They went to jail over $450 they didn't pay. Then, once in jail, managed to get $900 to pay off fees to that point to get out. If they could get $900 then, they should have gotten $450 earlier. It'd have been cheaper. I guess there's a reason they were poor.
I've seen the same with deadbeat dads. They can't afford $150 a week, but once they are in jail for $15,000 in back support, they manage to scrape together the money to pay to get out. That's one reason why deadbeat dads getting sent to jail is so common and encouraged. Many just consider jail a first warning. Any less is ignored. Even after having been sent to jail for it before.
Jail is punishment for not paying, and motivation to pay at the same time, and it works. When the citizenry are so ill-mannered, does it surprise you that tactics that are effective are used?
We haven't tried, so it's not proof of anything. When we create a ship capapble of reaching the end of the universe, we should launch it and find out. If we bounce off the wall of the simulation, we'll know.
Second Life isn't a simulation, it's a surrogation. We didn't program people to do their own thing, we control them when we are there, which isn't a simulation. A simulation sets start conditions and walks away.
3. Why then, do we have only 3 spatial dimensions?
When we run simulations, we run them with 2-3 spacial dimensions. 1 is too few to be useful, and 4 is too many to be easily understood/modeled. So we simulate in conditions similar to ours. So we can extrapolate that our simulator-overlords are 3-dimensional as well.
It's unverifiable - it's like asking what's outside the universe; the question doesn't make sense.
If we can't get to the edge and look back, then it is a simulation, right? After all, in many of the simulation movies, that's how the characters finally figured it out.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the single payer system (as used by the NIH, and others modeled after it) is more tyrannical than the US system. Pre-ACA or after, your choice. But living under an NIH derivative, the US system was much more tyrannical.
And if it did happen, it wouldn't last. When cable started, people paid for the channels, so they were funded by subscriptions. That eventually ended when they realized they could put in the ads too. So they were funded by subscriptions and adds. Why use one when you can use both?
The cable providers could have fought back. But they didn't. They took it and thanked the content owners. You sound like the anti-union crowd. "But the union demanded it, who cares if the management willingly signed the contract that bankrupted the company, the union shouldn't have asked".
The cable providers could have fought this at any time. They chose not it. That added to their irrelevancy. The cable companies *liked* it. They were in a race for sheer numbers of channels. It helps justify price increases. They could have offered a la carte 20 years ago, and chose not it.
Note, what they sell is unrelated to what they buy (with some minor exceptions, like ESPN2 must be delivered to people buying ESPN and such, but those are surprisingly rare). They could buy all of Disney's lineup, then sell the channels a la carte for $0.10 per month. People that buy 1 or 2 would be a loss. People that buy all of them would cause great profit. Adjust the numbers to match usage, with profit built in, and we *could* have the same companies with the same profit as today, with a la carte. But the cable companies are anti-customer, so we didn't get that. Another reason people are trying so hard to cut the cord. I've never paid for TV. I lived in an apartment once with "free" cable. But I've never bought a cable or satellite package, that's the easy way to cut the cord.
So what? I've read through, and aside from ESPN2 and other low-demand channels Disney wants to push, Disney doesn't *require* that you display them. You could sell Disney Kids without selling ESPN. But nobody tries. They shot themselves in the foot when they became a sales channel for the content providers, rather than a customer-facing company. They could have ended it. Aside from a few exceptions (like ESPN2), a la carte could have always been done. TWC is free to sell the channels in the Disney package separately. They should have gone to all a la carte 20 years ago as an experiment. If it failed, they'd be where they are now. If it worked, they'd be much better off. Oh, and if it worked, the customers would be better off as well.
We bailed out the banks in the '80s as well. Maybe you are thinking of the one I'm thinking of. I was in Texas at the time, and we called it the Texas S&L crisis, but looking it up, it looks like some other areas had the same issues later. The bailouts of the '80s lead to the consolidation that made banks bigger. I remember my "bank" changed names about once a month for almost a year.
California has all its population on the coast. Germany has a lower density of cities. California should be cheaper. Just don't wire in every house in the desert like it's in LA.
2. As to the costs of installing all this cable and maintaining it. Other countries have multiple ISPs operating in the same area. Explain that.
Please give some examples. I've not seen any. Usually, if multiple ISPs operate competitively in the same area, they are sharing the last mile (owned by the government, or ex-government lines in many cases). But in the context, you are implying that other countries are more likely to have multiple ISPs with independent infrastructure. I don't believe that to be true, but I don't spend lots of time researching telecommunications in areas that don't affect me.
Maybe you're too young to remember, but we had that system for wired telephone service and it was a disaster. The Internet only took off once those highly regulated monopolies were broken up. The resulting market is still over-regulated and far from efficient, but it's a lot better than what we had.
That regulation was done poorly in the past doesn't mean that regulation doesn't work. The disaster with AT&T's regulation was that they were incented to not innovate (yes, I know all about Bell Labs). The "regulation" most propose for current phone companies would be something like turning them into line operators, and separate companies would provide the service. That usually works best for the users, but is hard to get the business balance right.
And the state and local organizations responsible for regulating AT&T before the breakup are often still around, enforcing pre-break-up regulations on the new companies. So it wasn't simply a matter of regulation (or even competition).
That's one cable provider. Just like he said. Who's the copper provider? If it's the same as the FiOS provider, then you have stated no disagreement with his words.
It's a 4G chip, not a random general purpose chip someone snuck a cell modem into. I said a "GP chip can't". A dedicated 4G chip isn't a GP chip, so no, you didn't catch me in a mistake. But keep stalking me to try. Maybe someday I'll actually be wrong. Of note, it's also an American chip, not a Chinese one.
Now fuck off, you 1% piece of shit troll.
1%? I'm not in the 1%. I'm barely in the top 10% (something every college graduate is easily capable of), the real question is, why aren't you? Too lazy, or too stupid?
The laser goes around a corner of delicate mirrors. It's impossible to "smash" then lens in a manner that leaves it operable in the manner you describe.
If brighter lights make it harder to see pedestrians, then we should have optimal lighting with no lights at all, right? Otherwise your assertion fails in the edge cases, and we should assume it fails in the middle just as much.
You *can't* add addresses "willy nilly" You need applications and justifications for new blocks, at this point, it's almost easier to buy a company that owns IP blocks. But, as you imply, someone that doesn't want to be filtered, and refuses to filter themselves, should be kicked off the network.
Now the problem for some areas, like what I see happening in China all the time, is that everyone likes to drive with blinding lights on at all times. I don't understand why - the result is that no-one can see anything properly. But then, it's not that those Chinese drivers care much about what's going on around them anyway...
The only thing out of the ordinary I noticed with Chinese drivers is that lights don't get turned on when it starts to get dark. Almost like it's manly to be the last one to turn them on. It'll be well-dark before they are on with any regularity. In the US, they start coming on when the sun is very low. We don't even wait for proper dark. Had you noticed that too?
Taller vehicles are a greater blinding problem than these will ever be. Most SUVs are illegal under Texas law, but Texas hasn't pressed the issue because the feds say it's ok, and the last time Texas messed with the feds was in the 1860s and that didn't work out so well. "[all headlights must be] aimed so that no part of the high-intensity portion of the beam on a vehicle that is operated on a straight, level road under any condition of loading projects into the eyes of an approaching vehicle operator." But I've passed plenty of vehicles violating that, even with stock low-beams.
The rules should limit the height of the lights on vehicles. Or brightness specs that effectively do the same. (requiring a minimum lux at some point, and a maximum at another, then repeat for longer distances, at some point, you'd have to lower the lamp to hit the spec).
Why are so many people worried about pedestrians? If you are driving a car, and are suddenly rendered blind, it's very difficult to be safe from that point. You can't stop safely because you can't see the safe place to pull over, nor can you continue safely. A pedestrian can look away and walk forward with great safety. The pedestrian can also stop where they are with great safety (assuming they aren't illegally crossing the road, and freeze in the headlights, waiting to get hit like a deer).
Blind pedestrians are "common" (I personally know a few, and I've seen others). Blind drivers are less common.
Slashdot Mirror
They went to jail over $450 they didn't pay. Then, once in jail, managed to get $900 to pay off fees to that point to get out. If they could get $900 then, they should have gotten $450 earlier. It'd have been cheaper. I guess there's a reason they were poor.
I've seen the same with deadbeat dads. They can't afford $150 a week, but once they are in jail for $15,000 in back support, they manage to scrape together the money to pay to get out. That's one reason why deadbeat dads getting sent to jail is so common and encouraged. Many just consider jail a first warning. Any less is ignored. Even after having been sent to jail for it before.
Jail is punishment for not paying, and motivation to pay at the same time, and it works. When the citizenry are so ill-mannered, does it surprise you that tactics that are effective are used?
What, you like that better than little Bobby Tables?
We haven't tried, so it's not proof of anything. When we create a ship capapble of reaching the end of the universe, we should launch it and find out. If we bounce off the wall of the simulation, we'll know.
Second Life isn't a simulation, it's a surrogation. We didn't program people to do their own thing, we control them when we are there, which isn't a simulation. A simulation sets start conditions and walks away.
3. Why then, do we have only 3 spatial dimensions?
When we run simulations, we run them with 2-3 spacial dimensions. 1 is too few to be useful, and 4 is too many to be easily understood/modeled. So we simulate in conditions similar to ours. So we can extrapolate that our simulator-overlords are 3-dimensional as well.
It's unverifiable - it's like asking what's outside the universe; the question doesn't make sense.
If we can't get to the edge and look back, then it is a simulation, right? After all, in many of the simulation movies, that's how the characters finally figured it out.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the single payer system (as used by the NIH, and others modeled after it) is more tyrannical than the US system. Pre-ACA or after, your choice. But living under an NIH derivative, the US system was much more tyrannical.
And if it did happen, it wouldn't last. When cable started, people paid for the channels, so they were funded by subscriptions. That eventually ended when they realized they could put in the ads too. So they were funded by subscriptions and adds. Why use one when you can use both?
The cable providers could have fought back. But they didn't. They took it and thanked the content owners. You sound like the anti-union crowd. "But the union demanded it, who cares if the management willingly signed the contract that bankrupted the company, the union shouldn't have asked".
The cable providers could have fought this at any time. They chose not it. That added to their irrelevancy. The cable companies *liked* it. They were in a race for sheer numbers of channels. It helps justify price increases. They could have offered a la carte 20 years ago, and chose not it.
Note, what they sell is unrelated to what they buy (with some minor exceptions, like ESPN2 must be delivered to people buying ESPN and such, but those are surprisingly rare). They could buy all of Disney's lineup, then sell the channels a la carte for $0.10 per month. People that buy 1 or 2 would be a loss. People that buy all of them would cause great profit. Adjust the numbers to match usage, with profit built in, and we *could* have the same companies with the same profit as today, with a la carte. But the cable companies are anti-customer, so we didn't get that. Another reason people are trying so hard to cut the cord. I've never paid for TV. I lived in an apartment once with "free" cable. But I've never bought a cable or satellite package, that's the easy way to cut the cord.
So what? I've read through, and aside from ESPN2 and other low-demand channels Disney wants to push, Disney doesn't *require* that you display them. You could sell Disney Kids without selling ESPN. But nobody tries. They shot themselves in the foot when they became a sales channel for the content providers, rather than a customer-facing company. They could have ended it. Aside from a few exceptions (like ESPN2), a la carte could have always been done. TWC is free to sell the channels in the Disney package separately. They should have gone to all a la carte 20 years ago as an experiment. If it failed, they'd be where they are now. If it worked, they'd be much better off. Oh, and if it worked, the customers would be better off as well.
We bailed out the banks in the '80s as well. Maybe you are thinking of the one I'm thinking of. I was in Texas at the time, and we called it the Texas S&L crisis, but looking it up, it looks like some other areas had the same issues later. The bailouts of the '80s lead to the consolidation that made banks bigger. I remember my "bank" changed names about once a month for almost a year.
California has all its population on the coast. Germany has a lower density of cities. California should be cheaper. Just don't wire in every house in the desert like it's in LA.
2. As to the costs of installing all this cable and maintaining it. Other countries have multiple ISPs operating in the same area. Explain that.
Please give some examples. I've not seen any. Usually, if multiple ISPs operate competitively in the same area, they are sharing the last mile (owned by the government, or ex-government lines in many cases). But in the context, you are implying that other countries are more likely to have multiple ISPs with independent infrastructure. I don't believe that to be true, but I don't spend lots of time researching telecommunications in areas that don't affect me.
Maybe you're too young to remember, but we had that system for wired telephone service and it was a disaster. The Internet only took off once those highly regulated monopolies were broken up. The resulting market is still over-regulated and far from efficient, but it's a lot better than what we had.
That regulation was done poorly in the past doesn't mean that regulation doesn't work. The disaster with AT&T's regulation was that they were incented to not innovate (yes, I know all about Bell Labs). The "regulation" most propose for current phone companies would be something like turning them into line operators, and separate companies would provide the service. That usually works best for the users, but is hard to get the business balance right.
And the state and local organizations responsible for regulating AT&T before the breakup are often still around, enforcing pre-break-up regulations on the new companies. So it wasn't simply a matter of regulation (or even competition).
That's one cable provider. Just like he said. Who's the copper provider? If it's the same as the FiOS provider, then you have stated no disagreement with his words.
Now fuck off, you 1% piece of shit troll.
1%? I'm not in the 1%. I'm barely in the top 10% (something every college graduate is easily capable of), the real question is, why aren't you? Too lazy, or too stupid?
The laser goes around a corner of delicate mirrors. It's impossible to "smash" then lens in a manner that leaves it operable in the manner you describe.
Why do you hate technology?
If brighter lights make it harder to see pedestrians, then we should have optimal lighting with no lights at all, right? Otherwise your assertion fails in the edge cases, and we should assume it fails in the middle just as much.
Politicians and their non sequiturs. What's Dwayne Johnson have to do with this?
You *can't* add addresses "willy nilly" You need applications and justifications for new blocks, at this point, it's almost easier to buy a company that owns IP blocks. But, as you imply, someone that doesn't want to be filtered, and refuses to filter themselves, should be kicked off the network.
Now the problem for some areas, like what I see happening in China all the time, is that everyone likes to drive with blinding lights on at all times. I don't understand why - the result is that no-one can see anything properly. But then, it's not that those Chinese drivers care much about what's going on around them anyway...
The only thing out of the ordinary I noticed with Chinese drivers is that lights don't get turned on when it starts to get dark. Almost like it's manly to be the last one to turn them on. It'll be well-dark before they are on with any regularity. In the US, they start coming on when the sun is very low. We don't even wait for proper dark. Had you noticed that too?
Taller vehicles are a greater blinding problem than these will ever be. Most SUVs are illegal under Texas law, but Texas hasn't pressed the issue because the feds say it's ok, and the last time Texas messed with the feds was in the 1860s and that didn't work out so well. "[all headlights must be] aimed so that no part of the high-intensity portion of the beam on a vehicle that is operated on a straight, level road under any condition of loading projects into the eyes of an approaching vehicle operator." But I've passed plenty of vehicles violating that, even with stock low-beams.
The rules should limit the height of the lights on vehicles. Or brightness specs that effectively do the same. (requiring a minimum lux at some point, and a maximum at another, then repeat for longer distances, at some point, you'd have to lower the lamp to hit the spec).
There's an easy fix to that. Limit the height of lights. If the lights for taller cars were mounted lower, there'd be no problem.
Why are so many people worried about pedestrians? If you are driving a car, and are suddenly rendered blind, it's very difficult to be safe from that point. You can't stop safely because you can't see the safe place to pull over, nor can you continue safely. A pedestrian can look away and walk forward with great safety. The pedestrian can also stop where they are with great safety (assuming they aren't illegally crossing the road, and freeze in the headlights, waiting to get hit like a deer).
Blind pedestrians are "common" (I personally know a few, and I've seen others). Blind drivers are less common.