I've been saying for years that net neutrality is a top-down solution to a bottom-up problem. The cable monopolies aren't natural monopolies.
This is debatable. The barrier to entry is quite high; it costs a lot of money to run wires throughout an entire city, and most residents will be upset if their streets are being torn up once a year. It isn't impossible to lower the barriers (such as with publicly-owned wires, or at least publicly-owned conduit to make it easier for new companies to run their own wires), but it would require some political will, which the entrenched ISPs would fight every step of the way. It's not like selling toasters or televisions, where you can just drop a factory wherever you can buy some land and start shipping products to stores and customers.
"Bubele" isn't from a (current*) regional dialect of English, it's Yiddish.
* You could make the roundabout argument that Yiddish, as a derivative of early German, is a dialect of the precursor to English, but I doubt anyone thinks of it that way.
A large amount of the UBI that goes to people living in poverty would come from eliminating things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and Social Security, including additional money saved by having far less administrative overhead. For the middle class (let's make up a number and say the middle 80%), you would raise their taxes by roughly the same amount as the UBI, so most people will be basically unaffected.
I think you're in violent agreement with the OP. He's saying that the problem with this experiment is that it isn't universal, and that's what would create the disincentive.
"You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." - Exodus 23:9
"And if a stranger sojourns in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourns with you shall be like your natives, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." - Leviticus 19:33-34
It's obvious why Facebook and Google would oppose this. They're making most of their money from advertising, which probably wouldn't be worthwhile without gathering user data. They don't charge the users for the services, so they have to make money somehow. It also makes sense for Amazon and Microsoft, since they have some services where they get some money from advertising, even if it isn't their primary source of revenue.
I would be far more concerned about companies like Uber, Verizon, and AT&T opposing this. They charge for people to use their services, so they can't use the excuse that they need advertisers to pay in order to keep the services free for users.
That's true, and I should clarify by adding that right/left is a spectrum, not a set of two or three columns. A totally free market with zero government intervention would be at the far right end of the spectrum, and the farther you get from the right end (until you get far enough to the left that you're in the planned economy range), the more government intervention is believed to be needed to ensure a free market.
I usually differentiate them by using the terms "free market" and "fair market". Right-wing economics assumes that a fair market is a natural consequence of a free market; center/moderate-left economics rejects that assumption and believes that some amount of government intervention, such as antitrust regulation, is necessary to ensure a fair market.
I think you read the question wrong, which is understandable, since it's ambiguous in text.
Why wouldn't he use his name as his email?
I don't think this is asking "He used something that isn't his name; why did he do that?", but "He used his name; why would he do something other than that?"
The main advantage to nuclear power is consistency. Obviously, various forms of energy storage reduce that problem for things like wind and solar. The difference will almost certainly reach a point where it's small enough that it doesn't matter for ordinary household electricity, but it will never be zero. Nuclear reactors will most likely also have the advantage of size and portability in certain situations, but those will be specific niches, like large ships and spacecraft.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely in favor of using as much solar and wind power as we can. But nuclear reactors can be much better than they were the 1970s. Of course, I still haven't given up on fusion reactors, so what do I know.
And back then there was no plan for dealing with waste, it was something we (as in people living in 2020) were supposed to have solved with magic new technology.
We do have new technology that can deal with the waste. Politics is the reason we aren't dealing with it, not science.
The Reagan administration conspired to do the very same and yet half the people freaking out on this article don't seem to give a rat's ass about that.
If a day was shorter a billion years ago, does that mean a year was also shorter or does that mean there were more days in a year?
The latter. The time for one complete revolution around the sun is (mostly?) independent of the time for one complete rotation. A year might have been shorter because the Earth's orbit was closer to the sun, but it wouldn't be because of the rotation speed.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been saying for years that net neutrality is a top-down solution to a bottom-up problem. The cable monopolies aren't natural monopolies.
This is debatable. The barrier to entry is quite high; it costs a lot of money to run wires throughout an entire city, and most residents will be upset if their streets are being torn up once a year. It isn't impossible to lower the barriers (such as with publicly-owned wires, or at least publicly-owned conduit to make it easier for new companies to run their own wires), but it would require some political will, which the entrenched ISPs would fight every step of the way. It's not like selling toasters or televisions, where you can just drop a factory wherever you can buy some land and start shipping products to stores and customers.
The two parties aren't equal, even if neither of them is particularly good. -20 and -10 are both negative numbers, but -20 is still less than -10.
But when you vote for Jill Stein or Gary "Aleppo" Johnson you are not meaningfully participating, and we end up with what we have
Hilary Clinton won my state by something like 25%. My vote wasn't going to matter anyway.
"Bubele" isn't from a (current*) regional dialect of English, it's Yiddish.
* You could make the roundabout argument that Yiddish, as a derivative of early German, is a dialect of the precursor to English, but I doubt anyone thinks of it that way.
A large amount of the UBI that goes to people living in poverty would come from eliminating things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and Social Security, including additional money saved by having far less administrative overhead. For the middle class (let's make up a number and say the middle 80%), you would raise their taxes by roughly the same amount as the UBI, so most people will be basically unaffected.
I think you're in violent agreement with the OP. He's saying that the problem with this experiment is that it isn't universal, and that's what would create the disincentive.
"You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." - Exodus 23:9
"And if a stranger sojourns in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourns with you shall be like your natives, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." - Leviticus 19:33-34
And as for "has anything to do with it" - do you think Obama invented Obamacare?
Do you think it was Obama (or the Democratic Party) that started calling it that?
What's Discovery even like; I completely lost interest in the whole franchise after the "re-imagined' of Wrath of Khan.
I'm impressed you made it that far.
diversity... I really wouldn't want to see Star Trek fall victim to this kind of manipulation.
You didn't watch the original Star Trek, did you? Diversity was a significant part of Roddenberry's conception of the future.
I fail to see what differentiates that from a large number of humans.
Humans can at least second guess the "truth" that is given to them.
History indicates otherwise.
It's obvious why Facebook and Google would oppose this. They're making most of their money from advertising, which probably wouldn't be worthwhile without gathering user data. They don't charge the users for the services, so they have to make money somehow. It also makes sense for Amazon and Microsoft, since they have some services where they get some money from advertising, even if it isn't their primary source of revenue.
I would be far more concerned about companies like Uber, Verizon, and AT&T opposing this. They charge for people to use their services, so they can't use the excuse that they need advertisers to pay in order to keep the services free for users.
Environmentalism has only been a thing since the 1970s.
Or for the past couple thousand years. But close enough, eh?
And since the "free" market has failed to ever produce one fair market, us liberals are right.
It's ok. You can say it.
I never said "you" (including myself, being a pretty mainstream left-of-center/Social Democrat) weren't.
That's true, and I should clarify by adding that right/left is a spectrum, not a set of two or three columns. A totally free market with zero government intervention would be at the far right end of the spectrum, and the farther you get from the right end (until you get far enough to the left that you're in the planned economy range), the more government intervention is believed to be needed to ensure a free market.
I usually differentiate them by using the terms "free market" and "fair market". Right-wing economics assumes that a fair market is a natural consequence of a free market; center/moderate-left economics rejects that assumption and believes that some amount of government intervention, such as antitrust regulation, is necessary to ensure a fair market.
The name is Dumass.
For those who missed it
Why wouldn't he use his name as his email?
I don't think this is asking "He used something that isn't his name; why did he do that?", but "He used his name; why would he do something other than that?"
So what what happens to the money that was spent on buying the stocks or artwork?
It goes to other people who are also already rich.
The main advantage to nuclear power is consistency. Obviously, various forms of energy storage reduce that problem for things like wind and solar. The difference will almost certainly reach a point where it's small enough that it doesn't matter for ordinary household electricity, but it will never be zero. Nuclear reactors will most likely also have the advantage of size and portability in certain situations, but those will be specific niches, like large ships and spacecraft.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely in favor of using as much solar and wind power as we can. But nuclear reactors can be much better than they were the 1970s. Of course, I still haven't given up on fusion reactors, so what do I know.
And back then there was no plan for dealing with waste, it was something we (as in people living in 2020) were supposed to have solved with magic new technology.
We do have new technology that can deal with the waste. Politics is the reason we aren't dealing with it, not science.
> ZTE illegally sold US-made goods in Iran
The Reagan administration conspired to do the very same and yet half the people freaking out on this article don't seem to give a rat's ass about that.
Fixed that for you.
They found organic molecules, not DNA. The headline is wrong.
If a day was shorter a billion years ago, does that mean a year was also shorter or does that mean there were more days in a year?
The latter. The time for one complete revolution around the sun is (mostly?) independent of the time for one complete rotation. A year might have been shorter because the Earth's orbit was closer to the sun, but it wouldn't be because of the rotation speed.