As to licensing it from someone. Depends doesn't it? If we're talking about a built up area with lots of people then fine. But if we're talking about the middle of god damn nowhere... Why? There is no one using it and no one capable of using it within 500 miles. Why can't I just use it? There is nothing there. if I am in the middle of no where... why do I need a license to use radio frequency being used by nothing in the area and where there is nothing in the area capable of using any such frequency but me? That frequency is relatively short range. A few miles before it attenuates. So who gives a flying fuck if I use it so long as I stay far and away from anyone else trying to use the same frequency? And if someone needs a license, why am I not actually the one you must acquire the license from instead of some distant federal department that neither knows about nor cares about my little remote village? That spectrum is an EM frequency outside my god damn house. So long as my using of it doesn't inconvenience anyone else... who gives a shit?
Look, I grant that you need regulation of these airwaves. I however put to you that they do not need to be managed federally and really they might not even need to be managed at the state level but rather given to the counties to manage. Does that mean you're going to get a lot of diversity from one jourisdiction to the next? So what? Cell phones will still work because industry standards have utility. It is useful to everyone to be able to take your same cellphone across the country and have it work everywhere. So it is in everyone's interest to accomidate that service. And so people will just do it. The local carriers in any region can be very easily pressured by industry trade groups to conform to certain standards and allow rival cell phones to operate in their territory in return for their cell phones functioning in other people's jurisdictions.
it is a very simple quid pro quo arrangement that doesn't require the force of law to impose. Stop offering my customers the ability to make phone calls in your zone? Fine. your customers can not only not use their phones in my region but they can't use them in any region that has signed onto the same contract. Want access... give access.
The simple fact that everything has to go through washington DC is going to radically limit who is and is not allowed to participate.
You say it only ta handful? Well that is shocking. Oh wait... once you put it in context is is completely predictable.
What must be made clear is that the lack of mobile carriers a POLITICAL and LEGAL artifact. It is neither physical, technological, nor economic. Unless you count the cost of paying some lawyers and lobbyists to get the paper work pushed through DC as economic. I do not count that because it is not pertinent to the actual practice of maintaining a cell network.
1. I didn't say anything about being armed. 2. I didn't say anything about a revolution. 3. I am not planning anything. 4. I am not trying to gather minions, meat shields, toadies, or other assorted rabble to another fucking flag. 5. I respect myself enough to express my disrespect of people I hold in contempt. 6. I am talking about people feeding political feedback systems with historically predictable results. Given the context of the topic anyone familiar with the history of this syndrome knows full well what I am talking about. I have no need to explain myself further to those that understand already. To those that don't... I am just an unsupported voice on the internet. Meaningless. I consider any attempt to explain the issue to those that don't already understand to be a waste of my time. It is too complicated and requires too much supporting evidence. What is more, the audience is too small, the respect offered by such people is at best dubious, and I can expect no material compensation for what would be an investment of at least an afternoon.
Is there anyone on this board that isn't a shameless sophist?
If you find your above argument compelling... allow me to serve you your own medicine.
Can I execute you unless you can prove you are innocent?
Find that argument absurd and counter productive? It is... it is as obviously fallacious and stupid as your own.
If you want to have a real discussion, then we can do that. If you want to play rhetorical games that men in togas 3000 years ago laughed at for being moronic... then carry on.
Wrong. They are legally forbidden to do so. If I tried to start a cell phone company in the middle of Alaska 500 miles away from anyone in some remote village with no cellphone service what so ever... the FCC would stop me because I don't own the bandwidth. And what is more, I can't buy it or license it under existing law.
Now Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile could set up a cell tower in this remote Alaskan villiage because they have the FEDERAL licenses to set up a cell network.
Now tell me why cell spectrum should be sold at the federal level when the range of a cell tower is so very short? A cell tower is not a long range radio tower. It is at best "medium" range... able to go maybe a few miles. Which means our prospective remote Alaskan villiage could totally saturate the entire spectrum in their area... and it would effect no one outside of that area.
So tell me why the FCC won't let them do it? Because as I said, you can set up a cell tower for about 2000 to 5000 dollars. And the 5000 dollar figure accounts for the fucking pole.
Total start up cost for a small village independent cell phone system would be at most 10 to 20 grand. And a lot of that would be in setting up the central office which in this case would be some server closet... and then pushing all the cell traffic into a VoIP PBX system and then connecting that to one of the various cheap VoIP portals that will bill you about a dollar line per month. If you're at all curious what it costs to connect your phone from one person to another once you've paid for the cell tower you're connected to and the system that pushes that over the internet... the answer is 1 dollar... and that is retail prices... wholesale you could probably push it to less then half that.
Which is to say there is a lot of room for profit there.
Are you with me or are you determined to salvage an argument you've lost so ludicrously that it has started to become funny?
You'll have to trade everything in the name of security. And when you have nothing left to give... they'll enslave you.
As to the solution here? It is rather obvious but politically incorrect and I have no patience for the horde of mindless tools that with gainsay the obvious. Those that know need not be told. Those that do not know probably wouldn't understand in any case. It isn't time yet.
As to 1-3 carriers being the max... explain in concrete terms why that is correct and not merely something you're saying?
I don't understand why a person couldn't start a small cell phone company that only provides service in a small area and then offers out of network service that they contract through either a larger association or some big company.
The technology to set up a cell tower is rather inexpensive. There was a product being shown on slashdot of a mobile celltower you could carry in a backpack that cost about 2000 dollars. The tech in question was being used by cellphone companies to address tower outages or increase coverage during sporting events, concerts, etc.
If the hardware that backs up a cell tower can be that cheap then why can't we have more cell phone companies?
Look, I think what you're going to do is say "this can't be so because this isn't how they are." I am very tired of this argument and it gets used in many situations. It is not valid to say that simply because things are not done a certain way that they cannot be done that way.
So if you do propose why something cannot be done please specify why it actually cannot be done. Do not merely tell me what I already know which is that this is not currently how it is done at this moment. That is neither interesting, useful, nor relevant.
As to what congress and the president is going to do... simply frame the argument as "THIS is why you are dominated by monopolies... it is your local city and state doing it."
And then let the public do all the work. People want this to stop. They just don't know why it is happening. If they knew it was their mayor, city council, etc then they would put pressure on them.
As to why we only have 3 wireless carriers... that has more to do with FCC regulations on spectrum then anything else. If anyone could buy local spectrum to run a cellphone company we'd have thousands of such companies and in various places you might have dozens and dozens of companies all competing in the same place. Of course, there are bigger physical limits on how many wireless carriers you can have then wired carriers. All I need for another wired carrier is another wire. I can have lots of those without running into any physical limitations. With the wireless carriers they all consume the same finite resource and there can only be so much of it. So I don't find that to be an entirely useful comparison when talking about wired carriers.
Not practical. The primary focus when electing someone in America is determining which of the two political factions they belong to... Right now, we are very much against anyone that is moderate or inbetween the two parties. So if you run in a blue area you must make it clear that you are totally blue and not at all red or purple. If you run in a red area, then you have to do the opposite. You can sorta get away with being purple in purple areas but most purple areas aren't really purple. They've just got equal numbers of people from the two factions. So if you go purple you might actually get no votes at all with the votes otherwise being evenly split between very blue and very red opponents.
Look. I'd like things to be different... but every time one of the two factions backs off for a second the other exploits that to do whatever they want. Neither can back off. Look at how fast democrats tried to impose socialized medical care? The republicans opposed that for over 80 years. The republicans lose ONE election badly because of the Iraq war etc... and suddenly the democrats have a brief window where they can do whatever they want. So they push obamacare through. Could they pass that now? Nope. Only in that brief moment when they had total power.
And that is what both parties live in fear of these days. The knowledge that if they stop for any reason their opposition will eat them.
I'm not blaming the democrats by the way... I mean... not more then the republicans... the republicans given a similar opportunity would have done the same thing.
This misunderstanding is one of the reasons the ISP are keeping their monopolies.
You think the ISP has to be huge. They don't have to be... the ISP could be a small operation that only concerns itself with a single neighborhood.
This is a game that the big ISPs like to play with every new player. Some new ISP comes along and they want to run cable. The old ISPs show up at town meetings and say "well, is he going to run cable to EVERY part of the city/state at the same time? And if not, would he make legal commitments to do so within 5 years of getting a license?
And the argument is made that if the new ISP doesn't run cable EVERYWHERE that they should be allowed to run it nowhere.
Which makes it impossible to start a new ISP. You can't run cable everywhere if you're just starting. A small operation could start in someone's house and branch out to supply internet to a couple blocks. And from there you just add on to it a bit at a time as you can afford it.
These don't need to be big infrastructure projects.
And we already have multiple people from other countries messaging me in this very thread telling me about how in their country they have dozens of ISPs all running cable in the same area. So don't tell me you have to have a monopoly. You're just unwittingly being an apologist for monopolists.
The regulation I would suggest in this situation would be upon the cities and states that are protecting the ISP monopolies. It is already illegal for the federal government to protect these monopolies. But the cities and states can still do it.
Regulate not the ISPs but the cities and states that are preventing competition and through competition we will get net neutrality.
Because a missile able to home on a target and carry a heavy enough payload to kill even a small boat is going to cost more then 500 dollars. Consider what one of those cheap drones cost. Well... that is basically what a guided missile is doing except it explodes when it reaches its destination.
For something like this you going to want lots of machine guns all able to independently target in different directions.
Ironically, a WW2 US destroyer wouldn't have a problem with this situation. They were covered in machine guns and anti aircraft guns. This was before missile defenses so the way you protected your ship was by putting enough anti aircraft guns on it that you could protect yourself to some extent. Given that the japanese would intentionally crash bomb laden planes into your ships they couldn't be allowed to get even one pass on you because that could sink your ship. So the solution was triple the number of guns on the ship so that there was such a withering volley of fire coming out of the boat that not even a kamikaze could get through.
As a result of that... if the Iranians tried this tactic on such a ship they'd all be annihilated. A modern carrier group with a swarm of drones around it might be able to fight off such an attack as well. It might be cheaper to just put WW2 close defense guns on our ships. But no one is gong to do that... it isn't futury enough for them.
that's just politics and advocacy... nothing more. When they have something definite we can move forward with it scientifically. As to your political cause... that never needed or cared about science.
When did strawmen become an accepted rhetorical device? Oh that's right... it didn't.
What I said was that there is a lot of regulation that causes the problem and that the republicans AND democrats could come together to get a mutually desirable result by focusing on increasing competition in the ISP market rather then simply forbidding ISPs from doing what is in their interest.
If every neighborhood had an option of six or so IPs with independent cable then it would be almost impossible for any of them to price gauge.
This is very confusing. Did they find evidence that this is happening? Or did they find something that "MIGHT" "SUGGEST" that something has happened?
Because if the former... great. I love it when science figures something out.
If not... then while that is still good that they're looking into these things... it does literally nothing for the public debate about AGW. A "might" "suggest" gets us no where until that is refined into something more definite.
I know. They're both a little like wind up toy soldiers. They just march in whatever direction they're going... even if that is directly into a wall... and then they continue to do so long after they've hit that wall.
What I'm saying is that if you change the nature of the question for them they might change their opinion.
If the question is more regulation on a vital US industry... they might say no more. If you say increase market competition by removing government induced barriers to new start ups and small businesses... they will probably say yes.
Then just get it over with and start shooting people. I have no patience for closed minded bigots and zealots that are unable to grasp that to get anywhere we need to come to common cause. You cannot win totally and neither can they. Simply trying to get everything your way over the opposition's objections gets you what we have now. Enjoying it?
We get deadlock until the two sides are willing to come together and draft policy that they can both live with.
YOU WILL NOT get everything you want or everything your way. Neither will they. If that is the only thing that is acceptable to you then we just need to sit in deadlock until the radicals on both sides destroy their respective political coalitions. And then when the radicals are isolated and friendless... moderates can draft reasonable policy until the next round of madness propels the zealots from both sides into positions of power they do not deserve.
Hmmm... As to women, you're talking about the religious evangelicals. That faction is their own distinct kettle of fish. They almost exclusively care about the religious stuff and pretty much nothing else.
They used to be southern democrats.;-)
As to minorities... Republicans don't do anything hostile against minorities. Cite something they did. I dare you. The sort of thing used to justify that republicans are against minorities is that they are for welfare reform. That has nothing to do with minorities. It is just typical political sophistry to claim otherwise.
As to immigrants, the only issue here is that democrats see poor people likely to vote democrat if they become US citiens because they want the welfare. If the mexicans were prosperous enough that they wouldn't need those benefits then ironically the democrats would probably be against it and the republicans would be for it.
Beyond that... the whole immigration debate is moronic. Do you think if I just showed up in mexico without any paper work they'd let me be a citizen of mexico? And vote? Own property? They wouldn't. Name a country that would. You'll have a hard time finding even one. So the US has nothing to prove along those lines.
The HP computers have a bad rep because the consumer grade HP computers are probably the most crapware bloated pieces of shit you can buy. I have never seen machines from any other company with as much shit on them as an HP system. The first thing I do with most of those machines is wipe the harddrive. But with the HP machines it is an absolute requirement.
I personally hate their computers and would never buy from them at this point. Even their printers don't impress me much these days.
That said... there is value in brand recognition IF you have a good brand. Their printers are generally well regarded and I can tell you that in the business world they like to stick with companies that give them products they like. That said... I would never buy their desktop systems. Too much shit on them.
No... neither one of them is any smarter then the other. The only reason the dems are for this thing is that it expands government power and they're generally in favor of that all things being equal. They rarely see a regulation or tax they don't like. By the same token, the republicans tend to reflexively reject any new regulation or tax. When the two cooperate it is typically with the republicans caving for some reason which tends to give us lots of new regulations and taxes.
My point here was that the republicans would be more likely to support the net neutrality cause if they grasped that the problem was ultimately being caused by government regulation in the first place. Mostly at the local level where very complicated and expensive fees have to be paid to run cable. These fees are not the cost of digging trenches, laying cable, or putting up polls. They're basically fees set as high as the industry can bare. And the industry in these areas have been monopolies. So they can actually bare quite a bit. A more free market system with lots of competitors will need much lower fees because they'll individually capture a much smaller portion of the consumer base.
So... focus on that aspect. I'd use interstate commerce on it since the internet is applicable in that situation.
... what was actually going on here. The republicans are against lots of government regulation. They just don't like it in general.
So if you put things to them in that context they're going to be biased against it.
The failure on our part was to explain properly to them that the situation only exists because government regulation makes it very hard for anyone to compete with the big ISPs. If you made that clear it would change the context of the regulation to them and would sway some of them.
Understand where different people are coming from on these issues or you can't reason with them.
Slashdot Mirror
while you're clearly joking that statement if taken seriously would imply that classification is superior otherwise the privilege wouldn't exist.
White guys didn't steal the internet from the brown people. They created it out of nothing.
If infosys really thinks Americans don't know anything about coding... then why does the US dominate the global tech sector?
Someone please smush a cool cherry pie right into that guy's face. Then point and laugh at him. Because this is a man in need of some humbling.
As to licensing it from someone. Depends doesn't it? If we're talking about a built up area with lots of people then fine. But if we're talking about the middle of god damn nowhere... Why? There is no one using it and no one capable of using it within 500 miles. Why can't I just use it? There is nothing there. if I am in the middle of no where... why do I need a license to use radio frequency being used by nothing in the area and where there is nothing in the area capable of using any such frequency but me? That frequency is relatively short range. A few miles before it attenuates. So who gives a flying fuck if I use it so long as I stay far and away from anyone else trying to use the same frequency? And if someone needs a license, why am I not actually the one you must acquire the license from instead of some distant federal department that neither knows about nor cares about my little remote village? That spectrum is an EM frequency outside my god damn house. So long as my using of it doesn't inconvenience anyone else... who gives a shit?
Look, I grant that you need regulation of these airwaves. I however put to you that they do not need to be managed federally and really they might not even need to be managed at the state level but rather given to the counties to manage. Does that mean you're going to get a lot of diversity from one jourisdiction to the next? So what? Cell phones will still work because industry standards have utility. It is useful to everyone to be able to take your same cellphone across the country and have it work everywhere. So it is in everyone's interest to accomidate that service. And so people will just do it. The local carriers in any region can be very easily pressured by industry trade groups to conform to certain standards and allow rival cell phones to operate in their territory in return for their cell phones functioning in other people's jurisdictions.
it is a very simple quid pro quo arrangement that doesn't require the force of law to impose. Stop offering my customers the ability to make phone calls in your zone? Fine. your customers can not only not use their phones in my region but they can't use them in any region that has signed onto the same contract. Want access... give access.
The simple fact that everything has to go through washington DC is going to radically limit who is and is not allowed to participate.
You say it only ta handful? Well that is shocking. Oh wait... once you put it in context is is completely predictable.
What must be made clear is that the lack of mobile carriers a POLITICAL and LEGAL artifact. It is neither physical, technological, nor economic. Unless you count the cost of paying some lawyers and lobbyists to get the paper work pushed through DC as economic. I do not count that because it is not pertinent to the actual practice of maintaining a cell network.
1. I didn't say anything about being armed.
2. I didn't say anything about a revolution.
3. I am not planning anything.
4. I am not trying to gather minions, meat shields, toadies, or other assorted rabble to another fucking flag.
5. I respect myself enough to express my disrespect of people I hold in contempt.
6. I am talking about people feeding political feedback systems with historically predictable results. Given the context of the topic anyone familiar with the history of this syndrome knows full well what I am talking about. I have no need to explain myself further to those that understand already. To those that don't... I am just an unsupported voice on the internet. Meaningless. I consider any attempt to explain the issue to those that don't already understand to be a waste of my time. It is too complicated and requires too much supporting evidence. What is more, the audience is too small, the respect offered by such people is at best dubious, and I can expect no material compensation for what would be an investment of at least an afternoon.
Just what is.
reductio ad absurdum...
Is there anyone on this board that isn't a shameless sophist?
If you find your above argument compelling... allow me to serve you your own medicine.
Can I execute you unless you can prove you are innocent?
Find that argument absurd and counter productive? It is... it is as obviously fallacious and stupid as your own.
If you want to have a real discussion, then we can do that. If you want to play rhetorical games that men in togas 3000 years ago laughed at for being moronic... then carry on.
Wrong. They are legally forbidden to do so. If I tried to start a cell phone company in the middle of Alaska 500 miles away from anyone in some remote village with no cellphone service what so ever... the FCC would stop me because I don't own the bandwidth. And what is more, I can't buy it or license it under existing law.
Now Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile could set up a cell tower in this remote Alaskan villiage because they have the FEDERAL licenses to set up a cell network.
Now tell me why cell spectrum should be sold at the federal level when the range of a cell tower is so very short? A cell tower is not a long range radio tower. It is at best "medium" range... able to go maybe a few miles. Which means our prospective remote Alaskan villiage could totally saturate the entire spectrum in their area... and it would effect no one outside of that area.
So tell me why the FCC won't let them do it? Because as I said, you can set up a cell tower for about 2000 to 5000 dollars. And the 5000 dollar figure accounts for the fucking pole.
Total start up cost for a small village independent cell phone system would be at most 10 to 20 grand. And a lot of that would be in setting up the central office which in this case would be some server closet... and then pushing all the cell traffic into a VoIP PBX system and then connecting that to one of the various cheap VoIP portals that will bill you about a dollar line per month. If you're at all curious what it costs to connect your phone from one person to another once you've paid for the cell tower you're connected to and the system that pushes that over the internet... the answer is 1 dollar... and that is retail prices... wholesale you could probably push it to less then half that.
Which is to say there is a lot of room for profit there.
Are you with me or are you determined to salvage an argument you've lost so ludicrously that it has started to become funny?
Your move.
This is a pointless discussion. You are using circular logic and don't realize it.
Good day.
You'll have to trade everything in the name of security. And when you have nothing left to give... they'll enslave you.
As to the solution here? It is rather obvious but politically incorrect and I have no patience for the horde of mindless tools that with gainsay the obvious. Those that know need not be told. Those that do not know probably wouldn't understand in any case. It isn't time yet.
As to 1-3 carriers being the max... explain in concrete terms why that is correct and not merely something you're saying?
I don't understand why a person couldn't start a small cell phone company that only provides service in a small area and then offers out of network service that they contract through either a larger association or some big company.
The technology to set up a cell tower is rather inexpensive. There was a product being shown on slashdot of a mobile celltower you could carry in a backpack that cost about 2000 dollars. The tech in question was being used by cellphone companies to address tower outages or increase coverage during sporting events, concerts, etc.
If the hardware that backs up a cell tower can be that cheap then why can't we have more cell phone companies?
Look, I think what you're going to do is say "this can't be so because this isn't how they are." I am very tired of this argument and it gets used in many situations. It is not valid to say that simply because things are not done a certain way that they cannot be done that way.
So if you do propose why something cannot be done please specify why it actually cannot be done. Do not merely tell me what I already know which is that this is not currently how it is done at this moment. That is neither interesting, useful, nor relevant.
Messy cabling can be hidden or required to be organized.
We have many places where we run a LOT of cable and no one even sees it.
Look at a modern data center. Lots of cable... all beautifully color coordinated and organized.
As to what congress and the president is going to do... simply frame the argument as "THIS is why you are dominated by monopolies... it is your local city and state doing it."
And then let the public do all the work. People want this to stop. They just don't know why it is happening. If they knew it was their mayor, city council, etc then they would put pressure on them.
As to why we only have 3 wireless carriers... that has more to do with FCC regulations on spectrum then anything else. If anyone could buy local spectrum to run a cellphone company we'd have thousands of such companies and in various places you might have dozens and dozens of companies all competing in the same place. Of course, there are bigger physical limits on how many wireless carriers you can have then wired carriers. All I need for another wired carrier is another wire. I can have lots of those without running into any physical limitations. With the wireless carriers they all consume the same finite resource and there can only be so much of it. So I don't find that to be an entirely useful comparison when talking about wired carriers.
Not practical. The primary focus when electing someone in America is determining which of the two political factions they belong to... Right now, we are very much against anyone that is moderate or inbetween the two parties. So if you run in a blue area you must make it clear that you are totally blue and not at all red or purple. If you run in a red area, then you have to do the opposite. You can sorta get away with being purple in purple areas but most purple areas aren't really purple. They've just got equal numbers of people from the two factions. So if you go purple you might actually get no votes at all with the votes otherwise being evenly split between very blue and very red opponents.
Look. I'd like things to be different... but every time one of the two factions backs off for a second the other exploits that to do whatever they want. Neither can back off. Look at how fast democrats tried to impose socialized medical care? The republicans opposed that for over 80 years. The republicans lose ONE election badly because of the Iraq war etc... and suddenly the democrats have a brief window where they can do whatever they want. So they push obamacare through. Could they pass that now? Nope. Only in that brief moment when they had total power.
And that is what both parties live in fear of these days. The knowledge that if they stop for any reason their opposition will eat them.
I'm not blaming the democrats by the way... I mean... not more then the republicans... the republicans given a similar opportunity would have done the same thing.
This misunderstanding is one of the reasons the ISP are keeping their monopolies.
You think the ISP has to be huge. They don't have to be... the ISP could be a small operation that only concerns itself with a single neighborhood.
This is a game that the big ISPs like to play with every new player. Some new ISP comes along and they want to run cable. The old ISPs show up at town meetings and say "well, is he going to run cable to EVERY part of the city/state at the same time? And if not, would he make legal commitments to do so within 5 years of getting a license?
And the argument is made that if the new ISP doesn't run cable EVERYWHERE that they should be allowed to run it nowhere.
Which makes it impossible to start a new ISP. You can't run cable everywhere if you're just starting. A small operation could start in someone's house and branch out to supply internet to a couple blocks. And from there you just add on to it a bit at a time as you can afford it.
These don't need to be big infrastructure projects.
And we already have multiple people from other countries messaging me in this very thread telling me about how in their country they have dozens of ISPs all running cable in the same area. So don't tell me you have to have a monopoly. You're just unwittingly being an apologist for monopolists.
No. I didn't say that.
The regulation I would suggest in this situation would be upon the cities and states that are protecting the ISP monopolies. It is already illegal for the federal government to protect these monopolies. But the cities and states can still do it.
Regulate not the ISPs but the cities and states that are preventing competition and through competition we will get net neutrality.
Because a missile able to home on a target and carry a heavy enough payload to kill even a small boat is going to cost more then 500 dollars. Consider what one of those cheap drones cost. Well... that is basically what a guided missile is doing except it explodes when it reaches its destination.
For something like this you going to want lots of machine guns all able to independently target in different directions.
Ironically, a WW2 US destroyer wouldn't have a problem with this situation. They were covered in machine guns and anti aircraft guns. This was before missile defenses so the way you protected your ship was by putting enough anti aircraft guns on it that you could protect yourself to some extent. Given that the japanese would intentionally crash bomb laden planes into your ships they couldn't be allowed to get even one pass on you because that could sink your ship. So the solution was triple the number of guns on the ship so that there was such a withering volley of fire coming out of the boat that not even a kamikaze could get through.
As a result of that... if the Iranians tried this tactic on such a ship they'd all be annihilated. A modern carrier group with a swarm of drones around it might be able to fight off such an attack as well. It might be cheaper to just put WW2 close defense guns on our ships. But no one is gong to do that... it isn't futury enough for them.
that's just politics and advocacy... nothing more. When they have something definite we can move forward with it scientifically. As to your political cause... that never needed or cared about science.
When did strawmen become an accepted rhetorical device? Oh that's right... it didn't.
What I said was that there is a lot of regulation that causes the problem and that the republicans AND democrats could come together to get a mutually desirable result by focusing on increasing competition in the ISP market rather then simply forbidding ISPs from doing what is in their interest.
If every neighborhood had an option of six or so IPs with independent cable then it would be almost impossible for any of them to price gauge.
And democrats are against regulation whenever it suits their own financial or political gain as well. What is your point?
Are you saying the parties are prone to corruption and hypocrisy? I'm shocked.
This is very confusing. Did they find evidence that this is happening? Or did they find something that "MIGHT" "SUGGEST" that something has happened?
Because if the former... great. I love it when science figures something out.
If not... then while that is still good that they're looking into these things... it does literally nothing for the public debate about AGW. A "might" "suggest" gets us no where until that is refined into something more definite.
I know. They're both a little like wind up toy soldiers. They just march in whatever direction they're going... even if that is directly into a wall... and then they continue to do so long after they've hit that wall.
What I'm saying is that if you change the nature of the question for them they might change their opinion.
If the question is more regulation on a vital US industry... they might say no more. If you say increase market competition by removing government induced barriers to new start ups and small businesses... they will probably say yes.
Think about it.
Then just get it over with and start shooting people. I have no patience for closed minded bigots and zealots that are unable to grasp that to get anywhere we need to come to common cause. You cannot win totally and neither can they. Simply trying to get everything your way over the opposition's objections gets you what we have now. Enjoying it?
We get deadlock until the two sides are willing to come together and draft policy that they can both live with.
YOU WILL NOT get everything you want or everything your way. Neither will they. If that is the only thing that is acceptable to you then we just need to sit in deadlock until the radicals on both sides destroy their respective political coalitions. And then when the radicals are isolated and friendless... moderates can draft reasonable policy until the next round of madness propels the zealots from both sides into positions of power they do not deserve.
Hmmm... As to women, you're talking about the religious evangelicals. That faction is their own distinct kettle of fish. They almost exclusively care about the religious stuff and pretty much nothing else.
They used to be southern democrats. ;-)
As to minorities... Republicans don't do anything hostile against minorities. Cite something they did. I dare you. The sort of thing used to justify that republicans are against minorities is that they are for welfare reform. That has nothing to do with minorities. It is just typical political sophistry to claim otherwise.
As to immigrants, the only issue here is that democrats see poor people likely to vote democrat if they become US citiens because they want the welfare. If the mexicans were prosperous enough that they wouldn't need those benefits then ironically the democrats would probably be against it and the republicans would be for it.
Beyond that... the whole immigration debate is moronic. Do you think if I just showed up in mexico without any paper work they'd let me be a citizen of mexico? And vote? Own property? They wouldn't. Name a country that would. You'll have a hard time finding even one. So the US has nothing to prove along those lines.
The HP computers have a bad rep because the consumer grade HP computers are probably the most crapware bloated pieces of shit you can buy. I have never seen machines from any other company with as much shit on them as an HP system. The first thing I do with most of those machines is wipe the harddrive. But with the HP machines it is an absolute requirement.
I personally hate their computers and would never buy from them at this point. Even their printers don't impress me much these days.
That said... there is value in brand recognition IF you have a good brand. Their printers are generally well regarded and I can tell you that in the business world they like to stick with companies that give them products they like. That said... I would never buy their desktop systems. Too much shit on them.
No... neither one of them is any smarter then the other. The only reason the dems are for this thing is that it expands government power and they're generally in favor of that all things being equal. They rarely see a regulation or tax they don't like. By the same token, the republicans tend to reflexively reject any new regulation or tax. When the two cooperate it is typically with the republicans caving for some reason which tends to give us lots of new regulations and taxes.
My point here was that the republicans would be more likely to support the net neutrality cause if they grasped that the problem was ultimately being caused by government regulation in the first place. Mostly at the local level where very complicated and expensive fees have to be paid to run cable. These fees are not the cost of digging trenches, laying cable, or putting up polls. They're basically fees set as high as the industry can bare. And the industry in these areas have been monopolies. So they can actually bare quite a bit. A more free market system with lots of competitors will need much lower fees because they'll individually capture a much smaller portion of the consumer base.
So... focus on that aspect. I'd use interstate commerce on it since the internet is applicable in that situation.
... what was actually going on here. The republicans are against lots of government regulation. They just don't like it in general.
So if you put things to them in that context they're going to be biased against it.
The failure on our part was to explain properly to them that the situation only exists because government regulation makes it very hard for anyone to compete with the big ISPs. If you made that clear it would change the context of the regulation to them and would sway some of them.
Understand where different people are coming from on these issues or you can't reason with them.