Humans are native to the region around Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.
Humans anywhere else migrated there, whether sooner or later.
It is my opinion that it's the more industrious among them that migrate, and these characteristics correlate with those that drive progress. Courage, adventure, sacrifice, curiosity, hope.
Stayers always go on about the glory of having been born somewhere, the Mayflower, or the importance of their ticket in the lottery of birth. But how much pride can they have in their homeland if they never actually chose it, or made any effort to be there?
Nothing wrong with having been born somewhere great like the USA. It just makes it possible that either you DO love your country, or you're just lazy and lucky. Can't say that for migrants - they all sacrificed to be where they are.
"Exactly, no-one persecuted him for being a businessman prior to being a president and I don't remember anyone telling him he had to divest of it 100%."
No, Jimmy Carter WAS told to divest of it 100%. And he did.
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Your anecdote about a Social Security office is of no value.
First, because it is just anecdotal. But more importantly, because we have reams of data we can turn to on these very questions. Universities, states, the nation - they all have data that deals with the very issues you are trying to summarize: how and in what ways immigrants affect jobs, taxes, and the economy.
So to use the most unreliable data when much better sources are available seems...just lazy.
I wish I could rate your argument as -1 "insightful".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
So...ah...you're providing evidence that the "religion question" exists for applicants, but you're just debating the TIMING of the religious test? And you agree that it exists, but debate how heavily the answer to the religion question will be weighted?
Can you see how that doesn't do a good job in refuting Dark Helmet's assertion that there is a religious test in Trump's EO?
Mike and Techdirt had pretty much an endless stream of criticisms of the Obama administration, particularly around the issues of:
- transparency - intolerance of whistle-blowers - state-sanctioned espionage - intellectual property matters - asset forfeiture - The TPP
Mike didn't rely on just his family history. He also did the normal Techdirt Cost/Benefit analysis, and found real costs, but no benefits to Trump's EO. Don't act like he was a victim of his emotion, he STILL provided the analysis and rational argument.
And RE Obama and Iranians, that is a false equivalence. A specific case of a refugee in Kentucky was found who had been involved in IEDs on US soldiers. So Obama ordered a a re-screening on ALL the then-recent admissions. This slowed down the process for other applicants. No ban. No specific countries. No religions mentioned. Didn't apply to green carders. Again, false equivalence.
Which is a good fable, or allegory when it fits. But so is:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist."
The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs.
Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we'll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we're wrong about this one. But are we?
I see nothing in Trump's history, recent actions, or words to counter the accusation that is is a modern Nazi, and he absolutely fits the definition of a fascist.
We'll only know for certain in the future, but I'm confident that this is a time to look to Martin Niemoller's poem and not Aesop fable for guidance.
Meh. Maybe so. Important allegations, too, but I'm unlikely to ever know the truth.
But irrelevant to the alleged scheming, the majority of the USA, its gov't, and its citizens were motivated to join in a perilous war only after Pearl Harbor.
Even if true, your point simply argues that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor would motivate the nation. Which is what I argue motivated the nation.
I know a guy whose brother is a Cinci cop 1990-present. His brother told him that he goes into District 1 all the time, on-duty, wearing nothing more than a speedo banana hammock. Seems crazy, but I have it on good authority, so we know it's true.
By 2006, crime in the district was down 19%, but street orgies and gay sex were each up 32% and 45% respectively as reported by Enquirer. My friends brother says it was all a positive change, and wants to establish that he is strictly a top, not a bottom.
I read it how you intended, with fair bashing on Obama, and the recent arrests which were done under the pall of a POTUS who publicly cites the press as the enemy.
That said, I can see how others read it differently, through no error of their own.
The Mona Lisa is special because Da Vinci painted the face twice, once with high-contrast lines, and one with low-contrast strokes. The result is, the face looks different depending on how you look at it. Neither interpretation is wrong. https://lornareiko.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/illusions-whats-in-a-face/
What I'm saying is that your piece has similar characteristics, but unlike DaVinci, that probably was not your objective.
It's not that everyone in the USA was OK with fascism, and that may have motivated some towards war.
But I think David's account of history fits better with the actual events. The US did not move on Hitler when he brought fascism and racism to his own country...but sovereignty would restrain us. However, once he marched on the Sudetenland, then Poland, the USA could have reacted, but didn't.
Canada and other commonwealth countries entered after the UK did with the sinking of the Lusitania. It wasn't until this act of aggression that the Brits got invested.
But the USA? We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor. Our motivator was not the fight against fascism. It was the defense against attackers, and to stop the growth of an enemy axis and empire.
What That One Guy said is logically true, a sound argument, and will be agreeable to something less than half the population.
What you have said is blatantly false on the face of it, and you are a seditionist for merely concocting that deliberately obtuse smarty-pants word salad - or so just under half the country will think. This will be true for them.
Another large portion doesn't give a fuck. That is true for them, although they're not sure and don't really care.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everybody is overreacting - I make a prediction
Old Mugwump - You're too optimistic.
Your general arguments that technology will enable some kind of disruptive revolution, and new solutions will increase supply and reduce scarcity and price are...ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. So, on that, we're optimistic together.
The key here, though, is timing. Each of the solutions you mention, mesh, better wifi, LEOs, WiMAX...well, I've heard it all before. (Odd that you mention somewhat older and failed tech). And, yeah, comms access *does* progress, but more slowly than you seem to expect. And I'm a keen futurist that thinks tech is accelerating faster than any other time in history, and faster than most companies expect. Even then, I don't expect much revolutionary comm tech within the next Presidential term.
And I'm a guy who is talking (and promoting) exactly to the startup firms that are proposing they will disrupt the incumbents. Artemis, RedStone Technologies, etc.
I'm looking forward to WiGig, White Spaces, Millimeter Wave solutions, unlicensed spectrum, wave division multiplexing, MIMO, higher QAMs, and more. These WILL matter. Not before 2020.
As for Dear Leader, his Ajit Pai FCC and his FTC will reduce the pace of progress, as incumbents will be allowed greater leeway to squash innovation, and reduce competition.
My question is: Was pressure from the USA in trade deals one of the reasons Argentina also has stupid Copyright laws that extend beyond the life of the author?
Re: Everybody is overreacting - I make a prediction
We will not have new carriers.
The capital expenditure required to launch a new communication network is a massive, massive barrier to new entrants.
We've seen dozens and dozens try around the world. Success is an incredible rarity, and usually only happens where a big carrier from a neighboring country makes the investment, say Hutchison Whampoa (Hong Kong) into the UK (Three). In the USA, Tracfone is an MVNO owned by Mexico's America Movil. But even those only add competition in big cities where customers are plenty, and the CapEx/subscriber can be constrained.
Other new entrants, when moderately touching success, will get bought up by the incumbent to reduce the competition. For example, Wind Mobile in Canada bought by Shaw communications, or Mobilicity bought by Rogers. Do you think a Pai FCC or a Trump administration will block more or fewer merger requests?
Still other new entrants, like Virgin, are not actually new communications networks. They are MVNOs, or resellers of another carrier's network. They are subject to the whims of the underlying carrier, and the wholesale price they pay. They do not actually increase the supply of capacity, so don't have a strong effect on Supply/Demand equilibrium pricing.
Wireless saviors, like Monet Mobile, Earthlink, Muni Wifi and dozens more have all suffered a similar fate. They underestimated the costs of deploying blanket wireless coverage. The CapEx killed them.
Wired saviors, like Google Fiber are also hitting a CapEx wall. It's OK to run as a loss for Google in order to push the competition, and foster the concept of Gigabit Internet, but as a nationwide offering it's too costly to build. And incumbents keep throwing up roadblocks, like telephone pole mounting legal technicalities.
If you want to get wacky, you could look at low earth orbit satellite competition. But it turns out the time it takes to launch a full constellation means that the technology will always be 5 years behind, and the capex of a space-based solution is...astronomical. You can find these saviors are quite dead: Iridium, or Globalstar.
And Muni efforts are also squashed by lobbyists, as Karl mentioned.
So, after reading my screed with ACTUAL examples of companies that tried and failed, how does that leave your optimism about new entrants?
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Built on immigration
Humans anywhere else migrated there, whether sooner or later.
It is my opinion that it's the more industrious among them that migrate, and these characteristics correlate with those that drive progress. Courage, adventure, sacrifice, curiosity, hope.
Stayers always go on about the glory of having been born somewhere, the Mayflower, or the importance of their ticket in the lottery of birth. But how much pride can they have in their homeland if they never actually chose it, or made any effort to be there?
Nothing wrong with having been born somewhere great like the USA. It just makes it possible that either you DO love your country, or you're just lazy and lucky. Can't say that for migrants - they all sacrificed to be where they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
No, Jimmy Carter WAS told to divest of it 100%.
And he did.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3796484/president-jimmy-carter-gave-up-his-peanut-farm-and-richard-nixo n-sold-most-assets-to-avoid-conflicts-of-interest/
Looking up and down the comments on this page, it's clear you are either the world's best troll, or the world's worst debater.
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
First, because it is just anecdotal. But more importantly, because we have reams of data we can turn to on these very questions. Universities, states, the nation - they all have data that deals with the very issues you are trying to summarize: how and in what ways immigrants affect jobs, taxes, and the economy.
So to use the most unreliable data when much better sources are available seems...just lazy.
I wish I could rate your argument as -1 "insightful".
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
Can you see how that doesn't do a good job in refuting Dark Helmet's assertion that there is a religious test in Trump's EO?
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
"NOT A FUCKING PEEP" in all caps, no less?
Mike and Techdirt had pretty much an endless stream of criticisms of the Obama administration, particularly around the issues of:
- transparency
- intolerance of whistle-blowers
- state-sanctioned espionage
- intellectual property matters
- asset forfeiture
- The TPP
Mike didn't rely on just his family history. He also did the normal Techdirt Cost/Benefit analysis, and found real costs, but no benefits to Trump's EO. Don't act like he was a victim of his emotion, he STILL provided the analysis and rational argument.
And RE Obama and Iranians, that is a false equivalence. A specific case of a refugee in Kentucky was found who had been involved in IEDs on US soldiers. So Obama ordered a a re-screening on ALL the then-recent admissions. This slowed down the process for other applicants. No ban. No specific countries. No religions mentioned. Didn't apply to green carders. Again, false equivalence.
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re:
Which is a good fable, or allegory when it fits.
But so is:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist."
The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs.
Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we'll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we're wrong about this one. But are we?
I see nothing in Trump's history, recent actions, or words to counter the accusation that is is a modern Nazi, and he absolutely fits the definition of a fascist.
We'll only know for certain in the future, but I'm confident that this is a time to look to Martin Niemoller's poem and not Aesop fable for guidance.
On the post: Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
Re: Re: We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor.
But irrelevant to the alleged scheming, the majority of the USA, its gov't, and its citizens were motivated to join in a perilous war only after Pearl Harbor.
Even if true, your point simply argues that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor would motivate the nation. Which is what I argue motivated the nation.
On the post: Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, it was a tangent, and the focus is the US entering WW2 after Pearl Harbor.
On the post: Do You Want A Police State? Because This Is How You Get A Police State
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not some cockamamie analogy.
Your logical fallacies are:
at first: ANECDOTAL https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
and then: BURDEN OF PROOF https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
On the post: Do You Want A Police State? Because This Is How You Get A Police State
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know a guy whose brother is a Cinci cop 1990-present. His brother told him that he goes into District 1 all the time, on-duty, wearing nothing more than a speedo banana hammock. Seems crazy, but I have it on good authority, so we know it's true.
By 2006, crime in the district was down 19%, but street orgies and gay sex were each up 32% and 45% respectively as reported by Enquirer. My friends brother says it was all a positive change, and wants to establish that he is strictly a top, not a bottom.
The lesson: analogies are pretty worthless.
On the post: Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, I can see how others read it differently, through no error of their own.
The Mona Lisa is special because Da Vinci painted the face twice, once with high-contrast lines, and one with low-contrast strokes. The result is, the face looks different depending on how you look at it. Neither interpretation is wrong.
https://lornareiko.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/illusions-whats-in-a-face/
What I'm saying is that your piece has similar characteristics, but unlike DaVinci, that probably was not your objective.
On the post: Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
Re: Re: Re:
But I think David's account of history fits better with the actual events. The US did not move on Hitler when he brought fascism and racism to his own country...but sovereignty would restrain us. However, once he marched on the Sudetenland, then Poland, the USA could have reacted, but didn't.
Canada and other commonwealth countries entered after the UK did with the sinking of the Lusitania. It wasn't until this act of aggression that the Brits got invested.
But the USA? We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor. Our motivator was not the fight against fascism. It was the defense against attackers, and to stop the growth of an enemy axis and empire.
On the post: Snowden's Favorite Email Service Returns, With 'Trustful,' 'Cautious,' And 'Paranoid' Modes
Re:
On the post: Arrested Flag Burner Sues Arresting Officers
Burning Flags - So Asinine
Anything that actually gets people's attention...well, that's just rude.
On the post: Arrested Flag Burner Sues Arresting Officers
Re: Re: Re:
"Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2017 @ 5:44pm
maybe its just me but “Open dissent is the highest form of American patriotism,” rings extremely hollow."
On the post: Arrested Flag Burner Sues Arresting Officers
Re: Re:
What That One Guy said is logically true, a sound argument, and will be agreeable to something less than half the population.
What you have said is blatantly false on the face of it, and you are a seditionist for merely concocting that deliberately obtuse smarty-pants word salad - or so just under half the country will think. This will be true for them.
Another large portion doesn't give a fuck. That is true for them, although they're not sure and don't really care.
On the post: Netflix May Not Be Worried About The Looming Death Of Net Neutrality, But Startups Should Be God-Damned Terrified
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everybody is overreacting - I make a prediction
Your general arguments that technology will enable some kind of disruptive revolution, and new solutions will increase supply and reduce scarcity and price are...ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. So, on that, we're optimistic together.
The key here, though, is timing. Each of the solutions you mention, mesh, better wifi, LEOs, WiMAX...well, I've heard it all before. (Odd that you mention somewhat older and failed tech). And, yeah, comms access *does* progress, but more slowly than you seem to expect. And I'm a keen futurist that thinks tech is accelerating faster than any other time in history, and faster than most companies expect. Even then, I don't expect much revolutionary comm tech within the next Presidential term.
And I'm a guy who is talking (and promoting) exactly to the startup firms that are proposing they will disrupt the incumbents. Artemis, RedStone Technologies, etc.
I'm looking forward to WiGig, White Spaces, Millimeter Wave solutions, unlicensed spectrum, wave division multiplexing, MIMO, higher QAMs, and more. These WILL matter. Not before 2020.
As for Elon Musk, he is my personal hero. But Craig McCaw was a wunderkind, too, when he launched Teledesic. http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/07/08/325859/index.htm Wireless is hard. sTelecom is hard. Space is hard.
As for Dear Leader, his Ajit Pai FCC and his FTC will reduce the pace of progress, as incumbents will be allowed greater leeway to squash innovation, and reduce competition.
On the post: Is A 'Fattened' Version Of A Famous Jorge Luis Borges Story Artistic Re-Creation, Or Copyright Infringement?
Did We Do This?
Was pressure from the USA in trade deals one of the reasons Argentina also has stupid Copyright laws that extend beyond the life of the author?
Anyone know?
On the post: Netflix May Not Be Worried About The Looming Death Of Net Neutrality, But Startups Should Be God-Damned Terrified
Re: Everybody is overreacting - I make a prediction
The capital expenditure required to launch a new communication network is a massive, massive barrier to new entrants.
We've seen dozens and dozens try around the world. Success is an incredible rarity, and usually only happens where a big carrier from a neighboring country makes the investment, say Hutchison Whampoa (Hong Kong) into the UK (Three). In the USA, Tracfone is an MVNO owned by Mexico's America Movil. But even those only add competition in big cities where customers are plenty, and the CapEx/subscriber can be constrained.
Other new entrants, when moderately touching success, will get bought up by the incumbent to reduce the competition. For example, Wind Mobile in Canada bought by Shaw communications, or Mobilicity bought by Rogers. Do you think a Pai FCC or a Trump administration will block more or fewer merger requests?
Still other new entrants, like Virgin, are not actually new communications networks. They are MVNOs, or resellers of another carrier's network. They are subject to the whims of the underlying carrier, and the wholesale price they pay. They do not actually increase the supply of capacity, so don't have a strong effect on Supply/Demand equilibrium pricing.
Wireless saviors, like Monet Mobile, Earthlink, Muni Wifi and dozens more have all suffered a similar fate. They underestimated the costs of deploying blanket wireless coverage. The CapEx killed them.
Wired saviors, like Google Fiber are also hitting a CapEx wall. It's OK to run as a loss for Google in order to push the competition, and foster the concept of Gigabit Internet, but as a nationwide offering it's too costly to build. And incumbents keep throwing up roadblocks, like telephone pole mounting legal technicalities.
If you want to get wacky, you could look at low earth orbit satellite competition. But it turns out the time it takes to launch a full constellation means that the technology will always be 5 years behind, and the capex of a space-based solution is...astronomical. You can find these saviors are quite dead: Iridium, or Globalstar.
And Muni efforts are also squashed by lobbyists, as Karl mentioned.
So, after reading my screed with ACTUAL examples of companies that tried and failed, how does that leave your optimism about new entrants?
On the post: FTC Sues D-Link For Pretending To Give A Damn About Hardware Security
Pictures, Please
Karl, can you provide photos of this. Sounds awesome.
Next >>