Funny, what I described is how it works in most of the rest of the world. We don't have a shared bandwidth model, unless we are talking cable, and then yeah, your bandwidth is shared by everyone on your cable segment. But if I buy a 1GB fiber connection to the Internet, then that 1GB is not shared. And the ISP should have enough capacity that they can guarantee that bandwidth across their network. Yes, I know ISPs oversell their capacity by a certain percent but that is because not everyone will be sucking down a full 1GB stream all the time. It's statistical, and in most of the world, you actually get the speed you pay for. I work as a network administrator for the State of New Mexico, and have been doing this since the days of leased T1 lines. Trust me I know what end-to-end bandwidth costs.
If you pay for a one gig connection then you should get a one gig connection. How and why are you sharing your one gig connection with Netflix bingers? This isn't about how much an end user is paying for Internet service. As you said, you can already pay more for faster Internet. This is about ISPs offering you a service "Internet connection at X speed" and then not delivering that because they do not deliver the entire Internet at the same speed. The are selling you something more like a cable package, where the companies that have paid them money to be able to reach you can shuffle bits to you quicker than the companies or individuals who have not paid the toll.
For example, let's take gaming. Your buddy has not paid Comcast so when you want to join his server, you are not getting that full one gig you paid for. His traffic does not get to use the fast lane. He paid for one gig. You paid for one gig. But because he has not paid for the fast lane, there is not a one gig connection between the two of you. That one gig connection you paid for only connects at one gig to people or companies who have paid the "high speed" toll. When you connect to other people who have not paid the extra toll, even if they also have a theoretical one gig connection, it doesn't work at one gig.
This is so off target it barely even qualifies as "wrong" as opposed to simply "nonsensical." Net neutrality is not free speech applied to packets. It is not concerned with the contents of the packets but their origin and destination. Net Neutrality says you can't discriminate based on origin and destination. You can discriminate based on content, for example, you can drop spam or denial of service attacks. You can even prioritize based on content, so for example you could allow all voice chat packets higher priority, but only if you do it for all voice chat packets rather than creating a paid fast lane for certain people's voice chat packets. Stop listening to insane wight wing sources, they are leading you into dangerous places, like a little lamb to slaughter.
All our taste testing and focus groups agree, people like New Coke better! Pepsi won't keep eating our lunch once we release this tasty masterpiece! Everyone will love it, and surely no one will complain, we just can't go wrong with this new direction.
Hawaiian doesn't really work like that. It's an oddly poetic language, even in the debased form we find it today. Repetition for emphasis is very common. The "from afar" part probably arises from the repetition.
Well shit. That might not be as dumb as I thought. In fact I agree with the basic premise: identity politics is a bourgeois-liberal perversion and appropriation of the energy of oppressed people's liberation movements. It sounds a lot like situationist thought about the self-regenerating, all-co-opting nature of The Spectacle.
Jesus Christ you live in a fucked up fantaasy world. It's like you're trapped in the upside-down, where good is bad and left is right. I pity you but I fear nothing can be done, the rot's gone too deep.
This is some A+ level conspiracy bullshit right here. I mean, it's not original or anything, yes, I've heard it before.
This imaginary left you've invented sounds like a right frightful boogyman. You'll mostly find it in the minds of crazed right wingers rather than in objective reality. I challenge you to prove that this mindset is commonplace in any group of real, existing humans.
Thanks! Anti science types piss me off. As this was obviously a right wing, climate change denying anti-science type troll, I thought the gender and race bit would add insult to injury. That's the thing with tribalists, they really hate being compared to the other tribe.
You find it mostly in post modern literary criticism. I'm not dissing feminists though. It just felt like it would hit the stupid anti-science troll harder if his shit was compared to something feminists say. Personally, barring the TERFs I've got nothing against feminists.
Is this nonsense supposed to represent something intelligible? Your trolling is so bad I can't even tell what you're trying to do. Are you trying to troll right wingers, or left wingers, or are you doing one of those trolls where you act like an idiot so people correct you?
You sound just like those feminists who say science is a white male conspiracy to keep oppressed people down. Only in your case, I'm guessing the oppressed "people" are big energy corporations. And I'm guessing you are only saying that because your tribe taught you that parroting certain phrases was a requirement for membership.
You fuckheads shit in your own hands and wonder why the rest of us won't give you any respect. That's not an argument you're trying to sell me, it's a pile of shit. There's no god damn point to respond to you window licking short bus riding goon. You just shit in your hand! You don't deserve a respectful reply to that.
As soon as a case goes to trial, there is a legal duty to preserve evidence. Otherwise, people would just destroy all evidence before the case goes to trial and a judge has a chance to issue a preservation order. The preservation order just makes the duty to preserve evidence explicit. I'm not sure where this crazy idea came from, that you can just destroy evidence willy-nilly unless a judge tells you not to, but it is wrong.
San Francisco voted to stop burying dead folks in the city way back in 1900. Rich folks had their graves moved. Poor folks often didn't get moved at all. http://www.7x7.com/the-dark-hi...
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, what I described is how it works in most of the rest of the world. We don't have a shared bandwidth model, unless we are talking cable, and then yeah, your bandwidth is shared by everyone on your cable segment. But if I buy a 1GB fiber connection to the Internet, then that 1GB is not shared. And the ISP should have enough capacity that they can guarantee that bandwidth across their network. Yes, I know ISPs oversell their capacity by a certain percent but that is because not everyone will be sucking down a full 1GB stream all the time. It's statistical, and in most of the world, you actually get the speed you pay for. I work as a network administrator for the State of New Mexico, and have been doing this since the days of leased T1 lines. Trust me I know what end-to-end bandwidth costs.
If you pay for a one gig connection then you should get a one gig connection. How and why are you sharing your one gig connection with Netflix bingers? This isn't about how much an end user is paying for Internet service. As you said, you can already pay more for faster Internet. This is about ISPs offering you a service "Internet connection at X speed" and then not delivering that because they do not deliver the entire Internet at the same speed. The are selling you something more like a cable package, where the companies that have paid them money to be able to reach you can shuffle bits to you quicker than the companies or individuals who have not paid the toll.
For example, let's take gaming. Your buddy has not paid Comcast so when you want to join his server, you are not getting that full one gig you paid for. His traffic does not get to use the fast lane. He paid for one gig. You paid for one gig. But because he has not paid for the fast lane, there is not a one gig connection between the two of you. That one gig connection you paid for only connects at one gig to people or companies who have paid the "high speed" toll. When you connect to other people who have not paid the extra toll, even if they also have a theoretical one gig connection, it doesn't work at one gig.
Like Natalie Portman, naked and petrified.
Of course I can.
That's even more nonsensical. What regulations have captured what markets for which firms now?
This is so off target it barely even qualifies as "wrong" as opposed to simply "nonsensical." Net neutrality is not free speech applied to packets. It is not concerned with the contents of the packets but their origin and destination. Net Neutrality says you can't discriminate based on origin and destination. You can discriminate based on content, for example, you can drop spam or denial of service attacks. You can even prioritize based on content, so for example you could allow all voice chat packets higher priority, but only if you do it for all voice chat packets rather than creating a paid fast lane for certain people's voice chat packets. Stop listening to insane wight wing sources, they are leading you into dangerous places, like a little lamb to slaughter.
All our taste testing and focus groups agree, people like New Coke better! Pepsi won't keep eating our lunch once we release this tasty masterpiece! Everyone will love it, and surely no one will complain, we just can't go wrong with this new direction.
Hawaiian doesn't really work like that. It's an oddly poetic language, even in the debased form we find it today. Repetition for emphasis is very common. The "from afar" part probably arises from the repetition.
Steam rockets are still rockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What? I was agreeing with you. Blinkered and stupid is most of humanity, political leaning has little to do with it.
Well shit. That might not be as dumb as I thought. In fact I agree with the basic premise: identity politics is a bourgeois-liberal perversion and appropriation of the energy of oppressed people's liberation movements. It sounds a lot like situationist thought about the self-regenerating, all-co-opting nature of The Spectacle.
Jesus Christ you live in a fucked up fantaasy world. It's like you're trapped in the upside-down, where good is bad and left is right. I pity you but I fear nothing can be done, the rot's gone too deep.
Nah, I am not going to pollute my mind with garbage you recommend, After all, look what it's done to you. No thank!
This is some A+ level conspiracy bullshit right here. I mean, it's not original or anything, yes, I've heard it before.
This imaginary left you've invented sounds like a right frightful boogyman. You'll mostly find it in the minds of crazed right wingers rather than in objective reality. I challenge you to prove that this mindset is commonplace in any group of real, existing humans.
Nope, you just sound retarded. Maybe practice at home before trying that stuff out in public. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it eventually.
Yeah, but those guys were paid by big oil to do that.
You think?!? +5 insightful right there bud.
Thanks! Anti science types piss me off. As this was obviously a right wing, climate change denying anti-science type troll, I thought the gender and race bit would add insult to injury. That's the thing with tribalists, they really hate being compared to the other tribe.
You find it mostly in post modern literary criticism. I'm not dissing feminists though. It just felt like it would hit the stupid anti-science troll harder if his shit was compared to something feminists say. Personally, barring the TERFs I've got nothing against feminists.
Is this nonsense supposed to represent something intelligible? Your trolling is so bad I can't even tell what you're trying to do. Are you trying to troll right wingers, or left wingers, or are you doing one of those trolls where you act like an idiot so people correct you?
This makes no sense whatsoever, your trolling brings dishonor to Mother Russia. Report to the gulag for reeducation, comrade.
You sound just like those feminists who say science is a white male conspiracy to keep oppressed people down. Only in your case, I'm guessing the oppressed "people" are big energy corporations. And I'm guessing you are only saying that because your tribe taught you that parroting certain phrases was a requirement for membership.
You fuckheads shit in your own hands and wonder why the rest of us won't give you any respect. That's not an argument you're trying to sell me, it's a pile of shit. There's no god damn point to respond to you window licking short bus riding goon. You just shit in your hand! You don't deserve a respectful reply to that.
As soon as a case goes to trial, there is a legal duty to preserve evidence. Otherwise, people would just destroy all evidence before the case goes to trial and a judge has a chance to issue a preservation order. The preservation order just makes the duty to preserve evidence explicit. I'm not sure where this crazy idea came from, that you can just destroy evidence willy-nilly unless a judge tells you not to, but it is wrong.
San Francisco voted to stop burying dead folks in the city way back in 1900. Rich folks had their graves moved. Poor folks often didn't get moved at all. http://www.7x7.com/the-dark-hi...