I factored in, not the cost of him paying for his own broadband, but him not needing government assistance, and paying taxes.
First, that heavily subsidized broadband access IS government assistance, and second, there is no causal relationship between having broadband access and having a job that pays well enough to support 999 other people's handouts in their entirety.
Of course nobody is going to walk up to them and offer them a well-paying job.
Then the question "did you offer them a job?" is kinda dishonest. You know the answer, and you know that the reason they don't have a job isn't because nobody walked up and offered them one.
It is also true that anybody hiring somebody for a well-paying job is unlikely to hire most of the folks you were complaining about.
Which folks was I complaining about? I simply asked whose responsibility it is to find them a job when someone else asked if they had been offered one. And you don't know it is true that they aren't likely to be hired, you assume. And finally, "well-paying" is such a subjective term that you can say that they have never been offered a job if they aren't offered a CEO job somewhere.
Most people performing tasks that are replaceable by automation will not be capable of performing any job which is not also replaceable by automation.
You assume a lot, don't you? So do I. You assume the worst, I assume much better. You assume people who have lost a job to automation can't learn another job, but I do. And before the next round, when I say "a job", I mean employment not just a function. So if automation has replaced a job, then it isn't a job anymore.
Actually, I am asserting that they're disabled, though not in any form that currently is granted a disability pension in most societies.
I'm sorry, but "I don't want to look for a job" is not a disability. Neither is "my job was replaced by a robot, boo hoo, I shouldn't have to learn another job."
First, I said "well-paying jobs" and not "jobs."
Yes, I noticed your penchant for demanding well-pay before someone will perform any job. Not all jobs are well-paying, but they pay enough to live on. I was trying to bring the discussion back to reality by leaving out the demand for excess wages before a job becomes acceptable.
From my observation, it does not seem like most average kids are getting well-paying jobs these days.
Of course not. Entry level jobs rarely pay advanced rates. To base an argument that there are no jobs available because they aren't all "well-paying", well, the discussion deserves better than that.
... but rather with those who insist that they should be punished for this perfectly normal condition.
What? When did I say anything about punishing anyone? I can only assume that you think that someone who has to go without a cellphone or internet because they don't have a job is being punished somehow.
Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?
You're looking at the language and purpose of the amendment incorrectly. To translate its essence into more modern parlance, if would go something like: "Because it's always going to be necessary to have a trained and equipped military organization ready to defend the country, the government - in the interests of not allowing the government to have a monopoly on the tools of defense - shall not prevent citizens who are not in the military from having arms."
The people who wrote that amendment still had a very bad taste in their mouths from living under a monarchy that DID reserve the power to capriciously allow only the military to keep and bear arms. Knowing that a military/militia is necessary, they used the second amendment to be VERY clear that they considered the fundamental right to keep and bear arms to be NOT exclusive to the military. Just like the considered the freedom to speak to be not under the control of the government.
Bullshit. Unless you can point to real evidence this is true, you're just guessing.
What? How do you think that coupons actually work, anyway?
1) You present a coupon, and you pay less cash at the point of sale than you otherwise would have. This is not a mystery. It's the whole point. If it's the retailer's own coupon, then they are basically putting the item on sale in exchange for having a trackable form of marketing. If it's a manufacturer's coupon, then the retailer is participating in a mechanism wherein the manufacturer and retailer have worked out a back-channel compensation scheme for the retailer having collected less cash during the transaction. This is also not a mystery.
2) When you present the retailer with a bogus retailer coupon, you're getting a discount that's disconnected from one of the key reasons they issued the coupon in the first place: to understand which marketing methods are the most constructive. When you present the retailer with a bogus manufacturer's coupon, one of two things happens: the retailer eats the loss, or the manufacturer does. Again, why are you acting like this is some strange unknown? Or, are you just hoping that someone there's a third magical possibility that makes it just fine to rip off businesses with fake coupons? Yeah, I thought so.
Is short, this "informative" post is nothing but a guess.
What you mean is that you have no idea how retail operations and promotional marketing work, but you vaguely want it to be true that ripping off stuff through the use of bogus discount coupons is a "victimless crime" blah blah blah, so you're going to pretend that basic information is unknowable, as moral cover. Hint: you're not as clever as you think you are.
Diverts the already being spent monies from being spent on a landline to a broadband connection
And people claim the US is behind the curve on broadband! Broadband for $9.25 per month. I suspect the $9.25 being spent on broadband (itself a subsidy) is a highly subsidized price to begin with.
But it will be good, get all those people away from cellphones where they can talk to potential employers and onto broadband where they have to buy a computer and then they can skype -- and play WoW all day.
I mean, not perfect, but self-substaining.
Essentially free broadband is hardly self-substaining. Having broadband at home is no more likely to result in someone getting a job than them having a cell phone.
My point was that that 1/1000 will pay for the entirety of the 999.
By that argument then, you're also saying that the current "universal access fee" on telecom is 1000 times the actual cost of providing that service. On my $37/month landline I pay something like $3 for the access fee, as I recall. I don't have the bill handy to check. I should really be paying 0.3 cents for that service because my $3 (the "1/1000", which you really meant 1:1000 -- one in a thousand) will pay in entirety for service for 999 other people.
I think not. I think that "one in a thousand" will be paying a huge amount to support the other 999, and the money he has to pay in taxes to do that is a direct and significant impediment to his ability to succeed.
"Penny wise and pound foolish".
Did you offer them a well-paying job? Chances are, neither has anybody else.
Who's responsibility is it? Is it the responsibility of the person who has a job opening to personally ask each person on the planet if they want to fill it, or is it the responsibility of the potential employee to look in standard places where such offers are made public?
I bet exactly no employer is driving down to that park and saying "I'm hiring". I bet a lot more employers are putting ads in the newspaper, and a lot more are using the publicly-funded state employment bureau's job listings.
The days when you could tell whether somebody was capable of getting a job ended with the development of automation.
That's absolutely correct, because once a person learns to do a job there is absolutely no way that he could ever learn to do a different one, and anyone who would suggest that he do so is just suppressing the proletariat. Once a specific job at one plant is taken over by automation, everyone who ever did that job is now unemployable in any other job.
You would have a much stronger argument had you said that what prevents someone from knowing is the vast array of medically disabling conditions that allow disability pensions.
Think of the average kid you went to high school with (assuming you went to an average public school as I did). Do you REALLY think they're capable of holding down a job in the modern world?
Yes. They may not be rocket scientists, doctors, or lawyers, but thank goodness those aren't the only jobs available. And I'm even more sure that the average kid who just left high school is capable, because I see a lot of average kids holding down jobs in the modern world today.
I think there should be a no carrier in there somewhere.
Which wouldn't matter a bit if the machine is flying waypoints using its own internal flight controller. That's how mine work: you inform the machine of the flight plan using a ground station, and then it does off and does its thing, whether or not you can talk to it along the way. Loss of, say, Verizon's signal wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Meanwhile, in ten years, every tourist in DC will have a selfie drone
Which would be fine, except the DC FRZ (flight restriction zone) is a 30-mile circle around the Capital within which it is illegal to fly ANY remote control device of any kind. Includes "drones" as well as those toy RC helicopters at the mall kiosks, and the sort of RC planes that people have been flying around for many decades. Some tourist flying a quad in DC is in for a very rude awakening, as has already happened.
Yea, but a cell phone signal flying over the south lawn is a pretty clear indicator that you have an issue
Wouldn't matter. Do you understand how small the White House grounds are, and how fast even a modest quad can fly when it means business? I've got one that can do over 40mph. That would cover the distance from the sidewalk in front of the White House to the middle of the typical speech-giving area of the Rose Garden in well under 8 seconds. A drone flying waypoints - with no need for a human controller nearby or watching - could be moving that fast well before it gets to the White House fence, and be coming in 200' overhead, be above a high-profile press event in seconds, cut power and drop like a stone spewing a mist of cesium or a nice cloud of serin or laden with a nice little brick of C4, and it would be on the ground in the middle of that speech/ceremony so fast you'd have no ability to do something about it. Except maybe light it up with some sort of automated buckshot gatling gun, right in the middle of a busy urban area.
This is going to result in a lot more events being held indoors.
Heavy objects will pick up too much speed during the descent, making for one deep impact.
I seem to recall hearing some recent developments in science, some wacko claim by some Italian guy that the acceleration due to gravity was actually independent of the mass of the object. That would indicate that both heavy and light objects would accelerate the same way under the influence of gravity on Mars. What a silly notion, I'm sure the Pope will cure him of his heresy.
Why does PowerPoint not have a collaborative conferencing solution built in?
Because PP wasn't designed or intended to be a collaborative conferencing system?
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.
