I think the difference is that ATT is allowing new subscribers to get the current individual phone plans with limited minutes and no texting as an alternate to Share Everything.

Verizon now requires all new account go prepaid or Share Everything, which is a big cost increase for people who don't use many minutes or text.

This is pure collusion, that proves that ATT and Verizon have no intent on competing. If this continues, market regulation or breakup may be required.

Raising the cost of data from $30 for 3GB to $40 for 1GB is a 300% price increase and unacceptable in any mature market. As unlimited text and calling plans become redundant to cheaper internet based services, the mobile companies are trying to lock in current income for specialized services people will no longer need.

AT&T and Verizon have developed these plans to protect themselves from the inevitable switch from charging as much as the market will bear for voice, text or data to all services becoming part of the data stream with the next evolution of LTE. These plans are an attempt to challenge the prospect that they may become "dumb pipe" providers of data in place of more expensive add on services.

Once voice calls are just data streams on the data network, the mobile providers will give you that data for free when using their services, as opposed to charging you for the data if you use skype or another ip phone system. They will still charge you outrageous foreign call rates and international roaming charges when ever possible. This would be a definite violation of network neutrality as they would be providing preferencial treatment to their own, non optional unlimited voice and text plans over competing internet services.

The new share everything plans acknowledge the diminishing importance of voice and text services, by requiring you to buy unlimited service and shifting the current fees for these services to the first GB of data.

Even though you some people may actually pay less under these new plans, they are designed solely to protect loss of income that will result when people no longer need high voice minute plans because the competing data based voice plans will be identical in delivery and quality to the mobile provides plans yet without added rates.

This is a strategy to increase data fees while delivery costs drop to further increase profits while fooling the public into thinking they might be getting a deal.

I'm not convinced the auto industry will want to implement self driving cars for this very reason. Why is Google leading the research rather than GM or Ford.

When self driving cars become available, car sharing services and self driving taxis will flourish. These cars will be able to provide cheap and convenient direct service without having to pay drivers. Since most private cars remain unused and parked for over 95% of the time, one self driving car can provide the utility 20 or more cars allowing a huge return on investment.

With cheap and on demand taxi service, the convenience of owning a car will be much less and dramatically fewer cars will be sold.

Verizon wireless' new Share Everything plans are also designed to challenge Network Neutrality. As the wireless phone providers continue to implement LTE, voice services will soon be just another part of your data stream rather than a separate service.

Anticipating this change, verizon's new phone plans all have unlimited voice calling included in a low cost base price price phone plan. Most of the costs associated with higher minute calling have been shifted to the data side such that your first GB of data will now cost $50.

After they have completed the transition to more expensive data plans, Verizon will next argue that net neutrality is bad for the customers because they might not be allowed to provide the free unlimited data for calling and texting. In reality though, they have just shifted the costs for unlimited voice into the lowest data plans, and have no intention of providing any free services.

The communications companies are fighting against the commodity nature of data delivery, buy requiring you to purchase extra services such as voice or media just to access basic data.

If you accidentally start a fire, you are liable. Why are these people who accidentally start fires with fire arms not just as liable as someone who crashes a car into your house?

I think they are being provided extra protection since they were using firearms. If you are start a fire intentionally or not, you should be investigated and held responsible for the resulting costs and damages.

If there is a pattern of gunfire causing fires (20 appears to be a precedent), then tax firearms and ammunition the amount needed to cover all costs. The tax payers and property owners should not have to cover these costs.

If anything gun ownership should require extra responsibility, but the NRA has pushed gun freedom so far that governments believe freedom is the absence of responsibility.

Whether used for personal defense or recreation, any damage done with a firearm (killing, destroying property) must at least suffer the same consequences as doing the same damage without a firearm. I personally believe punishment should be harsher for damage resulting from firearms because they are inherently destructive instruments which should necessitate high levels of training and responsibility to insure the least amount of damage results from their use.

But again, in the US, "a well regulated militia", is interpreted as freedom from gun licences, monitoring, education and responsibility.

Iran is openly admits to enriching uranium for the development of their nuclear power industry. Iran realizes its oil resources are limited and too precious to use for domestic energy production. This is a difficult concept for the US to understand.

The US and Israeli governments believe that Iran is developing weapons, but have no evidence there is any nuclear weapons program in Iran.

This is eerily similar to the flagrant misinformation, innuendo and propaganda disseminated before the Iraq war. Even then, official government agencies would confirm no evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but the politicians and media were more interested in what they believed must be true rather than any facts.

Globally, we should pressure on all countries including US, Israel and Iran to end all nuclear weapon development, and find better ways to ensure these devices are never used again by any group. There must be global consensus that any use of nuclear weapons (offensive or defensive) is a not an attack on a state, but war on humanity justifying global retaliation against any group that uses WMD's.

The issue with soda is more phycological than just free choice vs nanny state.

Our brains are constantly bombarded with advertising convincing us that we want sweetened, colored and fizzy liquids. More than any other form of consumption, beverage purchases are impulsive. Constant prodding drives these impulses. Starbucks needs to have 3 stores on every other block and in each supermarket to capture the consumers impulse before it passes.

The secret is the best and only beverage to satisfy our thirst is water and it's free. Most of these flavored beverages are actually diuretics, which only make you more thirsty causing you to buy and drink more. Now the same advertising geniuses have even convinced everyone that you should pay even more than the flavored liquids for plain tap water filtered and rebottled.

The fact is the beverage industry exists on peoples false perceptions that drinks you pay money for are better than H20. Stop for a minute and look around at how much of our consumer world revolves around transporting, stocking, advertising these useless beverages who's consumption is driven by our subliminal planted cravings. Then think about how much waste and litter is generated by packaging these liquids.

I think an even better solution would be to ban the disposable big cups. If people want a big soda, let them bring their own reusable mug or get refills on the small cups. Also anywhere that sells soda should also provide free water (and not as the lever option on one of the fountain spouts that never works right and always gets synthetic lemonade in your water).

In civil structural engineering analysis the required precision is normally around 3 significant digits, or less than 1%. The factors of safety required for different conditions vary from 30% to over 200% are far higher than this precision. Loads are often estimated with only 2 or 3 significant digits.

Where higher precision is most required in structural engineering is on geometry and fabrication tolerances. Construction tolerances for a beam length may be limited to 1/8th of an inch regardless of the beam length. Errors in calculating assembly lengths and geometry fit up, can lead to costly construction repairs and delays. I still think most of this precision fits within the standards of Excel for most cases.

Before the introduction of the largest public works project in history, the socialist, state run interstate system, private railroads streetcar and bus systems provided transportation to all americans and made profits.

These companies were so profitable and powerful that the government and politicians feared the rail industry and the wealthy owners like Stanford and Vanderbilt.

The irony is that even the private railways were given huge state subsidies in land grants. One of the conditions for free land was that the railways would be required to provide passenger service over theses right of ways. One of the worst aspects of the creation of Amtrak is that the railways were absolved of the passenger requirement for the measly cost of some outdated rail equipment that they provided to help Amtrak start.

Possesion of stolen property is a crime regardless of whether you have prior knowledge or not.

No matter the means of how you took possesion of stolen property, you have no rights to the property and it can be confiscated without reimbursement.

Normally the loss of the property is the punishment for those who didn't know it was stolen.

So i presume that you support providing the elderly, young, blind or disabled people their "right" to drive? I doubt it.
Why do all countries have drivers licenses if it is a right? Do any other rights require licenses?
Is revoking someones drivers license a violation of human rights?

This is ludicrous.

If anything, the government massive subsidies to the car infrastructure (at the expense of non driving alternatives) is a violation of peoples rights to mobility as it mandates that you must be able to purchase a car (insurance...) and physically able to drive it to meet your right to mobility.

Again, there is no right to drive.