More representatives means fewer people each rep has to represent, meaning you have more of a chance of ever being able to talk to your rep, or get him to hear you.
The DNC fiddled their primaries. That's a big deal: if it had happened one level up, in the presidential election, there'd be an urgent need for a restoration of democracy, by the courts if possible, by violent revolution if necessary. At this level, there's a simpler, easier solution: vote against them until they reform. However hysterical Trump and a segment of the Republicans may be, at least they're not as fundamentally corrupt as the present-day Democrats.
Really? And we've combed through all the Republicans' private emails to be able to ascertain that they're squeaky clean, just like we did with the Democrats to make sure they're dirty, right?
This is how you're supposed to do it, and that's what actually got Microsoft into the most trouble in the 90s -- their donations greatly favored the Republicans. When the Democrats were in power, MS had few folks to turn to. That's not how you do it. They wised up after the anti-trust trials ended.
You call someone a liar for posting their experience and possibly being erroneous about the reason?
It muddies the water, one of the more damaging things you can do for your own side in any discussion. Yeah, the GP might have been harsh, but the GGP is doing no one any favors here.
Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested.
It's like the "toll lanes" on a freeway. It's not too bad for the people who pay, but it's a lane that was taken out of service from general traffic, thus making the traffic for non-payers even worse.
but If that's the case, why would Netflix or YouTube pay for prioritization when throttling is illegal
It doesn't matter whether the throttling is illegal. It only matters if the throttling happens. Netflix and Youtube can't survive without clean access to customers of ISPs. If the ISPs want protection money, well, Youtube and Netflix will raise the rates on their customers and consider it the unpleasant costs of doing business.
Oh, I know, I know. But muh private property! But muh rule of lawyers!
Sure, you mock it, but it is someone's property, and it costs money to put up and money to replace. Of course you'll get fined. It's not like the city had a referendum and the voters said "no cameras!" and they put them up otherwise.
It's not pretentious, if you've been on Slashdot as long as your UID implies, you ought to be very well versed with David Brin and his nutty ideas. Someone brings it up as a full article almost as much as they do RMS's Right To Read.
And since when was quoting one of the leading thinkers in the topic of privacy vs no privacy pretentious anyway? Sometimes when confronted with a name or idea you haven't heard before, just look it up. What's wrong with that? It's the Internet, and it's information that is totally relevant to the discussion.
Yes, that's right. The conspiracy word. We have plenty of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, and you have absolutely no evidence that it did not. The plane was hijacked. We know this as a statement of fact. The plane was tracked heading in that direction. We also know that as a statement of fact. For the "missile/bomb" theory, the plane would have to have disappeared... completely, without a trace. The commuters who saw the plane would have had to all have been Pentagon/Military/whatever plants, or bought testimony. Some group would have had to plant the explosives or fire the missile. All of that would have had to have come from somewhere, and you'd also have to then plant all the evidence that was inside the Pentagon ruins. And all this for what purpose?
We have a photo of the plane right outside the Pentagon. Why no footage? Because when a plane is traveling 500 mph, a 24 fps camera is only going to get a frame or two before impact. This was 2001, not 2017. People didn't have dashcams, it was a good 7 years before the release of the smartphone gave most people quick available cameras on their body at any time.
You want to believe otherwise, so you concoct a grand plan that contradicts available evidence and was somehow kept secret despite the ridiculous amount of work that hard to be involved to pull off something so huge.
Signed and submitted? Oh well that's proof right there. Case closed!
What's the weather like in Langley today AC? Lol
Of course. Conspiracy theorists never want to do the actual work themselves, and they will never, ever let evidence to the contrary dissuade them of their pet theories that they want to be true so very badly.
"A 757 wasn't spotted by any civilians?" "Actually plenty of people saw it, and you can look up their affidavits." "Signed and submitted? Lol."
Nothing would satisfy you short of rooting around in the wreckage directly after the crash, and I'm sure you'd find some bullshit excuse for how plane parts were planted or some other nonsense.
The common definition of germ is that it's a superset of viruses. IE, bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa are all separate from each other, but they are all "germs." That doesn't mean of course that bacteria == virus, but it's not limiting the term "germ" to bacteria either.
Or.. you tell them they have a 1 year tour. At the end of the year they spend a month in an isolation ward.
Unless you're willing to "violate someone's civil rights" by jailing them, you'll probably get some assholes like Kaci Hickox who will refuse to abide by any reasonable quarantine order.
This is just the kind of stuff madmen like to do to get their jollies. It's the grown-up version of playing with matches or dissecting the neighbor's kittens.
Or shooting elephants just to cut off their tails as trophies.
Elephant.... tails? I think you're doing it wrong!
Which is, in my opinion, the much better way to end the story. It's far more poignant for the protagonist to learn that he's actually the antagonist in the viewpoints of everyone else. The way they ended the movie was like ending Lovecraft's "The Outsider" with the narrator figuring out how to banish a ghoul that's been following him.
You can blame the studio for that. In the original ending that was shot (available as an extra on the dvd), Neville realizes that the Alpha male who has been attacking him was just trying to get to the female he'd been experimenting on for a cure, and that the Darksiders just wanted her back. He ends up returning to the female to the group and apologizes to them, since although they were no longer human, they had retained some of their humanity and their emotions. The Alpha orders the rest to leave, and Neville realizes he was the monster in their eyes. There was no ending where they had a cure and gave it to other human survivers; in the originally filmed ending, they never found any human encampment.
Well, test audiences didn't like the original ending, and this is a good case study in why sometimes test audiences and focus groups should be ignored. The original ending was closer to the ending of the book, and really, it was the entire purpose of the story -- the title "I Am Legend" comes from Neville's realization that he was the monster in THEIR legends. As Cracked put it, "Maybe a title like So I'm The Asshole would have been clearer." In hindsight, just about every reviewer thinks that the original ending was better than the reshot version.
Thank you for intentionally shitting on the discussion by bringing up an entirely different subject and pretending it's what everyone else means when we're talking about Net Neutrality.
Why do you think every piece of online "journalism" thinks the net neutrality repeal is bad? Maybe it's because they're feeding you a line of bullshit?
Maybe it's because the only ones who benefit here are Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs with a local monopoly who engage in rent-seeking. Literally EVERYONE else is screwed over in that system. That's why there's such outcry, because it's just an abuse of their position as a trust.
So the political fanaticism is strong there. But the fanatics still got beat - probably due to the fanatics from the other side.
Possibly, the point is that Alabama is still solidly red, and it took an exceptionally bad candidate for them to lose the Senate seat. Don't count on such gifts in the other elections. Luther Strange would probably have handily beaten Doug Jones.
Or... it takes an especially bad candidate to lose to Donald Trump in the general election. The same principles apply...
It really depends on how far the king of North Korea can be pushed by a mad-man, and how strongly China can hold him back.
North Korea has always worked from a standpoint of calculated "what can we do that actually gets us what we want?" They developed nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion when they saw how NOT having WMDs worked out for Saddam Hussein. Our leaders and occasionally even our media like to paint the North Korean leadership as "mad men," but that's not very close to the truth. They know that countries without nuclear weapons are pushed around by the big boys far more easily than countries with nuclear weapons. They are survivalists -- they know an invasion would be their end. They know launching nuclear weapons would also be their end. They are working hard to avoid that fate.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, yes, that is a conflicting problem. If only there were renewables other than nuclear, that would deflate your false dichotomy fairly quickly.
More representatives means fewer people each rep has to represent, meaning you have more of a chance of ever being able to talk to your rep, or get him to hear you.
The DNC fiddled their primaries. That's a big deal: if it had happened one level up, in the presidential election, there'd be an urgent need for a restoration of democracy, by the courts if possible, by violent revolution if necessary. At this level, there's a simpler, easier solution: vote against them until they reform. However hysterical Trump and a segment of the Republicans may be, at least they're not as fundamentally corrupt as the present-day Democrats.
Really? And we've combed through all the Republicans' private emails to be able to ascertain that they're squeaky clean, just like we did with the Democrats to make sure they're dirty, right?
So, telecom donates to both parties.
This is how you're supposed to do it, and that's what actually got Microsoft into the most trouble in the 90s -- their donations greatly favored the Republicans. When the Democrats were in power, MS had few folks to turn to. That's not how you do it. They wised up after the anti-trust trials ended.
Good man.
You call someone a liar for posting their experience and possibly being erroneous about the reason?
It muddies the water, one of the more damaging things you can do for your own side in any discussion. Yeah, the GP might have been harsh, but the GGP is doing no one any favors here.
Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested.
It's like the "toll lanes" on a freeway. It's not too bad for the people who pay, but it's a lane that was taken out of service from general traffic, thus making the traffic for non-payers even worse.
but If that's the case, why would Netflix or YouTube pay for prioritization when throttling is illegal
It doesn't matter whether the throttling is illegal. It only matters if the throttling happens. Netflix and Youtube can't survive without clean access to customers of ISPs. If the ISPs want protection money, well, Youtube and Netflix will raise the rates on their customers and consider it the unpleasant costs of doing business.
Oh, I know, I know. But muh private property! But muh rule of lawyers!
Sure, you mock it, but it is someone's property, and it costs money to put up and money to replace. Of course you'll get fined. It's not like the city had a referendum and the voters said "no cameras!" and they put them up otherwise.
It's not pretentious, if you've been on Slashdot as long as your UID implies, you ought to be very well versed with David Brin and his nutty ideas. Someone brings it up as a full article almost as much as they do RMS's Right To Read.
And since when was quoting one of the leading thinkers in the topic of privacy vs no privacy pretentious anyway? Sometimes when confronted with a name or idea you haven't heard before, just look it up. What's wrong with that? It's the Internet, and it's information that is totally relevant to the discussion.
Oh hoh! There's that conspiracy word.
Yes, that's right. The conspiracy word. We have plenty of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, and you have absolutely no evidence that it did not.
The plane was hijacked. We know this as a statement of fact.
The plane was tracked heading in that direction. We also know that as a statement of fact.
For the "missile/bomb" theory, the plane would have to have disappeared... completely, without a trace. The commuters who saw the plane would have had to all have been Pentagon/Military/whatever plants, or bought testimony. Some group would have had to plant the explosives or fire the missile. All of that would have had to have come from somewhere, and you'd also have to then plant all the evidence that was inside the Pentagon ruins. And all this for what purpose?
We have a photo of the plane right outside the Pentagon. Why no footage? Because when a plane is traveling 500 mph, a 24 fps camera is only going to get a frame or two before impact. This was 2001, not 2017. People didn't have dashcams, it was a good 7 years before the release of the smartphone gave most people quick available cameras on their body at any time.
You want to believe otherwise, so you concoct a grand plan that contradicts available evidence and was somehow kept secret despite the ridiculous amount of work that hard to be involved to pull off something so huge.
Signed and submitted? Oh well that's proof right there. Case closed!
What's the weather like in Langley today AC? Lol
Of course. Conspiracy theorists never want to do the actual work themselves, and they will never, ever let evidence to the contrary dissuade them of their pet theories that they want to be true so very badly.
"A 757 wasn't spotted by any civilians?"
"Actually plenty of people saw it, and you can look up their affidavits."
"Signed and submitted? Lol."
Nothing would satisfy you short of rooting around in the wreckage directly after the crash, and I'm sure you'd find some bullshit excuse for how plane parts were planted or some other nonsense.
That's an amazingly low bar for racism if you think that's racist.
So you're perfectly OK with poisoning your attention span, wasting bandwidth and creating a gigantic vector for malware?
Fuck no.
So did you donate to Slashdot? You can disable advertising then.
The common definition of germ is that it's a superset of viruses. IE, bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa are all separate from each other, but they are all "germs." That doesn't mean of course that bacteria == virus, but it's not limiting the term "germ" to bacteria either.
Or.. you tell them they have a 1 year tour. At the end of the year they spend a month in an isolation ward.
Unless you're willing to "violate someone's civil rights" by jailing them, you'll probably get some assholes like Kaci Hickox who will refuse to abide by any reasonable quarantine order.
Or shooting elephants just to cut off their tails as trophies.
Elephant.... tails? I think you're doing it wrong!
Which is, in my opinion, the much better way to end the story. It's far more poignant for the protagonist to learn that he's actually the antagonist in the viewpoints of everyone else. The way they ended the movie was like ending Lovecraft's "The Outsider" with the narrator figuring out how to banish a ghoul that's been following him.
You can blame the studio for that. In the original ending that was shot (available as an extra on the dvd), Neville realizes that the Alpha male who has been attacking him was just trying to get to the female he'd been experimenting on for a cure, and that the Darksiders just wanted her back. He ends up returning to the female to the group and apologizes to them, since although they were no longer human, they had retained some of their humanity and their emotions. The Alpha orders the rest to leave, and Neville realizes he was the monster in their eyes. There was no ending where they had a cure and gave it to other human survivers; in the originally filmed ending, they never found any human encampment.
Well, test audiences didn't like the original ending, and this is a good case study in why sometimes test audiences and focus groups should be ignored. The original ending was closer to the ending of the book, and really, it was the entire purpose of the story -- the title "I Am Legend" comes from Neville's realization that he was the monster in THEIR legends. As Cracked put it, "Maybe a title like So I'm The Asshole would have been clearer." In hindsight, just about every reviewer thinks that the original ending was better than the reshot version.
However both allow your ISP to sell an "Up to 1Gbps*** connection for only $129/month!!! *** 1Gbps speed only applies to the following content
This is probably how it should be done -- users who need more bandwidth pay more.
seems like much of that would be a solid case for anti-competitive behavior. which is still against the law. which i am sure you knew that.
The federal government doesn't have the balls to initiate anti-trust actions anymore. That's a dead end.
Thank you for intentionally shitting on the discussion by bringing up an entirely different subject and pretending it's what everyone else means when we're talking about Net Neutrality.
Why do you think every piece of online "journalism" thinks the net neutrality repeal is bad? Maybe it's because they're feeding you a line of bullshit?
Maybe it's because the only ones who benefit here are Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs with a local monopoly who engage in rent-seeking. Literally EVERYONE else is screwed over in that system. That's why there's such outcry, because it's just an abuse of their position as a trust.
More and more, the most commonly used internet is mobile broadband.
That's not broadband. It's not even close. It's shit. And it's always going to be shit.
So the political fanaticism is strong there. But the fanatics still got beat - probably due to the fanatics from the other side.
Possibly, the point is that Alabama is still solidly red, and it took an exceptionally bad candidate for them to lose the Senate seat. Don't count on such gifts in the other elections. Luther Strange would probably have handily beaten Doug Jones.
Or... it takes an especially bad candidate to lose to Donald Trump in the general election. The same principles apply...
It really depends on how far the king of North Korea can be pushed by a mad-man, and how strongly China can hold him back.
North Korea has always worked from a standpoint of calculated "what can we do that actually gets us what we want?" They developed nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion when they saw how NOT having WMDs worked out for Saddam Hussein. Our leaders and occasionally even our media like to paint the North Korean leadership as "mad men," but that's not very close to the truth. They know that countries without nuclear weapons are pushed around by the big boys far more easily than countries with nuclear weapons. They are survivalists -- they know an invasion would be their end. They know launching nuclear weapons would also be their end. They are working hard to avoid that fate.