It sounds like you're saying
It sounds like you're saying
Tell me about it. And don't even get me started on the Anglicans -- they do almost nothing except plot terrorism. Given the number of current and former Anglicans in Australia it's hard to believe you can walk down the street with getting blown up.
/ Or maybe reducing the entire world to the single dimension of religion is not a terribly useful way to understand "terrorism"
The sentiment "then they are just going to stop caring" ignores our ability to require universal service for broadband just like we did for voice in the past.
I'm not sure where you getting mobile out of this -- AT&T is talking about wireline service. They think 10 Mbps is too fast to be counted as wireline broadband.
It's also unclear why you feel entitled to make everyone use the Internet the same way you do.
The smaller government is the less harm it can do. But also less good. You can argue about where the point of balance should be, but to argue that smaller is always better assumes that government can do nothing worthwhile. That is not a widely held assumption, so you must support it if you want to convince anyone of theories that assume it.
Exactly what makes parents more qualified to make educational decisions than other people? I know they *feel* more qualified, but it's unclear to me that feeling is justified by any observable fact. Parents have a certain perspective to offer, but no particular expertise (at least not as a group), and certainly not the only valid perspective. What you're suggesting is essentially self-regulation -- which we know from other areas creates inherent conflicts of interest and readily ignores broader societal goals. Why do you think it will work here when it clearly does not in other places?
And the parent says "fair" as though there's only one way to evaluate that declaration. As with most things it's a more subtle question than simply declaring that some other position is morally wrong and therefore your position must by default be the only acceptable option. If you want to support a regressive tax feel free, but simply declaring that a progressive tax isn't clearly morally superior is not the same as providing rational in support of a regressive tax.
Moreover anyone who excludes payroll taxes from their definition of "income tax" is stretching credulity. Payroll taxes are paid by even the very poorest earners, are proportional to income, and are deducted from paychecks. The only people who avoid them are the very rich who either hit the upper limit -- though it's unclear why such a limit even exists -- or those who don't have earned income in the first place, like those living on investment income.
And of course most poor people pay both payroll taxes and sales taxes, even if they "pay no income taxes at all". Which is why taxation needs to be considered as a system and not as a series of independent pieces -- only they very rich have the freedom to choose which taxes apply to them.
You've got this 100% backwards. Deciding to drive slower than everyone else makes you a much bigger risk than the people driving the same speed. If the speed at which most drivers are comfortable on a road is too high for safety the road system itself (which includes signage and surroundings) has been designed incorrectly and should be corrected.
People who didn't want their car stolen again asked for that feature. Feel lucky that you didn't have need of it before it existed.
Or maybe we're just familiar with past disasters and a more or less complete lack of the sort of scenario you imagine. I know it's fun to pretend that everyone else is evil and coming to hurt you -- that's the plot of more or less every zombie movie -- but in real life it's just not much a threat compared to say, dehydration.
A lot of people would be excited to have $1.5k to spend on their vacation. Your plan sounds great for you, but it's hardly generally applicable. Even ignoring the costs, most people who live in dense urban areas wouldn't be able to park the thing anywhere useful.
So which differences in skin tone, height, and facial features uniquely define the races? If you start with the assumption that race is a physical, heritable trait this work might make sense. But if you want to be take seriously you first have to establish that claim, and thus far no one has done so (nor is anyone honestly trying, as definitions of race are not stable across cultures or time, which almost certainly means they aren't physical in the first place).
You might want to re-read the quotations from the article: “Our findings do not even provide a hint of support in favor of Wade’s guesswork.”
That is not the same as saying "I didn't publish those conclusions" -- it's a rebuttal that the conclusions he makes are supported by the evidence he provides, from one of the foremost authorities on that evidence. You can claim that the original authors are lying if you want, but they aren't making the sort of wishy-washy statements you describe.
As soon as you come up with a heritable definition for race you can start on your analysis of heritable differences in relation to race. But historically we can't even come up with racial definitions that are stable across cultures and over a few generations, let alone that are heritable on the scale of evolution, which makes the whole discussion nothing more than handwaving.
Which has essentially nothing to do with the way most people -- scientist and layman alike -- define and delineate race. Which is the objection the scientists are raising.