So taxes are bad but kidnapping + more taxes is better. So to be clear, the state isnt competent to spend your tax money, so we should have the state take ownership of more minors and raise them at much higher cost... that is the argument you want to go with?
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
I certainly don't define fair as "Her mom had chosen to not graduate from high school and have five kids so she deserves to die in a ghetto."
Sins of the father and all that. Hell even the Evangelicals should support that, and I know how much they hate poor and/or brown people.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
I was going to make a comment about due process, but again, bitcoin is the libertarian-mad-max-meets-ann-rand ideal, so my guess is they will steal those coins themself if they feel they can get away with it, and it won't wreak their bussiness.
Spending stolen bitcoins in a place that where authorities have jurisdiction, legal framework and motivation to prosecute in a mannor that breaks there laws, where the victim of the theift has legal standing is fraught with peril.
Drones have been killing "real pilots" since 1956. The AIM-4 Falcon missle, spelled the end of "real pilot" superiority, we have just been waiting about 60 years to move the human from a launching platform flying in the battle space, to a control platform in walking distance to a Starbucks. Drones are in no way new, and not fundementally diffrent then regular aircraft.
Nonetheless, the USAF really hates having to provide close air support to the Army. And they really hate the A-10 because that's all it does.
I understand that the Army feels this is the case, but it is not. The Air Force supports the Army with TACPs (Tactical Air Control Party). These special operators imbed with Army units and call in supporting strikes and control airspace in denied environments. In one of the Call of Duty games, one of the supporting characters was a TACP during a sequence where the player is onboard an AC-130. When one of the toons says, "Zombie 6-2, Danger Close", that is going into TACP territory. I bring up the game, because that is by far the closest proximity most people have with Joint Operations or the Military in General. In light of the re-alignment USAF is looking to get more TACPs not fewer. They are excellent force multipliers.
I disagree with the reasoning behind abandoning the A-10. The thinking being mostly that it doesn't have a roll any longer. It kills tanks, dead, all day long. However, we don't fight opponents with tanks. The AC-130 supports the Army better, due to its long time on station. But, I would say that both airframes have an exceptional psychological effect on OPFOR, mostly because you can hear them on station, and they linger. Further, you can look up and watch it luxuriously prowl around the battle space. Nothing is moving that AC-130 or taking that A-10 out of orbit except the will of its pilot.
When that AC-130 is 5000ft overhead lobbing seemingly endless ordinance with remarkable precision, it really denies an opponent the ability to maneuver, or meaningfully resist. And it's a threat you can hear and see, unlike a fast mover, screaming in at MACH 1+ and parking a 500lbs bomb in something.
So, without the local municipalities, granting monopoly rights to the only company willing to install lines how would the network have been built. Provided, you don't just go socialist and say the local government should have built it there is no way that the network would have been build up nearly as fast. Nor would many area's have ever received service.
Now I beleive that they made the wrong choice and the local municipalites should have built out the network, but the anti-government / anti-regulation stance popular on here leads me to beleive you would have prefered that the "free market" had built the network. I just don't know of a case, where a population was serviced by a telco, and didn't suffer monopoly abuses, that didn't involve government intervention, or heavy regulation.
If we didn't have a market place made of segmented natural monopolies and instead had an idealized free market there would be more competition. News at 11.
The barriers to entry are to large before you even get into regulatory capture to expect healthy competion in the wireless or broadband infrastructure space. The network cost to damn much to make it a worthwhile investment if your not going to be guarenteed the huge returns the telco's get. Adding more risk to the pool by having more entrants isn't going to attract more entrants. No one wants to start a pissing contest over territory or price, because it increases risk. With no barbarians knocking at their gates there is no incentive to compete. At best they could have a pyrric victory, where they end up cutting their margins across the board to take over the whole pie, get broken up, and we end in the same situation we have currently. It's much smarter to buy your compeditors in this market place then it is to compete with them.
50Mbps costs about the same, plus fee's in NYC, but the primary point of contention raised by this article is why we don't have 1000Mbps speeds available at a similar cost even in area's of high density. Google does it, but the other Telco's don't have the desire. There are some users on here who happly refer to 2Mbps as fast.
For 2Mbs/1Mbs, is the lowest bandwidth offered considered High Speed Internet? I guess the issue with a lot of this is simantecs. 2Mbs was certainly high speed 15 years ago. The article and the summary are specifically targeting gigabit speeds however. The highest speed offered to a residential customer at 100 Main St, New York, NY 10956 is 50Mbs / 5Mbs with 1 year introductory price of $64.99 + equipment rental ($11.94) + taxes, tags, shipping and handling, all for 5% of the speed that modern fiber providers want to charge in the neighborhood of $100 for.
Telco's, being natural monopolies, will not provide compeditive services and compeditive prices. The barriers to entry are simply too high.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Your right to protect oneself with a firearm isn't mentioned. Your right to support a well regulated Militia to defend your free state, and keep and bear Arms are all enumerated, however.
I don't disagree that you have a right to keep an bear arms, just the purpose of the amendment.
There are a huge mass of people who beleive that material should be trivially easy. Why you would want to pay [Huge_Int] to be taught simple things, and not be pushed, I will never know. If you just want a piece of paper, go to a degree mill. If you want to push the edge of your abilites and learn to solve difficult problems, then persue higher learning.
So the bigger problem was that the test was way to easy for a curve to be used. Perhaps the teacher should teach and test material to a level higher then what they were. Obviously, if the class got 88% as a failure threshold then the class time was being wasted on such easy material. You should have been complaining about your class time being wasted, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
So taxes are bad but kidnapping + more taxes is better. So to be clear, the state isnt competent to spend your tax money, so we should have the state take ownership of more minors and raise them at much higher cost... that is the argument you want to go with?
The point being that in the named situation society is paying to protect the children. I didn't think the " sins of the father" was to obtuse.
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
I certainly don't define fair as "Her mom had chosen to not graduate from high school and have five kids so she deserves to die in a ghetto."
Sins of the father and all that. Hell even the Evangelicals should support that, and I know how much they hate poor and/or brown people.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Like some kind of tax to a central government? I think we already have a system like that.
I was going to make a comment about due process, but again, bitcoin is the libertarian-mad-max-meets-ann-rand ideal, so my guess is they will steal those coins themself if they feel they can get away with it, and it won't wreak their bussiness.
Spending stolen bitcoins in a place that where authorities have jurisdiction, legal framework and motivation to prosecute in a mannor that breaks there laws, where the victim of the theift has legal standing is fraught with peril.
Well they were holding somewhere between 300MegaDollars and 700MegaDollars worth of idiot's money.
In defense of Tea Bagger Republican's everywhere, the Tea Party was started in Response to NeoCon Bush 2. Not in support of him.
Drones have been killing "real pilots" since 1956. The AIM-4 Falcon missle, spelled the end of "real pilot" superiority, we have just been waiting about 60 years to move the human from a launching platform flying in the battle space, to a control platform in walking distance to a Starbucks. Drones are in no way new, and not fundementally diffrent then regular aircraft.
Nonetheless, the USAF really hates having to provide close air support to the Army. And they really hate the A-10 because that's all it does.
I understand that the Army feels this is the case, but it is not. The Air Force supports the Army with TACPs (Tactical Air Control Party). These special operators imbed with Army units and call in supporting strikes and control airspace in denied environments. In one of the Call of Duty games, one of the supporting characters was a TACP during a sequence where the player is onboard an AC-130. When one of the toons says, "Zombie 6-2, Danger Close", that is going into TACP territory. I bring up the game, because that is by far the closest proximity most people have with Joint Operations or the Military in General. In light of the re-alignment USAF is looking to get more TACPs not fewer. They are excellent force multipliers.
I disagree with the reasoning behind abandoning the A-10. The thinking being mostly that it doesn't have a roll any longer. It kills tanks, dead, all day long. However, we don't fight opponents with tanks. The AC-130 supports the Army better, due to its long time on station. But, I would say that both airframes have an exceptional psychological effect on OPFOR, mostly because you can hear them on station, and they linger. Further, you can look up and watch it luxuriously prowl around the battle space. Nothing is moving that AC-130 or taking that A-10 out of orbit except the will of its pilot.
When that AC-130 is 5000ft overhead lobbing seemingly endless ordinance with remarkable precision, it really denies an opponent the ability to maneuver, or meaningfully resist. And it's a threat you can hear and see, unlike a fast mover, screaming in at MACH 1+ and parking a 500lbs bomb in something.
$60 for Gbps. I'll take 2.
You could also socialize the natural monopolies so you can maximize utility, or atleast set it to theoretical free market levels.
So, without the local municipalities, granting monopoly rights to the only company willing to install lines how would the network have been built. Provided, you don't just go socialist and say the local government should have built it there is no way that the network would have been build up nearly as fast. Nor would many area's have ever received service.
Now I beleive that they made the wrong choice and the local municipalites should have built out the network, but the anti-government / anti-regulation stance popular on here leads me to beleive you would have prefered that the "free market" had built the network. I just don't know of a case, where a population was serviced by a telco, and didn't suffer monopoly abuses, that didn't involve government intervention, or heavy regulation.
If we didn't have a market place made of segmented natural monopolies and instead had an idealized free market there would be more competition. News at 11.
The barriers to entry are to large before you even get into regulatory capture to expect healthy competion in the wireless or broadband infrastructure space. The network cost to damn much to make it a worthwhile investment if your not going to be guarenteed the huge returns the telco's get. Adding more risk to the pool by having more entrants isn't going to attract more entrants. No one wants to start a pissing contest over territory or price, because it increases risk. With no barbarians knocking at their gates there is no incentive to compete. At best they could have a pyrric victory, where they end up cutting their margins across the board to take over the whole pie, get broken up, and we end in the same situation we have currently. It's much smarter to buy your compeditors in this market place then it is to compete with them.
50Mbps costs about the same, plus fee's in NYC, but the primary point of contention raised by this article is why we don't have 1000Mbps speeds available at a similar cost even in area's of high density. Google does it, but the other Telco's don't have the desire. There are some users on here who happly refer to 2Mbps as fast.
Taxes in the US have been falling for most folk for the last 50 years, let's not get all irrational.
It better fits the narrative of Federal Government bad / Unregulated Market good to blame the Feds for local governments being crushed by Telco's.
For 2Mbs/1Mbs, is the lowest bandwidth offered considered High Speed Internet? I guess the issue with a lot of this is simantecs. 2Mbs was certainly high speed 15 years ago. The article and the summary are specifically targeting gigabit speeds however. The highest speed offered to a residential customer at 100 Main St, New York, NY 10956 is 50Mbs / 5Mbs with 1 year introductory price of $64.99 + equipment rental ($11.94) + taxes, tags, shipping and handling, all for 5% of the speed that modern fiber providers want to charge in the neighborhood of $100 for.
Telco's, being natural monopolies, will not provide compeditive services and compeditive prices. The barriers to entry are simply too high.
Hasn't Netflix been offering to put their equipment inside of any ISP that will have them, since forever?
North America? so like Maine?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Your right to protect oneself with a firearm isn't mentioned. Your right to support a well regulated Militia to defend your free state, and keep and bear Arms are all enumerated, however.
I don't disagree that you have a right to keep an bear arms, just the purpose of the amendment.
There are a huge mass of people who beleive that material should be trivially easy. Why you would want to pay [Huge_Int] to be taught simple things, and not be pushed, I will never know. If you just want a piece of paper, go to a degree mill. If you want to push the edge of your abilites and learn to solve difficult problems, then persue higher learning.
So the bigger problem was that the test was way to easy for a curve to be used. Perhaps the teacher should teach and test material to a level higher then what they were. Obviously, if the class got 88% as a failure threshold then the class time was being wasted on such easy material. You should have been complaining about your class time being wasted, as well.
Bravo.