That would explain why every nation with faster internet has net neutrality.
Oh.
Ok, but at least the 10 megabits offered by Comcast is faster than the 10 gigabits offered by Chattanooga.
Oh.
But at least there's competition, except wherever there's a non-compete deal in place or wherever the major vendors just destroy the lines and equipment of startups, or wherever there's deliberate throttling when peering, or where lawsuits are used maliciously to bankrupt rivals.
Give me Sweden's 50 gigabit links or give me death.
First, define hurt. A vaccine injection hurts for a moment but helps for many years.
Why should Warren care if her law dents money she won't notice, if the amount it saves her over, say, ten years exceeds the amount it costs her over ten years?
Those who care about any pain, regardless of gain, are penny wise and dollar foolish. They're not the people you want in charge.
For those who create that which they then profess to hate, then make worse in the name of improvement and enslave in the name of freedom.
I have very little time for the right wing extremists that make up American politics, and less for those that support such gibberish.
The idea, whilst sound, is doomed to fail because voters want dysfunction and a corrupt government. They want things to fail. The Libertarians and Republicans especially, but I'd say 60% if Democrats as well.
There are a lot of best and brightest at NASA, CERN and Fermilab that would disagree. IPv4 was not designed by a corporation, neither was the Manchester Mk 1.
Linux' two top gurus, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox, were not working in bakeries or bars. (Yes, being a student at a government-backed facility is working for the government. They were not working for private enterprise.)
We saw private enterprise at work in the 2004 DARPA Challenge. Not a single automated vehicle finished. Most crashed on the first corner.
Ah, yes, just as each State can create its own IETF and invent its own Internet protocols. Or maybe each State can set its own width of railway track, or define its own units of measurement.
Sometimes standards are useful.
Americans are determined that the Feds should not hold to standards, then complain when the Feds have no standards.
And it is being used on individuals but not the germ line.
It needs to move there, though. There are a number of rare genetic conditions we can edit out safely. We should do so.
We don't know the genes for intelligence, it seems more complex than that anyway, so I'm not worried about that.
Therapy should never be at family request but should have agreed life-or-death medical value as understood by genetic experts with no political or commercial links whatsoever.
In other words, pharmaceutical companies, churches and government agencies can bog off. This is for the adults in the room and that lot don't qualify.
Until we've a better understanding of shared genes (genes perform multiple roles and change those roles over a lifetime) and a better understanding of how to leverage genetic conditions advantageously, only things that are almost certain to kill should qualify for treatment.
They do nothing without clear and compelling evidence. And even then have been known to delay.
There were cases in an earlier Boeing aircraft of metallic particles in hydraulic fluid causing crashes, but the FAA and NTSB held off on action because they couldn't prove that was the cause of the accidents in the lab.
Turned out their lab tests were faulty.
Once upon a time, they were too proactive, demanding changes without proper testing or evaluation. That also caused crashes, which is why they prefer to do nothing over doing too much.
The second aircraft was in flames prior to the flight terminating abruptly on the ground. It has been suggested that overworked controls fighting with an overly aggressive antistall device may have caused that.
Moreover, we must remember the 777. It suffered multiple near-disasters with battery packs in flames in the first few flights. This would suggest poor testing procedures.
Conditions for both crashes are very, very different from those in America, so if it's an environmental factor that triggered the fault, the FAA are likely correct.
If it's a design flaw triggered, as with the 777, by unusual system loads, then it could happen at any time.
If the accident reports are indeterminate and crashes remain in one part of the world, it's environmental.
Remember, unsafe designs don't explode on first use. The DC9 and original 737 were incredibly bad designs. But they only failed occasionally. Even the Comet completed more flights than not.
You'd need to perform a similar set of experiments with waverider airfoils, where the planes essentially surf the shockwave, to get a comprehensive picture.
Comcast quality of service has gone down, network speeds in general have gone down, Verizon cut off multiple firefighters tackling wildfires endangering the lives of crews and civilians, telemedicine has become unsafe.
That should be enough.
Either admit to being wrong or don't bother replying.
You're thinking in isolation. And most tourists do, granted. Fools.
I never just look at Stonehenge. Which, by the way, has more than two stones. I look at Avebury, Silbury Hill, West Kennet Barrow, Woodhenge, The Sanctuary, the King's Barrows, the Ridgeway, a good view of the Great Cursus.
And, no, you can't get at Nine Maiden's what you get at Stonehenge, different construction style for a start and very different philosophy.
Sure, there are those who see a pile of stones. I can't educate those who are blind to reason, so I don't care about them. I care about the people who are intrigued by acoustically engineered surfaces, the advanced construction techniques, the landscape in which everything happened.
And it was an incredibly busy landscape rich with symbolism we barely grasp. Stonehenge isn't an isolated thing but a single component of a vast web of functional monuments.
They would not have had domesticated horses. Too early. England didn't get those for a further 2,000 years.
In fact, horses weren't domesticated anywhere at the time Stonehenge was started. Proto-Indo-Europeans only domesticated them 5,000 years ago, but Stonehenge construction had been underway for maybe 500 years by then.
1. We already knew about the quarries, what we didn't have were the actual tools used. We now have them, including wooden items.
2. We already knew about how they could have moved the stones, they're smaller and lighter than sarsens, we didn't know the route. We now know some were transported overland.
3. We didn't know if the stones were quarried specifically for Stonehenge or for a circle in Wales that was dismantled and recycled. We now know it was the former.
The real mystery is why people make a mystery of the known, when the unknown is potentially more interesting.
And when someone runs ANOVA and determines that factor X is significant but factor Y is not, one generally needs a more convincing argument to assert factor Y is really the important one.
Stars are predicted just fine, as are galaxies. Don't know what you're bitching about. There are a few exceptions, where the difference is predictable and follows a fixed rule. There is a little uncertainty as to why that rule is there. This may be Dark Matter, MOND, Emergent Gravity, etc. Precisely the same reason Newton's laws broke down. So unless you reject gravity and believe in mutant space weasels pulling things around, that's simply not even remotely passable as an excuse. So go find one that is acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't increase cholesterol by eating it. Eggs have no impact on your cholesterol level. We've known that for over a decade.
One study seemingly contradicting decades of research isn't significant. Show me the evidence and the significance level.
Cholesterol is produced by the body, it cannot be absorbed in any significant amount.
Odds are, what they're seeing is a correlation between some unhealthy breakfasts and other unhealthy behaviours linked to high bad cholesterol.
That would explain why every nation with faster internet has net neutrality.
Oh.
Ok, but at least the 10 megabits offered by Comcast is faster than the 10 gigabits offered by Chattanooga.
Oh.
But at least there's competition, except wherever there's a non-compete deal in place or wherever the major vendors just destroy the lines and equipment of startups, or wherever there's deliberate throttling when peering, or where lawsuits are used maliciously to bankrupt rivals.
Give me Sweden's 50 gigabit links or give me death.
Are you suggesting that Slashdot ran Clippy as a write-in candidate?
First, define hurt. A vaccine injection hurts for a moment but helps for many years.
Why should Warren care if her law dents money she won't notice, if the amount it saves her over, say, ten years exceeds the amount it costs her over ten years?
Those who care about any pain, regardless of gain, are penny wise and dollar foolish. They're not the people you want in charge.
For those who create that which they then profess to hate, then make worse in the name of improvement and enslave in the name of freedom.
I have very little time for the right wing extremists that make up American politics, and less for those that support such gibberish.
The idea, whilst sound, is doomed to fail because voters want dysfunction and a corrupt government. They want things to fail. The Libertarians and Republicans especially, but I'd say 60% if Democrats as well.
There are a lot of best and brightest at NASA, CERN and Fermilab that would disagree. IPv4 was not designed by a corporation, neither was the Manchester Mk 1.
Linux' two top gurus, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox, were not working in bakeries or bars. (Yes, being a student at a government-backed facility is working for the government. They were not working for private enterprise.)
We saw private enterprise at work in the 2004 DARPA Challenge. Not a single automated vehicle finished. Most crashed on the first corner.
Ah, yes, just as each State can create its own IETF and invent its own Internet protocols. Or maybe each State can set its own width of railway track, or define its own units of measurement.
Sometimes standards are useful.
Americans are determined that the Feds should not hold to standards, then complain when the Feds have no standards.
Besides, Trump just ended State Rights.
Who made government that way.
And it is being used on individuals but not the germ line.
It needs to move there, though. There are a number of rare genetic conditions we can edit out safely. We should do so.
We don't know the genes for intelligence, it seems more complex than that anyway, so I'm not worried about that.
Therapy should never be at family request but should have agreed life-or-death medical value as understood by genetic experts with no political or commercial links whatsoever.
In other words, pharmaceutical companies, churches and government agencies can bog off. This is for the adults in the room and that lot don't qualify.
Until we've a better understanding of shared genes (genes perform multiple roles and change those roles over a lifetime) and a better understanding of how to leverage genetic conditions advantageously, only things that are almost certain to kill should qualify for treatment.
So hair and eye colour are out.
Discovered how to use black holes for time travel. But we won't hear more about them until 2020. The BBC are such bastards at times.
They do nothing without clear and compelling evidence. And even then have been known to delay.
There were cases in an earlier Boeing aircraft of metallic particles in hydraulic fluid causing crashes, but the FAA and NTSB held off on action because they couldn't prove that was the cause of the accidents in the lab.
Turned out their lab tests were faulty.
Once upon a time, they were too proactive, demanding changes without proper testing or evaluation. That also caused crashes, which is why they prefer to do nothing over doing too much.
The second aircraft was in flames prior to the flight terminating abruptly on the ground. It has been suggested that overworked controls fighting with an overly aggressive antistall device may have caused that.
Moreover, we must remember the 777. It suffered multiple near-disasters with battery packs in flames in the first few flights. This would suggest poor testing procedures.
Conditions for both crashes are very, very different from those in America, so if it's an environmental factor that triggered the fault, the FAA are likely correct.
If it's a design flaw triggered, as with the 777, by unusual system loads, then it could happen at any time.
If the accident reports are indeterminate and crashes remain in one part of the world, it's environmental.
Remember, unsafe designs don't explode on first use. The DC9 and original 737 were incredibly bad designs. But they only failed occasionally. Even the Comet completed more flights than not.
You'd need to perform a similar set of experiments with waverider airfoils, where the planes essentially surf the shockwave, to get a comprehensive picture.
Ok.
Comcast quality of service has gone down, network speeds in general have gone down, Verizon cut off multiple firefighters tackling wildfires endangering the lives of crews and civilians, telemedicine has become unsafe.
That should be enough.
Either admit to being wrong or don't bother replying.
You're thinking in isolation. And most tourists do, granted. Fools.
I never just look at Stonehenge. Which, by the way, has more than two stones. I look at Avebury, Silbury Hill, West Kennet Barrow, Woodhenge, The Sanctuary, the King's Barrows, the Ridgeway, a good view of the Great Cursus.
And, no, you can't get at Nine Maiden's what you get at Stonehenge, different construction style for a start and very different philosophy.
Sure, there are those who see a pile of stones. I can't educate those who are blind to reason, so I don't care about them. I care about the people who are intrigued by acoustically engineered surfaces, the advanced construction techniques, the landscape in which everything happened.
And it was an incredibly busy landscape rich with symbolism we barely grasp. Stonehenge isn't an isolated thing but a single component of a vast web of functional monuments.
The circle down the road won't compare.
We'd already known that from chemical composition.
They would not have had domesticated horses. Too early. England didn't get those for a further 2,000 years.
In fact, horses weren't domesticated anywhere at the time Stonehenge was started. Proto-Indo-Europeans only domesticated them 5,000 years ago, but Stonehenge construction had been underway for maybe 500 years by then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...
The new parts aren't quoted or are understated.
1. We already knew about the quarries, what we didn't have were the actual tools used. We now have them, including wooden items.
2. We already knew about how they could have moved the stones, they're smaller and lighter than sarsens, we didn't know the route. We now know some were transported overland.
3. We didn't know if the stones were quarried specifically for Stonehenge or for a circle in Wales that was dismantled and recycled. We now know it was the former.
The real mystery is why people make a mystery of the known, when the unknown is potentially more interesting.
Unless the new planet has an Intel inside. Then the satellite should be SX, and the combined system of planet and satellite DX.
And when someone runs ANOVA and determines that factor X is significant but factor Y is not, one generally needs a more convincing argument to assert factor Y is really the important one.
Lots of people on Slashdot don't understand percentages.
IQ doesn't exist, so probably not.
Any specific raw milk? Or just the store-brand raw milk that's been sitting there for a few days?
Filtered raw milk that came from the dairy maybe a minute and a half ago isn't quite the same stuff.
Earth has no significant acceleration and relativity only applies in an accelerating frame of reference.
Stars are predicted just fine, as are galaxies. Don't know what you're bitching about. There are a few exceptions, where the difference is predictable and follows a fixed rule. There is a little uncertainty as to why that rule is there. This may be Dark Matter, MOND, Emergent Gravity, etc. Precisely the same reason Newton's laws broke down. So unless you reject gravity and believe in mutant space weasels pulling things around, that's simply not even remotely passable as an excuse. So go find one that is acceptable.