i see that as a half measure but i still approve, it is an improvement over the status quo elsewhere. how expensive is your cable bill?

I wonder if these are Broadcom chips, with the driver code actually being supplied by Broadcom. Broadcom drivers are shit.

and that's exactly how wireline should work

government should build and maintain the fiber, and companies should lease it for any and every service, comprehensive or fractional, that the free market commands

the current american system is a fucking joke- there's no competition in wireline because the barrier to entry is too high, it's just too expensive to build the shit

so we have a monopoly. it should be the government that governs it. because letting an economic parasite drain us like a vampire for shoddy service is certainly worse than any criticism you want to level at government, and competition from google isn't coming for another 40-50 years to your town

I'd be inclined to say 'amazing' for the price. I understand the use case for rPi, beaglebone black, cubieboard, etc. when you need video and actually good GPIO(even more so if you need proper PWM, i2c/SPI, etc. BBblack, especially, has some pretty powerful specialty I/O options); but routers are so aggressively priced that they are often a pretty good deal for adding network capabilities to assorted projects on the fast and cheap.

I'm always up for other suggestions, of course; but I'm currently a big fan of the little 'travel/portable' routers that the RT5350 seems to have spawned a bunch of. Ethernet, USB, 802.11B/G/N, typically a serial port(I got lucky with the ones I purchased, the pads were even labelled and everything), and a few GPIOs, all for $15 or less. Kind of weak (usually 32MB RAM and ~400MHz MIPS core); but feel the price.

Until there's at least a beta (better yet, RC), such comparisons are rather meaningless.

At some point, isn't the question here whether the size of their existing debt is basically large enough? i.e. their choice is between austerity necessary to paying it off, vs austerity to dig themselves out of the hole that they'll get into by defaulting and not being able to lend more money... but which way is better for them depends on how much they owe right now, no?

Austrians and praxeology is the contrary to what OP advocates - instead of trying to make economics into a proper science (which is eminently doable, since it concerns with events manifesting themselves in a physical world, which is governed by laws of nature), they embrace this whole idiotic "observations don't matter so long as I can construct a neat model in my head" thing. Since constructing models in one's head is inevitably based on one's (subjective) premises, and since praxeology denies the normal scientific method of testing those models on real data, it's basically all just mental masturbation, and is one of the worst economic schools in terms of practical results. Really, the only good thing about them is that they're honest about the fact that they're quacks.

Perhaps he lives in Donetsk.

An average human has ten microorganisms in his body for every cell, which adds up to about 90 trillion. I'd say that definitely qualifies as "well-populated"!

Except that is not a way to get around that problem. In the end, you still get several million voters, with their pooled dollars, competing against a single guy with his millions of dollars.

And, ironically, even then, the single guy wins.

His vote counts the same, yes. But by spending that money on, say, political advertising (including indirect one, such as most of the politicized tripe on Fox News or MSNBC), he effectively buys other people's votes by drowning out objective information in the channels that they have.

And then on top of that he goes and buys the politicians that those people elect, rendering their votes pretty much meaningless, since the person they elected doesn't actually represent them anymore.

The reason why voter ID in US is contentious is not because it's somehow offensive or sacrilegious by itself, but because all implementations of it impose additional burdens on the voters that are either straight-up unconstitutional (e.g. non-free IDs, which is effectively a poll tax), or place the burden of obtaining the ID and proving one's identity for that purpose so high that many people are effectively disenfranchised, and that number is more than an order of magnitude higher than voting violations that IDs fix.

In other countries it's generally not an issue because they have mandatory state-issued IDs for everyone, free, and the only thing that you need to do to obtain a new one is present the old one. In US, though, the same system would be immediately shot down, especially by conservatives, as government being too intrusive (ironic, given that pretty much everyone already has an SSN...).

So it could be done, but the existing proposals are deficient, and better proposals that wouldn't be are non-viable for political reasons.

Still better than sounding like a lawyer.

You have very eloquently demonstrated how "if you don't vote for my bastard, the other bastard wins!" logic works to maintain the two-party system.

So long as you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you'll be stuck with evil. Worse yet, there isn't even a guarantee that it'll be the same level of evil - it may well be gradually worsening with every electoral cycle, and only be relatively better (as far as you're concerned) than the other option. So long as both slide down, the system stands.

The problem is that both major parties are against such a change precisely because it threatens their dominance.

He was speaking about AK-74M, which was adopted in early 1990s.

But anyway, even if you look at AK-74, it was already in many ways outdated back when it was introduced. Only two locking lugs, and not in a barrel extension, craptastic safety, slow iron sights, a large open gap in the receiver when bolt is closed permitting dust and dirt in, very inconvenient optics quick mount on the side rail (on AK-74M with its folding stock, if you use the rail, you can't fold the stock - WTF?) etc. Also pretty heavy in its basic configuration, and even heavier with optics because of that aforementioned side rail necessitating heavy mounts.

A good example of a modern AK-derived design is SIG SG 550. Same basic action, but it uses modern layout, modern ergonomics, and is much more accurate and flexible while being every bit as reliable.

Most Soviet republics - true, but which of them are "allies"?

Most Eastern European states - not really true anymore, and wasn't really true even when USSR was still there. The only two I can think of that still use AK chambered in 5.45 round are Bulgaria and Romania (and for Romania it's not AK-74, but their own independently developed variant), and both are looking at options to migrate to, generally in 5.56 for NATO conformance. Poland uses the 5.56 Beryl, also not derived from AK-74, and significantly improved compared to the latter. All ex-Yugoslavian states either still use the original AK chambered in 7.62, or else have migrated to something in 5.56 (e.g. FN F2000 for Slovenia or VHS in Croatia). Czechs and Slovaks have both used their indigenous Vz.58 until recently, and are now switching to CZ-805. Hungarians use their own FEG AK variant, also in 7.62. Albanians use the original AKM. Did I forget anyone?

Well, you kinda lump them together - it's not like there are a few nations in Middle East or Africa, and a great many of them use AK. But, as noted, in Europe, you're looking at least at Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania and Hungary. And if you look at who else uses AK-derived guns chambered in 7.62x39, you'll have to also add Czech Republic and Slovakia (tho not for long) and Finland.

FWIW, I don't see the point of differentiation. AK-74 is only marginally different from AKM in matters other than caliber (and muzzle brake, but that can be easily retrofitted). All ergos are the same, reliability is the same, and all deficiencies are also the same.

In any case, I don't see why anyone in a sane mind would adopt AK-74M as a new service rifle in 2015. There are far better options available for anyone not sorely short on cash and not running a guerrilla army.

I mean, sure, you could take AK-74 and modernize it - make the receiver cover non-detachable so that a rail can be put on top, replace handguards with rails or something else allowing different mounts, replace leaf sight with a peep, replace the safety with a switch that can be manipulated by a thumb, replace the stock with folding and length-adjustable one that also has a cheek riser for better weld.

Russians did just that in their own modernization program, and the result is now known as AK-12 and is undergoing trials. Though it has a bunch of other changes (like lightened bolt) that are suspect wrt reliability, especially given the results of the trials so far.

But then again, unless you're short on cash, you could just get SG 551, which was designed with all those things in mind from ground up.

By the way, now that I re-read this during a spare moment and once again think about it, I can again respond to you in what I hope to be a worthy way, yet this time focus on a different dimension of the thing at hand.

I would ask you to consider, simply, this other and possibly alien point of view: the "name-calling" types are simply enacting the lower (or if you like, "gutter") form of an idea that is nonetheless technically true. The name-callers are merely those who recognize this but also have a need to make you look worse in order that they know better, or otherwise focus on what they think is wrong with you, with little or no serious constructive suggestion concerning what precisely is wrong with your view and how better to regard the situation. Liike the thinking individuals, they see what the problem is; otherwise, they lack the clarity and objectivity to identify the problem and suggest a sensible solution. By contrast, they're simply bitching. But even those people are correctly identifying that somethng is amiss. They're just the least clever and easiest to ridicule among those who all arrive at the same conclusion.