Taking trains is clearly very pleasant and a wonderful alternative to the car; I take them every time I can when I'm in Europe.
That doesn't make it a good deal: most Europeans pay for these rail lines through taxes, but rarely if ever get to use the infrastructure. Worse, Germany outlawed long distance bus transportation in order to protect the rail system from economically more efficient competition, which means that large parts of Germany have no good or low-cost long distance public transport at all.
But, hey, as long as a few wealthy people and tourists can cruise in style from Munich to Frankfurt (or SF to LA), who cares about the peons who actually have to pay for it, right?
Compared to what? Driving or flying over medium distances?
Yes, compared to driving, buses, and flying.
I beg to differ.
It's not a question of opinion. European passenger rail systems are losing money, are unreliable, and have high ticket prices. Driving is overwhelmingly popular in countries like Germany despite the rail system and car ownership is as high as in the US. And the (mis-)use of rail for passengers in Europe means that the rail system is actually inefficiently utilized, while large numbers of trucks are clogging the roads and polluting the environment.
Furthermore, it's not like the US isn't using rail. The US still has a rail system that is twice as large as all of Europe put together and it is nearly 100% utilized. But the US rail system is primarily used for freight, something that rail is excellent for.
Get rid of them, implement a government-designed system, like the roads.
Europe had government-provided telecom systems for decades and it was a total disaster. European Internet and wireless is so fast today because European governments (uncharacteristically) killed off government telecom services and forced companies to compete by making it easy for consumers to switch. We need to change our telecom market so that there is competition, not nationalize it.
What should be done? Prohibit long-term contracts and require all equipment to be unlocked and compatible between all providers for starters. We missed a big opportunity with LTE and 4G setting a standard that would have finally forced the US cellular providers to compete instead of locking in customers. Etc.
I think US Internet and wireless service suck: they are slow and overpriced. And Johnson is right: that's due to regulatory capture, insanely consumer-hostile regulations written by Internet and wireless companies. We either need a lot more regulation of these companies or a lot less regulation (and more competition), but right now, regulations make entry into the market hard, yet allow these companies to screw consumers any way they want.
Having said that, however, keep in mind that the French have much less disposable income than Americans: the US median disposable household income is $31000, in France it is $19000. In addition, there are hidden costs, such as special taxes on media and equipment, and the annual television tax (when you buy a TV, your name is passed on to the French tax authorities). Furthermore, the prices cited in the article for the US are a bit exaggerated: that $160 package is an obvious waste of money, and you can get something comparable for half the price. So, in the end, the differences between the US and France are not all that dramatic. But given the size and potential efficiency of the US market, Internet and wireless prices should be much lower here than in Europe, and they fail to be so.
Until the problems grow so large that you can't ignore them.
Except, of course, that the disenfranchised population has been shrinking for two centuries, rather than growing. Even if it grows temporarily due to voter ID legislation, you can bet that by next election, all those people have their IDs, even if the Democratic party machinery has to cart the "poor disenfranchised people" to the department of motor vehicles themselves.
I think we have established that your claim that disenfranchisement entails further disenfranchisement is bogus. For better or for worse, our political system tends towards universal suffrage.
Many European nations have mandatory key disclosure laws (France, UK, Belgium, the Netherlands). That is, if you keep your data encrypted and don't disclose it to the police, you can be thrown in jail, by law.
Disenfranchising a disadvantaged group only results in that group growing.
We've gone from a nation in which almost everybody was disenfranchised to a nation in which almost everybody can vote, including disadvantaged groups like the poor, ex-slaves, and women. Obviously, "disenfranchising a group" doesn't "only" cause it to grow.
Your problem is that you know almost nothing about history or economics; it's not surprising that you reach bizarre conclusions.
However, I very much doubt this "in bed with one church or another" thing
Almost all European nations either have a state church or transfer massive amounts of money to churches. That's pretty characteristic of Europe: what people believe about it is totally out of touch with reality.
it doesn't change that there are still a non-trivial amount of countries that have and still do value democracy
Of those, only the British form of government has proven reasonably stable over time. The whole lot was guilty of the most vile forms of colonialism, France nearly came to a civil war in 1958, and it really doesn't matter what the Belgians or Dutch believe because they are little more than soccer balls for the powers that surround them. The only reason Europe hasn't started a bunch of new wars is because people are rich. If the European economy goes down the drain further (and it will), Europeans will demand what they consider their birthright, wealth and power, and they'll stop at nothing to get it.
There are plenty of endoscopic surgeries already. People are attaching more actuators to the front to help with steering, but for obvious reasons, you want to keep these things as small as possible. Why you would want to shove the "robot" from the article up your behind is instead of a standard endoscope is beyond me.
That's because the anti-Google propaganda in Europe was driven by European publishers, TV stations, and lobbyists who saw the Internet in general, and Google in particular, cutting into their profits. Add to that the usual dose of European anti-Americanism, and you have the basis for the extreme hostility to Google. European corporations, their lobbyists, and the governments they have in their pockets have no problem with violating the privacy rights of European citizens themselves. Neither do the various "state security services" of the oh-so-democratic European governments.
When you look at its 20th century history, Europe is barely democratic. Spain and Portugal were military dictatorships, East Germany was communist, as were many of the new states, and West Germany was rebuilt by ex-Nazis. Northern Ireland was a war zone. Large parts of Europe are in bed with one church or another. It's silly to expect a continent with that kind of history to have much of a commitment to liberty or democracy. To be sure, the European desire for peace, liberty, and democracy is strong, but they have always had problems achieving it. By historical standards, the current period of peace in Europe is barely a breather.
They don't take their direction from EU voters, they take their direction, mostly it seems from non-EU governments and lobbyists. ACTA was the rule not the exception.
Actually, they take a lot of their direction from EU-based lobbyists, and many of those EU-based lobbyists are also messing up US politics. Yes, EU-based corporations are at least as bad as US-based corporations, arguably worse. And Europe also has strong churches and strong unions that want to get their slice of the pie too, and usually succeed.
The US is really the least of Europe's worries, but it serves as a convenient scapegoat for European politicians and European lobbyists: "America made us do it!".
Otherwise you don't get to claim superiority, because you're "guilty" of the same thing I am.
Do you think we're engaging in a spectator sport instead of a discussion? Either you substantiate your bizarre claim or I'm going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
The problem is that the government is always involved.
I didn't say it shouldn't be involved, I said I don't want it to be more involved. I'd like it to do its job and keep markets free and efficient, nothing more. That doesn't take a lot of money or entitlements. I don't want it to "provide for everybody except for the very rich" like you do.
What I can't figure out is why people like you don't move to Europe. Europe gives you exactly what you want and they welcome you. Instead, you're hell-bent on turning the US into Europe and with it destroying the last bastion of liberty in the world.
You can't take anything so-called news source like NYT, CNN, or any of groups take seriously.... Then there was the so-called Fox news story last week that has the phrase "so-called patch" in it. Yeah... patches are so new and mysterious.
The article fails to compare the use of data center to the alternatives. People would generally have to get a small home server to get equivalent functionality to what they now get through data centers, and that would be much worse in terms of energy. Furthermore, since energy costs are significant for data centers, the contention that they just let it go to waste is silly; data centers optimize energy usage in a way that makes economic sense. Lots of public policy debates unfortunately focus on supposed negatives of something, instead of focusing on tradeoffs between viable alternatives. The NYT is frequently guilty of this kind of economic and scientific illiteracy.
If you can show a citation that refutes my statement, then you'll have a point. Until then you're just being a typical piece of shit.
You made the statement, you must provide the citation to support it. Where is your citation?
No, I just want a future in which everybody except for the very rich has every aspect of their lives provided for.
Well, I certainly don't, because my family immigrated from a country like that. But you're free to emigrate to Europe if you like; Europe will take nearly anybody with any kind of skills.
Our government has taken a position against health care, education, retirement, and transportation, and I can provide examples of each.
Yes, our government has been doing a poor job at this. That's why your idea of having the government get even more involved in medical care, insurance, retirement, transportation, etc. is so stupid.
Many icons that Apple claims ownership over are rip-offs, either from public domain symbols, or from other applications. Let's hope that now that they have set a precedent, others will start asserting their rights against Apple.
There's plenty of homeless who aren't actually receiving any money, or even food stamps, due to one factor or another.
They can get government assistance if they want to. They can get a job. They can also get free IDs in states with voter ID cards.
Are you suggesting they shouldn't be able to vote?
They can vote if they get to the polling booths and provide ID, or register for vote by mail. If they can't do that, that's their problem and their responsibility.
Disenfranchising a disadvantaged group only results in that group growing.
Making up bogus "facts" isn't helping your case.
Is that the future you want for this nation?
You seem to want a future in which everybody except for the very rich has every aspect of their lives (health care, education, retirement, transportation) provided for by the government. I find that horrifying.
The price difference was largely down to economies of scale and competition in the x86 market, Alpha pretty much had only one supplier and was low volume...
Or maybe it was because the Alpha chip was just badly designed. We don't know because nobody can do a controlled experiment.
Alpha was faster at integer code too, but the difference for floating point was far larger.
The difference on integer code was small, and even on floating point, it wasn't really worth the hassle. And that's only if you actually managed to get the performance out of the chip that they got for benchmarks, and most of the time you didn't.
You indicated it in stupid generalizations like this:
It's ironic that conservatives complain about poor, elderly, and disabled people and all their "entitlements," all while acting completely oblivious to how ridiculously entitled they act themselves.
In pretty much all states with voter ID laws, you can get a free ID.
Furthermore, if you are low income, you get government aid already, and if you're low-middle income, you likely get government assistance. How much more do we need to pay you?
Slashdot Mirror
Taking trains is clearly very pleasant and a wonderful alternative to the car; I take them every time I can when I'm in Europe.
That doesn't make it a good deal: most Europeans pay for these rail lines through taxes, but rarely if ever get to use the infrastructure. Worse, Germany outlawed long distance bus transportation in order to protect the rail system from economically more efficient competition, which means that large parts of Germany have no good or low-cost long distance public transport at all.
But, hey, as long as a few wealthy people and tourists can cruise in style from Munich to Frankfurt (or SF to LA), who cares about the peons who actually have to pay for it, right?
Yes, compared to driving, buses, and flying.
It's not a question of opinion. European passenger rail systems are losing money, are unreliable, and have high ticket prices. Driving is overwhelmingly popular in countries like Germany despite the rail system and car ownership is as high as in the US. And the (mis-)use of rail for passengers in Europe means that the rail system is actually inefficiently utilized, while large numbers of trucks are clogging the roads and polluting the environment.
Furthermore, it's not like the US isn't using rail. The US still has a rail system that is twice as large as all of Europe put together and it is nearly 100% utilized. But the US rail system is primarily used for freight, something that rail is excellent for.
Europe had government-provided telecom systems for decades and it was a total disaster. European Internet and wireless is so fast today because European governments (uncharacteristically) killed off government telecom services and forced companies to compete by making it easy for consumers to switch. We need to change our telecom market so that there is competition, not nationalize it.
What should be done? Prohibit long-term contracts and require all equipment to be unlocked and compatible between all providers for starters. We missed a big opportunity with LTE and 4G setting a standard that would have finally forced the US cellular providers to compete instead of locking in customers. Etc.
They are also heavily subsidized and protected from competition, and they are still very expensive. In the end, they are not a good deal.
I think US Internet and wireless service suck: they are slow and overpriced. And Johnson is right: that's due to regulatory capture, insanely consumer-hostile regulations written by Internet and wireless companies. We either need a lot more regulation of these companies or a lot less regulation (and more competition), but right now, regulations make entry into the market hard, yet allow these companies to screw consumers any way they want.
Having said that, however, keep in mind that the French have much less disposable income than Americans: the US median disposable household income is $31000, in France it is $19000. In addition, there are hidden costs, such as special taxes on media and equipment, and the annual television tax (when you buy a TV, your name is passed on to the French tax authorities). Furthermore, the prices cited in the article for the US are a bit exaggerated: that $160 package is an obvious waste of money, and you can get something comparable for half the price. So, in the end, the differences between the US and France are not all that dramatic. But given the size and potential efficiency of the US market, Internet and wireless prices should be much lower here than in Europe, and they fail to be so.
If you keep your data encrypted and don't reveal it to the police, you get thrown in jail. Seems pretty straightforward.
If you're European, that is hardly surprising.
Except, of course, that the disenfranchised population has been shrinking for two centuries, rather than growing. Even if it grows temporarily due to voter ID legislation, you can bet that by next election, all those people have their IDs, even if the Democratic party machinery has to cart the "poor disenfranchised people" to the department of motor vehicles themselves.
I think we have established that your claim that disenfranchisement entails further disenfranchisement is bogus. For better or for worse, our political system tends towards universal suffrage.
Many European nations have mandatory key disclosure laws (France, UK, Belgium, the Netherlands). That is, if you keep your data encrypted and don't disclose it to the police, you can be thrown in jail, by law.
We've gone from a nation in which almost everybody was disenfranchised to a nation in which almost everybody can vote, including disadvantaged groups like the poor, ex-slaves, and women. Obviously, "disenfranchising a group" doesn't "only" cause it to grow.
Your problem is that you know almost nothing about history or economics; it's not surprising that you reach bizarre conclusions.
Almost all European nations either have a state church or transfer massive amounts of money to churches. That's pretty characteristic of Europe: what people believe about it is totally out of touch with reality.
Of those, only the British form of government has proven reasonably stable over time. The whole lot was guilty of the most vile forms of colonialism, France nearly came to a civil war in 1958, and it really doesn't matter what the Belgians or Dutch believe because they are little more than soccer balls for the powers that surround them. The only reason Europe hasn't started a bunch of new wars is because people are rich. If the European economy goes down the drain further (and it will), Europeans will demand what they consider their birthright, wealth and power, and they'll stop at nothing to get it.
There are plenty of endoscopic surgeries already. People are attaching more actuators to the front to help with steering, but for obvious reasons, you want to keep these things as small as possible. Why you would want to shove the "robot" from the article up your behind is instead of a standard endoscope is beyond me.
That's because the anti-Google propaganda in Europe was driven by European publishers, TV stations, and lobbyists who saw the Internet in general, and Google in particular, cutting into their profits. Add to that the usual dose of European anti-Americanism, and you have the basis for the extreme hostility to Google. European corporations, their lobbyists, and the governments they have in their pockets have no problem with violating the privacy rights of European citizens themselves. Neither do the various "state security services" of the oh-so-democratic European governments.
When you look at its 20th century history, Europe is barely democratic. Spain and Portugal were military dictatorships, East Germany was communist, as were many of the new states, and West Germany was rebuilt by ex-Nazis. Northern Ireland was a war zone. Large parts of Europe are in bed with one church or another. It's silly to expect a continent with that kind of history to have much of a commitment to liberty or democracy. To be sure, the European desire for peace, liberty, and democracy is strong, but they have always had problems achieving it. By historical standards, the current period of peace in Europe is barely a breather.
Actually, they take a lot of their direction from EU-based lobbyists, and many of those EU-based lobbyists are also messing up US politics. Yes, EU-based corporations are at least as bad as US-based corporations, arguably worse. And Europe also has strong churches and strong unions that want to get their slice of the pie too, and usually succeed.
The US is really the least of Europe's worries, but it serves as a convenient scapegoat for European politicians and European lobbyists: "America made us do it!".
Encryption is already illegal in Europe in many cases.
Do you think we're engaging in a spectator sport instead of a discussion? Either you substantiate your bizarre claim or I'm going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't say it shouldn't be involved, I said I don't want it to be more involved. I'd like it to do its job and keep markets free and efficient, nothing more. That doesn't take a lot of money or entitlements. I don't want it to "provide for everybody except for the very rich" like you do.
What I can't figure out is why people like you don't move to Europe. Europe gives you exactly what you want and they welcome you. Instead, you're hell-bent on turning the US into Europe and with it destroying the last bastion of liberty in the world.
Let me fix this for you:
The article fails to compare the use of data center to the alternatives. People would generally have to get a small home server to get equivalent functionality to what they now get through data centers, and that would be much worse in terms of energy. Furthermore, since energy costs are significant for data centers, the contention that they just let it go to waste is silly; data centers optimize energy usage in a way that makes economic sense. Lots of public policy debates unfortunately focus on supposed negatives of something, instead of focusing on tradeoffs between viable alternatives. The NYT is frequently guilty of this kind of economic and scientific illiteracy.
You made the statement, you must provide the citation to support it. Where is your citation?
Well, I certainly don't, because my family immigrated from a country like that. But you're free to emigrate to Europe if you like; Europe will take nearly anybody with any kind of skills.
Yes, our government has been doing a poor job at this. That's why your idea of having the government get even more involved in medical care, insurance, retirement, transportation, etc. is so stupid.
Many icons that Apple claims ownership over are rip-offs, either from public domain symbols, or from other applications. Let's hope that now that they have set a precedent, others will start asserting their rights against Apple.
They can get government assistance if they want to. They can get a job. They can also get free IDs in states with voter ID cards.
They can vote if they get to the polling booths and provide ID, or register for vote by mail. If they can't do that, that's their problem and their responsibility.
Making up bogus "facts" isn't helping your case.
You seem to want a future in which everybody except for the very rich has every aspect of their lives (health care, education, retirement, transportation) provided for by the government. I find that horrifying.
Or maybe it was because the Alpha chip was just badly designed. We don't know because nobody can do a controlled experiment.
The difference on integer code was small, and even on floating point, it wasn't really worth the hassle. And that's only if you actually managed to get the performance out of the chip that they got for benchmarks, and most of the time you didn't.
You indicated it in stupid generalizations like this:
Actually, he pretty accurately states the accepted meaning of the US Constitution. You, in contrast, display typical European ignorance and arrogance.
In pretty much all states with voter ID laws, you can get a free ID.
Furthermore, if you are low income, you get government aid already, and if you're low-middle income, you likely get government assistance. How much more do we need to pay you?