lol. Yes, if only that was an actual option. The problem is, in my experience of having been on diferent networks---for anyone who travels, the two biggest and most expensive networks to be on---AT&T and Verizon--offer the broadest and most competent voice and data networks.

They can be slaughtered pricewise by Sprint and T-Mobile in any given location---and maybe, if that location has a good antenna network, be given a decent run for the money by these cheaper networks...

Of course, if you want the cheapest mobile phone plan, you end up with a sort of hybrid phone --Republic---which uses Wifi calling when in range of a network you've signed onto---and Sprint's network otherwise.

And that's the American story...

That went much better than I thought it would. Those guys seemed awfully calm about lighting that thing. I would have been sprinting to hide in a bunker.

I learned most of it from my mother, who was a well respected dissident of the quantum physics world until she died in 2006. I'm not nearly clever enough to follow in her footsteps, but I learned enough to know that the reality of science is full of human failings. Often egos, headlines and research grants get in the way of real science. Nothing like a claim to allow the possibility of time travel to get yourself in the papers and help get the funding in.

Unfortunately the maths has assumptions built in that cannot yet be tested and that has made it become totally detached from reality, the maths becoming proof in of itself, even if it makes no logical sense. In any reasonable time, the idea would have been dropped and we'd just have to say we don't know yet. They need to take step back, go back to the real fundamentals and nail those first, otherwise they go sprinting off in all sorts of directions not knowing if the basis on which they are working is sound.

It sells books and makes good headlines but it isn't good science.

Hes working on his wind sprints, wants a tasty park goer like he had last spring

lucky760's reasoning is sound.

Anyone that has researched and/or trained on weapon on weapon defense, in this case knife vs. firearm knows the Tueller's Drill. It has been a standard for over thirty years. Basically,

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]
The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot. (Wikipedia)

That a firearm, particularly a handgun, will instantly incapacitate an individual is not a working concept and is fallacious. Variables such as adrenaline and drugs are attributable. Shot placement is trumps. Anything but a CNS. central nervous system, shot is not efficacious in safely stopping the threat. Not an easy or sure target sans movement, stress, etc.

Law enforcement put their lives and safety in harm's way every day. They are not there to die needlessly. An individual with suicide by cop or a LEO's death in mind is a serious threat to be dealt with with prejudice.

By the way, research knife wounds vs. handgun wounds. There is much data, ER, medical examiner, law enforcement. The deadly seriousness of knife wounds are well documented.

Tasers...I would not want to risk my life behind one or anyone about whom I care.

Oh yeah! You Kiwi's are awesome at craziness! I did the Shotover jet boat ride and bungied with AJ Hacket when I was there in the 80's....WOOHOO!
I also love jet boat sprint racing, have for years....it's like formula offroad for boats!

I'd gear up like a fireman, have them douse me in flame retardant then see if I could sprint through it. You Only Die Once, and THAT my friends, is the way to go!

One of my biggest pet peeves are people that run into traffic, cause (or almost cause) accidents and simply walk away without giving a care.

That applies at cross walks too. Depending where you are, cross walks often means pedestrians have right of way, but that doesn't mean you can carelessly run across without looking.

I witnessed on my bike once someone park (legally) in a parking lot that was separated by the road by a 5-foot wide side walk. He hurriedly got out of his car, locked the door and SPRINTED to cross the street (not at a cross walk) without looking. The car on the other side of the road had to slam hard on their brakes to successfully avoid hitting this asshole. That motorist got rear-ended. The pedestrian kept sprinting away despite the obvious accident he just caused. I don't buy the excuse that he didn't know because the tire screeching was deafeningly loud!

First time I played Diablo:

Got down to the second level of the relatively empty Cathedral, opened a random door, caught a glimpse of mutilated bodies and blood covering the walls, heard a deep voice go "Ahh, Fresh Meat."

Slammed the door shut and sprinted back up to the surface.

@Trancecoach: We're not going to agree, and that's fine. This'll be my last reply.

Retailer strong-arming: Imagine Apple makes up 95% of Best Buy's tablet sales. Off-brand-X wants to sell tablets at Best Buy. Apple says: If you sell Off-brand-X tablets, we will not let you sell our tablets. Off-brand-X is likely to only provide a tiny profit to Best Buy, compared to Apple, so they comply. (This actually happened, in a different form, with Intel paying computer manufacturers to not use AMD processors. See here). Also see price-fixing.

Widget-distribution-prevention: This is just an extension of the previous point.

Buying up all of the competitors: Ma Bell. Old AT&T. That should be enough said. But, if that's not enough, now Ma Bell is nearly entirely re-formed. The US was one government approval away from having cell carriers limited to Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T. That's been spoiled, now, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that future continuing on to two carriers colluding and price-fixing (as Verizon and AT&T pretty much have freedom to do anyway). This is another quasi-natural-monopoly situation (or at least a tragedy of the commons situation), in that the radio spectrum is not infinite. To keep the spectrum usable at all, blocks of frequencies are doled out to radio/TV/cellular/military/etc. etc. with stiff penalties for interference.

Patents: Patents present a litany of problems, but the world without them is even worse. You have two things happen, both of which are bad:
1) New technology remains veiled in secrecy indefinitely; no one else can riff on it even after patents would normally have expired
2) My previous point. The marginal utility of R&D decreases drastically based on the likelihood of a competitor being able to get hold of your secrets before you can profit on them sufficiently.
This is exactly why patents were created. It's a temporary monopoly granted by the government in exchange for the promise that the knowledge will be released to the universe after X years.

Predatory pricing: If excessive, it's illegal. That's why it doesn't happen very often. In a country with anti-trust laws, you just want to hurt your competitor, you don't want to drive them out of the market.

Natural monopolies: Since you brought this one up, you can choose your energy service because the government forces the utility to lease its lines and to decouple distribution from production. That is to say, you have a free market in production because the distribution is not free. See here. My state is the same way.

Misinformation: Who vets marketing claims in a free market? My competitor says that their food is organic. Well--hell, so is mine! They're environmentally conscientious? So am I! Their drug cures cancer? Mine cures it even better!

Oh, shit. Someone caught me in a lie! Well, I'll just force the media to ignore it and ramp up my disinformation campaign.

I think a game with hyper-realistic swamp sprint boat racing would be cool.

Ha. You know, when I first got into LA back in 1999, it had started to lightly drizzle, and I was on my way to buy a book from Barnes and Noble at the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica.

I got no more than a few steps onto the Promenade before I see a news team with a plastic wrapped camera. The instant they see me, it was like Christmas morning to them, because I was wearing a short sleeve shirt and carried no umbrella. In fact, I remember thinking how odd it was to see people covering up as if it were a monsoon sweeping through LA. They sprint for me. The camera goes up. And the mic goes into my face, and it's like, "Why are you dressed like this in the rain?" It was surreal. To them, this was fucking news!

But I must admit that since being in LA for 14 years, I am not a big pussy when it comes to rain. Time in a place changes you. Now, to me, the light drizzle feels like a monsoon and I have to get out of it pronto! Ha.

I'm 5 months too late for this conversation, but whatever. @renatojj the problem here is you're misquoting @dag. Let's go with the phrase he actually used, "big earners like mining companies. "

Your comment assumes that he's proposing taxing individuals. @dag did not say that. He referred to the mining companies themselves. By squirreling the argument into an issue of personal taxation (and the incentives/disincentives to work based on tax), that's an unfair twist to the topic.

Mining companies are the topic in this case. The companies are extracting a national resource. They are benefiting from the country's own assets, therefore the country has every moral and economic right to demand its fair share. If the company can still make a profit, and heavens know they do, then you can't in any seriousness find fault with that.

Unlike individuals, who one may argue have a disincentive to work past a certain marginal tax rate, companies will keep operating in a given industry if they're still achieving profits.

The idea that taxes on mining profits (i.e. resource royalties) are *holding back* Australia is just a head-shaker. Where's evidence of that? How exactly would Australia be in a stronger position if it had less royalty revenues, and instead the cash was sprinted out of the country to whatever offshore haven allowed the company to retain profits for its shareholders, who may or may not even be Australian? How would that help?

Ugh, if that were me today, I'd probably mimic the motion of pressing my W-key + Sprint, and die wondering why my guy wouldn't move.

I don't think many of these companies (Google, Apple, etc) were in cahoots with the NSA. My suspicion is directed towards the conspicuous absence of Cisco's name from the conversation. Almost like - redacted - conspicuous. How else could something like this be implemented?

I found this article interesting: http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/10/30/china-removes-us-routers-over-security-concerns/

Softbank can't buy sprint unless they promise not to use Huawei (Chinese) routers? It's all about the core node. If you own the core node, you own everybody on it. They don't need anyone else to play along.

I also considered this one: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/leaked-cisco-do/

What better way to get all their traffic on your switch than by offering to censor the internet for them?