No, this is why you don't promise unlimited amounts of something at no charge. Universal income would be limited. You couldn't stand at the ATM all day with your UI card and keep withdrawing money. Supplies of things are limited in socialism, so this isn't a problem. (There can be other problems, of course.)
How it usually works is that the low-level employees are given quotas or targets that are impossible to make legally, and then they can be fired if any authority catches on. That way, the corporate officers keep their noses clean and don't take responsibility for their decisions. In this case, it looks like an actual policy to implement illegal policies and cover them up, which is more dangerous.
Thing is, though, to send someone to prison for a crime requires proving that that person actually committed it. A corporation is likely to be able to diffuse responsibility to the point that it's impossible to prove any individual is guilty.
They don't have police waiting at the borders, but if you have dealings with the police they're likely to run a check on you. If so, they're likely to haul you in, because unpaid tickets usually eventually turn into arrest warrants.
There's really only one practical way to stop the rise of insurance costs: find a way to keep the population healthier.
There's other things that can be done.
Drugs are often fantastically expensive in the US because there's not much effective pressure limiting them. Other countries generally negotiate prices for sales inside their borders. This is also complicated by FDA testing requirements that can be unduly expensive.
Since there is no national health insurance or care policy, a lot of care happens in emergency rooms, where by law they can't turn someone away until they're stable. Not only is this a really expensive way to treat someone, it doesn't cover any sort of prevention or follow-up, so in many cases it's only possible to get the more expensive care. The emergency room won't keep you in insulin, but it will treat certain complications of your diabetes. Since it's not legal to require payment before treatment, and there's lots of people who can't afford sky-high rates for unnecessarily expensive medical care, it goes into the general cost of health care and health insurance.
Again, since there is no national health insurance or care policy, there's a strong tendency for healthy people to try to avoid paying for health insurance, which means the rates have to be set higher because there's more care per policyholder.
So? As long as there's NN Twitter is subject to market forces, since another company could come along and eat their lunch. Without NN, Twitter can collude with ISPs to squash the competition.
That libertarian think tank starts lying in the first sentence: "At long last, with the end of “net neutrality,” competition could soon come to the industry that delivers Internet services to you.". Competition isn't coming, guys. It's a natural monopoly, and the only reasons it's a duopoly are historical. It then, of course, proceeds to twist Net Neutrality into a pretzel in order to come out against it.
Whoever wrote that is an idiot or a liar, and I'm not using an exclusive or here.
If five companies control most of the social media, that may be a problem (although broadband is normally supplied by one of two companies in the US, so that's about 2.5 times as bad). However, if you want to start your own social media company, in the presence of Net Neutrality, you've got a shot at becoming a major company. Facebook hasn't dominated since the start of the Web, after all. It pushed MySpace out of the big time, and another company could push Facebook out.
However, in the absence of NN, the ISPs could charge social media companies for carrying their traffic. This wouldn't be a problem for Facebook, but it would be a major problem for your startup.
Social media concentration is a market issue, and can be decided by market forces. There's always another company trying to go big. Net Neutrality can't be decided by market forces, unless there's a functioning market without big barriers to entry.
Isn't the Flint water crisis an example of the government - Flint City Council - poisoning people?
The Flint City Council had no say in the matter. The city went bankrupt, The State government took over, and made the water deal over the objections of the city government, and apparently for no financial gain. Let's get the villains right here.
Nope. The only way to solve this problem is government action.
Setting up last-mile internet service is very expensive. Trying to compete with the cable company and the phone company is expensive, and there's nothing to stop them from lowering rates and improving service temporarily until the newcomer goes bankrupt. It's a natural monopoly. For historical reasons, it's frequently a duopoly, since both the phone and cable companies built out while they were still separate services. (Both the phone and cable company around here offer phone/television/Internet packages.)
Moreover, to run more wires or fiber, it's necessary to have rights of way. In a city, these necessarily cross government property, like streets. The government has to decide who gets to do that.
So, we can have government-mandated Net Neutrality (read "common carrier" status). We can have a shared last-mile system available for any ISP to connect to at a reasonable rate, which generally means government action. (DSL service was normally provided on that basis, but DSL doesn't cut it any more.) Or we can choose whether to be screwed by the phone company or the cable company, those of us who have a choice.
Though actually the FCC claims 97% of Americans do have a choice
First, I'd like to see that from the FCC, rather than from an argument against Net Neutrality. Second, it's often a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, and a duopoly isn't necessarily better than a monopoly. Third, you do realize that, if one house in a census block can get cable Internet, and another house in that block can get fiber from the phone company, every single person in that census block has a choice by those measures, right?
One question is how much they should be connected. Another is how much they are connected. I love arguing philosophy, but I try to manage my investments according to the real world.
Most of the "avoid" stuff is left over from C. If there were no C-style strings or arrays, C++ would be a better language. If it wasn't for the difficulties in parsing C, C++ could compile much faster. In C, you have to do your own memory management. In C++, it's almost always optional.
No, our system exists the way it does because slaveholding states wanted more power to determine who was to be President. The crap about small states was made up as an ex post facto reason.
You also appear to favor large states being abused by small ones, and your idea of democracy is apparently that the minority tells the majority what to do.
No, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on laws other than the Constitution a lot of the time. One thing they do sometimes is take up different interpretations of Federal statutes in different circuits and decide which interpretation will be consistently followed.
In this case, there may be legal restrictions on what processes the FCC has to follow. Obviously they have the legal ability to change the 2015 decision, and the courts aren't going to stop that, but they may have to provide some sort of evidence it would be a good idea.
Our "age of aquarius" with Obama occurred under a more balanced judiciary. It happened with people like Scalia and Gorsuch.
Gorsuch was nominated by Trump after the Republicans completely stonewalled Obama's moderate nominee. He was not on the Supreme Court while Obama was President.
You simply don't have to pack the courts with communists.
Can you name one Communist judge in the US Federal Court system, past or present? Every President has gone along with that 100%.
The fact that the SCOTUS upheld the personal mandate is quite a travesty really.
The personal mandate is essential to have a functioning health care system. Other than that, people wait until they have a serious medical condition and then buy a policy that covers it. This means that insurance companies exclude pre-existing conditions, and that kills people.
The Supreme Court has made what I consider mistakes, but very few travesties.
We know that Trump and associates had a lot of business ties with Russia. We know that they lied about them. We know that Russia interfered with the US election process. We know that Trump pushed some seriously pro-Russia policies.
Based on that, there is potential collusion with a foreign government to tip the scales in his favor in an election. I'm not saying that it happened, I'm saying that it might have and it's worth investigating. What ulterior motives do you have in saying that reasonable speculation on sound evidence makes us look bad?
Trump's campaign was very, very heavy on the insults. He hasn't stopped. It appears that you do win over people by insulting the other guy.
I've seen lots of accusations against her. Typically, when I look into them, they wind up being lies, gross exaggerations, or not that bad. To put this another way, nobody has been able to supply good evidence for her being despicable, so the "despicable" part comes first and then people try to fake up reasons to believe it.
Okay, so she took a speaking fee for speaking at a charitable event. Presumably the people setting up the event knew what they were signing her up for. and what they were paying, and I'd assume that wasn't one of Clinton's favorite charities. You want to cite a good charity record for Trump?
EVERYBODY makes contradictory campaign promises to different groups of people. Clinton was unusually honest in the campaign. Trump was the opposite.
She's unlikeable - okay, I can buy that one. Definitely low charisma.
She got elected to the Senate. What was Trump's previous political experience?
She won the Democratic primaries, as a general rule. In situations that might be more easily rigged, such as caucuses, Sanders tended to do better. Even without superdelgates, she would have won the nomination.
So, almost everything people say bad about Clinton is either false or not as bad as what Trump said or did. Trump may be considered more likeable than Clinton, and that's about it.
Clinton didn't lose because of bad things she did. That's obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on how much you have to back up. My backups tend to be text-heavy, and that takes very little storage.
No, this is why you don't promise unlimited amounts of something at no charge. Universal income would be limited. You couldn't stand at the ATM all day with your UI card and keep withdrawing money. Supplies of things are limited in socialism, so this isn't a problem. (There can be other problems, of course.)
Maybe if journalists didn't lie about what they did to get a story.
How it usually works is that the low-level employees are given quotas or targets that are impossible to make legally, and then they can be fired if any authority catches on. That way, the corporate officers keep their noses clean and don't take responsibility for their decisions. In this case, it looks like an actual policy to implement illegal policies and cover them up, which is more dangerous.
Thing is, though, to send someone to prison for a crime requires proving that that person actually committed it. A corporation is likely to be able to diffuse responsibility to the point that it's impossible to prove any individual is guilty.
I could whistle to my first modem and it would whistle back. Of course, that only works with the acoustic coupler varieties.
They don't have police waiting at the borders, but if you have dealings with the police they're likely to run a check on you. If so, they're likely to haul you in, because unpaid tickets usually eventually turn into arrest warrants.
There's other things that can be done.
Drugs are often fantastically expensive in the US because there's not much effective pressure limiting them. Other countries generally negotiate prices for sales inside their borders. This is also complicated by FDA testing requirements that can be unduly expensive.
Since there is no national health insurance or care policy, a lot of care happens in emergency rooms, where by law they can't turn someone away until they're stable. Not only is this a really expensive way to treat someone, it doesn't cover any sort of prevention or follow-up, so in many cases it's only possible to get the more expensive care. The emergency room won't keep you in insulin, but it will treat certain complications of your diabetes. Since it's not legal to require payment before treatment, and there's lots of people who can't afford sky-high rates for unnecessarily expensive medical care, it goes into the general cost of health care and health insurance.
Again, since there is no national health insurance or care policy, there's a strong tendency for healthy people to try to avoid paying for health insurance, which means the rates have to be set higher because there's more care per policyholder.
So? As long as there's NN Twitter is subject to market forces, since another company could come along and eat their lunch. Without NN, Twitter can collude with ISPs to squash the competition.
That libertarian think tank starts lying in the first sentence: "At long last, with the end of “net neutrality,” competition could soon come to the industry that delivers Internet services to you.". Competition isn't coming, guys. It's a natural monopoly, and the only reasons it's a duopoly are historical. It then, of course, proceeds to twist Net Neutrality into a pretzel in order to come out against it.
Whoever wrote that is an idiot or a liar, and I'm not using an exclusive or here.
If five companies control most of the social media, that may be a problem (although broadband is normally supplied by one of two companies in the US, so that's about 2.5 times as bad). However, if you want to start your own social media company, in the presence of Net Neutrality, you've got a shot at becoming a major company. Facebook hasn't dominated since the start of the Web, after all. It pushed MySpace out of the big time, and another company could push Facebook out.
However, in the absence of NN, the ISPs could charge social media companies for carrying their traffic. This wouldn't be a problem for Facebook, but it would be a major problem for your startup.
Social media concentration is a market issue, and can be decided by market forces. There's always another company trying to go big. Net Neutrality can't be decided by market forces, unless there's a functioning market without big barriers to entry.
The Flint City Council had no say in the matter. The city went bankrupt, The State government took over, and made the water deal over the objections of the city government, and apparently for no financial gain. Let's get the villains right here.
Nope. The only way to solve this problem is government action.
Setting up last-mile internet service is very expensive. Trying to compete with the cable company and the phone company is expensive, and there's nothing to stop them from lowering rates and improving service temporarily until the newcomer goes bankrupt. It's a natural monopoly. For historical reasons, it's frequently a duopoly, since both the phone and cable companies built out while they were still separate services. (Both the phone and cable company around here offer phone/television/Internet packages.)
Moreover, to run more wires or fiber, it's necessary to have rights of way. In a city, these necessarily cross government property, like streets. The government has to decide who gets to do that.
So, we can have government-mandated Net Neutrality (read "common carrier" status). We can have a shared last-mile system available for any ISP to connect to at a reasonable rate, which generally means government action. (DSL service was normally provided on that basis, but DSL doesn't cut it any more.) Or we can choose whether to be screwed by the phone company or the cable company, those of us who have a choice.
First, I'd like to see that from the FCC, rather than from an argument against Net Neutrality. Second, it's often a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, and a duopoly isn't necessarily better than a monopoly. Third, you do realize that, if one house in a census block can get cable Internet, and another house in that block can get fiber from the phone company, every single person in that census block has a choice by those measures, right?
One question is how much they should be connected. Another is how much they are connected. I love arguing philosophy, but I try to manage my investments according to the real world.
At least Microsoft understands that, if I turn on a computer, it isn't to actually use it or something, it's for running updates that often hang.
I'm not Satoshi, and neither is my wife!
Most of the "avoid" stuff is left over from C. If there were no C-style strings or arrays, C++ would be a better language. If it wasn't for the difficulties in parsing C, C++ could compile much faster. In C, you have to do your own memory management. In C++, it's almost always optional.
And yet the language is very much improved. It's much easier to write good programs in it.
And we're still at your subjective opinion, which disagrees with the opinions of a great many highly competent people.
No, our system exists the way it does because slaveholding states wanted more power to determine who was to be President. The crap about small states was made up as an ex post facto reason.
You also appear to favor large states being abused by small ones, and your idea of democracy is apparently that the minority tells the majority what to do.
No, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on laws other than the Constitution a lot of the time. One thing they do sometimes is take up different interpretations of Federal statutes in different circuits and decide which interpretation will be consistently followed.
In this case, there may be legal restrictions on what processes the FCC has to follow. Obviously they have the legal ability to change the 2015 decision, and the courts aren't going to stop that, but they may have to provide some sort of evidence it would be a good idea.
Gorsuch was nominated by Trump after the Republicans completely stonewalled Obama's moderate nominee. He was not on the Supreme Court while Obama was President.
Can you name one Communist judge in the US Federal Court system, past or present? Every President has gone along with that 100%.
The personal mandate is essential to have a functioning health care system. Other than that, people wait until they have a serious medical condition and then buy a policy that covers it. This means that insurance companies exclude pre-existing conditions, and that kills people.
The Supreme Court has made what I consider mistakes, but very few travesties.
We know that Trump and associates had a lot of business ties with Russia. We know that they lied about them. We know that Russia interfered with the US election process. We know that Trump pushed some seriously pro-Russia policies.
Based on that, there is potential collusion with a foreign government to tip the scales in his favor in an election. I'm not saying that it happened, I'm saying that it might have and it's worth investigating. What ulterior motives do you have in saying that reasonable speculation on sound evidence makes us look bad?
Trump's campaign was very, very heavy on the insults. He hasn't stopped. It appears that you do win over people by insulting the other guy.
I've seen lots of accusations against her. Typically, when I look into them, they wind up being lies, gross exaggerations, or not that bad. To put this another way, nobody has been able to supply good evidence for her being despicable, so the "despicable" part comes first and then people try to fake up reasons to believe it.
Okay, so she took a speaking fee for speaking at a charitable event. Presumably the people setting up the event knew what they were signing her up for. and what they were paying, and I'd assume that wasn't one of Clinton's favorite charities. You want to cite a good charity record for Trump?
EVERYBODY makes contradictory campaign promises to different groups of people. Clinton was unusually honest in the campaign. Trump was the opposite.
She's unlikeable - okay, I can buy that one. Definitely low charisma.
She got elected to the Senate. What was Trump's previous political experience?
She won the Democratic primaries, as a general rule. In situations that might be more easily rigged, such as caucuses, Sanders tended to do better. Even without superdelgates, she would have won the nomination.
So, almost everything people say bad about Clinton is either false or not as bad as what Trump said or did. Trump may be considered more likeable than Clinton, and that's about it.
Clinton didn't lose because of bad things she did. That's obvious.