Even if there were other ISPs available, there's still the same problem that used to exist with switching phone providers. You can't take your email address with you. Some people might not think that a big deal, but phone number portability was apparently a big enough deal that the FCC mandated that phone companies allow it.
Some might say that their individual freedom to avoid being infected by a deadly disease is more important than someone else's individual freedom to travel.
Because you assumed I'm pro-abortion ("you think it's okay to kill unborn babies"). You assumed wrong.
Um, but you are pro-abortion. You are constantly mentioning how you support a woman's right to choose in nearly every single anti universal healthcare post that you make.
Sure, you and GP may quibble over what to call it, but that doesn't mean GP assumed wrong.
And just for the record, presently I lean towards House's POV.
"Yes. The problem with exceptions to rules is the line-drawing. It might make sense for us to kill the ass that did this to you. I mean, where do we draw the line? Which asses do we get to kill and which asses get to keep on being asses. The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there's a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge."
Which is why I specified the throttling would only occur during times of heavy usage, which I figured would be calculated on how saturated the pipe is with data, not the number of people connected to that pipe.
If I'm using 1.5x the minimum, and my neighbor is using 0.1x the minimum, then there should be no throttling because between the two of us, the pipe is only 80% utilized. Should I get up to 1.8x, at that point the pipe is 95% utilized between the two of us, so my entire connection should probably be throttled at this point. This would allow space for my neighbor's traffic to increase and thereby trigger a further throttling on my connection. I don't really know the exact percentages that should be used, I'm just trying to illustrate the point.
Now it could be that none of this is technically feasible, in which case.. I've got nothing.
Something I've wondered about that I don't think I've seen come up, why would it be so hard to say "You can get up to 100gbps, but in times of heavy usage we may throttle your entire connection back to max bandwidth / # of customers", and then have the onus on the individual customer to shutdown bandwidth intensive applications if they want to, say, make a VOIP call? The ISP could even offer a service (for an additional fee of course) where you can tell them which services should have priority when they need to throttle my entire connection to max bandwidth / # of customers.
The reason this would not run afoul of what I think of when I think "Net Neutrality" is because it is opt-in. By default they would throttle my entire connection, or I can opt-in and let them throttle most of my connection to ensure enough bandwidth for that VOIP call (throttling only occurring in times of heavy usage).
While I don't eat out much, when I do, I have always been able to pay for both the meal & tip in the same transaction.
But I can certainly see how people in such positions would still prefer to receive cash. I've never worked a position where tipping was an expected part of my salary, so this is just guessing on my part, but I'd imagine there's no paper trail for the IRS to audit cash tips.
Well if you're going to compare US life in prison with Chinese execution, no, it probably isn't cheaper. But if you compare US life in prison with US execution, life in prison is cheaper because of all the red tape that needs to be followed in order to get a death sentence and to follow through with it.
At least that's what I'm told. I have other reasons to oppose the current death penalty (though not the concept, just the implementation).
Sorta. But the words I cannot actually read, my brain fills in with the appropriate word since it knows where they pulled that paragraph from. I imagine there are others who are "reading" it that are experiencing the same.
Should Australia have a say in having people shipped to them?
That's the problem with deportation. You need a place that won't refuse to take the people you are deporting. Now I've not done any research into this, so it could still be a viable option, but it feels like there are fewer hospitable places to deport someone to than there were back when Australia was still a penal colony.
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
-Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Um, that's a game from _this_ generation. I think GP probably meant in the NES, SNES, or even N64 era. The pre-"post-release-patching" generation (and I am aware that Wii games cannot (are not?) be patched after release).
If laws conflict with each other, it is up to the legislature to initiate repeal of the ones it doesn't want any more.
And in the mean time, if Joe Shmoe is caught breaking Law B and they try to claim "but to not break Law B I'd have to break Law A", they're SOL? If that is not what you are saying, then please clarify.
Please note, I am not saying I agree with the SCOTUS decision, I am only saying that you are wrong.
I will admit however that that decision is from the 1940s, which are before the 1960s, so things could have changed. So if you've got an actual citation yourself, please please please share it with us instead of cowering behind lmgtfy like last time.
I know you may not believe me, but seriously, I want you to be right! I want what you are claiming is true to actually be true. Seriously! I do!
Every single election, I proudly "throw my vote away". Why? Because maybe, just maybe, if there are enough people like me, assholes like you will look and say "huh, maybe that third party really does have a chance", and next election you too will vote for them.
While I've never seen it in the news, I know someone who claimed that a former ISP they subscribed to went out of business because they routinely "forgot" to bill their customers.
not an entitlement to pay every little expense, like my annual physicals
Everything* else aside, generally insurance reimburses things like annual physicals, semi-annual dental visits, etc, because in the long term they keep costs down because they can catch bad shit early.
*And I do mean everything. The only thing I am discussing is why it makes sense to reimburse for "general checkup" type visits.
I'm not particularly Buddhist, but I kind of hate the idea of my mortal remains locked up in an airtight box 'til the end of time, cut off from the rest of the world and the abundant life around me.
Or Judeo-Christianity. When did "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" turn into "ashes to plastic, plastic to eternity"?
The poster was making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences of the victim based upon his race
I guess that's one way of looking at it. Personally, I looked at it as C64 making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences that specifically the US government was giving to the victim. And it's not like the US government has never performed racial profiling, with the immediate examples that come to mind being Muslims trying to get through airport security (which is just hearsay for me, so it perhaps shouldn't count), and the WWII treatment of Japanese-Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if there were other ISPs available, there's still the same problem that used to exist with switching phone providers. You can't take your email address with you. Some people might not think that a big deal, but phone number portability was apparently a big enough deal that the FCC mandated that phone companies allow it.
Some might say that their individual freedom to avoid being infected by a deadly disease is more important than someone else's individual freedom to travel.
Because you assumed I'm pro-abortion ("you think it's okay to kill unborn babies"). You assumed wrong.
Um, but you are pro-abortion. You are constantly mentioning how you support a woman's right to choose in nearly every single anti universal healthcare post that you make.
Sure, you and GP may quibble over what to call it, but that doesn't mean GP assumed wrong.
And just for the record, presently I lean towards House's POV.
"Yes. The problem with exceptions to rules is the line-drawing. It might make sense for us to kill the ass that did this to you. I mean, where do we draw the line? Which asses do we get to kill and which asses get to keep on being asses. The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there's a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge."
I thought GP was referring to things like "must have 5+ years experience with ASP.NET 4.0" when even 3.0 isn't that old.
And how, exactly, are the terrorists going to sneak a machine gun onto the plane?
they can institute mandatory tip-sharing
I had no idea such a thing even existed :o
Which is why I specified the throttling would only occur during times of heavy usage, which I figured would be calculated on how saturated the pipe is with data, not the number of people connected to that pipe.
If I'm using 1.5x the minimum, and my neighbor is using 0.1x the minimum, then there should be no throttling because between the two of us, the pipe is only 80% utilized. Should I get up to 1.8x, at that point the pipe is 95% utilized between the two of us, so my entire connection should probably be throttled at this point. This would allow space for my neighbor's traffic to increase and thereby trigger a further throttling on my connection. I don't really know the exact percentages that should be used, I'm just trying to illustrate the point.
Now it could be that none of this is technically feasible, in which case.. I've got nothing.
Something I've wondered about that I don't think I've seen come up, why would it be so hard to say "You can get up to 100gbps, but in times of heavy usage we may throttle your entire connection back to max bandwidth / # of customers", and then have the onus on the individual customer to shutdown bandwidth intensive applications if they want to, say, make a VOIP call? The ISP could even offer a service (for an additional fee of course) where you can tell them which services should have priority when they need to throttle my entire connection to max bandwidth / # of customers.
The reason this would not run afoul of what I think of when I think "Net Neutrality" is because it is opt-in. By default they would throttle my entire connection, or I can opt-in and let them throttle most of my connection to ensure enough bandwidth for that VOIP call (throttling only occurring in times of heavy usage).
Then you don't tip much.
While I don't eat out much, when I do, I have always been able to pay for both the meal & tip in the same transaction.
But I can certainly see how people in such positions would still prefer to receive cash. I've never worked a position where tipping was an expected part of my salary, so this is just guessing on my part, but I'd imagine there's no paper trail for the IRS to audit cash tips.
Well if you're going to compare US life in prison with Chinese execution, no, it probably isn't cheaper. But if you compare US life in prison with US execution, life in prison is cheaper because of all the red tape that needs to be followed in order to get a death sentence and to follow through with it.
At least that's what I'm told. I have other reasons to oppose the current death penalty (though not the concept, just the implementation).
can you READ it?
Sorta. But the words I cannot actually read, my brain fills in with the appropriate word since it knows where they pulled that paragraph from. I imagine there are others who are "reading" it that are experiencing the same.
Should Australia have a say in having people shipped to them?
That's the problem with deportation. You need a place that won't refuse to take the people you are deporting. Now I've not done any research into this, so it could still be a viable option, but it feels like there are fewer hospitable places to deport someone to than there were back when Australia was still a penal colony.
The only exception is if the person issuing the death-threat is holding a gun or knife at the time, and the victim is in immediatee danger.
O RLY??
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
-Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Again, I am not saying I agree with the decision.
So who do you think is going to look after you when you're eighty?
Robots of course. ;)
No, then the company thinks "!@#$ pirates ruined our sales!"
ftfy
Um, that's a game from _this_ generation. I think GP probably meant in the NES, SNES, or even N64 era. The pre-"post-release-patching" generation (and I am aware that Wii games cannot (are not?) be patched after release).
There are at least 28 days in every month. Why is less than 1 movie per day so surprising?
If laws conflict with each other, it is up to the legislature to initiate repeal of the ones it doesn't want any more.
And in the mean time, if Joe Shmoe is caught breaking Law B and they try to claim "but to not break Law B I'd have to break Law A", they're SOL? If that is not what you are saying, then please clarify.
The Supreme Court made several rulings in the volatile 60s and 70s that fighting words ARE protected speech
Bullshit! :D
Please note, I am not saying I agree with the SCOTUS decision, I am only saying that you are wrong.
I will admit however that that decision is from the 1940s, which are before the 1960s, so things could have changed. So if you've got an actual citation yourself, please please please share it with us instead of cowering behind lmgtfy like last time.
I know you may not believe me, but seriously, I want you to be right! I want what you are claiming is true to actually be true. Seriously! I do!
True, but I thought the liver could naturally regenerate? Maybe I'm remembering my high school biology incorrectly...
Every single election, I proudly "throw my vote away". Why? Because maybe, just maybe, if there are enough people like me, assholes like you will look and say "huh, maybe that third party really does have a chance", and next election you too will vote for them.
Thank you for being a part of the problem.
While I've never seen it in the news, I know someone who claimed that a former ISP they subscribed to went out of business because they routinely "forgot" to bill their customers.
not an entitlement to pay every little expense, like my annual physicals
Everything* else aside, generally insurance reimburses things like annual physicals, semi-annual dental visits, etc, because in the long term they keep costs down because they can catch bad shit early.
*And I do mean everything. The only thing I am discussing is why it makes sense to reimburse for "general checkup" type visits.
I'm not particularly Buddhist, but I kind of hate the idea of my mortal remains locked up in an airtight box 'til the end of time, cut off from the rest of the world and the abundant life around me.
Or Judeo-Christianity. When did "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" turn into "ashes to plastic, plastic to eternity"?
The poster was making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences of the victim based upon his race
I guess that's one way of looking at it. Personally, I looked at it as C64 making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences that specifically the US government was giving to the victim. And it's not like the US government has never performed racial profiling, with the immediate examples that come to mind being Muslims trying to get through airport security (which is just hearsay for me, so it perhaps shouldn't count), and the WWII treatment of Japanese-Americans.