What part of my post do you think requires an advance degree in environmental science and climatology?
As demostrated by quoting incorrect information in a slashdot summary, you screwed up and showed that you will belive anything that backs your bias without doing any research.
Or do you think I need a degree to click the link on the summary?
That number made sense to you because it agreed with your viewpoint so you did no research and blindly accepted the information you were told (and proudly changed the subject line.)
So what? Do you advocate lying, cheating, and stealing to make that money? I ask because Verizon signed an agreement to make FIOS available to everyone in the city and they are now trying to weasel out of it.
My comment was toward the quote (which I quoted in my comment) that buisnesses should not be expected to live up to their promises and the implciation that profit is evil.
To answer your question: if I was losing money working for a company, yes I would break my contract and leave - and I would understand that I may be sued for breach of contract.
I've read several articles on this and while Verison is not blameless, the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. Should they break into the buildings/apartments that refuse to allow to install FIOS despit the tennants wanting it? A lot of apartments have deals with existing internet companies.
That said, Verzion should be sued for breaching their contract with the city and let them defend themselves in court or pay up whatever fines were agreed too.
Verizon is in the business to make money - Providing access to Internet is just one of the by-products of Verizon's quest in making money..... On the other hand, places such as the Bronx, where the only real way to make money is to sell drugs, where is the impetus for Verizon to provide FIOS there?
Nice claims but I honestly doubt that verizon (or anyone else) cares if they are paid with drug money, employeement money, wall street money, etc.
When Verizon promised to provide FIOS to NYC it hinged on one thing - profits
I don't work to break even on my monthly bills. I work to make as much money as I can - even if it's more than I "need." I do not understand why people think that buisness should be started and ran with a different principle.
Are you relating two seperate issues or does the EPA ruling have something to do with Free Speech?
Also, you think buisnesses should be bound by the 1st ammendment? Do you understand the point of the Bill Of Rights and what it was suppose to be limiting (Goverment..)
Same court that the libs hate for Citizen United will now act like this should be a done deal - but will keep moaning about that ruling. Hell, there is already moaning about the recount stuff from 14 years ago.
So what is the difference between disallowing someone to sell a cake for a gay wedding and not allowing a confederate fled to be sold for that gay wedding?
In THIS day and age, there are STILL numerous people in those states who would love to see segregation re-instituted and/or interracial marriage banned again.
You say that based on TV and the northern media very much wanting to maitain their moral superiority to the South. They do this by amplifing a very small, very fringe group of people in the South. You can probably find the same views from people of North if it suited the powers that be to find them.
Nope - the democrats own this cluster fuck. You can't pick and choose parts of this bill are the republicans fault when they were clear from the start they would not vote for this thing.
No one should have been bailed out - including the homeowners.
Bailing out homeowners rewards those who bought when they shouldn't and does nothing but build resentment for those of us that rented until we could afford to buy.
getting a bank to actually give them a loan is an exercise in futility. So even though they would be financially better off by buying, it won't happen. Relative poverty can be expensive in the U.S.
And if the banks do provide them the loan and the buyer defaults, we hear how evil and money hungry the banks are for giving a loan to someone in that situation
Having to pay his own goddamn mortgage on the property he is getting equity in for every payment is not "losing thousands of dollars", it's merely not stealing thousands of dollars from his renters
That's an easy one... jobs. Jobs that have benefits and pay (well) above minimum wage.
Which just shows how raising minimum wage is not a fix for "income equality". If anythng, it hurts the middle class who don't get the same increase but whose money is now worth less.
I have never lived in a luxury apartment but the 3 times rule was the norm in the 5 appartments I lived in before buying my home.
Back tothe supply/demand/market value etc: The cost of a 3 bedroom cost more than buying a 3 bedroom home. So once that became my demand, I bought a house that I will be paying for for the next 30 years (but unlike my 10 years renting, there is an end in site for that bill.)
Demonstrable harm is implied. For instance, if I'm at a company picnic and a drone hits me in the head, it won't be much of a problem demonstrating harm to a court.
Ok. What kind of regulations would prevent this? And what regulation will prevent a ball hitting me in the head or any other object a person can use?
Slashdot Mirror
Cute.
What part of my post do you think requires an advance degree in environmental science and climatology?
As demostrated by quoting incorrect information in a slashdot summary, you screwed up and showed that you will belive anything that backs your bias without doing any research.
Or do you think I need a degree to click the link on the summary?
I love your post. It demostrates how much blind trust you have for infomation that is pro-climate change.
I'd be willing to bet that any anti-climate change info you read, you do the same lack of research and simply assume it's a lie from Big Oil.
You blindly believed and quoted (without any independent research) the summary of a slashdot article.
The article itself gives a different number and submitted mentioned that the 98% was a typo.
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
That number made sense to you because it agreed with your viewpoint so you did no research and blindly accepted the information you were told (and proudly changed the subject line.)
Because that should definetly be the benchmark, right?
So what? Do you advocate lying, cheating, and stealing to make that money? I ask because Verizon signed an agreement to make FIOS available to everyone in the city and they are now trying to weasel out of it.
My comment was toward the quote (which I quoted in my comment) that buisnesses should not be expected to live up to their promises and the implciation that profit is evil.
To answer your question: if I was losing money working for a company, yes I would break my contract and leave - and I would understand that I may be sued for breach of contract.
I've read several articles on this and while Verison is not blameless, the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. Should they break into the buildings/apartments that refuse to allow to install FIOS despit the tennants wanting it? A lot of apartments have deals with existing internet companies.
That said, Verzion should be sued for breaching their contract with the city and let them defend themselves in court or pay up whatever fines were agreed too.
Verizon is in the business to make money - Providing access to Internet is just one of the by-products of Verizon's quest in making money .....
On the other hand, places such as the Bronx, where the only real way to make money is to sell drugs, where is the impetus for Verizon to provide FIOS there?
Nice claims but I honestly doubt that verizon (or anyone else) cares if they are paid with drug money, employeement money, wall street money, etc.
When Verizon promised to provide FIOS to NYC it hinged on one thing - profits
I don't work to break even on my monthly bills. I work to make as much money as I can - even if it's more than I "need." I do not understand why people think that buisness should be started and ran with a different principle.
Are you relating two seperate issues or does the EPA ruling have something to do with Free Speech?
Also, you think buisnesses should be bound by the 1st ammendment? Do you understand the point of the Bill Of Rights and what it was suppose to be limiting (Goverment..)
I don't register my bike which is a better anolgy unless that is one hell of a huge drone
Same court that the libs hate for Citizen United will now act like this should be a done deal - but will keep moaning about that ruling. Hell, there is already moaning about the recount stuff from 14 years ago.
There was no way other than handing the presidecy to Gore that would have seen non-biased to you, was there?
Well, SCOTUS has managed to redefine two words this week.
The nazi flag isn't allowed in Germany.
Which would be relavnt if we were talking about Germany and it's right to free speech.
So what is the difference between disallowing someone to sell a cake for a gay wedding and not allowing a confederate fled to be sold for that gay wedding?
In THIS day and age, there are STILL numerous people in those states who would love to see segregation re-instituted and/or interracial marriage banned again.
You say that based on TV and the northern media very much wanting to maitain their moral superiority to the South. They do this by amplifing a very small, very fringe group of people in the South. You can probably find the same views from people of North if it suited the powers that be to find them.
Should all flags from countries we fought or groups we are fighting not be allowed to be sold?
How do you not see this as a slipperly slope?
Nope - the democrats own this cluster fuck. You can't pick and choose parts of this bill are the republicans fault when they were clear from the start they would not vote for this thing.
No one should have been bailed out - including the homeowners.
Bailing out homeowners rewards those who bought when they shouldn't and does nothing but build resentment for those of us that rented until we could afford to buy.
If the banks were allowed to fail, they would have had to sale these properties.
You just provided a great example of how government interventions hurts the free market which in turn hurts it's citizens.
getting a bank to actually give them a loan is an exercise in futility. So even though they would be financially better off by buying, it won't happen. Relative poverty can be expensive in the U.S.
And if the banks do provide them the loan and the buyer defaults, we hear how evil and money hungry the banks are for giving a loan to someone in that situation
Having to pay his own goddamn mortgage on the property he is getting equity in for every payment is not "losing thousands of dollars", it's merely not stealing thousands of dollars from his renters
How is charging rent stealing?
That's an easy one ... jobs. Jobs that have benefits and pay (well) above minimum wage.
Which just shows how raising minimum wage is not a fix for "income equality".
If anythng, it hurts the middle class who don't get the same increase but whose money is now worth less.
I have never lived in a luxury apartment but the 3 times rule was the norm in the 5 appartments I lived in before buying my home.
Back tothe supply/demand/market value etc: The cost of a 3 bedroom cost more than buying a 3 bedroom home. So once that became my demand, I bought a house that I will be paying for for the next 30 years (but unlike my 10 years renting, there is an end in site for that bill.)
Demonstrable harm is implied. For instance, if I'm at a company picnic and a drone hits me in the head, it won't be much of a problem demonstrating harm to a court.
Ok. What kind of regulations would prevent this? And what regulation will prevent a ball hitting me in the head or any other object a person can use?
So as a libertarian, what would you have the court do if the government doesn't "do what it is told
Probably the same thing that would be done against the goverment in a non-libertarian society
And this is one of the great things about our country and why things should be done on the local level more often instead of the federal.
People that share this belief have a place to go and don't need to force that on everyone else.
When I reads these comments, I can't help but feel sad that I have very little data valuable enough to go through this trouble.
I have my family photos and docs backed up. That's about it.
I'd guess the 0.1% is still lower than you get than multiple "streams" where each household is responsible for the sorting,