I can only guess from your emotional response that you don't care one bit about laws that are poorly written as long as you think you get your virtual pound of flesh.
Simple rules are for simple people who don't understand the complexities of reality.
When writing laws one shouldn't use colloquialisms and instead use well defined terminology to avoid ambiguity and application creep which often leads to interpretation issues, "unintentional" use, collateral damage and protracted legal wrangling.
Using colloquialisms and vague language in laws generally means that either the writers of the laws are bad at it or it is done intentionally for various reasons - most of them not good.
Try again?
Did you read the linked page, and the study PDF? (Unfortunately, the “communitynets” archive.org link that was working yesterday has stopped working, so I can’t double-check that. The PDF link still works.)
Yes. Did you read the whole thing? Seems you just focused on one specific thing while ignoring everything else.
They seem to be including stuff like money saved by not having to physically go to a doctor, the reduction in electricity from having a “smart grid” (which many electricity providers now have, whether or not they sell fiber access to the public)… even “Media coverage of fiber infrastructure” has somehow “contributed” 82 million dollars.
You would know what "Media coverage of fiber infrastructure" covers if you hade bothered to read Chapter 3, paragraph 8.
The actual “net fiber profit” (PDF figure 3.3) has gone from about 4 million per year in 2012—only the first year, 2011, was unprofitable—to 30 million per year today. That’s great! It’s a success story that other cities should be eager to copy. By comparison, it’s basically unheard of for a city road department to ever make a profit, and we’re all fine with that.
The net profit metric for infrastructure isn't particularly important, it's the secondary effect metrics that matter which is also the prime reason all infrastructure is built in the first place except for a few political vanity projects here and there. A city's road department will never turn a profit (unless we are talking about toll roads), but the city is still profiting from the roads through secondary effects.
Perhaps you should actually read Chapter 3, pay special attention to what the chapter is called.
We don’t need to come up with some dubious pretense of “gaining” 5 billion dollars, when the actual profit was around 250 million.
So the total economic effect (including increased employment, business opportunities and tax revenue) of the community fiber broadband in Chattanooga is totally irrelevant as an example and incentive for other cities, got it. We should only care about the net profit from the fiber and nothing.
The reasoning presented is just plain stupid and shows a distinct lack of understanding economic calculations behind infrastructure projects and how indirect effects of them are always taken into account.
The actual return here would be the profits of the community-owned provider, plus (arguably) the extra tax revenue from residents and businesses who moved to the community for its broadband.
Which is exactly the point and there is no hocus-pocus accounting going on, nobody is counting money not spent as a gain because the investment gave tangible benefits.
You can’t count dollars people didn’t spend on something as a gain.
But people did spend money and Chattanooga raked money in, did you miss that or did you just conveniently forget it while sharpening your axe? With your reasoning there has never been any point in investing in infrastructure ever.
but I just feel that throwing around the number 5.3 billion is a bit dishonest
Over 15 years, not per year.
Mr. Reading Comprehension, may I present to you Mr. Brain Fart Reasoning.
Seriously, your brain is deranged. I believe it's called TDS which includes symptoms like not being able to understand that events are fixed in time, they can't just happen before they actually happened.
Another classic symptom of TDS is reading comprehension. I guess it makes it easier to substitute factual reality with grievance fantasies like "but Biden/Obama/Hillary" as you just demonstrated.
Sniff sniff.. I do believe I smell the stank of desperation!
Must be hard to deal with the fact the world isn't anything like the crumbling fantasy you built as a defense.
Are you even capable of anything else than screaming "liar" at everything you don't like? Pathetic.
So how can they be so gullible and stupid in believing everything Trump and his minions say which requires denial of factual reality in most cases while at the same time being factually informed how things actually work?
The truth is that a lot of people just assume or believe things without bothering to actually informing themselves how things really are, something that Trump voters are extremely good at if nothing else.
And as you said, this is a person who happily voted for a party that has been consistently pushing bullshit about voting without realizing they are in deep shit because of the assumption that "permanent resident" is the same as "citizen".
IIRC, a significant wrinkle is that Cox knew some (not all) of those customers were using it for illegal purposes, because it had caught them doing so. So it ruins the plausible deniability.
Do this reasoning also extend to all private infrastructure and services that has the possibility to be used for illegal purposes?
Or are perhaps some people are inconsistently treating internet services more harshly than any other services, even though it often concerns speech and the 1A. The presumption here is that private ISP's must police their customers speech on a level that's dystopian because some of their customers may engage in illegal conduct.
Lets assume an utility company is selling electricity/water to a property owner that has been caught growing pot, can the company be legally forced to discontinue the service even though it has been paid for? Can the company be dragged into court for "secondary pot growing"?
Still peddling theories as facts I see. If you actually had comprehended what you read you would have noticed that the NYT article doesn't prove anything, it's just an opinion based on conjecture.
If your only point of reference is your own situation and actions, it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else.
Just ask yourself how many times you have thought something was blindingly obvious while seeing someone else metaphorically flail around helplessly?
I'm just wondering how much money Hernández "donated" to get a pardon, because I can't imagine any other reason for him getting one.
And it fits into everything else that has been going on, Trump and co are continuously raking in millions whoring out the US to highest bidder. Wonder how much they will get after Venezuela's natural resources gets divvied up.
If the orders are presumed to be "lawful" there is no need to re-iterate that in the articles mentioned. By explicitly stating that military personnel must follow lawful orders they are implicitly stating there can be unlawful orders that can be refused, ie orders that breaks other articles or laws. That means if we remove the word "lawful" from the mentioned articles, all orders are always valid even if they break other articles in the USMCJ.
TL;DR: It's every soldiers duty to adhere to the articles laid out in the USMCJ which also means that they have a duty not to follow orders that are unlawful according to the USMCJ.
And since you haven't gotten your next paycheck you don't have a salary, right?
If you take into consideration that Valis regularly praises China you'll find the context you need to judge his posts.
Funny how he uses the word "awarded" though... Perhaps you should get a dictionary?
I can only guess from your emotional response that you don't care one bit about laws that are poorly written as long as you think you get your virtual pound of flesh. Simple rules are for simple people who don't understand the complexities of reality.
When writing laws one shouldn't use colloquialisms and instead use well defined terminology to avoid ambiguity and application creep which often leads to interpretation issues, "unintentional" use, collateral damage and protracted legal wrangling. Using colloquialisms and vague language in laws generally means that either the writers of the laws are bad at it or it is done intentionally for various reasons - most of them not good. Try again?
It's not a gamble when you are playing with loaded dice.
I'll file that statement among all the other stupid ones in my folder called "Internet is just a fad and soon forgotten"...
Sniff sniff.. I do believe I smell the stank of desperation! Must be hard to deal with the fact the world isn't anything like the crumbling fantasy you built as a defense. Are you even capable of anything else than screaming "liar" at everything you don't like? Pathetic.
So how can they be so gullible and stupid in believing everything Trump and his minions say which requires denial of factual reality in most cases while at the same time being factually informed how things actually work? The truth is that a lot of people just assume or believe things without bothering to actually informing themselves how things really are, something that Trump voters are extremely good at if nothing else. And as you said, this is a person who happily voted for a party that has been consistently pushing bullshit about voting without realizing they are in deep shit because of the assumption that "permanent resident" is the same as "citizen".
You can find it on the contact us page: https://www.floor64.com/contact.php
Still peddling theories as facts I see. If you actually had comprehended what you read you would have noticed that the NYT article doesn't prove anything, it's just an opinion based on conjecture.
If your only point of reference is your own situation and actions, it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else. Just ask yourself how many times you have thought something was blindingly obvious while seeing someone else metaphorically flail around helplessly?
I'm just wondering how much money Hernández "donated" to get a pardon, because I can't imagine any other reason for him getting one. And it fits into everything else that has been going on, Trump and co are continuously raking in millions whoring out the US to highest bidder. Wonder how much they will get after Venezuela's natural resources gets divvied up.
If the orders are presumed to be "lawful" there is no need to re-iterate that in the articles mentioned. By explicitly stating that military personnel must follow lawful orders they are implicitly stating there can be unlawful orders that can be refused, ie orders that breaks other articles or laws. That means if we remove the word "lawful" from the mentioned articles, all orders are always valid even if they break other articles in the USMCJ. TL;DR: It's every soldiers duty to adhere to the articles laid out in the USMCJ which also means that they have a duty not to follow orders that are unlawful according to the USMCJ.