Lieberman is a Democrat. Just saying, if he was a Republican, all the trolls woulld be out about "OMG Republicans are teh evil." But God forbid we point out anything that would upset the apple cart that is Slashdot groupthink.
As someone who's been following this merger bid for the past ~6 months, I must say, woot! Even if you disagree with the outcome here, the fact that there's finally been some sort of conclusion to this case is reassuring.
Why would somebody who supports the merger (or rather, somebody who doesn't think that the merger would result in a monopoly, and thus that the government should not stop it) be "reassured to have some sort of conclusion?"
If anything to me the interesting part is how much more poor the resolution on the Chinese sats are to the Americans since the Chinese targets are fricking huge and the bullseyes they have in AZ go down to some pretty tiny center targets. I'm sure in another decade though they'll have it tight enough they'll be able to read the license on a car, they'll just need a GUI in VB like the CSI guys.
Confirmation bias. The targets you see are only the ones big enough to be seen clearly on Google Maps. If we (or the Chinese or the Russains or whoever) had a spy satellite that could read the year off a quarter, the quarter would just be placed in the correct place and they'd take pictures of it. The fact that you can't see the quarter on Google Maps because GOOGLE doesn't have that kind of resolution doesn't mean nobody does.
This is the thing the Obama FCC doesn't fix. Under the proposed rule, the ISP is only banned from charging NETFLIX more for a higher tier of "access" to their customers. The rule allows EXACTLY what you are describing.
They slow down a site, then charge you to restore the speed back to what it originally was. Or they charge you a fee to make your packets a higher priority than your neighbor's. Either way, no infrastructure changes were required. The highway analogy the article uses is spot-on.
The problem with Net Neutrality is that it won't work. Instead, I support "Internet Justice." After all, it has two good things in its name. How can it be bad?
Hint: Everything you said about what Net Neutrality is was wrong. Net Neutrality regulations IN THEORY SHOULD prevent ISPs from charging website operators (note: not end users) more for faster access to that ISPs end users. Under Net Neutrality, you (as an end user) can still buy higher priority/more bandwidth lines on either end if you pay for them.
Now, those are the STATED goals of the Net Neutrality regulations the FCC is trying to enact. The current rules the FCC has on the table won't do that, but they do help the liberals and their buddies at the expense of everyone else. (Also, the FCC shouldn't be allowed to enact Net Neutrality rules anyway, that's Congress's job.)
I live in the NYC area. I'm still not sure what, specifically, they're advocating. I saw a list of their demands that I had seen quoted from on their website, and they put a disclaimer along with it that THIS IS JUST ONE GUY'S OPINION AND NOT THAT OF THE WHOLE MOVEMENT. (Apparently, this is the guy that said "Free college education.") Are there specific policies, laws, etc. they want enacted, or is the message of the protest just BAWWWW?
You must be the life of the party when an american brings up the topic of "american football" (as opposed to real football = soccer). I'm from the US, our style of football is somewhat popular here (only around 5% really care, but at least 50% go along to get along with them). So our style of football is very american, oh well.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but Gridiron Football is far and away the most popular sport in the United States. Gridiron football has been the most popular sport on American television since 1965, and at the moment, it's the only sport that can support two leagues (NFL and NCAA) that are major enough to have regular television contracts.
As far as real football being "soccer," most games called "football" are derived from rugby. "Foot" in their name refers to the fact that the ball was historically 12 inches long from tip to tip. Association Football/Soccer is the sole exception. It was derived from other middle ages games played by peasants. These games were played "on foot" as opposed to games played by nobles (like polo) which were played "on a horse." ("Soccer" was apparently something called "Oxford slang" for "association") Wikipedia has a whole article on the word "Football."
I can't even begin to imagine the paperwork and financial resources required to let me change my neighbor's oil for a couple bucks... but I can change my own (so far) without too much govt interference, although they're working on it...
I'm a conservative. I think one of the major problems with the economy today is TOO MUCH government regulation. That said, most/all jurisdictions allow "personal sales" between neighbors, which allow things like changing your neighbor's oil or having your kid mow their lawn or babysitting or whatever. Have you actually looked into this?
This is only true of the 1st Generation, 30 Gig Zunes. The 2nd Generation models (4, 8, 80 and 120 GB) and the HDs (16, 32, and 64 GB) were based off Microsoft designs.
Seconded. I'm a huge fan of the TF-101, and it's amazing how every time one of these HURF DURF NOBODY BEATS IPAD articles comes out, somebody always mentions the Transformer. It's a shame that the earthquake screwed up their initial production run so badly and that Asus didn't market it the way they could have. I know I've sold at least two people on it by just popping the screen off and handing it to them to show them a photo or something.
I'm no fan of Apple, but what business is it of the governments what price I put on my goods. If people don't like my price, they're free to buy someone else's.
The way the headline reads, it looks like MIT is accusing the UN of not taking Arctic ice into account in their global warming calculation, i.e. MIT says there should be less global warming because the UN forgot to calculate a cold thing.
That is the OPPOSITE MESSAGE from what the story actually says. Does slashdot even have editors anymore?
To be even more fair, the question was about "is into chicks." If gays and lesbians occur with the same frequency in the population of men and women, respectively, they would cancel each other out. But if bisexuals ALSO occur with the same frequency regardless of gender, they don't cancel each other out, but instead that number counds twice.
If you merely wish to say you feel that the duties and authority of government should be clearly articulated, that would be one thing, but I sincerely doubt that's the case. If it were, then you would be open to the idea of holding a convention to discuss the parameters for a modern day, where we can discuss things on their own merits, and not with some people relying on what was written centuries ago as if it were the last and absolute word.
The principles of the Constitution are "All Government shall have limits," "Federal Power shall be divided between the three branches of the federal government," and "Power shall be divided between the Federal government, the state governments, and the people as individuals." (The second two are both subsets of the first.) Everything within the Constitution fits into at least one of those three categories. Which of those categories should doesn't fit into the modern world?
First off, the War Powers Act, which states that any military action lasting longer than 90 days requires a Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force, is a law, not part of the Constitution.
Secondly, there's a number of people who believe that the War Powers Act itself is an unconstitutional restriction on the power of the Presidency. The Constitution says that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" (Article II Section 2) For its part, Congress is given the powers to "Declare War," "Raise and Support Armies," "Make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces," "to provide for calling forth the Militia," and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." (Article I Section 8.) Basically, Congress approves spending money, and then the Executive oversees the programs on which it is spent. Just like every other law, program, and department the Constitution provides for.
McCain is among those who oppose the War Powers Act as unconstitutional. I know he was part of the effort to retroactively provide for an Authorization for Use of Force because not doing so would cause a situation where the Executive branch was openly violating the law of the land, and that Shouldn't Happen. I don't know the status of that effort*.
Obama, on the other hand, supports the War Powers Act and has throughout his public life. Except, apparently, when it requires him to explain to Congress why military action is necessary. Somebody's a hypocrite here, and it's not McCain.
*It should also be noted that at the beginning of the Libyan operation, Obama could have gotten his Authorization if he had made a case, any case, in favor of it. There's a lot to choose from. Gaddafi was gunning down civilians from airplanes. Hell, he BLEW UP a passenger jet back in the 80's. This is a bad dude, and if the rebels we're helping are any better, there's a serious case to be made to do so. But since Obama has refused to give basic information (like criteria required for victory) nobody's going to support it.
Well, the War Powers Act requires him to get an Authorization for the Use of Force (or a Declaration of War) for Libya, which would come from Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Lieberman is a Democrat. Just saying, if he was a Republican, all the trolls woulld be out about "OMG Republicans are teh evil." But God forbid we point out anything that would upset the apple cart that is Slashdot groupthink.
As someone who's been following this merger bid for the past ~6 months, I must say, woot! Even if you disagree with the outcome here, the fact that there's finally been some sort of conclusion to this case is reassuring.
Why would somebody who supports the merger (or rather, somebody who doesn't think that the merger would result in a monopoly, and thus that the government should not stop it) be "reassured to have some sort of conclusion?"
The ball was originally 12 inches long from pointy part to pointy part.
There have been two versions of Windows since XP. Vista and 7.
If anything to me the interesting part is how much more poor the resolution on the Chinese sats are to the Americans since the Chinese targets are fricking huge and the bullseyes they have in AZ go down to some pretty tiny center targets. I'm sure in another decade though they'll have it tight enough they'll be able to read the license on a car, they'll just need a GUI in VB like the CSI guys.
Confirmation bias. The targets you see are only the ones big enough to be seen clearly on Google Maps. If we (or the Chinese or the Russains or whoever) had a spy satellite that could read the year off a quarter, the quarter would just be placed in the correct place and they'd take pictures of it. The fact that you can't see the quarter on Google Maps because GOOGLE doesn't have that kind of resolution doesn't mean nobody does.
This is the thing the Obama FCC doesn't fix. Under the proposed rule, the ISP is only banned from charging NETFLIX more for a higher tier of "access" to their customers. The rule allows EXACTLY what you are describing.
They slow down a site, then charge you to restore the speed back to what it originally was. Or they charge you a fee to make your packets a higher priority than your neighbor's. Either way, no infrastructure changes were required. The highway analogy the article uses is spot-on.
The problem with Net Neutrality is that it won't work. Instead, I support "Internet Justice." After all, it has two good things in its name. How can it be bad?
Hint: Everything you said about what Net Neutrality is was wrong. Net Neutrality regulations IN THEORY SHOULD prevent ISPs from charging website operators (note: not end users) more for faster access to that ISPs end users. Under Net Neutrality, you (as an end user) can still buy higher priority/more bandwidth lines on either end if you pay for them.
Now, those are the STATED goals of the Net Neutrality regulations the FCC is trying to enact. The current rules the FCC has on the table won't do that, but they do help the liberals and their buddies at the expense of everyone else. (Also, the FCC shouldn't be allowed to enact Net Neutrality rules anyway, that's Congress's job.)
Shh... Nobody tell him there's swords in Minecraft.
My mistake. The price points are $399 for the 16GB model and $499 for the 32GB.
She's the kind of Republican that gives money to Democrats.
Asus Transformer has all those features for $299.
Do you want some state bureaucrats knowing how much you spend on, say, porn? That's why that won't work.
I live in the NYC area. I'm still not sure what, specifically, they're advocating. I saw a list of their demands that I had seen quoted from on their website, and they put a disclaimer along with it that THIS IS JUST ONE GUY'S OPINION AND NOT THAT OF THE WHOLE MOVEMENT. (Apparently, this is the guy that said "Free college education.") Are there specific policies, laws, etc. they want enacted, or is the message of the protest just BAWWWW?
You must be the life of the party when an american brings up the topic of "american football" (as opposed to real football = soccer). I'm from the US, our style of football is somewhat popular here (only around 5% really care, but at least 50% go along to get along with them). So our style of football is very american, oh well.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but Gridiron Football is far and away the most popular sport in the United States. Gridiron football has been the most popular sport on American television since 1965, and at the moment, it's the only sport that can support two leagues (NFL and NCAA) that are major enough to have regular television contracts.
As far as real football being "soccer," most games called "football" are derived from rugby. "Foot" in their name refers to the fact that the ball was historically 12 inches long from tip to tip. Association Football/Soccer is the sole exception. It was derived from other middle ages games played by peasants. These games were played "on foot" as opposed to games played by nobles (like polo) which were played "on a horse." ("Soccer" was apparently something called "Oxford slang" for "association") Wikipedia has a whole article on the word "Football."
I can't even begin to imagine the paperwork and financial resources required to let me change my neighbor's oil for a couple bucks... but I can change my own (so far) without too much govt interference, although they're working on it...
I'm a conservative. I think one of the major problems with the economy today is TOO MUCH government regulation. That said, most/all jurisdictions allow "personal sales" between neighbors, which allow things like changing your neighbor's oil or having your kid mow their lawn or babysitting or whatever. Have you actually looked into this?
This is only true of the 1st Generation, 30 Gig Zunes. The 2nd Generation models (4, 8, 80 and 120 GB) and the HDs (16, 32, and 64 GB) were based off Microsoft designs.
The majority of school funding comes from property taxes. How many illegals pay property taxes?
jk...I'm not a big fan of his company, but RIP.
Seconded. I'm a huge fan of the TF-101, and it's amazing how every time one of these HURF DURF NOBODY BEATS IPAD articles comes out, somebody always mentions the Transformer. It's a shame that the earthquake screwed up their initial production run so badly and that Asus didn't market it the way they could have. I know I've sold at least two people on it by just popping the screen off and handing it to them to show them a photo or something.
I'm no fan of Apple, but what business is it of the governments what price I put on my goods. If people don't like my price, they're free to buy someone else's.
"Maximized profit" isn't a human right.
Neither is an iPad.
Apple has a patent on round things.
That is the OPPOSITE MESSAGE from what the story actually says. Does slashdot even have editors anymore?
To be even more fair, the question was about "is into chicks." If gays and lesbians occur with the same frequency in the population of men and women, respectively, they would cancel each other out. But if bisexuals ALSO occur with the same frequency regardless of gender, they don't cancel each other out, but instead that number counds twice.
If you merely wish to say you feel that the duties and authority of government should be clearly articulated, that would be one thing, but I sincerely doubt that's the case. If it were, then you would be open to the idea of holding a convention to discuss the parameters for a modern day, where we can discuss things on their own merits, and not with some people relying on what was written centuries ago as if it were the last and absolute word.
The principles of the Constitution are "All Government shall have limits," "Federal Power shall be divided between the three branches of the federal government," and "Power shall be divided between the Federal government, the state governments, and the people as individuals." (The second two are both subsets of the first.) Everything within the Constitution fits into at least one of those three categories. Which of those categories should doesn't fit into the modern world?
Secondly, there's a number of people who believe that the War Powers Act itself is an unconstitutional restriction on the power of the Presidency. The Constitution says that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" (Article II Section 2) For its part, Congress is given the powers to "Declare War," "Raise and Support Armies," "Make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces," "to provide for calling forth the Militia," and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." (Article I Section 8.) Basically, Congress approves spending money, and then the Executive oversees the programs on which it is spent. Just like every other law, program, and department the Constitution provides for.
McCain is among those who oppose the War Powers Act as unconstitutional. I know he was part of the effort to retroactively provide for an Authorization for Use of Force because not doing so would cause a situation where the Executive branch was openly violating the law of the land, and that Shouldn't Happen. I don't know the status of that effort*.
Obama, on the other hand, supports the War Powers Act and has throughout his public life. Except, apparently, when it requires him to explain to Congress why military action is necessary. Somebody's a hypocrite here, and it's not McCain.
*It should also be noted that at the beginning of the Libyan operation, Obama could have gotten his Authorization if he had made a case, any case, in favor of it. There's a lot to choose from. Gaddafi was gunning down civilians from airplanes. Hell, he BLEW UP a passenger jet back in the 80's. This is a bad dude, and if the rebels we're helping are any better, there's a serious case to be made to do so. But since Obama has refused to give basic information (like criteria required for victory) nobody's going to support it.
Well, the War Powers Act requires him to get an Authorization for the Use of Force (or a Declaration of War) for Libya, which would come from Congress.