webXL

31 ms·

271.
by webXL 10y ago
I not only want a dumb pipe, but one that's going to get bigger over time, like it has been, for a reasonable price. I'm not sure how net neutrality is supposed to accomplish that. I don't need my water to taste better over t
272.
by webXL 10y ago
It seems to me that we're replacing bribing at the local level with bribing at the national level. This will make it much easier for large ISPs to thwart competition and defer innovation. Just another unintended consequence of governme
273.
by webXL 10y ago
So Paolonerd [1] comes in last October and adds his observation to this relatively flimsy wikipedia entry and we're supposed to all just accept that definition. I see. > A public utility (usually just utility) is an organization tha
274.
by webXL 10y ago
What's the problem then if there's not enough work for 2? You're close to a barter economy at that point. The blacksmith can't gouge the customers he depends on for everything else.
275.
by webXL 10y ago
If only those were monopolies.
276.
by webXL 10y ago
>because the Internet is a utility According to whom? The Internet is delivered to homes on top of existing regulated utilities, that are quite essential to our survival. But I can use the Internet anywhere with a sufficient enough pop
277.
by webXL 10y ago
Nothing is capped. Because of the potential for paying twice as much to sue someone, only cases where the plaintiff has a good chance of winning make it to court, thereby putting less demand on legal services. Gawker was not bankrupted by t
278.
by webXL 10y ago
Legal fees are incredibly high right now partly because of frivolous lawsuits. Loser pays would drive down costs making bankruptcy a lot less likely. Besides, if this had been a pure 1st Amendment case, deep pockets like the ACLU could act
279.
by webXL 10y ago
I think "loser pays" is a pretty good equalizer. It actually would protect companies like Gawker from frivolous lawsuits, or merely just the threat of those lawsuits. The savings could be used for legit cases such as this, without
280.
by webXL 10y ago
Or just implement Loser Pays.
281.
by webXL 10y ago
#1 is a legit reason for insurance. I'm having a hard time with #2 though. You elected to have a condition that others might have to eventually pay for. Now this was an extension of your dad's condition, so really his insurance co
282.
by webXL 10y ago
This is the second time I've seen"taxation of land" in this thread as if the dirt my house is sitting on has the ability to write checks to the local government. I might be missing something, but all tax revenue ultimately c
283.
by webXL 10y ago
We all want clean toilets and most of us want to respect the health and dignity of others. Therefore we'll continue to see technological advancement in cleaning supplies, dirt resistant materails, and eventually automation. That's
284.
by webXL 10y ago
"Many pieces of the puzzle are still missing though: how the attackers sent the fraudulent transfers; how the malware was implanted ; and crucially, who was behind this." Well, we have a clue for piece #2: "... sends result
285.
by webXL 10y ago
Right, there's more involved than just the impairment itself. I was just about to ask if this had something to with stoned drivers driving more carefully just to avoid harsher penalties for possession. Data from states where pot is leg
286.
by webXL 10y ago
And it's just a tad bit more expensive to get to the moon than this cave, and by tad, I mean it's probably more expensive than any other activity a single human being has ever done, so I'm not sure why they use this compari
287.
by webXL 10y ago
I just came across a great Electron app called Nativefier ( https://github.com/jiahaog/nativefier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10930718 ) last night. It's a super easy way to make dedicated
288.
by webXL 10y ago
"tough on crime" == "soft on justice" I think voters fall for that slogan because we hate crime and injustice (unfairness) in general. Even though we need to be critical of both sides of the law ("we the people&quot
289.
by webXL 10y ago
I've been running these as a Kodi screensaver for a few months now, but it pains me that they aren't 4k! Not a big deal for 1080p movies sitting back 12 feet, but this kind of stuff is like artwork hanging on my wall; I walk up to
290.
by webXL 10y ago
Here's your stinking memo: The grass is always greener on the other side of the street.
291.
by webXL 11y ago
"undemocratic centralization of power" Who is centralizing power undemocratically?
292.
by webXL 11y ago
> we have mountains upon mountains of evidence to the contrary Do you mean the mountains of insinuation and innuendo in that article? Just because the Koch brothers want lower taxes and the people who engaged in these tax avoidance schem
293.
by webXL 11y ago
Why do you bring in the unequal distribution of newly created wealth when I'm talking about average people being better off decade over decade? Seriously, if I have a glass of water in front of me and you are thirsty, do you lament thi
294.
by webXL 11y ago
> That is not the reason they dodge taxes. So, the reason is... > Also, tax funded infrastructure and general stability are major factors in why any business is able to thrive but that success is assumed to be wholly owned. Just like
295.
by webXL 11y ago
Who cares who can use my argument? Is it not true? > it's not about wealth relative to the past, but about wealth relative to everyone else in the present. Who is debating that, exactly? I said things can be a lot better and faire
296.
by webXL 11y ago
Because it's the Guardian and this is how they gin up controversy ignore real solutions to societal problems. You wouldn't know it by reading articles like this, and certainly things can be a lot better and fairer, but over the la
297.
by webXL 11y ago
The people who continue to use the inexact figure is who. Why was 1% chosen and not 10% or 0.01% for that matter? And "railing against" != confusion. If enough people believe something, certain people in that group can do some pre
298.
by webXL 11y ago
Poverty may always be a relative phenomenon (even in Cuba) but there has been no better system to lift people out of the life-threatening effects of abject poverty than capitalism. In fact, you cannot have a success with socialism without a
299.
by webXL 11y ago
But consumers would have either had to pay extra for that $5.3 trillion expense, or not use as much energy. Figuring out where the blame should be placed is a bit of chicken and egg, but we're trying to point out that bandying question
300.
by webXL 11y ago
250k and 400k would still be a long way off the current top 10: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ The places most affected by climate change already have terrible health: http:/

More ›