Actually, it's defined as all freedoms are: by that which does not intrude on the rights and freedoms of others. These laws merely exist to protect those freedoms.
Please explain the draft in WW II, the Korean, and Vietnam wars, and mandatory Selective Service registration today. Feel free to include examples of why these things would be permissible, but not require invocation of Rosseau's "Social Contract" as a philosophical basis.
So you think the USA should be a follower and not a leader?
Environmental policy in the U.S. is generally led by California, and the rest of the nation adopts their standards.
So do I think they should lead the way by not using natural gas to produce almost 50% (49.3%) of their electricity? Yeah, I think it'd be *great* if they'd get off their asses and build more nuclear plants, and use the night reduction on load to desalinate water for the Southern Californians who insist on living in a freaking desert, and growing food there for export to other countries.
And do I think they should use nuclear, rather than burning coal and importing electricity from coal generators in other state for another 28% of their electricity? You betcha.
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
I'm OK with them leading, as long as *someone* does it. The U.S. certainly isn't doing it.
Ever heard of "fraud" and "false advertising" ? Free speech does not apply to profit by deception.
Yes. I've also heard of Smurfette and chicken wire.
I'm not seeing how or whom against Exxon is committing fraud, or against whom, nor the product which they are making false claims about in advertising (I honestly haven't even *seen* and Exxon advertising in pretty much forever).
Can you provide a link to the court documents, so I can make sure that this is not just another Greenpeace filing "on behalf of Mother Earth", because if it is, they'd be pretty easy to distract by showing them a World Heritage Site that they haven't desecrated (yet) to give them something else to do.
Look, you can't just declare a project, put it up in a public repo, and then expect people to flock to fix your code for you. One of the big things in the dot bomb era was people thinking that there were millions of Open Source programmers with no project ideas who would happily write their code for them, if only they were able to figure out how to declare a project exists to the right coding audience.
GitHub tries very hard to *NOT* be the new SourceForge -- "SourceForge: Where software goes to die(tm)" -- and projects like this one won't help with that; they're actually harmful.
You need to gather interested parties *first*, and *then* start small (generally a mailing list, and then exchanging patches, and then (eventually) GitHub.
Your project admittedly -- by you -- has problems. Guess what? So did Mozilla, which was nominally OpenSource for *YEARS* before you could actually build and use it. And *then* it took off; before that, there was *massive* disinterest in it, and it was basically a dead project.
In other words, it has to work first, and then it has to be able to be tinkered with, second, and then it has to mostly scratch and itch, third, and then the people who get itchy will do something about it. Not before. Before that, it's just more DOA code that will have to be cleaned out the next time GitHub's equivalent of a Roomba goes through shooting abandonware in the head. As it should.
Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements.
Good Lord!!!!
Where will we end up, if the politicians ever got a hold of Exxon's "lying to the public" technology?!?
Thank you, Jesus, that we are nipping this in the bud by strongly enforcing the "it's illegal to lie to the public" laws already on the books!
Can you see, they are linked! Government needs MOAR taxes to fight global climate change!
Step 1: Raise more money Step 2: Cut down a bunch of trees to make paper Step 3: Print carbon credits on the paper, so there are more carbon credits Step 4: Send the carbon credits to the worst polluters Step 5: Global disaster averted!
You realize the U.S. is ~4.5% of the population... right?
Even if we went completely arboreal, and genetically engineered our children to have green skin and photosynthesize, it really wouldn't change the vector, regardless of which side you are on, and which way you think it points.
Fix the problems in China and India first. While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
The only tools the US government has for security are getting insurance companies to not cover companies which are lax in security, or getting companies to privately share breaches so more high quality people can work on dealing with an attacker, find their methods, and find a way to mitigate it.
Extraordinary Rendition works great as a mitigation strategy. So does "shot while resisting arrest".
Yeah, but Jordan's already implied that FreeBSD will be going down a very similar path....
Actually, from what I've read, they are actually going down the launchd model path, and it's primarily being driven by iXsystems.
I think that most people are not objecting to launchd because Mac OS X uses launchd, and is capable of passing the UNIX conformance tests; it's questionable whether or not a systemd based system could do the same, since in order to pass the tests, it was necessary to make launchd respond to a SIGHUP in the same way that initd did previously.
It was also necessary for it to read flat text configuration files, since the conformance testing modified crontab and syslog.conf (among other things) as part of the test procedures, so even if the major configuration matrix happens in XML, the flat files are still there for the persistent/adamant.
In other words, launchd tends to be less offensive to UNIX traditionalists who have many years worth of scripts that generate traditional configuration files.
'nuf said. By the way, how much perchlorate was in the regolith simulant? The problem with simulations is that they are just that---simulations.
The perchlorate question is interesting, but really depends on the environment around where it was found. The water in the movie was created from hydrazine, so (presumably) it was not an area with large amounts of water ice already, and thus lower concentration. That said, use oif the rocket fuel in this case could have resulted in a perchlorate sparing reaction to take it out of the soil; I assume if that was intended, it ended up on the cutting room floor, but it's technically doable.
And if you aren't using that excess capacity, it shouldn't *not* be generated, instead it should power desalination plants and other things that can run on an as-demand basis.
Unless the desalination plant operator isn't willing to pay what it costs to generate that electricity. Then it's cheaper to shut down a power plant or two. Saving your customers money is a good thing, right?
Costs exactly the same amount to run a nuclear plant, whether or not you choose to use the power. It's not like you can ramp production up or down quickly.
Because demand for electricity is constant throughout the day?
Because it isn't, and building excess capacity is wise.
And if you aren't using that excess capacity, it shouldn't *not* be generated, instead it should power desalination plants and other things that can run on an as-demand basis. It's stupid to have to use electricity to heat water because you have to use hot water instead of warm water on your dishes, because you have to leave the food to cake on until it's OK to run your dish washer, according to the power company.
Expecting humans to behave differently to make the infrastructure happy, rather than expecting infrastructure to behave differently to make the humans happy, is pretty misanthropic.
Because it would give the poor a way to save money that doesn't exist today, by doing their electricity-intensive chores when electricity is cheaper than average. With flat rate pricing, they always have to pay the average rate.
You are aware that this wouldn't be a problem in the first place, if we weren't trying to use a power generation technology whose output varied based on time of day, right?
The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.
I think the basic problem is you're an idiot. You couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of my post, instead making snarky comments because my argument doesn't address al the points in the precise order you want them addressed in. Come back when you've grown up a little and are interested in having a proper debate and discussion among adults.
And you are ignorant.
You made a bunch of incorrect statements about population density, and you made a bunch of incorrect statements about population density by state with an exception for Alaska, even though 6 *other* states have the same population density as Alaska. I pointed out that the population density was *vastly* biased by averaging the numbers over about 14 states, several of which have 1000+ people per square mile (that's about 20X the average population density of Sweden, which is 54/square mile).
And yeah, were the population is incredibly dense (as in: >800 apartments in a single high rise building in New York), there's good internet connectivity.
You ignored the major premise that the infrastructure is not government owned, as it generally is in Sweden (many municipalities own their own fiber optic infrastructures, something which generally does not happen in the U.S., because the cable and telephone companies take the cities to court and charge unfair competition.
Basically, you pretty much ignored anything which disagreed with your premise that U.S. Internet connectivity sucks in all but two states, 48 U.S. states suck, and that economies of scale should apply equally everywhere, due to average population density over the entire U.S. (except Alaska, of course).
Let's ignore the sparsely populated areas for the time being.
50% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a coastline or waterway. The other 50% lives in the middle of freaking nowhere. But for the sake of your argument, by all means, let's ignore half the U.S. population.
Many of the big cities are as dense as European ones so there's just no excuse for stuff sucking in the cities. But it does.
The reason the U.S. is tariffed is that private companies use public rights of way, which are frequently granted as monopolies, rather than the infrastructure being owned by the city/count/state, and then exclusively leased to the highest bidder. This is the 50% of the population that lives in about 7.4% of the total land area of the U.S..
Now let's get on to the sparsely populated areas. The USA has a higher population density than Sweden, and Sweden's internet is excellent, so it can't just be a population thing.
This doesn't "get to the sparsely populated areas", it just totally ignores them. Around 50% of the U.S. population lives in about 92.6% of the land area.
But what about the population density of the states?
Glad you asked! Pretty much no one freaking lives anywhere but Hawaii, California, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and the Northeastern seaboard. The population density in Rhode Island and New Jersey are the highest, at 1000+ per square mile; Alaska and 6 other states fall into the 0-20 persons per square mile bucket. Six states are in the 20-50 persons per square mile bucket. If you care:
Why do you need to smooth pricing? By allowing prices to rise and fall throughout the day in response to supply and demand, you don't need to add supply between the time the sun goes down and the time people go to bed at night.
In other words, you can treat it as an economics problem and save your customers a lot of money on power plants and fuel. This is why the world is switching from flat rate pricing to time-of-use pricing.
Because poor people need lights in the dark too?
I get that you could leave the capacity restricted, and then let rich people price poor people out of the market by bidding the cost up considerably, but why?
It also seems to me that this would significantly advantage the East Coast, since you're not going to run out of sunlight in the U.S. until it's significantly later in the day/night cycle there, than when you run out of sunlight on the West Coast. So they'd just pull from the grid at non-inflated rates, and the West Coast gets to lump it.
Of course, the West Coast could do it in the morning, well before sane people get up for the day.
And I guess God Help You if Larry Ellison decides to throw a party, and then even the rich people get inconvenienced, when the super rich decide to use more power than is normally available...
If they don't meet specs on their connection compared to what they contracted the connection at, then they will be crucified.
This is why, when I lived in an apartment 10 feet too far away from the LATE, the wouldn't give me DSL, and would only offer ADSL. This was in Silicon Valley, where presumably, we'd have good Internet connectivity. They simply weren't willing to risk the legal ramifications, should the sell it to me, and it be 1% too slow, and me taking them to court over it, and them losing their regulatory approval everywhere because of it.
It looks like Europe is either under-regulated, or under-litigious, compared to the U.S..
The slow U.S. rollout of higher speeds has more to do with 20 year amortization on equipment, which is standard practice in the telecom industry, and the fact that you only have to be better than the competition to lock up all the consumers in a given market, and there is little competition.
That, and the U.S. is *big* and sparsely populated for the most part, and Europeans have absolutely no clue at the distances involved, which is why they totally fail on the "public transportation in the U.S." and "Internet access in the U.S." and "Taxi service in the U.S." arguments (you can get a Lyft in Alta, UT -- population 389 -- but if you expect a taxi, don't hold your breath, or expect to pay for it to come out from Salt Lake).
Any multi-server, replicated database that requires synchronized real-time clocks to maintain consistency is inherently broken. A system that lies about consistency is worse than a system that doesn't pretend to be consistent.
Google's Spanner database, for example, uses high-precision timestamps, but only for optimizing reads other housekeeping chores. Transactions are kept consistent and synchronized using proper consensus protocols (e.g. Paxos).
One of the major things that allows this optimization (and I agree, it's merely an optimization, and any data model that doesn't maintain consistency is inherently broken), id that all of the systems on which it as developed and deployed have working TSC's, meaning that they count while in low power states, and they are invariant under "speedboost" style short term clock accelerations, so once you get them synced up, they *stay* synced up. then reading the TSC is practically free.
(2) Should the feds have placed *more* scrutiny on Al Capone alone, thus violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment
You better go back and re-read the 14th Amendment. If it required all prisoners to be treated exactly the same, there'd be no such thing as solitary confinement.
You are engaging in a reductio ad absurdum argument.
He was entitled to equal protection under the law, and therefore equal treatment, under the law.
Yes, if he had chewed another prisoners face off, he would have been put in solitary -- just as any other prisoner who had chewed someone's face off would have been placed in solitary.
Equality of treatment is why there are sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimums and mandatory maximums "... to serve a sentence of not less than five year, nor more than 15 years..." written into laws.
But yes, if you attack a guard, you will be beaten with a tonfa ("night stick") by multiple guards, while the other prisoners who did not attack the guard are not being "treated the same".
I notice you attempt to cite "the law" quite a bit in your post demanding we ignore every americans constitutional right to speak with their lawyer.
Can you elaborate why you believe the constitution is wrong and we should ignore the right of people to speak with their lawyers?
You need to quote where you believe I stated that. I did not.
This is not my position. In general, there are private conference rooms in which prisoners are allowed to confer with their lawyers, either in person, or via telephone. This is totally separate from going to the phone on the wall after standing in line, and conversing in front of the other prisoners.
Personally, I wouldn't trust a conversation with the lawyer over the telephone, even one set aside for that purpose in a conference room; I would also state that if your lawyer is worth having at all, i.e. not just screwing you out of fees, they are going to show up in person.
What about the plausible situation of YOU being put in jail for not committing a crime (perfectly legal to do) and being denied your constitutional right to speak with a lawyer or anyone else (something you claim should be legal)?
Please quote where you believe I stated that, since I never did.
For the record, I believe that this would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, specifically it would be a violation of habeas corpus. While this *does* happen, it's as a result of a (mis)application of the Patriot Act, and the government has backed down in every instance where it looked to be tested in court, since were it tested in court, they could no longer do it and hide behind any screen of individual plausible deniability.
I have a suspicion if you were simply kidnapped and your family and legal council was not allowed to know where you are, while the government claims you must have committed suicide (thus charging your family all of the costs of your "crime" of killing yourself) all the while you are rotting away in prison with no court case, charges against you, or legal council to defend yourself with, you would be bitching up a storm.
Yeah. I would. However, as a suspected terrorist with no access to the Internet, I probably would not be doing so by posting as an AC on Slashdot.
BTW: if you have ever been denied access to a lawyer... that's unconstitutional. You should definitely speak to a lawyer about being denied access to a lawyer, since you've probably got a pretty good basis for a lawsuit.
The necessary corollary... is the analogy between monitoring all public communications vs. monitoring all prisoner communications.
In this scenario, the case can only be made that it is reasonable to monitor *everyones* communications in order to monitor *terrorist* communications is based on three false premises:
(1) The terrorists have been convicted (2) The public are prisoners of the government (3) The U.S. is a police state
Since none of these are true, the analogy does not hold. So if that's what you were working toward, you might as well give up now.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's defined as all freedoms are: by that which does not intrude on the rights and freedoms of others.
These laws merely exist to protect those freedoms.
Please explain the draft in WW II, the Korean, and Vietnam wars, and mandatory Selective Service registration today. Feel free to include examples of why these things would be permissible, but not require invocation of Rosseau's "Social Contract" as a philosophical basis.
So you think the USA should be a follower and not a leader?
Environmental policy in the U.S. is generally led by California, and the rest of the nation adopts their standards.
So do I think they should lead the way by not using natural gas to produce almost 50% (49.3%) of their electricity? Yeah, I think it'd be *great* if they'd get off their asses and build more nuclear plants, and use the night reduction on load to desalinate water for the Southern Californians who insist on living in a freaking desert, and growing food there for export to other countries.
And do I think they should use nuclear, rather than burning coal and importing electricity from coal generators in other state for another 28% of their electricity? You betcha.
Source for energy production by resource type: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/el...
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
I'm OK with them leading, as long as *someone* does it. The U.S. certainly isn't doing it.
Ever heard of "fraud" and "false advertising" ? Free speech does not apply to profit by deception.
Yes. I've also heard of Smurfette and chicken wire.
I'm not seeing how or whom against Exxon is committing fraud, or against whom, nor the product which they are making false claims about in advertising (I honestly haven't even *seen* and Exxon advertising in pretty much forever).
Can you provide a link to the court documents, so I can make sure that this is not just another Greenpeace filing "on behalf of Mother Earth", because if it is, they'd be pretty easy to distract by showing them a World Heritage Site that they haven't desecrated (yet) to give them something else to do.
GitHub: The new SourceForge
Look, you can't just declare a project, put it up in a public repo, and then expect people to flock to fix your code for you. One of the big things in the dot bomb era was people thinking that there were millions of Open Source programmers with no project ideas who would happily write their code for them, if only they were able to figure out how to declare a project exists to the right coding audience.
GitHub tries very hard to *NOT* be the new SourceForge -- "SourceForge: Where software goes to die(tm)" -- and projects like this one won't help with that; they're actually harmful.
You need to gather interested parties *first*, and *then* start small (generally a mailing list, and then exchanging patches, and then (eventually) GitHub.
Your project admittedly -- by you -- has problems. Guess what? So did Mozilla, which was nominally OpenSource for *YEARS* before you could actually build and use it. And *then* it took off; before that, there was *massive* disinterest in it, and it was basically a dead project.
In other words, it has to work first, and then it has to be able to be tinkered with, second, and then it has to mostly scratch and itch, third, and then the people who get itchy will do something about it. Not before. Before that, it's just more DOA code that will have to be cleaned out the next time GitHub's equivalent of a Roomba goes through shooting abandonware in the head. As it should.
Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements.
Good Lord!!!!
Where will we end up, if the politicians ever got a hold of Exxon's "lying to the public" technology?!?
Thank you, Jesus, that we are nipping this in the bud by strongly enforcing the "it's illegal to lie to the public" laws already on the books!
Can you see, they are linked! Government needs MOAR taxes to fight global climate change!
Step 1: Raise more money
Step 2: Cut down a bunch of trees to make paper
Step 3: Print carbon credits on the paper, so there are more carbon credits
Step 4: Send the carbon credits to the worst polluters
Step 5: Global disaster averted!
You realize the U.S. is ~4.5% of the population... right?
Even if we went completely arboreal, and genetically engineered our children to have green skin and photosynthesize, it really wouldn't change the vector, regardless of which side you are on, and which way you think it points.
Fix the problems in China and India first. While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
The only tools the US government has for security are getting insurance companies to not cover companies which are lax in security, or getting companies to privately share breaches so more high quality people can work on dealing with an attacker, find their methods, and find a way to mitigate it.
Extraordinary Rendition works great as a mitigation strategy. So does "shot while resisting arrest".
Yeah, but Jordan's already implied that FreeBSD will be going down a very similar path....
Actually, from what I've read, they are actually going down the launchd model path, and it's primarily being driven by iXsystems.
I think that most people are not objecting to launchd because Mac OS X uses launchd, and is capable of passing the UNIX conformance tests; it's questionable whether or not a systemd based system could do the same, since in order to pass the tests, it was necessary to make launchd respond to a SIGHUP in the same way that initd did previously.
It was also necessary for it to read flat text configuration files, since the conformance testing modified crontab and syslog.conf (among other things) as part of the test procedures, so even if the major configuration matrix happens in XML, the flat files are still there for the persistent/adamant.
In other words, launchd tends to be less offensive to UNIX traditionalists who have many years worth of scripts that generate traditional configuration files.
'nuf said.
By the way, how much perchlorate was in the regolith simulant?
The problem with simulations is that they are just that---simulations.
The perchlorate question is interesting, but really depends on the environment around where it was found. The water in the movie was created from hydrazine, so (presumably) it was not an area with large amounts of water ice already, and thus lower concentration. That said, use oif the rocket fuel in this case could have resulted in a perchlorate sparing reaction to take it out of the soil; I assume if that was intended, it ended up on the cutting room floor, but it's technically doable.
We've grown plants in regolith simulant.
So it's not like we don't already know that the answer is "yes".
http://journals.plos.org/ploso...
Unless the desalination plant operator isn't willing to pay what it costs to generate that electricity. Then it's cheaper to shut down a power plant or two. Saving your customers money is a good thing, right?
Costs exactly the same amount to run a nuclear plant, whether or not you choose to use the power. It's not like you can ramp production up or down quickly.
Perhaps we should take oil off the futures market?
That way, if the worst happens, we won't have to worry about it collapsing, because it won't be there to collapse?
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'
Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'
Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
Because demand for electricity is constant throughout the day?
Because it isn't, and building excess capacity is wise.
And if you aren't using that excess capacity, it shouldn't *not* be generated, instead it should power desalination plants and other things that can run on an as-demand basis. It's stupid to have to use electricity to heat water because you have to use hot water instead of warm water on your dishes, because you have to leave the food to cake on until it's OK to run your dish washer, according to the power company.
Expecting humans to behave differently to make the infrastructure happy, rather than expecting infrastructure to behave differently to make the humans happy, is pretty misanthropic.
Because it would give the poor a way to save money that doesn't exist today, by doing their electricity-intensive chores when electricity is cheaper than average. With flat rate pricing, they always have to pay the average rate.
You are aware that this wouldn't be a problem in the first place, if we weren't trying to use a power generation technology whose output varied based on time of day, right?
This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.
The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.
But you know: NYT knows best.
I think the basic problem is you're an idiot. You couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of my post, instead making snarky comments because my argument doesn't address al the points in the precise order you want them addressed in. Come back when you've grown up a little and are interested in having a proper debate and discussion among adults.
And you are ignorant.
You made a bunch of incorrect statements about population density, and you made a bunch of incorrect statements about population density by state with an exception for Alaska, even though 6 *other* states have the same population density as Alaska. I pointed out that the population density was *vastly* biased by averaging the numbers over about 14 states, several of which have 1000+ people per square mile (that's about 20X the average population density of Sweden, which is 54/square mile).
And yeah, were the population is incredibly dense (as in: >800 apartments in a single high rise building in New York), there's good internet connectivity.
You ignored the major premise that the infrastructure is not government owned, as it generally is in Sweden (many municipalities own their own fiber optic infrastructures, something which generally does not happen in the U.S., because the cable and telephone companies take the cities to court and charge unfair competition.
Basically, you pretty much ignored anything which disagreed with your premise that U.S. Internet connectivity sucks in all but two states, 48 U.S. states suck, and that economies of scale should apply equally everywhere, due to average population density over the entire U.S. (except Alaska, of course).
Educate yourself.
Let's ignore the sparsely populated areas for the time being.
50% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a coastline or waterway. The other 50% lives in the middle of freaking nowhere. But for the sake of your argument, by all means, let's ignore half the U.S. population.
Many of the big cities are as dense as European ones so there's just no excuse for stuff sucking in the cities. But it does.
The reason the U.S. is tariffed is that private companies use public rights of way, which are frequently granted as monopolies, rather than the infrastructure being owned by the city/count/state, and then exclusively leased to the highest bidder. This is the 50% of the population that lives in about 7.4% of the total land area of the U.S..
Now let's get on to the sparsely populated areas. The USA has a higher population density than Sweden, and Sweden's internet is excellent, so it can't just be a population thing.
This doesn't "get to the sparsely populated areas", it just totally ignores them. Around 50% of the U.S. population lives in about 92.6% of the land area.
But what about the population density of the states?
Glad you asked! Pretty much no one freaking lives anywhere but Hawaii, California, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and the Northeastern seaboard. The population density in Rhode Island and New Jersey are the highest, at 1000+ per square mile; Alaska and 6 other states fall into the 0-20 persons per square mile bucket. Six states are in the 20-50 persons per square mile bucket. If you care:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So based on those, why aren't most US states individually better than Sweden?
Because nobody freaking lives there.
And if you're arguing that it's harder in aggregate then you're literally arguing that economies of scale don't work.
They don't; that requires homogeneity, and the population is not evenly distributed.
Also: are you saying Swedish ISPs *don't* lie about their data rates?
Why do you need to smooth pricing? By allowing prices to rise and fall throughout the day in response to supply and demand, you don't need to add supply between the time the sun goes down and the time people go to bed at night.
In other words, you can treat it as an economics problem and save your customers a lot of money on power plants and fuel. This is why the world is switching from flat rate pricing to time-of-use pricing.
Because poor people need lights in the dark too?
I get that you could leave the capacity restricted, and then let rich people price poor people out of the market by bidding the cost up considerably, but why?
It also seems to me that this would significantly advantage the East Coast, since you're not going to run out of sunlight in the U.S. until it's significantly later in the day/night cycle there, than when you run out of sunlight on the West Coast. So they'd just pull from the grid at non-inflated rates, and the West Coast gets to lump it.
Of course, the West Coast could do it in the morning, well before sane people get up for the day.
And I guess God Help You if Larry Ellison decides to throw a party, and then even the rich people get inconvenienced, when the super rich decide to use more power than is normally available...
The U.S. has tariffed rates.
If they don't meet specs on their connection compared to what they contracted the connection at, then they will be crucified.
This is why, when I lived in an apartment 10 feet too far away from the LATE, the wouldn't give me DSL, and would only offer ADSL. This was in Silicon Valley, where presumably, we'd have good Internet connectivity. They simply weren't willing to risk the legal ramifications, should the sell it to me, and it be 1% too slow, and me taking them to court over it, and them losing their regulatory approval everywhere because of it.
It looks like Europe is either under-regulated, or under-litigious, compared to the U.S..
The slow U.S. rollout of higher speeds has more to do with 20 year amortization on equipment, which is standard practice in the telecom industry, and the fact that you only have to be better than the competition to lock up all the consumers in a given market, and there is little competition.
That, and the U.S. is *big* and sparsely populated for the most part, and Europeans have absolutely no clue at the distances involved, which is why they totally fail on the "public transportation in the U.S." and "Internet access in the U.S." and "Taxi service in the U.S." arguments (you can get a Lyft in Alta, UT -- population 389 -- but if you expect a taxi, don't hold your breath, or expect to pay for it to come out from Salt Lake).
Any multi-server, replicated database that requires synchronized real-time clocks to maintain consistency is inherently broken. A system that lies about consistency is worse than a system that doesn't pretend to be consistent.
Google's Spanner database, for example, uses high-precision timestamps, but only for optimizing reads other housekeeping chores. Transactions are kept consistent and synchronized using proper consensus protocols (e.g. Paxos).
One of the major things that allows this optimization (and I agree, it's merely an optimization, and any data model that doesn't maintain consistency is inherently broken), id that all of the systems on which it as developed and deployed have working TSC's, meaning that they count while in low power states, and they are invariant under "speedboost" style short term clock accelerations, so once you get them synced up, they *stay* synced up. then reading the TSC is practically free.
You better go back and re-read the 14th Amendment. If it required all prisoners to be treated exactly the same, there'd be no such thing as solitary confinement.
You are engaging in a reductio ad absurdum argument.
He was entitled to equal protection under the law, and therefore equal treatment, under the law.
Yes, if he had chewed another prisoners face off, he would have been put in solitary -- just as any other prisoner who had chewed someone's face off would have been placed in solitary.
Equality of treatment is why there are sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimums and mandatory maximums "... to serve a sentence of not less than five year, nor more than 15 years ..." written into laws.
But yes, if you attack a guard, you will be beaten with a tonfa ("night stick") by multiple guards, while the other prisoners who did not attack the guard are not being "treated the same".
I notice you attempt to cite "the law" quite a bit in your post demanding we ignore every americans constitutional right to speak with their lawyer.
Can you elaborate why you believe the constitution is wrong and we should ignore the right of people to speak with their lawyers?
You need to quote where you believe I stated that. I did not.
This is not my position. In general, there are private conference rooms in which prisoners are allowed to confer with their lawyers, either in person, or via telephone. This is totally separate from going to the phone on the wall after standing in line, and conversing in front of the other prisoners.
Personally, I wouldn't trust a conversation with the lawyer over the telephone, even one set aside for that purpose in a conference room; I would also state that if your lawyer is worth having at all, i.e. not just screwing you out of fees, they are going to show up in person.
What about the plausible situation of YOU being put in jail for not committing a crime (perfectly legal to do) and being denied your constitutional right to speak with a lawyer or anyone else (something you claim should be legal)?
Please quote where you believe I stated that, since I never did.
For the record, I believe that this would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, specifically it would be a violation of habeas corpus. While this *does* happen, it's as a result of a (mis)application of the Patriot Act, and the government has backed down in every instance where it looked to be tested in court, since were it tested in court, they could no longer do it and hide behind any screen of individual plausible deniability.
I have a suspicion if you were simply kidnapped and your family and legal council was not allowed to know where you are, while the government claims you must have committed suicide (thus charging your family all of the costs of your "crime" of killing yourself) all the while you are rotting away in prison with no court case, charges against you, or legal council to defend yourself with, you would be bitching up a storm.
Yeah. I would. However, as a suspected terrorist with no access to the Internet, I probably would not be doing so by posting as an AC on Slashdot.
BTW: if you have ever been denied access to a lawyer... that's unconstitutional. You should definitely speak to a lawyer about being denied access to a lawyer, since you've probably got a pretty good basis for a lawsuit.
The necessary corollary... is the analogy between monitoring all public communications vs. monitoring all prisoner communications.
In this scenario, the case can only be made that it is reasonable to monitor *everyones* communications in order to monitor *terrorist* communications is based on three false premises:
(1) The terrorists have been convicted
(2) The public are prisoners of the government
(3) The U.S. is a police state
Since none of these are true, the analogy does not hold. So if that's what you were working toward, you might as well give up now.