Any other company can startup their own GSM network.
They could, but they couldn't turn it on since they wouldn't be able to purchase spectrum, as all of it has been allocated to the current existing carriers.
FedEx provided universal delivery coverage prior to their USPS contract. It just means that, for whatever reason, it is more profitable to pay another entity to deliver to some addresses. What it doesn't mean is that it is unprofitable for them to deliver themselves. Both are obviously profitable, given how many years FedEx did it themselves. In other areas, they contract with other private couriers for final delivery. Paying someone else to use their infrastructure is often easier than capital investments in your own. When that infrastructure doesn't exist though, it is still profitable to put it into place.
If the USPS declined to renew their last-mile delivery contract, you can bet FedEx would still provide universal address coverage. The contract just proves FedEx believes A > B. It does not prove B is a negative number. Even if B is a negative number, it does not prove FedEx would decline to subsidize B through the profit of other routes.
With more autonomy they'd be more like a dreaded private entity, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it. I guess, anyway.
Or maybe an autonomous, for-profit entity is alright as long as it has " United States" in the title, regardless of whether it acts exactly like a private entity. It's hard to tell what people really want and what they really object to. Usually some window dressing makes everything alright, so the title and affiliation would probably mollify those who are aghast at the thought of private companies doing anything.
It's not like the US government is above bailing out private entities any more, and that's really the only difference.
I'd actually prefer that the number of elected officials increase, with a proportionate (actually, much more than proportionate) decrease in salary paid to each.
Make them accountable to a smaller group of people, and you increase accountability as a whole. Decrease their salary to the average hourly wage in the district they represent, and you might not have the criminal class that currently dominates elections. Oh, and they shouldn't get any benefits after leaving office. Elected positions should never be a career option.
Injecting logic into an emotional argument is always a loser.
The private carriers provide universal coverage, with smaller volume, and at roughly the same price points for comparable shipment types. In fact, they provide some guarantees for certain shipments that national carriers are simply not able to provide at any price.
However, the fact that they can do so and remain profitable is irrelevant to those who think that allowing them to deliver millions of letters would equal the end of civilization.
Your assumption that "government bureaucracy" can't get anything done is a poor one.
Conflating "can't get anything done" and "can't do everything it tries" is pretty common. Your assumption that the poster actually meant the above is a poor one.
Sometimes catastrophic events are necessary to rebuild things that are failing or flawed.
Otherwise, inertia holds back effective changes. "Too big to fail" is a buzzword that means the system that allowed it to get that large has a fundamental flaw.
No, probably more likely that not all unions are necessarily good. It's sort of like police misconduct: "Well, yes there's police misconduct, just not here."
It's alright for others to lay off employees, or close locations, just not here.
Governments, corporations, and unions all cause problems. They just cause different problems. Pointing out the problems one causes does not imply that the problems another causes do not exist.
The Justice Department has not blocked the merger. They filed suit with the goal of blocking the merger. They can still lose, and the merger could still go through.
Or you've only experienced the excessive use of it. Amphetamines are used both legally and illegally to boost concentration levels, because it is highly effective at doing so in small doses.
The body of evidence behind the above statement is so enormous I'm not going to bother with citations.
Amoral and pragmatic are similar, but do not necessarily overlap in all cases. Your example is pragmatism, not an act being amoral simply because it is the lesser of two evils.
There is no inherent morality to this payment model, much like using a hammer to pound in a nail has no inherent morality. If you're building a house, it's fine. If you're pounding it into someone's temple, it's bad. When the badness is dictated entirely by the circumstances surrounding the act, the act itself is amoral.
Unless, of course, you believe the concept of renting things is inherently immoral.
So explain how it is that cancer cells actually operate aerobically when in proximity to a blood vessel? Cancer cells only operate anaerobically when they're out of proximity to blood supply.
Oh, and you can't change the pH to a non-acid level, otherwise universal cell death occurs. All cells have an acidic pH. Or are scientists wrong about that too?
I mean, heaven forbid your body gets filled with amino acids. They cause cancer, so you should avoid them at all costs. Really, it's to your benefit. No, seriously, please personally avoid consuming anything with amino acids. We'll all be better off.
Slashdot Mirror
And he was just as flawed, to an equal extent, in his prescription for those evils.
This is frequently overlooked in any comment saying Marx may have been right about some things.
Being correct on a diagnosis is not the same thing as being correct on the cure for the illness.
Any other company can startup their own GSM network.
They could, but they couldn't turn it on since they wouldn't be able to purchase spectrum, as all of it has been allocated to the current existing carriers.
Shame on them for not calling the Republicans' bluff. A filibuster requires continuous facetime by a member of the filibustering bloc.
Make them stand and deliver, 24/7, until they're tired of holding the issue up.
Nothing happens because nobody has the balls to call the bluff, and make them deliver until they drop from exhaustion.
FedEx provided universal delivery coverage prior to their USPS contract. It just means that, for whatever reason, it is more profitable to pay another entity to deliver to some addresses. What it doesn't mean is that it is unprofitable for them to deliver themselves. Both are obviously profitable, given how many years FedEx did it themselves. In other areas, they contract with other private couriers for final delivery. Paying someone else to use their infrastructure is often easier than capital investments in your own. When that infrastructure doesn't exist though, it is still profitable to put it into place.
If the USPS declined to renew their last-mile delivery contract, you can bet FedEx would still provide universal address coverage. The contract just proves FedEx believes A > B. It does not prove B is a negative number. Even if B is a negative number, it does not prove FedEx would decline to subsidize B through the profit of other routes.
Nope, they just provide service to every address 5 days a week voluntarily, for a price that is comparable for the same Postal Service delivery.
I guess the difference is that Saturday delivery costs more via a private company?
With more autonomy they'd be more like a dreaded private entity, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it. I guess, anyway.
Or maybe an autonomous, for-profit entity is alright as long as it has " United States" in the title, regardless of whether it acts exactly like a private entity. It's hard to tell what people really want and what they really object to. Usually some window dressing makes everything alright, so the title and affiliation would probably mollify those who are aghast at the thought of private companies doing anything.
It's not like the US government is above bailing out private entities any more, and that's really the only difference.
Actually, the reference was to the Post Office establishing email and online bill-paying services, not doing what they do now.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/world_population.htm
The US and Australia are not analogous in population density. Not. Even. Close.
I'd actually prefer that the number of elected officials increase, with a proportionate (actually, much more than proportionate) decrease in salary paid to each.
Make them accountable to a smaller group of people, and you increase accountability as a whole. Decrease their salary to the average hourly wage in the district they represent, and you might not have the criminal class that currently dominates elections. Oh, and they shouldn't get any benefits after leaving office. Elected positions should never be a career option.
Injecting logic into an emotional argument is always a loser.
The private carriers provide universal coverage, with smaller volume, and at roughly the same price points for comparable shipment types. In fact, they provide some guarantees for certain shipments that national carriers are simply not able to provide at any price.
However, the fact that they can do so and remain profitable is irrelevant to those who think that allowing them to deliver millions of letters would equal the end of civilization.
Your assumption that "government bureaucracy" can't get anything done is a poor one.
Conflating "can't get anything done" and "can't do everything it tries" is pretty common. Your assumption that the poster actually meant the above is a poor one.
Sometimes catastrophic events are necessary to rebuild things that are failing or flawed.
Otherwise, inertia holds back effective changes. "Too big to fail" is a buzzword that means the system that allowed it to get that large has a fundamental flaw.
No, probably more likely that not all unions are necessarily good. It's sort of like police misconduct: "Well, yes there's police misconduct, just not here."
It's alright for others to lay off employees, or close locations, just not here.
Governments, corporations, and unions all cause problems. They just cause different problems. Pointing out the problems one causes does not imply that the problems another causes do not exist.
The Justice Department has not blocked the merger. They filed suit with the goal of blocking the merger. They can still lose, and the merger could still go through.
No, they haven't. The courts won't have anything to say until the outcome of one of the current lawsuits aimed at blocking the merger.
Or you've only experienced the excessive use of it. Amphetamines are used both legally and illegally to boost concentration levels, because it is highly effective at doing so in small doses.
The body of evidence behind the above statement is so enormous I'm not going to bother with citations.
How did you chop both pinkies off? o.O
With a UID that low, the account is from an era when Apple was a bit player in pretty much everything they did. Pretty unlikely it's a shill account.
Very true. Dead public employees killed in a risky profession are always touted as heroes, even though they chose to be in that position.
It was a joke.
JavaScript (which is definitely NOT Ajax)
Nope, you have to add HTML and CSS to arrive at AJAX. ;)
Amoral and pragmatic are similar, but do not necessarily overlap in all cases. Your example is pragmatism, not an act being amoral simply because it is the lesser of two evils.
There is no inherent morality to this payment model, much like using a hammer to pound in a nail has no inherent morality. If you're building a house, it's fine. If you're pounding it into someone's temple, it's bad. When the badness is dictated entirely by the circumstances surrounding the act, the act itself is amoral.
Unless, of course, you believe the concept of renting things is inherently immoral.
They'll start taking it seriously when multi-million dollar satellites start being obliterated.
In the US, money is a far more serious matter than human life.
So explain how it is that cancer cells actually operate aerobically when in proximity to a blood vessel? Cancer cells only operate anaerobically when they're out of proximity to blood supply.
Oh, and you can't change the pH to a non-acid level, otherwise universal cell death occurs. All cells have an acidic pH. Or are scientists wrong about that too?
I mean, heaven forbid your body gets filled with amino acids. They cause cancer, so you should avoid them at all costs. Really, it's to your benefit. No, seriously, please personally avoid consuming anything with amino acids. We'll all be better off.
If people start living forever, no, it's not carrying the metaphor too far. In fact, it'll be absolutely necessary.