That's 100% true. The Bible also suggests that you kill people who work on Sunday or women who are not virgins on their wedding night.
All the monotheistic holy books command their adherents to do terrible things. They key, as I assume you agree, is to get people to not do everything their holy books say.
I don't see a problem with a (regulated) private company owning utility lines as long as they don't also own what is being transmitted over those same lines.
We kind of have that with power at least in Ohio. AEP owns the infrastructure, but I can buy the electrons from whomever I want. It's decent in theory, but 9/10 times the "standard" tariffed AEP offer is better than that of any of the other competitors.
But getting back on track, if I wanted to use Spectrum's wires to deliver my internet service, they'd tell me to take a hike. That's what needs to be de-coupled just like we have for power. My preference is that we own the wires like we own the roads, but I can settle for the regulated private utility method, so long as that utility has to open up its infrastructure to anyone who wants to offer service.
Yes. Apparently if you keep all the data in RAM, it's "streaming" and not infringement. But the moment you write that sucker to disk, you're a dirty pirate.
The philosophers are still trying to figure out if swapping memory to disk counts as streaming or downloading.
Meh. I'm done playing with a sense of fairness. Anything my side does is fine (assuming you know what my side is), anything the other side does is wrong.
Its incredibly hypocritical, but have you seen who is in the white house lately? I'm waiting for him to declare that Linux has 20% market share on the desktop he lies so much.
Can you make do with a version of software that's EOL? Sure, but it'll cause problems. How can we solve those problems? Well, throw staff time at them. Would that be new hires? No, they're people whose salaries we're already paying. So the view you can minimize the immediate cash outlay by running obsolete software. This would not be reckoned by a private enterprise as a legitimate cost savings, but that's why the IT guys in government have to contend with.
Oh, you'd be surprised. I've worked many places that consider employee time to be "free". We can buy a library that will solve problem X or just build it ourselves. The library costs money, but building it ourselves is free! After all, we're paying our programmers anyway!
The problem with UBI is if we replace food stamps and medicaid with UBI and the people just blow it on drugs and are then starving on the streets and filling up emergency rooms what do you do?
I'm fine if they starve on a UBI. They can visit the local church soup kitchen.
Medical care is a different story. No one has said that a UBI is meant to handle health care.
Actually if you read the history of the Electoral College, the framers thought that each state would have the people elect the electors by district and entrust them with finding a suitable candidate. In fact, they assumed the House would decide the election most of the time. Then we had political parties and that stopped pretty damn quickly.
I don't have a problem with the fact that smaller states are overrepresented given the federal nature of our government, and that is the effect, but it was never explicitly the intent. I do have a problem that whoever attains the most votes (even if it isn't a majority) gets all of the electors. They should be assigned by way of proportional representation. Half the votes gets you half the electors. Any reasonable method is acceptable for determining splitting of fractional electors.
If you're talking about services, yes. If you're talking about infrastructure no.
I live in an area where there there are two cable companies (Wide Open West and Time Warner). There is no reason there couldn't be a 3rd except for the fact that no one thinks it's a good investment to run another series of cables throughout my neighborhood.
Decouple service from infrastructure and you will get all the competition you want.
Ideally you do free trade and with the comparative advantages that entails, you tax the people who win due to fair trade and give that money to the people who lose.
I think the more compelling argument is that in the grand scheme (at least for anything but local elections), vote buying is a very bad investment, which you make reference to. This isn't an easy case though. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. However:
they're about preventing people from expressing their political views on social media. Such postings have more benefit for insurgent candidates than establishment candidates, so the establishment is firmly against such efforts.
Is not one of them. I did not vote for a major party candidate for President, but I don't have any delusions that we'd be seeing a President Johnson or Stein if ballot access was equal and they were both in the debates. I think combined the most the Libertarians and Greens could get in such a scenario is about 20%.
You are correct, however the concern is what happens when large parts of the workforce become essentially unemployable. Increased productivity and free trade are good things, but they do create winners and losers. We need to be more mindful of the losers and help them adjust to the changes.
You realize why, right? Those people think it's wrong to give Trump money.
I think Peter Thiel is an asshole, and I'm happy to give any company shit that employs him or takes money from him or helps him in any way. That's my right. Your right is to think the same about Zukerberg. Don't use Facebook. Don't give him or any company he has an interest in any money directly or indirectly. That's completely fine by me.
Yeah, and that does suck for those people. They do it by the book and a bunch of people who don't are not punished. Its the same thing when there is intentional inflation and monetary devaluation. Plenty of people save their money and do it right, and then here comes inflation to wipe out their savings.
When too many people break the law, sometimes the best thing to do for the country as a whole is to declare amnesty. It isn't fair, but that's best for the country. We either give them amnesty, have them apply for citizenship, and maybe make them pay a tax penalty for a few years or spend billions of dollars deporting them. I don't like either option, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.
The interesting thing is that this is truly a Kang v. Kodos election. Sure one is less bad than the other, but they're both terrible by historical standards. This is the election where a minor party would have a chance and yet...here we are.
Slashdot Mirror
I would go as far to say that in 8 years ICE vehicles will still outsell non-ICE vehicles.
That's 100% true. The Bible also suggests that you kill people who work on Sunday or women who are not virgins on their wedding night.
All the monotheistic holy books command their adherents to do terrible things. They key, as I assume you agree, is to get people to not do everything their holy books say.
So as a married man with no kids, if I move to eastern Kentucky how much welfare can I expect to get? Assuming I simply choose to not work.
The rich man's "use"? Yeah, I hate that word.
We kind of have that with power at least in Ohio. AEP owns the infrastructure, but I can buy the electrons from whomever I want. It's decent in theory, but 9/10 times the "standard" tariffed AEP offer is better than that of any of the other competitors.
But getting back on track, if I wanted to use Spectrum's wires to deliver my internet service, they'd tell me to take a hike. That's what needs to be de-coupled just like we have for power. My preference is that we own the wires like we own the roads, but I can settle for the regulated private utility method, so long as that utility has to open up its infrastructure to anyone who wants to offer service.
So you believe these things are "on par with claiming the prior president had bugged his phones while possessing zero evidence to support the claim?"
Yes. Apparently if you keep all the data in RAM, it's "streaming" and not infringement. But the moment you write that sucker to disk, you're a dirty pirate.
The philosophers are still trying to figure out if swapping memory to disk counts as streaming or downloading.
Meh. I'm done playing with a sense of fairness. Anything my side does is fine (assuming you know what my side is), anything the other side does is wrong.
Its incredibly hypocritical, but have you seen who is in the white house lately? I'm waiting for him to declare that Linux has 20% market share on the desktop he lies so much.
Not to mention that Trump's position on H-1B visas is for the wrong reason. It's based in xenophobia, nationalism, and racism.
Alas, my state does not allow me to register a vote against a candidate. Only for one.
Oh, you'd be surprised. I've worked many places that consider employee time to be "free". We can buy a library that will solve problem X or just build it ourselves. The library costs money, but building it ourselves is free! After all, we're paying our programmers anyway!
I'm fine if they starve on a UBI. They can visit the local church soup kitchen.
Medical care is a different story. No one has said that a UBI is meant to handle health care.
Exactly. Do you know how much I want to work? Zero hours. Do you know how much I have to work? Yeah.
Yes. If you try to assault someone with aid of their service, they will turn your information over to the authorities pursuant to a court order.
Actually if you read the history of the Electoral College, the framers thought that each state would have the people elect the electors by district and entrust them with finding a suitable candidate. In fact, they assumed the House would decide the election most of the time. Then we had political parties and that stopped pretty damn quickly.
I don't have a problem with the fact that smaller states are overrepresented given the federal nature of our government, and that is the effect, but it was never explicitly the intent. I do have a problem that whoever attains the most votes (even if it isn't a majority) gets all of the electors. They should be assigned by way of proportional representation. Half the votes gets you half the electors. Any reasonable method is acceptable for determining splitting of fractional electors.
If you're talking about services, yes. If you're talking about infrastructure no.
I live in an area where there there are two cable companies (Wide Open West and Time Warner). There is no reason there couldn't be a 3rd except for the fact that no one thinks it's a good investment to run another series of cables throughout my neighborhood.
Decouple service from infrastructure and you will get all the competition you want.
I fully supported Texas seceding. I still do.
Oddly enough that happened the last time one or more states wished to secede.
It is simply not legal and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.
Ideally you do free trade and with the comparative advantages that entails, you tax the people who win due to fair trade and give that money to the people who lose.
You can create a self-signed certificate. The user's browser will warn the hell out of them, but it will be encrypted.
I think the more compelling argument is that in the grand scheme (at least for anything but local elections), vote buying is a very bad investment, which you make reference to. This isn't an easy case though. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. However:
Is not one of them. I did not vote for a major party candidate for President, but I don't have any delusions that we'd be seeing a President Johnson or Stein if ballot access was equal and they were both in the debates. I think combined the most the Libertarians and Greens could get in such a scenario is about 20%.
You are correct, however the concern is what happens when large parts of the workforce become essentially unemployable. Increased productivity and free trade are good things, but they do create winners and losers. We need to be more mindful of the losers and help them adjust to the changes.
You realize why, right? Those people think it's wrong to give Trump money.
I think Peter Thiel is an asshole, and I'm happy to give any company shit that employs him or takes money from him or helps him in any way. That's my right. Your right is to think the same about Zukerberg. Don't use Facebook. Don't give him or any company he has an interest in any money directly or indirectly. That's completely fine by me.
Yeah, and that does suck for those people. They do it by the book and a bunch of people who don't are not punished. Its the same thing when there is intentional inflation and monetary devaluation. Plenty of people save their money and do it right, and then here comes inflation to wipe out their savings.
When too many people break the law, sometimes the best thing to do for the country as a whole is to declare amnesty. It isn't fair, but that's best for the country. We either give them amnesty, have them apply for citizenship, and maybe make them pay a tax penalty for a few years or spend billions of dollars deporting them. I don't like either option, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.
The interesting thing is that this is truly a Kang v. Kodos election. Sure one is less bad than the other, but they're both terrible by historical standards. This is the election where a minor party would have a chance and yet...here we are.