Clever crooks. Always finding the loopholes. This is why we can't have nice things.
Presumably walmart will immediately be limiting this to items only sold and shipped directly by amazon... or they'll drop amazon matching entirely if that's too complicated for their staff.
That is closer to communism than capitalism, with individual owners replacing the overall State as the owner of All Things.
Several responders have made the same error.
"Me and my friends" should be taken metaphorically as "the capitalists".
When you are born, you are naked and penniless. Everything around is owned by someone else. You are you, and everyone else is "me and my friends".
For you to survive, "me and my friends" have to provide for you. (That includes your parents - who for most of us, is who does this, but some of our parents can't, and others of us have no parents, etc... and some of us end up back to nothing much further along in our lives, and need support to get back up again)
My argument is essentially that we should have that as a societal obligation, rather than rely and hope "charity" is always going to be enough. Because it isn't, and it won't be. Not reliably, not for all of us, not all the time.
If you deny them access to everything and therefore threaten their individual and collective survival, you will find that the majority can come up with a surprisingly inventive list of things to do with the bloody corpses of those in power.
I agree completely. I make the same argument elsewhere in the thread.
"Me and my friends" owning everything, whether it is assumed to be me and 2 buddies, or "all capitalists in the USA" cannot effectively deny the have-nots, for they will eventually, as you say eventually decide to redistribute wealth on a massive and violent scale.
Who knew that an extraordinarily contrived strawman masquerading as a stand-in for a free enterprise economy might not be desirable as a living arrangement?
"me and my friends have all the money" is precisely the default state. When you are born, everything in your world was owned by someone else: aka "me and my friends".
You arrive naked and with nothing.
And everything from that point forward is you living on the charity and sufference of others (your parents, etc).
Most of us use that time and support to develop into self supporting individuals. That support is necessary, and fortunately most of us do have it.
But it is not part of the system, and its not there for everyone. We can't rely on it. Some people don't have it. Sometimes we misstep, our fortunes are wiped out, we fall back to nothing and need to start over, and we need that support to get off the ground.
Charity is not sufficient. That support structure should be integrated into the society; so that it is there, available to all.
So you helped somebody when they were down, you provided charity
Yes. I did exactly that. I didn't have to though. And had I chosen not to, I've no idea how far they might have fallen.
And that is the fundamental issue. Society cannot *rely* on me to be charitable as a fundamental underpinning. Those people NEED that support, so the society should have mechanisms to provide it built in that do not amount to "Gee golly I sure hope *somebody* steps up and does what needs doing." THAT is precisely why communism fails.
Most people are not born into a vast empty space, they have a family or somebody taking care of them until they are of such age that they can take care of themselves. Parents / relatives / charity / adopted parents.
You are stating the obvious. That is the ONLY reason the system is working as well as it is right now. But those necessary support mechanisms are not PART of the system.
I argue that those support systems are clearly a necessary and fundamental part of the system and should therefore be integrated into the system so that it can be relied upon.
Charity isn't sufficient. It isn't reliable. It isn't there for everyone equally. It fails people all the time. Whereas my friend landed on my couch, there are thousands of people who didn't land on anyones couch. You'll need to do better than "well if someone needs support, he can hope someone has a couch he can land on" because not everyone will land on a couch if you just handwave around the problem and bleat that surely somebody will volunteer their couch, because no... someone doesn't always.
In the long run you end up hurting everybody while pretending that you are moral by using government initiation of violence against individuals and destroying individual freedoms, destroying free market capitalism.
You have no evidence for this. The best places to live in the world are currently strong socialisms with a regulated free market. There are plenty of problems with them to be sure. But they are better than anything else around. Pure unregulated capitalism? Somalia? Comes close. 18th century western countries with debtors prisons & work houses (effectively slaves, indentured servitude, serfs, and then there were actual slaves too) and so forth -- these were not better places nor better times. Certainly not better more moral societies.
Punishing someone for financial failure with slavery (effective or outright) is not moral.
You ramble on an on and on about how taxation etc is immoral. And in a way I even agree that it is. But it is not the only moral question facing a society, and compromise between multiple moral imperatives is required. Reasonable levels of taxation is a better solution than anything else being practiced right now. I'm happy to entertain alternatives, but you have none. You only demand that taxation be ended and that charity will cover it.
But we know it won't. History has shown it doesn't. It didn't keep people out of the debtors prisons and workhouses 200 years ago. And its not going serve society any better today. So what else have you got?
There's no way an entire ecosystem built around this model would have sprung up if everyone hated it as much as I did.
That's a presumption I'm not sure I agree with. I'm genuinely unconvinced that anyone actually likes the model, or likes the game mechanics it produces as a result.
But it turns out that hunting for "whales" is very very profitable. (whales being the folks with obsessive/addictive personalities that shell out hundreds for these apps)
In mo opinion, I think nearly all of us hate it (including the whales). But no matter how much nearly all of us hate it, the whales are simply too profitable to be ignored. They simply can't price the game any other way to make more money.
That it results in an objectively inferior product doesn't matter. Game developer profit motive doesn't maximize quality or fun. It maximizes profit.
This isn't limited to games. Its everything from light bulbs to movies to microwave dinners.
Its a limitation of the free market. It produces the most profitable X. It doesn't produce the best X. In general for an X to be the most profitable X it has to at least be adequate, and although the short comings are readily apparent (pointless grind) and could be easily resolved there is no profit motive for doing it. As long as its not so bad that it doesn't trap a few whales in its skinner box its more profitable than anything else they could have done.
- your suggestion is to steal and to use violence to take from those who have wealth
Look at history.
My observation is that they'll steal and use violence to take from those who have wealth REGARDLESS once things reach the tipping point.
Revolution and war is the end result of your 'utopia'; one huge, destructive, and genuinely violent massive redistribution of wealth. (real violence where people actually die at the hands of others, lose limbs, and bleed to death, not the pseudo "violence" of "taxes" collected by an elected government.)
A person with skills is worth money.
Not every person has marketable skills. You need a solution that actually solves problems. All your doing is asserting that some people will be just fine. That's not good enough. What about the other people?
A person without skills has these options: go make some money and go study somewhere and pay for that privilege or go on welfare apparently or find a position that could be used to start their career.
How are those options? How do they "make money"? If they had skills with value they would already be working. They don't.
How do they eat and shelter while they "go study somewhere"?
or go on welfare apparently
Something that does not exist in your ideal world. So I guess not that.
or find a position that could be used to start their career.
That's merely repeating that should "make money". Good plan. If you don't have money. Just make some. Easy.
That's the beauty of free market capitalism, I had to save the capital from previous production and under-consumption
That's the flaw of free market capitalism. That the only way to move forward is to HAVE capital saved from previous production and under-consumption. But since you start with NOTHING you have no way forward unless you START by having someone give you something. But you refuse to make a guarantee that people will have that absolutely necessary start. (And if they screw up and lose what they start with, they need another start, etc.) Theres no way around that.
houses are built from bricks, maybe you didn't realise it, but mud can be used to make bricks and then those bricks can be used to build houses and to build stoves that then can be used to produce better bricks.It's amazing what a little world education does for a person.
They don't have that education. They aren't clever or educated enough to see their way out of the hole they are in. Perhaps you would be in their situation... perhaps not. But this isn't about you, its about them. They don't have that education, or the cleverness to find a niche. So you and I have two choices:
a) wait for revolution
b) provide them assistance and support; education and training. We can lift them out the hole.
There is plenty that a person can do in the modern world starting from nothing with nothing
Utter bullshit.
a person can work for others when he has nothing of his own,
Nobody would hire a person who has nothing. You wouldn't. Why should anyone else?
that's how we all start in life - with no skills and with no assets (most of us) and it takes time and we acquire skills and assets (most of us).
I may have started with nothing. But I had around 20 years of food and shelter just GIVEN to me. I was provided an education for free. I was GIVEN clothes. I was given the means to transport myself.
I was free to develop skills, because all my needs were covered. I could afford to work and gain experience in jobs that paid too poorly to actually live on because all my base needs were covered. So I used that income to buy a car and go to university. Had I actually had to support myself neither would have been an option.
Eventually I graduated, and had jobs with incomes exceeding the poverty level, and I could move out and start supporting myself, and eventually starting my own business, and living the the capi
- the care for orphaned children is provided by private charities without any questions.
So "Me and my friends" don't feel charitible enough this year. So they go under funded.
You can't simply wave your hands around and stipulate that from somewhere magical charitible unicorns will show up and provide the needy exactly just enough for what they need. Its ridiculous.
What if the unicorns don't show up? What if they won't give quite enough? What if those who would give don't have quite enough themselves? Any proposal that simply presumes "charity" will be enough is idiotic. Millions starve to death each year in Africa. Others live like Princes. Charity isn't enough. You'll have to do better.
However without government rules on hiring/firing practices there are no issues for people to find apprenticeship positions.
No issues?
Because you never turn anyone down right? You never run into someone you wouldn't hire? If someone shows up willing to work, well you just sign them up and they can start earning so they can eat and pay rent.
I run a business and I have people that start working here for free just to learn the skills.
Oh... so you provide them work, but its up to them to what, exactly? Do they need to get a second job that actually pays actual money if they'd like to eat and not live in a ditch while they learn from you? Because presumably if they show up to your place of work dizzy from lack of nourishment and smelling of ditch living you'd probably ask them to leave.
When I build my systems I create new wealth that never existed before.
Sure. But you required capital to build that system, and that system is only worth anything if someone else wants it.
When somebody takes some mud and turns it into a piece of art or into a brick they create some wealth that didn't exist before.
Ah, well then Africa must be wealthy indeed because they have plenty of mud. Tell me, how much mud art have you purchased from them? And around here? Unless I own property where exactly am I getting the mud from? It doesn't come into existence as an act of will... I'd need to buy it from someone else. This is going to be hard to do as I don't have any money yet. Since I haven't sold any mud bricks yet. Since I don't have any mud. (And again, how big do you think the local market for mud bricks is? After paying for the mud, the capital to turn it into bricks, advertising, and transportation expenses... will I be eating? Or will I be sitting on a stack of mud bricks, tired, hungry, and in debt to someone for a truckload of mud?
When a person writes a book or a new sheet of music he creates wealth that didn't exist before and nobody gave it to them, it didn't exist, it was created out of nothing just because people wanted / needed to create it.
Funny that most writers, painters, and musicians make next to nothing from their art and work other jobs. Seems like the magic of creating wealth by sheer creative will is overrated. I can create all the music I can, but without demand for my vast creative outputs I don't end up any wealthier for it.
You see, one cannot simply "create wealth". One can create, but its not wealth unless there is actually a market for it. And there is not much a person can do in the modern world, starting with nothing, that has any market value. You can't simply start "creating" and then start cashing cheques. Life doesn't actually work that way.
- tell me, how did you arrive to a situation in a free market capitalist economy where you and your friends have 'all the money' and 'all the property' and 'all the food'?
How did I arrive at that state? Its the DEFAULT state.
We are all born naked and with nothing. And everything in the world is owned by others.
For me to make it week into infancy, I'm already imposing upon someone else.
Presumably, you are in favor of passing the burden of clothing and feeding a newborn to its parents. So are you already, now reducing their freedoms to maximize their own profits to support your life??
Ah, but they're your parents... so that's special.. if they didn't want that obligation they shouldn't have had you right? Ok... so lets say your fathers dead before your born and mom dies in childbirth. The hosipital and funeral expenses wipe out what little she had. You certainly don't expect me and my friends to bury her for free do you?
So there you are still naked and penniless.
Your move.
In a situation when a person appears out of nowhere
Its usually out of a womb via one of a couple routes.
It is unacceptable to declare some form of moral authority based on theft and initiation of violent force.
So the parents shouldn't be obligated to take care of the child? Who exactly should be? And how would you structure this so that it wasn't based on "theft and the initiation of violent force"?
Charity run orphanages and such? Because if that's your "solution" then you really are just advocating the "You get to live as long as you amuse me and my friends, until we decide we're bored of you, and stop. Then you die."
And its not just infants that appear "out of nowhere" countless children grow up and move out with minimal or no assets (the clothes on their back). And nobody has to look after them. One mistep and their meager fortunes eliminated. And they too get to live at the whim of me and my friends.
In a free market capitalist system you are born a free person, a family or a charity is taking care of you or you while you are a child
Why should they? What if they decide not to? Nobody can force them, so what happens then?
and eventually you learn from peers and become an apprentice in a business, studying it, learning the skills necessary to provide others within the same market conditions with the output of your own labour.
Nobody is required to take me as an apprentice. Nobody is required to hire me. Your vision is a defective as pure communism and fails for the same basic reasons. In pure communism, it is argued no one is motivated to work or do undesirable jobs so they don't and it collapses. But your capitalism fails just as hard, nobody is required to hire you. Nobody is required to need your labor. Being willing and able to work doesn't mean anyone
You don't 'own everything', you only own what you can earn and with time your earning potential increases.
Consider "me and my friends" to be any population. Collectively we do own everything. It is not a 'bizarre' circumstance, its the way it is for all of us all the time. Most everyone (aside from immigrants bring external wealth) added to the population comes at it with NOTHING and only has what the rest GIVE them. If they don't choose to give them anything, what exactly are they supposed to do?
Furthermore wealth concentrates. In any capitalism a smaller and smaller proportion of a population controls more and more wealth, until eventually someone has it all. The game monopoly is actually a reasonable (simplified) model for why this happens.
Consider the "losers" in monopoly; what could they do differently? Consider why it never reaches a steady state, and a winner is eventually inevitable.
Pretty soon, I'll bet on combo energy-producing/recycling/processing area built right atop landfills as we realize just how much of that stuff can be easily reclaimed and re-purposed or utilized for energy.
I'm skeptical about this. My impression was that the REEs in landfills (ie discarded finished products), are far more difficult to process than those simply in the ground.
The contents of the ground is relatively homogenous and easy to process by comparison, you dig it up, crush it down to 'gravel', melt it down, etc; rinse and repeat.
With landfill is extremely heterogeneous you've got ceramics, metals, plastics, glass, all part of one broken iphone in the same bag as a dirty diaper and some sheetrock. It doesn't all crush well, it doesn't all melt well, it doesn't grind up well, etc.
. Anything that reduces individual freedoms is less moral than anything that increases individual freedoms.
Your entire argument hinges on that premise being true. Its not true. The rest of your argument falls with it.
Suppose I and my friends have all the money, all the property, and all the food, and you don't have any of it. What exactly are you free to do?
I am not taking away your freedoms. You are absolutely free in every sense of the word. Now how are you going to live without somehow infringing on my and my friends freedom.
You can offer us you labor in exchange for something, and if we feel generous we might take you up on it. Or not. Lets suppose not. Now what do you do, exactly, with all your freedom? How are you planning to pull yourself up from your bootstraps? You can't work the land, because its mine and I don't need you to. You can't forage, again, all the property is owned, and you aren't welcome to poach from it.
How you make it past a week is beyond me. The charity of others to clothe and feed you I guess. So you may live at their whim and sufference, and should they decide you no longer amuse them, I guess you die.
Yes, that sounds like a good system upon which to found civilization.
Plenty of people work 60+ hours per week without taking holidays off.
Yes. Its not really something to be proud of.
I worked >3000 hours last year and I am not alone.
I didn't say you didn't exist. I said you were probably being exploited. May you, in particular, aren't, but most people working much over 1800 hours for someone else or so are. doubly so if on salary.
Where did that come from? 10000/3.4 = 2941 hours per year. Nobody works that. The average full time *American* works less than 1800 year, and has since the 70s. Other countries full time work even less.
A 2000+ hr work year is a fiction
If you are working 2000+ hrs for someone else your probably being exploited. Take a good hard look at what you are doing and whether its worth it. Most people do NOT have to work that much. And they probably get paid just as well as you. The average full time employee works 1700 hours. (They get PAID for another 200-300 though for holidays, vacation, sick/personal days etc. So the work year might still add up to around 2000... but you shouldn't actually be working that. (This is just one reason, (along with medical and other benefits) why contractors need to charge more... they're not being paid for those 200-300 hours.)
If you are working 2000+ hours for yourself, and just making ends meet, (ie its not a choice) then you need to take a hard look at your business.
If you are working 2000+ hours for yourself, and making out like a bandit, well... good on you... you can afford to life a more balanced life, and you probably should, but the choice is yours.
If you're with Teksavvy you're not in their 99th percentile at 400GB/month. I'm with TSI as well and their 99th percentile is 1TB+. You're above average but not anywhere near their top end
99th percentile of internet users. Not 99th percentile of Teksavvy customers. Given Teksavvy is only a small fraction of the market (and its largely a niche market that is attracted to teksavvy precisely because of its upload etc policies, etc.)
You are entitled to do so in Canada (assuming they are legal rips) on a $60 plan - heck you're entitled to do so on a $20 plan. Uploads are free with TSI with zero restrictions.
I've got 100/5 Mbps service now for 90$/mo with a 500GB (soft) cap.
* soft because lots of people report going over it with no negative consequences, especially if they are on high tier plans.
Teksavvy's 100/5 Mbps costs 145$ , has a 300GB cap but also has the unlimited 2am to 8am window. (Or for $170 I can get their 'unlimited').
So you see, I'm not "entitled" to transfer as much as I want. I but yes, I can shop around for a service that does what want it to do, and I would need to pay extra for that.
When I said "entitled" I meant only that one is bound by the ISP terms of the service, and that there is not some moral standing that one be allowed to transit as much data as one theoretically can on any internet connection one has.
That was my entire argument... if you want it, it costs extra.
My point was that you don't need bonding or business to do terabytes per month - people do it on a regular basis with 25/10 plans.
To be fair, one has to try pretty hard on a 25/10 plan on teksavvy. Really the only way to do it is to torrent the 6 hour window every day with as much speed as you can get. You theoretically top out at around 2.7TB total up down in that window assuming peak throughput, which you would never get solid 6 hours a day every day. Good luck breaking 2TB in practice. But that's neither hear nor there. You are right.
c) My point was that you don't need bonding or business to do terabytes per month - people do it on a regular basis with 25/10 plans.
And I concede you are right. For some minority of users who want to schedule torrents to run at night. (Because there's really no other way to rack up that kind of usage in that window.)
And in the case of every single person I've ever come accross that is maximizing the teksavvy (or just "abusing" another ISPs soft caps) is just obsessively hoarding data. Downloading movies they never watch. Downloading uncompressed blu-ray rips of romantic comedies and B-movies starting Danny Trejo because uncompressed!!, downloading anything they can get in 4k because 4k!!!!!! Nothing "wrong" with it, they are paying for it, abiding by the ToS, and they are welcome to do it as far as I care, but if you took it away from them they wouldn't be worse off because of it.
The only other use case for a 2am - 8am saturated window is backups. And even at 10mbps x 6hrs x 31 days a month you aren't pushing even close to 1TB out. And really if that's your backup plan, you need differential backups. And if that is WITH differential backups then you need an entirely different backup strategy.
So the idea is dead because schools can't fit "Protecting our children from being dead." in the budget?
Pretty much.
At current incident rates its just idiotic. Further, if I were plotting to shoot up a school with a single armed security gaurd, guess who I'd shoot first. In the back, before he saw me coming? So now what? Are you going to hire two for every school? More?
And, then take a look at how many school "shooting sprees" are murder suicides. (Huge percentage) Unless there is a security guard in every class, in every hall, I get to put a few rounds into a few someones before even onsite security shows up. In that state of mind, I'll probably still have time to get the "job" done and eat a bullet before your heroes with guns even show up.
And if I want to shoot someone, and get away, and I know school has multiple armed security guards, then I'll just shoot them somewhere else. As they are walking home, half a block from school. Or at the mall. Your solution at -best- even with multiple guards in play, and a perpetrator who isn't depressed and suicidal manages to shift the location of the shooting half block. Is it still worth it?
And of course, now that we're considering protecting our children from death off school grounds, you knew that kids are ALREADY 100x more likely be killed by homicide when they ARE not at school (Look it up. School shootings don't even rate a blip relative to all high school kids homicide rate. How much more security are we are going to need to protect them all from death?
I think this conversation is dead.
You literally proposed something astronomically expensive, and justified it with "think of the children", to fix something that leads to 10-15 fatalities a year, and of those 10-15 per year its questionable whether it would even reduce it by more than a couple.
I mean seriously look at the list. How many of those would on-site security even prevent? April 11 2014? Doubt it. April 21? No chance. May 4? nope. May 14? A drive by gang shooting. Good luck with that. September 10? Straight up suicide in the bathroom. It goes ON and ON like that. Maybe one or two incidents a year they'd make a difference and save 1 - 5 kids.
Lets just write a blank cheque right? No price is too high when were protecting children from death.
Oh, I assure you I am. 99th percentile, of course, means 99% of users use less. And they do. I've got plenty of sources that back that up. I don't question that there are users using more, even lots more.... but
a) 99% of users still use less b) given how much I do use, I really do find it genuinely difficult to imagine many home users actually needing much more unless they are torrenting a TON... and my argument there was that "being able to torrent a ton" does not equal "needing to", and I stand by it.
b) You are in Canada.
Where all the major cities are less connected than the most rural backwater villages in Kansas? What does country have to do with anything here? I'm not following your argument.
c) or just get the unlimited package or "Zap the Cap" (trade prime time speed for unlimited data transfer)and do as many terabytes as your speed will allow.
We have TekSavvy here; although its absolute speed is less than what I get with others. And since I'm not hitting the caps, I don't need to worry about such features.
You wrote "business", just so, in quotes - so I presumed it was little more than a bump up in price, maybe static ip (still served to your router via DHCP), and a commitment to prioritize your outages, and fewer limits on outbound mail etc.
In my case I'm on consumer. The "business" version for $20 more gets me static ip... but with my ISPs infrastructure that's really that's just little more than a commitment to notify me in advance of an ip address change. In practice my ip changes so rarely (only 1 once in 5 years and that was with the upgrade to docsis 3 so if I'd been on static it would have changed then too).
It sounds from your follow up that your "business" connection really is a proper business connection, with a proper SLA etc.
I have several computers on here at home 24/7/365...I'm constantly streaming stuff...etc. I have no idea how much data I use, but I have guess it is FAR north of 300GB/mo.
So I'm looking at my internet usage here for the last 6 months. I've got 4-5PCs on 24x7 including a personal server. I work from a home office usually. I've got 100Mb/5Mb connection I don't have cable tv, and the family streams 100s hours of netflix youtube daily. My plans limit is 500GB. My average download is 250GB. With anothoher 10 to 100GB upload.
I've yet to crack 400GB.
If I did need more than 500GB for $5 more I can upgrade to 750GB.
Seriously, I am sure there are people out there that legitimately need more than I do, but a) I'm already in the top 99th percentile of internet usage. If you need significantly more than I do from your home internet connection you are so far off the normal curve its not even funny.
b) You aren't entitlted to stream uncompressed bluray rips 24 hours a day while performing daily encrypted non-differential backups to a cloud provider for $60 month.;) If thats your normal usage pattern and expectation then adapt your behavior to reality or accept that its going to cost more.
c) If you really need terabytes per month. You can bond multiple services together, or get business class services. If they don't offer that to your home address you can move or shift some of the usage to colocation facilities, etc.
I can't get enough electricity to run an aluminum refinery in my basement and there's no reason to think one is entitled to enough data run to a small ISP out of your basement for I have no idea how much data I use
So instead of talking out your ass find out; it might surprise you. Most ISPs have a usage summary available.Most decent routers can tell you too if you set that up.
can respond to a, b and c with the same comment. Do not give them to random people. No one mentioned anything about random or untrained people.
And so the idea is dead. If we agree giving random people guns is a bad idea. (And we do agree on this.) Then the only other option is each school hire armed security.
There's a small number of schools where this might be warranted, but the VAST majority do not need and cannot afford this.
Exactly right. This is just like the human immune system. Ebola is still usually fatal, herpes is still around, so we there's no reason to waste energy on the immune system at all; we all know how ineffective it is.:)
Thinking that farmers from Ghana will not be able to make a rational decision between buying industrial seed every year or saving whatever strain they have already from year to year is a not so subtle form of racism.
Now that you've made your mind about it, why don't you go read the actual article, and more about the issue.
Its far more complicated issue than a simple price per yield, with aspects of the ethics of using 4H as free advertising for Dupont, with the consideration that the money paid to Dupont for seeds flows out of the local economy. That the Dupont corn is considered tastier thereby, and that yeilds with it being higher mean increased total supply. These factors combine to drive down the price of local variety and make farming it a losing proprosition over time too.
A warrant should *always* be required for invasive action.
I'd actually said a warrant should always be required. I'm just musing about when one might be actually granted based on an anonymous tip.
An anonymous tip by its very nature is not any form of evidence.
Its is evidence. There should be due consideration that it could be an outright fabrication, that it was obtained illegally, that the police themselves may have called it in, etc. But it IS evidence.
. In your kidnapping case if having a name/address/etc. isn't enough to find at least a few shreds of corroborating evidence, *something* to cast legitimate suspicion, then there's no reason to assume that it's anything but the baseless accusation of someone with an axe to grind.
As a free society of course we should recognize that potential for abuse and make sure anonymous tips can't be used as justification for any but the most non-invasive of actions. Get a tip that there's a meth lab operating at 123 Xyz street? Send an officer to walk past and do a sniff test, maybe even knock on the door and sell them some tickets to the policemen's ball to get a better look around. But if you're going to kick in the door and shoot the dog you'd better damn well have a warrant based on something a lot more substantial than an anonymous tip.
Well said.
Except consider, for example, a kidnapping. If you receive an anonymous tip about one of those... is it really enough to send an officer by to walk by, or maybe knock on the door?
And as soon as you bend a little bit, and say, ok... yeah that's a bit special... you open up the door to massive abuse. Cops can phone in anonymous kidnapping related tips for drug-houses they want to bust...
On the other hand; you don't want to reject an anonmous tip. If the kidnappers girlfriend is the one that made the call -- she has every reason not to want it ever traced back to her. And I'd rather she make the call than not simply because she knew she'd be revealed as the caller.
The compromise I think is to allow the police to bang down a door on an anonymous tip, but
a) they need a warrant - a judge has to decide and agree its in the public's best interest to act on the anon tip.
b) anything else they discover going on is immune from prosecution -- so that eliminates using a kidnapping tip as a pretext to get the door opened so they can "discover" some meth. (As they know they'd never get a warrant to break down the door opened just on an anonymous tip about the meth.)
WHY NOT HAVE THEM ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AT ALL TIMES!?!?! It seems painfully obvious.
a) Because handing a bunch of random teachers who have no interest / aptitude / or training with guns a gun just so that there are guns on school grounds is idiotic? A gun in an untrained hand is worse than not having one at all.
b) Because depressed kids often choose suicide by gun; and scattering a bunch around a school may enable more suicides than prevent shooting.
c) Because when one of those guns gets stolen the ensuing clusterfuck would be epic.
Oh, but that won't happen, right, because the guns will be stored in a safe in the principles office behind a locked door... that's great. And the police will be on the scene faster than the shop teacher will have it all out, loaded, and nerved up to shoot one of his own students... because he's a shop teacher who hunts a few weekends a year...not a law enforcement professional.
Slashdot Mirror
Clever crooks. Always finding the loopholes. This is why we can't have nice things.
Presumably walmart will immediately be limiting this to items only sold and shipped directly by amazon... or they'll drop amazon matching entirely if that's too complicated for their staff.
That is closer to communism than capitalism, with individual owners replacing the overall State as the owner of All Things.
Several responders have made the same error.
"Me and my friends" should be taken metaphorically as "the capitalists".
When you are born, you are naked and penniless. Everything around is owned by someone else. You are you, and everyone else is "me and my friends".
For you to survive, "me and my friends" have to provide for you. (That includes your parents - who for most of us, is who does this, but some of our parents can't, and others of us have no parents, etc... and some of us end up back to nothing much further along in our lives, and need support to get back up again)
My argument is essentially that we should have that as a societal obligation, rather than rely and hope "charity" is always going to be enough. Because it isn't, and it won't be. Not reliably, not for all of us, not all the time.
If you deny them access to everything and therefore threaten their individual and collective survival, you will find that the majority can come up with a surprisingly inventive list of things to do with the bloody corpses of those in power.
I agree completely. I make the same argument elsewhere in the thread.
"Me and my friends" owning everything, whether it is assumed to be me and 2 buddies, or "all capitalists in the USA" cannot effectively deny the have-nots, for they will eventually, as you say eventually decide to redistribute wealth on a massive and violent scale.
Who knew that an extraordinarily contrived strawman masquerading as a stand-in for a free enterprise economy might not be desirable as a living arrangement?
"me and my friends have all the money" is precisely the default state.
When you are born, everything in your world was owned by someone else: aka "me and my friends".
You arrive naked and with nothing.
And everything from that point forward is you living on the charity and sufference of others (your parents, etc).
Most of us use that time and support to develop into self supporting individuals. That support is necessary, and fortunately most of us do have it.
But it is not part of the system, and its not there for everyone. We can't rely on it. Some people don't have it. Sometimes we misstep, our fortunes are wiped out, we fall back to nothing and need to start over, and we need that support to get off the ground.
Charity is not sufficient. That support structure should be integrated into the society; so that it is there, available to all.
So you helped somebody when they were down, you provided charity
Yes. I did exactly that. I didn't have to though. And had I chosen not to, I've no idea how far they might have fallen.
And that is the fundamental issue. Society cannot *rely* on me to be charitable as a fundamental underpinning. Those people NEED that support, so the society should have mechanisms to provide it built in that do not amount to "Gee golly I sure hope *somebody* steps up and does what needs doing." THAT is precisely why communism fails.
Most people are not born into a vast empty space, they have a family or somebody taking care of them until they are of such age that they can take care of themselves. Parents / relatives / charity / adopted parents.
You are stating the obvious. That is the ONLY reason the system is working as well as it is right now. But those necessary support mechanisms are not PART of the system.
I argue that those support systems are clearly a necessary and fundamental part of the system and should therefore be integrated into the system so that it can be relied upon.
Charity isn't sufficient. It isn't reliable. It isn't there for everyone equally. It fails people all the time. Whereas my friend landed on my couch, there are thousands of people who didn't land on anyones couch. You'll need to do better than "well if someone needs support, he can hope someone has a couch he can land on" because not everyone will land on a couch if you just handwave around the problem and bleat that surely somebody will volunteer their couch, because no... someone doesn't always.
In the long run you end up hurting everybody while pretending that you are moral by using government initiation of violence against individuals and destroying individual freedoms, destroying free market capitalism.
You have no evidence for this. The best places to live in the world are currently strong socialisms with a regulated free market. There are plenty of problems with them to be sure. But they are better than anything else around. Pure unregulated capitalism? Somalia? Comes close. 18th century western countries with debtors prisons & work houses (effectively slaves, indentured servitude, serfs, and then there were actual slaves too) and so forth -- these were not better places nor better times. Certainly not better more moral societies.
Punishing someone for financial failure with slavery (effective or outright) is not moral.
You ramble on an on and on about how taxation etc is immoral. And in a way I even agree that it is. But it is not the only moral question facing a society, and compromise between multiple moral imperatives is required. Reasonable levels of taxation is a better solution than anything else being practiced right now. I'm happy to entertain alternatives, but you have none. You only demand that taxation be ended and that charity will cover it.
But we know it won't. History has shown it doesn't. It didn't keep people out of the debtors prisons and workhouses 200 years ago. And its not going serve society any better today. So what else have you got?
There's no way an entire ecosystem built around this model would have sprung up if everyone hated it as much as I did.
That's a presumption I'm not sure I agree with. I'm genuinely unconvinced that anyone actually likes the model, or likes the game mechanics it produces as a result.
But it turns out that hunting for "whales" is very very profitable. (whales being the folks with obsessive/addictive personalities that shell out hundreds for these apps)
In mo opinion, I think nearly all of us hate it (including the whales). But no matter how much nearly all of us hate it, the whales are simply too profitable to be ignored. They simply can't price the game any other way to make more money.
That it results in an objectively inferior product doesn't matter. Game developer profit motive doesn't maximize quality or fun. It maximizes profit.
This isn't limited to games. Its everything from light bulbs to movies to microwave dinners.
Its a limitation of the free market. It produces the most profitable X. It doesn't produce the best X. In general for an X to be the most profitable X it has to at least be adequate, and although the short comings are readily apparent (pointless grind) and could be easily resolved there is no profit motive for doing it. As long as its not so bad that it doesn't trap a few whales in its skinner box its more profitable than anything else they could have done.
- your suggestion is to steal and to use violence to take from those who have wealth
Look at history.
My observation is that they'll steal and use violence to take from those who have wealth REGARDLESS once things reach the tipping point.
Revolution and war is the end result of your 'utopia'; one huge, destructive, and genuinely violent massive redistribution of wealth. (real violence where people actually die at the hands of others, lose limbs, and bleed to death, not the pseudo "violence" of "taxes" collected by an elected government.)
A person with skills is worth money.
Not every person has marketable skills. You need a solution that actually solves problems. All your doing is asserting that some people will be just fine. That's not good enough. What about the other people?
A person without skills has these options: go make some money and go study somewhere and pay for that privilege or go on welfare apparently or find a position that could be used to start their career.
How are those options? How do they "make money"? If they had skills with value they would already be working. They don't.
How do they eat and shelter while they "go study somewhere"?
or go on welfare apparently
Something that does not exist in your ideal world. So I guess not that.
or find a position that could be used to start their career.
That's merely repeating that should "make money". Good plan. If you don't have money. Just make some. Easy.
That's the beauty of free market capitalism, I had to save the capital from previous production and under-consumption
That's the flaw of free market capitalism. That the only way to move forward is to HAVE capital saved from previous production and under-consumption. But since you start with NOTHING you have no way forward unless you START by having someone give you something. But you refuse to make a guarantee that people will have that absolutely necessary start. (And if they screw up and lose what they start with, they need another start, etc.) Theres no way around that.
houses are built from bricks, maybe you didn't realise it, but mud can be used to make bricks and then those bricks can be used to build houses and to build stoves that then can be used to produce better bricks.It's amazing what a little world education does for a person.
They don't have that education. They aren't clever or educated enough to see their way out of the hole they are in. Perhaps you would be in their situation... perhaps not. But this isn't about you, its about them. They don't have that education, or the cleverness to find a niche. So you and I have two choices:
a) wait for revolution
b) provide them assistance and support; education and training. We can lift them out the hole.
There is plenty that a person can do in the modern world starting from nothing with nothing
Utter bullshit.
a person can work for others when he has nothing of his own,
Nobody would hire a person who has nothing. You wouldn't. Why should anyone else?
that's how we all start in life - with no skills and with no assets (most of us) and it takes time and we acquire skills and assets (most of us).
I may have started with nothing. But I had around 20 years of food and shelter just GIVEN to me. I was provided an education for free. I was GIVEN clothes. I was given the means to transport myself.
I was free to develop skills, because all my needs were covered. I could afford to work and gain experience in jobs that paid too poorly to actually live on because all my base needs were covered. So I used that income to buy a car and go to university. Had I actually had to support myself neither would have been an option.
Eventually I graduated, and had jobs with incomes exceeding the poverty level, and I could move out and start supporting myself, and eventually starting my own business, and living the the capi
- the care for orphaned children is provided by private charities without any questions.
So "Me and my friends" don't feel charitible enough this year. So they go under funded.
You can't simply wave your hands around and stipulate that from somewhere magical charitible unicorns will show up and provide the needy exactly just enough for what they need. Its ridiculous.
What if the unicorns don't show up? What if they won't give quite enough? What if those who would give don't have quite enough themselves? Any proposal that simply presumes "charity" will be enough is idiotic. Millions starve to death each year in Africa. Others live like Princes. Charity isn't enough. You'll have to do better.
However without government rules on hiring/firing practices there are no issues for people to find apprenticeship positions.
No issues?
Because you never turn anyone down right? You never run into someone you wouldn't hire? If someone shows up willing to work, well you just sign them up and they can start earning so they can eat and pay rent.
I run a business and I have people that start working here for free just to learn the skills.
Oh... so you provide them work, but its up to them to what, exactly? Do they need to get a second job that actually pays actual money if they'd like to eat and not live in a ditch while they learn from you? Because presumably if they show up to your place of work dizzy from lack of nourishment and smelling of ditch living you'd probably ask them to leave.
When I build my systems I create new wealth that never existed before.
Sure. But you required capital to build that system, and that system is only worth anything if someone else wants it.
When somebody takes some mud and turns it into a piece of art or into a brick they create some wealth that didn't exist before.
Ah, well then Africa must be wealthy indeed because they have plenty of mud. Tell me, how much mud art have you purchased from them? And around here? Unless I own property where exactly am I getting the mud from? It doesn't come into existence as an act of will... I'd need to buy it from someone else. This is going to be hard to do as I don't have any money yet. Since I haven't sold any mud bricks yet. Since I don't have any mud. (And again, how big do you think the local market for mud bricks is? After paying for the mud, the capital to turn it into bricks, advertising, and transportation expenses... will I be eating? Or will I be sitting on a stack of mud bricks, tired, hungry, and in debt to someone for a truckload of mud?
When a person writes a book or a new sheet of music he creates wealth that didn't exist before and nobody gave it to them, it didn't exist, it was created out of nothing just because people wanted / needed to create it.
Funny that most writers, painters, and musicians make next to nothing from their art and work other jobs. Seems like the magic of creating wealth by sheer creative will is overrated. I can create all the music I can, but without demand for my vast creative outputs I don't end up any wealthier for it.
You see, one cannot simply "create wealth". One can create, but its not wealth unless there is actually a market for it. And there is not much a person can do in the modern world, starting with nothing, that has any market value. You can't simply start "creating" and then start cashing cheques. Life doesn't actually work that way.
- tell me, how did you arrive to a situation in a free market capitalist economy where you and your friends have 'all the money' and 'all the property' and 'all the food'?
How did I arrive at that state? Its the DEFAULT state.
We are all born naked and with nothing. And everything in the world is owned by others.
For me to make it week into infancy, I'm already imposing upon someone else.
Presumably, you are in favor of passing the burden of clothing and feeding a newborn to its parents. So are you already, now reducing their freedoms to maximize their own profits to support your life??
Ah, but they're your parents... so that's special.. if they didn't want that obligation they shouldn't have had you right? Ok... so lets say your fathers dead before your born and mom dies in childbirth. The hosipital and funeral expenses wipe out what little she had. You certainly don't expect me and my friends to bury her for free do you?
So there you are still naked and penniless.
Your move.
In a situation when a person appears out of nowhere
Its usually out of a womb via one of a couple routes.
It is unacceptable to declare some form of moral authority based on theft and initiation of violent force.
So the parents shouldn't be obligated to take care of the child? Who exactly should be? And how would you structure this so that it wasn't based on "theft and the initiation of violent force"?
Charity run orphanages and such? Because if that's your "solution" then you really are just advocating the "You get to live as long as you amuse me and my friends, until we decide we're bored of you, and stop. Then you die."
And its not just infants that appear "out of nowhere" countless children grow up and move out with minimal or no assets (the clothes on their back). And nobody has to look after them. One mistep and their meager fortunes eliminated. And they too get to live at the whim of me and my friends.
In a free market capitalist system you are born a free person, a family or a charity is taking care of you or you while you are a child
Why should they? What if they decide not to? Nobody can force them, so what happens then?
and eventually you learn from peers and become an apprentice in a business, studying it, learning the skills necessary to provide others within the same market conditions with the output of your own labour.
Nobody is required to take me as an apprentice. Nobody is required to hire me. Your vision is a defective as pure communism and fails for the same basic reasons. In pure communism, it is argued no one is motivated to work or do undesirable jobs so they don't and it collapses. But your capitalism fails just as hard, nobody is required to hire you. Nobody is required to need your labor. Being willing and able to work doesn't mean anyone
You don't 'own everything', you only own what you can earn and with time your earning potential increases.
Consider "me and my friends" to be any population. Collectively we do own everything. It is not a 'bizarre' circumstance, its the way it is for all of us all the time. Most everyone (aside from immigrants bring external wealth) added to the population comes at it with NOTHING and only has what the rest GIVE them. If they don't choose to give them anything, what exactly are they supposed to do?
Furthermore wealth concentrates. In any capitalism a smaller and smaller proportion of a population controls more and more wealth, until eventually someone has it all. The game monopoly is actually a reasonable (simplified) model for why this happens.
Consider the "losers" in monopoly; what could they do differently? Consider why it never reaches a steady state, and a winner is eventually inevitable.
Pretty soon, I'll bet on combo energy-producing/recycling/processing area built right atop landfills as we realize just how much of that stuff can be easily reclaimed and re-purposed or utilized for energy.
I'm skeptical about this. My impression was that the REEs in landfills (ie discarded finished products), are far more difficult to process than those simply in the ground.
The contents of the ground is relatively homogenous and easy to process by comparison, you dig it up, crush it down to 'gravel', melt it down, etc; rinse and repeat.
With landfill is extremely heterogeneous you've got ceramics, metals, plastics, glass, all part of one broken iphone in the same bag as a dirty diaper and some sheetrock. It doesn't all crush well, it doesn't all melt well, it doesn't grind up well, etc.
Processing "rock" is far easier, and cheaper.
. Anything that reduces individual freedoms is less moral than anything that increases individual freedoms.
Your entire argument hinges on that premise being true. Its not true. The rest of your argument falls with it.
Suppose I and my friends have all the money, all the property, and all the food, and you don't have any of it. What exactly are you free to do?
I am not taking away your freedoms. You are absolutely free in every sense of the word. Now how are you going to live without somehow infringing on my and my friends freedom.
You can offer us you labor in exchange for something, and if we feel generous we might take you up on it. Or not. Lets suppose not. Now what do you do, exactly, with all your freedom? How are you planning to pull yourself up from your bootstraps? You can't work the land, because its mine and I don't need you to. You can't forage, again, all the property is owned, and you aren't welcome to poach from it.
How you make it past a week is beyond me. The charity of others to clothe and feed you I guess. So you may live at their whim and sufference, and should they decide you no longer amuse them, I guess you die.
Yes, that sounds like a good system upon which to found civilization.
Plenty of people work 60+ hours per week without taking holidays off.
Yes. Its not really something to be proud of.
I worked >3000 hours last year and I am not alone.
I didn't say you didn't exist. I said you were probably being exploited. May you, in particular, aren't, but most people working much over 1800 hours for someone else or so are. doubly so if on salary.
Ten-thousand hours (~3.4 years if a regular job)
Where did that come from? 10000/3.4 = 2941 hours per year. Nobody works that. The average full time *American* works less than 1800 year, and has since the 70s. Other countries full time work even less.
A 2000+ hr work year is a fiction
If you are working 2000+ hrs for someone else your probably being exploited. Take a good hard look at what you are doing and whether its worth it. Most people do NOT have to work that much. And they probably get paid just as well as you. The average full time employee works 1700 hours. (They get PAID for another 200-300 though for holidays, vacation, sick/personal days etc. So the work year might still add up to around 2000... but you shouldn't actually be working that. (This is just one reason, (along with medical and other benefits) why contractors need to charge more... they're not being paid for those 200-300 hours.)
If you are working 2000+ hours for yourself, and just making ends meet, (ie its not a choice) then you need to take a hard look at your business.
If you are working 2000+ hours for yourself, and making out like a bandit, well... good on you... you can afford to life a more balanced life, and you probably should, but the choice is yours.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
If you're with Teksavvy you're not in their 99th percentile at 400GB/month. I'm with TSI as well and their 99th percentile is 1TB+. You're above average but not anywhere near their top end
99th percentile of internet users. Not 99th percentile of Teksavvy customers. Given Teksavvy is only a small fraction of the market (and its largely a niche market that is attracted to teksavvy precisely because of its upload etc policies, etc.)
You are entitled to do so in Canada (assuming they are legal rips) on a $60 plan - heck you're entitled to do so on a $20 plan. Uploads are free with TSI with zero restrictions.
I've got 100/5 Mbps service now for 90$/mo with a 500GB (soft) cap.
* soft because lots of people report going over it with no negative consequences, especially if they are on high tier plans.
Teksavvy's 100/5 Mbps costs 145$ , has a 300GB cap but also has the unlimited 2am to 8am window. (Or for $170 I can get their 'unlimited').
So you see, I'm not "entitled" to transfer as much as I want. I but yes, I can shop around for a service that does what want it to do, and I would need to pay extra for that.
When I said "entitled" I meant only that one is bound by the ISP terms of the service, and that there is not some moral standing that one be allowed to transit as much data as one theoretically can on any internet connection one has.
That was my entire argument... if you want it, it costs extra.
My point was that you don't need bonding or business to do terabytes per month - people do it on a regular basis with 25/10 plans.
To be fair, one has to try pretty hard on a 25/10 plan on teksavvy. Really the only way to do it is to torrent the 6 hour window every day with as much speed as you can get. You theoretically top out at around 2.7TB total up down in that window assuming peak throughput, which you would never get solid 6 hours a day every day. Good luck breaking 2TB in practice. But that's neither hear nor there. You are right.
c) My point was that you don't need bonding or business to do terabytes per month - people do it on a regular basis with 25/10 plans.
And I concede you are right. For some minority of users who want to schedule torrents to run at night. (Because there's really no other way to rack up that kind of usage in that window.)
And in the case of every single person I've ever come accross that is maximizing the teksavvy (or just "abusing" another ISPs soft caps) is just obsessively hoarding data. Downloading movies they never watch. Downloading uncompressed blu-ray rips of romantic comedies and B-movies starting Danny Trejo because uncompressed!!, downloading anything they can get in 4k because 4k!!!!!! Nothing "wrong" with it, they are paying for it, abiding by the ToS, and they are welcome to do it as far as I care, but if you took it away from them they wouldn't be worse off because of it.
The only other use case for a 2am - 8am saturated window is backups. And even at 10mbps x 6hrs x 31 days a month you aren't pushing even close to 1TB out. And really if that's your backup plan, you need differential backups. And if that is WITH differential backups then you need an entirely different backup strategy.
You may be the exception. I doubt it though.
So the idea is dead because schools can't fit "Protecting our children from being dead." in the budget?
Pretty much.
At current incident rates its just idiotic. Further, if I were plotting to shoot up a school with a single armed security gaurd, guess who I'd shoot first. In the back, before he saw me coming? So now what? Are you going to hire two for every school? More?
And, then take a look at how many school "shooting sprees" are murder suicides. (Huge percentage) Unless there is a security guard in every class, in every hall, I get to put a few rounds into a few someones before even onsite security shows up. In that state of mind, I'll probably still have time to get the "job" done and eat a bullet before your heroes with guns even show up.
And if I want to shoot someone, and get away, and I know school has multiple armed security guards, then I'll just shoot them somewhere else. As they are walking home, half a block from school. Or at the mall. Your solution at -best- even with multiple guards in play, and a perpetrator who isn't depressed and suicidal manages to shift the location of the shooting half block. Is it still worth it?
And of course, now that we're considering protecting our children from death off school grounds, you knew that kids are ALREADY 100x more likely be killed by homicide when they ARE not at school (Look it up. School shootings don't even rate a blip relative to all high school kids homicide rate. How much more security are we are going to need to protect them all from death?
I think this conversation is dead.
You literally proposed something astronomically expensive, and justified it with "think of the children", to fix something that leads to 10-15 fatalities a year, and of those 10-15 per year its questionable whether it would even reduce it by more than a couple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I mean seriously look at the list. How many of those would on-site security even prevent? April 11 2014? Doubt it. April 21? No chance. May 4? nope. May 14? A drive by gang shooting. Good luck with that. September 10? Straight up suicide in the bathroom. It goes ON and ON like that. Maybe one or two incidents a year they'd make a difference and save 1 - 5 kids.
Lets just write a blank cheque right? No price is too high when were protecting children from death.
a) you're not even close to the 99th percentile.
Oh, I assure you I am. 99th percentile, of course, means 99% of users use less. And they do. I've got plenty of sources that back that up. I don't question that there are users using more, even lots more.... but
a) 99% of users still use less
b) given how much I do use, I really do find it genuinely difficult to imagine many home users actually needing much more unless they are torrenting a TON... and my argument there was that "being able to torrent a ton" does not equal "needing to", and I stand by it.
b) You are in Canada.
Where all the major cities are less connected than the most rural backwater villages in Kansas? What does country have to do with anything here? I'm not following your argument.
c) or just get the unlimited package or "Zap the Cap" (trade prime time speed for unlimited data transfer)and do as many terabytes as your speed will allow.
We have TekSavvy here; although its absolute speed is less than what I get with others. And since I'm not hitting the caps, I don't need to worry about such features.
And 99% of users use less than I do.
Bridesmaids, The Heat, Mean Girls ...
Not sure if they qualify or not, but they are likely candidates.
You wrote "business", just so, in quotes - so I presumed it was little more than a bump up in price, maybe static ip (still served to your router via DHCP), and a commitment to prioritize your outages, and fewer limits on outbound mail etc.
In my case I'm on consumer. The "business" version for $20 more gets me static ip... but with my ISPs infrastructure that's really that's just little more than a commitment to notify me in advance of an ip address change. In practice my ip changes so rarely (only 1 once in 5 years and that was with the upgrade to docsis 3 so if I'd been on static it would have changed then too).
It sounds from your follow up that your "business" connection really is a proper business connection, with a proper SLA etc.
I'd still be curious what your actual usage is.
I have several computers on here at home 24/7/365...I'm constantly streaming stuff...etc. I have no idea how much data I use, but I have guess it is FAR north of 300GB/mo.
So I'm looking at my internet usage here for the last 6 months. I've got 4-5PCs on 24x7 including a personal server. I work from a home office usually. I've got 100Mb/5Mb connection I don't have cable tv, and the family streams 100s hours of netflix youtube daily. My plans limit is 500GB. My average download is 250GB. With anothoher 10 to 100GB upload.
I've yet to crack 400GB.
If I did need more than 500GB for $5 more I can upgrade to 750GB.
Seriously, I am sure there are people out there that legitimately need more than I do, but
a) I'm already in the top 99th percentile of internet usage. If you need significantly more than I do from your home internet connection you are so far off the normal curve its not even funny.
b) You aren't entitlted to stream uncompressed bluray rips 24 hours a day while performing daily encrypted non-differential backups to a cloud provider for $60 month. ;) If thats your normal usage pattern and expectation then adapt your behavior to reality or accept that its going to cost more.
c) If you really need terabytes per month. You can bond multiple services together, or get business class services. If they don't offer that to your home address you can move or shift some of the usage to colocation facilities, etc.
I can't get enough electricity to run an aluminum refinery in my basement and there's no reason to think one is entitled to enough data run to a small ISP out of your basement for I have no idea how much data I use
So instead of talking out your ass find out; it might surprise you. Most ISPs have a usage summary available.Most decent routers can tell you too if you set that up.
can respond to a, b and c with the same comment. Do not give them to random people. No one mentioned anything about random or untrained people.
And so the idea is dead.
If we agree giving random people guns is a bad idea. (And we do agree on this.) Then the only other option is each school hire armed security.
There's a small number of schools where this might be warranted, but the VAST majority do not need and cannot afford this.
Exactly right. This is just like the human immune system. Ebola is still usually fatal, herpes is still around, so we there's no reason to waste energy on the immune system at all; we all know how ineffective it is. :)
Thinking that farmers from Ghana will not be able to make a rational decision between buying industrial seed every year or saving whatever strain they have already from year to year is a not so subtle form of racism.
Now that you've made your mind about it, why don't you go read the actual article, and more about the issue.
Its far more complicated issue than a simple price per yield, with aspects of the ethics of using 4H as free advertising for Dupont, with the consideration that the money paid to Dupont for seeds flows out of the local economy. That the Dupont corn is considered tastier thereby, and that yeilds with it being higher mean increased total supply. These factors combine to drive down the price of local variety and make farming it a losing proprosition over time too.
A warrant should *always* be required for invasive action.
I'd actually said a warrant should always be required. I'm just musing about when one might be actually granted based on an anonymous tip.
An anonymous tip by its very nature is not any form of evidence.
Its is evidence. There should be due consideration that it could be an outright fabrication, that it was obtained illegally, that the police themselves may have called it in, etc. But it IS evidence.
. In your kidnapping case if having a name/address/etc. isn't enough to find at least a few shreds of corroborating evidence, *something* to cast legitimate suspicion, then there's no reason to assume that it's anything but the baseless accusation of someone with an axe to grind.
That's fair.
As a free society of course we should recognize that potential for abuse and make sure anonymous tips can't be used as justification for any but the most non-invasive of actions. Get a tip that there's a meth lab operating at 123 Xyz street? Send an officer to walk past and do a sniff test, maybe even knock on the door and sell them some tickets to the policemen's ball to get a better look around. But if you're going to kick in the door and shoot the dog you'd better damn well have a warrant based on something a lot more substantial than an anonymous tip.
Well said.
Except consider, for example, a kidnapping. If you receive an anonymous tip about one of those... is it really enough to send an officer by to walk by, or maybe knock on the door?
And as soon as you bend a little bit, and say, ok... yeah that's a bit special... you open up the door to massive abuse. Cops can phone in anonymous kidnapping related tips for drug-houses they want to bust...
On the other hand; you don't want to reject an anonmous tip. If the kidnappers girlfriend is the one that made the call -- she has every reason not to want it ever traced back to her. And I'd rather she make the call than not simply because she knew she'd be revealed as the caller.
The compromise I think is to allow the police to bang down a door on an anonymous tip, but
a) they need a warrant - a judge has to decide and agree its in the public's best interest to act on the anon tip.
b) anything else they discover going on is immune from prosecution -- so that eliminates using a kidnapping tip as a pretext to get the door opened so they can "discover" some meth. (As they know they'd never get a warrant to break down the door opened just on an anonymous tip about the meth.)
the database figures out what you want to do and fixes it.
SQL is declarative not procedural.
The entire raison d'etre for SQL in some sense is precisely that you tell it what you want and it figures out how to do it.
Basically you've just criticized Oracle for being better at what SQL is SUPPOSED to be. :)
WHY NOT HAVE THEM ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AT ALL TIMES!?!?! It seems painfully obvious.
a) Because handing a bunch of random teachers who have no interest / aptitude / or training with guns a gun just so that there are guns on school grounds is idiotic? A gun in an untrained hand is worse than not having one at all.
b) Because depressed kids often choose suicide by gun; and scattering a bunch around a school may enable more suicides than prevent shooting.
c) Because when one of those guns gets stolen the ensuing clusterfuck would be epic.
Oh, but that won't happen, right, because the guns will be stored in a safe in the principles office behind a locked door... that's great. And the police will be on the scene faster than the shop teacher will have it all out, loaded, and nerved up to shoot one of his own students... because he's a shop teacher who hunts a few weekends a year ...not a law enforcement professional.