And a government monopoly IS a tyranny, if it's a monopoly like the Post Office or the local High School. But as long as customers have choice where they spend their money, then it isn't a monopoly, is it? It's just the same as the government owning the roads, but you are free to drive any Brand car you desire on those roads.
1. The Post Office is not a monopoly. Fedex, UPS, etc would agree. 2. the local High School is also not a monopoly. Thousands of private schools would agree. 3. So the government owning and controlling the leasing of fibers to the service providers is not a monopoly? Who else are the service providers going to get their fiber from?
As for ownership, it could be owned by the government (the simplest method) or it could be owned by a regulated corporation like the Telephone Company or Electric company, but required to provide customers with a choice of providers. Either way the customer would still benefit.
And here's where I'm surprised your head is not exploding from cognitive dissonance. You're saying that a regulated monopoly is a valid alternative? Because the costs of a monopoly provider are hidden from the end-consumer, who sees competition and thinks that all is good since they have a choice? You are missing the fact that the consumer still doesn't have a choice about the service that is monopolized... it's just hidden from them. This is why I think it needs to be government-owned and operated. Because that 'regulated' private monopoly will make sure that the regulations keep their pockets full. The only way to remove the negative impacts of a monopoly is to divorce the profit motive from operation of the monopoly. Hence, we need the infrastructure to be publicly owned, and operated as a non-profit.
Senators supposedly represent just one state, not the whole country.
Says who? I can't find anything of the sort in the Constitution.
Instead, the Congress is specified in the Constitution as "a Congress of the United States". Seems to me that if one were to literally interpret the Constitution, then Senators are to represent the whole country, not their individual states.
Very convenient, as the duct tape and the rope is on the workbench. Just make sure the suitcase is big enough, things never fold as neatly as one might think.
1. Because it's borrowed money, not money from taxes.
2. Because people won't spend the money on things that stimulate the economy (local services and locally produced goods), they'll spend them on cheap imported goods.
If you don't believe Keynesian economic theory, then you'll disagree anyway. But the idea is to borrow now to stimulate the economy, and repay it when things are going better. Of course we all know that the idea of repaying the money we borrow now will ever happen, since every time we get a Republican administration, they spend money like the Rapture is tomorrow, and cut the taxes that would enable us to pay down our debt. Democrats aren't much better, but at least they are willing to acknowledge that taxes must be kept high in good times to pay down debt from bad times.
clauses to let States governments go suck at the TARP nipple (shocking huh? Whatever happened to green jobs, etc that were promised?)
The green jobs were always a red herring. Funding to states has been the most effective stimulus we've had since the whole shebang started; I think it's wise to extend state aid.
The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.
What? Not a day goes by that I don't see something in the mainstream media bitching about what Congress is or isn't doing.
I think you may have selective sight, hearing, and/or reading skills.
And no, I'm not a Christian, but I would point out that even the Christian god is by no means always averse to killing. Remember the Egyptian firstborns in Exodus? Even I wouldn't have done that.
Exodus is Old Testament. The New Testament supercedes OT for Christians (I'm not one either):)
Since human lives are not identical, I do not assign a fixed value. The value of the parasitic humans, who take away from rather than contribute to society, is negative, so of course a possession is worth more.
Well, now you have a whole bunch of assumptions. How can you know that someone who steals takes more from society than he gives? And is it a far stretch to say that someone who cheats on their taxes is also a thief, and thus should also be put down? How about someone who causes a car accident? Or someone who catches the flu and spreads it by not staying home while contagious?
And what about the possibility of someone who learns better ways and becomes a contributor to society? Is that impossible?
If the law gives the scum who steal a right to life, the law itself is wrong.
So you believe that possessions are more valuable than a human life? Really? Wow, that's some scary morality you have there. I sure hope you're not Christian, because that doesn't fit in with Christian morality.
Remember back when you didn't hear the phrase "killed by home invaders" every week?
Yes. I've never heard that phrase every week... not when I was young, not when I was fresh out of college, and not in the ensuing 15 years.
It's the criminalization of self-defense that has changed all that.
I don't disagree that self-defense is legitimate; what I do disagree with is that (1) lethal force is a valid response to theft and that (2) self-defense should be construed to include any situation where there is a trespasser.
Prior to the mid-1960s, the law appeared fairly soundly on the side of theft victims. I trolled the back issue database of the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column and was surprised to see a ton of stories from about 1965 and earlier where theft victims shot thieves *in the back* as they ran or even *drove* away, often killing them and getting absolutely no resistance from the police.
I think it's a little far-fetched to say the law was soundly on the side of theft victims. I think the reality is that the law, as written, was rarely enforced against theft victims. The situation we have now is a victory for the rule of law.
It's disingenuous to compare normal flu fatalities to the H1N1 fatality figures from last year. Especially since H1N1 was in addition to our normal flu fatalities.
All that media hype *did* have an effect... more people were vaccinated, more people stayed home when sick, more schools were closed during local outbreaks, etc.
Yes, I agree it was over-hyped. Mostly because the media corps knew that it wold sell copy and sell ads.
But you'd be pretty damn hard-pressed to show that the hype didn't save lives and improve productivity.
Another note:
According to the WHO report from August 6th the number of confirmed deaths was less than 20,000 (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_08_06/en/index.html).
No. The figures reported in that report are minimum figures. The CDC reported 8533 deaths confirmed due to H1N1 in the US; if you check that number with the CDC, they state that the actual number is likely FAR higher.
Interesting. I was just thinking that the reason we're living in such an impolite society is because the penalty for cold-cocking someone for being rude is so huge.
You're saying that since we have such comfy lives, we don't punish people for taking some of our stuff, since it's easy to replace.
I get the feeling that you're referring to some kind of resource scarce apocalyptic scenario where Thog hits Grog over the head with a relic broken-off parking meter[1] because Grog tried to take Thog's supper?
I don't know if the rule of law will disintegrate so quickly... but your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
[1] Bonus points for anyone who gets this reference.
i honestly cannot believe that they'd be able to burn through that much money without keeping SOME sort of nest egg for themselves.
Sure, but is that nest egg able to be discovered by the lawyers? When you have that mush cash, it can't be TOO hard to figure out/find a way to hide some of it offshore.
Also, easy come, easy go. A lot of criminals spend cash like there's no tomorrow, because they know if they get caught, they forfeit it.
Besides, if I was an evil mastermind with untold millions, I'd spend it on the construction of an immense underwater fortress, and then kill all the people who knew the location. How are you going to find my money without a team of superheroes?!
We had a couple discussion where your proposal to introduce competition in the cable market was to completely de-regulate; you claimed that we'd have 10-12 competitors, all with their own fiber, clamoring for our business. You've also referenced the same thing in discussions with other people
Here is the most egregious one. From March of this year; you defend the position in several posts, claiming that fiber is cheap to lay and therefore we will have 10-12 telcos (with individual private fiber!) competing for our business. You have clearly changed your mind; bravo! Your new position is much more realistic in its ability to ensure the best competition for the consumer.
Just to confirm... now you are saying that the fiber should be government-owned, and leased by the private companies who are competing to offer services to us, right?
Both standard cars and hybrids are manufactured goods. Assuming a perfectly competitive market, if hybrids were truly cheaper over their lifetime, you'd expect hybrid manufacturers to enjoy a competitive advantage - they'd be able to charge more comparitivly than gasoline vehicles, but that would only last until other hybrid manufacturers came in with sufficient quantities to satisfy demand.
True, but people are stupid, and they also may be cash-strapped. Lots of people are either too stupid to spend a little extra now to save more money later, or they're unable to afford spending more now. Plus gas and hybrid vehicles are not fungible commodities -- they differ in more than just fuel consumption.
1) hybrid cars do not pay back for their own investment in money : they're bad for the individual
Only if you limit the payback period to five years, as they did in this study. People like me, who tend to use cars for 10+ years? We make out like bandits.
2) that money is not simply a made up number, it mainly denotes energy used in production : they use more, not less energy
I am very skeptical of your implicit claim -- that the primary cost in a new car is the energy required to build it. Have any references for that, or does it just *sound* nice?
4) this is WITH subsidies distorting the prices to make hybrids look good. In reality they're worse than their price would suggest
Did you even RTFA? Subsidies were NOT considered. Besides which, they're completely incidental to the energy cost of the vehicle.
Your logic and facts are flawed, and a numbered list does not help fix it.
True. That's why I think State Governments need to eliminate these monopolies/duopolies and replace them with government-owned 50-fiber bundles under the city streets (and eventually suburban streets too).
Wow. I'm impressed... a leopard CAN change his spots. I'm glad to see you've crossed over from "totally unregulated private telcom would be the best option".
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the second half.
"Except after 'C' or in the sound 'A' as in 'neighbor' or 'weigh'.
Meh. I saw the lead grammar Nazi of the pair on one of the national morning news programs sometime on the past week.
It's not like NPR has a monopoly on things-that-are-somewhat-interesting-but-pretty-stupid. They're actually late to the party on this one.
Well, I've seen a jailbroken iPhone, but this is the first I've heard of an iPhonen jailbreak..
Yes, but that leaves an entirely new type of stain. :(
1. The Post Office is not a monopoly. Fedex, UPS, etc would agree.
2. the local High School is also not a monopoly. Thousands of private schools would agree.
3. So the government owning and controlling the leasing of fibers to the service providers is not a monopoly? Who else are the service providers going to get their fiber from?
And here's where I'm surprised your head is not exploding from cognitive dissonance. You're saying that a regulated monopoly is a valid alternative? Because the costs of a monopoly provider are hidden from the end-consumer, who sees competition and thinks that all is good since they have a choice? You are missing the fact that the consumer still doesn't have a choice about the service that is monopolized... it's just hidden from them. This is why I think it needs to be government-owned and operated. Because that 'regulated' private monopoly will make sure that the regulations keep their pockets full. The only way to remove the negative impacts of a monopoly is to divorce the profit motive from operation of the monopoly. Hence, we need the infrastructure to be publicly owned, and operated as a non-profit.
That's not quite right for this event.
Here's a forecast for tonight's event, it's possible that anyone north of about 55 degrees in North America will get a glimmer.
True, that leaves most of us SOL. But that's why CME events are special -- people who can't normally see the aurora borealis get a chance to view it.
Says who? I can't find anything of the sort in the Constitution.
Instead, the Congress is specified in the Constitution as "a Congress of the United States". Seems to me that if one were to literally interpret the Constitution, then Senators are to represent the whole country, not their individual states.
No, slashdot is a *cluster* of pedants. We do not operate in series.
QED
Very convenient, as the duct tape and the rope is on the workbench. Just make sure the suitcase is big enough, things never fold as neatly as one might think.
What? Why is everyone looking at me like that?
1. Because it's borrowed money, not money from taxes.
2. Because people won't spend the money on things that stimulate the economy (local services and locally produced goods), they'll spend them on cheap imported goods.
If you don't believe Keynesian economic theory, then you'll disagree anyway. But the idea is to borrow now to stimulate the economy, and repay it when things are going better. Of course we all know that the idea of repaying the money we borrow now will ever happen, since every time we get a Republican administration, they spend money like the Rapture is tomorrow, and cut the taxes that would enable us to pay down our debt. Democrats aren't much better, but at least they are willing to acknowledge that taxes must be kept high in good times to pay down debt from bad times.
The green jobs were always a red herring. Funding to states has been the most effective stimulus we've had since the whole shebang started; I think it's wise to extend state aid.
What? Not a day goes by that I don't see something in the mainstream media bitching about what Congress is or isn't doing.
I think you may have selective sight, hearing, and/or reading skills.
Meh. WTF does that have to do with what we were discussing?
Exodus is Old Testament. The New Testament supercedes OT for Christians (I'm not one either) :)
Well, now you have a whole bunch of assumptions. How can you know that someone who steals takes more from society than he gives? And is it a far stretch to say that someone who cheats on their taxes is also a thief, and thus should also be put down? How about someone who causes a car accident? Or someone who catches the flu and spreads it by not staying home while contagious?
And what about the possibility of someone who learns better ways and becomes a contributor to society? Is that impossible?
So you believe that possessions are more valuable than a human life? Really? Wow, that's some scary morality you have there. I sure hope you're not Christian, because that doesn't fit in with Christian morality.
Yes. I've never heard that phrase every week... not when I was young, not when I was fresh out of college, and not in the ensuing 15 years.
I don't disagree that self-defense is legitimate; what I do disagree with is that (1) lethal force is a valid response to theft and that (2) self-defense should be construed to include any situation where there is a trespasser.
I'll check my library to see if they have it/can get it through interlibrary loan.
Sounds fascinating.
I think it's a little far-fetched to say the law was soundly on the side of theft victims. I think the reality is that the law, as written, was rarely enforced against theft victims. The situation we have now is a victory for the rule of law.
All that media hype *did* have an effect... more people were vaccinated, more people stayed home when sick, more schools were closed during local outbreaks, etc.
Yes, I agree it was over-hyped. Mostly because the media corps knew that it wold sell copy and sell ads.
But you'd be pretty damn hard-pressed to show that the hype didn't save lives and improve productivity.
Another note:
No. The figures reported in that report are minimum figures. The CDC reported 8533 deaths confirmed due to H1N1 in the US; if you check that number with the CDC, they state that the actual number is likely FAR higher.
I'm just very surprised (and glad) that he'd change is mind, since he argued the other side so vociferously.
He completely surprised me... gives me hope (probably false hope) that even the most ridiculous ideologues can be brought to reason.
Interesting. I was just thinking that the reason we're living in such an impolite society is because the penalty for cold-cocking someone for being rude is so huge.
You're saying that since we have such comfy lives, we don't punish people for taking some of our stuff, since it's easy to replace.
I get the feeling that you're referring to some kind of resource scarce apocalyptic scenario where Thog hits Grog over the head with a relic broken-off parking meter[1] because Grog tried to take Thog's supper?
I don't know if the rule of law will disintegrate so quickly... but your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
[1] Bonus points for anyone who gets this reference.
Sure, but is that nest egg able to be discovered by the lawyers? When you have that mush cash, it can't be TOO hard to figure out/find a way to hide some of it offshore.
Also, easy come, easy go. A lot of criminals spend cash like there's no tomorrow, because they know if they get caught, they forfeit it.
Besides, if I was an evil mastermind with untold millions, I'd spend it on the construction of an immense underwater fortress, and then kill all the people who knew the location. How are you going to find my money without a team of superheroes?!
Mwua-ha-ha.
We had a couple discussion where your proposal to introduce competition in the cable market was to completely de-regulate; you claimed that we'd have 10-12 competitors, all with their own fiber, clamoring for our business. You've also referenced the same thing in discussions with other people
Let me help you find some of those discussions:
Expressing desire that we have 3-4 companies running fiber in parallel. Interestingly enough, in this discussion you also claim that government monopoly is tyranny, and yet now you've seen the light and government monopoly over the fiber is no longer tyranny...
Here is the most egregious one. From March of this year; you defend the position in several posts, claiming that fiber is cheap to lay and therefore we will have 10-12 telcos (with individual private fiber!) competing for our business. You have clearly changed your mind; bravo! Your new position is much more realistic in its ability to ensure the best competition for the consumer.
Just to confirm... now you are saying that the fiber should be government-owned, and leased by the private companies who are competing to offer services to us, right?
True, but people are stupid, and they also may be cash-strapped. Lots of people are either too stupid to spend a little extra now to save more money later, or they're unable to afford spending more now. Plus gas and hybrid vehicles are not fungible commodities -- they differ in more than just fuel consumption.
Only if you limit the payback period to five years, as they did in this study. People like me, who tend to use cars for 10+ years? We make out like bandits.
I am very skeptical of your implicit claim -- that the primary cost in a new car is the energy required to build it. Have any references for that, or does it just *sound* nice?
Did you even RTFA? Subsidies were NOT considered. Besides which, they're completely incidental to the energy cost of the vehicle.
Your logic and facts are flawed, and a numbered list does not help fix it.
Wow. I'm impressed... a leopard CAN change his spots. I'm glad to see you've crossed over from "totally unregulated private telcom would be the best option".
What made you change your mind?