Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

In the case of the gov't.....a lot of the no competition issues are actually the state's fault. For example, Nebraska pretty much bends over backwards for new businesses. The city/state pays their impact fees, waives their taxes for several years if they create at least x jobs in the state.....and more. It's Nebraska that basically served the state up to TWC on a silver platter, because the city and state legislatures are all run by prominent local business people who would gladly sell out the entire state and everyone' livelihood if it meant they could crow about business development.

I mean our state just footed the bill for a giant event center. We all pay a special tax to pay for this fucking thing....even though it was fully paid off over a year ago. But hey, let's just keep that luxury tax in place so when business is slow, we can continue to put money into the pockets of these motherfuckers.

So as much as I want to hate on the Fed for not creating a fair business environment....look first to your states for basically handing their entire population to ISPs with a bow wrapped around it.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

In WA, Seattle got the whole state to pay for their new pro stadium, built on the land then occupied by the Kingdome. The team was threatening to leave if they didn't get it because they felt it wasn't earthquake-safe. The argument for it was that businesses around the new stadium would see more business, raising profitability and hence taxes. They built a stadium with a retractable roof and lots of concessions etc.

Here's where it went wrong:

1: The demo crew hired to take down the Kingdome said in an interview that it was going to be a tough job because the structure was so well-built.
2: The retractable roof is pointless most of the time because it rains here so much.
3: The local businesses saw increased cashflow, but at the expense of other businesses not so close to the stadium.
4: There are tons of people who don't care about pro sports or will never visit Seattle, but they had to pay tax money to build it.
5: The team agreed as part of the deal that they would reveal the financial statements related to ticket sales, concessions, etc. publicly. They have thus far refused to do so, in violation of the contract.

The money spent on the stadium could have been better spent elsewhere - times are tough and pro sports are pretty much on the list of "wants" which should be addressed only after every thing on the "needs" list has been fulfilled. Even economically speaking there are better investments for the state. And if Seattle wanted a stadium so badly they should have paid for it themselves - they sure are the only ones benefiting (marginally at that).

Now we have this tunnel which is meant to replace a highway overpass, essentially. Why did we end up with the most expensive option with relatively negligible benefit over simple replacement of the structure?

[nenjin]

Yep, those are the same arguments used to build our stadium. They took a railway yard (which cost several million dollars to clean up the oil infused soil, thank you very much), dropped a stadium on it and then put all this ritzy, upper-class white shopping venue in it. They even arranged the rules to penalize drunks and ne'er do wells who call downtime home, so you can't drink outside between the hours of X and Y. Never mind they built this shit directly adjacent to the bar scene. Never mind we already had a "ritzy historical downtown shopping area." Never mind that their expectations for business in that zone are grossly out of touch with reality.

Meanwhile, almost no major events have come through the place in the year its been finished. Which is why we're still paying a luxury tax. Because some fucking asshole thought he'd be making a million dollars a year off this thing and is currently making diddly fucking squat.

[Vector]

Net neutrality problems for the advanced class.

Just go read the whole thing.

[GreatJustice]

Net neutrality problems for the advanced class.

Just go read the whole thing.

...Ehm, what does this have to do with Net Neutrality again? I mean, the internet is tangentially involved I guess...

[wierd]

That's not so much a network neutrality issue as it is a consumer privacy issue.

Google and its advertising meal tickets want there to be zero privacy for users. 100% consumer profile transparancy. Nothing sacred, not even how often or how long you need to poop. (Targeted adverts for air fresheners, stool softeners, possibly for proctologists in your area, and who could forget about the toilet paper? Gotta get those consumer metrics for those tailored ads!)

Network neutrality is more concerned with making sure data gets from point A to point B efficiently, reliably, and without undue obstruction. It is protected by rules prohibiting network operator A from blocking or filterng traffic inbound from operator B, because B didn't pay the toll.

The internet is not a homogenous thing-- it is an interconnected mesh network that grew together using a set of numbering and naming standards conventions for interoperability. To send this message, my device sends a packet through my ISP, and through the networks of several more ISPs to reach the network that toady's server is on. Without network neutrality, I could be blocked outright from posting, or be charged multiple tolls for each network domain traversed along the route.

[Vector]

Ffffffuck thanks for reminding me that net neutrality and internet privacy are different things

I'm going to go fix that in my report when I go into work tomorrow .-.

[Baffler]

Net neutrality problems for the advanced class.

Just go read the whole thing.

Dammit Google, I want to love you, but you can't keep pulling stuff like this. You're building a monolithic, wide reaching empire for the sole purpose of making advertising marginally more successful. Advertising that people can and do block with minimal effort.

[nenjin]

It's funny how no one really cared about Smart Homes until this.

[wierd]

Google's motto:
'Do no evil'

I wonder whether they forgot that, or suffer from 'The end justifies the means'

More, as they got more and more money, and the power that brings, they rationalized:

"There is no 'good', or 'evil', there is only power."

Yes no?

If you consider money as a proxy for weilded power, their ceasless pursuit of ever more of it, and ever increasing demands for control over people's lives makes very scary sense.

They don't do evil, because they have rationalized the concept of evil into obscurity?

[Moghjubar]

Google is a business, so obviously money is good. Therefore, losing money is evil.  Therefore, failure to exploit your resources (users) to sell to your customers (advertisers, etc) is evil.

Do no evil. Makes sense right?

[Zangi]

Google is a business, so obviously money is good. Therefore, losing money is evil.  Therefore, failure to exploit your resources (users) to sell to your customers (advertisers, etc) is evil.

Do no evil. Makes sense right?

Capitalism Ho!