darkvader

dtownwarrior said:

rob53 said:

Property tax breaks of 92.5% means Samsung won’t be contributing to schools and infrastructure (utilities). Who pays for those? Oil? Nobody does because the rich get richer and everyone else lives in poverty. Texas has become like an abused third-world country. 

Meanwhile, my property taxes in Texas will increase by over 10% next year.  SMFH

lkrupp said:

fred1 said:

And cue the eurobashing . . .

No ‘eurobashing’ just government bashing in general. Just because some bureaucrats come up with allegations does not mean something illegal actually happened. Unless, of course, one is in the “ all corporations are evil” camp. Then there is an assumption of guilt. Bureaucrats are notorious for their actions to keep themselves employed. Both Apple and Amazon are appealing the fines. Let’s wait a little while longer before condemning the companies.

Alchemy said:

darkvader said:

They're nuts.

Sure, a few people are going to be fine not owning a car.  Most of those people already don't own a car today.  Uber is a thing, taxis are a thing, buses are a thing, you can have somebody else drive you around if you want.  And yes, autonomous taxis will be a thing.

But Americans at least are NOT going to give up on the concept of personal car ownership.  If you own the car, it's there when you need it, you have the freedom to make last minute plan changes.  And (this is really important) you can leave your stuff in it.  You don't have to worry about whether you left something in the taxi.  If you're going somewhere that you need more stuff than you want to carry into where you're going, you can leave the rest in the car and get it later if you need it.

The concept that Americans are going to give up owning cars is as crazy as the concept that most Americans would give up on owning homes.

You are looking at it totally wrong.  Of course people will not want totally give up their freedom of having their own vehicle to take certain trips.  But look at all of the wasted time that is spent behind the wheel of a car driving back and forth to work or running errands.  Imagine if you could just pay a monthly fee and a self driving vehicle would show up at your door when you want it and bring you into work, maybe stop off and pick up a few items at a store.  You could spend that time doing things you want instead of watching the taillights of the car in front of you.  Most personal vehicles sit unused over 90% of the time.  And people typically pay $300 to $700/month on car payments for an asset that is losing value every day.  It will not take over all vehicle use, but can replace the mundane everyday commutes.

kempathonnodge said:

darkvader said:

The FAA does their job, wants to be sure planes don't fall out of the sky.

The telcos whine about it.

The standard in aviation isn't "proof of harm" - it's "as close as possible to proof that there is no harm".  And if there's a chance, even a small chance, that these frequencies used for cell phone data is going to interfere with older altimeters (I'm assuming radar altimeters, I doubt pressure altimeters could be affected) then the FAA did exactly what they're supposed to do - put the brakes on and demand testing.

The telcos need to calm down.  5G isn't a big deal for the vast majority of people, not having planes fall out of the sky is.

You can’t prove a negative, and what exactly how that wording can be interpreted is infinite. 

Planes falling out of the sky is not a rational consideration here - slight interferrance would have backup systems in place and, as reported, has not been demonstrated. 

Rolling out 5G is important to users, as data usage is increasing, and each new iteration of networks increases capacity and reduces the chance of having slow speeds. Blocking the technology when there is almost no risk is ridiculous. 

If the FAA was in the game of no risk, they wouldn’t fly planes or allow Boeing planes in the sky… there is evidence of harm there!