let me get this straight, this story is nothing more than a tv presenter getting confused at a kids tech forum? why is it on slashdot?
Because the denials of the intent to deceive are just as ridiculously fake as most of the rest of what's on Russia's state-owned TV.
If it comes from a Russian — especially, a government-connected Russian — it is more likely to be false than true and any presumptions and doubt ought to be in that direction.
WTF? you don't get much more political than a trade war.
The Political Incidence Test is limited to domestic politics of the country requesting the extradition. It applies only, when "the fugitive is at odds with the state that applies for his extradition on some issue connected with the political control or government of the country".
Jul pna'g V unir fzneg bccbaragf sbe bapr? Jul ner lbh nyy fhpu n fghcvq naq vtabenag ohapu?
The cited Political Incidence Test quite obviously refers to domestic politics. It was written to thwart efforts of a foreign government to pursue opposition that managed to escape their reach in the country. Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the subject clarifies the test to apply only, when the fugitive is at odds with the state that applies for his extradition on some issue connected with the political control or government of the country.
This is why "political incidence" does not apply, and your highly-moderated follow-up — stupid.
Putting words in Trump's mouth by printing them verbatim!!
False. The words I objected to started with "he basically implied..." — that's the opposite of "verbatim".
But it could also mean "I don't care if the case is falling apart, I need the leverage! Keep her in custody!!"
American President has no such power — and Canadians know this. Trump can pardon/release anyone, but he can not detain...
During most of the 4.543 billion years that earths exists, it was not habitable by humans. And even during long periods when earth was more or less habitable, most places where people live now, were under water or otherwise inhabitable
Thank you for this important reminder, that the planet's climate can change — drastically and dramatically — with human involvement neither for nor against it.
False. Right there in the write-up, don't even need to RTFA (emphasis mine):
the model code says that states "shall determine the appropriate State Universal Service assessment methodology and rate consistent with federal law and FCC policy."
"The political incidence test looks to whether the offence is "part of and incidental to a political struggle".
She is not part to a political struggle — she is not even a US citizen. She may be part of a trade-war between countries, but that's not political at all.
When the [sic] Trump said what he said he basically implied that this was part and incidental to a political struggle
He said nothing of the kind. The media's disease of putting words into Trump's mouth has, evidently, infected their best customers...
He said, he might allow her to go, if China cooperates — the charges are perfectly real and not political.
bet her Lawyer's [sic] will enjoy his words.
They might, but any judge agreeing with them will be wrong.
How would this help them avoid trumped-up charges in China? Wherever they incorporate, if the executives are dear to someone in the US, who is in a position to put pressure on government, they will be facing the danger you've alluded to. And to avoid it, they'll try to have less to do with China — which will mean, in many cases, stop owning stuff there.
He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her.
Why? The charges against her are as real as they have been.
What he said may give her a hope for an easier resolution — he didn't threaten her with death penalty, which could've alarmed Canada, he promised, she might be let go.
Quoting the document: "Charter school performance is a complex and difficult matter to assess." No kidding... The study was done with "the support of the State Education Agencies and School Districts who contributed their data to this partnership" — the obvious conflict of interest is likely to have tainted its conclusions.
There is nothing there about costs either so it does not support your claim "Charter schools do an objectively worse job with the same money [emphasis mine]".
And then, even if you do manage to substantiate this claim, you'll still have nothing against my argument regarding the inferiority of government-run services, because charter-schools are also government-run. You'd need to show, that private schools are inferior — that privately-offered education has quadrupled in price without improving quality...
[thenation.com]
Citing Communists as evidence, huh? Ok, I'll hold my nose... Unfortunately, there is nothing there supporting you claim either. The article cites some anecdotes and talks about racial justice.
That study picked 27 towns. For all we know, there may be 270 such places, with the undertaking flopping in all of them except in the 23. They claim, there are 40 such networks nationwide, though it is unclear, how they got that number.
The study also cited only the prices — without any attempt to compare the quality of the offerings.
In other words, it does not support the broad claim that "nearly every place that has tried it has had good results".
You cannot count on FreeBSD to run the latest version of LibreOffice, or anything else
?? Of course, you can — the editors/libreoffice port is usually up to date (it is now, for example). Which is more than one can say about, say, RedHat RPMs. Now try installing an up to date LLVM on Debian...
Often, Linux apps will not run at all.
?? By that logic, Linux is inferior, because "Often, FreeBSD apps will not run at all."
Not as many drivers as Linux, but that is less of a problem.
That would've been the least illogical ding, actually — if it were true...
For now, at least, FreeBSD might make a good server.
However accidental it may be, this is a compliment...
The government should be in control of the communication and power distribution networks for the same reason that they are in control of roads.
First, the things are not the same — wires aren't anywhere near the size of the roads. They can be laid with landowner's permission — as Google Fiber has demonstrated.
Second, even the roads should not be government controlled — certainly not to the degree they currently are in the US. If Tokyo — which learned Capitalism from us — has competing privately-owned subway lines, why can't NYC?
necessary to create markets.
There is nothing in the Constitution about "markets". What's the excuse for increasing government's role in our lives, again?
You certainly have some sort of evidence to back that up, right?
Maybe you need to get rid of pork barrel filling politicians that are in the pockets of certain corporations?
Switching topic, huh? You asked for evidence — of government-provided service being worse than privately-provided ones. You got the evidence.
Unfortunately I cannot read the article about the Brooklyn Bridge
That's too bad...
The amount of people who use the internet went up. The internet is no longer a playground for early adopters and tech geeks
The same sort of demagoguery — about telephony — was used by Statists in the 1930ies. As a result we had phone companies with monopolies on telephone service. The monopolies, which had to be ripped from them later...
You think people would have voted for municipal cable access 20 years ago?
Here in the US we still value the Individual — however cantankerous, greedy and stubborn he might be — and impose limits on what the Collective — however Glorious — may do to his rights.
The wide adoption of the Internet hasn't changed that. As I said, "Municipal Fiber" is "Municipal WiFi" 2.0. It was a stupid — and evil, inasmuch as it increased the government's role in our lives — idea back then. It is the same now. And, of course, you'll continue to defend it — demanding evidence from opponents, while offering nothing but flawed rhetoric of your own.
What you have shown is that the cost of education is rising and that pupils of public schools fare poorly in academics
Fortunately for the US, we don't have many government-provided services. What I have shown is those few services the government does provide around here, have demonstrated an explosive cost-growth without any quality-improvement to justify it. Indeed, some would say, the quality has gone down.
Infrastructure-maintenance is deteriorating too — for a particularly striking example, consider the recent repainting of Brooklyn Bridge — which cost more than building the structure did originally.
When you managed to convince me
Given that, 11 years ago, when Municipal WiFi has become an obvious disaster, you personally continued to defend it — much to the acclaim of your fellow Statists — I do not expect you to ever be convinced. "Municipal Fiber" is just another go at that same harebrained idea and, of course, you are going to defend it after it flops too...
And yet, they didn't reveal any of their own country's installations thus...
While I don't disagree with you regarding the positions being known already anyway, this action may still have been part of Putin's desperate bullying: "We know, where you are, ha-ha, let us rape Ukraine if you want peace".
When you turn on the faucet, who supplies the water?
A private company given a de-facto monopoly by the government. Which is why the water tends to suck and many places have to employ local filtering, softening, etc.
Internet should be classified as a public utility by now
WTF is "public utility"? Something you'd like government to control? Based on what, exactly? Their dizzying success with roads, public schools, and — to bring it closer to topic — that darling of/. resident Communists 15 years ago "municipal WiFi"?
a corporate private business in all other matters like responsibility to provide service to all; and to set their own rates and profits
Of course — and the only way for them to make a profit is to provide good service at attractive prices. Governments have no such incentive, which is why countries ruled by the principles you espouse inevitably suck.
The difference is that pizzerias aren't a natural monopoly
There is no such thing. "Natural Monopoly" is a myth. In my town, the same pole carrying a FiOS cable to my house carries a Comcast cable to my neighbor's. It could carry 20 more...
you are better off with the government monopoly since there is less of a motive for them to squeeze their customers for more money
?? Why? The incentive is the same, while the means of doing it are more powerful. Haw many have successfully fought an increase of their property taxes?
plus you can vote out the people in charge if they get abusive
The cost of your child's schooling quadrupled since 1960ies (inflation-adjusted) — you didn't even realize this until now, much less voted anyone out over it.
When dealing with a corporate monopoly, you have no choice but to keep paying whatever they ask.
Funny, nearly every place that has tried it has had good results
If this were true, you would've cited examples. You didn't. Because it is not true.
First, the city comes in and installs the lines.
Why does it have to be the city? Of course, it does not. It could be, uh, I dunno, Google Fiber?The cities just needs to stop sabotaging it.
maintain the infrastructure, which, it turns out, is something that government does pretty well.
Does it? Are you referring to the reliably pot-holed roads, or the poles with wires, which should've been buried in the ground long ago to not be susceptible to snow-storms?
Slashdot Mirror
Because the denials of the intent to deceive are just as ridiculously fake as most of the rest of what's on Russia's state-owned TV.
If it comes from a Russian — especially, a government-connected Russian — it is more likely to be false than true and any presumptions and doubt ought to be in that direction.
The Political Incidence Test is limited to domestic politics of the country requesting the extradition. It applies only, when "the fugitive is at odds with the state that applies for his extradition on some issue connected with the political control or government of the country".
Jul pna'g V unir fzneg bccbaragf sbe bapr? Jul ner lbh nyy fhpu n fghcvq naq vtabenag ohapu?
The cited Political Incidence Test quite obviously refers to domestic politics. It was written to thwart efforts of a foreign government to pursue opposition that managed to escape their reach in the country. Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the subject clarifies the test to apply only, when the fugitive is at odds with the state that applies for his extradition on some issue connected with the political control or government of the country .
This is why "political incidence" does not apply, and your highly-moderated follow-up — stupid.
False. The words I objected to started with "he basically implied ..." — that's the opposite of "verbatim".
American President has no such power — and Canadians know this. Trump can pardon/release anyone, but he can not detain...
Thank you for this important reminder, that the planet's climate can change — drastically and dramatically — with human involvement neither for nor against it.
Sure! If they don't want to do business with the US (and its friends) or travel here.
Citations?
What if a state decides to set it to zero? You'll still be outraged?
Except, they are not — the very write-up directly contradicts your statement.
About as much as between "yes" and "no".
Distinction without difference.
All the less grounds to suspect, it was motivated by a desired to twist China's arm.
Is it? Then the lady will have her day in court!
That's completely irrelevant. US can impose its own sanctions.
Of course, she is not.
Learn Farsi and fuck off.
False. Right there in the write-up, don't even need to RTFA (emphasis mine):
She is not part to a political struggle — she is not even a US citizen. She may be part of a trade-war between countries, but that's not political at all.
He said nothing of the kind. The media's disease of putting words into Trump's mouth has, evidently, infected their best customers...
He said, he might allow her to go, if China cooperates — the charges are perfectly real and not political.
They might, but any judge agreeing with them will be wrong.
How would this help them avoid trumped-up charges in China? Wherever they incorporate, if the executives are dear to someone in the US, who is in a position to put pressure on government, they will be facing the danger you've alluded to. And to avoid it, they'll try to have less to do with China — which will mean, in many cases, stop owning stuff there.
Why? The charges against her are as real as they have been.
What he said may give her a hope for an easier resolution — he didn't threaten her with death penalty, which could've alarmed Canada, he promised, she might be let go.
This may well have been the intent — to add an incentive to American companies to bring their manufacturing back to the US...
Quoting the document: "Charter school performance is a complex and difficult matter to assess." No kidding... The study was done with "the support of the State Education Agencies and School Districts who contributed their data to this partnership" — the obvious conflict of interest is likely to have tainted its conclusions.
There is nothing there about costs either so it does not support your claim "Charter schools do an objectively worse job with the same money [emphasis mine]".
And then, even if you do manage to substantiate this claim, you'll still have nothing against my argument regarding the inferiority of government-run services, because charter-schools are also government-run. You'd need to show, that private schools are inferior — that privately-offered education has quadrupled in price without improving quality...
Citing Communists as evidence, huh? Ok, I'll hold my nose... Unfortunately, there is nothing there supporting you claim either. The article cites some anecdotes and talks about racial justice.
Fail. Remember to logout.
That study picked 27 towns. For all we know, there may be 270 such places, with the undertaking flopping in all of them except in the 23. They claim, there are 40 such networks nationwide, though it is unclear, how they got that number.
The study also cited only the prices — without any attempt to compare the quality of the offerings.
In other words, it does not support the broad claim that "nearly every place that has tried it has had good results".
Remember to logout.
That's a Dropbox' problem, not FreeBSD's. But Linux has no such client any more either.
?? Of course, you can — the editors/libreoffice port is usually up to date (it is now, for example). Which is more than one can say about, say, RedHat RPMs. Now try installing an up to date LLVM on Debian...
?? By that logic, Linux is inferior, because "Often, FreeBSD apps will not run at all."
That would've been the least illogical ding, actually — if it were true...
However accidental it may be, this is a compliment...
First, the things are not the same — wires aren't anywhere near the size of the roads. They can be laid with landowner's permission — as Google Fiber has demonstrated.
Second, even the roads should not be government controlled — certainly not to the degree they currently are in the US. If Tokyo — which learned Capitalism from us — has competing privately-owned subway lines, why can't NYC?
There is nothing in the Constitution about "markets". What's the excuse for increasing government's role in our lives, again?
You forgot to include evidence.
Would you like to try again, or should your claim remain unsubstantiated?
You certainly have some sort of evidence to back that up, right?
Switching topic, huh? You asked for evidence — of government-provided service being worse than privately-provided ones. You got the evidence.
That's too bad...
The same sort of demagoguery — about telephony — was used by Statists in the 1930ies. As a result we had phone companies with monopolies on telephone service. The monopolies, which had to be ripped from them later...
Here in the US we still value the Individual — however cantankerous, greedy and stubborn he might be — and impose limits on what the Collective — however Glorious — may do to his rights.
The wide adoption of the Internet hasn't changed that. As I said, "Municipal Fiber" is "Municipal WiFi" 2.0. It was a stupid — and evil, inasmuch as it increased the government's role in our lives — idea back then. It is the same now. And, of course, you'll continue to defend it — demanding evidence from opponents, while offering nothing but flawed rhetoric of your own.
I doubt, I'll reply again.
Fortunately for the US, we don't have many government-provided services. What I have shown is those few services the government does provide around here, have demonstrated an explosive cost-growth without any quality-improvement to justify it. Indeed, some would say, the quality has gone down.
Infrastructure-maintenance is deteriorating too — for a particularly striking example, consider the recent repainting of Brooklyn Bridge — which cost more than building the structure did originally.
Given that, 11 years ago, when Municipal WiFi has become an obvious disaster, you personally continued to defend it — much to the acclaim of your fellow Statists — I do not expect you to ever be convinced. "Municipal Fiber" is just another go at that same harebrained idea and, of course, you are going to defend it after it flops too...
And yet, they didn't reveal any of their own country's installations thus...
While I don't disagree with you regarding the positions being known already anyway, this action may still have been part of Putin's desperate bullying: "We know, where you are, ha-ha, let us rape Ukraine if you want peace".
A private company given a de-facto monopoly by the government. Which is why the water tends to suck and many places have to employ local filtering, softening, etc.
WTF is "public utility"? Something you'd like government to control? Based on what, exactly? Their dizzying success with roads, public schools, and — to bring it closer to topic — that darling of /. resident Communists 15 years ago "municipal WiFi"?
Of course — and the only way for them to make a profit is to provide good service at attractive prices. Governments have no such incentive, which is why countries ruled by the principles you espouse inevitably suck.
There is no such thing. "Natural Monopoly" is a myth. In my town, the same pole carrying a FiOS cable to my house carries a Comcast cable to my neighbor's. It could carry 20 more...
Google, for example, would've loved to lay its own fiber nation-wide, but got thwarted by "numerous regulatory challenges.".
?? Why? The incentive is the same, while the means of doing it are more powerful. Haw many have successfully fought an increase of their property taxes?
The cost of your child's schooling quadrupled since 1960ies (inflation-adjusted) — you didn't even realize this until now, much less voted anyone out over it.
Governments — local governments, like this town's — are the reason many places have such limited choice of ISPs. Allowing the same people to offer their own monopoly just helps them solidify the unfortunate situation.
If this were true, you would've cited examples. You didn't. Because it is not true.
Why does it have to be the city? Of course, it does not. It could be, uh, I dunno, Google Fiber?The cities just needs to stop sabotaging it.
Does it? Are you referring to the reliably pot-holed roads, or the poles with wires, which should've been buried in the ground long ago to not be susceptible to snow-storms?