I'm sure such folks do exist. However, I prefer competency. I've heard some of my less... economically minded friends say similar things. "Healthcare would be better if folks remembered that healing is a CALLING, not a JOB!" Uhm. You haven't been thoroughly covered in some idiot's blood before, have you? Or cleaned bedpans. Or had to do any one of the fifty billion soul crushing parts of the medical industry.
Medical school is long, hard and expensive. Even if it was free, I'd hope it was long and hard. Doctors require a certain amount of intelligence. There are a limited number of folks that can realistically become a certified doctor. Those folks tend to be in demand. Any doctor could have become a lawyer, management or any other fairly high level gig. Sure, many doctors like helping heal folks. But they also may like living comfortably. Pay them as much as a burger flipper, and you're going to get more burger flipper results.
Well, I actually appreciate you winning me that dollar. I knew someone would scream their head off that because I want to intelligently make decisions based on yanno, science and whatnot that I'd be a no-good darn puppy kicking climate denier. Despite the fact that I haven't kicked any puppies and I believe humans do impact the environment. Instead of arguing from a position of emotions, some folks (myself included) would like numbers so sensible decisions could be made. You used insults and personal attacks instead of logic and reason. That is the problem, and that is what will hold back real solutions.
Feel free to continue. Tis your right to an opinion. Just remember you will alienate folks, and rightly make them question the validity of your side. Which is a shame, because as I previously said, I've seen how horribly bad that insanely lax environmental policies can be. People dumping trash into the same water sources they get their drinking water from. Burning coal with no filtering. Dumping chemicals into the ground. The Soviets were not down with taking care of the planet. It was bad, and will take decades to even partially mitigate.
Nothing will change until a) enough folks care to improve things and b) we know how to actually improve things. B is equally important. Without valid and accurate results, we will be flailing around in the dark. At best, we waste a lot of money, time and effort with mild and inefficient gains. At worst, we actually make the situation worse.
I'm arguing for accurate numbers so we can realistically do stuff. You can call that insulting and cowardly, tis your right. But that is how things are actually accomplished, from my experience. If I may ask, what is your preferred methodology if you don't care for the questions I asked?
I'm actually serious. I'm curious to what flaws you see in my viewpoint of the situation.
This is hilarious and sad. I do recommend on studying micro and macro economics. Short term profitable but destructive practices != economics. It is one tiny part of economics, one that I personally dislike. Most of my personal microeconomics tend to be the opposite. I am a very long term guy, it's just how I work.
I do love how "climate denier" has become a catchphrase for anyone you dislike. I've noticed "racism" is pretty much the same thing as well. Climate changes all the bloody time. I have zero doubt humanity has some influence on it. Question is, how much of an impact and what can we realistically do about it? Those are the important parts. Until those questions can be quantitatively answered, climate change can't be handled in any serious manner. It's not a religion, where belief and faith matters above all else.
USB storage devices have saved more trees than Earth First or Earth Liberation Front. It's fun to do "feel good" stuff that accomplishes nothing. Calling people on the interwebz "climate deniers", "evil profit makers", etc. Actually making a difference is HARD. Making superior products that are ecologically better is the key. Otherwise, you'll accomplish nothing. It's not about earning money, per se. It's about living in a civilized manner while doing your best not to ruin to the world so you can continue living in a nice place. Making a living and encouraging future developments (aka profits) is one component of it.
Actually, from what chemical engineers have told me, it's only "recently" (I have no idea the specifics) that alternatives have caught up to CFCs in efficiency. Which helped contribute to higher environmental impact. If CFC alternative is 20% less efficient, that's cumulatively a LOT more energy to achieve the same cooling. Which means more CO2 from burning coal or natural gas. So, while they may have overstated the matter, banning CFCs did have an initial negative climate impact. I'm not up on leaded gas impact, but I can imagine it was similar.
That is something to keep in mind. "If we ban X, what will happen?"
Fossil fuels are bigger than CFCs and leaded gasoline. It's akin to saying the moon is slightly larger than the surface area of Rhode Island. "Lost credibility" means nothing. Even if the Westboro Baptist Church declares 1+1=2, they're right. That is how science works. Consensus means jack. You're either right, or wrong. Sometimes "more accurate, or less accurate". Ditching fossil fuels would have an impact on virtually every facet of our lives. That's not a matter of credibility. It's how it is. It's entirely possible to do so. Economically viable, at this particular moment? I personally have no idea. I doubt it, and would personally say a phased approach is rarely a bad idea.
I hate to even point this out, because idiots will claim I am a global warming denier, climate change denier or kicker of cute puppies...
But I really wish that the climate change folks would take a note from the whole ozone thing. CFCs and other contributory substances (ozone-depleting substances (ODS)) were proven to have an impact. CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other alternative solvents with minimal costs. And the problem was economically solved for the most part.
Folks proved what the problem was (ozone depletion), what was a very significant contributor (CFCs), how everything happened (in a scientific "can be repeated, with the same results every time"), set up accurate and provable models (Single Layer Isentropic Model of Chemistry And Transport (SLIMCAT), CLaMS (Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere), etc), and how to economically mitigate the bad stuff by using less bad stuff. The last stage is arguably the most important. All of the climate change research and proof in the world is nice. But it doesn't mean jack if it doesn't produce economically acceptable alternatives.
X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).
I spent time in former Soviet countries and third world countries. I'm aware of how bad pollution can be. It can be horribly nasty. I'm also not a moron, so I realize you have to be able to realistically solve the problem if you want to mitigate it. I'll bet myself $1 that I get called a climate denier, right wing puppy kicker or whatnot anyways.
I concur. I'm very pro-farming in general, and I concur that farming subsidies have caused a lot of problems. While it's fairly obvious we should protect our domestic farming economy, there's less stupid and harmful ways of doing so.
While the overwhelming majority of corn turned into fuel ethanol is not human consumable, it is used as feed for livestock. The economic implications have already hit. Food prices are rising, as producers get squeezed. End consumers don't want more expensive meat. This goes the entire way up the stack, with pricing accordingly.
Not only that, but every acre of ethanol production corn is one less acre of food for human or animal consumption. So, veggies and starches go up as well. Not as much as livestock feed prices, but quite a bit.
Gets better. You need to grow the corn in advance of pouring it into a gas tank. Makes sense, right? Which means you'll have a minimum of one year of higher food prices across the board, as that is how far in advance (minimum) that corn production is locked in. It would be more intelligent to scale things back down slowly, but I doubt it'll happen. Worse, the EPA wants to move to 15% ethanol. Which is VERY bad for small engines not built for it. That's a couple billion dollars of motorcycles, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, generators, etc that may be damaged by higher ethanol rates. This sort of thing needs to be planned out a decade in advance, ideally.
Only the corn lobby, politicians accepting campaign donations and "environmentalists" made out on this one. Yes, some less bright environmentalists pushed for it as increasing "renewable" energy. Just because something is technically renewable doesn't mean we should do it. Burning food in our cars isn't the ideal solution. The environment and everyone in the US buying food took the hit for them. Thanks guys.
I'd rant about synthetic hydrocarbon fuels pulled from atmospheric carbon and cracked water (to provide hydrogen and oxygen), but I honestly don't feel like it at the moment. Back to programming the firewall.
I worked for lawyers back when I did international "munitions" exporting. Primarily FLIR cameras, still under ITAR. I second guessed lawyers all the time when it came to tech issues and how they fell under the law.
Why yes, I do my own homework even when I consult a lawyer. So should anyone. NOLO has many inexpensive awesome books. I usually do my homework in advance, write up everything, highlight the important parts and ask for the lawyer's opinion.
Your lawyer and your brokers have legal responsibility to give you good advice. However, they may not have incentives that match that responsibility. Suppose a lawyer was somehow obligated to handle a matter for a set fee. The advice will near ALWAYS be "settle". Because why work five times as much for the same cash?
Trust me. Take personal responsibility. Always. And knowing more rarely hurts, if you know your limits. The loan officer represents the bank, not you. Why would you ever trust their interests over your own?
If you buy a home, it's worth doing your homework. I delayed buying a home for well over 5 years, because the market was obviously a bubble. When everyone is talking about flipping X, and making "money for nothing", get out of that immediately. Doesn't matter if it's stock, houses, bonds, whatever. If you buy a house, you know you are going to pay X. If you can't pay X realistically on a long term basis, don't buy it. And there is a reason for the old rule of thumb of buying a house at 2.5 times your annual income. I knew people that when with interest only mortgages, ARMs, etc. They knew they were not making the best decision. But they couldn't see any other way to "get the house they always wanted".
Everyone involved went full retard. Consumers bought mortgages they knew they couldn't afford. Banks issued mortgages they knew were bad ideas. Investment companies packaged those bad idea mortgages into bundles of "really bad idea, now in bulk". Investors bought those bad idea mortgages. And then the government bailed them out. Which again, bad idea.
Only folks that got a beating were the ones that were reasonably smart and stayed within their means.
If he was a plant, he wouldn't have drawn attention to himself and would still quietly be working at Wikileaks, sabotaging whatever he could. Or giving at least a heads-up to his handlers. Don't get me wrong, informants can be problematic and handlers can be dumb. But all and all, if he was on the take, he'd be acting differently.
Incompetence or ego is significantly more likely than malice.
He has an agenda. Which is fine. Except that he's not entirely open about it. It'd be more honest, but admittedly not as effective, if he just announced his intentions upfront and transparently. Are the folks he outs bad people? Probably. Doesn't mean he's a good guy. Half of the United States' foreign policy problems stem from a belief in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Not by a landslide.
Everyone has an axe to grind. Figuring it out is sometimes easy, sometimes extremely convoluted. Assange has an ego the size of the Vatican.
That is incorrect, according to the training I received when I joined the military. UCMJ does have due process for Redcoats, Germans and al-Qaeda militants. It has gotten a bit more interesting, as we're not engaging nation states. But we've dealt with it before.
US citizens can lose their citizenship under 8 USC 1481 (a) (7), but that can / does require involvement of the courts. Even if a person is not a citizen or loses his or her citizenship, they are still entitled to Constitutional protections afforded to all people. Search and seizure laws, due process, et al. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that anyone could violate the rights of say, foreign tourists. Some sections of the Constitution clearly apply only to citizens (like voting), others are to all persons in the US, its territories and possessions.
Apparently the school thinks having a good sports program is economically worthwhile. Considering that the price of college keeps WELL ahead of inflation, it's just more "free" money from the federally backed loans that students take out. Where did you think all the cash was going?
Ah. I hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of high profile terrorists are college educated. Usually with STEM degrees. Kids who strap a bomb vest on? Not so much. The guy that made the vest, and remotely detonates it? Very much so.
Yep, failed Calculus that way. The professor's English was horrible, he was a Native Mandarin speaker and not remotely English proficient. Even his English writing was essentially not readable by anyone (including other Native Mandarin speaking students).
The department head clearly didn't care. "You should do just fine from the books, then."
I speak English, German and Albanian. Plus spent plenty of time overseas. There's no way I'd ethically accept a teaching position where I had to speak German or Albanian on highly technical terms at my current level of proficiency.
Syngas will be our future. At first, probably by natural gas and atmospheric carbon. Eventually water and atmospheric carbon. Due to the amount of electricity needed (it's in the TWh range), it'll have to be nuclear. Maybe if you covered all of the American southwest with ultra-efficient PV panels... Which would be more expensive, and significantly less environmentally friendly. Several hundreds of thousands of acres of PV panels will influence the environment.
We have enough fissionables to last us several thousand years, minimum.
I did chuckle.
Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't. If the companies decide not to collude, then yes. Google has no interest in forming an unofficial cartel. Traditional carriers do, hence why they have.
Not a chance. I was in the military. Short of an ACTUAL insurgency or revolution (or alien invasion), the military is not going to be shooting up American cities. One guy might go nuts, but he'd be clobbered by anyone else in the helicopter.
They'd call the cops and say "Dude, some loonie shot at us!"
There were no changes to the Selective Service program. Which provides the info for any draft in the US, or arguably the militia. So, vaguely but not directly related.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure such folks do exist. However, I prefer competency. I've heard some of my less ... economically minded friends say similar things. "Healthcare would be better if folks remembered that healing is a CALLING, not a JOB!" Uhm. You haven't been thoroughly covered in some idiot's blood before, have you? Or cleaned bedpans. Or had to do any one of the fifty billion soul crushing parts of the medical industry.
Medical school is long, hard and expensive. Even if it was free, I'd hope it was long and hard. Doctors require a certain amount of intelligence. There are a limited number of folks that can realistically become a certified doctor. Those folks tend to be in demand. Any doctor could have become a lawyer, management or any other fairly high level gig. Sure, many doctors like helping heal folks. But they also may like living comfortably. Pay them as much as a burger flipper, and you're going to get more burger flipper results.
Yea, because folks on the Intelligence committees shouldn't have clearances.
Well, I actually appreciate you winning me that dollar. I knew someone would scream their head off that because I want to intelligently make decisions based on yanno, science and whatnot that I'd be a no-good darn puppy kicking climate denier. Despite the fact that I haven't kicked any puppies and I believe humans do impact the environment. Instead of arguing from a position of emotions, some folks (myself included) would like numbers so sensible decisions could be made. You used insults and personal attacks instead of logic and reason. That is the problem, and that is what will hold back real solutions.
Feel free to continue. Tis your right to an opinion. Just remember you will alienate folks, and rightly make them question the validity of your side. Which is a shame, because as I previously said, I've seen how horribly bad that insanely lax environmental policies can be. People dumping trash into the same water sources they get their drinking water from. Burning coal with no filtering. Dumping chemicals into the ground. The Soviets were not down with taking care of the planet. It was bad, and will take decades to even partially mitigate.
Nothing will change until a) enough folks care to improve things and b) we know how to actually improve things. B is equally important. Without valid and accurate results, we will be flailing around in the dark. At best, we waste a lot of money, time and effort with mild and inefficient gains. At worst, we actually make the situation worse.
Hello there!
I'm arguing for accurate numbers so we can realistically do stuff. You can call that insulting and cowardly, tis your right. But that is how things are actually accomplished, from my experience. If I may ask, what is your preferred methodology if you don't care for the questions I asked?
I'm actually serious. I'm curious to what flaws you see in my viewpoint of the situation.
This is hilarious and sad. I do recommend on studying micro and macro economics. Short term profitable but destructive practices != economics. It is one tiny part of economics, one that I personally dislike. Most of my personal microeconomics tend to be the opposite. I am a very long term guy, it's just how I work.
I do love how "climate denier" has become a catchphrase for anyone you dislike. I've noticed "racism" is pretty much the same thing as well. Climate changes all the bloody time. I have zero doubt humanity has some influence on it. Question is, how much of an impact and what can we realistically do about it? Those are the important parts. Until those questions can be quantitatively answered, climate change can't be handled in any serious manner. It's not a religion, where belief and faith matters above all else.
USB storage devices have saved more trees than Earth First or Earth Liberation Front. It's fun to do "feel good" stuff that accomplishes nothing. Calling people on the interwebz "climate deniers", "evil profit makers", etc. Actually making a difference is HARD. Making superior products that are ecologically better is the key. Otherwise, you'll accomplish nothing. It's not about earning money, per se. It's about living in a civilized manner while doing your best not to ruin to the world so you can continue living in a nice place. Making a living and encouraging future developments (aka profits) is one component of it.
Actually, from what chemical engineers have told me, it's only "recently" (I have no idea the specifics) that alternatives have caught up to CFCs in efficiency. Which helped contribute to higher environmental impact. If CFC alternative is 20% less efficient, that's cumulatively a LOT more energy to achieve the same cooling. Which means more CO2 from burning coal or natural gas. So, while they may have overstated the matter, banning CFCs did have an initial negative climate impact. I'm not up on leaded gas impact, but I can imagine it was similar.
That is something to keep in mind. "If we ban X, what will happen?"
Fossil fuels are bigger than CFCs and leaded gasoline. It's akin to saying the moon is slightly larger than the surface area of Rhode Island. "Lost credibility" means nothing. Even if the Westboro Baptist Church declares 1+1=2, they're right. That is how science works. Consensus means jack. You're either right, or wrong. Sometimes "more accurate, or less accurate". Ditching fossil fuels would have an impact on virtually every facet of our lives. That's not a matter of credibility. It's how it is. It's entirely possible to do so. Economically viable, at this particular moment? I personally have no idea. I doubt it, and would personally say a phased approach is rarely a bad idea.
I hate to even point this out, because idiots will claim I am a global warming denier, climate change denier or kicker of cute puppies...
But I really wish that the climate change folks would take a note from the whole ozone thing. CFCs and other contributory substances (ozone-depleting substances (ODS)) were proven to have an impact. CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other alternative solvents with minimal costs. And the problem was economically solved for the most part.
Folks proved what the problem was (ozone depletion), what was a very significant contributor (CFCs), how everything happened (in a scientific "can be repeated, with the same results every time"), set up accurate and provable models (Single Layer Isentropic Model of Chemistry And Transport (SLIMCAT), CLaMS (Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere), etc), and how to economically mitigate the bad stuff by using less bad stuff. The last stage is arguably the most important. All of the climate change research and proof in the world is nice. But it doesn't mean jack if it doesn't produce economically acceptable alternatives.
X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).
I spent time in former Soviet countries and third world countries. I'm aware of how bad pollution can be. It can be horribly nasty. I'm also not a moron, so I realize you have to be able to realistically solve the problem if you want to mitigate it. I'll bet myself $1 that I get called a climate denier, right wing puppy kicker or whatnot anyways.
Other agricultural products. Feed stock, grains, etc.
I concur. I'm very pro-farming in general, and I concur that farming subsidies have caused a lot of problems. While it's fairly obvious we should protect our domestic farming economy, there's less stupid and harmful ways of doing so.
While the overwhelming majority of corn turned into fuel ethanol is not human consumable, it is used as feed for livestock. The economic implications have already hit. Food prices are rising, as producers get squeezed. End consumers don't want more expensive meat. This goes the entire way up the stack, with pricing accordingly.
Not only that, but every acre of ethanol production corn is one less acre of food for human or animal consumption. So, veggies and starches go up as well. Not as much as livestock feed prices, but quite a bit.
Gets better. You need to grow the corn in advance of pouring it into a gas tank. Makes sense, right? Which means you'll have a minimum of one year of higher food prices across the board, as that is how far in advance (minimum) that corn production is locked in. It would be more intelligent to scale things back down slowly, but I doubt it'll happen. Worse, the EPA wants to move to 15% ethanol. Which is VERY bad for small engines not built for it. That's a couple billion dollars of motorcycles, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, generators, etc that may be damaged by higher ethanol rates. This sort of thing needs to be planned out a decade in advance, ideally.
Only the corn lobby, politicians accepting campaign donations and "environmentalists" made out on this one. Yes, some less bright environmentalists pushed for it as increasing "renewable" energy. Just because something is technically renewable doesn't mean we should do it. Burning food in our cars isn't the ideal solution. The environment and everyone in the US buying food took the hit for them. Thanks guys.
I'd rant about synthetic hydrocarbon fuels pulled from atmospheric carbon and cracked water (to provide hydrogen and oxygen), but I honestly don't feel like it at the moment. Back to programming the firewall.
I can believe it. Housing has gotten very expensive for what you get. Still, buying at or below your means is usually a good rule of thumb.
I worked for lawyers back when I did international "munitions" exporting. Primarily FLIR cameras, still under ITAR. I second guessed lawyers all the time when it came to tech issues and how they fell under the law.
Why yes, I do my own homework even when I consult a lawyer. So should anyone. NOLO has many inexpensive awesome books. I usually do my homework in advance, write up everything, highlight the important parts and ask for the lawyer's opinion.
Your lawyer and your brokers have legal responsibility to give you good advice. However, they may not have incentives that match that responsibility. Suppose a lawyer was somehow obligated to handle a matter for a set fee. The advice will near ALWAYS be "settle". Because why work five times as much for the same cash?
Trust me. Take personal responsibility. Always. And knowing more rarely hurts, if you know your limits. The loan officer represents the bank, not you. Why would you ever trust their interests over your own?
A and B.
If you buy a home, it's worth doing your homework. I delayed buying a home for well over 5 years, because the market was obviously a bubble. When everyone is talking about flipping X, and making "money for nothing", get out of that immediately. Doesn't matter if it's stock, houses, bonds, whatever. If you buy a house, you know you are going to pay X. If you can't pay X realistically on a long term basis, don't buy it. And there is a reason for the old rule of thumb of buying a house at 2.5 times your annual income. I knew people that when with interest only mortgages, ARMs, etc. They knew they were not making the best decision. But they couldn't see any other way to "get the house they always wanted".
Everyone involved went full retard. Consumers bought mortgages they knew they couldn't afford. Banks issued mortgages they knew were bad ideas. Investment companies packaged those bad idea mortgages into bundles of "really bad idea, now in bulk". Investors bought those bad idea mortgages. And then the government bailed them out. Which again, bad idea.
Only folks that got a beating were the ones that were reasonably smart and stayed within their means.
Depends. I prefer reliable sources when I'm procuring software for businesses.
If he was a plant, he wouldn't have drawn attention to himself and would still quietly be working at Wikileaks, sabotaging whatever he could. Or giving at least a heads-up to his handlers. Don't get me wrong, informants can be problematic and handlers can be dumb. But all and all, if he was on the take, he'd be acting differently.
Incompetence or ego is significantly more likely than malice.
He has an agenda. Which is fine. Except that he's not entirely open about it. It'd be more honest, but admittedly not as effective, if he just announced his intentions upfront and transparently. Are the folks he outs bad people? Probably. Doesn't mean he's a good guy. Half of the United States' foreign policy problems stem from a belief in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Not by a landslide.
Everyone has an axe to grind. Figuring it out is sometimes easy, sometimes extremely convoluted. Assange has an ego the size of the Vatican.
Hey, you helped me out. Jotting down some notes.
That is incorrect, according to the training I received when I joined the military. UCMJ does have due process for Redcoats, Germans and al-Qaeda militants. It has gotten a bit more interesting, as we're not engaging nation states. But we've dealt with it before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War
US citizens can lose their citizenship under 8 USC 1481 (a) (7), but that can / does require involvement of the courts. Even if a person is not a citizen or loses his or her citizenship, they are still entitled to Constitutional protections afforded to all people. Search and seizure laws, due process, et al. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that anyone could violate the rights of say, foreign tourists. Some sections of the Constitution clearly apply only to citizens (like voting), others are to all persons in the US, its territories and possessions.
Supply and demand.
Apparently the school thinks having a good sports program is economically worthwhile. Considering that the price of college keeps WELL ahead of inflation, it's just more "free" money from the federally backed loans that students take out. Where did you think all the cash was going?
Ah. I hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of high profile terrorists are college educated. Usually with STEM degrees. Kids who strap a bomb vest on? Not so much. The guy that made the vest, and remotely detonates it? Very much so.
Yep, failed Calculus that way. The professor's English was horrible, he was a Native Mandarin speaker and not remotely English proficient. Even his English writing was essentially not readable by anyone (including other Native Mandarin speaking students).
The department head clearly didn't care. "You should do just fine from the books, then."
I speak English, German and Albanian. Plus spent plenty of time overseas. There's no way I'd ethically accept a teaching position where I had to speak German or Albanian on highly technical terms at my current level of proficiency.
Syngas will be our future. At first, probably by natural gas and atmospheric carbon. Eventually water and atmospheric carbon. Due to the amount of electricity needed (it's in the TWh range), it'll have to be nuclear. Maybe if you covered all of the American southwest with ultra-efficient PV panels... Which would be more expensive, and significantly less environmentally friendly. Several hundreds of thousands of acres of PV panels will influence the environment.
We have enough fissionables to last us several thousand years, minimum.
I did chuckle. Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't. If the companies decide not to collude, then yes. Google has no interest in forming an unofficial cartel. Traditional carriers do, hence why they have.
Not a chance. I was in the military. Short of an ACTUAL insurgency or revolution (or alien invasion), the military is not going to be shooting up American cities. One guy might go nuts, but he'd be clobbered by anyone else in the helicopter.
They'd call the cops and say "Dude, some loonie shot at us!"
There were no changes to the Selective Service program. Which provides the info for any draft in the US, or arguably the militia. So, vaguely but not directly related.