This has long been one of my pet peeves. Even if one were to argue that a currently-incarcerated person should not be allowed the vote, once a sentence is served a person is supposed to have paid their debt in full. However, in many States a felony conviction results in the sentence of disenfranchisement for life.
And while you usually have to register with your employer, if you're working for a large company, and just doing TDY at an office in another State, that's not an issue.
There are only 9 States with no personal income tax, so unless you're physically working in one of those, you still have to register with that State on an annual basis. This is true even if it's to notify that you are paying income taxes to your State of residence and none are due the State the employment is done in as a result of one of the interstate tax compacts. Otherwise, you stand to owe a lot in penalties if the State you were working in does an audit of the company and finds you were working within their jurisdiction and never notified them to satisfy which tax circumstances applied to you.
And, as the other reply says, it is technically illegal to become physically resident in another State unless you spend more than half the year in another State in which you have a legally-established domicile. This is routinely flouted though, and there is little chance of being caught so long as you have an out-of-state address where you can reliably receive mail.
More than likely a result of bandwidth considerations, but without being privy to their internal deliberations I have no idea.
Regardless of the specifics of one company's choices, the evolution was inevitable, barring some radical shift in new technology which would have supplanted the progression of available wireless bandwidth.
Figure out the goals of the community leaders in the area in question. Gather the pros and cons, and write them up in a way that satisfies as many points of view as possible. Try to approach it in a manner which incorporates the typical talking points of local groups who might oppose it.
Lastly, get out and talk to people. Local politicians are usually very sensitive to pressure from within their electoral districts, much more so than state or national politicians.
Rephrasing is key: this is an application of States' Rights.
And I'm not a fan of socialism on the national level. It doesn't bother me on the State level, though, as that's where it belongs. It's a lot easier to hammer your State reps when they get out of line. National reps aren't accountable to voters because they believe they have a mandate up until the instant they lose their re-election bid. As such, they should have commensurately limited power over the day-to-day affairs of ordinary individuals.
I think the comment was the result of conflating of the original context in which "state" was used and the idea of the Federal government as "the state."
That said, there are probably a lot of people who would disagree with a State doing that, but simply because they are trying to retain consistency with being anti-government rather than understanding the true, and different, roles which are appropriate to State governments and the national government. That is discounting, of course, those who actually have a vested financial interest which could be jeopardized by such an outcome.
I, for one, would welcome a well-managed State or municipal project to provide general infrastructure, the duplication of which causes needless complexity. Ideally, it would be done by local utility districts at the county level, linked by backbone construction at the State level (barring the unlikely event that such is actually not within the State's power as a result of their Constitution, though I am not familiar with such a State). In the end, the only actual impact on the incumbents would be a removal of their ability to control market deployment of, well, anything. Somehow, I doubt that would actually end up harming their bottom line much. The problem really is they, like most entities, hate the idea of any loss of control over something they consider their own property.
The system has been built-out using local bonds, and is now being restructured so that it and future improvements are self-sustaining financially. $45/mo for 50Mbps symmetrical isn't bad for a rural area, and you have a choice of private service providers; the network is provider-agnostic.
I've worked in a number of CATV clusterfucks, but never seen one of those before. The fix is about 10 minutes time, and it doesn't require either company's consent.
You answer the question and then immediately state why the answer either a) isn't workable or b) is the result of your own (or general populace) inaction.
In both cases, the reason for the problem is your municipal government. In the first case, it should be obvious because the system in its entirety is run by the municipality. In the second, you even state the reason explicitly: the "free enterprise" solution isn't really free enterprise, because your municipality's elected representatives voted to give the company a monopoly.
There are no free markets when it comes to data connections, but it's that argument that keeps people on both sides so occupied that they don't do anything about the real problem: their elected representatives.
There's a significant difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. That said, it is quite true that the business environment rewards sociopaths inordinately over non-sociopaths. The actual proportion is nearly impossible to know, however, as sociopaths who succeed in business are those who have exceptional adeptness at manipulation and the spinning of fabulously intricate and entirely plausible webs of utter bullshit (while only rarely being caught doing it).
The error is in believing the current system is the cause of this, rather than coming to the true conclusion that sociopaths have an inherent advantage when it comes to concentrating power through manipulation. They are almost purpose-built (the ones who don't spend their time abducting and killing, anyway) to excel in games of social engineering, which is the basis of both business and politics.
The other error is in equating the successful businessperson with the rich in general. While the former generally belongs to the latter group, the latter group as composed of many who are not the former. The bulk of the world's concentrated wealth is more likely to be held as an accident of birth than as a result of being a highly successful sociopath, and in that they are much more likely to be average than clinically insane.
It's unlikely the phrasing used was unintentionally the same as the colloquial term "rein them in," so unless it was an exceptional coincidence the criticism is correct. While there is potential overlap between the uses of both terms, they share vastly different roots.
The sign doesn't legalize the assault; the law that allows the sign to be posted and followed through without legal repercussions legalizes the assault.
Add to that, the US still has a draft system which men between 18 and 25 are still required by law to sign up for. The only difference is it hasn't been used to conscript soldiers since Vietnam.
I would foresee an outcome exactly the opposite. People in collective groups are prone to engaging in risky or destructive behavior, especially when they can absolve themselves of personal responsibility by citing the process used to decide on the behavior undertaken by the group.
You are aware it has nothing to do with the exchange rate, as am I. However, the failure to recognize that even if the exchange rate was to blame for a price disparity it would be in Australia's favor was what I was pointing out. Should have been obvious, but I apparently placed too much faith in common sense.
Motorola wasn't "Google's Motorola" until less than two months ago. The last Motorola lawsuit against MS I heard about was filed well before that, but I could have missed something.
Unfortunately, there are only a handful of people anywhere who recognize that politics is not either-or. My guess is that is not likely to ever change.
Unfortunately, it's not so simple. Economically, it would be a blow to Samsung even were there not laws (at least in the USA, UK, and Australia; probably in other countries) barring them from refusing to supply Apple.
how they do business with others in order to serve your needs, however, should be no concern to you.
Perhaps, if you're a sociopath. There are many business practices which are abhorrent, and by purchasing a product from those businesses the profit margin from that product purchase further supports their bottom line and tends to reinforce the methods they use to do business as legitimate (in that it makes them money).
The only reference needed is DeBeers and their practices regarding trading precious stones prior to the international condemnation of the purchase of blood stones from conflict regions. I am not in any way saying Apple (or anyone else) rises to this level, but the actions of a company can, in fact, be very relevant to people who have an actual conscience. A conscience can involve sensitivity to injustices of a much lesser nature than slave labor and child soldiers while still being justifiable.
Slashdot Mirror
This has long been one of my pet peeves. Even if one were to argue that a currently-incarcerated person should not be allowed the vote, once a sentence is served a person is supposed to have paid their debt in full. However, in many States a felony conviction results in the sentence of disenfranchisement for life.
I believe one of the interstate motor vehicle compacts has resulted in this being the DMV policy in most of the States.
And while you usually have to register with your employer, if you're working for a large company, and just doing TDY at an office in another State, that's not an issue.
There are only 9 States with no personal income tax, so unless you're physically working in one of those, you still have to register with that State on an annual basis. This is true even if it's to notify that you are paying income taxes to your State of residence and none are due the State the employment is done in as a result of one of the interstate tax compacts. Otherwise, you stand to owe a lot in penalties if the State you were working in does an audit of the company and finds you were working within their jurisdiction and never notified them to satisfy which tax circumstances applied to you.
And, as the other reply says, it is technically illegal to become physically resident in another State unless you spend more than half the year in another State in which you have a legally-established domicile. This is routinely flouted though, and there is little chance of being caught so long as you have an out-of-state address where you can reliably receive mail.
More than likely a result of bandwidth considerations, but without being privy to their internal deliberations I have no idea.
Regardless of the specifics of one company's choices, the evolution was inevitable, barring some radical shift in new technology which would have supplanted the progression of available wireless bandwidth.
Bah, I accidentally hit Submit instead of Edit...
That should be: Chelan Fiber
First, hit up people involved in the creation of a successful project: Click Network, Chelan Fiber, or UTOPIA.
Figure out the goals of the community leaders in the area in question. Gather the pros and cons, and write them up in a way that satisfies as many points of view as possible. Try to approach it in a manner which incorporates the typical talking points of local groups who might oppose it.
Lastly, get out and talk to people. Local politicians are usually very sensitive to pressure from within their electoral districts, much more so than state or national politicians.
Rephrasing is key: this is an application of States' Rights.
And I'm not a fan of socialism on the national level. It doesn't bother me on the State level, though, as that's where it belongs. It's a lot easier to hammer your State reps when they get out of line. National reps aren't accountable to voters because they believe they have a mandate up until the instant they lose their re-election bid. As such, they should have commensurately limited power over the day-to-day affairs of ordinary individuals.
I think the comment was the result of conflating of the original context in which "state" was used and the idea of the Federal government as "the state."
That said, there are probably a lot of people who would disagree with a State doing that, but simply because they are trying to retain consistency with being anti-government rather than understanding the true, and different, roles which are appropriate to State governments and the national government. That is discounting, of course, those who actually have a vested financial interest which could be jeopardized by such an outcome.
I, for one, would welcome a well-managed State or municipal project to provide general infrastructure, the duplication of which causes needless complexity. Ideally, it would be done by local utility districts at the county level, linked by backbone construction at the State level (barring the unlikely event that such is actually not within the State's power as a result of their Constitution, though I am not familiar with such a State). In the end, the only actual impact on the incumbents would be a removal of their ability to control market deployment of, well, anything. Somehow, I doubt that would actually end up harming their bottom line much. The problem really is they, like most entities, hate the idea of any loss of control over something they consider their own property.
Yup, they screwed the pooch there.
Contrast that with a system that works: http://www.chelanpud.org/fiber-optics.html
The system has been built-out using local bonds, and is now being restructured so that it and future improvements are self-sustaining financially. $45/mo for 50Mbps symmetrical isn't bad for a rural area, and you have a choice of private service providers; the network is provider-agnostic.
I've worked in a number of CATV clusterfucks, but never seen one of those before. The fix is about 10 minutes time, and it doesn't require either company's consent.
You answer the question and then immediately state why the answer either a) isn't workable or b) is the result of your own (or general populace) inaction.
In both cases, the reason for the problem is your municipal government. In the first case, it should be obvious because the system in its entirety is run by the municipality. In the second, you even state the reason explicitly: the "free enterprise" solution isn't really free enterprise, because your municipality's elected representatives voted to give the company a monopoly.
There are no free markets when it comes to data connections, but it's that argument that keeps people on both sides so occupied that they don't do anything about the real problem: their elected representatives.
There's a significant difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. That said, it is quite true that the business environment rewards sociopaths inordinately over non-sociopaths. The actual proportion is nearly impossible to know, however, as sociopaths who succeed in business are those who have exceptional adeptness at manipulation and the spinning of fabulously intricate and entirely plausible webs of utter bullshit (while only rarely being caught doing it).
The error is in believing the current system is the cause of this, rather than coming to the true conclusion that sociopaths have an inherent advantage when it comes to concentrating power through manipulation. They are almost purpose-built (the ones who don't spend their time abducting and killing, anyway) to excel in games of social engineering, which is the basis of both business and politics.
The other error is in equating the successful businessperson with the rich in general. While the former generally belongs to the latter group, the latter group as composed of many who are not the former. The bulk of the world's concentrated wealth is more likely to be held as an accident of birth than as a result of being a highly successful sociopath, and in that they are much more likely to be average than clinically insane.
It's unlikely the phrasing used was unintentionally the same as the colloquial term "rein them in," so unless it was an exceptional coincidence the criticism is correct. While there is potential overlap between the uses of both terms, they share vastly different roots.
The sign doesn't legalize the assault; the law that allows the sign to be posted and followed through without legal repercussions legalizes the assault.
And after WW2 in Korea and Vietnam.
Add to that, the US still has a draft system which men between 18 and 25 are still required by law to sign up for. The only difference is it hasn't been used to conscript soldiers since Vietnam.
I would foresee an outcome exactly the opposite. People in collective groups are prone to engaging in risky or destructive behavior, especially when they can absolve themselves of personal responsibility by citing the process used to decide on the behavior undertaken by the group.
Or maybe it's just an attempt to push a sci-fi book and make a few extra sales.
Yup, I'm well aware of that. It wasn't necessary to present the real reason for the pricing scheme in order to gut the statement, so I didn't.
You are aware it has nothing to do with the exchange rate, as am I. However, the failure to recognize that even if the exchange rate was to blame for a price disparity it would be in Australia's favor was what I was pointing out. Should have been obvious, but I apparently placed too much faith in common sense.
Well, you're trolling, so that explains why you aren't aware that the Australian dollar is worth more than the US dollar.
Motorola wasn't "Google's Motorola" until less than two months ago. The last Motorola lawsuit against MS I heard about was filed well before that, but I could have missed something.
Unfortunately, there are only a handful of people anywhere who recognize that politics is not either-or. My guess is that is not likely to ever change.
Unfortunately, it's not so simple. Economically, it would be a blow to Samsung even were there not laws (at least in the USA, UK, and Australia; probably in other countries) barring them from refusing to supply Apple.
how they do business with others in order to serve your needs, however, should be no concern to you.
Perhaps, if you're a sociopath. There are many business practices which are abhorrent, and by purchasing a product from those businesses the profit margin from that product purchase further supports their bottom line and tends to reinforce the methods they use to do business as legitimate (in that it makes them money).
The only reference needed is DeBeers and their practices regarding trading precious stones prior to the international condemnation of the purchase of blood stones from conflict regions. I am not in any way saying Apple (or anyone else) rises to this level, but the actions of a company can, in fact, be very relevant to people who have an actual conscience. A conscience can involve sensitivity to injustices of a much lesser nature than slave labor and child soldiers while still being justifiable.
I always laugh when I see this, because the mental response that comes to mind is always "You 12?"