That dealer markup isn't negotiable in the sales price. How it works is there is a wholesale price the dealer pays, this is typically $3-6K less the second "wholesale" price that they sometimes show the customer in the form of an "invoice" price (you will never ever see the real wholesale price). On top of this there is an MSRP markup that adds anywhere from 5-20% more to the price on top of the wholesale price and on top of dealer markup.
When you negotiate a price on a car you are negotiating between the "invoice" (wholesale + dealer markup) and MSRP. Salesman commission comes out of this extra markup, the higher the price above "invoice" and the more the salesman gets (I've seen salesmen that get a price close to MSRP take a $3000 commission on a single vehicle). As an individual purchaser you under no circumstances will ever get offered a price less than the "invoice" price (wholesale + dealer fee). If you buy a fleet of vehicles you might get as much as 50% off that dealer fee but you would need to be buying triple digit numbers of cars from the dealer every year to reach that kind of price concession.
In summary, even if you are the best negotiator on the planet you will never pay less than a $3-6000 markup on the wholesale price of a car using a dealer. So when that NADA guy claims it fosters price competition he's outright lying through his teeth. There is NO price competition, there is a significant markup for a middleman mandated by law. This is why the people that own car dealerships are often the wealthiest person in any moderately sized city. The more dealership they own the wealthier they are. They make several thousand dollars on the sale of every single car. Get rid of the dealer and you can shave that markup off the table because the manufacturer doesn't need it because they aren't getting it.
Car dealerships are the perfect example of a middle man taxing every sale.
Wikipedia says gasoline is 36MJ/Liter. At the size and weight a Model S would have around a 14-16 gallon tank were it an ICE. Lets assume 16 gallons.
16 Gallons = 60.5 Liters. So total energy stored in the gasoline is 36 * 60.5 = 2180GJ.
1GJ = 277.7 kw/hr, therefore 2180GJ = 605555 kw/hr (I didn't round the factors off).
The model S has as it's largest battery pack option a 85kw/hr battery pack which is equivalent to a full tank of gas. A difference of (605555/85) 7124%.
You calculations fall on their face because you aren't doing a proper comparison of total efficiency of the entire system. Even if you assume the equivalent gas tank for a Model S is a 8 gallon tank (undersized for the weight) you're still going to end up with several thousand percent more energy (3562%) in the gasoline. That was my entire point, the Model S has a battery that's the equivalent of a full tank of gas. It's trivial to calculate the equivalent gasoline energy and see how terribly overall inefficient ICE cars are. It's not the just the conversion efficiency in the ICE, you've got all sorts of energy being sucked off for things like water pumps and transmissions that reduce the efficiency even more (not to mention peak efficiency of the ICE is almost never seen) and in addition the Model S can recover part of it's stopping energy.
We don't need batteries with Gasoline's energy density. Gasoline cars waste most of the energy in the gas. Even if we decided you needed a battery with twice the energy density we would NEVER approach the energy stored in gasoline.
Russia signed the same treaty that agreed to honor and defend Ukrainian territorial integrity. The US signature didn't agree to come to Ukraine defense with American troops, it agreed to keep the US out of the Ukraine.
At the time this was signed the US was seen as a potential threat (the cold war had just ended) and the Russians as the potential solution to that threat. The intent of the treaty was that the US and their allies wouldn't invade Ukraine and if they did the Russians would defend them. For all intents the US honored their side of the bargain, the Russians on the other hand basically spat all over their side of the treaty.
If you think handing regulation to state government will result in less corruption and a fairer playing field you have no experience with or understanding of state government. Local government is better for some things but state governments are historically and currently the easiest for those with deep pockets to buy regulations and laws they want. I've got dozens of examples in my own state and you could undoubtedly find dozens in your own. Such things do occasionally make the national press such as the Texas car dealers association getting the state of Texas to ban the direct sale of Tesla cars. A key example of an entrenched interest with deep pockets being able to directly control the state government into passing patently anti-competition laws.
Although I don't like the new FCC run by lobbyists and prefer the version from the 50's that was run by engineers. They are at least less corruptible than local politics. If FCC duties are handed to the states we'll have state legislatures writing laws that favor local large businesses in a heart beat. We already have dozens of incumbent written state laws around the nation baring local governments from wiring themselves when the incumbent refuses. I can't even imagine the horror state governments would cause.
The entire government on one exchange server? I don't think even Microsoft working with unlimited money could get Exchange to do that. What you suggest is literally impossible.
You have a very high opinion of government IT. Myself, having encountered the BOFH's that run government IT I can say with all seriousness it's entirely likely the entire email server for the IRS division was stored on a second hand laptop sitting in some closet without any backups whatsoever.
Government pays so shitty I wouldn't expect any "qualified" IT people in the IRS. Hell they still use mainframes from the 70's to process taxes because every time they've tried to replace them they've failed miserably and they've blown their entire IT budgets for years trying.
So no, I think it's completely and totally believable that all the email was stored in some non-backed up second hand PC running exchange. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. It'll never cease to amaze me how Republicans run up and down screaming about how incompetent government is but when they display that incompetence they run around screaming conspiracy.
Why does this always need to be repeated? The burning of gasoline in an ICE engine is ridiculously inefficient (vast majority of the energy goes into heat) and the conversion of battery power to forward motion via the electric motor is very very efficient. As a result you don't need the energy density of gasoline to power an electric car.
The Tesla 85kw/hr battery pack is equivalent to a tank of gas for that car weight and profile even if it is 300x less energy overall, all we have to do is get the cost of that battery pack to equal the cost of the equivalent amount of gas over the batteries lifetime. We don't ever need to reach the energy density of gasoline.
Ah so YOU are one of those spineless little shits of a business owner that KNOWINGLY hires illegal aliens and tries to blame everyone else because "you're forced to hire them". I'm willing to bet you're even in a right to work state and yet you are going to blame other people because you are one of the people that's destroying this fucking country for a couple extra bucks in your pocket and a good hard worker that you know you can bully around. I have in-laws that are just like you, they snicker at family reunions about how they KNOW their workers are illegal and as a result they can pay them less and make them work harder.
No it's not your fucking job to secure the border. But it IS your job and DUTY to respect your country and it's laws. I want e-verify fixed or replaced and I want real teeth to the hiring rules so spineless little fuckers like you that are selling out this country for a buck get punished and punished hard. I'd like to see jail time for business owners that hire illegals repeatedly and I think it's appropriate that you pay 5 figure fines for doing it even once. Because if you won't have some respect for your country you should be forced to at least honor this countries laws and pay up for being an unpatriotic little shit. You're a leech on this country.
I'm not trying to defend e-verify. I specifically DIDN'T mention e-verify in my original post. I shouldn't have even responded to when you brought it up. E-Verify is broken and it's been broken since it's inception because it's been designed from the ground up not to work. They could fix it, with a rewrite and a change in how it works, but those same entrenched interests that like the system as it is have put in place political blocks such that e-verify is always guaranteed to be a failure.
Once you realize there are powerful people that want illegal immigration you will realize that those people are the reason the system is broken and there is a propaganda campaign about "secure the border" which will do nothing but funnel money into the military industrial complex and won't stop immigration. There are simple solutions to the problem, Some of the European countries have a system that works far better than ours (though is not perfect).
You SHOULD find is suspicious that you, as an illegal immigrant in Mexico, wouldn't be able to get a job there but illegal immigrants from Mexico can have a job in the US in under a week and with almost no effort. That such a thing can happen is evidence the system is being gamed for the benefit of those that employ illegals.
The e-verify program doesn't work because the government doesn't do anything but verify that the SSN is valid. Almost every single illegal immigrant has a valid SSN in their possession. The SSA has admitted that if you have a Hispanic sounding name odds are multiple people are using it. There have been stories of homeless people from Puerto Rico that have 20 people using their name and SSN. The entire reason e-verify doesn't work is it's based on the premise of only validating that the SSN and name is valid, they deliberately don't check to see if it's being used 20 times.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the employment. Building the Berlin wall on the Mexican border will do nothing to stop illegal immigration. You've got to cut off the employment and punish harshly those employers caught employing them.
Nice subject change, I'm talking about Gitmo and you start talking about the ACA. I'm not even going to bother reading your attempt to divert the subject because I don't play wack-a-mole.
The democrats never had the votes to close Gitmo, it wasn't even close. Keep talking about the ACA or keep trying to argue the same point over and over again about them voting in lock-step when the evidence doesn't support it. You can't convince me the blue pen is red and I'm not going to play your game of whack-a-mole because you're wrong and can't deal with it.
You can't secure the border. It's a mythical concept that the party is selling you so you don't pay attention to the real way to shut down illegal immigration. The entire system is driven by the employment they can gain if they can get into this country. Without that employment opportunity very few would come and those that did would leave shortly after they couldn't find a job.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the employment. And that means targeting the businesses that hire them. Most of the these businesses are very well connected politically. I know several, they are all die hard republicans that support stopping illegal immigration as long as you don't go after THEM. We could stop immigration tomorrow by actually implementing, checking and enforcing some sort of national ID or cracking down heavily on fraudulent use of SSN's. But that would mean shutting down the cheap labor and there are entrenched interests that don't want the immigration to stop and don't want it to be legal. These entrenched interests have run a very successful campaign of convincing people like you that the solution is to build the Berlin wall on the Mexican border. Well here's a wake up call for you, people routinely crossed the Berlin wall and they shot people that tried.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away the jobs. If you want to end illegal immigration and not maintain the status quo support real employer penalties and force the SSA to actually validate every SSN used for employment is being used by it's owner (this is damn near trivial).
In my experience the average GOP voter only cares about their own privacy, they actively support the invasion of everyone elses privacy and fully support the NSA spy apparatus without question. On the other hand there is a VERY small fraction of the GOP (Rand Paul is one) that is against this, but they are heavily ridiculed by the main party for this stance.
Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fact their official party stance?
How many times do I have to keep saying the same thing. I keep telling you they didn't have the votes and you keep saying they had the SEAT's. They are not the same bloody thing. You're either delusional or a sock-puppet. Even if they hadn't had the whole Frankel thing that dragged on for a year and Kennedy's cancer and all the other things they STILL didn't have the votes because there were several Democrats that votes against it because as I've pointed out SEVERAL times they don't vote in lock step.
I said the prison was in a paradise, not that it was a paradise. It's called reading comprehension.
And you are making a terrible assumption to assume I favor the democrats, I think both parties are full of shit. But when we're talking about blame for Gitmo that is squarely on the Republicans and will remain there because it IS their fault. Calling them out on that is not favoring the democrats. I'm happy to point out both parties failings, maybe if more people called the parties on it we could degrade this sham of a two party system.
Gitmo goes against every single one of our values and the Republican party and their representatives were the ones that decided it was a good idea, justified it with secret memo's and to this day continue to block every attempt to close it and have been running a propaganda campaign against closure from day one.
If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.
Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes. So even if the Democrats were as united and you seem to think and EVEN if every single Democrat somehow would bow down and do whatever Obama wanted (which they don't) he couldn't have got it done.
How stupid are you? The Democrats don't vote in lock step. Trying to organize the Democrats in congress is like trying to heard cats. It's the single most important reason why the Republicans voting exactly how the party tells them to can always out maneuver the Democrats.
Obama has no responsibility for Gitmo, he didn't create it, he tried to close it and he'd close it tomorrow if Congress would let him. See here in the real world the President isn't all powerful. What's Ironic is that you idiots keep claiming he's all powerful and can do whatever he wants, yet the Republican party policy is to oppose everything he does. It's the biggest bunch of horseshit you partisan fools have ever tried selling.
Unfortunately for the democrats they are not as "United" as the republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with each other nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says regardless of their constituents. As a result even though the bill to close gitmo was brought up several times the bill never passed nor really ever had a chance to beat the 60 vote fillibuster threshold needed to advance in the Senate.
Instead was was passed in it's stead was a requirement that he not close, it that he not spend a DIME studying closing, discussing closing or even thinking about closing it. This basically bared the president from doing any sort of research that would convince congress it could be done. This was the work of people like John McCain, rather ironically a former POW, working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.
Anyone that can argue Obama didn't try to close Gitmo is a blind partisan liar. And anyone that argues Obama is responsible for that atrocity is a fucking idiot. The republican party has responsibility for that prison. Even today the Republican parties official platform includes support for perpetual detention at Gitmo. I'll never understand people that think it's a good idea to waste our soldiers time playing guard duty in what is pretty close to a paradise. It's a waste of money and valuable resources. Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site. But people not unlike you insisted without reason that those guys remain in Cuba and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house them in the most expensive military base the US has.
1. The $300 installation fee, as you noted available to be paid in 1 year of monthly $25 payments doesn't even cover 10% of the cost of the ONT let alone the cost to install. And that $25 fee (and it's only for a year then free afterwards) is cheaper than every other incumbents cheapest plan and they only pay for 12months and Google commits to 5 years of free service, an amortized fee that's less than $5 a month!
2. They are NOT making prioritization decisions on economic return, they are making them on subscriber numbers. It's a false dichotomy to claim those are the same thing and that's the stupid word games the incumbents are playing. Economics has nothing at all to do with a decision to install. The install decision is based on the uptake number, where included in the uptake calculation is a plan they will lose big money on. It's an outright lie to argue this is economic based either for them or the subscribers.
Google has made no claims whatsoever that economics play into this at ALL. You are outright lying when you claim they have. The installation is decided solely on number of subscribers in a given area as I've noted already and has nothing at all to do with the actual economics of service because if it did include that requirement, they wouldn't include the $300 option when assessing deployment. The very existence of fiber-hoods where residents only committed to purchasing the free plan puts a lie to any claim otherwise. More than half the fiber-hoods in KC were qualified with more than 50% of the residents only committing to the free plan. AFAIK there wasn't a SINGLE neighborhood that was qualified for build where more than 75% of those that committed selected the pay plan.
This is one of the big lies the incumbents have been telling. Google has made no installation decisions based on economic return or economic capability. The fiberhood voting process includes the free internet service which likely costs Google money to provide and doesn't provide favorability ratings for those willing to pay for gigabit over the free version. The only requirement is that people sign up for the service (and it can be the free service they intend to sign up for).
The incumbents call this cherry picking because in their world they would do an economic analysis that ensures the households would subscribe to numerous pricy packages. This analysis would favor higher income areas by default and likely write off large numbers of poor people. Google is doing nothing at all like this, many of the qualified fiberhood's in KC were in fact low income and had requested the free internet.
Salt Lake City (the city, not the metro area) has almost no dark fiber (the only reason I saw almost and not none is I can't be sure there's no link between the jail and the city building) installed and was chosen. Almost every mile of fiber that is government owned in the entire county is owned by UDOT and is used for traffic management and absolutely not leased, sold or used by anyone else with the small exception that they've allowed several of the cities to hook into the network to gain control over the traffic systems within that city.
Separating that waste stream from the other waste steams is prohibitively expensive. Baring some massive shortage of both elements that makes them so valuable that they pay people to collect their urine it's not going to be separated and when mixed with Human fecal matter the urine is useless for crops unless you want all the disease risks that go with it.
In parts of the world where human waste is used to fertilize crops you will find infections of hepatitis, hook worms and other very nasty things are common because they get them from the food fertilized with night soil (human waste). The appropriate first world use of human waste is fertilizing non-food crops and using those crops to feed animals thereby placing a barrier between the human waste which contains human diseases and other humans. Short of charing the waste it's nearly impossible to guarantee the removal of all human pathogens. It's not because of laziness than no first world country uses human waste on human food crops, there is a very good public health reason for it.
You'll have to forgive Sheriff Gayer, after all it must feel like a warzone when you spend all you're available time and money engaged in the war on drugs because it's so damn profitable for the cops.
Nineteen eighty-four was the year that Congress rewrote the civil forfeiture law to funnel drug money and "drug related" assets into the police agencies that seize them. This amendment offered law enforcement a new source of income, limited only by the energy police and prosecutors were willing to put into seizing assets. The number of forfeitures mushroomed: Between 1985 and 1991 the Justice Department collected more than $1.5 billion in illegal assets; in the next five years, it almost doubled this intake. By 1987 the Drug Enforcement Administration was more than earning its keep, with over $500 million worth of seizures exceeding its budget.
The numbers are only worse now. States like Minesota that are average size take in around 8 million dollars and almost every penny of that money is given right back to the cops.
The point is that though he was a whistle blower for certain illegal behavior by the NSA he engaged in the release of classified legal programs and methods as well.
Whistle blower status from one does not convey to the other. He was a Hero for revealing the illegal domestic surveillance and outing Clapper as a liar but he's a criminal for revealing the legitimate espionage and methods.
Slashdot Mirror
Does he include in his biography that he's a paid shill?
No one should read anything he says.
That dealer markup isn't negotiable in the sales price. How it works is there is a wholesale price the dealer pays, this is typically $3-6K less the second "wholesale" price that they sometimes show the customer in the form of an "invoice" price (you will never ever see the real wholesale price). On top of this there is an MSRP markup that adds anywhere from 5-20% more to the price on top of the wholesale price and on top of dealer markup.
When you negotiate a price on a car you are negotiating between the "invoice" (wholesale + dealer markup) and MSRP. Salesman commission comes out of this extra markup, the higher the price above "invoice" and the more the salesman gets (I've seen salesmen that get a price close to MSRP take a $3000 commission on a single vehicle). As an individual purchaser you under no circumstances will ever get offered a price less than the "invoice" price (wholesale + dealer fee). If you buy a fleet of vehicles you might get as much as 50% off that dealer fee but you would need to be buying triple digit numbers of cars from the dealer every year to reach that kind of price concession.
In summary, even if you are the best negotiator on the planet you will never pay less than a $3-6000 markup on the wholesale price of a car using a dealer. So when that NADA guy claims it fosters price competition he's outright lying through his teeth. There is NO price competition, there is a significant markup for a middleman mandated by law. This is why the people that own car dealerships are often the wealthiest person in any moderately sized city. The more dealership they own the wealthier they are. They make several thousand dollars on the sale of every single car. Get rid of the dealer and you can shave that markup off the table because the manufacturer doesn't need it because they aren't getting it.
Car dealerships are the perfect example of a middle man taxing every sale.
Wikipedia says gasoline is 36MJ/Liter. At the size and weight a Model S would have around a 14-16 gallon tank were it an ICE. Lets assume 16 gallons.
16 Gallons = 60.5 Liters. So total energy stored in the gasoline is 36 * 60.5 = 2180GJ.
1GJ = 277.7 kw/hr, therefore 2180GJ = 605555 kw/hr (I didn't round the factors off).
The model S has as it's largest battery pack option a 85kw/hr battery pack which is equivalent to a full tank of gas. A difference of (605555/85) 7124%.
You calculations fall on their face because you aren't doing a proper comparison of total efficiency of the entire system. Even if you assume the equivalent gas tank for a Model S is a 8 gallon tank (undersized for the weight) you're still going to end up with several thousand percent more energy (3562%) in the gasoline. That was my entire point, the Model S has a battery that's the equivalent of a full tank of gas. It's trivial to calculate the equivalent gasoline energy and see how terribly overall inefficient ICE cars are. It's not the just the conversion efficiency in the ICE, you've got all sorts of energy being sucked off for things like water pumps and transmissions that reduce the efficiency even more (not to mention peak efficiency of the ICE is almost never seen) and in addition the Model S can recover part of it's stopping energy.
We don't need batteries with Gasoline's energy density. Gasoline cars waste most of the energy in the gas. Even if we decided you needed a battery with twice the energy density we would NEVER approach the energy stored in gasoline.
Russia signed the same treaty that agreed to honor and defend Ukrainian territorial integrity. The US signature didn't agree to come to Ukraine defense with American troops, it agreed to keep the US out of the Ukraine.
At the time this was signed the US was seen as a potential threat (the cold war had just ended) and the Russians as the potential solution to that threat. The intent of the treaty was that the US and their allies wouldn't invade Ukraine and if they did the Russians would defend them. For all intents the US honored their side of the bargain, the Russians on the other hand basically spat all over their side of the treaty.
If you think handing regulation to state government will result in less corruption and a fairer playing field you have no experience with or understanding of state government. Local government is better for some things but state governments are historically and currently the easiest for those with deep pockets to buy regulations and laws they want. I've got dozens of examples in my own state and you could undoubtedly find dozens in your own. Such things do occasionally make the national press such as the Texas car dealers association getting the state of Texas to ban the direct sale of Tesla cars. A key example of an entrenched interest with deep pockets being able to directly control the state government into passing patently anti-competition laws.
Although I don't like the new FCC run by lobbyists and prefer the version from the 50's that was run by engineers. They are at least less corruptible than local politics. If FCC duties are handed to the states we'll have state legislatures writing laws that favor local large businesses in a heart beat. We already have dozens of incumbent written state laws around the nation baring local governments from wiring themselves when the incumbent refuses. I can't even imagine the horror state governments would cause.
The entire government on one exchange server? I don't think even Microsoft working with unlimited money could get Exchange to do that. What you suggest is literally impossible.
You have a very high opinion of government IT. Myself, having encountered the BOFH's that run government IT I can say with all seriousness it's entirely likely the entire email server for the IRS division was stored on a second hand laptop sitting in some closet without any backups whatsoever.
Government pays so shitty I wouldn't expect any "qualified" IT people in the IRS. Hell they still use mainframes from the 70's to process taxes because every time they've tried to replace them they've failed miserably and they've blown their entire IT budgets for years trying.
So no, I think it's completely and totally believable that all the email was stored in some non-backed up second hand PC running exchange. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. It'll never cease to amaze me how Republicans run up and down screaming about how incompetent government is but when they display that incompetence they run around screaming conspiracy.
Why does this always need to be repeated? The burning of gasoline in an ICE engine is ridiculously inefficient (vast majority of the energy goes into heat) and the conversion of battery power to forward motion via the electric motor is very very efficient. As a result you don't need the energy density of gasoline to power an electric car.
The Tesla 85kw/hr battery pack is equivalent to a tank of gas for that car weight and profile even if it is 300x less energy overall, all we have to do is get the cost of that battery pack to equal the cost of the equivalent amount of gas over the batteries lifetime. We don't ever need to reach the energy density of gasoline.
Ah so YOU are one of those spineless little shits of a business owner that KNOWINGLY hires illegal aliens and tries to blame everyone else because "you're forced to hire them". I'm willing to bet you're even in a right to work state and yet you are going to blame other people because you are one of the people that's destroying this fucking country for a couple extra bucks in your pocket and a good hard worker that you know you can bully around. I have in-laws that are just like you, they snicker at family reunions about how they KNOW their workers are illegal and as a result they can pay them less and make them work harder.
No it's not your fucking job to secure the border. But it IS your job and DUTY to respect your country and it's laws. I want e-verify fixed or replaced and I want real teeth to the hiring rules so spineless little fuckers like you that are selling out this country for a buck get punished and punished hard. I'd like to see jail time for business owners that hire illegals repeatedly and I think it's appropriate that you pay 5 figure fines for doing it even once. Because if you won't have some respect for your country you should be forced to at least honor this countries laws and pay up for being an unpatriotic little shit. You're a leech on this country.
I'm not trying to defend e-verify. I specifically DIDN'T mention e-verify in my original post. I shouldn't have even responded to when you brought it up. E-Verify is broken and it's been broken since it's inception because it's been designed from the ground up not to work. They could fix it, with a rewrite and a change in how it works, but those same entrenched interests that like the system as it is have put in place political blocks such that e-verify is always guaranteed to be a failure.
Once you realize there are powerful people that want illegal immigration you will realize that those people are the reason the system is broken and there is a propaganda campaign about "secure the border" which will do nothing but funnel money into the military industrial complex and won't stop immigration. There are simple solutions to the problem, Some of the European countries have a system that works far better than ours (though is not perfect).
You SHOULD find is suspicious that you, as an illegal immigrant in Mexico, wouldn't be able to get a job there but illegal immigrants from Mexico can have a job in the US in under a week and with almost no effort. That such a thing can happen is evidence the system is being gamed for the benefit of those that employ illegals.
The e-verify program doesn't work because the government doesn't do anything but verify that the SSN is valid. Almost every single illegal immigrant has a valid SSN in their possession. The SSA has admitted that if you have a Hispanic sounding name odds are multiple people are using it. There have been stories of homeless people from Puerto Rico that have 20 people using their name and SSN. The entire reason e-verify doesn't work is it's based on the premise of only validating that the SSN and name is valid, they deliberately don't check to see if it's being used 20 times.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the employment. Building the Berlin wall on the Mexican border will do nothing to stop illegal immigration. You've got to cut off the employment and punish harshly those employers caught employing them.
Nice subject change, I'm talking about Gitmo and you start talking about the ACA. I'm not even going to bother reading your attempt to divert the subject because I don't play wack-a-mole.
The democrats never had the votes to close Gitmo, it wasn't even close. Keep talking about the ACA or keep trying to argue the same point over and over again about them voting in lock-step when the evidence doesn't support it. You can't convince me the blue pen is red and I'm not going to play your game of whack-a-mole because you're wrong and can't deal with it.
You can't secure the border. It's a mythical concept that the party is selling you so you don't pay attention to the real way to shut down illegal immigration. The entire system is driven by the employment they can gain if they can get into this country. Without that employment opportunity very few would come and those that did would leave shortly after they couldn't find a job.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the employment. And that means targeting the businesses that hire them. Most of the these businesses are very well connected politically. I know several, they are all die hard republicans that support stopping illegal immigration as long as you don't go after THEM. We could stop immigration tomorrow by actually implementing, checking and enforcing some sort of national ID or cracking down heavily on fraudulent use of SSN's. But that would mean shutting down the cheap labor and there are entrenched interests that don't want the immigration to stop and don't want it to be legal. These entrenched interests have run a very successful campaign of convincing people like you that the solution is to build the Berlin wall on the Mexican border. Well here's a wake up call for you, people routinely crossed the Berlin wall and they shot people that tried.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away the jobs. If you want to end illegal immigration and not maintain the status quo support real employer penalties and force the SSA to actually validate every SSN used for employment is being used by it's owner (this is damn near trivial).
In my experience the average GOP voter only cares about their own privacy, they actively support the invasion of everyone elses privacy and fully support the NSA spy apparatus without question. On the other hand there is a VERY small fraction of the GOP (Rand Paul is one) that is against this, but they are heavily ridiculed by the main party for this stance.
Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fact their official party stance?
How many times do I have to keep saying the same thing. I keep telling you they didn't have the votes and you keep saying they had the SEAT's. They are not the same bloody thing. You're either delusional or a sock-puppet. Even if they hadn't had the whole Frankel thing that dragged on for a year and Kennedy's cancer and all the other things they STILL didn't have the votes because there were several Democrats that votes against it because as I've pointed out SEVERAL times they don't vote in lock step.
Keep denying reality.
I said the prison was in a paradise, not that it was a paradise. It's called reading comprehension.
And you are making a terrible assumption to assume I favor the democrats, I think both parties are full of shit. But when we're talking about blame for Gitmo that is squarely on the Republicans and will remain there because it IS their fault. Calling them out on that is not favoring the democrats. I'm happy to point out both parties failings, maybe if more people called the parties on it we could degrade this sham of a two party system.
Gitmo goes against every single one of our values and the Republican party and their representatives were the ones that decided it was a good idea, justified it with secret memo's and to this day continue to block every attempt to close it and have been running a propaganda campaign against closure from day one.
Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes. So even if the Democrats were as united and you seem to think and EVEN if every single Democrat somehow would bow down and do whatever Obama wanted (which they don't) he couldn't have got it done.
How stupid are you? The Democrats don't vote in lock step. Trying to organize the Democrats in congress is like trying to heard cats. It's the single most important reason why the Republicans voting exactly how the party tells them to can always out maneuver the Democrats.
Obama has no responsibility for Gitmo, he didn't create it, he tried to close it and he'd close it tomorrow if Congress would let him. See here in the real world the President isn't all powerful. What's Ironic is that you idiots keep claiming he's all powerful and can do whatever he wants, yet the Republican party policy is to oppose everything he does. It's the biggest bunch of horseshit you partisan fools have ever tried selling.
Unfortunately for the democrats they are not as "United" as the republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with each other nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says regardless of their constituents. As a result even though the bill to close gitmo was brought up several times the bill never passed nor really ever had a chance to beat the 60 vote fillibuster threshold needed to advance in the Senate.
Instead was was passed in it's stead was a requirement that he not close, it that he not spend a DIME studying closing, discussing closing or even thinking about closing it. This basically bared the president from doing any sort of research that would convince congress it could be done. This was the work of people like John McCain, rather ironically a former POW, working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.
Anyone that can argue Obama didn't try to close Gitmo is a blind partisan liar. And anyone that argues Obama is responsible for that atrocity is a fucking idiot. The republican party has responsibility for that prison. Even today the Republican parties official platform includes support for perpetual detention at Gitmo. I'll never understand people that think it's a good idea to waste our soldiers time playing guard duty in what is pretty close to a paradise. It's a waste of money and valuable resources. Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site. But people not unlike you insisted without reason that those guys remain in Cuba and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house them in the most expensive military base the US has.
1. The $300 installation fee, as you noted available to be paid in 1 year of monthly $25 payments doesn't even cover 10% of the cost of the ONT let alone the cost to install. And that $25 fee (and it's only for a year then free afterwards) is cheaper than every other incumbents cheapest plan and they only pay for 12months and Google commits to 5 years of free service, an amortized fee that's less than $5 a month!
2. They are NOT making prioritization decisions on economic return, they are making them on subscriber numbers. It's a false dichotomy to claim those are the same thing and that's the stupid word games the incumbents are playing. Economics has nothing at all to do with a decision to install. The install decision is based on the uptake number, where included in the uptake calculation is a plan they will lose big money on. It's an outright lie to argue this is economic based either for them or the subscribers.
Google has made no claims whatsoever that economics play into this at ALL. You are outright lying when you claim they have. The installation is decided solely on number of subscribers in a given area as I've noted already and has nothing at all to do with the actual economics of service because if it did include that requirement, they wouldn't include the $300 option when assessing deployment. The very existence of fiber-hoods where residents only committed to purchasing the free plan puts a lie to any claim otherwise. More than half the fiber-hoods in KC were qualified with more than 50% of the residents only committing to the free plan. AFAIK there wasn't a SINGLE neighborhood that was qualified for build where more than 75% of those that committed selected the pay plan.
Stop lying.
This is one of the big lies the incumbents have been telling. Google has made no installation decisions based on economic return or economic capability. The fiberhood voting process includes the free internet service which likely costs Google money to provide and doesn't provide favorability ratings for those willing to pay for gigabit over the free version. The only requirement is that people sign up for the service (and it can be the free service they intend to sign up for).
The incumbents call this cherry picking because in their world they would do an economic analysis that ensures the households would subscribe to numerous pricy packages. This analysis would favor higher income areas by default and likely write off large numbers of poor people. Google is doing nothing at all like this, many of the qualified fiberhood's in KC were in fact low income and had requested the free internet.
Stop repeating incumbent propaganda.
Salt Lake City (the city, not the metro area) has almost no dark fiber (the only reason I saw almost and not none is I can't be sure there's no link between the jail and the city building) installed and was chosen. Almost every mile of fiber that is government owned in the entire county is owned by UDOT and is used for traffic management and absolutely not leased, sold or used by anyone else with the small exception that they've allowed several of the cities to hook into the network to gain control over the traffic systems within that city.
And Meg will be the one that kills it because it doesn't have an ongoing revenue stream that provides 25% margins.
Separating that waste stream from the other waste steams is prohibitively expensive. Baring some massive shortage of both elements that makes them so valuable that they pay people to collect their urine it's not going to be separated and when mixed with Human fecal matter the urine is useless for crops unless you want all the disease risks that go with it.
In parts of the world where human waste is used to fertilize crops you will find infections of hepatitis, hook worms and other very nasty things are common because they get them from the food fertilized with night soil (human waste). The appropriate first world use of human waste is fertilizing non-food crops and using those crops to feed animals thereby placing a barrier between the human waste which contains human diseases and other humans. Short of charing the waste it's nearly impossible to guarantee the removal of all human pathogens. It's not because of laziness than no first world country uses human waste on human food crops, there is a very good public health reason for it.
You'll have to forgive Sheriff Gayer, after all it must feel like a warzone when you spend all you're available time and money engaged in the war on drugs because it's so damn profitable for the cops.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
The numbers are only worse now. States like Minesota that are average size take in around 8 million dollars and almost every penny of that money is given right back to the cops.
The point is that though he was a whistle blower for certain illegal behavior by the NSA he engaged in the release of classified legal programs and methods as well.
Whistle blower status from one does not convey to the other. He was a Hero for revealing the illegal domestic surveillance and outing Clapper as a liar but he's a criminal for revealing the legitimate espionage and methods.