As to us covering it before, then you were wrong before likely. And as to me being wrong or unrealistic... prove it.
As to forcing access to the cable being competition... no.
1. The cable can be shit which means you're competing over shit cable. Often this cable is a copper legacy cable that is garbage. If competitors could run cable, they'd run fiber. It is cheaper and better.
2. Cable sharing means that I am doing two things I don't want to do. First, I am forced to pay for their maintenance of the cable and the way they do that. And if they're incompetent asshats that have a bad system that is inefficient then I have to pay the premium mark up price to subsidize their incompetence. The second thing I don't want to do is subsidize my competitor at all. I don't want to subcontract through someone I want to put economic pressure on. I want to give them ZERO dollars.
Your concept is unacceptable on those grounds.
As to last mile cable being perfect for natural monopolies... you're saying those words but you're not defending the position at all.
You could as easily say "last mile cable is full of unicorns and elves"... You need to provide a falsifiable argument. Say "it is better for these reasons"... then I'll go through your reasons one at a time, prove they're not true, that will invalidate your argument, and my position will be sustained.
I have no problem with that except for the assertion that we need the government to provide the hub links.
A universal mesh network would be nifty. But we don't need a city, state, or federal hub owned and run by the government. Replace that with a link from Qwest communications or L3 and you're fine with me.:)
That's who owns most of the cable at this point anyway. Big backbone ISPs. The prices are cheap for bandwidth, there is lots of bandwidth to be had... again, saturation in the backbone is less than 30 percent. That is they have 70 percent of the cable free for expansion as of now. Why would I cut those guys out of the loop when they've never been the problem, they have the cable in place already, and they have more than enough bandwidth for all of us to get 1 gigabit connections tomorrow?
Inserting the government in that relationship is pointless and counter productive. the government would just have to contract with these companies anyway because they are the ones that actually run the cable between cities. Yes, the cities could buy or run their own cable between each other... but why? The existing companies doing that are not charging high rates and are not offering poor service.
Why cut them out of the loop when they're doing a good job?
As to your claim of strawman, I'll grant that you're saying that THEY think is more profitable and not YOU. However, that still leaves us with the assertion that it is more profitable. I also question whether dice actually thinks that. I think they just don't care or haven't thought about it very much. Everyone can see that dice hasn't really handled their involvement in the community very well.
In regards to the comment you have quoted, excellent. Lets do this.:)
In regards to environmental externalizes, I'd prefer to avoid that tangent for the sake of argument because it is too complicated. Please do not use that reference because it forces me to get into that issue in depth and really it could be pages and pages from that alone.
As to the government always being less efficient, they are though... anything a company can do is done better by a company instead of the government. There are a few things that companies really can't do. One is fight wars. Another is run a legal system. Another is run a legislature. That kind of stuff.
But often people will say that companies can't build or maintain roads or they can't run a power distribution and generation system. And they can do that and without exception they're always more efficient at it. Yes, there can be incidents of fraud. But it is apples and oranges to compare a company stealing from consumers to a government body that is not corrupt and doing its best to provide a good service. If you want to compare the two, then we can compare a company stealing to a government stealing... and even there you'll find the companies tend to be less greedy about it.
In regards to your statement that you can't say a company is more efficient at anything unless they do everything the goverment does, that isn't reasonable. Under this logic, a large corporation that does many things would always be more efficient than a small sandwich shop that happens to be better at making sandwiches than the big corporation. But by your logic, they can't be said to be more efficient because they don't do as many things as the big corporation.
Logically, you have to isolate given tasks, products, and services and evaluate each on a point by point basis.
By this logic you're using here, you can't say the government is less efficient than a corporation unless the corporation is able to fight wars. So if the government is incredibly inefficient... just burning resources and utterly incompetent in most tasks, your logic would say they're not inefficient because they can do things that a vastly better run organization can't do.
The PS1 has some pretty good emulators but the PS2 doesn't really... and I think the PS3 doesn't have them at all.
As to the xbox, I've yet to see even one xbox emulator that was worth a damn.
Not even the first xbox. Which makes me sad because I want to be able to play Halo 3 and 4 but I refuse to buy an xbox just for those games. I'm a PC gamer. MS released Halo 1 and 2 for the PC. Cool. And I don't mind waiting a couple years. That's fine too. But release them EVENTUALLY for the PC. Don't tell me the porting process isn't easy. We all know it is. So just do it and make me happy.
That or I'm going to be one of those people skulking around looking for xbox emulators and cruising torrent sites for the game files.
I will BUY your game for the PC. If you don't let me do that... then I'm sawing off my leg, wearing a eye patch, adopting a parrot, and developing an annoying love of the sound "ARRRRR".
I love that you think naked trolls where you just make dumb insults is somehow giving you any kind of edge on me. All your dumb insults do is make you sound petty, childish, and weak.
You sound like a petulant child.
And the fact that you're hiding behind the AC to troll doesn't speak well of you either.
Dude, there are pixels that are pink and pixels that are not pink all over that forest.
That means the resolution is good enough to say that there is deforestation in one part of the forest and not the other. It isn't just one pixel. You zoom in and it looks about as good as weather radar map. It isn't bad at all unless they're overstating their precision.
What is more, I jacked the deforestation up to 75 percent to see where the worst zones were and they were still citing big portions of the forest as being basically clear cut. That's bullshit. I've been in that forest recently. And again... logging is not permitted and there have been no fires. The trees fall over and rot mostly. It is too wet to burn. It is a misty damp forest. You probably couldn't set it on fire with a flame thrower most of the time.
About 12 years ago a small portion of it burned during a really dry summer... and it was arson. Guy used diesel fuel to start it.
Since then, the only thing effecting the trees has been dying of old age, falling over, and getting devoured by a billion mushrooms.
I mean, they cite fire, so maybe they're saying "ANYTHING" gets counted?
Then... natural decay gets counted? And if so... you could run this little map program in Jurassic earth and it would make a map like this... yeah, areas would open up momentarily when big trees fell over... and then other trees would fill the space.
I think a more interesting map would be one that showed not just one year of deforestation but maybe ten or twenty years to balance out little variations and then try to focus on tree loss that is due to logging. I mean, if a bunch of beetles go crazy and kill a few million trees, that isn't my fault. That's on those beetles.
Except for restaurants have been literally carrying wheel chairs into establishments for years. It was a common thing to do. A guy would show up in a wheel chair, 4 waiters would go out there, each grab a corner, and carry him up the stairs. Many wheel chairs used to have handles there specifically for this purpose.
And that ignores the fact that a pretty steep ramp is totally reasonable if someone is pushing you up it. Which is something any establishment would be happy to help with. I've never known a business owner that wouldn't do that. I'm sure they are out there, but most people are not assholes. You can't use the occasional asshole to justify tyranny. Its fucked up.
Anyway, I just got a guy with a spinal injury that has been in a wheel chair for years to back me up in this thread. So. I feel validated.
I said near my house not my literal house. And I know there wasn't any logging or fires in that area.
1. Logging is prohibited. Period. It isn't allowed. For any reason. The whole area is protected.
2. There haven't been any fires there for about 10 years.
So... why is it pink when logging is prohibited, there is no logging, there hasn't been logging there for my entire life, and there haven't been any fires in the last 10 years?
Explain it to me.
I smell horseshit. But you probably like horseshit, don't you? It just gets your mouth watering. Mmmm... corn kernels... am I right?
You're right, businesses don't give a shit about whether customers are happy there. Its why it is customary for most businesses to spit in the faces of anyone that comes by just so they know where they stand.
We're done. You're addicted threatening people to get what you want. That's all you understand. Violence and intimidation. Never occurred to you to ask. Never occurred to you suggest. Never occurred to you see what people were willing to do.
Might there be some assholes that won't do anything? Sure. Does that justify you getting the government to shove guns in our faces and regulate the shit out of it? No.
No, I'm not bad at reading. I'm just not cooperating with your attempts to control my argument or strawman me.
The conduit will require maintenance. So what? Everything does. That is no excuse not to have it. the cost of maintaining it will be cheap. it is a fucking pipe. I don't want to hear you whining about what the conduit will cost to maintain again.
That portion of the discussion is done.
As to you being a libertarian, then why are you so in favor of putting the government in charge of everything? No libertarian is going to say that the government can maintain something like that because they're more efficient. That makes no sense.
As to your allegation that I must be an anarchist, no... I said the the government is needed for laws, police, and courts. That automatically means I'm not an anarchist. Nice try strawmanning me, but I saw that one coming and headed it off in the previous discussion.
You didn't read that though or process it which renders you claim that I am bad at reading LAUGHABLE.
In regards to what hiring private firms proves, it proves the private sector is frequently more efficient. You're not a libertarian... that's obviously a lie. You're sitting there arguing a statist position.
Give me a break. You're about as much a libertarian as Bill Maher. He also claims to be a libertarian. Never met a government regulation he didn't like though.
And at the end you start arguing randomly that all public services can be handled by private companies.
Okay, why not the fucking cables in the conduits then? Because that's all I'm asking for here.
Given that business owners are routinely forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to comply or sued millions for not complying and then forced to pay for the remodel on top of that... you can jam that comment in sideways.
Tautology... you can't have competition if you don't allow it to exist.
You say we won't have it because we don't have it and we don't have it because you've made it illegal.
the economics of the issue are besides the point. You've made it illegal.
If you felt that the economics were sufficient to stop competition... which you clearly hate... then you wouldn't feel it was further required to make competition outright illegal.
The simple fact that you think you need to make it illegal means that you fear that it could happen if you didn't make it illegal. Which means you're selling me some kind of bullshit.
Logic. You will respect it.;)
Here is the thing. If your economics argument were at all valid, you wouldn't need to make competition illegal. The economics alone would stop it. So... put your money where your mouth is here... say you're okay with people doing it because you know they won't because of the economics.
I'll accept that. I'm quite happy to let the market decide. I am not willing to accept the government just shitting all over the situation and then blaming the shit it just spread all over the place on other people or economics or some other bullshit.
Given that at most I might see one person every two months with such a condition, it really would be no hardship at all.
And if I had to do three times a day, I still wouldn't mind.
Really.
I'm not a bad guy, brother. You just can't expect people to drop 30k on something like that when often as not no one that is disabled ever comes. I mean... ever. Sure they could... but on that basis you can't ask me to spend 30k. I'm very happy to go out in the cold and wind and help anyone. Really. And if I need some help because the guy is really fat, I'll grab another employee for it. No big deal.
Your authoritarian position is noted. People like you are nothing new. They've been the misery of billions throughout history. Always there with a justification to control and dominate.
That's all you are... nothing more.
Want to know how many people my sort relegates to misery? No one.
I don't force people to do anything unless they're pushing someone else around against their will... and then I might make them stop it. But that is about the limits of my willingness to hurt people and control people.
wow... so you're saying that if the city has to do a rebuild on the conduit once every 100 years that is a deal breaker for you?
that's idiotic. I'm not saying you're an idiot. I'm saying you said something that was very stupid. Please don't do that.
As to admitting that cables determine bandwidth, then you are admitting that the government could control internet speed simply by being lazy about upgrading cables.
As to arguing that government never works, I did not say that. I just said I don't want to be held hostage to their incompetence if and when they fuck up. Is that unreasonable? Or does everything have to be a too big to fail government clusterfuck?
Really? you think the government is efficient? In what way is the government ever efficient when compared to private enterprise.
Name anything the government does that the private sector does and we'll go through the cost figures.
The government literally is always less efficient. Without exception.
The only way it ever is made to APPEAR more efficient is when they cook the books by not counting payroll for a given department or pensions or whatever. So sure, if you exclude a lot of costs that the tax payers pay for a given thing, at some point it will be cheaper if you exclude enough of them. However, you can't exclude any of them because the people pay for it all regardless.
After the budget crunch, many cities ran out of money. Some cities privatized large portions of city services and without exception saved a lot of money by doing it. They privatized stuff like park maintenance, ambulances, fire departments, etc. And the cities in some cases saved so much money by doing that in the middle of a deficit that they were able to actually expand and improve services with the savings.
No, government is not more efficient. it is a necessary evil. It exists because you need someone to act as judge. You need someone to make laws. And you need someone to hire people to point guns at other people that break the laws.
That is what you NEED government for. Everything beyond that tends to be a circle jerk.
I've always wondered, why doesn't someone build a castle or something out there? I would totally consider building a compound in the middle of that hell hole. 20 foot walls with spikes on the tops of course... and gate possibly with a portcullis... maybe a moat... full of something horrible that can live in detroit. I guess I could heat the water in the winter but I'd prefer not to.
The land has to be so cheap that you could do some funny stuff with it.
I would never be so self absorbed and entitled to suggest that the entire world should mold itself to my disabilities.
The number of places that have spent tens of thousands to have these ramps in place and yet not had a single disabled customer are legion.
if there were any kind of disabled traffic going on, that would be one thing. But when there isn't, you're asking me to shell out a lot of money for nothing.
As to wheel chairs needing that rise, if they do they're poorly designed.
I told you, I'd be happy to carry you into the store myself. I'd be happy to push your wheel chair up my ramp. No need for anyone else. I would do it gladly.
I'll tell you what, I'll put a buzzer or bell at the bottom of the ramp. You press that, I'll come out and help anyone that pressed the button with a smile. The buzzer won't cost me an arm and a leg.
If you want 12 feet for every 1 foot of rise, you want me to spend tens of thousands of dollars, and you have no sympathy for my problems... then why should I have sympathy for yours?
You are saying only your problems are worth consideration. Anyone else's hardships are irrelevant. You are entitled... no one else is entitled to anything.
Yeah, you can't have that attitude and expect sympathy, boyo. You've got to give to get.
You want me to care about you? You have to care about me.
What you've got going for you is a government goon squad that will threaten me with violence if I don't do what you say. That isn't respect or sympathy. That's intimation and threats.
Which is all people like you ever understand. Just knives to people's throats, crocodile tears, and pretended sympathy.
Far from being some voice of the disabled... you're just human garbage.
How's that for moralizing, you little weasel? I am so sick of you people turning every problem in your lives into a license to order everyone else around. You do it on an ever growing host of issues and half the time you contradict yourself.
Only you don't contradict yourself on one point. You want power and you want attention. What you accomplish while you're about it tends to change with the wind. The justifications tend to be just that.
Whole generations are growing up with you fucks ordering people around and the statistics show that there is increasing resistance and savviness where your sort are concerned. People are learning and adapting to you... politically and socially. They're growing up learning how to manipulate you and placate you.
It won't be long before you're taken just as seriously as you deserve.
There is you history and future for you, boyo. See you there.
1. Again, the english are running cable in pipes that are over a hundred years old. So give me a break please.
Okay... last time.
CABLES DETERMINE BANDWIDTH.
Also for all you know they'll splice something into the cable... a wire tap of some description. I'm not keen on it.
As to you not invoking the notion that without the government running it there would be chaos. *facepalm* That is exactly your argument. Tell me right now why we can't have 20 companies running cable and do not anywhere infer that it will be chaotic. Double dog dare you.
As to the only difference being who owns them, wrong. Because if they own them and no one can compete with them, what is to stop the government cables from just staying old and shitty forever? They could do it and what would you do about it? Nothing. Because you'll have given up all control to them. You going to vote for the red team instead of the blue team because the existing mayor won't change the cable? Probably not. Which means he doesn't give a shit.
No. It is a too big to fail cluster fuck.
As to the government controlled conduit giving the NSA better access... not really. They already tap lines as it is... However, if they don't own the line then if and when they do tap the line any technition could remove their bullshit. If the city own the cable then only the city could disconnect the NSA.
Given what we're seeing with stingrays, I trust the companies more than I trust the cities. The city police departments will be offered FBI support in return for installing their bullshit which will just be stuff the NSA handed them. And boom. You're fucked.
This is not a profitable discussion. You've got no reason for wanting the city to have control. You just DO want them to have control.
Either cite the reason for wanting the city to be in control of it without referring chaos or order because you said that wasn't your argument... or what exactly are you fighting this so hard for? Why?
they're not naturally occurring hills, they're ROADS on hills. No one says the roads have to go up the hills perpendicular to the peak. You could zig zag the roads or spiral them up the hill. That would give you any grade you wanted.
As to you landing on your ass at 1/10... so for four feet of rise you expect me to build you 48 feet of ramp. I would sooner carry you into the store/restaurant myself and place you in your chair of choice.
If my offer to personally carry you into the establishment is not sufficient sacrifice and I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars... then I really just have zero sympathy at that point. It is too expensive.
Much like the idea of demolishing those old victorian style houses on those hills in SF and then coming up with some stupid road pattern that is ADA compliant, you're sometimes asking businesses to do too much.
Sometimes it isn't a big deal. Sometimes it really isn't practical to comply. I'm sorry. Any establishment is going to do its level best to make you feel comfortable and enjoy your experience. But there are limits. Some of these regulations are very expensive to comply with especially for legacy construction that wasn't built with these standards in mind.
There is a botanical garden in my area that was built about 100 years ago. Not ADA compliant. They run the whole operation with community donations. They're in jeopardy of being shut down unless they tear up all the landscaping and completely redesign the whole thing to be ADA complaint.
Grasp this... this hostility you're reading from me... it comes from some place real. And blowing me off because you think you're the only opinion with a greivance and all other positions should have a gun pressed against their heads and told to comply or die... is not acceptable.
And yes, that is what happens when you make something a federal mandate. You don't comply and they put pressure on you until you do comply. Such pressure will escalate eventually to guns pressed against heads.
Just because you send out a cute little court order saying "do this by this date or we'll fine you" does not mean that behind it all is not a threat of violence.
I am fine with ADA GUIDELINES. By all means, recommend stuff. And those that can practically comply will do so. New construction will make use of it. Whatever. But were not applicable... sorry. I didn't make you a cripple. I have disabled family members as well if that makes any difference to you and they agree with me.
It all stems from that, sport. The moral and ethical basis of the law is that you have to make everything in such a way that the most disabled people can use them with little effort no matter how expensive or unreasonable that is for you.
You say you can't fix nature? You don't have to zone homes or businesses on those hills either do you? Tear it down and let it go back to nature. Or completely rip the streets up and put zig zag ramps up the sides of the hills.
How about that? And while you're telling me that's really expensive, how is that different for the small business that has to go through a major remodel to get into compliance? Tear up the front of the building. Tear up the bath rooms. Make sure all the tables have access for a wheel chair, etc.
It is the same thing. Only the city doesn't have to do it... just the businesses. Typical isn't it? The government passing rules it doesn't have to obey itself.
Riddle me this, what if those were private roads on those hills, want to guess whether the ADA would apply then? Bet you it would.
Which tells you all you need to know about that.
I'll tell you again, being disabled is hard. It limits what you can do and it often means you need help. Yes. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to force me to do a damn thing for you if I am not so inclined. That is your hardship and not mine.
And while I will do my best to be reasonable on the subject, that is for me to determine and not some fucking federal agency. Let us say that I an give you a 6 feet for ever 1 foot of rise instead of 12. Is that going to ruin your grandmother's life? I doubt it. Any fellow on a wheel chair should be able to handle 6 feet for every 1 foot of rise. Not a big deal.
Totally illegal under the ADA of course. They say 12 feet for every one foot of rise. So if I have a four foot set of stairs... you want 4 x 12 = 48 feet of ramp. Anyone that thinks that is reasonable can go fuck themselves with a broom.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because a pipe is magical.
As to us covering it before, then you were wrong before likely.
And as to me being wrong or unrealistic... prove it.
As to forcing access to the cable being competition... no.
1. The cable can be shit which means you're competing over shit cable. Often this cable is a copper legacy cable that is garbage. If competitors could run cable, they'd run fiber. It is cheaper and better.
2. Cable sharing means that I am doing two things I don't want to do. First, I am forced to pay for their maintenance of the cable and the way they do that. And if they're incompetent asshats that have a bad system that is inefficient then I have to pay the premium mark up price to subsidize their incompetence. The second thing I don't want to do is subsidize my competitor at all. I don't want to subcontract through someone I want to put economic pressure on. I want to give them ZERO dollars.
Your concept is unacceptable on those grounds.
As to last mile cable being perfect for natural monopolies... you're saying those words but you're not defending the position at all.
You could as easily say "last mile cable is full of unicorns and elves"... You need to provide a falsifiable argument. Say "it is better for these reasons"... then I'll go through your reasons one at a time, prove they're not true, that will invalidate your argument, and my position will be sustained.
Just a window into the future for you.
I have no problem with that except for the assertion that we need the government to provide the hub links.
A universal mesh network would be nifty. But we don't need a city, state, or federal hub owned and run by the government. Replace that with a link from Qwest communications or L3 and you're fine with me. :)
That's who owns most of the cable at this point anyway. Big backbone ISPs. The prices are cheap for bandwidth, there is lots of bandwidth to be had... again, saturation in the backbone is less than 30 percent. That is they have 70 percent of the cable free for expansion as of now. Why would I cut those guys out of the loop when they've never been the problem, they have the cable in place already, and they have more than enough bandwidth for all of us to get 1 gigabit connections tomorrow?
Inserting the government in that relationship is pointless and counter productive. the government would just have to contract with these companies anyway because they are the ones that actually run the cable between cities. Yes, the cities could buy or run their own cable between each other... but why? The existing companies doing that are not charging high rates and are not offering poor service.
Why cut them out of the loop when they're doing a good job?
As to your claim of strawman, I'll grant that you're saying that THEY think is more profitable and not YOU. However, that still leaves us with the assertion that it is more profitable. I also question whether dice actually thinks that. I think they just don't care or haven't thought about it very much. Everyone can see that dice hasn't really handled their involvement in the community very well.
In regards to the comment you have quoted, excellent. Lets do this. :)
In regards to environmental externalizes, I'd prefer to avoid that tangent for the sake of argument because it is too complicated. Please do not use that reference because it forces me to get into that issue in depth and really it could be pages and pages from that alone.
As to the government always being less efficient, they are though... anything a company can do is done better by a company instead of the government. There are a few things that companies really can't do. One is fight wars. Another is run a legal system. Another is run a legislature. That kind of stuff.
But often people will say that companies can't build or maintain roads or they can't run a power distribution and generation system. And they can do that and without exception they're always more efficient at it. Yes, there can be incidents of fraud. But it is apples and oranges to compare a company stealing from consumers to a government body that is not corrupt and doing its best to provide a good service. If you want to compare the two, then we can compare a company stealing to a government stealing... and even there you'll find the companies tend to be less greedy about it.
In regards to your statement that you can't say a company is more efficient at anything unless they do everything the goverment does, that isn't reasonable. Under this logic, a large corporation that does many things would always be more efficient than a small sandwich shop that happens to be better at making sandwiches than the big corporation. But by your logic, they can't be said to be more efficient because they don't do as many things as the big corporation.
Logically, you have to isolate given tasks, products, and services and evaluate each on a point by point basis.
By this logic you're using here, you can't say the government is less efficient than a corporation unless the corporation is able to fight wars. So if the government is incredibly inefficient... just burning resources and utterly incompetent in most tasks, your logic would say they're not inefficient because they can do things that a vastly better run organization can't do.
The logic is poor.
Your move. :)
... here is what I want, Xbox and PS emulators.
The PS1 has some pretty good emulators but the PS2 doesn't really... and I think the PS3 doesn't have them at all.
As to the xbox, I've yet to see even one xbox emulator that was worth a damn.
Not even the first xbox. Which makes me sad because I want to be able to play Halo 3 and 4 but I refuse to buy an xbox just for those games. I'm a PC gamer. MS released Halo 1 and 2 for the PC. Cool. And I don't mind waiting a couple years. That's fine too. But release them EVENTUALLY for the PC. Don't tell me the porting process isn't easy. We all know it is. So just do it and make me happy.
That or I'm going to be one of those people skulking around looking for xbox emulators and cruising torrent sites for the game files.
I will BUY your game for the PC. If you don't let me do that... then I'm sawing off my leg, wearing a eye patch, adopting a parrot, and developing an annoying love of the sound "ARRRRR".
you have been warned.
I love that you think naked trolls where you just make dumb insults is somehow giving you any kind of edge on me. All your dumb insults do is make you sound petty, childish, and weak.
You sound like a petulant child.
And the fact that you're hiding behind the AC to troll doesn't speak well of you either.
Dude, there are pixels that are pink and pixels that are not pink all over that forest.
That means the resolution is good enough to say that there is deforestation in one part of the forest and not the other. It isn't just one pixel. You zoom in and it looks about as good as weather radar map. It isn't bad at all unless they're overstating their precision.
What is more, I jacked the deforestation up to 75 percent to see where the worst zones were and they were still citing big portions of the forest as being basically clear cut. That's bullshit. I've been in that forest recently. And again... logging is not permitted and there have been no fires. The trees fall over and rot mostly. It is too wet to burn. It is a misty damp forest. You probably couldn't set it on fire with a flame thrower most of the time.
About 12 years ago a small portion of it burned during a really dry summer... and it was arson. Guy used diesel fuel to start it.
Since then, the only thing effecting the trees has been dying of old age, falling over, and getting devoured by a billion mushrooms.
I mean, they cite fire, so maybe they're saying "ANYTHING" gets counted?
Then... natural decay gets counted? And if so... you could run this little map program in Jurassic earth and it would make a map like this... yeah, areas would open up momentarily when big trees fell over... and then other trees would fill the space.
I think a more interesting map would be one that showed not just one year of deforestation but maybe ten or twenty years to balance out little variations and then try to focus on tree loss that is due to logging. I mean, if a bunch of beetles go crazy and kill a few million trees, that isn't my fault. That's on those beetles.
Except for restaurants have been literally carrying wheel chairs into establishments for years. It was a common thing to do. A guy would show up in a wheel chair, 4 waiters would go out there, each grab a corner, and carry him up the stairs. Many wheel chairs used to have handles there specifically for this purpose.
And that ignores the fact that a pretty steep ramp is totally reasonable if someone is pushing you up it. Which is something any establishment would be happy to help with. I've never known a business owner that wouldn't do that. I'm sure they are out there, but most people are not assholes. You can't use the occasional asshole to justify tyranny. Its fucked up.
Anyway, I just got a guy with a spinal injury that has been in a wheel chair for years to back me up in this thread. So. I feel validated.
Suck it. :)
I said near my house not my literal house. And I know there wasn't any logging or fires in that area.
1. Logging is prohibited. Period. It isn't allowed. For any reason. The whole area is protected.
2. There haven't been any fires there for about 10 years.
So... why is it pink when logging is prohibited, there is no logging, there hasn't been logging there for my entire life, and there haven't been any fires in the last 10 years?
Explain it to me.
I smell horseshit. But you probably like horseshit, don't you? It just gets your mouth watering. Mmmm... corn kernels... am I right?
I fucking hate AC shitheads.
Thanks... I was hoping someone with a disability would validate my position here. :)
So many moral crusaders about these days... people that bitch just to feel superior without any real objective besides that.
You're right, when I sided with human decency, I must have sided against civilization as well... if your civilization has no concept of human decency.
In which case, yeah... fuck your civilization.
You're right, businesses don't give a shit about whether customers are happy there. Its why it is customary for most businesses to spit in the faces of anyone that comes by just so they know where they stand.
We're done. You're addicted threatening people to get what you want. That's all you understand. Violence and intimidation. Never occurred to you to ask. Never occurred to you suggest. Never occurred to you see what people were willing to do.
Might there be some assholes that won't do anything? Sure. Does that justify you getting the government to shove guns in our faces and regulate the shit out of it? No.
We're done.
I live near some of this area. There has been no fire or logging in the area and yet it is marked pink.
I'm also seeing a lot of areas that are pink that don't seem very likely to be involved in logging or forest fires. I mean, look at rural alaska.
No, I'm not bad at reading. I'm just not cooperating with your attempts to control my argument or strawman me.
The conduit will require maintenance. So what? Everything does. That is no excuse not to have it. the cost of maintaining it will be cheap. it is a fucking pipe. I don't want to hear you whining about what the conduit will cost to maintain again.
That portion of the discussion is done.
As to you being a libertarian, then why are you so in favor of putting the government in charge of everything? No libertarian is going to say that the government can maintain something like that because they're more efficient. That makes no sense.
As to your allegation that I must be an anarchist, no... I said the the government is needed for laws, police, and courts. That automatically means I'm not an anarchist. Nice try strawmanning me, but I saw that one coming and headed it off in the previous discussion.
You didn't read that though or process it which renders you claim that I am bad at reading LAUGHABLE.
In regards to what hiring private firms proves, it proves the private sector is frequently more efficient. You're not a libertarian... that's obviously a lie. You're sitting there arguing a statist position.
Give me a break. You're about as much a libertarian as Bill Maher. He also claims to be a libertarian. Never met a government regulation he didn't like though.
And at the end you start arguing randomly that all public services can be handled by private companies.
Okay, why not the fucking cables in the conduits then? Because that's all I'm asking for here.
Given that business owners are routinely forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to comply or sued millions for not complying and then forced to pay for the remodel on top of that... you can jam that comment in sideways.
Tautology... you can't have competition if you don't allow it to exist.
You say we won't have it because we don't have it and we don't have it because you've made it illegal.
the economics of the issue are besides the point. You've made it illegal.
If you felt that the economics were sufficient to stop competition... which you clearly hate... then you wouldn't feel it was further required to make competition outright illegal.
The simple fact that you think you need to make it illegal means that you fear that it could happen if you didn't make it illegal. Which means you're selling me some kind of bullshit.
Logic. You will respect it. ;)
Here is the thing. If your economics argument were at all valid, you wouldn't need to make competition illegal. The economics alone would stop it. So... put your money where your mouth is here... say you're okay with people doing it because you know they won't because of the economics.
I'll accept that. I'm quite happy to let the market decide. I am not willing to accept the government just shitting all over the situation and then blaming the shit it just spread all over the place on other people or economics or some other bullshit.
Given that at most I might see one person every two months with such a condition, it really would be no hardship at all.
And if I had to do three times a day, I still wouldn't mind.
Really.
I'm not a bad guy, brother. You just can't expect people to drop 30k on something like that when often as not no one that is disabled ever comes. I mean... ever. Sure they could... but on that basis you can't ask me to spend 30k. I'm very happy to go out in the cold and wind and help anyone. Really. And if I need some help because the guy is really fat, I'll grab another employee for it. No big deal.
I would do it with a smile.
Your authoritarian position is noted. People like you are nothing new. They've been the misery of billions throughout history. Always there with a justification to control and dominate.
That's all you are... nothing more.
Want to know how many people my sort relegates to misery? No one.
I don't force people to do anything unless they're pushing someone else around against their will... and then I might make them stop it. But that is about the limits of my willingness to hurt people and control people.
Given authority you'd micromanage us all into some Brazil like dystopia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
wow... so you're saying that if the city has to do a rebuild on the conduit once every 100 years that is a deal breaker for you?
that's idiotic. I'm not saying you're an idiot. I'm saying you said something that was very stupid. Please don't do that.
As to admitting that cables determine bandwidth, then you are admitting that the government could control internet speed simply by being lazy about upgrading cables.
As to arguing that government never works, I did not say that. I just said I don't want to be held hostage to their incompetence if and when they fuck up. Is that unreasonable? Or does everything have to be a too big to fail government clusterfuck?
Really? you think the government is efficient? In what way is the government ever efficient when compared to private enterprise.
Name anything the government does that the private sector does and we'll go through the cost figures.
The government literally is always less efficient. Without exception.
The only way it ever is made to APPEAR more efficient is when they cook the books by not counting payroll for a given department or pensions or whatever. So sure, if you exclude a lot of costs that the tax payers pay for a given thing, at some point it will be cheaper if you exclude enough of them. However, you can't exclude any of them because the people pay for it all regardless.
After the budget crunch, many cities ran out of money. Some cities privatized large portions of city services and without exception saved a lot of money by doing it. They privatized stuff like park maintenance, ambulances, fire departments, etc. And the cities in some cases saved so much money by doing that in the middle of a deficit that they were able to actually expand and improve services with the savings.
No, government is not more efficient. it is a necessary evil. It exists because you need someone to act as judge. You need someone to make laws. And you need someone to hire people to point guns at other people that break the laws.
That is what you NEED government for. Everything beyond that tends to be a circle jerk.
I've always wondered, why doesn't someone build a castle or something out there? I would totally consider building a compound in the middle of that hell hole. 20 foot walls with spikes on the tops of course... and gate possibly with a portcullis... maybe a moat... full of something horrible that can live in detroit. I guess I could heat the water in the winter but I'd prefer not to.
The land has to be so cheap that you could do some funny stuff with it.
I would never be so self absorbed and entitled to suggest that the entire world should mold itself to my disabilities.
The number of places that have spent tens of thousands to have these ramps in place and yet not had a single disabled customer are legion.
if there were any kind of disabled traffic going on, that would be one thing. But when there isn't, you're asking me to shell out a lot of money for nothing.
As to wheel chairs needing that rise, if they do they're poorly designed.
I told you, I'd be happy to carry you into the store myself. I'd be happy to push your wheel chair up my ramp. No need for anyone else. I would do it gladly.
I'll tell you what, I'll put a buzzer or bell at the bottom of the ramp. You press that, I'll come out and help anyone that pressed the button with a smile. The buzzer won't cost me an arm and a leg.
If you want 12 feet for every 1 foot of rise, you want me to spend tens of thousands of dollars, and you have no sympathy for my problems... then why should I have sympathy for yours?
You are saying only your problems are worth consideration. Anyone else's hardships are irrelevant. You are entitled... no one else is entitled to anything.
Yeah, you can't have that attitude and expect sympathy, boyo. You've got to give to get.
You want me to care about you? You have to care about me.
What you've got going for you is a government goon squad that will threaten me with violence if I don't do what you say. That isn't respect or sympathy. That's intimation and threats.
Which is all people like you ever understand. Just knives to people's throats, crocodile tears, and pretended sympathy.
Far from being some voice of the disabled... you're just human garbage.
How's that for moralizing, you little weasel? I am so sick of you people turning every problem in your lives into a license to order everyone else around. You do it on an ever growing host of issues and half the time you contradict yourself.
Only you don't contradict yourself on one point. You want power and you want attention. What you accomplish while you're about it tends to change with the wind. The justifications tend to be just that.
Whole generations are growing up with you fucks ordering people around and the statistics show that there is increasing resistance and savviness where your sort are concerned. People are learning and adapting to you... politically and socially. They're growing up learning how to manipulate you and placate you.
It won't be long before you're taken just as seriously as you deserve.
There is you history and future for you, boyo. See you there.
tautology. You're saying something is okay because you said it is okay.
1. Again, the english are running cable in pipes that are over a hundred years old. So give me a break please.
Okay... last time.
CABLES DETERMINE BANDWIDTH.
Also for all you know they'll splice something into the cable... a wire tap of some description. I'm not keen on it.
As to you not invoking the notion that without the government running it there would be chaos. *facepalm* That is exactly your argument. Tell me right now why we can't have 20 companies running cable and do not anywhere infer that it will be chaotic. Double dog dare you.
As to the only difference being who owns them, wrong. Because if they own them and no one can compete with them, what is to stop the government cables from just staying old and shitty forever? They could do it and what would you do about it? Nothing. Because you'll have given up all control to them. You going to vote for the red team instead of the blue team because the existing mayor won't change the cable? Probably not. Which means he doesn't give a shit.
No. It is a too big to fail cluster fuck.
As to the government controlled conduit giving the NSA better access... not really. They already tap lines as it is... However, if they don't own the line then if and when they do tap the line any technition could remove their bullshit. If the city own the cable then only the city could disconnect the NSA.
Given what we're seeing with stingrays, I trust the companies more than I trust the cities. The city police departments will be offered FBI support in return for installing their bullshit which will just be stuff the NSA handed them. And boom. You're fucked.
This is not a profitable discussion. You've got no reason for wanting the city to have control. You just DO want them to have control.
Either cite the reason for wanting the city to be in control of it without referring chaos or order because you said that wasn't your argument... or what exactly are you fighting this so hard for? Why?
they're not naturally occurring hills, they're ROADS on hills. No one says the roads have to go up the hills perpendicular to the peak. You could zig zag the roads or spiral them up the hill. That would give you any grade you wanted.
As to you landing on your ass at 1/10... so for four feet of rise you expect me to build you 48 feet of ramp. I would sooner carry you into the store/restaurant myself and place you in your chair of choice.
If my offer to personally carry you into the establishment is not sufficient sacrifice and I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars... then I really just have zero sympathy at that point. It is too expensive.
Much like the idea of demolishing those old victorian style houses on those hills in SF and then coming up with some stupid road pattern that is ADA compliant, you're sometimes asking businesses to do too much.
Sometimes it isn't a big deal. Sometimes it really isn't practical to comply. I'm sorry. Any establishment is going to do its level best to make you feel comfortable and enjoy your experience. But there are limits. Some of these regulations are very expensive to comply with especially for legacy construction that wasn't built with these standards in mind.
There is a botanical garden in my area that was built about 100 years ago. Not ADA compliant. They run the whole operation with community donations. They're in jeopardy of being shut down unless they tear up all the landscaping and completely redesign the whole thing to be ADA complaint.
Grasp this... this hostility you're reading from me... it comes from some place real. And blowing me off because you think you're the only opinion with a greivance and all other positions should have a gun pressed against their heads and told to comply or die... is not acceptable.
And yes, that is what happens when you make something a federal mandate. You don't comply and they put pressure on you until you do comply. Such pressure will escalate eventually to guns pressed against heads.
Just because you send out a cute little court order saying "do this by this date or we'll fine you" does not mean that behind it all is not a threat of violence.
I am fine with ADA GUIDELINES. By all means, recommend stuff. And those that can practically comply will do so. New construction will make use of it. Whatever. But were not applicable... sorry. I didn't make you a cripple. I have disabled family members as well if that makes any difference to you and they agree with me.
It all stems from that, sport. The moral and ethical basis of the law is that you have to make everything in such a way that the most disabled people can use them with little effort no matter how expensive or unreasonable that is for you.
You say you can't fix nature? You don't have to zone homes or businesses on those hills either do you? Tear it down and let it go back to nature. Or completely rip the streets up and put zig zag ramps up the sides of the hills.
How about that? And while you're telling me that's really expensive, how is that different for the small business that has to go through a major remodel to get into compliance? Tear up the front of the building. Tear up the bath rooms. Make sure all the tables have access for a wheel chair, etc.
It is the same thing. Only the city doesn't have to do it... just the businesses. Typical isn't it? The government passing rules it doesn't have to obey itself.
Riddle me this, what if those were private roads on those hills, want to guess whether the ADA would apply then? Bet you it would.
Which tells you all you need to know about that.
I'll tell you again, being disabled is hard. It limits what you can do and it often means you need help. Yes. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to force me to do a damn thing for you if I am not so inclined. That is your hardship and not mine.
And while I will do my best to be reasonable on the subject, that is for me to determine and not some fucking federal agency. Let us say that I an give you a 6 feet for ever 1 foot of rise instead of 12. Is that going to ruin your grandmother's life? I doubt it. Any fellow on a wheel chair should be able to handle 6 feet for every 1 foot of rise. Not a big deal.
Totally illegal under the ADA of course. They say 12 feet for every one foot of rise. So if I have a four foot set of stairs... you want 4 x 12 = 48 feet of ramp. Anyone that thinks that is reasonable can go fuck themselves with a broom.