Yes, we should send the SWAT team to every parents' house at random intervals to make sure they're not letting their kids play GTA5, watch Skinnemax, or use the stove. It is imperative we do not allow people to make their own decisions.
You are postulating a problem where none exists, or where what problem exists is smaller than the cost of addressing it, or smaller than the cost of addressing similar problems.
I have ceramic brakes. I've always used them. Replace my brakes every several years. They cost $50 a pair, and stop a hell of a lot better than old style brakes--especially ceramic with 18% copper impregnation.
In one of our most crime-riddled cities, we engage in the practice of slugging. This amounts to carpooling without speaking: a slug gets into your car and rides along the way, no conversation, no compensation, because you're going the way they want to go.
Mostly, this has lower risks than taking a taxi. I don't understand why; more rapes, assaults, and robberies happen in bona-fide taxi service. This offends the rational senses.
Stanford receives electricity from two sources: Cardinal Cogen, an onsite natural gas cogeneration unit, and PG&E, a whatever the hell they are, neither of which uses coal.
The colon indicates the close relationship between the first sentence and the second. The comma was chosen for its stylistic consideration: a semicolon would represent stronger separation. "Either" and "neither" reference one subject, and must agree with a singular verb.
Source: "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk and E.B. White.
Stanford may better serve its short-term interests by remaining vested until the market conditions grant advantage to another investment (including cash holdings). This would increase Stanford's holdings, providing more basis to invest further, thus serving the long-term interests of its beneficiaries.
Holding a stock does not contribute to the company. When you sell, their bank accounts do not decrease. Stanford will sell high, raising or stabilizing the market value. They may sell low, creating a short spike down; this will harm their beneficiaries, while the stocks recover from the drop in several days's time.
Oil companies gain a good buy-back window when Stanford divests: Exxon-Mobil may buy XOM during the temporary dip, then re-issue the stock several days later. This would transfer Stanford money directly to Exxon-Mobil itself, supporting the company.
He talks about "What we lose in freedom" as a cost, and assumes it exceeds the benefits of mobile apps. Honestly, the cost of freedom is high for me: obtaining an app's source code, understanding it, modifying it, and re-deploying it carries an immense burden. Typically, the desired functionality is not worth the effort from me, and therefor a proprietary app for $2 is a huge economic win over an open source app that will require $2 (at $37/hr???) for me to update.
Roads, sewage, police, fireman, and education are all 100% state funded, occasionally using Federal grant money provided as a means to make states dependent on them and leverage them into passing laws the federal government isn't allowed to pass. For example: 21+ alcohol laws, the 0.08 BAC limit, and the 55mph national speed limit (which is no longer in effect) are all conditions for receiving Federal Government grant money for highway maintenance.
Most of your legal system is local, and then you appeal to the State. The Federal courts only apply when you violate Federal law--or appeal to the Supreme Court for unconstitutional behavior by your state.
Radio is regulated by the Federal government to create restrictions; individual corporations provide actual service. State, local, and Federal regulations command businesses in different ways: my state doesn't mandate comp time, so it's not a thing I have and my employer presses its employees for excessive free work.
The state also provides for some welfare services, such as housing assistance and unemployment. Our welfare system is strange and broken.
The Federal government does provide things; it provides things it should not in many cases, and in other cases provides things it should. Calculations with UBI showed me that you can, in fact, supply full UBI at the state level; Social Security would be harder--it's affected by your entire life history, so it's less mobile. (It's 14% UBI tax in my state, 18% at the Federal level, in my theoretical models for the same benefit; but that's a matter of economic activity, and i.e. Rhode Island would not be able to supply UBI.)
You're wrong. They specifically cite "Radical Muslims" who are also "Suspected Terrorists". These groups are separate.
I don't believe in the hands of many attorneys deciding that the minimal evidence of a person's connection to a crime or strategic threat is valid justification for bombing. Innocents die in these drone attacks: the average casualty is 50 men, many simply "militants", with the definition of "militant" being "a person over 18".
This has bothered me for a long time. What is "Radical Muslim Cleric"? They haven't given me anything to kill this man for; my parents are Radical Catholics and complain a lot about people saying "Happy Holidays" around Christmas time. I complain a lot about the egg lobby creating Easter.
It doesn't matter if it's painful or terrifying or cruel or torturous. As long as we perceive it as peaceful and humane, we accept that state execution is a beautiful thing that shows our benevolence as a civilized society.
The converse is better: it can be quick and painless, but it should horrify us.
That is retarded. "suffer the torment and humiliation of mounting a family-owned bicycle"? He's suffering the torment and humiliation of being a retard.
The problem is mechanical trumps electrical. Old, used washing machines and dryers are in vogue because electrical systems fail too often, while mechanical times reliably create and break a connection. Mechanical systems have few moving parts and thus less entropy; electrical systems have thousands of components (including a mechanical push button) which may fail and cause aberrant behavior.
Really, these electrical systems replace a dozen or so low-likelihood failure points with hundreds or even thousands of extremely-low-likelihood failure points.
By "failed", you mean "been lobbied against", "been bribed".
It's quite simple: you supply the same carry service to everyone, end of story. Your own service is carried? Fine. If it degrades service, it degrades everything: your whole ISP business becomes slow because your in-house Hulu has too much traffic, so people start switching out of your ISP, and then they find you're as slow as NetFlix on the next guy over so they use NetFlix.
Since you're not artificially slowing *anything* down, it turns out that your ISP business provides crappy service because you don't have the infrastructure to handle it. If you drop your existing service because "it made us slow", everyone will switch to Netflix and continue to clog your pipe. Therefor you fail because you have failed.
This works up to and including Comcast providing broadcast cable to compete with Netflix: they can throttle Netflix by not allocating as much bandwidth to their Cable Internet service. This also throttles Google, Slashdot, Wells Fargo, Wikipedia, etc etc.
Remember: the problem is Comcast throttling or charging Netflix specifically, or Hulu specifically, or Google specifically; it's not that their entire ISP business is non-viable and thus people are flocking to Cox. Remove this middle ground: either their shit works or it doesn't.
Fallacy of whole-body analogy: two things with analogical properties are not identical in the whole body.
By your own argument, aside from being fallacious, we see a similar problem with parenthood: we *could* take all kids away from bad parents, and we'd have to put a lot of kids the care of the government. Obviously we don't have a problem with misbehaved kids; we have a problem with misbehaved parents.
We don't have a problem with misbehaved ISPs; we have a problem with a misbehaving government. The government isn't regulating business correctly--too much regulation X, not enough regulation Y.
Your entire premise sets on an ideal of "appropriate regulation". Besides the basic question (why is this appropriate?), your entire argument procedural flaws: How do other services or owned content impact the ISP's behavior?
You suggest regulation to restrict ISPs to benefit by throttling certain traffic, i.e. that from Netflix and Hulu.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we should send the SWAT team to every parents' house at random intervals to make sure they're not letting their kids play GTA5, watch Skinnemax, or use the stove. It is imperative we do not allow people to make their own decisions.
You are postulating a problem where none exists, or where what problem exists is smaller than the cost of addressing it, or smaller than the cost of addressing similar problems.
I have ceramic brakes. I've always used them. Replace my brakes every several years. They cost $50 a pair, and stop a hell of a lot better than old style brakes--especially ceramic with 18% copper impregnation.
In nearly half a million years of human evolution, some 10,000 year period was largely devoted to refining the human fist into an adequate substitute for a rock.
I was made prepared.
No, you let people decide if they care to. Uber hasn't been killed off by a string of murders and rapes; it's been killed off by politicians.
In one of our most crime-riddled cities, we engage in the practice of slugging. This amounts to carpooling without speaking: a slug gets into your car and rides along the way, no conversation, no compensation, because you're going the way they want to go.
Mostly, this has lower risks than taking a taxi. I don't understand why; more rapes, assaults, and robberies happen in bona-fide taxi service. This offends the rational senses.
It would make Social Security solvent again.
You must keep lists in the same form!
Stanford receives electricity from two sources: Cardinal Cogen, an onsite natural gas cogeneration unit, and PG&E, a whatever the hell they are, neither of which uses coal.
The colon indicates the close relationship between the first sentence and the second. The comma was chosen for its stylistic consideration: a semicolon would represent stronger separation. "Either" and "neither" reference one subject, and must agree with a singular verb.
Source: "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk and E.B. White.
Not quite.
Stanford may better serve its short-term interests by remaining vested until the market conditions grant advantage to another investment (including cash holdings). This would increase Stanford's holdings, providing more basis to invest further, thus serving the long-term interests of its beneficiaries.
Holding a stock does not contribute to the company. When you sell, their bank accounts do not decrease. Stanford will sell high, raising or stabilizing the market value. They may sell low, creating a short spike down; this will harm their beneficiaries, while the stocks recover from the drop in several days's time.
Oil companies gain a good buy-back window when Stanford divests: Exxon-Mobil may buy XOM during the temporary dip, then re-issue the stock several days later. This would transfer Stanford money directly to Exxon-Mobil itself, supporting the company.
He talks about "What we lose in freedom" as a cost, and assumes it exceeds the benefits of mobile apps. Honestly, the cost of freedom is high for me: obtaining an app's source code, understanding it, modifying it, and re-deploying it carries an immense burden. Typically, the desired functionality is not worth the effort from me, and therefor a proprietary app for $2 is a huge economic win over an open source app that will require $2 (at $37/hr???) for me to update.
Roads, sewage, police, fireman, and education are all 100% state funded, occasionally using Federal grant money provided as a means to make states dependent on them and leverage them into passing laws the federal government isn't allowed to pass. For example: 21+ alcohol laws, the 0.08 BAC limit, and the 55mph national speed limit (which is no longer in effect) are all conditions for receiving Federal Government grant money for highway maintenance.
Most of your legal system is local, and then you appeal to the State. The Federal courts only apply when you violate Federal law--or appeal to the Supreme Court for unconstitutional behavior by your state.
Radio is regulated by the Federal government to create restrictions; individual corporations provide actual service. State, local, and Federal regulations command businesses in different ways: my state doesn't mandate comp time, so it's not a thing I have and my employer presses its employees for excessive free work.
The state also provides for some welfare services, such as housing assistance and unemployment. Our welfare system is strange and broken.
The Federal government does provide things; it provides things it should not in many cases, and in other cases provides things it should. Calculations with UBI showed me that you can, in fact, supply full UBI at the state level; Social Security would be harder--it's affected by your entire life history, so it's less mobile. (It's 14% UBI tax in my state, 18% at the Federal level, in my theoretical models for the same benefit; but that's a matter of economic activity, and i.e. Rhode Island would not be able to supply UBI.)
You're wrong. They specifically cite "Radical Muslims" who are also "Suspected Terrorists". These groups are separate.
I don't believe in the hands of many attorneys deciding that the minimal evidence of a person's connection to a crime or strategic threat is valid justification for bombing. Innocents die in these drone attacks: the average casualty is 50 men, many simply "militants", with the definition of "militant" being "a person over 18".
That's all the fucking time.
This has bothered me for a long time. What is "Radical Muslim Cleric"? They haven't given me anything to kill this man for; my parents are Radical Catholics and complain a lot about people saying "Happy Holidays" around Christmas time. I complain a lot about the egg lobby creating Easter.
A window is like X-ray vision!
At least they didn't drinkify snacks and snackify drinks.
Defense spending is a tiny, tiny fraction of the US budget.
It doesn't matter if it's painful or terrifying or cruel or torturous. As long as we perceive it as peaceful and humane, we accept that state execution is a beautiful thing that shows our benevolence as a civilized society.
The converse is better: it can be quick and painless, but it should horrify us.
I love to drive stick shift cars, but I don't delude myself into thinking I'm safer driving them. I'm not.
I am, however.
That is retarded. "suffer the torment and humiliation of mounting a family-owned bicycle"? He's suffering the torment and humiliation of being a retard.
The problem is mechanical trumps electrical. Old, used washing machines and dryers are in vogue because electrical systems fail too often, while mechanical times reliably create and break a connection. Mechanical systems have few moving parts and thus less entropy; electrical systems have thousands of components (including a mechanical push button) which may fail and cause aberrant behavior.
Really, these electrical systems replace a dozen or so low-likelihood failure points with hundreds or even thousands of extremely-low-likelihood failure points.
By "failed", you mean "been lobbied against", "been bribed".
It's quite simple: you supply the same carry service to everyone, end of story. Your own service is carried? Fine. If it degrades service, it degrades everything: your whole ISP business becomes slow because your in-house Hulu has too much traffic, so people start switching out of your ISP, and then they find you're as slow as NetFlix on the next guy over so they use NetFlix.
Since you're not artificially slowing *anything* down, it turns out that your ISP business provides crappy service because you don't have the infrastructure to handle it. If you drop your existing service because "it made us slow", everyone will switch to Netflix and continue to clog your pipe. Therefor you fail because you have failed.
This works up to and including Comcast providing broadcast cable to compete with Netflix: they can throttle Netflix by not allocating as much bandwidth to their Cable Internet service. This also throttles Google, Slashdot, Wells Fargo, Wikipedia, etc etc.
Remember: the problem is Comcast throttling or charging Netflix specifically, or Hulu specifically, or Google specifically; it's not that their entire ISP business is non-viable and thus people are flocking to Cox. Remove this middle ground: either their shit works or it doesn't.
The state is analogous to the parents of businesses and the servants of individuals.
Yes, but we can do that without restricting them from providing other services.
Fallacy of whole-body analogy: two things with analogical properties are not identical in the whole body.
By your own argument, aside from being fallacious, we see a similar problem with parenthood: we *could* take all kids away from bad parents, and we'd have to put a lot of kids the care of the government. Obviously we don't have a problem with misbehaved kids; we have a problem with misbehaved parents.
We don't have a problem with misbehaved ISPs; we have a problem with a misbehaving government. The government isn't regulating business correctly--too much regulation X, not enough regulation Y.
Begging the question.
Your entire premise sets on an ideal of "appropriate regulation". Besides the basic question (why is this appropriate?), your entire argument procedural flaws: How do other services or owned content impact the ISP's behavior?
You suggest regulation to restrict ISPs to benefit by throttling certain traffic, i.e. that from Netflix and Hulu.