In most areas, this is a non-issue because neither AT&T, or Google, or Comcast, actually do any of the work themselves. They use local (regional) contractors.
The important part of that equation is that the contractors are hired BY THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE EQUIPMENT. They're working on that company's behalf. The owner is ultimately liable for any damage because the work is being done on their equipment at their request.
Why should I be able to, or be able to hire someone to, move your equipment around? While it should be accepted as fact that you accept full liability if something of mine breaks when you move it, you can bet that any damage will be subject to legal tests for negligence once the law says that anyone can move anyone elses equipment. That's a much higher bar to legal recompense than a simple "you weren't authorized to touch it, you broke it, you pay".
Well we're reading a story about this very thing aren't we?
No, not really. This legal action is about "one touch", not the ability of a new company to enter a market.
Incumbents hindering deployments;
Incumbents not wanting new competitors "adjusting" their equipment for them. If you want to compete without moving the other guys stuff for him, this isn't relevant.
you have to take ma bell to court to achieve anything.
I'm sorry, but Ma Bell isn't relevant to this, either. And Google didn't have to take anyone to court, it was AT-T that filed suit against the city.
You need Google's deep pockets to even get started.
Bingo. It costs money to enter a new market where there is a fixed customer base. That's just what I said was the reason. It's not any dejure monopoly status, because that doesn't exist anymore.
The market has shown there is demand for alternatives; ever notice all the satellite dishes?
Yep, which is a lower cost alternative for large market operators. It also shows that there isn't a monopoly for cable anymore.
The costs you believe prevent alternatives are mostly legal and bureaucratic, not the infrastructure.
Wrong.
Low voltage wiring and optical systems have very low maintenance costs;
But someone has to install them, and that is a labor intensive operation. Considering that they have to be installed on spec (i.e. before customers sign up), it is a risky expensive venture. Then consider that you will, at best, split the market so you cannot distribute the costs over a larger customer base.
And here's the crux of the AT-T case. Maintenance costs go UP when there is a competitor busy moving your hardware around for you. It's going to break when that happens, and it's going to cost you money to go out and fix it.
I see that were I am now; small fiber companies profitably deploying to rural and semi-rural areas.
Profitable because they are not competing, right? And burying a cable in a culvert next to a road is a lot less expensive than under concrete in a city.
They are appearing the in huge gaps the incumbents have neglected
Yes, in other words, they are not trying to split the customer base, they are the sole competitor, so they can spread the operating costs over more customers than if they were getting a 50% share of the market.
and they are not being overwhelmed by maintenance costs.
If only maintenance were the only cost of building a cable physical plant.
That doesn't create local competition. You still only have Comcast serving that area. You're left with either forcing someone else to come into the area to provide service (you can't), or breaking up the one local company into multiples (which has serious problems).
Once you have more than about 3 alternatives the margins are so low that 4 and 5 won't bother unless it really becomes necessary.
History has shown that once you have one cable company the margins are so low that a second one won't bother. Why else did the federal regulation prohibiting exclusive franchises not result in a burst of competitive cable companies? It's the costs of providing service, and the fixed number of subs available. Unlike grocery stores where a new store can attract customers from all over the place, and customers can split their shopping decisions to buy some here, some there, cable companies serve a fixed area and almost nobody would buy from both if there are two.
It should be a public utility or the monopolies need to be broken up.
How do you "break up" a cable monopoly given that they are defacto and not dejure to start with? Do you force other companies to come provide service, or do you force the local cable company to break up into two or more companies all serving the same area? This ignores the reason for the defacto monopoly in the first place: the economics of multiple providers for a fixed number of customers.
Even when the Ma Bell monopoly was broken up, it didn't create competition in local service, it only created the regional Bells and opened up long distance.
I think AT-T's objection to this law is quite reasonable. There have been tales of one provider sabotaging the other's equipment posted here. Why do you think things will get better when the law says that one company can move the other company's stuff around at will? While I bet that nobody here cares that someone is moving AT-T's stuff, this could bite Google in the ass, too. AT-T will have the same right to move Google's hardware that Google has to move AT-T's. Yes, requiring the owner to do the moving is slower, but who is hurt when the courts get involved in determining fault for a major system outage created when one company breaks the other's stuff? The customers who wind up with no service, that's who. The question of fault is much clearer when the law says that AT-T cannot touch Google's cable plant. Imagine the battle when AT-T moves something of Google's, Google service goes down, and Google doesn't have to prove just that AT-T moved it, but that AT-T was negligent when it did so.
9-5 is hardly the norm at all. Standard government office hours are 8-5. Most backoffice & analyst types do 7-4
So, like I said, she's done by 4PM at the latest.
Also, for many govt employees, so they have a better chance of connecting with the home office types Back East.
So you're saying she cannot do her job unassisted and must rely on people on the east coast? Is she there for the civilians on the west coast who need her help, or to be an aide to other government workers?
And don't forget stockbrokers
She is neither a stockbroker or in a job that requires close interaction with same. How far afield do you want to go?
OK, I'm just going to leave you to think about what you said there...
I thought about what I wrote before I submitted it. Perhaps you should think about how you clipped off the rest of that sentence, where I said "and must act accordingly"? Can you perhaps think of an "according" way of acting if you cannot afford either condoms or children?
Rails may be more efficient in dollars per person-mile, but they are not more efficient where most people care: total travel time. Why is that? Because rail travel still requires getting to and from the station. Unless you are lucky enough to work and live right next to the stations you need to use for rail travel, you still need some form of transport. It's like the "last mile" problem in Internet terms.
I.e., people don't care about the "efficiency" that rail has, they want the convenience and efficiency that matters to them. This is an example of bus use, but imagine how it will map to trains: it is a five minute walk to the closest bus stop for me. The bus takes half an hour to wind its way through the streets to get me to work. It's a ten minute drive by car. Which is more efficient? Well, I'm sure the bus carries more people per gallon per hour, but I don't care about that. I save at least almost an hour a day (twice 25 minutes) by driving, and usually a lot more since you have to get to the bus stop early to avoid waiting an hour for the next bus. Factor in stopping at the store for food on the way home and it's even more efficient to just drive.
NYC has 60% higher productivity than the American average.
Does that include all the costs, like time spent commuting, time spent working a second job to pay for the tiny apartment for those who don't commute, the prices of everything, the noise, the pollution, the crime...? Or is it a measure of only the at-work output?
You might want to consider that the company-owned mining and mill towns had a pretty high productivity, too.
Altogether, it took me four hours to get there. And this was in a small city the size of San Franscisco.
+1 funny. Small city?
It would have taken you less time and much less effort to go look at the notes to see who they belonged to, called the college to have a message left for that student to "check the top of the bus stop for your notes, you moron", and they'd be back in his hands the next morning. At worst, call the office that runs the course the notes were for and the prof would announce in class for the idiot to go pick them up, which would have cost one or two class days.
That leaves unasked the question, why is a student storing his class notes on the top of a bus stop?
Bike: 35-40 minutes, plus 10 minutes extra for the extra shower each evening
Unless you are admitting that you do not take personal hygiene seriously and don't normally shower, you don't get to count your showers as part of your commute time. You do it anyway, at least that's what your fellow employees hope.
She's going to work, not back home from a trip; a good night's sleep is going to be important to doing her job properly for the rest of the day.
1) She's a government employee.
2) She's getting to work two hours before anyone would be expecting to seek her "health advice" on the west coast. The concern about matching up with the east coast office hours implies she's dealing with people from the east coast -- a VERY long commute for any in-person visits, and why would civilians not just use the east coast resources to start with? Is this the ONLY US Government DHHS office in the US? No, the claim that she has to be there early so her hours match up with her compatriots on the east coast tells us for certain that there are east coast DHHS offices -- and they want to push their work off onto west coast workers.
This is her choice. If I chose to work as an accountant in an office at, say, the University of Michigan and also chose to live in Dayton, OH, would anyone write stories about how awful the Ann Arbor housing market is, or would they rightly pronounce me a nut who makes bad choices?
After all, someone above said the lady in the article probably does things in her 2 hours that others would do after work. So time shifting is assumed.
Someone who starts work at 7AM has plenty of time after work to do the things you claim she'd doing in the dark in her "Zen-like" house at 2:15AM.
and/or not using the first hour of her paid workday to finish waking up.
You must have missed the part where it said she was a US Government employee. She is hardly what anyone would call the standard American office worker. Or of they do, it is a clear admission that the US Government is way too big.
Also, why would she get to work two hours early? "Standard American office" hours begin at 9AM. Government productive hours start around 11AM, have a two hour lunch, and then end at 4PM.
She's probably working on tasks many of us complete after the workday is done
Then she's doing them in the dark, since she said she likes to keep the place dark and "Zen-like". You're also forgetting, if her work day truly does start at 7AM, she's done for the day by 4PM, or 3PM if her lunch hour is part of the 8. No government employee union is going to let her have unpaid lunch or work past the 8 hours she's paid.
This story isn't news, so it cannot be "news for nerds", and it clearly is so out of the norm that it does not matter. She made a choice to live and work where she does -- and as a government employee lateral transfers are easy to get, so she could work in any government office closer to her home. The very next clerical opening in any office in Stockton would be hers, if she wanted it.
Perhaps if you have to live off EBT then you cannot afford to have children in the first place, and must act accordingly? No, wait, you're getting your food paid for by other people, so other people will gladly pay for your children, too.
Did you have any relatives who served in WWII? Then they're associated with Hitler.
Wow. Anyone who fought against The Third Reich was an associate of Hitler in your eyes. Very very poor attempt at Godwinning the discussion. Pathetic, I'd say.
Look, if you have some actual evidence against Black Lives Matter,
I quoted from their own website. One of their goals is the rebuilding of the Black Liberation Movement. The Black Panthers were part of the Black Liberation Movement, not opposed to it. That makes the connection between the two valid. But it also shows that the BLM goal is not just bringing a racial issue to light. It's not "Black Visibility", it is "Black Liberation".
Don't pull irrational crap.
You mean like the "serving in WWII makes you an associate of Hitler" crap?
My point was that Trump has supported violence before.
A very different situation, a very different incident, and you're trying to use a statement about that one specific incident as a generic statement applying to this one.
You'll also note that I did not specifically say that Trump would pay for the legal fees of James Alex Fields Jr. M
Oh good grief. James Alex Fields Jr is one of "these people" you said that Trump promised legal aid to.
As for Trump's saying he would pay people who engaged in violence, I guess you could say "FAKE NEWS!"
Since he did not say that, yes, that's fake. A lie.
But are you denying that?
You've rambled so much here that I cannot tell what the antecedent to "that" is, especially when you use it in the topic sentence of the paragraph.
All of those statements he made are out there for teh finding, either in print or in video.
Then you should have no problem providing a citation where Trump actually said he'd pay the legal bills for "these people" when "these people" includes someone who drives his car into a group of protesters. So far, you've found one citation where he said that he'd have his staff look into paying to defend someone who threw a punch at a paid rabble-rouser who was confronting him, which is not anywhere close to what you are claiming.
Or is your love of dear leader
Ad hominem is a very useless technique. Or you are just confused by thinking that someone who objects to your false claims is a "lover" of the other side. You weaken your side of the argument when you make things up, and maybe I'm trying to help you improve your argument to support YOUR side.
No, not really. But you don't know. It's just another way you use insult to try to win an argument.
No, it does not. Colorado law covering accommodations by businesses do not allow discrimination on the bases of many things. "Discrimination" is what we would call "freedom of association", or rather, freedom to not associate. People may have that right, but businesses do not.
The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it's impossible to enjoy the rights of the First Amendment without having it,
I thought the common meme was that businesses don't have first amendment rights? I mean, that's what CU was all about, and CU is roundly and routinely denounced in this forum.
In any case, it is quite possible for a businessman to exercise his first amendment rights while his business is not permitted to discriminate. Did you forget, we're talking about businesses here.
As an example, in Alabama v. NAACP they said that without the freedom to associate with whom we choose,
Great misapplication of a simple concept. That case ruled that the NAACP has the right to conduct business in Alabama, not that they can discriminate against anyone when they do conduct their business there.
The "freedom of association" also requires a freedom NOT to associate, and that is the issue at hand. (Think about it a minute. If you are not free to NOT associate with someone, then just what does "freedom of association" really mean? Nothing. You can't not associate, therefore, you don't get to choose who you associate with.) The Colorado baker, under Colorado law, is NOT free to "not associate" with a gay couple seeking a wedding cake. Therefore, the "freedom of association" is not available to him -- he cannot choose who he wishes to associate with and who he does not. The NAACP case had nothing to do with them not associating with people in Alabama, so it is not on point.
You're seriously asking whether I consider discrimination against a protected class to be the same as discriminating against people on the basis of their espousing and practicing violence?
The only difference between a "protected class" and a non-protected class is an opinion, which changes over time. There is no inherent "protected class". In this case, the people who are trying to do the fundraising are not espousing or practicing violence, they are trying to raise money so that a criminal defendant can afford a good legal defense.
Further,
your reference to "protected class" means that you are quite aware of the fact that businesses are NOT free to refuse to associate with certain classes of people -- the very thing you started your response contradicting me on. The freedom of association for businesses is not a right in many states, and at the "protected class" level it does not exist at the federal level, either.
If you can't see the obvious differences between the two and understand why one is perfectly acceptable while the other isn't,
If you think the idea of "protected class" is immutable, cast in stone, defined by natural law, and that anything outside those currently defined classes is fair game for discrimination, then there really isn't anything more to say.
They also have terms of service that customers have to agree to.
So does the Colorado baker. What's your point?
Yes, the baker has the right to refuse service to anyone in my view, no matter how inane their rationale.
Not according to the law in Colorado, or in many other states.
You can be 100% against gay marriage but still be incredibly stupid to think that your holy scripture forbids selling a wedding cake to gays,
You can be incredibly stupid to think that the holy scripture is that specific, and then be incredibly insulting to put the issue in those terms.
and hypocritical if you think it's ok to have been selling all sorts of baked goods with a smile to the same gay couple earlier.
Oh, now you're just making things up. Do you have a citation that shows that this specific baker felt it was appropriate to sell wedding cakes to gay couple before same-sex marriage was legalized? You're accusing him of being a hypocrite for being ok with it one time but not another. You have no facts to back that up.
And it does not support their opinion,
Actually, it does. You just didn't bother to connect all the dots, so to speak. You're looking for a specific "it is a sin to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple", and that isn't there. You need to think about what it means to directly support a sinful activity. There is a pretty specific prohibition on stealing, so is it ok to just drive the getaway car? There is no "thou shall not drive the getaway car" commandment, it must be ok, right? How about if you provide the meeting place for the group that is planning and then hiding out, knowing that is what they are doing?
Of course I'm aware of that. It's pretty irrelevant to the case at hand, though.
Not when the arguments are falling exactly in line with that case.
Also, you (and others who keep bringing this up) seem to be ignoring some rather important distinctions between the two things.
You want to ignore the similarities ("pretty irrelevant"), I'm talking only about the similarities. Do I understand that the cases are not identical? Of course. One deals with the "right" of someone to buy a cake from a specific baker; the other deals with fundraising to support the right of a defendant to a fair trial. Note carefully where I used scare quotes and where I did not.
He has said he would pick up th ebill for supporters who assault protesters.
No. He said he had instructed his staff to "look into it" for one specific case of a supporter who was being confronted by a disruptive protester. He made no blanket statement such as you claim, and your use of the statement he did make as proof he wants to pay for the defense of the nazi who drove into the crowd in Charlottseville is just nonsense.
Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.
So you equate punching someone who is there deliberately to provoke an incident at a political rally (documented in a hit piece on the candidate the rally was for) with Nazis who drive a car into a crowd? Wow. That's what you say when you claim that Trump has said he'd pay for the defense of this Nazi ("these people"), when the truth is that "these people" refers to a very different group.
In fact, if we were to compel the various online services to serve those people, we'd be violating their right to associate (or not) with whomever they choose.
This "right" does not exist in many states. You are calling for this right when the excluded person is an alleged murderer and neo-nazi. Would you be so quick to call for this right if he were excluded because he is black or gay or Mexican?
Slashdot Mirror
In most areas, this is a non-issue because neither AT&T, or Google, or Comcast, actually do any of the work themselves. They use local (regional) contractors.
The important part of that equation is that the contractors are hired BY THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE EQUIPMENT. They're working on that company's behalf. The owner is ultimately liable for any damage because the work is being done on their equipment at their request.
Why should I be able to, or be able to hire someone to, move your equipment around? While it should be accepted as fact that you accept full liability if something of mine breaks when you move it, you can bet that any damage will be subject to legal tests for negligence once the law says that anyone can move anyone elses equipment. That's a much higher bar to legal recompense than a simple "you weren't authorized to touch it, you broke it, you pay".
Well we're reading a story about this very thing aren't we?
No, not really. This legal action is about "one touch", not the ability of a new company to enter a market.
Incumbents hindering deployments;
Incumbents not wanting new competitors "adjusting" their equipment for them. If you want to compete without moving the other guys stuff for him, this isn't relevant.
you have to take ma bell to court to achieve anything.
I'm sorry, but Ma Bell isn't relevant to this, either. And Google didn't have to take anyone to court, it was AT-T that filed suit against the city.
You need Google's deep pockets to even get started.
Bingo. It costs money to enter a new market where there is a fixed customer base. That's just what I said was the reason. It's not any dejure monopoly status, because that doesn't exist anymore.
The market has shown there is demand for alternatives; ever notice all the satellite dishes?
Yep, which is a lower cost alternative for large market operators. It also shows that there isn't a monopoly for cable anymore.
The costs you believe prevent alternatives are mostly legal and bureaucratic, not the infrastructure.
Wrong.
Low voltage wiring and optical systems have very low maintenance costs;
But someone has to install them, and that is a labor intensive operation. Considering that they have to be installed on spec (i.e. before customers sign up), it is a risky expensive venture. Then consider that you will, at best, split the market so you cannot distribute the costs over a larger customer base.
And here's the crux of the AT-T case. Maintenance costs go UP when there is a competitor busy moving your hardware around for you. It's going to break when that happens, and it's going to cost you money to go out and fix it.
I see that were I am now; small fiber companies profitably deploying to rural and semi-rural areas.
Profitable because they are not competing, right? And burying a cable in a culvert next to a road is a lot less expensive than under concrete in a city.
They are appearing the in huge gaps the incumbents have neglected
Yes, in other words, they are not trying to split the customer base, they are the sole competitor, so they can spread the operating costs over more customers than if they were getting a 50% share of the market.
and they are not being overwhelmed by maintenance costs.
If only maintenance were the only cost of building a cable physical plant.
yeah that's easy, split NBC away from Comcast
That doesn't create local competition. You still only have Comcast serving that area. You're left with either forcing someone else to come into the area to provide service (you can't), or breaking up the one local company into multiples (which has serious problems).
Once you have more than about 3 alternatives the margins are so low that 4 and 5 won't bother unless it really becomes necessary.
History has shown that once you have one cable company the margins are so low that a second one won't bother. Why else did the federal regulation prohibiting exclusive franchises not result in a burst of competitive cable companies? It's the costs of providing service, and the fixed number of subs available. Unlike grocery stores where a new store can attract customers from all over the place, and customers can split their shopping decisions to buy some here, some there, cable companies serve a fixed area and almost nobody would buy from both if there are two.
It should be a public utility or the monopolies need to be broken up.
How do you "break up" a cable monopoly given that they are defacto and not dejure to start with? Do you force other companies to come provide service, or do you force the local cable company to break up into two or more companies all serving the same area? This ignores the reason for the defacto monopoly in the first place: the economics of multiple providers for a fixed number of customers.
Even when the Ma Bell monopoly was broken up, it didn't create competition in local service, it only created the regional Bells and opened up long distance.
I think AT-T's objection to this law is quite reasonable. There have been tales of one provider sabotaging the other's equipment posted here. Why do you think things will get better when the law says that one company can move the other company's stuff around at will? While I bet that nobody here cares that someone is moving AT-T's stuff, this could bite Google in the ass, too. AT-T will have the same right to move Google's hardware that Google has to move AT-T's. Yes, requiring the owner to do the moving is slower, but who is hurt when the courts get involved in determining fault for a major system outage created when one company breaks the other's stuff? The customers who wind up with no service, that's who. The question of fault is much clearer when the law says that AT-T cannot touch Google's cable plant. Imagine the battle when AT-T moves something of Google's, Google service goes down, and Google doesn't have to prove just that AT-T moved it, but that AT-T was negligent when it did so.
9-5 is hardly the norm at all. Standard government office hours are 8-5. Most backoffice & analyst types do 7-4
So, like I said, she's done by 4PM at the latest.
Also, for many govt employees, so they have a better chance of connecting with the home office types Back East.
So you're saying she cannot do her job unassisted and must rely on people on the east coast? Is she there for the civilians on the west coast who need her help, or to be an aide to other government workers?
And don't forget stockbrokers
She is neither a stockbroker or in a job that requires close interaction with same. How far afield do you want to go?
OK, I'm just going to leave you to think about what you said there...
I thought about what I wrote before I submitted it. Perhaps you should think about how you clipped off the rest of that sentence, where I said "and must act accordingly"? Can you perhaps think of an "according" way of acting if you cannot afford either condoms or children?
No, probably not.
Roads are less efficient than rails,
Rails may be more efficient in dollars per person-mile, but they are not more efficient where most people care: total travel time. Why is that? Because rail travel still requires getting to and from the station. Unless you are lucky enough to work and live right next to the stations you need to use for rail travel, you still need some form of transport. It's like the "last mile" problem in Internet terms.
I.e., people don't care about the "efficiency" that rail has, they want the convenience and efficiency that matters to them. This is an example of bus use, but imagine how it will map to trains: it is a five minute walk to the closest bus stop for me. The bus takes half an hour to wind its way through the streets to get me to work. It's a ten minute drive by car. Which is more efficient? Well, I'm sure the bus carries more people per gallon per hour, but I don't care about that. I save at least almost an hour a day (twice 25 minutes) by driving, and usually a lot more since you have to get to the bus stop early to avoid waiting an hour for the next bus. Factor in stopping at the store for food on the way home and it's even more efficient to just drive.
NYC has 60% higher productivity than the American average.
Does that include all the costs, like time spent commuting, time spent working a second job to pay for the tiny apartment for those who don't commute, the prices of everything, the noise, the pollution, the crime ...? Or is it a measure of only the at-work output?
You might want to consider that the company-owned mining and mill towns had a pretty high productivity, too.
Altogether, it took me four hours to get there. And this was in a small city the size of San Franscisco.
+1 funny. Small city?
It would have taken you less time and much less effort to go look at the notes to see who they belonged to, called the college to have a message left for that student to "check the top of the bus stop for your notes, you moron", and they'd be back in his hands the next morning. At worst, call the office that runs the course the notes were for and the prof would announce in class for the idiot to go pick them up, which would have cost one or two class days.
That leaves unasked the question, why is a student storing his class notes on the top of a bus stop?
Bike: 35-40 minutes, plus 10 minutes extra for the extra shower each evening
Unless you are admitting that you do not take personal hygiene seriously and don't normally shower, you don't get to count your showers as part of your commute time. You do it anyway, at least that's what your fellow employees hope.
She's going to work, not back home from a trip; a good night's sleep is going to be important to doing her job properly for the rest of the day.
1) She's a government employee.
2) She's getting to work two hours before anyone would be expecting to seek her "health advice" on the west coast. The concern about matching up with the east coast office hours implies she's dealing with people from the east coast -- a VERY long commute for any in-person visits, and why would civilians not just use the east coast resources to start with? Is this the ONLY US Government DHHS office in the US? No, the claim that she has to be there early so her hours match up with her compatriots on the east coast tells us for certain that there are east coast DHHS offices -- and they want to push their work off onto west coast workers.
This is her choice. If I chose to work as an accountant in an office at, say, the University of Michigan and also chose to live in Dayton, OH, would anyone write stories about how awful the Ann Arbor housing market is, or would they rightly pronounce me a nut who makes bad choices?
After all, someone above said the lady in the article probably does things in her 2 hours that others would do after work. So time shifting is assumed.
Someone who starts work at 7AM has plenty of time after work to do the things you claim she'd doing in the dark in her "Zen-like" house at 2:15AM.
and/or not using the first hour of her paid workday to finish waking up.
You must have missed the part where it said she was a US Government employee. She is hardly what anyone would call the standard American office worker. Or of they do, it is a clear admission that the US Government is way too big.
Also, why would she get to work two hours early? "Standard American office" hours begin at 9AM. Government productive hours start around 11AM, have a two hour lunch, and then end at 4PM.
She's probably working on tasks many of us complete after the workday is done
Then she's doing them in the dark, since she said she likes to keep the place dark and "Zen-like". You're also forgetting, if her work day truly does start at 7AM, she's done for the day by 4PM, or 3PM if her lunch hour is part of the 8. No government employee union is going to let her have unpaid lunch or work past the 8 hours she's paid.
This story isn't news, so it cannot be "news for nerds", and it clearly is so out of the norm that it does not matter. She made a choice to live and work where she does -- and as a government employee lateral transfers are easy to get, so she could work in any government office closer to her home. The very next clerical opening in any office in Stockton would be hers, if she wanted it.
Can you buy rubbers with an EBT card?
Perhaps if you have to live off EBT then you cannot afford to have children in the first place, and must act accordingly? No, wait, you're getting your food paid for by other people, so other people will gladly pay for your children, too.
that's still sum(60*120*(1-n*10%),n = 0 -> 9). That's 39600 hours.or 4.5 years of usage.
You're off by a factor of 60. Sixty cycles over 120 hours total, not 60 cycles at 120 hours each. That makes it 27 days.
I would be impressed if they did 60 charge/discharge cycles in 120 hours, not 120 hours per cycle.
Be impressed. From TFA:
Did you have any relatives who served in WWII? Then they're associated with Hitler.
Wow. Anyone who fought against The Third Reich was an associate of Hitler in your eyes. Very very poor attempt at Godwinning the discussion. Pathetic, I'd say.
Look, if you have some actual evidence against Black Lives Matter,
I quoted from their own website. One of their goals is the rebuilding of the Black Liberation Movement. The Black Panthers were part of the Black Liberation Movement, not opposed to it. That makes the connection between the two valid. But it also shows that the BLM goal is not just bringing a racial issue to light. It's not "Black Visibility", it is "Black Liberation".
Don't pull irrational crap.
You mean like the "serving in WWII makes you an associate of Hitler" crap?
My point was that Trump has supported violence before.
A very different situation, a very different incident, and you're trying to use a statement about that one specific incident as a generic statement applying to this one.
You'll also note that I did not specifically say that Trump would pay for the legal fees of James Alex Fields Jr. M
Oh good grief. James Alex Fields Jr is one of "these people" you said that Trump promised legal aid to.
As for Trump's saying he would pay people who engaged in violence, I guess you could say "FAKE NEWS!"
Since he did not say that, yes, that's fake. A lie.
But are you denying that?
You've rambled so much here that I cannot tell what the antecedent to "that" is, especially when you use it in the topic sentence of the paragraph.
All of those statements he made are out there for teh finding, either in print or in video.
Then you should have no problem providing a citation where Trump actually said he'd pay the legal bills for "these people" when "these people" includes someone who drives his car into a group of protesters. So far, you've found one citation where he said that he'd have his staff look into paying to defend someone who threw a punch at a paid rabble-rouser who was confronting him, which is not anywhere close to what you are claiming.
Or is your love of dear leader
Ad hominem is a very useless technique. Or you are just confused by thinking that someone who objects to your false claims is a "lover" of the other side. You weaken your side of the argument when you make things up, and maybe I'm trying to help you improve your argument to support YOUR side.
No, not really. But you don't know. It's just another way you use insult to try to win an argument.
Yes, it does.
No, it does not. Colorado law covering accommodations by businesses do not allow discrimination on the bases of many things. "Discrimination" is what we would call "freedom of association", or rather, freedom to not associate. People may have that right, but businesses do not.
The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it's impossible to enjoy the rights of the First Amendment without having it,
I thought the common meme was that businesses don't have first amendment rights? I mean, that's what CU was all about, and CU is roundly and routinely denounced in this forum. In any case, it is quite possible for a businessman to exercise his first amendment rights while his business is not permitted to discriminate. Did you forget, we're talking about businesses here.
As an example, in Alabama v. NAACP they said that without the freedom to associate with whom we choose,
Great misapplication of a simple concept. That case ruled that the NAACP has the right to conduct business in Alabama, not that they can discriminate against anyone when they do conduct their business there.
The "freedom of association" also requires a freedom NOT to associate, and that is the issue at hand. (Think about it a minute. If you are not free to NOT associate with someone, then just what does "freedom of association" really mean? Nothing. You can't not associate, therefore, you don't get to choose who you associate with.) The Colorado baker, under Colorado law, is NOT free to "not associate" with a gay couple seeking a wedding cake. Therefore, the "freedom of association" is not available to him -- he cannot choose who he wishes to associate with and who he does not. The NAACP case had nothing to do with them not associating with people in Alabama, so it is not on point.
You're seriously asking whether I consider discrimination against a protected class to be the same as discriminating against people on the basis of their espousing and practicing violence?
The only difference between a "protected class" and a non-protected class is an opinion, which changes over time. There is no inherent "protected class". In this case, the people who are trying to do the fundraising are not espousing or practicing violence, they are trying to raise money so that a criminal defendant can afford a good legal defense.
Further, your reference to "protected class" means that you are quite aware of the fact that businesses are NOT free to refuse to associate with certain classes of people -- the very thing you started your response contradicting me on. The freedom of association for businesses is not a right in many states, and at the "protected class" level it does not exist at the federal level, either.
If you can't see the obvious differences between the two and understand why one is perfectly acceptable while the other isn't,
If you think the idea of "protected class" is immutable, cast in stone, defined by natural law, and that anything outside those currently defined classes is fair game for discrimination, then there really isn't anything more to say.
They also have terms of service that customers have to agree to.
So does the Colorado baker. What's your point?
Yes, the baker has the right to refuse service to anyone in my view, no matter how inane their rationale.
Not according to the law in Colorado, or in many other states.
You can be 100% against gay marriage but still be incredibly stupid to think that your holy scripture forbids selling a wedding cake to gays,
You can be incredibly stupid to think that the holy scripture is that specific, and then be incredibly insulting to put the issue in those terms.
and hypocritical if you think it's ok to have been selling all sorts of baked goods with a smile to the same gay couple earlier.
Oh, now you're just making things up. Do you have a citation that shows that this specific baker felt it was appropriate to sell wedding cakes to gay couple before same-sex marriage was legalized? You're accusing him of being a hypocrite for being ok with it one time but not another. You have no facts to back that up.
And it does not support their opinion,
Actually, it does. You just didn't bother to connect all the dots, so to speak. You're looking for a specific "it is a sin to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple", and that isn't there. You need to think about what it means to directly support a sinful activity. There is a pretty specific prohibition on stealing, so is it ok to just drive the getaway car? There is no "thou shall not drive the getaway car" commandment, it must be ok, right? How about if you provide the meeting place for the group that is planning and then hiding out, knowing that is what they are doing?
Of course I'm aware of that. It's pretty irrelevant to the case at hand, though.
Not when the arguments are falling exactly in line with that case.
Also, you (and others who keep bringing this up) seem to be ignoring some rather important distinctions between the two things.
You want to ignore the similarities ("pretty irrelevant"), I'm talking only about the similarities. Do I understand that the cases are not identical? Of course. One deals with the "right" of someone to buy a cake from a specific baker; the other deals with fundraising to support the right of a defendant to a fair trial. Note carefully where I used scare quotes and where I did not.
He has said he would pick up th ebill for supporters who assault protesters.
No. He said he had instructed his staff to "look into it" for one specific case of a supporter who was being confronted by a disruptive protester. He made no blanket statement such as you claim, and your use of the statement he did make as proof he wants to pay for the defense of the nazi who drove into the crowd in Charlottseville is just nonsense.
Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.
So you equate punching someone who is there deliberately to provoke an incident at a political rally (documented in a hit piece on the candidate the rally was for) with Nazis who drive a car into a crowd? Wow. That's what you say when you claim that Trump has said he'd pay for the defense of this Nazi ("these people"), when the truth is that "these people" refers to a very different group.
In fact, if we were to compel the various online services to serve those people, we'd be violating their right to associate (or not) with whomever they choose.
This "right" does not exist in many states. You are calling for this right when the excluded person is an alleged murderer and neo-nazi. Would you be so quick to call for this right if he were excluded because he is black or gay or Mexican?