Nah. Any time I hear "it's an entitlement program", it's always somebody whining about how they have to pay for some random person out there who they are totally convinced is a lazy slob unworthy of assistance. There's a lot wrong with the ACA, but what you are outlining isn't the issue, and you totally do not understand the business side of insurance either. My ex was an actuary, so I know a bit better about how things work, and perhaps you should actually bitch to your state's insurance board for just being lackeys to the insurance companies?
Socialized medicine is the proper solution. We couldn't get that, so the ACA came about from the playbook of the other team. It's a small step in the right direction. Otherwise I myself would be having to pay more than twice I am right now to get coverage on a condition that I've had since childhood. And my late mom would very unlikely have been able to get the quality of care and treatment that she in her last years suffering from stage 4 breast cancer. So fuck you very much, you only exemplify how selfish you are and how lacking in empathy and even sympathy you are for others. It seems you haven't a clue how much money it costs to fix a broken femur, especially if you need to be taken by ambulance.
Cheese with your whine, sir? Again, you fail to understand the concept of insurance. Also, doctors told my grandmother she'd never be able to have children. She later proved them wrong by having 4 children at 4 different births.
I don't suppose you also complain about having to pay for public schools even though you don't have school aged children, do you?
How exactly is that relevant? You do understand that over a certain amount of income that it's really no skin off their back to pay a larger portion of that money-over-the-limit? In other words, a family that earns $50,000 a year and pays $5,000 in federal taxes per year has a much greater need for that $5,000 than does somebody who just pulled in $300,000 per year. Those people pulling in $300,000+ a year did not do so just by themselves: no, because society exists with the given set of properties they were able to command such a large income. Is it somehow immoral to ask those who earn so much more to pay a larger share of their income to support that exact system that allows them to earn that much money?
Sorry, but you're wrong. You will need to convince them that you didn't actually overpay, or failing that, convince them to hold onto the money as a forward balance on your future tax liability. How do I know? I've had them erroneously believe that I overpaid taxes one year, and this was exactly what I had to do.
Psssh I have to rent a vm elsewhere and run a VPN myself just in order to route an ipv6/64 subnet to my residence. Since I live just 5 miles outside of the metro area, my choices for Internet are Jack (some neighbor who runs an ubiquiti airmax with factory default settings) and Sh*t (satellite). At the moment I'm tethered off my phone because Jack is highly unreliable for one who works in VoIP dev and is behind a TP Link NAT that is out of my control, so I'm already NAT-ed. Satellite is way too latent and far too capped for any of the video calls I need to make even as part of testing. And while the tethering off the cell is actually quite usable, I am both already stuck behind the phone's NAT and at the mercy of the carrier to not throttle me when I cross the magic number. My neighborhood does have the older AT&T adsl service, but they absolutely refuse to provide anything beyond dialtone to me. Well, that is, unless I spend $750/mo for 10/10 mbps fiber. So unless the builders start buying up some of the properties in my neighborhood and building smaller lot neighborhoods in their place, I'm SOL unless I can get funding to try to do a neighborhood fiber network, whose legality would most definitely be challenged by AT&T in court. And to think: I still have it better than a lot of areas in this country.
RE the privacy issue, what I hope that this does is open up a pandora's box for the telcos. Want to snoop on what everybody does on the network? Cool. You just lost safe harbor and common carrier status, and are now considered to be complicit if not a facilitator of any illegal/criminal activities and any copyright infringement that occurs. So while still being a crappy policy and law, at least the use of powers granted is heavily dis-incentivized. Though my cynical side again says that the telcos will continue tol get their cake and eat it too.
But yes, I can't imagine how somebody can find gainful employment these days without internet. Sure, I bet there's anecdotes about the guy on the street corner with the sign, but he would be more so the exception than the rule.
And what you state is true with the USF. It just saddens me that people in positions of power seem to be willfully turning a blind eye to the fact that we've long since crossed the point where there is really any distinction between a telephone and the Internet. Ultimately both are considered by the vast majority of our society to be necessary to facilitate communication and to function in society. The cynic in me expect the chairman to keep on rowing his boat down this stream, so I expect things only to get worse.
I'd say it depends heavily on *how* rural. I personally picked the area I live in because it is on the edge between rural and suburban. So I'm close enough to the city that if I want to be around people, it's easy. But I really do enjoy the peace and quiet back on my property. Only problem I do currently have is the typical lack of internet options given that the lots around here average about 1 1/2 acre per, and mine is significantly larger.
Perhaps it was a thin veneer for pirating, however, there is a legitimate use otherwise for his service. That is, often times, enough to keep a product or service legal in the jurisdiction of the USA.
You appear to be conflating religion and ethnicity. Muslim is one who subscribes to the Islamic religion. A Christian is one who subscribes to the Christian religion. However, this is unlike with Jews: a person can be a Jew if he is only ethnically Jewish (born of Jewish lineage). You can be both Jewish ethnically and Jewish religiously, or you can be only Jewish ethnically. (You can't be Jewish only religiously - if you are accepted as religiously Jewish, you are automatically considered to become a part of the ethnicity. And there are genetic markers for being Jewish ethnically: most notable is probably the Cohen y-chromosome haplotype, which can at least designate Semitic origin.) There is no Muslim or Christian equivalent because those religions span a multitude of cultures, ethnicities, and regions of the world. In fact, the most populous Muslim country is not at all Arabic.
I'm the submitter. I don't care if he stomps kittens in his spare time, and I doubt I've seen three of his videos before today. The dishonesty and cynicism here shown by allegedly reputable mainstream media outlets here is astonishing.
Ya know, if everybody would JUST IGNORE crap like this, maybe the "dishonest, cynical, allegedly reputable mainstream media outlets" would ALSO ignore it? It seems very evident to me that even you wish to continue perpetuating it, as if gives you something to complain about. It's crap like this that gets us The Donald as POTUS. And as much as I complain to people to just ignore things like this, I'd actually be a LOT happier if I didn't have to point this out even on occasion. And it'd be great if we could have some more actual tech pieces here rather than tabloid faux-drama pieces.
Being against the Israeli gov't does not per-say make one anti-Zionist. It makes them anti-current-gov't-of-Israel. Being anti-Zionist means you don't support the notion of a national Jewish homeland which happens to cover major portions of the historical homeland. And don't forget that there's a lot of antisemites out there that use (misuse?) the notion of being anti-Zionist as a cover to their actual antisemitic views and tendencies.
Again, this sidesteps the issue. Yes, you typically *expect* more infrastructure in an urban environment, and you expect some things to cost more than if you bought 1000 acres out in the middle of the Arizona desert or the Alaskan tundra. But what Chattanooga, TN, did isn't even an option here because the laws have all been bought by the incumbents who don't want to invest but also don't want to have anybody else invest. If the law wasn't in my way, my only real obstacle is getting enough neighbors to agree to put into the investment, and maybe convincing the county to issue a bond for the infrastructure. Sure we'd pay a bit more in taxes until retirement of the bond, but then we'd have the infrastructure. Oh and on a side note, this area won't remain rural for much longer. The metro area is heavily expanding, and 5 miles away is a neighborhood of cookie-cutter McMansions starting at around $450,000 with about 1/5 acre lots. That may not be expensive in Silicon Valley standards, but it is expensive in this state. (And my ad valorem taxation is at 2.29%, with some of the more expensive areas nearby going as high as 3.3%.)
You sidestep the issue that really is at hand: that the last mile is completely and utterly mismanaged in this country to the detriment of the populace. And I live in the "boondocks" just a few miles out of a metro area, and that's far enough to put you into "Hughes only territory". A fiber run here would be $750/mo for 10/10 mbps, for a term of 3 years. 30 GB I can blast through in a couple days being that I work in voip, and that would probably put me, with overage charges, up in the $500+ range per month. I don't have acres of vegetable to sell - in fact, this area isn't even remotely prime farming land. Now, if on the other hand the last mile infrastructure was open for municipal handling, and having the service running on top of it handled by any number of companies allowed to peer, then that would be a boon to both dwellers of the big expensive city as well as those who live in areas that are ignored by the incumbents because they won't make back enough profit in their 2-3 year ROI projections. But we can't do that here, not even the electric company (we have a law on the books that specifically forbids that for gawd knows what reason other than $$), and certainly not the residents of my area banding together to build a muni fiber network (again, the law...).
Why yes, I'd love latency in excess of 800 ms! That works very well with real time protocols like SIP & RTP. And "affordable" for various values of "affordable" ($125 for 30 GB per month sounds "affordable to you?). Also, notice how you only said affordable, not "reliable", because that it most certainly is not.
"I love you, *PHILLIP J. FRY*!" (blah blah blah stupid filter can't figure out that the caps is supposed to be terrible robotic voice synthesis and not the Lucy Liu Bot yelling...)
Gosh, I don't know whatever I would have done had I never found my favorite band thanks to payola I mean the RIAA and friends. Imagine how miserable my life would have been...
I guess the best word in English that I can come up with here is "relief", because all it does is provide a bit of relief to the person receiving it. The fact that you had latched onto the term "incentive" and how you are so adamant about ending it does suggest to me that you really haven't fully thought out the issue. Even with the relief that the government allots to those with children, our birthrates in the USA have been declining for a long time. Possibly it has to do with nothing more than lower infant and child mortality rates and better education for the masses. And I do believe that this birthrate will continue to decline until the population starts to retract.
I'm pretty sure that STILL doesn't cover the full cost of children. No, if I made an actual net salary/profit making babies, I'd have a frickin' harem ERRR I mean baby factory running here... Face it, you can try to warp reality to fit your narrative, but it's not an incentive if the person is still running at a net loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again you show your ignorance to how insurance works. The answer is quite simply "yes". This isn't a salad bar.
Nah. Any time I hear "it's an entitlement program", it's always somebody whining about how they have to pay for some random person out there who they are totally convinced is a lazy slob unworthy of assistance. There's a lot wrong with the ACA, but what you are outlining isn't the issue, and you totally do not understand the business side of insurance either. My ex was an actuary, so I know a bit better about how things work, and perhaps you should actually bitch to your state's insurance board for just being lackeys to the insurance companies?
Socialized medicine is the proper solution. We couldn't get that, so the ACA came about from the playbook of the other team. It's a small step in the right direction. Otherwise I myself would be having to pay more than twice I am right now to get coverage on a condition that I've had since childhood. And my late mom would very unlikely have been able to get the quality of care and treatment that she in her last years suffering from stage 4 breast cancer. So fuck you very much, you only exemplify how selfish you are and how lacking in empathy and even sympathy you are for others. It seems you haven't a clue how much money it costs to fix a broken femur, especially if you need to be taken by ambulance.
And there's not a single case out there of a 60 year old woman giving birth to a child?
Cheese with your whine, sir? Again, you fail to understand the concept of insurance. Also, doctors told my grandmother she'd never be able to have children. She later proved them wrong by having 4 children at 4 different births.
I don't suppose you also complain about having to pay for public schools even though you don't have school aged children, do you?
How exactly is that relevant? You do understand that over a certain amount of income that it's really no skin off their back to pay a larger portion of that money-over-the-limit? In other words, a family that earns $50,000 a year and pays $5,000 in federal taxes per year has a much greater need for that $5,000 than does somebody who just pulled in $300,000 per year. Those people pulling in $300,000+ a year did not do so just by themselves: no, because society exists with the given set of properties they were able to command such a large income. Is it somehow immoral to ask those who earn so much more to pay a larger share of their income to support that exact system that allows them to earn that much money?
Sorry, but you're wrong. You will need to convince them that you didn't actually overpay, or failing that, convince them to hold onto the money as a forward balance on your future tax liability. How do I know? I've had them erroneously believe that I overpaid taxes one year, and this was exactly what I had to do.
Psssh I have to rent a vm elsewhere and run a VPN myself just in order to route an ipv6 /64 subnet to my residence. Since I live just 5 miles outside of the metro area, my choices for Internet are Jack (some neighbor who runs an ubiquiti airmax with factory default settings) and Sh*t (satellite). At the moment I'm tethered off my phone because Jack is highly unreliable for one who works in VoIP dev and is behind a TP Link NAT that is out of my control, so I'm already NAT-ed. Satellite is way too latent and far too capped for any of the video calls I need to make even as part of testing. And while the tethering off the cell is actually quite usable, I am both already stuck behind the phone's NAT and at the mercy of the carrier to not throttle me when I cross the magic number. My neighborhood does have the older AT&T adsl service, but they absolutely refuse to provide anything beyond dialtone to me. Well, that is, unless I spend $750/mo for 10/10 mbps fiber. So unless the builders start buying up some of the properties in my neighborhood and building smaller lot neighborhoods in their place, I'm SOL unless I can get funding to try to do a neighborhood fiber network, whose legality would most definitely be challenged by AT&T in court. And to think: I still have it better than a lot of areas in this country.
RE the privacy issue, what I hope that this does is open up a pandora's box for the telcos. Want to snoop on what everybody does on the network? Cool. You just lost safe harbor and common carrier status, and are now considered to be complicit if not a facilitator of any illegal/criminal activities and any copyright infringement that occurs. So while still being a crappy policy and law, at least the use of powers granted is heavily dis-incentivized. Though my cynical side again says that the telcos will continue tol get their cake and eat it too.
But yes, I can't imagine how somebody can find gainful employment these days without internet. Sure, I bet there's anecdotes about the guy on the street corner with the sign, but he would be more so the exception than the rule.
And what you state is true with the USF. It just saddens me that people in positions of power seem to be willfully turning a blind eye to the fact that we've long since crossed the point where there is really any distinction between a telephone and the Internet. Ultimately both are considered by the vast majority of our society to be necessary to facilitate communication and to function in society. The cynic in me expect the chairman to keep on rowing his boat down this stream, so I expect things only to get worse.
I'd say it depends heavily on *how* rural. I personally picked the area I live in because it is on the edge between rural and suburban. So I'm close enough to the city that if I want to be around people, it's easy. But I really do enjoy the peace and quiet back on my property. Only problem I do currently have is the typical lack of internet options given that the lots around here average about 1 1/2 acre per, and mine is significantly larger.
And yet cities can be vast oceans of lonely people unable to connect.
Perhaps it was a thin veneer for pirating, however, there is a legitimate use otherwise for his service. That is, often times, enough to keep a product or service legal in the jurisdiction of the USA.
You appear to be conflating religion and ethnicity. Muslim is one who subscribes to the Islamic religion. A Christian is one who subscribes to the Christian religion. However, this is unlike with Jews: a person can be a Jew if he is only ethnically Jewish (born of Jewish lineage). You can be both Jewish ethnically and Jewish religiously, or you can be only Jewish ethnically. (You can't be Jewish only religiously - if you are accepted as religiously Jewish, you are automatically considered to become a part of the ethnicity. And there are genetic markers for being Jewish ethnically: most notable is probably the Cohen y-chromosome haplotype, which can at least designate Semitic origin.) There is no Muslim or Christian equivalent because those religions span a multitude of cultures, ethnicities, and regions of the world. In fact, the most populous Muslim country is not at all Arabic.
Bennett Hasselton, I didn't realize you learned how to cuss. :-)
I'm the submitter. I don't care if he stomps kittens in his spare time, and I doubt I've seen three of his videos before today. The dishonesty and cynicism here shown by allegedly reputable mainstream media outlets here is astonishing.
Ya know, if everybody would JUST IGNORE crap like this, maybe the "dishonest, cynical, allegedly reputable mainstream media outlets" would ALSO ignore it? It seems very evident to me that even you wish to continue perpetuating it, as if gives you something to complain about. It's crap like this that gets us The Donald as POTUS. And as much as I complain to people to just ignore things like this, I'd actually be a LOT happier if I didn't have to point this out even on occasion. And it'd be great if we could have some more actual tech pieces here rather than tabloid faux-drama pieces.
There's Judaism the religion, and there's Jewish the ethnic group. One can belong to the latter without subscribing to the former.
Being against the Israeli gov't does not per-say make one anti-Zionist. It makes them anti-current-gov't-of-Israel. Being anti-Zionist means you don't support the notion of a national Jewish homeland which happens to cover major portions of the historical homeland. And don't forget that there's a lot of antisemites out there that use (misuse?) the notion of being anti-Zionist as a cover to their actual antisemitic views and tendencies.
Again, this sidesteps the issue. Yes, you typically *expect* more infrastructure in an urban environment, and you expect some things to cost more than if you bought 1000 acres out in the middle of the Arizona desert or the Alaskan tundra. But what Chattanooga, TN, did isn't even an option here because the laws have all been bought by the incumbents who don't want to invest but also don't want to have anybody else invest. If the law wasn't in my way, my only real obstacle is getting enough neighbors to agree to put into the investment, and maybe convincing the county to issue a bond for the infrastructure. Sure we'd pay a bit more in taxes until retirement of the bond, but then we'd have the infrastructure. Oh and on a side note, this area won't remain rural for much longer. The metro area is heavily expanding, and 5 miles away is a neighborhood of cookie-cutter McMansions starting at around $450,000 with about 1/5 acre lots. That may not be expensive in Silicon Valley standards, but it is expensive in this state. (And my ad valorem taxation is at 2.29%, with some of the more expensive areas nearby going as high as 3.3%.)
You sidestep the issue that really is at hand: that the last mile is completely and utterly mismanaged in this country to the detriment of the populace. And I live in the "boondocks" just a few miles out of a metro area, and that's far enough to put you into "Hughes only territory". A fiber run here would be $750/mo for 10/10 mbps, for a term of 3 years. 30 GB I can blast through in a couple days being that I work in voip, and that would probably put me, with overage charges, up in the $500+ range per month. I don't have acres of vegetable to sell - in fact, this area isn't even remotely prime farming land. Now, if on the other hand the last mile infrastructure was open for municipal handling, and having the service running on top of it handled by any number of companies allowed to peer, then that would be a boon to both dwellers of the big expensive city as well as those who live in areas that are ignored by the incumbents because they won't make back enough profit in their 2-3 year ROI projections. But we can't do that here, not even the electric company (we have a law on the books that specifically forbids that for gawd knows what reason other than $$), and certainly not the residents of my area banding together to build a muni fiber network (again, the law...).
Why yes, I'd love latency in excess of 800 ms! That works very well with real time protocols like SIP & RTP. And "affordable" for various values of "affordable" ($125 for 30 GB per month sounds "affordable to you?). Also, notice how you only said affordable, not "reliable", because that it most certainly is not.
You want it still alive?
"Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not."
"I love you, *PHILLIP J. FRY*!" (blah blah blah stupid filter can't figure out that the caps is supposed to be terrible robotic voice synthesis and not the Lucy Liu Bot yelling...)
Gosh, I don't know whatever I would have done had I never found my favorite band thanks to payola I mean the RIAA and friends. Imagine how miserable my life would have been...
I guess the best word in English that I can come up with here is "relief", because all it does is provide a bit of relief to the person receiving it. The fact that you had latched onto the term "incentive" and how you are so adamant about ending it does suggest to me that you really haven't fully thought out the issue. Even with the relief that the government allots to those with children, our birthrates in the USA have been declining for a long time. Possibly it has to do with nothing more than lower infant and child mortality rates and better education for the masses. And I do believe that this birthrate will continue to decline until the population starts to retract.
I'm pretty sure that STILL doesn't cover the full cost of children. No, if I made an actual net salary/profit making babies, I'd have a frickin' harem ERRR I mean baby factory running here... Face it, you can try to warp reality to fit your narrative, but it's not an incentive if the person is still running at a net loss.