This is a problem? Why wouldn't they offer free access to content they own? To me that's an incentive to purchase ATT services. Comcast is free to offer the same access to services they own so that seems to be free market at work. Unless they block services they don't own which doesn't seem to be the case (yet anyway).
This is a problem? Why wouldn't they offer free access to content they own? To me that's an incentive to purchase ATT services. Comcast is free to offer the same access to services they own so that seems to be free market at work. Unless they block services they don't own which doesn't seem to be the case (yet anyway).
Give it time. It will happen incrementally, and by the time most of the public notices, the game will be over.
Arguably, if the on-campus police officer was not the only one around, he might have been able to respond more effectively. A team of police officers is better equipped to deal with a shooter situation than a single man.
There is no way even the US can afford a team of police officers patrolling every school! The logic of armed teachers only works if all of them (or at least 1/4 or so) are armed. I sincerely doubt that that many would be willing to go through the rigorous training that would (and should) be required in order to carry weapons on school premises. The only other way I can see the Republican idea working is if even the students are allowed to concealed carry. However, the potential huge increase in the amount of available guns on school property would be a disaster waiting to happen! I'm a conservative and even I can see that armed teachers are not the answer. I've changed my views over the past few years and think that a ban on assault rifles makes good sense. My dad would argue with me until Hell freezes over but his idea that those weapons would help if the government chose to oppress their own people is hopelessly outdated. No amount of AR15's or AK 47's would protect the average citizen if the military was persuaded to attack them. Look at the casualty lists for the Iraq wars. An army of an entire nation with pretty sophisticated tech had absolutely no chance against us. A militia armed with only assault rifles would be cannon-fodder compared to that...
There is also this paradox: generally, those on the right (historically) have been more outspoken in favor of law enforcement AND the military. They also now seem to be the people who are insisting that, if push comes to shove, they will need their guns in case they have to KILL them in an armed revolution. Moreover, the NRA going full-bore after the FBI and law enforcement (who they have supported to the hilt for DECADES) shows just how shook they really are about all this.
In this right-wing logic it would be effective for at best the first week or two. After that, an organized law enforcement (or more likely military) would shred these militias. I'm a realist so I don't agree that an armed populace would have a prayer in their doomsday scenarios. My dad even goes so far as to suggest that he and his friends could beat the Chinese (or whatever military decides they'd have chance attacking us). I'm sorry, but any country (or group of countries) that could successfully invade the US would not be afraid of a bunch of amateur Rambos!
Arguably, if the on-campus police officer was not the only one around, he might have been able to respond more effectively. A team of police officers is better equipped to deal with a shooter situation than a single man.
There is no way even the US can afford a team of police officers patrolling every school! The logic of armed teachers only works if all of them (or at least 1/4 or so) are armed. I sincerely doubt that that many would be willing to go through the rigorous training that would (and should) be required in order to carry weapons on school premises. The only other way I can see the Republican idea working is if even the students are allowed to concealed carry. However, the potential huge increase in the amount of available guns on school property would be a disaster waiting to happen! I'm a conservative and even I can see that armed teachers are not the answer. I've changed my views over the past few years and think that a ban on assault rifles makes good sense. My dad would argue with me until Hell freezes over but his idea that those weapons would help if the government chose to oppress their own people is hopelessly outdated. No amount of AR15's or AK 47's would protect the average citizen if the military was persuaded to attack them. Look at the casualty lists for the Iraq wars. An army of an entire nation with pretty sophisticated tech had absolutely no chance against us. A militia armed with only assault rifles would be cannon-fodder compared to that...
There is also this paradox: generally, those on the right (historically) have been more outspoken in favor of law enforcement AND the military. They also now seem to be the people who are insisting that, if push comes to shove, they will need their guns in case they have to KILL them in an armed revolution. Moreover, the NRA going full-bore after the FBI and law enforcement (who they have supported to the hilt for DECADES) shows just how shook they really are about all this.
In this right-wing logic it would be effective for at best the first week or two. After that, an organized law enforcement (or more likely military) would shred these militias. I'm a realist so I don't agree that an armed populace would have a prayer in their doomsday scenarios. My dad even goes so far as to suggest that he and his friends could beat the Chinese (or whatever military decides they'd have chance attacking us). I'm sorry, but any country (or group of countries) that could successfully invade the US would not be afraid of a bunch of amateur Rambos!
Sounds like they watched Red Dawn one too many times....
This is a problem? Why wouldn't they offer free access to content they own? To me that's an incentive to purchase ATT services. Comcast is free to offer the same access to services they own so that seems to be free market at work. Unless they block services they don't own which doesn't seem to be the case (yet anyway).
Give it time. It will happen incrementally, and by the time most of the public notices, the game will be over.
The game will never be over in a free market. Look at Netflix for example. If those companies overcharge too much somebody will undercut their prices. That's the beauty of capitalism. The only way it wouldn't work is if the government gets involved..
Arguably, if the on-campus police officer was not the only one around, he might have been able to respond more effectively. A team of police officers is better equipped to deal with a shooter situation than a single man.
There is no way even the US can afford a team of police officers patrolling every school! The logic of armed teachers only works if all of them (or at least 1/4 or so) are armed. I sincerely doubt that that many would be willing to go through the rigorous training that would (and should) be required in order to carry weapons on school premises. The only other way I can see the Republican idea working is if even the students are allowed to concealed carry. However, the potential huge increase in the amount of available guns on school property would be a disaster waiting to happen! I'm a conservative and even I can see that armed teachers are not the answer. I've changed my views over the past few years and think that a ban on assault rifles makes good sense. My dad would argue with me until Hell freezes over but his idea that those weapons would help if the government chose to oppress their own people is hopelessly outdated. No amount of AR15's or AK 47's would protect the average citizen if the military was persuaded to attack them. Look at the casualty lists for the Iraq wars. An army of an entire nation with pretty sophisticated tech had absolutely no chance against us. A militia armed with only assault rifles would be cannon-fodder compared to that...
There is also this paradox: generally, those on the right (historically) have been more outspoken in favor of law enforcement AND the military. They also now seem to be the people who are insisting that, if push comes to shove, they will need their guns in case they have to KILL them in an armed revolution. Moreover, the NRA going full-bore after the FBI and law enforcement (who they have supported to the hilt for DECADES) shows just how shook they really are about all this.
In this right-wing logic it would be effective for at best the first week or two. After that, an organized law enforcement (or more likely military) would shred these militias. I'm a realist so I don't agree that an armed populace would have a prayer in their doomsday scenarios. My dad even goes so far as to suggest that he and his friends could beat the Chinese (or whatever military decides they'd have chance attacking us). I'm sorry, but any country (or group of countries) that could successfully invade the US would not be afraid of a bunch of amateur Rambos!
Sounds like they watched Red Dawn one too many times....
I loved that movie when I was younger. When I grew up, I realized that Cuba would never have the resources, even with Russia's help, to achieve anything near that scenario. Still a great film for the underdog though. I will say that the only reason Afghanistan is still around as a country is that even the Soviets didn't seem to want to exterminate an entire country's population. It was within their capability even as the US could have exterminated the Vietnamese if we'd really wanted to. That gives me some faith in humankind (even if just a little).
Edit: I also fell in love with Leah Thompson because of that flick!
You have separate white collar prisons? How did that happen? And as opposed to what? Working class blue collar prisons?
It's more of a "non-violent prison". Many inmates there are in for financial crimes, hence the "white collar" nickname.
Because clearly stealing millions of dollars from your company or the government via tax evasion is so much worse than robbing a bank or dealing marijuana on a street corner...
Edit: IMHO those assholes should have the same access to 'Bubba' as the child molesters and rapists.
Well, in modern days an armed population of course can't "compete" with a professional army but can : - One more "defense layer" - Increase the production of weapons - Reduce the training costs since the majority of new soldiers have a little gun knowledge - Produce military equipment. If Ronnie Barrett was born in any strict gun control country, he will probably never be able to develop his weapons
Also note that the "barbarians" defeated Romans in Teutoburg forest. In modern days there are no way that a homemade grenades can compete with sophisticated ultra expensive grenades or intercontinental missiles but say that they are completely useless is just silly.
You have separate white collar prisons? How did that happen? And as opposed to what? Working class blue collar prisons?
It's more of a "non-violent prison". Many inmates there are in for financial crimes, hence the "white collar" nickname.
Because clearly stealing millions of dollars from your company or the government via tax evasion is so much worse than robbing a bank or dealing marijuana on a street corner...
Security levels aren't designed around the level of punishment but the likelihood of inmates harming each other. Selling marijuana illegally on a street corner gets you in the same prison as the guy who was guilty of securities fraud.
Well, in modern days an armed population of course can't "compete" with a professional army but can : - One more "defense layer" - Increase the production of weapons - Reduce the training costs since the majority of new soldiers have a little gun knowledge - Produce military equipment. If Ronnie Barrett was born in any strict gun control country, he will probably never be able to develop his weapons
Also note that there are a lot of important militia examples in history for example the "barbarians" that defeated Romans in Teutoburg forest. In modern days there are no way that a homemade grenades can compete with sophisticated ultra expensive grenades or intercontinental missiles.
There was a lot more in play in your Teutonburg Forest example. The Romans didn't have night vision or motion detectors for one thing. The level of disparity was nowhere near what it is today. Sorry!
Well, in modern days an armed population of course can't "compete" with a professional army but can : - One more "defense layer" - Increase the production of weapons - Reduce the training costs since the majority of new soldiers have a little gun knowledge - Produce military equipment. If Ronnie Barrett was born in any strict gun control country, he will probably never be able to develop his weapons
Also note that there are a lot of important militia examples in history for example the "barbarians" that defeated Romans in Teutoburg forest. In modern days there are no way that a homemade grenades can compete with sophisticated ultra expensive grenades or intercontinental missiles.
There was a lot more in play in your Teutonburg Forest example. The Romans didn't have night vision or motion detectors for one thing. The level of disparity was nowhere near what it is today. Sorry!
Edit: The Romans also didn't have satellites. I would imagine that one of the first things that our military would do is shut down GPS and most likely the internet too...
In what may be a creepy coincidence, or a sign of a Terminator or Matrix-like takeover of machines, I typed the words "Red Dawn" into a reply to @Balrog99 , and now Red Dawn clips are showing up in my Youtube feed.
In what may be a creepy coincidence, or a sign of a Terminator or Matrix-like takeover of machines, I typed the words "Red Dawn" into a reply to @Balrog99 , and now Red Dawn clips are showing up in my Youtube feed.
Good thing so many good actors & actresses were involved in that movie then. The AI might be influenced by good character portrayals!
This is a problem? Why wouldn't they offer free access to content they own? To me that's an incentive to purchase ATT services. Comcast is free to offer the same access to services they own so that seems to be free market at work. Unless they block services they don't own which doesn't seem to be the case (yet anyway).
Give it time. It will happen incrementally, and by the time most of the public notices, the game will be over.
The game will never be over in a free market. Look at Netflix for example. If those companies overcharge too much somebody will undercut their prices. That's the beauty of capitalism. The only way it wouldn't work is if the government gets involved..
There is now nothing stopping at&t from giving free access to crapostream and throttling Netflix.
Well, in modern days an armed population of course can't "compete" with a professional army but can : - One more "defense layer" - Increase the production of weapons - Reduce the training costs since the majority of new soldiers have a little gun knowledge - Produce military equipment. If Ronnie Barrett was born in any strict gun control country, he will probably never be able to develop his weapons
Also note that there are a lot of important militia examples in history for example the "barbarians" that defeated Romans in Teutoburg forest. In modern days there are no way that a homemade grenades can compete with sophisticated ultra expensive grenades or intercontinental missiles.
There was a lot more in play in your Teutonburg Forest example. The Romans didn't have night vision or motion detectors for one thing. The level of disparity was nowhere near what it is today. Sorry!
Edit: The Romans also didn't have satellites...
AS i've said in modern days(...)" , in past was different. How USA gained his independence? Fighting the greatest empire in world. Note that all historical examples of armed resistance against a far superior enemy was using Guerrilla warfare not conventional warfare.
That is not perfect, a lot of Eastern Europeans tried to fight Bolshevik communists using Guerrilla tactics after ww2 and din't managed to get his independence but at least they have a little chance. Is better to have 0,000(...)1% chance of freedom than a certain slavery. And i will say again because some people have problem understanding. I don't think that militia + conventional warfare can defeat the biggest army of the world. I an only saying that it can put a resistance and be another defense layer.
We had a group of gun-nut assholes try this shit a couple of years ago. The Bundy Brigade. First, because daddy didn't want to pay his grazing fees, they took up sniper positions against federal agents. They walked on that. Then they engaged in an armed-takeover of federal land where they were allowed to play pretend revolutionary for over a month before law enforcement actually moved in on them. It was possibly the greatest example of white privilege I have ever seen in my lifetime. And then, a couple of weeks ago, the rest of them got off. What the hell do these people even have to worry about?? They've proven that you can take up arms against federal agents, and that you can engage in open sedition on national television, and the right jury won't even convict you for it. Pretty neat deal.
We had a group of gun-nut assholes try this shit a couple of years ago. The Bundy Brigade. First, because daddy didn't want to pay his grazing fees, they took up sniper positions against federal agents. They walked on that. Then they engaged in an armed-takeover of federal land where they were allowed to play pretend revolutionary for over a month before law enforcement actually moved in on them. It was possibly the greatest example of white privilege I have ever seen in my lifetime. And then, a couple of weeks ago, the rest of them got off. What the hell do these people even have to worry about?? They've proven that you can take up arms against federal agents, and that you can engage in open sedition on national television, and the right jury won't even convict you for it. Pretty neat deal.
Well, in modern days an armed population of course can't "compete" with a professional army but can : - One more "defense layer" - Increase the production of weapons - Reduce the training costs since the majority of new soldiers have a little gun knowledge - Produce military equipment. If Ronnie Barrett was born in any strict gun control country, he will probably never be able to develop his weapons
Also note that there are a lot of important militia examples in history for example the "barbarians" that defeated Romans in Teutoburg forest. In modern days there are no way that a homemade grenades can compete with sophisticated ultra expensive grenades or intercontinental missiles.
There was a lot more in play in your Teutonburg Forest example. The Romans didn't have night vision or motion detectors for one thing. The level of disparity was nowhere near what it is today. Sorry!
Edit: The Romans also didn't have satellites...
AS i've said in modern days(...)" , in past was different. How USA gained his independence? Fighting the greatest empire in world. Note that all historical examples of armed resistance against a far superior enemy was using Guerrilla warfare not conventional warfare.
That is not perfect, a lot of Eastern Europeans tried to fight Bolshevik communists using Guerrilla tactics after ww2 and din't managed to get his independence but at least they have a little chance. Is better to have 0,000(...)1% chance of freedom than a certain slavery. And i will say again because some people have problem understanding. I don't think that militia + conventional warfare can defeat the biggest army of the world. I an only saying that it can put a resistance and be another defense layer.
The Soviets displayed restraint. The apocalypse feared by the far-right will display no restraint. Therefore, according to that logic, they would have no chance despite having access to assault rifles. That's what I see as the ultimate result of their philosophy anyway...
Also, not for nothing, but there is an active investigation into whether the NRA laundered Russian money to help Trump during the campaign.
This is grasping at straws. The NRA raises so much money from its donors here that it doesn't *need* to launder Russian money. That being said, it appears that the illogical fear of Russia from the 1950s is back, only this time is is "oligarchs and troll farms" rather than "communism".
re: AT&T...they have a right to sponsor their own services. Notice that they aren't blocking anyone else's content or slowing it down, only making it so that their in-house service won't count against any bandwidth or usage cap.
I am more concerned that Disney may remove *all* of its content from Netflix, which means no more street-level MCTVU shows--Jessica's second season is supposed to launch on 8 March.
Beyond that, it isn't FEAR of Russia, it's why in the hell it's just being accepted that this is how things are going to be going forward, ESPECIALLY considering every single conservative in the country, up until about 18 months ago, as you pointed out, thought Russia was our mortal enemy. Thought so for decades. But, that was when it was a communist country. It isn't a communist country anymore. Under Putin, it more closely resembles what the far-right and billionaire class in this country want. Oil and oligarchy, corruption so systemic it defies belief, a crackdown on LGBT rights etc etc etc. I'm not concerned that Russia is going to bomb us or attack us (as was the fear during the Cold War). I'm pissed off that absolutely NOTHING is being done about securing our elections. And yes, I am well aware we have interfered in elections since time immemorial. That hardly seems like a reason to just sit back and let them continue to push things. It wasn't JUST the disinformation. They penetrated the voter rolls. That is one step away from changing the votes themselves. If we had any sense at all in this country, we would be demanding an immediate change to paper ballots all across the country. Incidentally, the Virginia election in which Democrats pummeled Republicans across the State last November was the first one to go back to all paper ballots. A coincidence?? Probably. But maybe not. We should not be using electronic voting machines going forward.
The National Association of School Resource Officers is dead-set against arming teachers, and give a comprehensive list of reasons:
Should schools arm teachers, or others who are not law enforcement officers?
NASRO strongly recommends that no firearms be on a school campus except those carried by carefully selected, specially trained school resource officers, who are by definition (see above) active, sworn law enforcement officers. There are several reasons for this recommendation:
*Law enforcement officers who respond to an incident at a school could mistake for an assailant a teacher or any other armed person who is not in a uniform.
*Anyone who hasn’t received the extensive training provided to law enforcement officers will likely be mentally unprepared to take a life, especially the life of a student assailant.
*Firearm skills degrade quickly, which is why most law enforcement agencies require their officers to practice on a shooting range frequently (as often as once per month), under simulated, high-stress conditions. Anyone without such frequent, ongoing practice will likely have difficulty using a firearm safely and effectively.
*In addition to maintaining marksmanship, ongoing firearms practice helps law enforcement officers overcome the physiological response to stress than can reduce the fine motor skills required to accurately fire a weapon.
*Anyone who possesses a firearm on campus must be able to keep it both ready for use and absolutely secure. Law enforcement officers receive training that enables them to overcome attempts to access their weapons.
*Discharging a firearm in a crowded school is an extremely risky action, with consequences that can include the wounding and/or death of innocent victims. Law enforcement officers receive training and practice in evaluating quickly the risks of firing. They hold their fire when the risks to others are too high.
Remember that before NFA(national firearms act), USA had almost no problems with guns.
I was really hoping that someone else would challenge this statement, but oh well. The short answer is that the statement is incorrect.
I suspect most people reading this thread will know about the specific problems of machine guns and gang warfare during Prohibition - and it was the experience of seeing children being mown down by gunfire that led directly to the National Firearms Act in 1934 (an instance where public pressure was a significant factor in the introduction of gun control legislation). The NFA has been very effective in its aims - pretty much eliminating what had been a major problem of the use of machine guns in crime (and that effect persists right up to the present - there is still virtually no use by criminals of machine guns). There was a sharp drop in the number of homicides after the NFA was introduced, though it would be difficult to disentangle the impact the NFA had compared to the ending of prohibition (not impossible though if the government actually sponsored rather than suppressing gun research).
What I suspect is less well known is that homicide rates in the US were already rising sharply from 1900 onwards - and the high death rates during Prohibition simply fit into this existing trend (as I posted in relation to rape in Sweden though, it's quite possible that this increase was largely related to changes in recording methods and that the real number of homicides in the US was always much higher than shown at the start of the century). That makes me suspect that the drop after 1934 was a lot more to do with the NFA than Prohibition, but I can't prove that. Here are the annual figures from 1900 to 1998.
While researching I also came across this paper from 1968. That was a period of active discussion about gun control legislation as a result of a Supreme Court decision that ruled the NFA 1934 act was unconstitutional (as a result of the 5th amendment, not the 2nd - the NFA was then reinstituted in a slightly different form by Congress). The paper itself is quite technical, but it gave me a giggle as it is debunking the myth that restrictions on guns result in increased crime - the arguments over gun control have been going on for a long time .
This is a problem? Why wouldn't they offer free access to content they own? To me that's an incentive to purchase ATT services. Comcast is free to offer the same access to services they own so that seems to be free market at work. Unless they block services they don't own which doesn't seem to be the case (yet anyway).
Give it time. It will happen incrementally, and by the time most of the public notices, the game will be over.
The game will never be over in a free market. Look at Netflix for example. If those companies overcharge too much somebody will undercut their prices. That's the beauty of capitalism. The only way it wouldn't work is if the government gets involved..
WHO is going to undercut them? Netflix is a $12B/year company making $187M/year net income (so profit ratio of 1.6%).
"I'm going to start a company, to undercut Netflix by 2 dollars per customer. To start up a competitive-enough company to do that, I need 20 billion dollars and 3 years and I have a 60% chance of bankrupting us anyways in the first 2 years."
You'd be laughed out of the bank you're begging for a loan for.
The free market is a nice-sounding fallacy.
The reality is that there is no free market anywhere.
Economic competitive advantages will always boil the market down to a monopoly. Or at least an oligopoly.
Almost EVERY industry is DOMINATED (as in, 75%+ of the output) by, at most, half a dozen independent entities. Who cares about a hundred thousand small firms when the total of them is only 10% of the market? The big boys make policy. The big boys are what determines what daily life is like in the economy.
The same applies to stocks of a company. A handful of people have 5, 10, 20, 51% shares outstanding of a company (those numbers being legally significant breakpoints). Ten thousand people with individual shares might total up to 6%, or god forbid, mutual funds, where you have multiples of .0001% of a share.
Monopolies are real things, so are oligopolies. "perfectly competitive" free markets are purely theoretical.
In what may be a creepy coincidence, or a sign of a Terminator or Matrix-like takeover of machines, I typed the words "Red Dawn" into a reply to @Balrog99 , and now Red Dawn clips are showing up in my Youtube feed.
Not as creepy as me typing in TWO LETTERS and google pulling up searches I'm about to type out.
This is first I have ever heard of this investigation; you would think it would have been more newsworthy but I suppose not. That last quote in the article, though...."The trip exceeded my expectations by logarithmic levels".... *sigh* That isn't what that word means and that isn't how it is used--he was trying to sound educated.
I completely agree with using paper ballots only, as well. I watched a documentary back in 2005 where a researcher was allowed to use a machine which was actually used for voting and he demonstrated, after only a hour or two of work, how he could pre-set the registers in the device's memory to alter a vote. The trick was to set one register to a value like -5 and the other register to 5 so the total vote count is 0. After that he had 10 people cast a vote, 8 for and 2 against, and the results were as he expected: 10 votes cast, 3 for, 7 against.
@Quickblade is absolutely correct--our economy is primarily driven by oligopolies against whom the mom-and-pop shops cannot compete.
The Carrier Plant is the story that keeps on giving. Since promising to save jobs to make Trump look good in a PR stunt, then sending them to Mexico anyway after the cameras went away, United Technologies has now been awarded a 2.5 billion dollar no-bid contract with the Pentagon. The only surprising thing about this story is that it doesn't, on the surface, seem to involve anyone from Whitefish, Montana:
Remember that before NFA(national firearms act), USA had almost no problems with guns.
(....)
The high homicide rate in USA during certain times was because : - Alcohol prohibition(in that paper, the number of homicides clearly starts to decline after prohibition ended) - Great depression(caused by FED)
The Italian and Russian Mafia as well other gangs become much more powerful thanks to government. Note that a loot of gangsters still used suppressors and full auto weapons after the NFA. And your paper only talks about homicides.
You will take the right of almost 100% of population because a small minority committed crimes? What is the next? I can't use more VPN because some people used to commit crimes? Can't use more Linux because some people committed crimes using some tools? Even if only good citizens will obey the law? Ban bitcoin because some people use to commit crime? Or that logic works only with guns?
Comments
Edit: I also fell in love with Leah Thompson because of that flick!
Edit: IMHO those assholes should have the same access to 'Bubba' as the child molesters and rapists.
- One more "defense layer"
- Increase the production of weapons
- Reduce the training costs since the majority of new soldiers have a little gun knowledge
- Produce military equipment. If Ronnie Barrett was born in any strict gun control country, he will probably never be able to develop his weapons
Also note that the "barbarians" defeated Romans in Teutoburg forest. In modern days there are no way that a homemade grenades can compete with sophisticated ultra expensive grenades or intercontinental missiles but say that they are completely useless is just silly.
Edit: The Romans also didn't have satellites...
See the problem here?
Guerrilla warfare was always effective ( http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Guerrilla_warfare )
That is not perfect, a lot of Eastern Europeans tried to fight Bolshevik communists using Guerrilla tactics after ww2 and din't managed to get his independence but at least they have a little chance. Is better to have 0,000(...)1% chance of freedom than a certain slavery. And i will say again because some people have problem understanding. I don't think that militia + conventional warfare can defeat the biggest army of the world. I an only saying that it can put a resistance and be another defense layer.
re: AT&T...they have a right to sponsor their own services. Notice that they aren't blocking anyone else's content or slowing it down, only making it so that their in-house service won't count against any bandwidth or usage cap.
I am more concerned that Disney may remove *all* of its content from Netflix, which means no more street-level MCTVU shows--Jessica's second season is supposed to launch on 8 March.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article195231139.html
Beyond that, it isn't FEAR of Russia, it's why in the hell it's just being accepted that this is how things are going to be going forward, ESPECIALLY considering every single conservative in the country, up until about 18 months ago, as you pointed out, thought Russia was our mortal enemy. Thought so for decades. But, that was when it was a communist country. It isn't a communist country anymore. Under Putin, it more closely resembles what the far-right and billionaire class in this country want. Oil and oligarchy, corruption so systemic it defies belief, a crackdown on LGBT rights etc etc etc. I'm not concerned that Russia is going to bomb us or attack us (as was the fear during the Cold War). I'm pissed off that absolutely NOTHING is being done about securing our elections. And yes, I am well aware we have interfered in elections since time immemorial. That hardly seems like a reason to just sit back and let them continue to push things. It wasn't JUST the disinformation. They penetrated the voter rolls. That is one step away from changing the votes themselves. If we had any sense at all in this country, we would be demanding an immediate change to paper ballots all across the country. Incidentally, the Virginia election in which Democrats pummeled Republicans across the State last November was the first one to go back to all paper ballots. A coincidence?? Probably. But maybe not. We should not be using electronic voting machines going forward.
Should schools arm teachers, or others who are not law enforcement officers?
NASRO strongly recommends that no firearms be on a school campus except those carried by carefully selected, specially trained school resource officers, who are by definition (see above) active, sworn law enforcement officers. There are several reasons for this recommendation:
*Law enforcement officers who respond to an incident at a school could mistake for an assailant a teacher or any other armed person who is not in a uniform.
*Anyone who hasn’t received the extensive training provided to law enforcement officers will likely be mentally unprepared to take a life, especially the life of a student assailant.
*Firearm skills degrade quickly, which is why most law enforcement agencies require their officers to practice on a shooting range frequently (as often as once per month), under simulated, high-stress conditions. Anyone without such frequent, ongoing practice will likely have difficulty using a firearm safely and effectively.
*In addition to maintaining marksmanship, ongoing firearms practice helps law enforcement officers overcome the physiological response to stress than can reduce the fine motor skills required to accurately fire a weapon.
*Anyone who possesses a firearm on campus must be able to keep it both ready for use and absolutely secure. Law enforcement officers receive training that enables them to overcome attempts to access their weapons.
*Discharging a firearm in a crowded school is an extremely risky action, with consequences that can include the wounding and/or death of innocent victims. Law enforcement officers receive training and practice in evaluating quickly the risks of firing. They hold their fire when the risks to others are too high.
I suspect most people reading this thread will know about the specific problems of machine guns and gang warfare during Prohibition - and it was the experience of seeing children being mown down by gunfire that led directly to the National Firearms Act in 1934 (an instance where public pressure was a significant factor in the introduction of gun control legislation). The NFA has been very effective in its aims - pretty much eliminating what had been a major problem of the use of machine guns in crime (and that effect persists right up to the present - there is still virtually no use by criminals of machine guns). There was a sharp drop in the number of homicides after the NFA was introduced, though it would be difficult to disentangle the impact the NFA had compared to the ending of prohibition (not impossible though if the government actually sponsored rather than suppressing gun research).
What I suspect is less well known is that homicide rates in the US were already rising sharply from 1900 onwards - and the high death rates during Prohibition simply fit into this existing trend (as I posted in relation to rape in Sweden though, it's quite possible that this increase was largely related to changes in recording methods and that the real number of homicides in the US was always much higher than shown at the start of the century). That makes me suspect that the drop after 1934 was a lot more to do with the NFA than Prohibition, but I can't prove that. Here are the annual figures from 1900 to 1998.
While researching I also came across this paper from 1968. That was a period of active discussion about gun control legislation as a result of a Supreme Court decision that ruled the NFA 1934 act was unconstitutional (as a result of the 5th amendment, not the 2nd - the NFA was then reinstituted in a slightly different form by Congress). The paper itself is quite technical, but it gave me a giggle as it is debunking the myth that restrictions on guns result in increased crime - the arguments over gun control have been going on for a long time
"I'm going to start a company, to undercut Netflix by 2 dollars per customer. To start up a competitive-enough company to do that, I need 20 billion dollars and 3 years and I have a 60% chance of bankrupting us anyways in the first 2 years."
You'd be laughed out of the bank you're begging for a loan for.
The free market is a nice-sounding fallacy.
The reality is that there is no free market anywhere.
Economic competitive advantages will always boil the market down to a monopoly. Or at least an oligopoly.
Almost EVERY industry is DOMINATED (as in, 75%+ of the output) by, at most, half a dozen independent entities. Who cares about a hundred thousand small firms when the total of them is only 10% of the market? The big boys make policy. The big boys are what determines what daily life is like in the economy.
The same applies to stocks of a company. A handful of people have 5, 10, 20, 51% shares outstanding of a company (those numbers being legally significant breakpoints). Ten thousand people with individual shares might total up to 6%, or god forbid, mutual funds, where you have multiples of .0001% of a share.
Monopolies are real things, so are oligopolies. "perfectly competitive" free markets are purely theoretical.
The other alternative is a regulated market.
Those are your two choices.
Choose wisely, grasshopper. Not as creepy as me typing in TWO LETTERS and google pulling up searches I'm about to type out.
I completely agree with using paper ballots only, as well. I watched a documentary back in 2005 where a researcher was allowed to use a machine which was actually used for voting and he demonstrated, after only a hour or two of work, how he could pre-set the registers in the device's memory to alter a vote. The trick was to set one register to a value like -5 and the other register to 5 so the total vote count is 0. After that he had 10 people cast a vote, 8 for and 2 against, and the results were as he expected: 10 votes cast, 3 for, 7 against.
@Quickblade is absolutely correct--our economy is primarily driven by oligopolies against whom the mom-and-pop shops cannot compete.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/375285-manufacturing-giant-that-struck-trump-jobs-deal-receives-25-billion-dod
- Alcohol prohibition(in that paper, the number of homicides clearly starts to decline after prohibition ended)
- Great depression(caused by FED)
The Italian and Russian Mafia as well other gangs become much more powerful thanks to government. Note that a loot of gangsters still used suppressors and full auto weapons after the NFA. And your paper only talks about homicides.
There are almost 330 millions guns in USA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country ), and arround 8k crimes involving firearms ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11 ), that means the "used in crime" ratio of guns is 0.00005151515 or 0.005151515%, in other words guns are barely used on felonies. Take the rights of 99,999(...)% of population away because a minority is just silly.
You will take the right of almost 100% of population because a small minority committed crimes? What is the next? I can't use more VPN because some people used to commit crimes? Can't use more Linux because some people committed crimes using some tools? Even if only good citizens will obey the law? Ban bitcoin because some people use to commit crime? Or that logic works only with guns?