I know a guy whose brother is a Cinci cop 1990-present. His brother told him that he goes into District 1 all the time, on-duty, wearing nothing more than a speedo banana hammock. Seems crazy, but I have it on good authority, so we know it's true.
By 2006, crime in the district was down 19%, but street orgies and gay sex were each up 32% and 45% respectively as reported by Enquirer. My friends brother says it was all a positive change, and wants to establish that he is strictly a top, not a bottom.
It's not that everyone in the USA was OK with fascism, and that may have motivated some towards war.
But I think David's account of history fits better with the actual events. The US did not move on Hitler when he brought fascism and racism to his own country...but sovereignty would restrain us. However, once he marched on the Sudetenland, then Poland, the USA could have reacted, but didn't.
Canada and other commonwealth countries entered after the UK did with the sinking of the Lusitania. It wasn't until this act of aggression that the Brits got invested.
But the USA? We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor. Our motivator was not the fight against fascism. It was the defense against attackers, and to stop the growth of an enemy axis and empire.
What That One Guy said is logically true, a sound argument, and will be agreeable to something less than half the population.
What you have said is blatantly false on the face of it, and you are a seditionist for merely concocting that deliberately obtuse smarty-pants word salad - or so just under half the country will think. This will be true for them.
Another large portion doesn't give a fuck. That is true for them, although they're not sure and don't really care.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everybody is overreacting - I make a prediction
Old Mugwump - You're too optimistic.
Your general arguments that technology will enable some kind of disruptive revolution, and new solutions will increase supply and reduce scarcity and price are...ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. So, on that, we're optimistic together.
The key here, though, is timing. Each of the solutions you mention, mesh, better wifi, LEOs, WiMAX...well, I've heard it all before. (Odd that you mention somewhat older and failed tech). And, yeah, comms access *does* progress, but more slowly than you seem to expect. And I'm a keen futurist that thinks tech is accelerating faster than any other time in history, and faster than most companies expect. Even then, I don't expect much revolutionary comm tech within the next Presidential term.
And I'm a guy who is talking (and promoting) exactly to the startup firms that are proposing they will disrupt the incumbents. Artemis, RedStone Technologies, etc.
I'm looking forward to WiGig, White Spaces, Millimeter Wave solutions, unlicensed spectrum, wave division multiplexing, MIMO, higher QAMs, and more. These WILL matter. Not before 2020.
Re: Everybody is overreacting - I make a prediction
We will not have new carriers.
The capital expenditure required to launch a new communication network is a massive, massive barrier to new entrants.
We've seen dozens and dozens try around the world. Success is an incredible rarity, and usually only happens where a big carrier from a neighboring country makes the investment, say Hutchison Whampoa (Hong Kong) into the UK (Three). In the USA, Tracfone is an MVNO owned by Mexico's America Movil. But even those only add competition in big cities where customers are plenty, and the CapEx/subscriber can be constrained.
Other new entrants, when moderately touching success, will get bought up by the incumbent to reduce the competition. For example, Wind Mobile in Canada bought by Shaw communications, or Mobilicity bought by Rogers. Do you think a Pai FCC or a Trump administration will block more or fewer merger requests?
Still other new entrants, like Virgin, are not actually new communications networks. They are MVNOs, or resellers of another carrier's network. They are subject to the whims of the underlying carrier, and the wholesale price they pay. They do not actually increase the supply of capacity, so don't have a strong effect on Supply/Demand equilibrium pricing.
Wireless saviors, like Monet Mobile, Earthlink, Muni Wifi and dozens more have all suffered a similar fate. They underestimated the costs of deploying blanket wireless coverage. The CapEx killed them.
Wired saviors, like Google Fiber are also hitting a CapEx wall. It's OK to run as a loss for Google in order to push the competition, and foster the concept of Gigabit Internet, but as a nationwide offering it's too costly to build. And incumbents keep throwing up roadblocks, like telephone pole mounting legal technicalities.
If you want to get wacky, you could look at low earth orbit satellite competition. But it turns out the time it takes to launch a full constellation means that the technology will always be 5 years behind, and the capex of a space-based solution is...astronomical. You can find these saviors are quite dead: Iridium, or Globalstar.
And Muni efforts are also squashed by lobbyists, as Karl mentioned.
So, after reading my screed with ACTUAL examples of companies that tried and failed, how does that leave your optimism about new entrants?
Yeah. As long as we keep re-litigating and voting on gay rights, abortion, and trickle down, we can't get any other issues on the national docket.
When do we get to vote on issues like: - 4th Amendment - Privacy - Intellectual Property
No candidate ever needs to take a stand on these issues because they're overshadowed by the rerun issues, or worse, "email!". As long as the people don't vote on these issues, the "machine of gov't, both D and R" will keep taking it in the direction it chooses.
No. It's the education. There is negligible resource scarcity in the USA, and in fact, your argument is provably false because the Americans with the fewest resources procreate more than average.
- Educated women have income, options, other things to do. They don't see endless child-rearing as their entire life's calling.
- Educated women also don't worry about starving in retirement, so don't need many children to assure they have support. Instead, they can earn money and invest it!
- Uneducated women/men are often in poor countries with high mortality rates. The only way to assure a couple of children in her old age is to bear 6+ children. This is a strong motivator. Educated women buy healthcare, and expect their 1.9 kids to outlive them.
- Uneducated women/nen are encouraged to have more children by tribal leaders, in order to increase the strength of the tribe. This does not really apply to educated women.
It seems unlikely, but you appear to have not interacted with many educated women. You should also visit some countries where women's progress is withheld, and listen to women there.
I know this requires seeing things as a community, not as a selfish actor, but consider:
We in a town, state, our country, make up a community of people. We ALL mutually and EACH individually benefit from a stable, productive, healthy, and educated community. Separating out education, it benefits ALL of us because:
- educated people make better employees for people who want to grow a business - educated people make better co-workers - education wildly increases productivity of the individual - educated people tend to have fewer children - educated people vote better in a democracy - educated people commit fewer violent crimes
So, education is offered by government, NOT to educate MY kids with MY taxes, quid pro quo, but rather because it is a smart investment for the community to educate ALL its children.
It's very fair. Stop whining and pay.
PS: I also pay taxes for lots of services I will never use. That's the nature of working as a community, not an individual. I never drove on Hamilton Ave. in my town, should I go to my Mayor and as for that portion of my taxes back?
IF - automation is transferring income from Labor (L) to Capital (K), as robots take the jobs of L
THEN - The income is already in the process being redistributed from the workers to the wealthy. Finland is merely seeking to stop the redistribution.
SO - Taxing K income at a reasonable rate is where the money comes from, and then distributing it as basic income.
Many on the right like to act like any income received without having to work for the income will result in lazy people just slacking around. They act like our American system would crumble if people got paid but didn't work. I dunno. Maybe. Let's watch Finland.
Yet those same on the right don't seem to have a problem with wealthy people with capital earning money on their investments without working for it. They have no problem with inheritances so some families never have to work, but just reap dividends from their K.
We've already got people who make money without doing work for it. Why no anger at this group? Why is it only the worker who is scorned when they get a work-free income?