IANAL, but I believe in that scenario the case could go in several directions: the Feds could get involved (depending on how much they care about the case), or the suspect could be charged in state A and/or state B (again, depending upon how much either state cares about the crimes committed in their respective state). So to answer the question, there is no direct answer. The attorneys/police will probably do whatever gives them the best chance of a conviction.
And no bullshit about Britney or Obama ordering a burger, etc. Then you got something that is worth my money.
I think you hit the crux of the matter. Most newspapers/news sites today just churn out bullshit stories that you can read about from any of a thousand other sites. Just like physical objects, people won't pay for information if they can get it for free somewhere else.
I think for the general case of an ISP which only shovels internets back and forth, yes he's right, this is not a net neutrality issue. If the company doesn't provide content then it doesn't matter that they are capping usage because it's across the board.
If, as many people have stated, a company like TW is capping (which affects sites like Hulu and YouTube) when they have a competing source of content (cable TV/on-demand) then it absolutely is a net neutrality issue.
So I think what it boils down to is: Does the ISP have a competing source of content (either through TV, streaming, etc.)? If so, then they are tilting the field in their favor. And my guess is that most ISP's have at least some way of providing content which would directly compete with an option available somewhere else online.
You would run into a situation where the rich can send their kids to better schools, and they get better jobs, and then they make more money, and send their kids to better schools, who make more money. Later on you run into a situation where poor people won't be able to afford school. Two more or less permanent classes. The death of the American dream.
The American Dream relies on capitalism. The idea behind the American Dream is that you can come up with a great idea or a good business and move up through the social ranks from poor to rich. If the government gives monopolies to large companies, that pushes out the possibility that someone can come along with a better idea and sell it. That is when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Only with a fair playing field (such as government owned last mile) will the poor have a chance to compete (in the ISP example, no one is actually "poor", but you get the idea).
I don't understand why people keep pushing Intelligent Design into *science* class. If you want to create a new class in which to teach ID that's fine, but it's not based on experimentation and observation so why should it be taught in a class which is based on teaching those principles. Programming isn't taught in math class (to my knowledge) even though the two are almost inseparable, so why would you teach ID (a subject that isn't even based on the same principles as science) in a science class.
P.S. I would weep to see a class added to the curriculum that was just about ID, but I still think the point is that it is not science.
This is true of more than just paper, too. I work for a company that uses water jet cutters, laser cutters, and CNC punches and all of the stuff we cut goes through a nesting program. I'm not sure exactly how they work, whether or not they just brute force a solution or what, but finding better algorithms would give better scrap rates for almost all manufacturers who deal with sheet metal and plate.
Slashdot Mirror
Because nothing could go wrong with that.
voice independant voice recognition
When I first read that, I thought you meant voice recognition without the need for a voice. I thought, "Now that's a trick!"
IANAL, but I believe in that scenario the case could go in several directions: the Feds could get involved (depending on how much they care about the case), or the suspect could be charged in state A and/or state B (again, depending upon how much either state cares about the crimes committed in their respective state). So to answer the question, there is no direct answer. The attorneys/police will probably do whatever gives them the best chance of a conviction.
And no bullshit about Britney or Obama ordering a burger, etc. Then you got something that is worth my money.
I think you hit the crux of the matter. Most newspapers/news sites today just churn out bullshit stories that you can read about from any of a thousand other sites. Just like physical objects, people won't pay for information if they can get it for free somewhere else.
I think for the general case of an ISP which only shovels internets back and forth, yes he's right, this is not a net neutrality issue. If the company doesn't provide content then it doesn't matter that they are capping usage because it's across the board.
If, as many people have stated, a company like TW is capping (which affects sites like Hulu and YouTube) when they have a competing source of content (cable TV/on-demand) then it absolutely is a net neutrality issue.
So I think what it boils down to is: Does the ISP have a competing source of content (either through TV, streaming, etc.)? If so, then they are tilting the field in their favor. And my guess is that most ISP's have at least some way of providing content which would directly compete with an option available somewhere else online.
You would run into a situation where the rich can send their kids to better schools, and they get better jobs, and then they make more money, and send their kids to better schools, who make more money. Later on you run into a situation where poor people won't be able to afford school. Two more or less permanent classes. The death of the American dream.
The American Dream relies on capitalism. The idea behind the American Dream is that you can come up with a great idea or a good business and move up through the social ranks from poor to rich. If the government gives monopolies to large companies, that pushes out the possibility that someone can come along with a better idea and sell it. That is when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Only with a fair playing field (such as government owned last mile) will the poor have a chance to compete (in the ISP example, no one is actually "poor", but you get the idea).
I don't understand why people keep pushing Intelligent Design into *science* class. If you want to create a new class in which to teach ID that's fine, but it's not based on experimentation and observation so why should it be taught in a class which is based on teaching those principles. Programming isn't taught in math class (to my knowledge) even though the two are almost inseparable, so why would you teach ID (a subject that isn't even based on the same principles as science) in a science class.
P.S. I would weep to see a class added to the curriculum that was just about ID, but I still think the point is that it is not science.
This is true of more than just paper, too. I work for a company that uses water jet cutters, laser cutters, and CNC punches and all of the stuff we cut goes through a nesting program. I'm not sure exactly how they work, whether or not they just brute force a solution or what, but finding better algorithms would give better scrap rates for almost all manufacturers who deal with sheet metal and plate.