You spun a yarn without even a shred of fact to back it up. I can do that too, but it has no place in this discussion.
I think most of us recognize it when we see it, but keep stirring up that mud! In fact, I did set a few parameters for it.
As for the world comment, the cost of living in the area matters a lot as well. In some places, that $10k would get 3 or 4 months living in an apartment that barely meets code but wouldn't pay for utilities so you'd be put on the street anyway.
I would say though that wanting to live somewhere around the median for one's region isn't greedy. Wanting enough in a single year to be able to retire on with a median lifestyle is.
Undeniably, Sweden and Norway are much further toward the socialist end of the spectrum than the U.S.
I provided a reference with real figures. You provided a poorly crafted insult.
That same worn out tune has been playing since Reagan and it has only made matters worse for people year by year.
The greedy poor man holding them billionaires down just because he thinks he has a right to eat or something after putting in a 10 hour day. And not even a shred of evidence to back it.
Let me guess, no kids?
Simple wanting is not greed. Greed is the excess of wanting. Especially when it's to the point of depriving others to take more than your share.
When were those conditions NOT true?
Answer, never. It's something more. Perhaps the level of greed increased somewhere, perhaps the short term consequences for taking it too far diminished.Perhaps someone gained disproportionate control of the government.
So let's see here, OH, it looks like corporate profits are at an 85 year high and wages are at a 65 year low!
Hrmm, where DID that wealth go?!?
I'm guessing those protective rings around the props might explain why you didn't break them by bumping into things. Fire it up and shoot the blades with birdshot from a slingshot drawn just far enough back that it might sting.
Which drone? Same model that got shot?
If it hits hard enough to sting, it has more than enough energy to break a spinning plastic prop it might encounter.
One approach would be via the FTC. Simply offering connectivity to IPv5 is no longer connectivity to 'The Internet'. Perhaps the ISPs should be forced to either get v6 up and running or cease advertising themselves as an ISP. Instead, they should be forced to call themselves deprecated ISPs. Perhaps we should legally define provision of v4 only as 'shitty service' and force them to advertise that. As in, Ajax ISP, shitty service for $60/month.
b and c are difficult, but take care of a and d and the pressure on them will mount rapidly.
As for d, actually there has been a big push for government to make sure their public facing servers are available over v6. The mandate extends to government contractors as well. They really do need to expand that mandate to all hosts within government networks that are allowed access to the public internet at all.
Essentially, all it says is that hosts and routers (meaning end user's routers) should not default to using 184.108.40.206 as a 6to4 router if they don't get a prefix. The reason for that is too many firewalls and clueless network people were breaking the mechanism and causing long timeouts as hosts assume they have v6 connectivity and use it in preference to v4 (as they should).
The mechanism itself and the associated address space are explicitly not deprecated.
That is, they absolutely DO need to cease black holing customer traffic bound to 2002::/16. All that does is make the sorry state of IPv6 adoption even worse. Since the route exists in their public rviews server, I suspect it is unintentional breakage affecting only some customers, but since their entire support structure is designed to make sure nobody can ever talk to anyone with a clue, I have no way to alert anyone who actually knows how a router works that there is a problem.
But hey, should I be allowed to just come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission or any specific act or law created by your elected officials?
As soon as the carriers surrender their granted right of way and allocations out of the public's spectrum, they can do whatever they want.
Until then, they have been placed under the FCC BY LAW.
The problem there is it will cause pain to all the wrong people. New business, need 5 IPs? That'll cost ya! Go with IPv6, half your customers ISPs haven't crawled out of the slime yet and so they won't be able to reach you at all.
The ISPs themselves? They have a massive pool of IPs and they aren't afraid to NAT them.
Until major sites start having v4 blackout days, the pain won't hit the right people.