Safety Nets morph into full blown socialism, every time. Because, people will die if we don't save them from themselves! (see GP post to my original, for perfect example)
1) Safety Nets aren't supposed to be permanent. 2) Safety Nets aren't needed for normal people doing normal things, they are for high wire dangerous acts. 3) There are still starving people, in spite of Safety Nets (or so I am told), and yet there are people who don't need the Safety Net that are using it anyways. 4) I would not be opposed to safety nets, if they fit a very limited term, very limited use, last case scenario, and came with the social services needed to get people out of whatever "crisis" (it has to be a crisis) they were in. People too often live there, because they or otherwise are not compelled to "work". They ought to.
Um, no they don't "need" to track me. They can advertise a broad range of products and services, perhaps have a 1000 or more in queue and that way, I only see their advert once every 1000 clicks, with a daily refresh rate of 1%, I could go years without seeing a duplicate. There are more than 1000 products and services out there, aren't there?
In this age, commercials are also "content", one that nobody cares for. If I see an ad, for more than 5 or 10 seconds, it is too long. Especially if it one I've seen a couple dozen times already. I already know your product, and showing me another 24 times this week isn't going to help you sell it to me. In all likelihood, it is gonna piss me off, and i'll choose your competitor's or generic version.
See Venezuela and North Korea for examples of socialism working so well people there is no actual food to actually eat.
Socialism works, until it breaks, then everyone is worse off, People like yourself keep lying about "starving people" You know the #1 sign in America that you're poor? You're fat. Yup, starving poor are obese.
What this law is designed to do (and needs to be done in Vancouver BC, Seattle WA, Portland Oregon, and San Francisco California) is stop people from hoarding property from the people who live in the city and need that property.
Why?
Why must we have laws to control what people do with their own property in cases like this? Why do you feel compelled to regulate Real Estate in this manner?
Please explain, using non-emotionally based economic arguments. Housing affordability is irrelevant. People who can afford to live there, will. And those who can't won't. What is wrong with people living where they can afford to?
I love how people, such as yourself, think it is VERY okay to control other's lives in such a manner, simply because you can "pass a law" and make it so. It is people like you that created AirBNB in the first place, because you have regulated the market and now, the market is trying to figure out ways around your stupid regulations. And you're only response is "more regulation". Welcome to Soviet America, where you must get permission from Party Leader before you can do anything.
Assuming a race to the bottom is an actual thing. Sometimes the race is to the highest efficiency. Race to the bottom can be viewed in all sorts of places where there is an "adverse" affect on the status quo.
Min Wage increase, leads to higher adoption rate of robots, increasing the unemployment rate of talentless workers. This is a "race to the bottom", and probably one that you might have supported, until I mentioned it is a race to the bottom. But the market itself only cares about efficiency.
And while you may be correct about dredging and environment, my answer would be, we're already ruined the environment of these places (some of which are actually man made, non-natural). Environmentalists love to use the environment to control economics, even when they are fighting man made environments.
The problem with socialists and other forms of state modified economies, is that they deny the fluidity of markets, and think in only Stagnate terms. This is why, you have government regulations that no longer work as intended (often having opposite effects) that are also, impossible to get rid of. The idea that things have changed, and the regulations that once were a good idea (i disagree with the premise) are no longer doing anything useful is an anathema to planned economy statists.
The second problem with socialists, is the perception of "unfairness" vs "fair share" in economies. This is why you have them complaining about tax systems where the rich avoid taxes (because they can) and the poor and middle class get stuck with taxes they can't avoid, and salary (minimum wage laws) and wealth accumulation. They see all these things in terms of EMOTION. You cannot argue with facts against emotion, and not with emotional people. They don't care what the results actually are, only how they feel about the process. Intentions are everything, and very rarely do the results count. This relates to the first point, because it is this emotionalism that prevents bad economic engineering from being removed from the marketplace.
The only real solution is to free up economics to the point where fast, agile market leaders can adapt to the changing conditions quickly, while limiting influences and protectionist regulations upon the market by governing forces. All regulations are a drain on the economic engine.
Realistic Arguments 101: Make sure they are realistic. In the case of Fiber, the data rate is limited only by distance and fiber type. When building out new infrastrcture, that fiber is put into conduit. Conduit being the actual "hard" part of the job. Once the conduit is laid, you can pull new and updated fiber through as often as needed. Average lifespan of fiber is 10-15 years.
And fiber doesn't need regulation, being just a conduit. The end points are all that matter. Since one is customer, and the other is one of several ISPs, then what "regulation" is needed? Once actual competition is in place, I'll be you find new and exciting services being delivered, in ways you can't even imagine right now.
User Taxes are okay, if you don't have service, you don't pay the tax. Heck, even using a Muni Bond would be an "okay" way to fund the initial infrastructure build out. Again letting the people choose (via bond election) rather than mandates by bureaucrats a thousand miles away.
And this will be the REAL open market to all sorts of new and interesting products/services.
Comcast as a CaTV company is slowly dying (waiting on Netcraft to confirm), they will be relegated to being an ISP very shortly. Our household watches very little actual CaTV programming, most of what we watch are NetFlix and Amazon streams. Channels like HBO are starting to realize that CaTV is also dying, and now are starting to offer HBO Streaming offerings.
The distribution model is broken, by high speed data. That genie has left the bottle, good luck getting it back in.
Not even that. Our benefits package could be improved so much by a little "out of the box" thinking, lowering costs and increasing benefits at the same time, for just a small extra effort. I'm talking a huge net benefit to everyone working. Do they do it? No. Why? Because they are lazy and incompetent and cannot think outside the box.
A simple example: Raise the Deductible and Co-Pays to lower the cost of Insurance, use the difference to buy Supplemental Insurance (think AFLAC), with a NET savings, while providing nearly $0 out of pocket in actual cost to the subscriber.
If they did this for EVERYONE, they could remove a whole bunch of benefit plans from existence, provide better service, and cost savings and save the company thousands and thousands of dollars each year. So, win-win-win option. But they don't.
Nah, it is much easier for rich people to buy off the state to protect their "rights". When the state itself is set against its citizens, the rich can pay to avoid the annoyances the state issues.
The problem isn't rich people, the problem is a unfair state, that doesn't take our rights seriously.
The funny thing is, the people making fun of Trump's Hair, are often the same people that go nuts when people make fun of how bad Hillary looks (pantsuits n stuff).
I just wish the two parties would grow up and act like adults, but sadly it is only a pipe dream.
Apple did change the rules, but it did so by getting a bit lucky.
Remember, they offered the iPhone to Verizon first, and VZ didn't want to play by Apple's new rules. AT&T reluctantly agreed, because it didn't think Apple had anything useful. The licensing deal giving AT&T exclusive to iPhone was enough to almost kill AT&T's network, which needed HUGE upgrades to match the data demands for iPhone.
Once Apple's appeal went viral, BB had time to innovate, and get a new product to market, on all four of the cell providers. Unfortunately, it saw Apple's Deal with AT&T as a fence (for apple) rather than the warning shot that it was. Once Apple broke out of AT&T only land, and Android started taking off (a bit later), Blackberry was irrelevant. BBM wasn't enough to keep people on BB.
People looking for lowest price, usually get what they deserve. Quality still counts in some places, and a jump in quality usually doesn't cost nearly as much as replacing crappy products four times as often.
1) Assholes are assholes, regardless of money. I've known plenty of poor assholes. In fact, most of the assholes I know are entitlement Pricks who think the world owes them a living .
2) Why the Jealousy? Go out and get rich or die trying.
3) Why do you have to pick a side in a battle that isn't yours and has nothing to do with you? Unless there is some fundamental "right" that needs defending, in which case, pick that side regardless of how rich or assholish the person is, or how nice/poor the other person is.
Its not. However, there are lots of people who are "stakeholders" who think that they should be insulated from such battles and who want the government involved and make illformed policy rules and regulations, rather than wait patiently for the marketplace to sort things out for maximized resource usage.
Another option is for all the stakeholders to complain to "content creators" and "netflix" via social media hoping to change the economic interest of those companies with whining.
Lastly, the best option would be for Stakeholders to get their own personal IPv6 block and build their own network, and actually not give a shit about either NetFlix or the Content Creators. But that is too hard (tm)
Slashdot Mirror
Safety Nets morph into full blown socialism, every time. Because, people will die if we don't save them from themselves! (see GP post to my original, for perfect example)
1) Safety Nets aren't supposed to be permanent.
2) Safety Nets aren't needed for normal people doing normal things, they are for high wire dangerous acts.
3) There are still starving people, in spite of Safety Nets (or so I am told), and yet there are people who don't need the Safety Net that are using it anyways.
4) I would not be opposed to safety nets, if they fit a very limited term, very limited use, last case scenario, and came with the social services needed to get people out of whatever "crisis" (it has to be a crisis) they were in. People too often live there, because they or otherwise are not compelled to "work". They ought to.
Um, no they don't "need" to track me. They can advertise a broad range of products and services, perhaps have a 1000 or more in queue and that way, I only see their advert once every 1000 clicks, with a daily refresh rate of 1%, I could go years without seeing a duplicate. There are more than 1000 products and services out there, aren't there?
In this age, commercials are also "content", one that nobody cares for. If I see an ad, for more than 5 or 10 seconds, it is too long. Especially if it one I've seen a couple dozen times already. I already know your product, and showing me another 24 times this week isn't going to help you sell it to me. In all likelihood, it is gonna piss me off, and i'll choose your competitor's or generic version.
See Venezuela and North Korea for examples of socialism working so well people there is no actual food to actually eat.
Socialism works, until it breaks, then everyone is worse off, People like yourself keep lying about "starving people" You know the #1 sign in America that you're poor? You're fat. Yup, starving poor are obese.
What this law is designed to do (and needs to be done in Vancouver BC, Seattle WA, Portland Oregon, and San Francisco California) is stop people from hoarding property from the people who live in the city and need that property.
Why?
Why must we have laws to control what people do with their own property in cases like this? Why do you feel compelled to regulate Real Estate in this manner?
Please explain, using non-emotionally based economic arguments. Housing affordability is irrelevant. People who can afford to live there, will. And those who can't won't. What is wrong with people living where they can afford to?
I love how people, such as yourself, think it is VERY okay to control other's lives in such a manner, simply because you can "pass a law" and make it so. It is people like you that created AirBNB in the first place, because you have regulated the market and now, the market is trying to figure out ways around your stupid regulations. And you're only response is "more regulation". Welcome to Soviet America, where you must get permission from Party Leader before you can do anything.
Assuming a race to the bottom is an actual thing. Sometimes the race is to the highest efficiency. Race to the bottom can be viewed in all sorts of places where there is an "adverse" affect on the status quo.
Min Wage increase, leads to higher adoption rate of robots, increasing the unemployment rate of talentless workers. This is a "race to the bottom", and probably one that you might have supported, until I mentioned it is a race to the bottom. But the market itself only cares about efficiency.
And while you may be correct about dredging and environment, my answer would be, we're already ruined the environment of these places (some of which are actually man made, non-natural). Environmentalists love to use the environment to control economics, even when they are fighting man made environments.
The problem with socialists and other forms of state modified economies, is that they deny the fluidity of markets, and think in only Stagnate terms. This is why, you have government regulations that no longer work as intended (often having opposite effects) that are also, impossible to get rid of. The idea that things have changed, and the regulations that once were a good idea (i disagree with the premise) are no longer doing anything useful is an anathema to planned economy statists.
The second problem with socialists, is the perception of "unfairness" vs "fair share" in economies. This is why you have them complaining about tax systems where the rich avoid taxes (because they can) and the poor and middle class get stuck with taxes they can't avoid, and salary (minimum wage laws) and wealth accumulation. They see all these things in terms of EMOTION. You cannot argue with facts against emotion, and not with emotional people. They don't care what the results actually are, only how they feel about the process. Intentions are everything, and very rarely do the results count. This relates to the first point, because it is this emotionalism that prevents bad economic engineering from being removed from the marketplace.
The only real solution is to free up economics to the point where fast, agile market leaders can adapt to the changing conditions quickly, while limiting influences and protectionist regulations upon the market by governing forces. All regulations are a drain on the economic engine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Name Calling vs Facts: Facts always win.
Realistic Arguments 101: Make sure they are realistic. In the case of Fiber, the data rate is limited only by distance and fiber type. When building out new infrastrcture, that fiber is put into conduit. Conduit being the actual "hard" part of the job. Once the conduit is laid, you can pull new and updated fiber through as often as needed. Average lifespan of fiber is 10-15 years.
And fiber doesn't need regulation, being just a conduit. The end points are all that matter. Since one is customer, and the other is one of several ISPs, then what "regulation" is needed? Once actual competition is in place, I'll be you find new and exciting services being delivered, in ways you can't even imagine right now.
Franchise agreements are usually municipal based. Once those agreements expire (and they all do), then the resident ISP has no real choice.
User Taxes are okay, if you don't have service, you don't pay the tax. Heck, even using a Muni Bond would be an "okay" way to fund the initial infrastructure build out. Again letting the people choose (via bond election) rather than mandates by bureaucrats a thousand miles away.
And this will be the REAL open market to all sorts of new and interesting products/services.
This is exactly what I've been proposing for YEARS. Finally, someone with the guts to actually try it. HELL YEAH !
Comcast as a CaTV company is slowly dying (waiting on Netcraft to confirm), they will be relegated to being an ISP very shortly. Our household watches very little actual CaTV programming, most of what we watch are NetFlix and Amazon streams. Channels like HBO are starting to realize that CaTV is also dying, and now are starting to offer HBO Streaming offerings.
The distribution model is broken, by high speed data. That genie has left the bottle, good luck getting it back in.
From your UID, you've been on /. for probably 16 years or so, meaning you signed up when you were born! Damn kid that is exceptional!
it's all they are competent for.
Not even that. Our benefits package could be improved so much by a little "out of the box" thinking, lowering costs and increasing benefits at the same time, for just a small extra effort. I'm talking a huge net benefit to everyone working. Do they do it? No. Why? Because they are lazy and incompetent and cannot think outside the box.
A simple example: Raise the Deductible and Co-Pays to lower the cost of Insurance, use the difference to buy Supplemental Insurance (think AFLAC), with a NET savings, while providing nearly $0 out of pocket in actual cost to the subscriber.
If they did this for EVERYONE, they could remove a whole bunch of benefit plans from existence, provide better service, and cost savings and save the company thousands and thousands of dollars each year. So, win-win-win option. But they don't.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
I'll sit right here while you dig up something on the Koch brothers as a retort. /grabpopcorn
Nah, it is much easier for rich people to buy off the state to protect their "rights". When the state itself is set against its citizens, the rich can pay to avoid the annoyances the state issues.
The problem isn't rich people, the problem is a unfair state, that doesn't take our rights seriously.
The funny thing is, the people making fun of Trump's Hair, are often the same people that go nuts when people make fun of how bad Hillary looks (pantsuits n stuff).
I just wish the two parties would grow up and act like adults, but sadly it is only a pipe dream.
That is what my Google Voice Number is for. And why I have a few of them.
I suspect that 3D printing and CNC laser Mills will be changing all sorts of industries. Including AutoParts.
Apple did change the rules, but it did so by getting a bit lucky.
Remember, they offered the iPhone to Verizon first, and VZ didn't want to play by Apple's new rules. AT&T reluctantly agreed, because it didn't think Apple had anything useful. The licensing deal giving AT&T exclusive to iPhone was enough to almost kill AT&T's network, which needed HUGE upgrades to match the data demands for iPhone.
Once Apple's appeal went viral, BB had time to innovate, and get a new product to market, on all four of the cell providers. Unfortunately, it saw Apple's Deal with AT&T as a fence (for apple) rather than the warning shot that it was. Once Apple broke out of AT&T only land, and Android started taking off (a bit later), Blackberry was irrelevant. BBM wasn't enough to keep people on BB.
People looking for lowest price, usually get what they deserve. Quality still counts in some places, and a jump in quality usually doesn't cost nearly as much as replacing crappy products four times as often.
1) Assholes are assholes, regardless of money. I've known plenty of poor assholes. In fact, most of the assholes I know are entitlement Pricks who think the world owes them a living .
2) Why the Jealousy? Go out and get rich or die trying.
3) Why do you have to pick a side in a battle that isn't yours and has nothing to do with you? Unless there is some fundamental "right" that needs defending, in which case, pick that side regardless of how rich or assholish the person is, or how nice/poor the other person is.
Its not. However, there are lots of people who are "stakeholders" who think that they should be insulated from such battles and who want the government involved and make illformed policy rules and regulations, rather than wait patiently for the marketplace to sort things out for maximized resource usage.
Another option is for all the stakeholders to complain to "content creators" and "netflix" via social media hoping to change the economic interest of those companies with whining.
Lastly, the best option would be for Stakeholders to get their own personal IPv6 block and build their own network, and actually not give a shit about either NetFlix or the Content Creators. But that is too hard (tm)
http://www.internetsociety.org...
IPv6 has 10^^28 more (multiply) addresses than IPv4
IPv4 * 10^28 = IPv6 addresses.