Last year before I got my Droid, I used pure voip/sip with gizmo over ATT 3g with my nokia e71. Quality was severely lacking though, not nearly good enough for regular use. Not sure if they throttled that traffic or what. Never tried it with symbian's skype client as that application just plain sucked.
The high barrier of entry can be overcome by competition, and has in the past. For example, there were private railroad men who competed successfully with federally subsidized lines. But it seems more difficult to overcome government deals to restrict competition. At least not without a massive populist effort. That's the primary reason there is an entrenched oligarchy. Our greasy politicians have given it to them.
I didn't say the Taliban were corrupt. I was referring to the new "democratic" government installed by the United States. They are as corrupt as it comes. I'm not sure if they are any more or less corrupt than the Taliban were in terms of officiating. But I still don't see how you can possibly claim or decide that the transition from one corrupt government to another utterly corrupt government is worth tens of thousands of innocent lives. You think you have the right to determine that all those people should die in order to get a corrupt democratic government in power that's friendly to the United States. That is obscene.
So voting for one ridiculously corrupt official over another is worth tens of thousands of lives and a completely shattered economy? Who the hell are you to make that kind of decision?
Sorry, nation building is completely bogus and not germane to national security.
I think it is wise to place a little skepticism on what's reported in the MSM about the taliban and other groups that have been deemed enemies by our political masters.
I think you're exactly right. The money that is spent on these jobs doesn't directly create any jobs that would have otherwise existed elsewhere in the economy. In reality it is nothing but a transfer program. I'm not sure we will ever really know whether these transfers will actually benefit the country any more than if the normal spending that would have occured. In fact it's probably completely impossible to know, so the president's claims don't make much sense to me.
Mobile devices will also start moving towards hardware accelerated browsers. I'm hoping it's sooner rather than later, as it will spell death for their precious walled gardens.
The USPS does get tax dollars. You can go look that up online. It's already plenty politicized as well. Either way, it doesn't make much difference to me whether it is supported by tax dollars or government decree of monopoly. Removing the monopoly and allowing rural areas to be subsidized directly would allow plenty of competition in all the most populous areas, leading to better service over all. The only real reason it still exists, imo, is to be a junk mail dispensary.
The USPS, still required to deliver to rural areas (which the private companies ignore, or charge much more for) would then not have enough money to continue operating, so the rural areas wouldn't get any mail service at all in the end.
They could easily pass a law to subsidize rural mail delivery for the poor. Then let everyone else pay for it directly. Viola, problem solved.
That is simply not true. Rural service could be just as well by private competitors. By the way, broadband providers are also given a monopoly over a certain area by state and local law. The situation is hardly the result of free market competition.
Why should people living in the backwoods of Kentucky be entitled to force me to pay for their mail service? It's their choice to live there. If they really wanted better or less expensive service they should move to a city. Government should benefit everyone equally, not one class of people over another.
The modern economy revolves around cities, and it would get along just fine without this kind of mail service. In fact I would argue it's actually a drag on the economy, because it's an extremely inefficient way of doing business.
It would be a great first step if they simply removed the federal monopoly on first class mail. That certainly wouldn't require changing the Constitution.
If the national post office was eliminated, we would have more private competition and a pretty decent chance of getting Sunday delivery. The newspaper comes on Sundays, why not the mail? They would also be more efficient while doing it. The level of service at the post office compared to UPS and Fedex is shockingly bad. Whenever I go into a UPS store there is little to no line.
Slashdot Mirror
Last year before I got my Droid, I used pure voip/sip with gizmo over ATT 3g with my nokia e71. Quality was severely lacking though, not nearly good enough for regular use. Not sure if they throttled that traffic or what. Never tried it with symbian's skype client as that application just plain sucked.
The high barrier of entry can be overcome by competition, and has in the past. For example, there were private railroad men who competed successfully with federally subsidized lines. But it seems more difficult to overcome government deals to restrict competition. At least not without a massive populist effort. That's the primary reason there is an entrenched oligarchy. Our greasy politicians have given it to them.
I have the same problem. If you figure it out please let me know.
I would much rather be a consumer than a Citizen. If there was a easy way to renounce citizenship I would do so.
I didn't say the Taliban were corrupt. I was referring to the new "democratic" government installed by the United States. They are as corrupt as it comes. I'm not sure if they are any more or less corrupt than the Taliban were in terms of officiating. But I still don't see how you can possibly claim or decide that the transition from one corrupt government to another utterly corrupt government is worth tens of thousands of innocent lives. You think you have the right to determine that all those people should die in order to get a corrupt democratic government in power that's friendly to the United States. That is obscene.
I'm one to question that because my tax dollars are essentially being used to murder innocent people and enrich the military industrial complex.
So voting for one ridiculously corrupt official over another is worth tens of thousands of lives and a completely shattered economy? Who the hell are you to make that kind of decision?
Sorry, nation building is completely bogus and not germane to national security.
How can you say that for sure, when that "innocent" person you speak of most likely aided the criminal US occupation?
Are you F'in kidding me? It's hard to imagine anything more self contradictory coming from a politician.
I think it is wise to place a little skepticism on what's reported in the MSM about the taliban and other groups that have been deemed enemies by our political masters.
Perhaps it would now. But 50 or 100 years from now, it may not be all that difficult.
Only when Starbucks reaches the ocean will seasteading finally become a reality. That might be a ways off, though.
I think you're exactly right. The money that is spent on these jobs doesn't directly create any jobs that would have otherwise existed elsewhere in the economy. In reality it is nothing but a transfer program. I'm not sure we will ever really know whether these transfers will actually benefit the country any more than if the normal spending that would have occured. In fact it's probably completely impossible to know, so the president's claims don't make much sense to me.
The likelihood of this reducing the number of wars in the future seems pretty remote to me. I agree the drunken sailor spends his money wiser.
Mobile devices will also start moving towards hardware accelerated browsers. I'm hoping it's sooner rather than later, as it will spell death for their precious walled gardens.
I don't think you can solve this one by "holding it differently".
this may or may not be a surprise, but some people don't like going to bars.
gas companies should definitely be held accountable for the damage they are causing. I don't see that happening any time soon though...
yep this was all in Gasland. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html
The USPS does get tax dollars. You can go look that up online. It's already plenty politicized as well. Either way, it doesn't make much difference to me whether it is supported by tax dollars or government decree of monopoly. Removing the monopoly and allowing rural areas to be subsidized directly would allow plenty of competition in all the most populous areas, leading to better service over all. The only real reason it still exists, imo, is to be a junk mail dispensary.
They could easily pass a law to subsidize rural mail delivery for the poor. Then let everyone else pay for it directly. Viola, problem solved.
That is simply not true. Rural service could be just as well by private competitors. By the way, broadband providers are also given a monopoly over a certain area by state and local law. The situation is hardly the result of free market competition.
Why should people living in the backwoods of Kentucky be entitled to force me to pay for their mail service? It's their choice to live there. If they really wanted better or less expensive service they should move to a city. Government should benefit everyone equally, not one class of people over another.
The modern economy revolves around cities, and it would get along just fine without this kind of mail service. In fact I would argue it's actually a drag on the economy, because it's an extremely inefficient way of doing business.
It would be a great first step if they simply removed the federal monopoly on first class mail. That certainly wouldn't require changing the Constitution.
If the national post office was eliminated, we would have more private competition and a pretty decent chance of getting Sunday delivery. The newspaper comes on Sundays, why not the mail? They would also be more efficient while doing it. The level of service at the post office compared to UPS and Fedex is shockingly bad. Whenever I go into a UPS store there is little to no line.