The environmental conditions that are good for the formation of fossils are not the sort of conditions that are good for living a long and peaceful life. Outcast males are the ones more likely to be wandering around in those sorts of places.
Every star has the force of gravity that is pressing all the gas to collapse, and heat from fusion that is pushing all the gas apart. These forces are balanced in a stable star: fusion reaction provides the energy that prevents the gas from collapsing. In comparison to our sun, a larger star like Betelgeuse needs to sustain a higher level of fusion to fight off the effects of the higher gravitational force. Larger stars have shorter lifespans because they burn through their fuel faster.
Is there any resource from the other side that provides reasons why restrictions should be placed on community broadband? The explanation "Evil Monopoly wants all the money" seems too simple for the complex nuanced world we live in.
If you actually read the laws cited by the article, many are completely reasonable: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/IV/042.... Wisconsin, for example, requires a public hearing and cost-benefit analysis before building municipal broadband, and even that requirement can be waived if the municipality only offers wholesale service and there's not already 2 or more competitors.
Broadband projects are big infrastructure projects. Municipalities are state organs, and at the end of the day, the state is on the hook if the municipality gets in over its head. (The states are also up to their eyeballs in debt and many have no hope of paying it off.) There is a real risk that municipalities will build a system and realize that they can't maintain and upgrade it in the long term.
Look at it from a different perspective. In 24 states, including some of the largest ones, there are no restrictions on municipal broad. Nothing is stopping, for example, Baltimore, from building a municipal broadband network. (And indeed, there are quite a few in rural Maryland). Why don't they do it? Because it's not easy, and it's not cheap.
The argument is that government, at any level, shouldn't be competing with the private sector. It should regulate the market, but shouldn't participate in it, because, on a practical level, it's often not too good at it, but also because it can create perverse incentives. For example, say municipal broadband became ubiquitous and popular enough that the income from it is now an important source of revenue for the authorities in these towns. Then they are incentivised to make things difficult for any commercial rival, even if the commercial offering is cheaper and better. Given how dysfunctional and kleptocratic municipal politics tends to be, almost everywhere, it's hard to say such concerns aren't entirely unfounded.
Of course, there are plenty of decent counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments. This is just one of those tensions that exists and is fundamentally irresolvable in any capitalist democracy.
> The argument is that government, at any level, shouldn't be competing with the private sector.
My father loves to wax poetic about the CWA and WPA during the Great Depression (though they ended before he was born, so he loves the idea more than any actual experience) - his conservative heart loves the idea that if people were struggling, they could get the care they needed as long as they work for it. He doesn't believe me when I respond to his "why don't we do that?" by pointing out that modern conservatives in govt (and many beyond) would have a coronary at the idea of having publicly funded competition to businesses that would otherwise do the work in question.
End result: He's sure there's a better way but he'll support the officials that would prevent that better way. To be fair, the progressives I support have their own list of complaints with such enforced-work-for-aid programs, but I'm not the one asking for them.
Yes. There are many think-tanks whose sole purpose is justifying laws that benefit corporate at the expense of everyone else. They will be happy to provide you with all the reasons you'd like.
More like "DMCA theoretically has protections against false accusations, but instances of people being held accountable are extremely rare."
Knowingly making a false DMCA claim is perjury, and IMO it should be treated as such. Instead companies send out automated claims in the thousands and then come back with "but we didn't know it was wrong, it was the bot!" and get away with it.
Hi there. Plaintiff here from OPG v Diebold, the first successful case enforcing 512f against knowingly false DMCA takedowns where the defendant was found guilty and owed several hundred thousand dollars in damages. It can and does happen and there is court precedent. Contact EFF if you're on the receiving end of an obviously bad DMCA takedown.
Yeah I don't know what people expect. YT is huge now, they are being watched by governments and corporations alike. The days were you could find entire movies on YT or Al qaida recruitment videos is long gone. If Google steps out of line everyone is immediately at their throat.
I had some friends in high school, and during my first couple of year in college who where in the BBS scene who started experimenting with heroin. They started smoking heroin because it was cheaper than pot, and they started smoking pot because they couldn't get beer as easily. All three of them ended up addicted, 2 of them where only into 'smoking' heroin, the third started injecting it. The first guy, who was/is insanely smart, just stopped, but went through severe withdrawal--he learned his lesson when I bumped into him a decade later. The second guy was from an insanely wealthy family, whose family eventually sent him to rehab. The third guy is still a junkie as far as I heard.
I never started because of the education/indoctrination by Nancy Reagan's "just say no." I just said no thanks when offered, and was only able to watch as these guy's lives spiralled out of control.
seriously? do you really believe this? the addictiveness of opiates is pretty well known. I have trouble accepting that anybody starts using heroin without knowing they might get addicted.
maybe you meant something like "nobody _intends_ to get addicted". that's a very different sentence.
"It won't happen to me" is, yes, what many young people actually believe. I mean, if you have a logical discussion with them, they'll admit that, theoretically, yes, they will probably become addicted. But as with many other areas, they don't really believe that, and their behavior proves it.
Then you aren't living in reality. People all the time think "this won't happen to me." I think you have a lot to learn about the world; I mean that in a nice way.
Opera did something similar back in 2010 in v11 with the opera:config#UserPrefs|HideURLParameter configuration variable. I found I was wanting the URL information often enough that I turned the feature off. I wonder the old Opera team had any metrics they gathered.
In Opera 20 I haven't found a way to re-enable fully expressed URLs. They adopted Webkit, and stripped out most of their configurability that was previously available from opera:config.
