Comment Re: Government Intervention (Score 2) 495
I get 100/100 fibre for about 40 bucks a month in Stockholm. No caps or throttling, either.
I get 100/100 fibre for about 40 bucks a month in Stockholm. No caps or throttling, either.
Maybe companies in the US are afraid of being "tainted" by taking part in such initiatives.
On this regard it is useful to remember that access to mental health resources is often regulated by the same bastards that control access to physical health resources - the insurance industry. Hence if you seek mental health assistance, your insurance company knows about it and it goes into your electronic medical records. While your employer isn't supposed to be able to discriminate against you based on that, your insurance provider is certainly entitled to do so and can raise your rates (through your employer) to the point where your employer has no choice but to fire you - after which point you no longer have access and the downward spiral begins again.
Mental health access should become a national right, completely decoupled from physical health access. Of course we'll never see that happen as the conservatives running the show will declare it a socialist/communist/fascist/whatever-other-inaccurate-ist "takeover" of the industry and it will die at that moment.
the 2A's absolute right of self defense.
Except the second amendment says nothing about self defense. It mentions
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But it never says that these arms are for self defense. In fact, if we look at the full text
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We see mentions of a Militia and a free State. We never see anything about self defense. The self defense notion is a product manufactured by the gun lobby.
the IRS, and the general expansion of the administrative state, offer literally hundreds of thousands of [pages of] reasons why
In the context of it somehow being an explanation for
why this particular type of freedom of association should be banned
I think you are trying to somehow use the IRS as justification for your desire to outlaw union membership (at least, amongst government employees) but the connection just isn't there. What does the IRS have to do with unions?
And neither do unions. Unions work for their members.
The inescapable conclusion is that a public sector union, over time, is going to serve its members, to the detriment of the public.
I disagree completely with that assertion. It is in now way an "inescapable conclusion". Or are you trying to support a movement to set all government employees' pay to zero? While Citizens United did a great job of reducing the participation of non-wealthy people in government, setting government pay to zero would be a great final blow if that is your goal.
A receiver like that would have a power draw that is almost infinitessimal compared to the power draw of the motors. A simple radio receiver adequate for the job would possibly reduce the flight time by less than a second.
Then for you, as it is for me, it's Year Ten of the Linux Desktop.
Et voilà! How To Encrypt Everything.
Once they fill up the last page, all of them are executed.
Such delightful ambiguity. Would "they" happen to be the laws, or the government?
The US government is not supposed to take care ofits citizens.
Then what the fuck do we even have it for?
That could indeed be at the heart of one of the solutions to the paradox. As a civilization becomes more individualistic and inward focusing, breeding might drop off to the point of extinction. Think about it, if you could live 10,000+ years and have all of your needs (including emotional) met by synthetic means, would you bother having children? How many people would give any thought to the species as a whole continuing if we were not forced to deal with each other?
This sounds remarkably like C.S.Lewis' description of hell in The Great Divorce.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson