I don't see that happening in the Senate long-term.
IMO, Democrats will be running the House sooner rather than latter, for the simple reason that it's where seats are allocated proportionally to the populace - so large Democratic majorities in dense areas like the coasts do translate directly into seats there. But for Dems to take the Senate, in the age where party affiliation is the single most important question deciding whether the politician gets a vote or not, would require there to be more blue states than red states. Which, right now, means more urbanized states than rural states. And I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
Have you ever heard the expression "No true Scotsman"?
It might be a good idea to change art hosting providers then... I'm sure every artist has given deviantArt a (non-exclusive0 icense to commercially display and use the artwork shown on the site, which means Wix can use that. And chances are, they'll let customers use some of that artwork on their website, both as a hook and a retainer (because the art can only be used on Wix hosted websites without obtaining a license).
And only Wix has access to unique artwork that only Wix customers can use, so it's more attractive to join Wix.
Meanwhile, everyone who posted art on the site sees their work ripped off and used on customer's web sites.
Of course we want a "public Internet" but we also will raise holy hell if Company X gets to use the public facility for free and uses more than anyone else to the point where service degrades.
The rational solution to this mess is to require companies to provide X% of public service alongside their buildouts for private endeavors, thus creating a safe harbor which avoids an accounting nightmare, while allowing businesses to do business, and to have a publicly funded watchdog surveil that that bandwidth is publicly available from the outside.
But who pays who what? If the internet goes out to whoever pays the most baksheesh, and therefore gets the most bandwidth, what if the rest of us are left with precious little? I have a pretty good suspicion that the end game of this whole net neutrality fight will be that the big boys will win, and suddenly it becomes the digital equivalent of what cable TV is today. We already hear some people arguing that DSL speeds are adequate for people.
We aren't likely to get any public watchdog, and let's not forget that most people believe that bandwidth is infinite.
Because really, however bad the news was, 20 years ago you'd be waiting for the nightly news to find out about it. Several decades before that, you'd be waiting for the following day's newspaper. Now, we're getting constant updates, and those updates may be causing a device in your pocket to vibrate and make noise every time something new comes out. We know that checking all of those notifications is addictive, and not checking causes stress. However, constantly feeling the need to check also causes stress. (human nature)
It's the reason we have the term "FOMO", or Fear of Missing Out. By not being attached to our phones 24/7 we fear we're going to miss big news about something (... almost always trivial in the big scheme of things).
If you hate that term, get used to it - it's a root of the term for the phobia, and as a medical diagnosis.
maybe we'll end up with people paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways.
That's actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane, but no higher, so that nobody is ever gouged and so that the managed lane isn't responsible for causing congestion in the anarchy lanes. Then if my son is sick and I have to get him to the doctor, I can pay the fee and bypass traffic. This would give me an option that I didn't have before. Options and competition are good things, right?
I don't think this is how that would work. If the tolls are not kept high, the toll lane will become just as congested as the regular lanes.
isn't the toll on the internet (or paid prioritization) what net neutrality is supposed to prevent?
That's right. You think that Republicans support Net neutrality? Certainly as late as 2015 they were calling it "Obamacare for the internet" https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...
Charge a fee on that and let the toll road they build be free. Seriously. And this is a very red state.
Sounds about right.
I understand what your point was, but it was refuting a strawman argument no one made. The article does not state the world is better off because wars reduced income inequality. It merely states the wars reduced income inequality.
A better question rather than bringung up the exhausted "strawman" pejorative, is do you concur with him? I personally have an argument to make that he has a worldview, and conveniently forgotten or amplified his references in order to support that worldview.
As in I find that it streche scredulity to a breaking point when he asserts how the Communist revolutions in Russia created equality for it's citizens. Could you make a good argument for the income leveling of the Great leap forward in China, which directly caused between 18 million and 55 million deaths by starvation? The dead were equal in a morbid manner, but I don't think Mao missed too many meals.
And I made a mistake - I attributed a story by Ian Bogost to Walter Scheidel. So my direct comparison was not valid. But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.
Your single outlier could be the one paper that has discovered and accounted for the previously unknown factor or discovered some other problem with previous research. You can't just conclude that since in the majority of cases this is unlikely therefore we can dismiss the outlier. You still have to look at it, have a discussion about it, and see whether or not it's worth considering or if it means the other 9 studies need to be rerun to account for new information.
All of that is certainly possible, but once again you have to go with what is more likely. And it is far more likely that the one study made a mistake than all nine studies made the same mistake. But of course 10 studies is not a very large sample size. For comparison early research into climate change consensus looked at over 10,000 research papers.
It will always be possible for one study to invalidate 10,000, but it certainly isn't likely. Even special relativity and quantum mechanics didn't throw out Newton's laws of motion, they just enhanced them in special circumstances.
Please read the article before your next post. The very first sentence makes it clear it is referring to income inequality, not equality in general.
If you read a little further, He notes that voting rights and government intervention in the private sector also were a result of this. Unles she was intentionally spouting a non sequitur that you happen to know about.
I read the story, and I call Bullshit as well.
He writes how "By contrast, Latin America, which sat out the 20th century’s largest conflicts in relative isolation, duly did not see inequality drop until the early 2000s". Perhaps this source might differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If misery created income and voter equality, well South America should be leading the way and passed us a long time ago.
Apparently the bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the communists taking over in China was the best thing that ever happened to the world, culminating in equal prosperity for all of their citizens. DO I really need to debunk that, Is Old Joe Stalin the key to equality? The solution to the middle class's resurgence? There is more to debunk, but I find his prose annoying and in the end boring.
No,old Walt Scheidel cherry picks data with a skill a AGW denier would be proud of, and arranges his fruited narrative to fit his world view. And his world view is a combination of highly left wing idealism, and a get of my damn lawn mentality that leaves him yearning for old fashioned toilets. Speaking of, it might be a good idea to read his next story in line "Why nothing works any more" https://www.theatlantic.com/te... Oddly enough, the two stories are quite related in a scatological sort of way. 8^)
If NO ONE else were interested in servicing your entire town sure. Even then, this clause would apply if and only if they ONLY serviced your town and nothing else. Unless your town is 100 miles away from anything else, I don't see that being a real problem in Denmark.
Reno is not a bad example of a town literally in the middle of nowhere.
You would probably think of it as living on the Moon and net neutrality would probably be low on your list of complaints.
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.