There are plenty of rural areas in the US where you can't get cable TV because it's just not economical for them to run the cables to your house.
And there'd be a whole lot more areas that aren't even rural that wouldn't have been economical without cable franchises. You know what else exists out there in the boonies? Phone lines. Same thing. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...
What's that saying? The exception proves the rule.
Consumer advocates are concerned the massive co-marketing and spectrum deal between Verizon and cable companies includes so-called gentlemen's agreements that FiOS will never be expanded into additional markets
'Affordable'? Seriously, do some research. It was ridiculously expensive for what was offered. And you got to enjoy fees for damn near anything. It wasn't at all the panacea you're fantasizing about.
Actually Verizon stopped expanding because they made a deal with ComCast to not encroach on each others territory.
Google "Verizon Comcast mutual deal" for a plethora of links about it. Just as many of those links show people were worried it would mean less incentive for them to increase their service areas...guess what happened?
Free parking is decidedly a benefit. The cost of parking in many places exceeds $100/month. Likewise if they provide you a cash allowance to purchase public transportation access.
Free water/bathrooms, not something I can 'bring' with me.
Free silverware/plates. Fair enough. How much a 'month' do you think that really costs per person per month?
Appliance usage. Again, the costs per person per month is going to be so small as to not be worth it.
Healthcare - this is the elephant in the room. It *should* be taxed as it's a massive benefit.
The point is not being penny wise and pound foolish. Perhaps optimistic, but when you're offering someone something worth thousands of dollars per year, yes the gov't should have tax revenue on that.
how is it that he thinks tax dollars are going to support free meals for Google employees?
I hire you but pay you a single dollar in salary. I provide you everything else you need to live, housing, food, car, retirement etc.
The 'tax' you pay is on a single dollar, not on the rest of the compensation you receive.
The amount of money available to the gov't is now less due to how Google chose to compensate their employees and my, non google employed, share of what the gov't needs to run is greater because of it.
So far...or do you not admit that Chernobyl killed 10,000+? So does coal, just differently. The closest you can come to disasters with renewable is dam failure and that is completely mitigatable through planning. You can't 'mitigate' a full scale nuclear disaster.
Though I have to say, if you charge more, but don't arrange for the comfort of both the larger persons and those that might be seated near them
The price by weight only affects how much fuel it takes to move your fat ass;-) (disclaimer, I ain't skinny myself!) Not how much comfort you have.
My issue is that the price difference per pound isn't going to be more than a few cents is it? Passenger weight is fairly insignificant compared to the weight of the plane itself. There might be standard 50 tons of people/luggage on a jumbo (250 lbs combined * 400 ppl). The 'heavier' people are going to add maybe a few tons, I'd guess 10 at most. So I'm betting that 10 tones is far less than a 5% increase in overall weight. So the increase in costs divided among the passengers is going to get pretty small pretty quickly.
It seems like they're being penny-wise/pound foolish on this...
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of rural areas in the US where you can't get cable TV because it's just not economical for them to run the cables to your house.
And there'd be a whole lot more areas that aren't even rural that wouldn't have been economical without cable franchises. You know what else exists out there in the boonies? Phone lines. Same thing. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...
What's that saying? The exception proves the rule.
Consumer advocates are concerned the massive co-marketing and spectrum deal between Verizon and cable companies includes so-called gentlemen's agreements that FiOS will never be expanded into additional markets
From here
'Affordable'? Seriously, do some research. It was ridiculously expensive for what was offered. And you got to enjoy fees for damn near anything. It wasn't at all the panacea you're fantasizing about.
Actually Verizon stopped expanding because they made a deal with ComCast to not encroach on each others territory.
Google "Verizon Comcast mutual deal" for a plethora of links about it. Just as many of those links show people were worried it would mean less incentive for them to increase their service areas...guess what happened?
Nothing is stopping AT&T/Verizon/Comcast from providing the same service everywhere right now.
If Google is willing to do it in exchange for advertising revenue...this is bad, how exactly?
"National good" and private companies cannot be put together in the same sentence.
Yes they can. It was/is GOOD that phone/cable co's built out their networks to provide service to *everyone*. That is in the 'National Good'.
It's only possible with strict government oversight though since a corporations motives are almost exclusively monetarily based.
They've rested on their laurels too long now without that strict oversight and it's time to stir up the pot again...
AT&T as the example but all CableCo's have their own massively nice 'deals'. I.e. Monopoly over the area of service.
And with that massive incentive to build and provide service...they haven't. Funny how places are jumping at the chance to be given actual service.
has given us one more thing to worry about and fear (presentation slides
I'm already afraid of presentation slides, but apparently that fear is now renewed!
Free parking is decidedly a benefit. The cost of parking in many places exceeds $100/month. Likewise if they provide you a cash allowance to purchase public transportation access.
Free water/bathrooms, not something I can 'bring' with me.
Free silverware/plates. Fair enough. How much a 'month' do you think that really costs per person per month?
Appliance usage. Again, the costs per person per month is going to be so small as to not be worth it.
Healthcare - this is the elephant in the room. It *should* be taxed as it's a massive benefit.
The point is not being penny wise and pound foolish. Perhaps optimistic, but when you're offering someone something worth thousands of dollars per year, yes the gov't should have tax revenue on that.
Actually no. We had a balanced budget 13 years ago. What changed since then is vastly LOWER revenues. We have a revenue problem.
how is it that he thinks tax dollars are going to support free meals for Google employees?
I hire you but pay you a single dollar in salary. I provide you everything else you need to live, housing, food, car, retirement etc.
The 'tax' you pay is on a single dollar, not on the rest of the compensation you receive.
The amount of money available to the gov't is now less due to how Google chose to compensate their employees and my, non google employed, share of what the gov't needs to run is greater because of it.
Doh! Still I doubt Japan has much lead time either :)
Less so his work in actual 'law' and 'order'....
Given the proximity of North and South, ahem, Korea. Me thinks you don't get much lead time...
Note to self: Maybe that RaspberryPi Tweet monitoring Nuke launcher was a bad idea...
Bank bailouts? 'made money'
Auto bailouts? 'made money'
'any of that other stuff government does'
well you're true colors show through now...
What's the cost of cholera again? Or polio? oh right...gov't eradicated those here...
Gov't is not bad, people who complain from the cheap seats without contributing to the solution are 'bad'.
Hence why I said the spent fuel ponds as well. Looking at Fukushima, those reactors don't look anything close to 'hardened' do they?
"We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"
And that was just for some ridiculous thing like landing on the moon. This is just power generation...
Energy storage at the scales you'd need is simply too expensive with no end to that in sight.
So was energy production at current levels 100 years ago. Technology improves and more things are possible that were once thought impossible.
So far...or do you not admit that Chernobyl killed 10,000+? So does coal, just differently. The closest you can come to disasters with renewable is dam failure and that is completely mitigatable through planning. You can't 'mitigate' a full scale nuclear disaster.
Hydro has certain things that need to be mitigated, and yes the 'impact' is heavy in a *very* localized area.
But it's not anywhere near coal or oil...nice try though.
Isn't feeding them with food grown and shipped using fossile fuels not only bad for the enviroment, but is only prolonging thier cruel slow death.
You do realize that you mostly eat food grown elsewhere and trucked in using fossil fuels right?
So by your own admission, stop and die.
Though I have to say, if you charge more, but don't arrange for the comfort of both the larger persons and those that might be seated near them
The price by weight only affects how much fuel it takes to move your fat ass ;-) (disclaimer, I ain't skinny myself!) Not how much comfort you have.
My issue is that the price difference per pound isn't going to be more than a few cents is it? Passenger weight is fairly insignificant compared to the weight of the plane itself. There might be standard 50 tons of people/luggage on a jumbo (250 lbs combined * 400 ppl). The 'heavier' people are going to add maybe a few tons, I'd guess 10 at most. So I'm betting that 10 tones is far less than a 5% increase in overall weight. So the increase in costs divided among the passengers is going to get pretty small pretty quickly.
It seems like they're being penny-wise/pound foolish on this...
And atomic warfare lasted about a week too...doesn't mean the threat is gone.
They're not impact-free.
Nothing is, but they don't have fuel costs nor fuel waste...NOTHING else can say that.
Renewables are multiple orders of magnitude less 'impacting' than fossil fuels or nuclear.