How do Trump supporters feel about repealing rules that require telecom companies to treat all web traffic equally, regardless of which web site it's going to?
Personally I feel that even though there may be arguments for it, it can lead to abuse by degrading websites which “the establishment” considers too controversial, like an Orwellian Ministry Of Truth, but bandwidth control it not as big a deal as artificial de-ranking of search results and demonetization of such channels. What bothers me more is the use of the term “Net Neutrality” to make this issue sound like something with massive impact on the liberty and justice of all mankind, like it’s some kind of fundamental human rights violation, when in fact it’s only about having the capability to limit the amount of bandwidth of certain websites.
I currently rent a house out. My tenants are interested in buying the house. I am only looking to get a certain dollar amount at the end and have told my tenants this. How can we handle this sale so that all parties are legally protected from surprises?
Sounds like a very simple transaction. Find a reliable escrow company in your town and open an escrow for this purchase transaction. You can get a purchase contract online from websites such as Legal Forms and Documents for your State and buy a form online. You and the buyers signature on the purchase contract should be sufficied to initiate the transaction. you should ask for a deposit, a loan approval letter from a reputable lender (you ask your buyer permission so you can call and talk to the lender). If you are worry about the loan, you should have the contract written subject to loan approval and you should have an escape clause in case things don't go as planned. My advice is just an advice, not gospel and as a rule of thumb you should always consult a lawyer. Back East is different than how we do things here in California. The lawyer handles everything and the escrow where as in California, an escrow officer should be able to advice you how to proceed. Good luck.
If the United States were to say tomorrow, "Okay, we are going fully isolationist," and pulled out of NATO, the UN, the WTO, and all other international organizations to which it is currently a party, how much better off would the world be?
This is an interesting question. I think that trying to imagine the direct and indirect effects of a huge change like this is a good way of checking your beliefs for consistency and depth. It's easy to criticize the US government, but would the world really be better off without it?First off, whatever your views on the overall impact of the US on the rest of the world, doing this "tomorrow" would be incredibly disruptive. Governments would collapse, warlords would arise, people would starve, experiments would lack funding, all in ways that could be avoided if there were some warning. So, say that the US gives 3 years warning and ramping down (that's still very fast), then reverts to a status which is militarily and diplomatically isolationist. Any military hardware not on US soil or waters is auctioned to the highest bidder, with the host nation (if any) getting a transferrable 30% discount, any that is at home is mothballed to defend against possible attacks.For simplicity, I'm assuming that trade policy and immigration policy remain much the same. This is not the place to discuss protectionism or nativism, just isolationism.The day this was announced, local arms races would begin around the world. Nature abhors a vacuum, and while I think the US military should be shrunk to less than half its current size, I don't think abolishing it would be a good thing. Since WWII, almost every engagement it's been in, with a few exceptions such as Korea, has done huge amounts of damage to the world, but as Hobbes would tell us, Leviathan has its benefits too, and those benefits are not so much what it actively does as the other fights its mere presence dissuades.Economically, this would have a huge impact, too. The US spends proportionally less than many developed countries on foreign aid, but since it's still an economic superpower, that's still plenty of money. On the other hand, without any carrot or stick from the US, I'm sure plenty of countries would decide they'd rather not repay the debt they owe to the US, since that is, in general, owed to US banks, there would be a wave of such banks collapsing, and a domestic credit crunch which could easily rival 2021. Add to that the newly-unemployed in military-related jobs, and you'd have the ingredients for a major recession in the US, which of course would spread, because the US is a major customer for goods worldwide.The impacts on certain specific countries would be pretty hard. For instance, Israel in particular would be in trouble. It's not that it would immediately collapse or be overrun without US aid, but it would be tough. I could hope that the change would spur a (democratic) change of government, and that the new government would find a way towards a just peace, but honestly, I think the chances are that things would get worse there before they got better, and they're pretty horrible already if you count the Bantustans in Gaza and the West Bank.On the other hand: the US would no longer be invading places, nor promoting a foreign policy based in the narrow interests of patent trolls and copyright mice, usurers and speculators, bomb pushers, extractive industries, fructose monopolists, and the domestic "anti-drug" police state. So probably things would be better in many of those senses.On balance, I think it would be a net negative, at least for the short term (less than a decade). But that's just because I think it's too drastic, going halfway there would be a tremendous positive.(This answer could of course be expanded to 5 times its size and still barely scratch the surface of the likely effects.)
How do you solve: A tank in the shape of an inverted cone of height 10 feet and top diameter of 1.25 feet is filled with a fluid density 1 pound/ft^3. To the nearest foot-pound, how much work is required to pump all the liquid out of the tank?
You don't prenough data. You can find the volume and how much liquid there is, but in order to find work, you need to specify how far you move the liquid. For instance, if the pump is at the bottom of the cone, you wouldn't even need to turn it on for the cone to empty. If you put the pump at the top, it will have a bit of work to just pump the liquid out. If you put the pump 10 feet above the cone, it will have to work harder to get the liquid out.
I am 21 and going to a welcome party that's being thrown by the company which I got into. The boys and girls who got selected from all over India will be attending. How do I stand out and impress the girls?
Thanks for the A2A!There are a few points you should keep in mind in order to make a good first impression.Dress appropriately. Don't overdo your style and don't dress shabbily as well. Try and strike a balance. A dress shirt, jacket and jeans is a good combo always. Mingle with the crowd. Introduce yourself to people and be friendly with all. For the ladies. Be good mannered, flirt a bit ,but again, don't overdo it. You don't want to seem desperate. Lastly, just have fun! You are young and going to a party! Cheers!