Just because wingnuts can take a religion, don't put their stupidity on the face of that belief system.
I don't see the problem with prayer everywhere (for Christians). The Bible more or less forbids prayer as a publicity stunt. So that should make it a non-issue.
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you
His comment doesn't fall within any of the four. He's working with the assumption that all four are wrong. He said you should expect a punch in the face. Not getting one is a gift of grace ("turning the other cheek").
That's what you get from the human race. You don't see people saying "That Copernicus was a real moron, thinking the sun was the center of the universe." And you don't see people saying that science is useless just because there's incompetent scientists out there. And I may be making an assumption, but I get the feeling you respect science. So why all the hatred for people who actually aren't as bad as your worst-case examples?
Expect a punch is not the same thing as definitively receiving said punch. He was speaking in the general case, so you shouldn't be thinking of him as the Pope.
If you expect a punch, and receive no punch, that's grace. Christianity doesn't call for justice and neither did he. He says that what happened is what is expected. That the people responsible didn't show grace.
It seems like this might be too subtle for you to understand.
The rest of the world thinks anyone's personal beliefs are special (as long as they're not religious beliefs, apparently). You can have all sorts of stupid feelings and ideas, and if they're not tied to a religion, then somehow that elevates them to the point that nobody will touch them.
Scientific "beliefs" aren't all based on scientific fact. And really, the best science has to offer is a theory. Nothing is ever proven beyond theory in Science - or we never would have gotten away from the Copernican model of the Universe.
Science is a religion for a lot of people, and that goes far beyond what can be stated without doubt. Whatever the science du jour is, there's a related ideology that many scientists take upon themselves - for relativity, there's moral relativism; for evolution, it's the "survival of the fittest" mentality.
A punch in the face is justice. I don't think he is advocating justice, but saying that people desire justice and are likely to try for it. Turning the other cheek is grace.
They shouldn't be doing either of them, University should be totally secular
This isn't a public University you're talking about. It's a private school founded by Methodists and Quakers. It's non-sectarian, but they could honestly choose to do whatever they want in that regard.
This is the reason I was against Obamacare in the first place. Just saying - you can't lean on case law anymore to prove Interstate Commerce is this or that. Your example was actually even more intrusive, since there was no commerce taking place.
All I know is that it's best if nationally connected telecommunications companies weren't allowed to do whatever they want. Government regulation is the only practical option I can think of to accomplish this.
I agree with your original statement about wires crossing lines, though. The electric grid does this, but states regulate electricity and I think that works just fine. Not great, but better than national control.
Maybe I should have started with the fact that I live in Illinois, and national government is less corrupt as a general rule.
If you do it right, fiber is fiber and you're mostly upgrading endpoints and amps and the rest of the infrastructure is fine. Copper had a good run. Even handled rural dial-up with some limitations.
If we had it your way, there would still be people just lucky enough to have a party line for their phone service. And hey, why should we even bother to centralize management of our roads? We could have hundreds of vendors with toll-gates every 1000ft as you cross boundaries in the city.
Lesser of two evils. You're going to get one or the other. Nevermind that some areas will never be served by free enterprise thanks to population density. Urbanizing is not the answer either. Ensuring that rural underprivileged areas have a chance at being connected is worth more than free enterprise.
At 4 MBps, I can stream a couple of 1080p videos simultaneously
That's pretty marginal for good 1080p. Sure, it's probably more than your cable or satellite company allocates per channel, but those look like garbage. And it's better if there are no visible motion or compression artifacts. So far, OTA TV is the only thing that looks very good and Blu-Ray is close to perfect. The human eye sees lossless video - it does not decode H.264.
Screens are growing in size, too. I can definitely tell the difference between 2K and 4K projection at my local theater. The home theater experience is going to continue to increase in quality and screen size.
None of that has anything to do with baseline for Internet access. You need higher bandwidth to maintain latency, QoS, not worry about Windows Updates, and for me clean, smooth VoIP. A 100MB file still takes 3 minutes to download at 4Mbps, while I get that file in less than 30 seconds. Even that's a bit marginal for cloud file storage for important files without a local mirror. A Linux distribution taking overnight to download means that it's not as accessible.
A lot of the full benefits are services that we don't even have because the market is relatively small. And if you have 4Mbps download, you probably have less than 768Kbps upload speed. Can't share document storage with your neighbors without a 3rd-party host. Kind of defeats the free and open Internet. I know at home, I had to upgrade my network to Gigabit for everything to run smoothly.
At one time, people thought 60 Amps of electrical service is enough for a household - but I like not having to worry about tripping a breaker with every switch I flip. Same for my Internet service.
Since Obamacare already regulates intrahousehold commerce (you *must* buy private insurance - ethically worse than single payer), intrastate is actually a larger scope.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly how I read the headline - "jury doesn't get the Internet." I wondered at first why that was a story.
Why would you put ends on a cable that you're running through conduit? Don't put ends on solid core cable. Put it through a patch panel or wall plate.
I typed a response nearly word for word with yours and almost posted it before I saw that you saved me the trouble.
Just because wingnuts can take a religion, don't put their stupidity on the face of that belief system.
I don't see the problem with prayer everywhere (for Christians). The Bible more or less forbids prayer as a publicity stunt. So that should make it a non-issue.
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you
His comment doesn't fall within any of the four. He's working with the assumption that all four are wrong. He said you should expect a punch in the face. Not getting one is a gift of grace ("turning the other cheek").
That's what you get from the human race. You don't see people saying "That Copernicus was a real moron, thinking the sun was the center of the universe." And you don't see people saying that science is useless just because there's incompetent scientists out there. And I may be making an assumption, but I get the feeling you respect science. So why all the hatred for people who actually aren't as bad as your worst-case examples?
Expect a punch is not the same thing as definitively receiving said punch. He was speaking in the general case, so you shouldn't be thinking of him as the Pope.
If you expect a punch, and receive no punch, that's grace. Christianity doesn't call for justice and neither did he. He says that what happened is what is expected. That the people responsible didn't show grace.
It seems like this might be too subtle for you to understand.
The rest of the world thinks anyone's personal beliefs are special (as long as they're not religious beliefs, apparently). You can have all sorts of stupid feelings and ideas, and if they're not tied to a religion, then somehow that elevates them to the point that nobody will touch them.
Scientific "beliefs" aren't all based on scientific fact. And really, the best science has to offer is a theory. Nothing is ever proven beyond theory in Science - or we never would have gotten away from the Copernican model of the Universe.
Science is a religion for a lot of people, and that goes far beyond what can be stated without doubt. Whatever the science du jour is, there's a related ideology that many scientists take upon themselves - for relativity, there's moral relativism; for evolution, it's the "survival of the fittest" mentality.
Except all Christians don't do that, and especially are called not to do that.
A punch in the face is justice. I don't think he is advocating justice, but saying that people desire justice and are likely to try for it. Turning the other cheek is grace.
"An eye for an eye" is justice.
Grace is not justice. And I don't think he's calling for justice.
does that mean we can punch them in the face?
You can use moral relativism to justify just about anything.
But punching an entire group of people in the face because a minority are mean doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
They shouldn't be doing either of them, University should be totally secular
This isn't a public University you're talking about. It's a private school founded by Methodists and Quakers. It's non-sectarian, but they could honestly choose to do whatever they want in that regard.
There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall
It doesn't match my curtains?
Bizarre electronics with a shaky scientific premise at best? You must be a Scientologist.
And what good is just creating a really complex automaton that only does what you want it to do?
Put another way - if you could use a love potion to get a wife, would you? Or would it all be fake to you?
This is the reason I was against Obamacare in the first place. Just saying - you can't lean on case law anymore to prove Interstate Commerce is this or that. Your example was actually even more intrusive, since there was no commerce taking place.
All I know is that it's best if nationally connected telecommunications companies weren't allowed to do whatever they want. Government regulation is the only practical option I can think of to accomplish this.
I agree with your original statement about wires crossing lines, though. The electric grid does this, but states regulate electricity and I think that works just fine. Not great, but better than national control.
Maybe I should have started with the fact that I live in Illinois, and national government is less corrupt as a general rule.
You are an absurd strawman. Now dance!
If you do it right, fiber is fiber and you're mostly upgrading endpoints and amps and the rest of the infrastructure is fine. Copper had a good run. Even handled rural dial-up with some limitations.
If we had it your way, there would still be people just lucky enough to have a party line for their phone service. And hey, why should we even bother to centralize management of our roads? We could have hundreds of vendors with toll-gates every 1000ft as you cross boundaries in the city.
Lesser of two evils. You're going to get one or the other. Nevermind that some areas will never be served by free enterprise thanks to population density. Urbanizing is not the answer either. Ensuring that rural underprivileged areas have a chance at being connected is worth more than free enterprise.
At 4 MBps, I can stream a couple of 1080p videos simultaneously
That's pretty marginal for good 1080p. Sure, it's probably more than your cable or satellite company allocates per channel, but those look like garbage. And it's better if there are no visible motion or compression artifacts. So far, OTA TV is the only thing that looks very good and Blu-Ray is close to perfect. The human eye sees lossless video - it does not decode H.264.
Screens are growing in size, too. I can definitely tell the difference between 2K and 4K projection at my local theater. The home theater experience is going to continue to increase in quality and screen size.
None of that has anything to do with baseline for Internet access. You need higher bandwidth to maintain latency, QoS, not worry about Windows Updates, and for me clean, smooth VoIP. A 100MB file still takes 3 minutes to download at 4Mbps, while I get that file in less than 30 seconds. Even that's a bit marginal for cloud file storage for important files without a local mirror. A Linux distribution taking overnight to download means that it's not as accessible.
A lot of the full benefits are services that we don't even have because the market is relatively small. And if you have 4Mbps download, you probably have less than 768Kbps upload speed. Can't share document storage with your neighbors without a 3rd-party host. Kind of defeats the free and open Internet. I know at home, I had to upgrade my network to Gigabit for everything to run smoothly.
At one time, people thought 60 Amps of electrical service is enough for a household - but I like not having to worry about tripping a breaker with every switch I flip. Same for my Internet service.
Some of the prepaid wireless plans will drop you down to near-dialup once you burn through your 3G/4G cap in a few days. That's sort of a plus.
and very little(a few hit of Slashdot, and a couple of emals...maybe) was actually utilized towards our own enjoyment.
What were you doing with your connection that used over 100GB per month but only a few hundred megs of personal enjoyment?
they should just be hosted on our phones and we can cut out the middleman
Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage
More Information
This problem can be caused by a variety of issues, including:
The user's phone battery is depleted
The user is out of a covered service area
What you can try:
Tell the user to put a server on their own home wired connection at the very least.
Since Obamacare already regulates intrahousehold commerce (you *must* buy private insurance - ethically worse than single payer), intrastate is actually a larger scope.