your federal paper insulated wireline monopoly... How is going back to a NN protected monopoly going to move community broadband forward? Consider the federal rules that protected monopoly paper insulated wireline for years. That did not to result in competition, new network, faster networks. With federal NN rules the existing monopoly networks got protection. Time to start allowing some completion and new innovate services. Using new federal rules to protect networks using NN will not result in innovate new services. Open networking up to the free market and some real competition.
A bit lacking in syntax and grammar, but basically correct.
But what the Left wants is free internet for everyone provided by heavily-government-regulated providers and for which you'll pay as part of income tax every year to the IRS like the ACA individual mandate. There's already one tax just for existing, why not more?
Clean, reliable, filtered, regulated, and controlled internet. A perfect platform for commercialization, monetization, and propaganda/thought-control.
The modern "Telescreen".
But, first things first. First, government must gain and then incrementally expand regulatory control. This is what the noise here is all about.
Can't agree there. They might have been trying in the past to get nuclear weapons. (Can you really blame them with nuclear armed enemies in the region, and the fact that US will run roughshod over any country in the region it wants- but is scared of attacking countries with nuclear arms, like N.K?) Nuclear weapons guarentees their independence and helps put them on equal terms with Israel who is always screaming at the US to give them Iranian blood.
Iran is no pleasant state. They are full of radical nutjobs and aren't too in love with us; however, they've been after peace. They've been very adamant about peace and maintaining the peace deals. This is the US rattling sabres, Iran has been consistent and calm for a while.
"Consistent and calm for a while"!? You mean other than basically sweeping down across Iraq into Syria with the forces they back?
If you think Iran is after peace and don't acknowledge the role that the 12th Imam prophecy is playing in Iran's strategic national goals then you are being willfully blind and ignorant. Iran is not just full of radical nutjobs, they're the ones in control of everything.
Iran is not bargaining and has never bargained in good faith with Israel or the US and the West. They feel no obligation to be honest with kaffurs. They view any treaty or agreement of any kind as only a tool through which to strengthen their position and weaken ours with no intentions to honor them any more than they must to maintain appearances.
Remember Chamberlain? Let's not do that again, hmm?
Am I the only one who feels like a certain orange-haired jackass with Tourette's Syndrome is trying to gear us up for open war against Iran? Flag as Inappropriate
I'm no fan of Trump, but honestly it's Iran that's "gearing up" for war with the West.
In case you've failed to notice, Iran is being run by a bunch of bat-shit insane religious zealots...I don't mean your Scientology/Westboro Baptist kind of nuttery, I mean death-cult kind of insane. They believe in the prophecy of the 12th Imam, and that only by bathing the world in blood and fire can the prophecy be fulfilled, and furthermore it's their duty to bring it about as faithful believers. They WILL push the nuke button even when it means they all die if they believe doing so will fulfill the prophecy.
All the US administrations previous have known this but just kicked the can down the road rather than deal with it on their watch. I too worry about Trump being the POTUS when the SHTF regarding Iran, but Trump is hardly to blame here. There are no winning moves here thanks to all those previous opportunities to rein-in Iran that were passed by in the previous decades for political expediency.
...Is going to pay for all the AR street-cleaners to clean up all the AR animal-guide poo? Who wants to track *that* all over your carpet from your AR shoes?
Google is even testing adding a helpful augmented reality animal guide to lead you along the way.
Just because our government is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of BigCorp does not make OP's assertion untrue; it simply means our government has been corrupted because it was infiltrated and co-opted.
But the point is WHY is it corrupted, besides basic human nature?
The answer, young padawan, is that government becomes corrupt when there's enough power and control concentrated in one place to make it worthwhile. It's impossible to corrupt a federal regulatory agency that does not exist, and corrupting fifty or more independent regulatory bodies while remaining unnoticed while each is corrupted in turn is equally impossible in any realistic scenario of a functioning government.
Ironically, the best way for a megacorp to free itself of regulation is to persuade politicians to create a federal regulatory body as that means one-stop-shopping for all their corrupt-bureaucrats-that-wield-power-over-the-whole-country shopping needs.
Any time there is a concentration of government power you will find corruption in proportion to the amount of power in question. It's basic human nature. People suck in general and will abuse power. This goes triple for those who seek power through public office, even if they go in with good intentions.
They don't have to hire a data protection officer, but they still need to follow everything else.
Or simply pay $9 to have no worries, time, money, or energy spent on GDPR compliance issues at all. Pretty easy decision if your primary target audience/customers are not in the EU.
Remember, the internet treats such things as damage and routes around them.
Did you ever stop long enough to think that just maybe the rise in CO2 levels were part of a natural feedback
We know that the extra CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.
The natural systems don't care where the CO2 came from. It just increases vegetation growth whether the CO2 came from a '71 Ford Pinto exploding and burning or from a new herd of moose exhaling CO2.
Human CO2 production from industrialization simply accelerates the natural cycle to produce the resources for increased population just as industrialization itself promotes an acceleration in population growth.
Of course, I can see why authoritarian governments would want food to become even more scarce by preventing the otherwise naturally-occurring changes that would bring about a more-plentiful food supply. Starving populations are much easier to control.
Do you have to work at being this stupid? All these scenarios are not covered by the GDPR.
You must possess expert knowledge as apparently you've worked much harder at "stupid".
Enough things ARE covered that for many websites, businesses, and services on the internet outside the EU, blocking EU visitors is the cheapest and simplest solution.
Just the amount of time spent trying to find out what the GDPR covers is worth far more than the USD $9 required to block EU visitors and remove all compliance worries.
Enjoy your "kid's table" internet. When you've matured we may allow you to sit with the grown-ups.
Plants need water to grow, therefore plants cannot be overwatered.
If plants could survive within an average range anywhere from 1 to 10 liters of water a day and grew best between 7 to 9, increasing liters/day from 3 to 5 will not "over-water" them. Same with CO2. Plants in fact thrive at CO2 levels far beyond even the worst projections.
Did you ever stop long enough to think that just maybe the rise in CO2 levels were part of a natural feedback and balancing mechanism to provide increased amounts of animal life with increased vegetation as food and habitat as well as for recycling their waste? Natural symmetry says yes. After all, when there's more vegetation animal life will grow to the limits of the ability for the vegetation to support it. Why would there not be a natural mechanism to accomplish the reverse?
Somehow, libertarians never live in countries with true libertarianism, like Somalia or Chad.
Nearly all sane libertarians understand that there must be *some* government for the exact reasons you mentioned and more.
Libertarianism =/= Anarchy
Nice job killing that stereotyped and propagandized image of libertarians all being extreme zero-government anarchist nutcases that you parroted like a good tool, though. A fine piece of political/ideological bigotry by anyone's standards. [golf clap]
So for everyone to maximize their freedom they would need to live alone and not rely on anybody else
Your logical failure is: "False Dichotomy".
You can be free (not in the absolute sense, we are not Sith here) and live and work among millions of people.
If you're "maximizing freedom" (maximum freedom is "anarchy" BTW and nobody wants that) you're also "maximizing" the freedom of association. If I voluntarily trade something that I have that someone else wants for something they have that I want, no freedoms have been lost on either side. That changes if there's someone else standing there with a gun forcing me to trade (or not) with this other person/entity and/or sets the prices, terms, and conditions, etc.
They just use their "government" face (lobbyist politicians) whenever they do something you livestock might not like, to get you to hate the very and onl concept that could save you from them: An *actual* government. Like an *actually* democratic one. Aka without "representatives" (aka corporate lobbyists), let alone senators (aka "former" nobility old boys club. *literally*.).
Keep in mind that your freedom as a human being is a zero-sum game.
The more power you give to others and/or government, the less freedom everyone has.
A large government is large basically because it has many things to do, and that's because it has many powers.
Because a large government necessarily has many powers by definition, the people it governs have less freedom.
If the federal government was small and didn't have a lot of domestic power, scope, and control, it would not be such a target and opportunity for corruption.
Governments should be designed like a computer network that handles power/force instead of data. A network built of numerous nearly stand-alone computers with a variety of hardware, OS's, security suites, etc is far more secure against being suborned as opposed to a bunch of dumb terminals, all alike, totally dependent on a master mainframe.
Fortunately, there are already plans written for just such a system designed by some of the very first network security design geniuses. We just have to get the current iteration returned to more closely resemble the original design specs.
After reading TFS (I know, I know) that was my first thought as well.
The plausible likelihood that something like that could happen at all (remember, multiple drones means multiple operators coordinating) in the first place is well into the serious-doubt range, and then in addition, that something so outrageously outlandish to most people that it could be a scene from a bad Austin Powers sequel, and this does *not* hit the news!?
I suspect government psy-ops until proven otherwise. Since Hoover the FBI has not exactly been known for trustworthiness and it's only been getting worse, especially of late with the extreme partisan politicization of the main federal domestic law enforcement agency.
If I'd joined the FBI (or any other government agency, department, etc) for all the right reasons and kept my nose clean and done the best job I could, I'd be righteously pissed at upper leadership and would do what I could to expose them and clean up the Bureau (or other government agency, etc) so that there was some honor & pride to be in the organization you're serving instead of the current shame. At least, if you have family, think about the world you want your kids and your grandkids to grow up in.
all of the progeny of those crooked Dem politicians later switched to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act was passed
LOL! That old "Southern strategy" chestnut!?
C'mon, Pope, you can do better than *that*!
You and I both know it's ridiculous and debunked a thousand times over, long ago. Literally *millions* of long-time Southern Democrats suddenly and simultaneously switching to Republican? Ludicrous on it's face! You'd have to drink a *lot* of kool-ade to honestly believe it. Don't forget, I'm old enough to remember the '68 Civil Rights Act, the '68 riots, etc. I remember seeing and hearing Democrats start this propaganda meme. It hasn't gotten any truer in the decades since.
It was Tennessee. They were likely not counting the votes at all and just deciding on the results over drinks in a hotel ballroom.
Better keep in mind what happened in Athens, TN when the Democrats in government there attempted to commit vote fraud when you start throwing around bigoted statements like that.
Isn't using blanket stereotypes for groups of people something the Left is always accusing those on the Right of?
Once again, if you want to know what those on the Left are guilty of, just listen to what they accuse their opponents of. Basic Saul Alinsky/'Rules For Radicals' tactic; "Loudly accuse your opponents of what you do."
You knew I was not going to let you get away with that, right Pope?
It's rather silly to expect homeowners to pay the tax rates of a multinational hotel chain to rent out their home or apartment for a couple of months while they go on a cruise or something
It's rather silly to claim that's the primary use case for AirBnB as opposed to professional, permanent rentals. It's also silly to think that it's outrageous to expect the same tax rates of homeowners... taxes are on profit (income) or per room (occupancy.) The fact that they are rates fixes that.
Did you even read both my entire posts? I addressed those concerns regarding using it as primary income rentals in a much more effective way than charging, as most of the larger cities do, ridiculous "occupancy rates" that typically per-unit far exceeds what hotels and motels are paying. Often these rates are copy-pasta straight from "industry" (read; the hotels/motels/etc) by the corrupt local politicians as simply a protection scheme for the hotels and more loot for politicians to waste or pocket.
There were regulations with licensed people only able to participate. Those are actual BnB rules. AirBnB,and their operators, just ignore them.
Because, as stated above, those laws and regulations are in many if not most cases about protecting every last possible cent hotel chains can squeeze out by putting the boot on people through corrupt government when much more fair & equitable laws & regulations that actually work as intended could easily be implemented with lawmakers who are not taking money from and acting in the interests of the hotel/hospitality industry.
How about creating regulations such that in areas that have a population density higher than a set amount, property owners who wish to participate in AirBnB-style activities must be licensed. Make it cheap, like $25 or less for a year so that people will comply. Place restrictions on how many weeks/months out of a year the property may be rented out. If your property is not in a high population density area, then no restrictions or license necessary.
As an additional thought, the number of properties that property owners applying for a license in high-population-density areas could register could be limited, and in super-high-population-density areas and certain locations such an apartment in a major metropolitan high-rise and/or a property located in a high-crime-rate area, could be required to show proof they carry an additional rider for damage & liability on their property insurance for a minimum amount based on average actuarial numbers to cover against possible damages or other liability incurred by their temporary tenants.
All the suggestions here and in my post above that I quoted serve not only to protect communities but also discourage those who would seek to turn a great idea for a homeowner to recoup some costs of a trip or vacation by temporarily renting their home into a multi-property commercial enterprise that *is* essentially a commercial hostel service competing with hotels.
Yes. Hotels have daily housekeeping. No Airbnb place I have stayed at does. The market has spoken: Many people don't want to pay for that.
However, if Airbnb is popular because they don't pay a hotel tax, for example, then that is tax evasion, not free-market competition.
Why can't there be a middle-ground?
It's rather silly to expect homeowners to pay the tax rates of a multinational hotel chain to rent out their home or apartment for a couple of months while they go on a cruise or something, but there are legitimate concerns and problems that do in fact need to be addressed.
How about creating regulations such that in areas that have a population density higher than a set amount, property owners who wish to participate in AirBnB-style activities must be licensed. Make it cheap, like $25 or less for a year so that people will comply. Place restrictions on how many weeks/months out of a year the property may be rented out. If your property is not in a high population density area, then no restrictions or license necessary.
I think the point FudRucker is making that there is no point in buying high-end stuff at premium prices when a year or two down the line you will have to apply crippleware patches to secure it - and reduce it to half the original performance; if you buy yesterday's tech, you could get the same cripplewared performance at a fraction of the price.
That's why you release new OS's and software that *only* work with "new generation" hardware while promulgating new web standards that embrace "new generation" hardware-specific standards but are incompatible with the old.
If he is anti-social-justice he must be shunned anyway, this simply saves llvm from having to kick him out.
The problem I see is he could possibly join another project or be hired by some corporation and that must be prevented. Anyone who rejects the social justice movement is unfit to fill any role in a civilized society except that of prison inmate or involuntary organ donor. There is no room for patriarchal white supremacist cis-gendered Neanderthals in a civilized society.
So, then, there will no longer be a market, just a big Tesla monopoly? A huge, too-big-to-fail single source? That certainly is an interesting path to profitability.
Why do people who cheer this on hate cars so much?
Well, we could have a government committee design the cars and production methods and license a set of manufacturers to perform the work. That would assure no single company could out-innovate the others and capture "too much" of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
your federal paper insulated wireline monopoly ...
How is going back to a NN protected monopoly going to move community broadband forward?
Consider the federal rules that protected monopoly paper insulated wireline for years.
That did not to result in competition, new network, faster networks.
With federal NN rules the existing monopoly networks got protection.
Time to start allowing some completion and new innovate services.
Using new federal rules to protect networks using NN will not result in innovate new services.
Open networking up to the free market and some real competition.
A bit lacking in syntax and grammar, but basically correct.
But what the Left wants is free internet for everyone provided by heavily-government-regulated providers and for which you'll pay as part of income tax every year to the IRS like the ACA individual mandate. There's already one tax just for existing, why not more?
Clean, reliable, filtered, regulated, and controlled internet. A perfect platform for commercialization, monetization, and propaganda/thought-control.
The modern "Telescreen".
But, first things first. First, government must gain and then incrementally expand regulatory control. This is what the noise here is all about.
Strat
Can't agree there. They might have been trying in the past to get nuclear weapons. (Can you really blame them with nuclear armed enemies in the region, and the fact that US will run roughshod over any country in the region it wants- but is scared of attacking countries with nuclear arms, like N.K?) Nuclear weapons guarentees their independence and helps put them on equal terms with Israel who is always screaming at the US to give them Iranian blood.
Iran is no pleasant state. They are full of radical nutjobs and aren't too in love with us; however, they've been after peace. They've been very adamant about peace and maintaining the peace deals. This is the US rattling sabres, Iran has been consistent and calm for a while.
"Consistent and calm for a while"!? You mean other than basically sweeping down across Iraq into Syria with the forces they back?
If you think Iran is after peace and don't acknowledge the role that the 12th Imam prophecy is playing in Iran's strategic national goals then you are being willfully blind and ignorant. Iran is not just full of radical nutjobs, they're the ones in control of everything.
Iran is not bargaining and has never bargained in good faith with Israel or the US and the West. They feel no obligation to be honest with kaffurs. They view any treaty or agreement of any kind as only a tool through which to strengthen their position and weaken ours with no intentions to honor them any more than they must to maintain appearances.
Remember Chamberlain? Let's not do that again, hmm?
Strat
Am I the only one who feels like a certain orange-haired jackass with Tourette's Syndrome is trying to gear us up for open war against Iran?
Flag as Inappropriate
I'm no fan of Trump, but honestly it's Iran that's "gearing up" for war with the West.
In case you've failed to notice, Iran is being run by a bunch of bat-shit insane religious zealots...I don't mean your Scientology/Westboro Baptist kind of nuttery, I mean death-cult kind of insane. They believe in the prophecy of the 12th Imam, and that only by bathing the world in blood and fire can the prophecy be fulfilled, and furthermore it's their duty to bring it about as faithful believers. They WILL push the nuke button even when it means they all die if they believe doing so will fulfill the prophecy.
All the US administrations previous have known this but just kicked the can down the road rather than deal with it on their watch. I too worry about Trump being the POTUS when the SHTF regarding Iran, but Trump is hardly to blame here. There are no winning moves here thanks to all those previous opportunities to rein-in Iran that were passed by in the previous decades for political expediency.
Strat
...Is going to pay for all the AR street-cleaners to clean up all the AR animal-guide poo? Who wants to track *that* all over your carpet from your AR shoes?
Google is even testing adding a helpful augmented reality animal guide to lead you along the way.
At least it wipes off, like with a cloth.
Strat
Just because our government is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of BigCorp does not make OP's assertion untrue; it simply means our government has been corrupted because it was infiltrated and co-opted.
But the point is WHY is it corrupted, besides basic human nature?
The answer, young padawan, is that government becomes corrupt when there's enough power and control concentrated in one place to make it worthwhile. It's impossible to corrupt a federal regulatory agency that does not exist, and corrupting fifty or more independent regulatory bodies while remaining unnoticed while each is corrupted in turn is equally impossible in any realistic scenario of a functioning government.
Ironically, the best way for a megacorp to free itself of regulation is to persuade politicians to create a federal regulatory body as that means one-stop-shopping for all their corrupt-bureaucrats-that-wield-power-over-the-whole-country shopping needs.
Any time there is a concentration of government power you will find corruption in proportion to the amount of power in question. It's basic human nature. People suck in general and will abuse power. This goes triple for those who seek power through public office, even if they go in with good intentions.
Strat
I am not willing to take any slowdown to my routine.
dude! you're not supposed to just tell everyone you're the flash!
[Achmed The Dead Terrorist voice]
Mr....."Hurricane"!
[/Achmed The Dead Terrorist voice]
They don't have to hire a data protection officer, but they still need to follow everything else.
Or simply pay $9 to have no worries, time, money, or energy spent on GDPR compliance issues at all. Pretty easy decision if your primary target audience/customers are not in the EU.
Remember, the internet treats such things as damage and routes around them.
Strat
The natural systems don't care where the CO2 came from. It just increases vegetation growth whether the CO2 came from a '71 Ford Pinto exploding and burning or from a new herd of moose exhaling CO2.
Human CO2 production from industrialization simply accelerates the natural cycle to produce the resources for increased population just as industrialization itself promotes an acceleration in population growth.
Of course, I can see why authoritarian governments would want food to become even more scarce by preventing the otherwise naturally-occurring changes that would bring about a more-plentiful food supply. Starving populations are much easier to control.
Strat
Do you have to work at being this stupid? All these scenarios are not covered by the GDPR.
You must possess expert knowledge as apparently you've worked much harder at "stupid".
Enough things ARE covered that for many websites, businesses, and services on the internet outside the EU, blocking EU visitors is the cheapest and simplest solution.
Just the amount of time spent trying to find out what the GDPR covers is worth far more than the USD $9 required to block EU visitors and remove all compliance worries.
Enjoy your "kid's table" internet. When you've matured we may allow you to sit with the grown-ups.
Strat
Plants need water to grow, therefore plants cannot be overwatered.
If plants could survive within an average range anywhere from 1 to 10 liters of water a day and grew best between 7 to 9, increasing liters/day from 3 to 5 will not "over-water" them. Same with CO2. Plants in fact thrive at CO2 levels far beyond even the worst projections.
Did you ever stop long enough to think that just maybe the rise in CO2 levels were part of a natural feedback and balancing mechanism to provide increased amounts of animal life with increased vegetation as food and habitat as well as for recycling their waste? Natural symmetry says yes. After all, when there's more vegetation animal life will grow to the limits of the ability for the vegetation to support it. Why would there not be a natural mechanism to accomplish the reverse?
Strat
Somehow, libertarians never live in countries with true libertarianism, like Somalia or Chad.
Nearly all sane libertarians understand that there must be *some* government for the exact reasons you mentioned and more.
Libertarianism =/= Anarchy
Nice job killing that stereotyped and propagandized image of libertarians all being extreme zero-government anarchist nutcases that you parroted like a good tool, though. A fine piece of political/ideological bigotry by anyone's standards. [golf clap]
Strat
So for everyone to maximize their freedom they would need to live alone and not rely on anybody else
Your logical failure is: "False Dichotomy".
You can be free (not in the absolute sense, we are not Sith here) and live and work among millions of people.
If you're "maximizing freedom" (maximum freedom is "anarchy" BTW and nobody wants that) you're also "maximizing" the freedom of association. If I voluntarily trade something that I have that someone else wants for something they have that I want, no freedoms have been lost on either side. That changes if there's someone else standing there with a gun forcing me to trade (or not) with this other person/entity and/or sets the prices, terms, and conditions, etc.
Strat
False. People may have more power under a big gov, because it can keep corporations in check.
LOL! "Keep them in check"!?!?
Look around you. How's that been working out?
Large government and corporations merge.
It's been called the "Military-Industrial Complex" but more accurately today it would be the "Military-Industrial-Information Complex".
Strat
They just use their "government" face (lobbyist politicians) whenever they do something you livestock might not like, to get you to hate the very and onl concept that could save you from them: An *actual* government. Like an *actually* democratic one. Aka without "representatives" (aka corporate lobbyists), let alone senators (aka "former" nobility old boys club. *literally*.).
Keep in mind that your freedom as a human being is a zero-sum game.
The more power you give to others and/or government, the less freedom everyone has.
A large government is large basically because it has many things to do, and that's because it has many powers.
Because a large government necessarily has many powers by definition, the people it governs have less freedom.
If the federal government was small and didn't have a lot of domestic power, scope, and control, it would not be such a target and opportunity for corruption.
Governments should be designed like a computer network that handles power/force instead of data. A network built of numerous nearly stand-alone computers with a variety of hardware, OS's, security suites, etc is far more secure against being suborned as opposed to a bunch of dumb terminals, all alike, totally dependent on a master mainframe.
Fortunately, there are already plans written for just such a system designed by some of the very first network security design geniuses. We just have to get the current iteration returned to more closely resemble the original design specs.
https://www.usconstitution.net...
Strat
Who says that happened?
The FBI?
Got any independent corroboration?
After reading TFS (I know, I know) that was my first thought as well.
The plausible likelihood that something like that could happen at all (remember, multiple drones means multiple operators coordinating) in the first place is well into the serious-doubt range, and then in addition, that something so outrageously outlandish to most people that it could be a scene from a bad Austin Powers sequel, and this does *not* hit the news!?
I suspect government psy-ops until proven otherwise. Since Hoover the FBI has not exactly been known for trustworthiness and it's only been getting worse, especially of late with the extreme partisan politicization of the main federal domestic law enforcement agency.
If I'd joined the FBI (or any other government agency, department, etc) for all the right reasons and kept my nose clean and done the best job I could, I'd be righteously pissed at upper leadership and would do what I could to expose them and clean up the Bureau (or other government agency, etc) so that there was some honor & pride to be in the organization you're serving instead of the current shame. At least, if you have family, think about the world you want your kids and your grandkids to grow up in.
Strat
Oh, I think there would be considerable competition. Certainly dealerships would import Trabants to provide competition.
LOL! Ouch!
We *did* have the Yugo here briefly in the US.
The only reliable thing about the Yugo was it's comic-relief.
Q: Why do Yugos have electric rear-window defrosters, being a super-economy car?
A: To keep one's hands warm in winter while pushing it.
Strat
all of the progeny of those crooked Dem politicians later switched to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act was passed
LOL! That old "Southern strategy" chestnut!?
C'mon, Pope, you can do better than *that*!
You and I both know it's ridiculous and debunked a thousand times over, long ago. Literally *millions* of long-time Southern Democrats suddenly and simultaneously switching to Republican? Ludicrous on it's face! You'd have to drink a *lot* of kool-ade to honestly believe it. Don't forget, I'm old enough to remember the '68 Civil Rights Act, the '68 riots, etc. I remember seeing and hearing Democrats start this propaganda meme. It hasn't gotten any truer in the decades since.
Strat
It was Tennessee. They were likely not counting the votes at all and just deciding on the results over drinks in a hotel ballroom.
Better keep in mind what happened in Athens, TN when the Democrats in government there attempted to commit vote fraud when you start throwing around bigoted statements like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Isn't using blanket stereotypes for groups of people something the Left is always accusing those on the Right of?
Once again, if you want to know what those on the Left are guilty of, just listen to what they accuse their opponents of. Basic Saul Alinsky/'Rules For Radicals' tactic; "Loudly accuse your opponents of what you do."
You knew I was not going to let you get away with that, right Pope?
Strat
It's rather silly to expect homeowners to pay the tax rates of a multinational hotel chain to rent out their home or apartment for a couple of months while they go on a cruise or something
It's rather silly to claim that's the primary use case for AirBnB as opposed to professional, permanent rentals. It's also silly to think that it's outrageous to expect the same tax rates of homeowners... taxes are on profit (income) or per room (occupancy.) The fact that they are rates fixes that.
Did you even read both my entire posts? I addressed those concerns regarding using it as primary income rentals in a much more effective way than charging, as most of the larger cities do, ridiculous "occupancy rates" that typically per-unit far exceeds what hotels and motels are paying. Often these rates are copy-pasta straight from "industry" (read; the hotels/motels/etc) by the corrupt local politicians as simply a protection scheme for the hotels and more loot for politicians to waste or pocket.
There were regulations with licensed people only able to participate. Those are actual BnB rules. AirBnB,and their operators, just ignore them.
Because, as stated above, those laws and regulations are in many if not most cases about protecting every last possible cent hotel chains can squeeze out by putting the boot on people through corrupt government when much more fair & equitable laws & regulations that actually work as intended could easily be implemented with lawmakers who are not taking money from and acting in the interests of the hotel/hospitality industry.
Strat
How about creating regulations such that in areas that have a population density higher than a set amount, property owners who wish to participate in AirBnB-style activities must be licensed. Make it cheap, like $25 or less for a year so that people will comply. Place restrictions on how many weeks/months out of a year the property may be rented out. If your property is not in a high population density area, then no restrictions or license necessary.
As an additional thought, the number of properties that property owners applying for a license in high-population-density areas could register could be limited, and in super-high-population-density areas and certain locations such an apartment in a major metropolitan high-rise and/or a property located in a high-crime-rate area, could be required to show proof they carry an additional rider for damage & liability on their property insurance for a minimum amount based on average actuarial numbers to cover against possible damages or other liability incurred by their temporary tenants.
All the suggestions here and in my post above that I quoted serve not only to protect communities but also discourage those who would seek to turn a great idea for a homeowner to recoup some costs of a trip or vacation by temporarily renting their home into a multi-property commercial enterprise that *is* essentially a commercial hostel service competing with hotels.
Strat
Yes. Hotels have daily housekeeping. No Airbnb place I have stayed at does. The market has spoken: Many people don't want to pay for that.
However, if Airbnb is popular because they don't pay a hotel tax, for example, then that is tax evasion, not free-market competition.
Why can't there be a middle-ground?
It's rather silly to expect homeowners to pay the tax rates of a multinational hotel chain to rent out their home or apartment for a couple of months while they go on a cruise or something, but there are legitimate concerns and problems that do in fact need to be addressed.
How about creating regulations such that in areas that have a population density higher than a set amount, property owners who wish to participate in AirBnB-style activities must be licensed. Make it cheap, like $25 or less for a year so that people will comply. Place restrictions on how many weeks/months out of a year the property may be rented out. If your property is not in a high population density area, then no restrictions or license necessary.
Strat
I think the point FudRucker is making that there is no point in buying high-end stuff at premium prices when a year or two down the line you will have to apply crippleware patches to secure it - and reduce it to half the original performance; if you buy yesterday's tech, you could get the same cripplewared performance at a fraction of the price.
That's why you release new OS's and software that *only* work with "new generation" hardware while promulgating new web standards that embrace "new generation" hardware-specific standards but are incompatible with the old.
Strat
If he is anti-social-justice he must be shunned anyway, this simply saves llvm from having to kick him out.
The problem I see is he could possibly join another project or be hired by some corporation and that must be prevented. Anyone who rejects the social justice movement is unfit to fill any role in a civilized society except that of prison inmate or involuntary organ donor. There is no room for patriarchal white supremacist cis-gendered Neanderthals in a civilized society.
Found the UC-Berkeley "Diversity" administrator!
Strat
Tech should be a meritocracy and these attempts to make up for lack of ability with sob stories are destroying it.
[Burns voice]
"Excellent!"
[/Burns voice]
-Proprietary Software Industry
---
Strat
So, then, there will no longer be a market, just a big Tesla monopoly? A huge, too-big-to-fail single source? That certainly is an interesting path to profitability.
Why do people who cheer this on hate cars so much?
Well, we could have a government committee design the cars and production methods and license a set of manufacturers to perform the work. That would assure no single company could out-innovate the others and capture "too much" of the market.
They could call it the "Lada".
Strat