It was designed to go to a nearer comet. Due to booster failures they missed the launch window. Several risky maneuvers (such as hibernation) were added to the mission to reuse this hardware.
Are you suggesting that provider A would sell access to the infrastructure at the same price to a retail customer as they would a wholesale customer (who is in turn the retail provider)?
No, I said "But they have to charge end-customers even more, because otherwise provider B would not have a sustainable business."
One has to consider that regulations would not permit simply undercutting the competition simply because they own the infra.
If you are going to regulate prices anyway, then like I said, this is just an economic welfare project for B, C, D. They aren't providing "competition" that is lowering prices... your regulation is lowering prices.
Yes, those providers are still captive HOWEVER they still have their own core networks and connections to other ASNs - the thing being leased in such a scenario is L2 or L3 access on some form of last mile infrastructure, we're not talking about VISPs or white-label providers or anything.
Yes but whether it's white-label or "real" access is irrelevant because it's still provider A that owns the infrastructure and makes the decisions. Look at the stuff going on with net neutrality. Comcast can just say "Ok, we're not upgrading this peering connection until Netflix pays us extra." And that screws Netflix and the other Level 3 customers trying to use that congested link.
In your scenario, why would it be any different (except apparently your price regulations would prevent Comcast from even being able to ask for more money). Let's say my neighborhood has crappy phone lines and low speed DSL, and I'm like screw provider A, I'm switching to B. When I switch from A to B, A still makes money. When I switch from B to C because of course the network still sucks, A still makes money. When I switch to D, thinking "My God, so many ISPs in this town.. surely one of them must be better" then A continues to make money. A has no incentive to upgrade my neighborhood's phone lines or reduce prices or anything, and the other providers aren't able to upgrade my neighborhood's phone lines or reduce prices below what A charges (plus their own overhead).
Oh, unless you regulate improvements as well as prices... in which case, like I said, the "competition" aspect of the situation is a sham.
I'm not sure you've ever seen real competition, and it would appear that you've never lived abroad (especially in a country where you have a 1-2 providers dealing with infrastructure and a multitude of retailers to choose from), have you?
No I have never lived abroad, but you're being silly now... ISPs aren't the only businesses that compete. I've seen plenty of competition. Toyota and Ford compete for my business, as an example. That's why I know that the only way to have effective competition is to have separate companies competing on the good or service in question. If I want to contrive a situation where I get provider A to upgrade the network infrastructure in my neighborhood, then I need to invent competition for the network infrastructure in my neighborhood. Not services running on top of it. That makes zero difference. If I want provider A to install new fiber lines, then you could add 15000 "competitors" who are forced to lease A's network and it would accomplish nothing at all.
But add 1 company like Google that runs new lines in my neighborhood, and suddenly provider A will either upgrade its infrastructure, dramatically lower prices, or go out of business. That's competition.
I still don't see the point. Provider A made the investment, and has to charge provider B enough to still be profitable. But they have to charge end-customers even more, because otherwise provider B would not have a sustainable business. So in other words, you've artificially increased the cost to the end-customer, just for the sake of giving provider B a job mimicking provider A.
In your second scenario, where provider A is fully prohibited from selling to the end-customer, how is the network situation any better than now? Provider A still has captive customers... instead of me and you, the captive customers are providers B, C, D, and E. What incentive does provider A have to upgrade their network? I don't see how it's any better than now.
And in this situation you're still imposing an artificially high cost on the consumer. What value-add does provider B give the end-consumer? If it's actually *worth* the extra charge, then there's no need to prohibit A from dealing with end-consumers, because presumably they'd choose B anyway. And if it's not worth it, then you're forcing the end-consumer to pay extra for a service that isn't worth it.
The only real competition is when multiple companies have multiple lines going to your house, and you can totally switch your business between them. For things like water, sewer, and maybe electricity, the costs are so high that it can't realistically happen. But for internet, look, we already have coax cable and copper phone. Why not add another fiber? The costs obviously aren't that high for running a little cable -- as Google showed in their deployments. So let them compete from the very ground up.
It's not a non-sequitor, that's when the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. What I did was apply your logic to another situation. Unless you can articulate a reason why the wedding band doesn't make a difference, but race does, then it's fair to assume the logic must be the same in the two situations.
The coatings on the glass are not symmetric. However I guess you could clean it and flip it back. Another problem is that people like to use the area near the windows of their office and put furniture there.
My phone (Nexus 5) isn't rooted and I can record calls. Different apps work on different phones apparently. I'm using "Call Recorder" right now.
Why did you switch from "breasts" to "breastfeed"?
The breasts are fundamental to sexual reproduction because they play a part in sexual attraction, which leads to sex, which leads to babies.
Breastfeeding is not.
No, he said that he couldn't whether the 7% difference was significant, not that there was no significance to his findings. He said "What it does show, even with such a small sample, is that in the underlying population there's almost certainly no huge gap between people's opinions of black women vs. white women breastfeeding in photos."
He's right about that.. if there was a huge gap between opinions on black vs white breastfeeding, then even with that sample size there would be a clear difference.
It seems like you (and other posters here) have a double standard about the conclusions here. You are accepting the conclusion from the original article saying that there IS a statistically significant difference in opinions, even though they presented no evidence of it. You accept is so thoroughly that you're ready to toss the "white male privilege" card. Why is that?
In the context of whether or not a picture of that woman breastfeeding their child is considered to be inappropriate? No, there's no difference. A breastfeeding woman is a breastfeeding woman regardless of whether or not she chooses to wear jewelry on her fingers.
There is a difference, one is wearing a ring and one isn't. People are judging the picture as a whole and there are lots of factors that go into that judgment besides whether the person approves of breastfeeding in general.
If it makes no difference to alter factors like marital status between the two pictures, then it must also make no difference to consider factors like race, so you must think the whole issue under discussion is nonsensical.
You want to make it so that if Google goes to a new city and builds an awesome new fiber network, that AT&T gets to least that network from them? Why should AT&T upgrade anything if they can just wait for Google? But why would Google upgrade anything if they're doing all the investment and then AT&T gets equal benefit?
Then Bush II was elected, the Republicans continued to control Congress, and the deficit soared.
Yes, the dot com crash and 9/11 happened. I don't blame Democrats for that. Do you blame Republicans?
Obama stepped into the worst national economy of my lifetime, and was unable to keep the deficit down.
There's no doubt that most of the increased deficit under Obama was due to economic factors beyond his control. At the same time, the recovery was also beyond his control. Much of it was IN SPITE of Obama's policies. Did you see the widely covered "letter to the editor" from a Canadian who is confused about why we voted in so many Republicans even though under Obama we have all these great things? It's all over Facebook and the news. Here: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blog...
It's hilarious. Everything the guy talks about is stuff Obama has fought AGAINST. Record corporate profits... Democrats feel pain and start crying when corporations make record profits. Remember all the "windfall tax" crap? And "clawing back" bank bonuses, etc? Oil production... Democrats are against offshore drilling, fracking, shale oil, exploration in Alaska and the arctic, Keystone XL (oh, and putting tighter regulations on trains carrying oil, which is only being done because there's no pipeline..), all the talk of killing subsidies for oil and gas, etc.
I mean it's really a joke how Democrats like to give Obama credit for things he had nothing to do with or actively fought against. I don't get it. I wouldn't do that for a Republican because I have at least a smidgen of intellectual honesty.
Right, right, because the man taking his wife's last name is soooo common in black culture, Hispanic culture, and Asian culture. Must be because of whitey! idiot
If you read the article about the poll question, it was designed to measure racism. So of course the questions are probing racist sentiments. It's not racist to find out if someone is racist, that doesn't make sense.
Also, I didn't bring up affirmative action in response to the article. I responded to your comment about "how dare someone question whether racism exists" -- that's much more general than the article, where racism against black IT pros is the subject.
I think what I said could apply to any country, not just the US. But regardless, I agree with your main point that small businesses are hurt by this. I think corporate taxes should be abolished completely. Charge taxes to the people who make up the corporation. That can be income tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, etc. Each country does it however they want. If you live in America, you pay taxes in America regardless of where you earned the money. If you buy something in China, you pay Chinese sales tax regardless of where you live.
It simplifies stuff a lot, and that's effectively what happens anyway. Only people pay taxes, corporations just pass them on.
If you get a shorter workweek with the same pay, it's an effective pay rise (which I recommended). If you don't, how will that help? Same total wages = same total demand.
I was assuming there would be massive deflation in the parts of the economy that have been hyper-optimized. Kind of like what has happened with computers in the last 30 years... a $300 computer that outperforms a 1980s supercomputer, etc.
the issue is that they can't afford them. If human labour is near worthless, how will you get money to pay for such luxuries?
Essentially all of our costs for necessities today comes down to human labor. There is no real cost to uranium if it were mined and refined by self-replicating, self-repairing robots -- you don't pay robots. There is no real cost to building a nuclear power plant. There is no real cost, therefore, to electricity. Except that people are involved. If no people were involved and it just happened magically in the background, electricity would be completely free.
When labor becomes worthless, what that means is that everything we have today that is a product of human labor is essentially free, or close to free.
But there are some things that can't be replaced, because as humans we innately value other humans. If I'm at a bar, I would rather hear the original band instead of a cover band (there are exceptions). But I would rather hear a cover band than a CD of the original band.
That's the backbone of the service economy I'm talking about in your vision of the future. When human labor is worthless, that means we don't have to waste our time working on stuff we don't like doing -- because that stuff is worthless.
I'm proposing that there will never be a time when a person, any person, is completely without value just because their labor is worthless when it comes to producing physical goods. There are some really broad services, like sex and beauty and companionship, that ensure that as long as we have tokens that represent value, you'll be able to earn them in some way if you want, and you'll have things to spend them on if you want. Even begging provides value.
In this society, money still serves a purpose. We'd still use it to let people know who the winners and losers are. The winners can spend their money on other winners... if I have lots of money, I'll hire the most beautiful dancers to entertain me at my free dinner in my free house. If I'm poor, then I eat with my poor friends at my free dinner in my free house.