You read my mind! We see those photos from amusement parks, with women's see-thru T-shirts, popping all over the net. It's only a matter of time 'til we see these scanner photos available too.
"See Jessica Alba's naked body (as captured by airport security guards)!"
I don't understand the paranoia. This is the GOVERNMENT we are talking about. We trust them with our future retirement savings (SS); we trust them with our healthcare (medicare and coming soon: universal gov't hospitals); we trust them with feeding and housing us (food stamps; welfare; et cetera); and educating us (gov't schools).
Surely we can trust the government in erasing naked photos of our bodies.
Right?
Hello?
Hmmmm. Seems absurd we trust them with taking care of us (like children) in all other facets of life; why not this one too?
Internet access only costs $7 a month (Netscape). It's hardly necessary to steal it from your neighbors. To me stealing Wi-Fi is a bit like stealing a pizza out of somebody's grocery bag. Silly.
No.
Like the security manager at my old JCPenney store used to say, "Shoplifting is stupid. If you're going to steal, go for the really big rewards, like an armored truck filled with cash. Don't waste your time on small stuff; it's not worth the risk."
Riiiiight. I'm sure the city had to spend at least SOME taxpayer money, whether it was a direct purchase of the fiber, or kickbacks/subsidies to the fiber companies.
In addition, Cable TV is NOT a natural monopoly. With modern tech, we can easily have 3 or 4 separate companies wire each community. There's plenty of room in the underground pipes to run 3 or 4 wires of Cable TV/internet.
Then people could choose: Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner or somebody else.
>>>"See, at the very least at the city level you can change something..... at the national level, you only count for one in 300,000,000. So.. which one do you have more hope of changing for the better?"
That's true. You have a valid point. However, I find it more effective to cast a vote of 1 out of a household of 1. In other words *I* decide if I want Comcast or Cox or Time-warner to enter into my home. I am not at the mercy of others.
Road maintenance IS funded by gas taxes. If gas taxes were set to 0 cents, the roads department of each state would literally cease to exist. That is self-evident.
Furthermore "The head of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation stated on 15 August 2007 that 100% of highway and bridge construction comes from gasoline taxes." (wikipedia)
Spending went down. Taxes went down. We need someone like Reagan now who will say, "The government needs to go on a diet," whether it's McCain or Obama or Clinton. I don't care... someone needs to cut spending.
If he's using the same calculator that I've used, then YES, it does take into account future inflation. That's 1.5 million of REAL inflation-adjusted dollars.
Which is better than $300 a month checks from the Congresscritters.
(Worse, if you die before age 70, your children get the 1.5 million from your private savings plan. It stays in the family. But from social security? Your children get squat. All the money you paid into the government just disappears. That's basically theft.)
>>>"Actually, things like cable, water, and power are often considered "natural monopolies"
No, yes, yes.
Cable in not a natural monopoly. There's no reason why I can't have 3 or 4 companies (comcast, cox, time-warner) feeding wires into my house. None at all, except that government won't allow it to happen, because my Senator Arlen Specter receives bribes. (As do the local county commissioners.)
We would have Cable TV competition if the government just stepped out of the way, and allowed multiple companies to serve every home.
Instead we have a government-approved monopoly (a bad solution).
You can't get blood from a turnip. Seniors can vote all they want, but politicians won't be able to raise tax rates from 15% to 40% on the younger workers. The system will go bankrupt.
The system is already on the verge of bankruptcy now (reference: The Comptroller of the Treasury during two separate CNN interviews).
"When it comes to the education of our children, money should be irrelevant."
Isn't that what people typically say? Funny how they suddenly make it an issue when school choice is proposed. "Oh we can't do that; too expensive." So which is it? Money is no object? Or money matters?
Personally I see a benefit to competition, even if it does cost a little extra. Competition kills failing schools & rewards successful schools. It's Darwinian... survival of the fittest school.
They want to escape the poorly-run inner-city schools and take their kids to a private school. It is only the Teachers Union who cries foul at that suggestion, because they want to protect their income.
Me:
Since vouchers are not popular, I'd rather see "school choice" which would enable any child to attend any government school of their choice. So if you don't like the leaky, falling-down inner-city school, you have a right as a U.S. citizen to choose any other school (like the suburban school 20 miles outside the city). I want to see a system where government schools have to compete with one another for students. Those that succeed, thrive, and those that do not succeed, close-up.
The politicians designed a system that was strictly regulated by the California Legislature. There was no free market; it was yet another government-run market with strict price controls (and typical of government; poorly run).
gov't incompetance v. company greed == monopoly v. multiple choice.
While governments and corporations equally suck, with government you are stuck with a monopoly (Uncle Sam runs the whole ship). With corporations you can dump JCpenney and shop Sears. Or dump Sears and shop Target instead. Or.....
So gov't monopoly (is far inferior) to corporate multiple choice
Here in the U.S. trains in the 1800s were privately-owned, and they provided fantastic service to the population. And they continued to provide fantastic service into the 1960s. ----- Then the government took-over with its monopoly (Amtrak) and, no surprise, it sucks. (Literally, it sucks down billions of taxpayer dollars every year, operating as a loss.)
Of course none of this has any real relevance to my proposal to let Cox, Comcast, Time-warner, all provide wires to every home. That's what we need. MORE choice to every customer, not a government monopoly over the lines.
From what I've read, Dubya Bush was originally criticized for being "too smart" and it cost him several early campaigns.
As a result he *purposefully* dumbed himself down, so as to create a more welcoming persona for the viewers (i.e. "he's just an average guy like us"). Bush probably says "nukulars" on purpose; same way that Clinton purposefully mispronounced Saddam.
Bush's actual IQ (130) ranks him as the 2nd dumbest president after Ulysses S. Grant (the general who won the Civil War). The smartest president was John Quincy Adams (Republican), followed by Thomas Jefferson (also Republican).
The top 5% of earners (what I call rich) pay 99% of government expenses.
The rich are hardly getting off. In fact, they are basically keeping the government afloat, and if the top 5% suddenly decided to leave the country, the U.S. Congress would fold-up due to a 99% reduction in revenue.
Even if states simplify the process, it's still a burden. I'd have to track all my Ebay sales across 50 states, and mail-in 50 separate tax returns to each one! At current postage rates that's $22 down the drain, plus the time wasted, just because I sell a few unwanted DVDs/games out of my living room.
re: the article:
I am a Pennsylvania citizen, and that's the only government whose jurisdiction should apply to me. New York and the other State Legislatures have no authority to rule over me, and they can go to hell.
Slashdot Mirror
You read my mind! We see those photos from amusement parks, with women's see-thru T-shirts, popping all over the net. It's only a matter of time 'til we see these scanner photos available too.
"See Jessica Alba's naked body (as captured by airport security guards)!"
You're going to die anyway. Might as well just march into the gas chambers peaceably. Don't question the government. It is there "to serve man".
I don't understand the paranoia. This is the GOVERNMENT we are talking about. We trust them with our future retirement savings (SS); we trust them with our healthcare (medicare and coming soon: universal gov't hospitals); we trust them with feeding and housing us (food stamps; welfare; et cetera); and educating us (gov't schools).
Surely we can trust the government in erasing naked photos of our bodies.
Right?
Hello?
Hmmmm. Seems absurd we trust them with taking care of us (like children) in all other facets of life; why not this one too?
Funny... some of the "teen" sites I've visited have girls that have been online since 2000. So that makes them what? 25-26 years old by this time?
;-)
Nobody ever said there was honesty in porn advertising.
As for Disney, isn't this law supposed to be for tracking child pornography? In that case, the government won't care if I'm downloading cinderella.
It depends:
- If the user is paying a flat rate, then it costs the user nothing, but it does cost the Internet company more money in additional electricity usage.
- If the user is on a "pay as you go" plan, then it obviously will increase the user's monthly bill.
Internet only costs $7 a month.
Go get your own account IMHO.
Internet access only costs $7 a month (Netscape). It's hardly necessary to steal it from your neighbors. To me stealing Wi-Fi is a bit like stealing a pizza out of somebody's grocery bag. Silly.
No.
Like the security manager at my old JCPenney store used to say, "Shoplifting is stupid. If you're going to steal, go for the really big rewards, like an armored truck filled with cash. Don't waste your time on small stuff; it's not worth the risk."
He's right.
>>>"without taxpayer money."
Riiiiight. I'm sure the city had to spend at least SOME taxpayer money, whether it was a direct purchase of the fiber, or kickbacks/subsidies to the fiber companies.
In addition, Cable TV is NOT a natural monopoly. With modern tech, we can easily have 3 or 4 separate companies wire each community. There's plenty of room in the underground pipes to run 3 or 4 wires of Cable TV/internet.
Then people could choose: Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner or somebody else.
You'd have TRUE competition and multiple choice.
>>>"See, at the very least at the city level you can change something..... at the national level, you only count for one in 300,000,000. So.. which one do you have more hope of changing for the better?"
That's true. You have a valid point. However, I find it more effective to cast a vote of 1 out of a household of 1. In other words *I* decide if I want Comcast or Cox or Time-warner to enter into my home. I am not at the mercy of others.
Multiple choice is ALWAYS better than a monopoly.
Always.
Road maintenance IS funded by gas taxes. If gas taxes were set to 0 cents, the roads department of each state would literally cease to exist. That is self-evident.
Furthermore "The head of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation stated on 15 August 2007 that 100% of highway and bridge construction comes from gasoline taxes." (wikipedia)
Debt increased.
Spending went down. Taxes went down. We need someone like Reagan now who will say, "The government needs to go on a diet," whether it's McCain or Obama or Clinton. I don't care... someone needs to cut spending.
If he's using the same calculator that I've used, then YES, it does take into account future inflation. That's 1.5 million of REAL inflation-adjusted dollars.
Which is better than $300 a month checks from the Congresscritters.
(Worse, if you die before age 70, your children get the 1.5 million from your private savings plan. It stays in the family. But from social security? Your children get squat. All the money you paid into the government just disappears. That's basically theft.)
>>>"Actually, things like cable, water, and power are often considered "natural monopolies"
No, yes, yes.
Cable in not a natural monopoly. There's no reason why I can't have 3 or 4 companies (comcast, cox, time-warner) feeding wires into my house. None at all, except that government won't allow it to happen, because my Senator Arlen Specter receives bribes. (As do the local county commissioners.)
We would have Cable TV competition if the government just stepped out of the way, and allowed multiple companies to serve every home.
Instead we have a government-approved monopoly (a bad solution).
You can't get blood from a turnip. Seniors can vote all they want, but politicians won't be able to raise tax rates from 15% to 40% on the younger workers. The system will go bankrupt.
The system is already on the verge of bankruptcy now (reference: The Comptroller of the Treasury during two separate CNN interviews).
"When it comes to the education of our children, money should be irrelevant."
Isn't that what people typically say? Funny how they suddenly make it an issue when school choice is proposed. "Oh we can't do that; too expensive." So which is it? Money is no object? Or money matters?
Personally I see a benefit to competition, even if it does cost a little extra.
Competition kills failing schools & rewards successful schools.
It's Darwinian... survival of the fittest school.
Poor people support vouchers.
They want to escape the poorly-run inner-city schools and take their kids to a private school. It is only the Teachers Union who cries foul at that suggestion, because they want to protect their income.
Me:
Since vouchers are not popular, I'd rather see "school choice" which would enable any child to attend any government school of their choice. So if you don't like the leaky, falling-down inner-city school, you have a right as a U.S. citizen to choose any other school (like the suburban school 20 miles outside the city). I want to see a system where government schools have to compete with one another for students. Those that succeed, thrive, and those that do not succeed, close-up.
Competition removes failed schools & rewards successful school. It's Darwinian in principle.
California was NEVER a free market. Never.
The politicians designed a system that was strictly regulated by the California Legislature. There was no free market; it was yet another government-run market with strict price controls (and typical of government; poorly run).
(sigh) (try again)
gov't incompetance v. company greed == monopoly v. multiple choice.
While governments and corporations equally suck, with government you are stuck with a monopoly (Uncle Sam runs the whole ship). With corporations you can dump JCpenney and shop Sears. Or dump Sears and shop Target instead. Or.....
So gov't monopoly (is far inferior) to corporate multiple choice
Well said.
Here in the U.S. trains in the 1800s were privately-owned, and they provided fantastic service to the population. And they continued to provide fantastic service into the 1960s. ----- Then the government took-over with its monopoly (Amtrak) and, no surprise, it sucks. (Literally, it sucks down billions of taxpayer dollars every year, operating as a loss.)
Of course none of this has any real relevance to my proposal to let Cox, Comcast, Time-warner, all provide wires to every home. That's what we need. MORE choice to every customer, not a government monopoly over the lines.
This is NOT flamebait.
It's my opinion of government monopolies (I'm against them), and just as valid as someone opining about how they hate Comcast/corporations.
From what I've read, Dubya Bush was originally criticized for being "too smart" and it cost him several early campaigns.
As a result he *purposefully* dumbed himself down, so as to create a more welcoming persona for the viewers (i.e. "he's just an average guy like us"). Bush probably says "nukulars" on purpose; same way that Clinton purposefully mispronounced Saddam.
Bush's actual IQ (130) ranks him as the 2nd dumbest president after Ulysses S. Grant (the general who won the Civil War). The smartest president was John Quincy Adams (Republican), followed by Thomas Jefferson (also Republican).
>>>"Background levels at Bikini Atoll are now 'similar to that at any Australian city,'"
Note to self:
Don't visit an Australian city.
The top 5% of earners (what I call rich) pay 99% of government expenses.
The rich are hardly getting off. In fact, they are basically keeping the government afloat, and if the top 5% suddenly decided to leave the country, the U.S. Congress would fold-up due to a 99% reduction in revenue.
Here's what will happen:
- People sharing child porn would creatively rename it "cinderella" or "ariel" so it looks like an innocent file.
- People sharing "girl naked" would be unfairly targeted even though said "girl" is actually a 25-year-old woman.
Basically it would be like the Drug War -
- the real bad guys get away
- and innocents are unfairly molested by the government lawyers
Even if states simplify the process, it's still a burden. I'd have to track all my Ebay sales across 50 states, and mail-in 50 separate tax returns to each one! At current postage rates that's $22 down the drain, plus the time wasted, just because I sell a few unwanted DVDs/games out of my living room.
re: the article:
I am a Pennsylvania citizen, and that's the only government whose jurisdiction should apply to me. New York and the other State Legislatures have no authority to rule over me, and they can go to hell.