FWIW, this is precisely what I was intending.

Somehow this sounds a little bit more expensive than just using existing arable land or existing potable water

Of course. My post was meant for people, who'd claim, that "Earth can not sustain" such a big population — by listing the vast areas, where the new billions could live in comfort even if those existing parcels of arable land and sources of potable water were exhausted.

I refer you to Project Orion

The method could allow us to reach other star systems, but not practically — not within reasonable time. For that, we'd need faster-than-light travel and that is, what I had in mind.

Because that [ping times -mi] is the main downside of the Malthusian catastrophe.

It was a joke, relax...

The same thing we do every night, Pinky ...

Maybe they wanted to hear "the Commission" (caps? should I say it in an evil accent or something?) out. Maybe they wanted to make them look foolish. Who knows?

Or ... what, exactly? Mountie stormtroopers will come arrest them?

Or Canada shall taunt them a second time?

That's not burnout; that's sanity.

(Try saying it in the same tone as "that's no moon ... that's a space station!")

Dammit, I was going to go with "Popplers"

Already taken.

If you told me someone was selling draft beer supplies (or whatever this crap is), my first assumption would be that it was for bars and taverns, not for home use. Thanks for taking time to point out the obvious.

I take it you don't know any homebrewers, then. Kegging is a hell of a lot easier than bottling. That said, the usual insurance against a keg running out is...wait for it...having a second keg on tap. Cheap and low-tech.

" let's use cheaper, more effective solutions that will slow down the virus and save lives."

Like what? Bringing infected people to the US. That sounds like a real good way to keep infections out. Or do you not understand the consequences of bringing African Bees to Brazil for "research"?

Actually, give me one regulatory agency that has shrunk or disbanded itself when it was no longer needed. Off the top of your head. I'm sure one exists, but for the life of me, I can't think of one.

While not "proof" of expanding powers, it is something to contemplate.

Netflix is providing content Canadians want, and the government is deciding that isn't good enough. Netflix is STREAMING video, and there is a shit ton of content available, most of it isn't Canadian. If Netflix is required to carry one Canadian show, per non-Canadian show, they better start making a shit ton of new shows. Otherwise it is impossible to comply. Basically it shows that the original mandate is no longer feasible because of technology changes. This is exactly what can be expected when the world changes around those that wish it to remain the same.

Good luck making it work.

The CRTC implicitly threatened to regulate the company by taking away its ability to rely on the new media exception if it did not cooperate with its orders.

Statists rejoice...

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

— Thomas Jefferson

Do you think there is a possibility you have a few things wrong?

If not, perhaps you should brace yourself.

I live in the exurbs of a major Metro Area (Minneapolis/St Paul).
The *best* I can get is 20mbs, at exorbitant prices. The best normal price option is 10mbps, which was the very best possible residential until about last March.

So you're saying we should "give" everyone 10mbps because that's so horrible?

That, simply, is nonsense.

22 trillion dollars over fifty years is 440 billion dollars a year, which is quite affordable for the US.

That we were able to afford it (sort of — the figure exceeds our current national debt), means, it is indeed affordable, no big news. The points you chose to ignore were: a) the cost of it exceeded the costs of all real wars of the Republic combined; b) the "war on poverty" is a flop — despite spending so much money, we have not achieved the goals Lyndon Johnson spelled-out, when he launched the program.

BTW, the answer to James Madison is Article

Oh, sure, david_thornley from the 21 century knows the meaning of the Constitution better, than the man, who wrote it...

provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States

The interpretation you are proposing here is so wide, you can drive an air-carrier through it — sideways — and affords government limitless power. For example, NSA can claim, that their eavesdropping is for "general Welfare" (and great justice!), abortions can be banned — anything.

Or are you, perhaps, confusing the generic term "welfare" with the Welfare Program — and claiming, the Constitution's authors envisioned the program for the poor 200 years before it was (finally!) implemented?