.
I'd say they disagree substantially more than 2 random Americans would.
They aren't. But you were arguing it was unthinkably expensive not marginally worse or close to break even. Home solar gives a good example of a simple change we can implement that is affordable that isn't "$12 a gallon gas" I don't own solar because I live in NJ and don't have a southern facing roof. If I lived in the south half of USA I would have solar. Even in NJ I considered a small system to cut my electric bill.
Reread my statement and yours about "rise"
You can buy a LEC you don't have to go to all that much trouble. There are ones all over the company to sell.
As far as long range wiifi towers all over the place... most likely that falls under the FCC and they would tell you no. The FCC is currently focused on moving everything else off, including government reserved and television, to make room for cell. They aren't going to want to use up lots of bandwidth for wifi.
Besides all that sounds much more expensive then just paying for port. The LEC would be happy to buy more port is someone else was guaranteeing it, they just don't to make the investment themselves. So tell the LEC you will buy the port and setup a local ISP using them as your local backbone. I think you lose but at least it is cheaper.
Remember that's the price after the $2t is spent. I have friends who have solar $5-15k one time and they are often profitable (i.e. they generate more electricity than they use). Expensive yes. Unthinkably expensive no.
Yes I'm unfamiliar. But I wouldn't confuse ticket price too much with fees. For example in the USA fees are 90% of ticket price on an opening movie. The money is made on soda and popcorn.
We don't need to do anything like that.
We can generate huge amounts of electricity with green technology.
We can switch to electric cars and use electricity to heat homes (except in the very coldest climates)
We can use natural gas rather than diesel for trucks.
Total cost for that green power with a modern electric grid is about $2t. Spread over a decade that's $200b per year. No horrors needed. Except that SUV may be gone. Say for example you make it 100% government funded and tax gas / oil to pay for it. An extra $1 per gallon = $31.50 per barrel. $31.50 per barrel * 7b of US consumption per year = $220.5b. Of course as the electricity comes on line you'll want to drive the gas tax up high on purpose to switch people over to electricity. But that's fine it will fund other areas of government and replace other taxes.
Of course they did. The shift from DOS to Windows is what caused the shift from Lotus-1-2-3, WordPerfect and Harvard Graphics to Excel, Word and PowerPoint.
Oracle / IBM aren't interested in their direction. Contributing changes back would be a lot of work. My guess is they want to grab the improvements for the period of time while the projects are close enough, and if it becomes too much work to maintain the code ports they just stop and let the projects fork further apart.
You are confusing the LEC and the IXC. The local government has no authority over the IXC, that under the FCC.
Well first off they don't own the infrastructure. The only infrastructure they have access to the infrastructure that is already at capacity, i,e. they sold all the port. If they want more infrastructure someone has to come up with the cash. Your LEC doesn't want to. AT&T is not going to undercut their own LEC and sell port to a 3rd party, unless the town made it very worth their while. It would be cheaper for the town to just guarantee the port, or just buy the LEC and run it as a municipal service. Even if AT&T were going to sell more port, the economics for a new LEC would be worse than for the existing LEC.
It is pretty easy. Someone has to come up with millions of dollars to create more port. They aren't doing that because they are jerks, they aren't doing it because they don't see enough market to justify the risk. That is your LEC isn't doing it without a subsidy of some nature. So as a town either pay the subsidy via. a guarantee or just cofund the port or subsidize the purchase for residents. Those are your options. Port costs money. The same as if the town needed an extra 5000 cars they can't create them by trying to void dealership agreements someone has to buy an extra 5000 cars.
Mostly it is a monopoly because the local government doesn't want two companies tearing up the street. They often also have control. GP isn't wrong about the monopoly issue.
No. Civil disruption like blocking traffic, or having to get rights of way on private lands. Not disruption like tanks rolling down the street. There are levels of disruption.
The question wasn't made made, the question was "CO2 is 99% produced by burning fossile fuels". Nothing about man made in there. I'm not being an idiot you are simply saying false stuff. There is a torrent of CO2 produced by rotting vegetation but what is driving up the levels (mostly) is burning fossil fuels. That's not the same thing at all as saying fossil fuels produce 99% of the CO2.
Sweden has a huge percentage of its population in the southern tip and a high rate of internet spending. I don't know Latvia.
Because plants rotting is the same process just happening faster. And if you claim that most CO2 being released is from fossil fuels, that false, much less 99%. You were wrong.
Very good point!
This is a good reply. Grandparent was however arguing about extinction. Most of your post is of the form "X is bad". My post wasn't "X doesn't matter" but rather "X isn't sufficient to cause human extinction".
_____
That being said. A few points.
The EPA disagrees that extra heat and CO2 don't matter. Wheat and Soy production rise 30% per acre in their opinion double if we can double CO2 levels with the understanding the crops might have to shift north.
Drought is the big problem. A good irrigation system has been the solution to inconsistent water supply for 6000 years. Humans know how to move large quantities of water, assuming they can get large quantities of water. Increased rainfall means they can get it. Given time to adapt I can't see how higher C02, more temperature and more water isn't a huge net positive for agriculture in general.
Now that's not to say what is grown where by whom won't have to change. So for example areas where wheat is grown in today might have to move to warmer plants like high sugar fruits (banana) take over. Wheat moves north.
Our worst years as far as bad climate (around 2003) our yields were still higher than in the early 1980s during the best years. I do not believe food is a winning argument for climate change. In general I think there needs to be a lot of evidence that: more water in the atmosphere, more CO2, more reflection of sunlight and more heat are not all pretty good things for plants on average.
I believe in climate change, I support green energy and I still think that is fear mongering.
The question was not locally made but foreign cultural films. Think Woody Allen in China as an extreme.
I'm not sure what above you think is a huge sacrifice. I don't think it is that huge a sacrifice. I think the majority of Americans would be willing to sign on to a regulated transition towards green fuels and a global system to help enforce it.
I'm losing your argument about Republicans, and I wasn't talking politicians I was talking Republican voters. 20% of the voters need to change their mind on this issue.
Sort of. Given the way you are phrasing things I think you are making assumptions that are false. Local governments regulate the sorts of activities cable companies need to engage in, like digging up land to lay cable. Once you decide to dig up land and lay cable you do so under the rules of a utility. The structure of utilities in most places was a government monopoly, where the government oversees pricing and at the same time the utility has protections against competition. That reduces the civil disruption. There wasn't any lobbying required. This was the structure in place before they started.
As for insulting everyone's intelligence. Government utility regulation in the US dates back decades before cable. Unless you are claiming they own time machines, no they had nothing to do with it. That's not to say they may not like the system in some ways while disliking it in others, but they are not the cause.
Windows 8 is a huge plus for touch. I got the Surface Pro.
Verizon LECs abandon copperlines.... Running the PSTN is extremely expensive. Business has been slashing their phone usage for decades. It isn't profitable to maintain that infrastructure anymore. If the local people want those services they could buy the LEC and run it as a town service at a loss or pay a subsidy.
There is no more port available sounds like a good excuse.
If your locality wants to step up to the plate and guarantee revenue there will be more port. Get 100 of your neighbors who agree with you and go to a town council meeting to propose a guarantee.
The cable TV companies did not create local governments setting policy for municipal utility services. That's how things are done in America.
I'm sorry. We have a country with almost all major services well behind the western world. We have a lower practical population density than most other countries because of suburban living. We come in 9 and you are throwing a fit. That's better than our bridges, our roads, our schools, our hospitals... I'm thrilled we ranked that high.