Really not sure what Pelosi is yelling about at this point
It's very simple. She's pandering the TDS contingent in her base, and doing all of this in the interests of positioning for the next election cycle. It has nothing to do with her actual policy wishes or understanding. It's 100%, entirely, about denying Trump the ability to deliver on the main thing that got him elected. She's failing to understand that the people who voted for Trump are seeing who it is that's blocking the effort. They aren't all going to suddenly change their minds about it because Pelosi and Schumer have scolded them over it. They haven't learned a thing from Clinton losing huge ground when she stopped worrying about calling millions Americans irredeemable deplorables if they wouldn't support quest for a return to power. Pelosi's utterly disingenuous, phony objections are purely about 2020, nothing more or less.
The sign does not have free speech rights, and it's legitimacy ends the moment it leaves my hand.
What?
So, I write something on a sign and hold it up in the air, and it's "legitimate." I set the sign down to tie my shoe, and it's no longer so? Please don't endanger other people by doing rash things like... voting. You're not cut out for it.
We can easily a imagine a slightly more oppressive future US government taking action against those who speak out.
Or we can just look at the last one, which took action legal against and jailed journalists who interfered with the administration's message, monitored their work and home phones and those of their families, and so on. We won't have to imagine it at all.
I would have called it Frosty the Snowman, because the object looks like Frosty the Snowman to me... and how cool would that be to have a space object named that?
Nope, it's the 21st century. Everything now has to follow the "Frosty McFrostyface" naming convention.
Those are your opinions, not facts, and as such I'm ignoring them. You're just a Trump supporter, nothing more, so facts bounce off you like rubber balls. Bye-bye.
Come now, don't be a coward. Your OWN assertions are completely fact-free (twice, now). Here, try on a fact: Trump hasn't had journalists home and work phones surveilled, spied on their families and colleagues, and had prosecutors jail them for not playing along with administration policies. That was Obama. Obama was the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history," and was then pilloried by even the usually fawning lefty press for clamping down on interviews, photography, and access in unprecedented ways. Of course you know this, and are pretending that a jackass like CNN's Acosta (who is universally loathed by his fellow reporters) getting a time out (him personally, not his network's other journalists) is somehow counter-First-Amendment. You know these things, but since you didn't do anything but thrown around some vitriolic hand-wavy assertions, we'll have to assume you're trying to pretend you don't so that in your phony ignorance you can pretend your TDS is based on facts.
Sort of like your phony take on the 14th Amendment. You know, the one where they MAN WHO AUTHORED THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE came right out and told his fellow legislators (and you, if you'd bother to read his words) that the language DOES NOT apply to people who wander in and give birth. It didn't even apply to Native Americans. It was written explicitly to prevent southern Democrats from trying to treat freed slaves as if they weren't citizens. That was the amendment's purpose, which you'd know if you bothered to read any of the supporting documents, correspondence, and transcripts surrounding it's ratification. Legislators were worried that the amendment actually might be confused for creating a situation where a non-citizen who steps over the border and gives birth has just created a new citizen.
Senator Jacob Howard, who wrote the language, said on the matter, "The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Democrat Harry Reid reiterated the concept in a 1993 speech, saying that merely being born (of foreign citizens) on US soil doesn't make one a citizen.
Again, you know all of this and are pretending you don't so that you can (without citing, because you couldn't, any actual facts) pretend you're forming an opinion based on facts. It's a pretty lazy rhetorical move, hoping that dumb readers will think you're right if you also play dumb and sound snarky and angry. But it doesn't hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. Which you know. No wonder you said "bye-bye." You're trying to avoid the embarrassment of having to find actual examples of the things you're claiming. Which you can't. Because you know you're BS-ing.
Be specific. Because the principle offenders against the constitution are his opponents, not him. He's UNDONE much of the lurching towards media muzzling that Obama did. Exactly the opposite of your assertion. And, the 14th amendment? Let me guess, you're mad because he's talking about returning our naturalization process to what the authors of the 14th amendment actually intended? That's not an attack on the Constitution, it's RESPECT for it. If you think the people who wrote and ratified the 14th were lying about its purpose, and think it should be changed to include someone who is NOT a citizen if they are born on one side of the rope line in the airport, but if mom happens to give birth on the other side of the rope line in the customs area while she's visiting from Russia, PRESTO! a new US citizen... if that's what you think the 14 SHOULD be about, then you should be lobbying for an amendment to the constitution, not complaining because the president is talking about using his role as the guy in charge of the State Department to have that department's policies on doling out citizenship actually reflect the law. Don't like the law? Change it. Right now, birthright citizenship in the context of sneaking across the border and giving birth is NOT a feature of the 14th amendment.
Sure it did. It got us the electoral collage, which in turn got us Trump.
And Lincoln. And it spared us from the complete horror show of the Clintons regaining power, and Hillary seating SCOTS justices (more on which, below).
It got us a constitution with zero penalties for violating it, which in turn got us continuous violations of the "highest law in the land."
Because the COTUS isn't a penal code. It provides vital checks-and-balances structure, and (most importantly) it talks about what the government may not do, especially to individuals. It's up to the legislature to arrive at specific penalties on criminal matters. But the three co-equal branches DO provide "penalties," in the sense that the legislature can impeach executives and justices, the justices can block most actions by executives and legislature, and the executive can act on a broad range of things separately from the other two, while the other two name and consent to the justices. Yes, too many legislatures (at the state and federal level) have been getting away with disregarding things like the Bill of Rights. Which is why it's so important to get more originalists/textualists back on the district, circuit, and supreme courts... and that's being done by the very person you're complaining was just elected.
It also got us a supreme court that does whatever it likes WRT the constitution instead of requiring actual adherence to what article five says is required for changes to the document.
Which is why we're so fortunate that the electoral college is in place, so that voters in CA and NY couldn't swamp the election, and leave us with a president that promised to name more justices inclined towards exactly what you're complaining about. Instead we got the opposite, and the ship has been nudged back towards constitutionality. We dodged a bullet, big time.
So, that's far more warming than the current investors in carbon indulgences and subsidized solar/wind businesses say will represent a point of no return Venus-like tipping point into Algore-style unrecoverable death of the planet stuff. But then it got better.
Not raised on his initiative or by his choice. At least he didn't promise that every family would save $2500 on their health insurance in order to ram a massive new tax through.
So, the guy who is speaking plainly about the problem and is actually working with Mexico to solve it - he's the bad guy. But the previous guy, who lied to you about it for eight years, he was the one who was good at it. Gotcha.
No you're lying to YOURself. There is no statute that requires such a thing. Quote the statue or STFU an admit you're full of shit.
A federal judge decided that's EXACTLY what the statute requires: that kids NOT be held (past 20 day) and get handed to other care. Many have no legal family in the states to go to, so HHS is the legal default and exactly who gets them. By law. Quit pretending you don't understand this just so you can somehow make all of that Trump's fault. It was happening under Obama. Pretending it wasn't, and that pictures of kids being detained don't date back to Obama, is just pure intellectual dishonesty on your part.
You're lying to yourself (on purpose, obviously). Kids WERE being separated from adults when illegally crossing the border. Under Obama. Why? Because it was (and still is) required by law. The law says you can't hold kids for more than a short couple of weeks, even though adults - especially those that have been tied to other crimes - are held for longer periods of time as they are processed. The courts said (UNDER OBAMA) that the kids can't be kept at length in those same facilities, and have to be handed over to HHS for care. You know this, but are for some reason pretending you don't. Not sure why you think it's rhetorically useful for to you pretend you don't understand the facts of the matter. Who is your audience, that you think you're being somehow persuasive by either lying about or being ignorant of the basic facts?
Yes, actually. You can hate Trump's manners, tone, etc... and still be very gratified that he's taking his job of seating judges very seriously (and sticking with constitutionalists, not would-be legislators as Clinton promised to do). I can recognize that Trump is too fast and loose with his style while speaking extemporaneously, and still recognize that his instincts towards reducing our regulatory burden, protecting the borders, and getting our counterparts in Europe to carry more of their own defense costs are necessary... and actually being acted upon. Yes, I'm very glad the Clintons aren't back doing everything they're infamous for doing.
And no, nobody was forced to vote for Trump. That's misdirection. We're talking about keeping you from being forced to go to work today to support his re-election campaign through your taxes, even if you don't want him to be re-elected.
Never mind that the orange menace does have FEMA funded concentration camps for children. )
You're thinking of the children in cages at the border? The cages built under the Obama administration, with hair-on-fire media presentation of photos of those children in temporary detention there... that happened during the Obama administration? If you're going to be a Russian troll trying to continue to stir things up, at least come up with something that isn't so easily debunked, Ivan.
Someone stole emails that exposed DNC dirt. DNC is suing Russian nationals over it.
No, they're not just suing the Russians. They're suing all kinds of people, including people involved in the Trump campaign (and Trump himself) without any evidence, whatsoever, that they had anything at all to do with Podesta's lame password being exploited, or Hillary leaving her pantsuit down while running a highly insecure server handling classified data out of her house. The suit demands that the court pronounce the Trump campaign as complicit in that. It's just more in the ongoing spin effort to desperately explain away the Dems' really terrible choice of a candidate, and to solidify a false narrative about why the country rejected the Clintons' return to the power and money they so crave. That's what ALL of this is about. It started in order to distract from HRC's abysmal performance as a candidate, and has morphed into just another manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome on display.
No. Public funding means that you have to spend part of each day working in order to pay to promote the political fortunes and future of, for example, someone who hates you and everything you stand for. Hillary Clinton thinks millions of her fellow Americans are irredeemably deplorable racists, misogynists, xenophobes and worse - why should huge swaths of the country have to personally labor at their jobs in order to pay for her ability to run ads telling them how much she hates them and how she'll populate the court with judges who will work against the constitution? That's political slavery. Total BS. If a candidate like her can't make a compelling case to get the blue collar people in Wisconsin she hates so much to vote for her and support her campaign, then she can go without that support.
And ranked choice? Yeah, the liberals in California love that, because it's a way they can shut down candidates from opposing parties. Like they just used it to do. That didn't allow for the destruction of the DNC, it just made it stronger. Lawrence Lessig couldn't have it more wrong.
It was a gorgeous night for being on Virginia's eastern shore to watch a Wallops launch. Crystal clear sky full of stars, more than a few sizable meteors to amuse us while we waited, and a great view across the water to the pad. Most interesting part of it was the sound. Obviously they don't let anyone up close for these - most of us were miles away... so, a long delay for the ignition and launch rumble to catch up with us. But the the initial ignition was a very interesting sound. Several of us remarked on how it sounded like an enormous gong being struck, or a huge, deep bell strike.
Don't know enough about how ignition works on Antares, but that was a really unique sound. Then, after that incredibly deep ringing boom, a heartbeat or two, and then the growing roar as the thing got oft the pad. Shortly, we got the familiar crackling on top of the roar, and the rocket was arcing well out over the water and was up to MECO in very short order. Could hear it almost the entire time, even though it was just a faint purr by the time it cut off.
First time I've had the pleasure of watching a launch in person. And this was a pretty modest machine. I can only imagine what it was like to watch a Saturn V go up, or what Space-X's BFR will be like when the time comes. If you've never done this, and can make the logistics work, do it. Nothing else like it.
For reference, we parked along the Queen's Sound boat ramp that juts off of the Chincoteague causeway. Would love to have been closer, but security had every ideal back road in the closer surrounding farmland blocked off for safety. The visitors center was swamped, no parking, long walk in. As it happens, I think we ended up watching from a better spot anyway... and since it was 36F out, the mosquitoes were asleep and the notorious local sulfur/swamp smell wasn't too awful. What IS that smell? That's definitely what puts the Ass in Assateague Island.
Kudus to NG and NASA for a good launch. That was really something to see.
We're talking about, say, a 50-mile road with farm entrances every couple of miles, and each of them with a mile+ driveway to their house. Stringing up fiber under those circumstances is tens of thousands of dollars per home. Nothing the home owner will ever pay for the use of that service will come close to paying for the cost of provisioning (let alone maintaining) it.
I agree. The rural (or even just semi-rural exurb) broadband market in the US is miserable. For pretty reasonable reasons. It costs a fortune to serve a small number of people on that back side of some hill or valley via fiber. This could really make a difference.
The whole point is that there will thousands and thousands of new, well compensated professionals with incomes to tax and a giant surge of personal spending in the entire area surrounding the activity. That's exactly the sort of activity that funds the infrastructure in the first place. None of that would happen without attracting the entities that employ all of those people and stimulate all of those billions of dollars in activity. I haven't heard anyone report that the barber shop in question won't continue to pay taxes and fees on its surging new business activity, or that every restaurant for miles around that will get a huge jump in business will somehow fail to pay their taxes.
Look at how much the political advertisements for certain candidates appealed to fear, vs others who cited their concrete accomplishments.
Or, look at how much the political advertisements pointed out problems that some would like to sweep under the rug and ignore for their own political benefit, vs. others who lied about accomplishments that weren't really their doing or which weren't really accomplishments at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Really not sure what Pelosi is yelling about at this point
It's very simple. She's pandering the TDS contingent in her base, and doing all of this in the interests of positioning for the next election cycle. It has nothing to do with her actual policy wishes or understanding. It's 100%, entirely, about denying Trump the ability to deliver on the main thing that got him elected. She's failing to understand that the people who voted for Trump are seeing who it is that's blocking the effort. They aren't all going to suddenly change their minds about it because Pelosi and Schumer have scolded them over it. They haven't learned a thing from Clinton losing huge ground when she stopped worrying about calling millions Americans irredeemable deplorables if they wouldn't support quest for a return to power. Pelosi's utterly disingenuous, phony objections are purely about 2020, nothing more or less.
The sign does not have free speech rights, and it's legitimacy ends the moment it leaves my hand.
What?
... voting. You're not cut out for it.
So, I write something on a sign and hold it up in the air, and it's "legitimate." I set the sign down to tie my shoe, and it's no longer so? Please don't endanger other people by doing rash things like
We can easily a imagine a slightly more oppressive future US government taking action against those who speak out.
Or we can just look at the last one, which took action legal against and jailed journalists who interfered with the administration's message, monitored their work and home phones and those of their families, and so on. We won't have to imagine it at all.
I would have called it Frosty the Snowman, because the object looks like Frosty the Snowman to me... and how cool would that be to have a space object named that?
Nope, it's the 21st century. Everything now has to follow the "Frosty McFrostyface" naming convention.
Those are your opinions, not facts, and as such I'm ignoring them. You're just a Trump supporter, nothing more, so facts bounce off you like rubber balls. Bye-bye.
Come now, don't be a coward. Your OWN assertions are completely fact-free (twice, now). Here, try on a fact: Trump hasn't had journalists home and work phones surveilled, spied on their families and colleagues, and had prosecutors jail them for not playing along with administration policies. That was Obama. Obama was the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history," and was then pilloried by even the usually fawning lefty press for clamping down on interviews, photography, and access in unprecedented ways. Of course you know this, and are pretending that a jackass like CNN's Acosta (who is universally loathed by his fellow reporters) getting a time out (him personally, not his network's other journalists) is somehow counter-First-Amendment. You know these things, but since you didn't do anything but thrown around some vitriolic hand-wavy assertions, we'll have to assume you're trying to pretend you don't so that in your phony ignorance you can pretend your TDS is based on facts.
Sort of like your phony take on the 14th Amendment. You know, the one where they MAN WHO AUTHORED THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE came right out and told his fellow legislators (and you, if you'd bother to read his words) that the language DOES NOT apply to people who wander in and give birth. It didn't even apply to Native Americans. It was written explicitly to prevent southern Democrats from trying to treat freed slaves as if they weren't citizens. That was the amendment's purpose, which you'd know if you bothered to read any of the supporting documents, correspondence, and transcripts surrounding it's ratification. Legislators were worried that the amendment actually might be confused for creating a situation where a non-citizen who steps over the border and gives birth has just created a new citizen.
Senator Jacob Howard, who wrote the language, said on the matter, "The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Democrat Harry Reid reiterated the concept in a 1993 speech, saying that merely being born (of foreign citizens) on US soil doesn't make one a citizen.
Again, you know all of this and are pretending you don't so that you can (without citing, because you couldn't, any actual facts) pretend you're forming an opinion based on facts. It's a pretty lazy rhetorical move, hoping that dumb readers will think you're right if you also play dumb and sound snarky and angry. But it doesn't hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. Which you know. No wonder you said "bye-bye." You're trying to avoid the embarrassment of having to find actual examples of the things you're claiming. Which you can't. Because you know you're BS-ing.
Be specific. Because the principle offenders against the constitution are his opponents, not him. He's UNDONE much of the lurching towards media muzzling that Obama did. Exactly the opposite of your assertion. And, the 14th amendment? Let me guess, you're mad because he's talking about returning our naturalization process to what the authors of the 14th amendment actually intended? That's not an attack on the Constitution, it's RESPECT for it. If you think the people who wrote and ratified the 14th were lying about its purpose, and think it should be changed to include someone who is NOT a citizen if they are born on one side of the rope line in the airport, but if mom happens to give birth on the other side of the rope line in the customs area while she's visiting from Russia, PRESTO! a new US citizen... if that's what you think the 14 SHOULD be about, then you should be lobbying for an amendment to the constitution, not complaining because the president is talking about using his role as the guy in charge of the State Department to have that department's policies on doling out citizenship actually reflect the law. Don't like the law? Change it. Right now, birthright citizenship in the context of sneaking across the border and giving birth is NOT a feature of the 14th amendment.
Sure it did. It got us the electoral collage, which in turn got us Trump.
And Lincoln. And it spared us from the complete horror show of the Clintons regaining power, and Hillary seating SCOTS justices (more on which, below).
It got us a constitution with zero penalties for violating it, which in turn got us continuous violations of the "highest law in the land."
Because the COTUS isn't a penal code. It provides vital checks-and-balances structure, and (most importantly) it talks about what the government may not do, especially to individuals. It's up to the legislature to arrive at specific penalties on criminal matters. But the three co-equal branches DO provide "penalties," in the sense that the legislature can impeach executives and justices, the justices can block most actions by executives and legislature, and the executive can act on a broad range of things separately from the other two, while the other two name and consent to the justices. Yes, too many legislatures (at the state and federal level) have been getting away with disregarding things like the Bill of Rights. Which is why it's so important to get more originalists/textualists back on the district, circuit, and supreme courts... and that's being done by the very person you're complaining was just elected.
It also got us a supreme court that does whatever it likes WRT the constitution instead of requiring actual adherence to what article five says is required for changes to the document.
Which is why we're so fortunate that the electoral college is in place, so that voters in CA and NY couldn't swamp the election, and leave us with a president that promised to name more justices inclined towards exactly what you're complaining about. Instead we got the opposite, and the ship has been nudged back towards constitutionality. We dodged a bullet, big time.
So, that's far more warming than the current investors in carbon indulgences and subsidized solar/wind businesses say will represent a point of no return Venus-like tipping point into Algore-style unrecoverable death of the planet stuff. But then it got better.
and then raising taxes. Awful liar
Not raised on his initiative or by his choice. At least he didn't promise that every family would save $2500 on their health insurance in order to ram a massive new tax through.
So, the guy who is speaking plainly about the problem and is actually working with Mexico to solve it - he's the bad guy. But the previous guy, who lied to you about it for eight years, he was the one who was good at it. Gotcha.
Go get some sleep, Bernie. You're up too late.
No you're lying to YOURself. There is no statute that requires such a thing. Quote the statue or STFU an admit you're full of shit.
A federal judge decided that's EXACTLY what the statute requires: that kids NOT be held (past 20 day) and get handed to other care. Many have no legal family in the states to go to, so HHS is the legal default and exactly who gets them. By law. Quit pretending you don't understand this just so you can somehow make all of that Trump's fault. It was happening under Obama. Pretending it wasn't, and that pictures of kids being detained don't date back to Obama, is just pure intellectual dishonesty on your part.
You're lying to yourself (on purpose, obviously). Kids WERE being separated from adults when illegally crossing the border. Under Obama. Why? Because it was (and still is) required by law. The law says you can't hold kids for more than a short couple of weeks, even though adults - especially those that have been tied to other crimes - are held for longer periods of time as they are processed. The courts said (UNDER OBAMA) that the kids can't be kept at length in those same facilities, and have to be handed over to HHS for care. You know this, but are for some reason pretending you don't. Not sure why you think it's rhetorically useful for to you pretend you don't understand the facts of the matter. Who is your audience, that you think you're being somehow persuasive by either lying about or being ignorant of the basic facts?
Yes, actually. You can hate Trump's manners, tone, etc ... and still be very gratified that he's taking his job of seating judges very seriously (and sticking with constitutionalists, not would-be legislators as Clinton promised to do). I can recognize that Trump is too fast and loose with his style while speaking extemporaneously, and still recognize that his instincts towards reducing our regulatory burden, protecting the borders, and getting our counterparts in Europe to carry more of their own defense costs are necessary ... and actually being acted upon. Yes, I'm very glad the Clintons aren't back doing everything they're infamous for doing.
And no, nobody was forced to vote for Trump. That's misdirection. We're talking about keeping you from being forced to go to work today to support his re-election campaign through your taxes, even if you don't want him to be re-elected.
Never mind that the orange menace does have FEMA funded concentration camps for children. )
You're thinking of the children in cages at the border? The cages built under the Obama administration, with hair-on-fire media presentation of photos of those children in temporary detention there ... that happened during the Obama administration? If you're going to be a Russian troll trying to continue to stir things up, at least come up with something that isn't so easily debunked, Ivan.
Someone stole emails that exposed DNC dirt. DNC is suing Russian nationals over it.
No, they're not just suing the Russians. They're suing all kinds of people, including people involved in the Trump campaign (and Trump himself) without any evidence, whatsoever, that they had anything at all to do with Podesta's lame password being exploited, or Hillary leaving her pantsuit down while running a highly insecure server handling classified data out of her house. The suit demands that the court pronounce the Trump campaign as complicit in that. It's just more in the ongoing spin effort to desperately explain away the Dems' really terrible choice of a candidate, and to solidify a false narrative about why the country rejected the Clintons' return to the power and money they so crave. That's what ALL of this is about. It started in order to distract from HRC's abysmal performance as a candidate, and has morphed into just another manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome on display.
No. Public funding means that you have to spend part of each day working in order to pay to promote the political fortunes and future of, for example, someone who hates you and everything you stand for. Hillary Clinton thinks millions of her fellow Americans are irredeemably deplorable racists, misogynists, xenophobes and worse - why should huge swaths of the country have to personally labor at their jobs in order to pay for her ability to run ads telling them how much she hates them and how she'll populate the court with judges who will work against the constitution? That's political slavery. Total BS. If a candidate like her can't make a compelling case to get the blue collar people in Wisconsin she hates so much to vote for her and support her campaign, then she can go without that support.
And ranked choice? Yeah, the liberals in California love that, because it's a way they can shut down candidates from opposing parties. Like they just used it to do. That didn't allow for the destruction of the DNC, it just made it stronger. Lawrence Lessig couldn't have it more wrong.
It was a gorgeous night for being on Virginia's eastern shore to watch a Wallops launch. Crystal clear sky full of stars, more than a few sizable meteors to amuse us while we waited, and a great view across the water to the pad. Most interesting part of it was the sound. Obviously they don't let anyone up close for these - most of us were miles away ... so, a long delay for the ignition and launch rumble to catch up with us. But the the initial ignition was a very interesting sound. Several of us remarked on how it sounded like an enormous gong being struck, or a huge, deep bell strike.
... and since it was 36F out, the mosquitoes were asleep and the notorious local sulfur/swamp smell wasn't too awful. What IS that smell? That's definitely what puts the Ass in Assateague Island.
Don't know enough about how ignition works on Antares, but that was a really unique sound. Then, after that incredibly deep ringing boom, a heartbeat or two, and then the growing roar as the thing got oft the pad. Shortly, we got the familiar crackling on top of the roar, and the rocket was arcing well out over the water and was up to MECO in very short order. Could hear it almost the entire time, even though it was just a faint purr by the time it cut off.
First time I've had the pleasure of watching a launch in person. And this was a pretty modest machine. I can only imagine what it was like to watch a Saturn V go up, or what Space-X's BFR will be like when the time comes. If you've never done this, and can make the logistics work, do it. Nothing else like it.
For reference, we parked along the Queen's Sound boat ramp that juts off of the Chincoteague causeway. Would love to have been closer, but security had every ideal back road in the closer surrounding farmland blocked off for safety. The visitors center was swamped, no parking, long walk in. As it happens, I think we ended up watching from a better spot anyway
Kudus to NG and NASA for a good launch. That was really something to see.
But does it fundamentally cost a fortune?
We're talking about, say, a 50-mile road with farm entrances every couple of miles, and each of them with a mile+ driveway to their house. Stringing up fiber under those circumstances is tens of thousands of dollars per home. Nothing the home owner will ever pay for the use of that service will come close to paying for the cost of provisioning (let alone maintaining) it.
Yes, but I've heard the Russians have Quantum Blockchain Graphene radar. Top that, suckers!
Well, we have Quantum Blockchain Graphene Gravity Wave radar and there's an app that will stream it to Facebook.
We've got quantum BLOCKCHAIN radar. It not only detects stealthy aircraft, it can detect aircraft you don't even have but wish you did.
I agree. The rural (or even just semi-rural exurb) broadband market in the US is miserable. For pretty reasonable reasons. It costs a fortune to serve a small number of people on that back side of some hill or valley via fiber. This could really make a difference.
The whole point is that there will thousands and thousands of new, well compensated professionals with incomes to tax and a giant surge of personal spending in the entire area surrounding the activity. That's exactly the sort of activity that funds the infrastructure in the first place. None of that would happen without attracting the entities that employ all of those people and stimulate all of those billions of dollars in activity. I haven't heard anyone report that the barber shop in question won't continue to pay taxes and fees on its surging new business activity, or that every restaurant for miles around that will get a huge jump in business will somehow fail to pay their taxes.
Look at how much the political advertisements for certain candidates appealed to fear, vs others who cited their concrete accomplishments.
Or, look at how much the political advertisements pointed out problems that some would like to sweep under the rug and ignore for their own political benefit, vs. others who lied about accomplishments that weren't really their doing or which weren't really accomplishments at all.
I happen to know a few journalists well, although I am not one myself. They take the values of objectivity and reporting the truth very seriously.
So, none of them work for MSNBC or CNN, obviously. Or under certain editors at the WaPo or NYT.