centralized arbiter to analyze network traffic holistically and make routing decisions based on that analysis, in contrast to the more decentralized protocols common today
Central planning works rather poorly for humans. Maybe, it will be better for computers, but I remain skeptical.
Oh, and the term "holistically" does not help either.
The reason Amtrak was formed was because the Penn Central was bleeding
Yep. The classic case of:
Seems like you are confirming what I said, even though you begin with a rhetorical disbelief of hearing it again...
Yes, I know, I know. The crazy Libertarian talk. But that is, what happened — a combination of government regulating the cost of tickets, while imposing heavy taxes and building highways, where automobiles — both passenger and goods-carrying — could travel for less and less.
And then Amtrak took over all passenger rail-travel, and has never shown a profit since — losing money on the most idiotic things — while, demanding the passengers "carry identification at all times"...
Another good reason is how women are treated in mostly male fields.
So, you are trying to explain the entire disparity with mistreatment by males. I don't buy it...
there must be some reason more women go to college than men right
That may be because of the numerous programs like the one being described in TFA. That such programs are deemed necessary, reflects badly on the fair sex...
It is a "Tier 2" — so there are no official builds for it, for example.
It is a "Tier 1" for NetBSD, so you may have better luck there. They even distinguish between "ARM evaluation boards" (evbarm) and "StrongARM based Windows CE PDA machines" (hpcarm). I'm sure, OpenBSD is similar in this regard, but I'm tired of copy-pasting links...
OpenSSL?
There is no alternative, with a license compatible with BSD.
There's a "skills gap" present in Math aptitude tests that appears in countries where the status of women is worse
This may be partially explained by the mistreatment. However, there is a giant elephant in the room of "sex equality": sports. The all-female teams are invariably weaker, than the all-male ones — and compete separately. Co-ed teams are required to have a certain number of women (2 players for a 6-member volleyball team, for example). Soccer World Cup just ended — did you see a single female player there? Are you going to attribute it entirely to sexism?
It is not all about muscles either — women aren't any better at chess, than they are at at swimming or running. It is so bad, the international chess body(ies) had to create a separate title: Chess Woman Grandmaster (CWG) — because so few of them could become actual, non-gendered, Chess Grandmasters (CG). Indeed, only one percent of CGs are female.
Sure, there are individual women, who are stronger and smarter than an average male. But the strongest man is stronger, and the smartest — smarter, than the strongest and smartest woman, respectively. We just don't look or smell as good. And we can't give birth...
Sure, there are arguments politely trying to explain away this disparity. But they fail.
some areas of business are just natural monopolies
"Natural monopolies" — a pro-government excuse like "market failure". If Tokyo has competing subway lines, why can't New York City have any?
Regulation is required anytime you have a monopoly, no matter how it got there.
The primary focus of the "regulation" is to try to ensure the presence of healthy competition — which is by far the best regulator there can be. No government-created monopolies (like AT&T's) and no duopolies either, please (as there were with cell-phone service in the 90ies).
Thus, it does matter, "how it got there" — if it was government-orchestrated in the first place (as AT&T was), for example, it may need to be forcibly split-up. If it grew up on its own (like Microsoft), it just needs to be watched so that it does not use its monopoly position to against competition.
Been there done that, I sat down with a friend who was dropping AOL because the computer store he bought the computer from never mentioned that "3 free months of Internet" meant that they took his credit card and signed him up for AOL. The credit card company started from the assumption that since AOL was an established company that they would not need to charge back and we should talk to AOL about it.
Que an endless "no sir we had no way to know you never used your account since we don't go into customer accounts without permission"
The credit card companies are not always on your side.
What market strategy gave the world Comcast and similar monoplies in the first place?
It was not a market strategy. It was a government's decision to only allow one cable-TV company to serve a particular area. Much like the previous decision to only allow AT&T to provide telephone service... In exchange to getting this government-enforced monopoly, the companies were expected to "behave", but, as any monopoly would, did not...
My point was, however, that monopolies suck. In that I was in agreement with bigsexyjoe. What he didn't understand, however — judging by a link to pro-big government blog in his signature — is that the government, being the largest monopoly, sucks the most. With Comcast, at least, you can cancel your service, after all. Now try canceling your Social Security membership...
Contrast this with the heavily regulated and much superior services in most of Western Europe.
If you know something about the broadband in Europe — and their customer-satisfaction — you failed to share the link(s).
Obviously, a monopolist can just abuse you and treat you any way they want.
Now, now. Let's not change the topic of the conversation to government — the biggest and unwieldiest monopolist there is...
IT's conclusions are exactly at odds with yours. nice job
That Washingon Post's conclusions would be in line with the agenda of bigger and stronger government, is not surprising in the least. My point remains, that, once again, the computer models' predictions of the future are demonstrated to be faulty. As in "incorrect" — if not outright bogus. On just about anything, that has already happened.
Yet, we are expected to agree to spend billions (and even trillions) of dollars on avoiding, what these models predict for the years, that haven't arrived yet.
Those laws apply to in-state manufacturers as well
Indeed. With creative interpretation this law (singular) can be found to prohibit even growing food for your own consumption... Or anything else the Executive pleases.
Along with the "general welfare" clause — another loophole unfortunately left in the Constitution by its framers (the slave-owning gang of White men, you know) — this lets the President do anything — legally.
That some of the Executives hesitate, is a sign, that other things still sort-of work in this country. The Constitution does not, unfortunately...
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
