You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...
Just like the brave, glorious Afghan mujahedeen that where fighting for their freedom against the vile Russian invaders. Everyone knows the rest.
"Your son is fairly secure in his position as a full partner, but the firm's newest hires are scary. Most of them simply don't sleep, ever; they're at the office for days at a time without rest, and when they do take "time off", they're out skydiving, or rock-climbing, or just partying. Partners have always had the power in law firms -- but how long can they maintain power when their underlings are so much smarter and more ambitious?"
Senior technical person here, >20 years experience. Top performer, creative, award winner, generating new work,etc.
Annual performance review time... Supervisor says. "You're doing great. Your raise is at the top of the range we're allowed to give. You got a bonus. But, there's a bunch of scary smart fresh-outs coming in. They don't sleep, they're incredibly productive, they're cheap (50% of my pay), they aren't married, they don't have kids. What are you going to do to differentiate yourself?"
So you're at the top and expect to stay there forever because....?
The true irony here, is that, automobile manufacturing is a now, and historically since it's invention, American staple. It's become a slap in the face to the buyer that, you no longer can fix your car. WE, only who we say can, fix your car. That's about the most un-American thing I've ever heard!
Apart from the car companies would get to squeeze you for every last cent to maximise profits. Sound pretty American to me.
Well, except it's not a law... not a natural law, not a man-made law... it's an observation, that's about it.
You can call it a law all you like, but that doesn't make it true.
Ergo, meme.
Was Betteridge not a man? And it is a law just like Moore's. Maybe not in a ratified this is in the legal framework and there is a punishment for those that write a headline that can be answered yes but it is a law in the way every non-actual law is a law,
Here I thought we were having an adult discussion on disaster scenarios and you want to talk about bullshit internet memes.
It's not an internet meme it's Betteridge's Law and has been around for ages and is mainly in reference to newspapers. But you look, practically any headline that asks a question, the answer is no.
Fusion is just a pipe dream, like ftl travel. A better solution would be to kill all rich people and Americans.
Yeah just like the heavier than air flight pipe dream and all the shit load of other pipe dreams that have become a reality. So if you're done being no help, kindly fuck off.
Now that I see the video, it looks like it was coming down really well until that last moment.
no way. for a gigantic fragile rocket it came in extremely hot. it was probably moving at 50+ MPH when reached 50 feet of the platform. it didn't slow down much until it was less than 10 feet away. it was also wobbling as it came in.
as much as i'd like to say that was close, it wasn't.
It hit the small boat in a big ocean, almost upright, and almost stabilised itself. I'd say that was pretty damn close.
What I described is basically how it works in the UK, and it works pretty well thanks. openreach sell line to ISPs who sell it on to users. Because an ISP doesn't have to make massive inverstments on network infrastructure or pay prohibitively high fees practically anyone can start an ISP and offer service. Its on them to decide what to charge but you can get packages for very cheap, very expensive and everything inbetween. The only kicker is you have to have a ~£15pcm line rental regardless who you go with.
Here have a look what you could've won. http://www.broadbandchoices.co... Out of the 6 featured packages on the front page when I went on 3 were offering broadband for £0.00 a month + Line rental. Does that support your lack of competition, higher government monopoly price, theory. To be fair though the US gov would probably fuck it up royal and make it worse so....sucks to be you guys.
There's something else to it. Somehow what apple have created is unique to them. Maybe they've figured out the perfect price points for the absolute maximum an average customer will pay and the exact minimum needed to have the air of exclusivity and 'betterness'. The only logical conclusion I can come to is Steve Jobs sold his soul, those of the marketing department and put a clause into the itunes t&c that gifts the users soul also. It's the only scenario in my mind that can explain what they've done.
Trust me when I tell you that the government we have, is definitely not the government we want. The problem is, the corruption is now so engrained within the system, the only way to fix it would be to burn it down and rebuild it from scratch.
Well, seems like the situation is misreported over here (big surprise) if that's true your gov says fuck you even more than I thought, Every time I think how bad the government over here in the UK is I'm always grateful it's not as bad as the US gov. US politics seems to be the most fucked up incomprehensible mess probably unique in all of space and time. I wouldn't be surprised if something did tip the scales to trigger US 2.0, but then it would probably turn out to be a CIA coup or some ultra mega rich guys trying to kickstart the NWO.
No they aren't. They are just doing guesses based on what they think the temperature is at various points of the globe. They can't detect the "winds blowing from the cold to hot side". They are just guessing that they are there because they think there is a temperature differential.
They seem to think this thing is tidally locked, so with the same side always facing the star it's all but guaranteed there's a temperature differential.
Who cares that solar panels only can convert about 10-15% of the power it receives now
That's not the issue. The problem is that solar panels deteriorate over time, and that a collapsed society doesn't have the technological means to build new ones.
All we'd need is something readily available to burn. Sounds like in this scenario there's going to be a lot of bodies laying about. Just saying.
What's your point? Apple rarely competes on price. The bottom of the market is fiercely competitive and thus has razor thin margins. It's a terrible place to try to make money.
So they make something no better, double the price and sell it to twats with more money than sense. That is the apple marketing plan alright.
You probably have one ISP to choose from. What if they dislike Slashdot and charged you extra for visiting Slashdot?
Then that's not Internet access. If I pay for Internet access, I expect Internet access.
Second, why does a hypothetical situation that's never happened justify giving the FCC, home of the nipple-protection-squad, more authority over our Internet?
.
How is that not internet access? You pay for internet access you want to able to access the internet, all of it, not some if it, not tiers of it, all of it, regardless. Second that is exactly what the ISPs are trying to get the power to do (which they will with no regulation) and the FCC seems to be trying to prevent. They want as much power over it as they have over the electric grid. You know, like a fucking utility!
lawful content? I don't remember any such stipulation before. How about saying goodbye to Wikileaks? The Pirate Bay?
Well it's a good job the rest of the world also has internet that can be used. In the UK they've banned access to piratebay and a whole raft of similar sites. Guess what, we can still get on and use every single fucking one because that's how the internet works. What you're doing is trying to say in order to keep that we need to change the way the internet works. Actually when I say we I mean you because the US seems to think it has absolute ownership of it. If this goes into power watch the rest of world route around you and you will be left with a US only net, like NKs filled with only corporate approved messages and advertisement and no doubt you'll pay through the nose for it and proabably say it's the best thing ever.
What problem? The FCC named zero problems. Only hypotheticals that could possibly happen sometime in the future.
Is that a good reason to let them expand their authority? What if they try to reinstate Broadcast Flag, or shut down sex services like they did with phones using Title II? The ends don't justify the means.
Yeah until AT&Com want to charge you an extra fifty bucks a month for the 'adult package' allowing access to 'sex services' as you called it. Oh you want to stream your skin flicks? That'll cost extra for streaming bandwidth. Then you'll be crying how they could let this happen.
Right. People buy Android smartwatches, and you're okay with that. People buy an Apple watch, and they are fools.
You are arrogant to the max. Go spread your hate elsewhere.
No, people buying a million apple watches day one because they're by apple are fools. A few of them will actually want one for a specific purpose or use, but the majority will want one because it's the latest apple gadget and it's some bling. never mind they will hardly use the fucking thing for much more than telling time or maybe reading the odd message or checking missed call. Most of the people deriding apple watch will deride any smartwatch in general but the various android models don't have a cult about them and sell to people who actually want them for something more than just having them.
You said that a free market "does not truly exist," but the current situation "keeps screwing the customer more and more." So the only way to fix the current awful regulation is better regulators? Good luck with that. Remember, the very first time a net neutrality regulator gives preference over one piece of traffic over another, net neutrality regulation is broken. The regulations are then the exact opposite of what you want. How long do you think that will take to happen?
You seem confused. Enabling net neutrality would stop them from giving preferential treatment of one packet over another, if fast/slow lanes are enacted there's no choice but to inspect packets so they can charge and route accordingly. Maybe I'm confused because they seem to have applied the opposite definition to meanings in order to confuse everyone. Basically you want the one that takes ownership of essential infrastructure away from a private corp and put's in the hands of a public entity, a la the power or water grid. Who can then divvy it out to ISPs for a fair price who can then sell it on to consumers without having to recoup monstrous investment costs, thus enabling actual competition in a freeish market that is of benefit to the consumer who gets decent prices and the companies who get to make a fair profit. After all with a bunch of players the price will be what the market will support not what the sole provider dictates.
It locks in profits for big incumbent players while blocking innovation and competition. And through regulatory capture and revolving-door personnel moves those large incumbent corporations write the rules used to govern them.
Think of the Treasury Department, where our financial system rules are set by a bunch of Wall Street-bred tax cheats.
That's GOOD!?!?!?!
It doesn't though. Look at the way it works in the UK (basically what the FCC are trying to set up) All the backbone infrastructure is owned by BT openreach who sell it onto ISPs. Any one can start an ISP and get lines from openreach for public sale without having to make massive investment in building a network or paying prohibitively high fees to a private owner who can charge what the fuck they want. Therefore there are plenty of ISPs in competition all offering the product to their own niche or with their twist. You can go with BT/Sky/Virgin for full on tv/phone/net packages for up to £100+pcm or you can go with a no frills service like plusnet and get a decent speed line (8mb+) for as little as £2.50pcm or anything inbetween.
What you guys seem perfectly happy with is one provider owning everything and charging monopoly prices because your other choice is not having it and fuck you. I really don't understand how any of the US public can be for that. It's just as baffling as when a bunch of you lost your shit because the government wanted to offer universal health care to poor people. But we forget good health, like utilities apparently is a privilege not a right in the US, self proclaimed bastion of good and righteousness, that's only for the rich though, everyone else can fuck off.
The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in a modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?
MORE PROFIT! (for the corps that set the rules at least)
That's about 1/10 of what net neutrality proponents Google and Facebook spent.
So which megacorp gets to buy the rules they want? Looks like it's being done by the Golden Rule - thems with the gold makes the rules. And Google's got the most gold.
So are you annoyed AT&T won't be able to charge you (and facebook/google/any popular site) a premium to connect to their sites at a decent speed? If you even pay for the search engine and social media packages.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...
Just like the brave, glorious Afghan mujahedeen that where fighting for their freedom against the vile Russian invaders. Everyone knows the rest.
Typical Policeman wants other people to do all the work to prevent crime and wants rid of anything that can be possibly used for crime.
"Your son is fairly secure in his position as a full partner, but the firm's newest hires are scary. Most of them simply don't sleep, ever; they're at the office for days at a time without rest, and when they do take "time off", they're out skydiving, or rock-climbing, or just partying. Partners have always had the power in law firms -- but how long can they maintain power when their underlings are so much smarter and more ambitious?"
Senior technical person here, >20 years experience. Top performer, creative, award winner, generating new work,etc.
Annual performance review time... Supervisor says. "You're doing great. Your raise is at the top of the range we're allowed to give. You got a bonus. But, there's a bunch of scary smart fresh-outs coming in. They don't sleep, they're incredibly productive, they're cheap (50% of my pay), they aren't married, they don't have kids. What are you going to do to differentiate yourself?"
So you're at the top and expect to stay there forever because....?
Your nuts. .
What about his nuts?
The true irony here, is that, automobile manufacturing is a now, and historically since it's invention, American staple. It's become a slap in the face to the buyer that, you no longer can fix your car. WE, only who we say can, fix your car. That's about the most un-American thing I've ever heard!
Apart from the car companies would get to squeeze you for every last cent to maximise profits. Sound pretty American to me.
Well, if one of the LEDs in your modern headlights breaks, you're gonna need a completely new headlight unit. That can be a cool grand or two.
Well don't buy a car with LEDs in the headlights
Well, except it's not a law ... not a natural law, not a man-made law ... it's an observation, that's about it.
You can call it a law all you like, but that doesn't make it true.
Ergo, meme.
Was Betteridge not a man? And it is a law just like Moore's. Maybe not in a ratified this is in the legal framework and there is a punishment for those that write a headline that can be answered yes but it is a law in the way every non-actual law is a law,
Here I thought we were having an adult discussion on disaster scenarios and you want to talk about bullshit internet memes.
It's not an internet meme it's Betteridge's Law and has been around for ages and is mainly in reference to newspapers. But you look, practically any headline that asks a question, the answer is no.
Fusion is just a pipe dream, like ftl travel. A better solution would be to kill all rich people and Americans.
Yeah just like the heavier than air flight pipe dream and all the shit load of other pipe dreams that have become a reality. So if you're done being no help, kindly fuck off.
Now that I see the video, it looks like it was coming down really well until that last moment.
no way. for a gigantic fragile rocket it came in extremely hot. it was probably moving at 50+ MPH when reached 50 feet of the platform. it didn't slow down much until it was less than 10 feet away. it was also wobbling as it came in.
as much as i'd like to say that was close, it wasn't.
It hit the small boat in a big ocean, almost upright, and almost stabilised itself. I'd say that was pretty damn close.
Oh and unlimited downloads is the norm too. You have to really mess it up to get on a line with a download limit.
What I described is basically how it works in the UK, and it works pretty well thanks. openreach sell line to ISPs who sell it on to users. Because an ISP doesn't have to make massive inverstments on network infrastructure or pay prohibitively high fees practically anyone can start an ISP and offer service. Its on them to decide what to charge but you can get packages for very cheap, very expensive and everything inbetween. The only kicker is you have to have a ~£15pcm line rental regardless who you go with.
Here have a look what you could've won. http://www.broadbandchoices.co... Out of the 6 featured packages on the front page when I went on 3 were offering broadband for £0.00 a month + Line rental. Does that support your lack of competition, higher government monopoly price, theory. To be fair though the US gov would probably fuck it up royal and make it worse so....sucks to be you guys.
There's something else to it. Somehow what apple have created is unique to them. Maybe they've figured out the perfect price points for the absolute maximum an average customer will pay and the exact minimum needed to have the air of exclusivity and 'betterness'. The only logical conclusion I can come to is Steve Jobs sold his soul, those of the marketing department and put a clause into the itunes t&c that gifts the users soul also. It's the only scenario in my mind that can explain what they've done.
Trust me when I tell you that the government we have, is definitely not the government we want. The problem is, the corruption is now so engrained within the system, the only way to fix it would be to burn it down and rebuild it from scratch.
Well, seems like the situation is misreported over here (big surprise) if that's true your gov says fuck you even more than I thought, Every time I think how bad the government over here in the UK is I'm always grateful it's not as bad as the US gov. US politics seems to be the most fucked up incomprehensible mess probably unique in all of space and time. I wouldn't be surprised if something did tip the scales to trigger US 2.0, but then it would probably turn out to be a CIA coup or some ultra mega rich guys trying to kickstart the NWO.
No they aren't. They are just doing guesses based on what they think the temperature is at various points of the globe. They can't detect the "winds blowing from the cold to hot side". They are just guessing that they are there because they think there is a temperature differential.
They seem to think this thing is tidally locked, so with the same side always facing the star it's all but guaranteed there's a temperature differential.
Who cares that solar panels only can convert about 10-15% of the power it receives now
That's not the issue. The problem is that solar panels deteriorate over time, and that a collapsed society doesn't have the technological means to build new ones.
All we'd need is something readily available to burn. Sounds like in this scenario there's going to be a lot of bodies laying about. Just saying.
What's your point? Apple rarely competes on price. The bottom of the market is fiercely competitive and thus has razor thin margins. It's a terrible place to try to make money.
So they make something no better, double the price and sell it to twats with more money than sense. That is the apple marketing plan alright.
You probably have one ISP to choose from. What if they dislike Slashdot and charged you extra for visiting Slashdot?
Then that's not Internet access. If I pay for Internet access, I expect Internet access.
Second, why does a hypothetical situation that's never happened justify giving the FCC, home of the nipple-protection-squad, more authority over our Internet?
How is that not internet access? You pay for internet access you want to able to access the internet, all of it, not some if it, not tiers of it, all of it, regardless. Second that is exactly what the ISPs are trying to get the power to do (which they will with no regulation) and the FCC seems to be trying to prevent. They want as much power over it as they have over the electric grid. You know, like a fucking utility!
lawful content? I don't remember any such stipulation before. How about saying goodbye to Wikileaks? The Pirate Bay?
Well it's a good job the rest of the world also has internet that can be used. In the UK they've banned access to piratebay and a whole raft of similar sites. Guess what, we can still get on and use every single fucking one because that's how the internet works. What you're doing is trying to say in order to keep that we need to change the way the internet works. Actually when I say we I mean you because the US seems to think it has absolute ownership of it. If this goes into power watch the rest of world route around you and you will be left with a US only net, like NKs filled with only corporate approved messages and advertisement and no doubt you'll pay through the nose for it and proabably say it's the best thing ever.
What problem? The FCC named zero problems. Only hypotheticals that could possibly happen sometime in the future.
Is that a good reason to let them expand their authority? What if they try to reinstate Broadcast Flag, or shut down sex services like they did with phones using Title II? The ends don't justify the means.
Yeah until AT&Com want to charge you an extra fifty bucks a month for the 'adult package' allowing access to 'sex services' as you called it. Oh you want to stream your skin flicks? That'll cost extra for streaming bandwidth. Then you'll be crying how they could let this happen.
Right. People buy Android smartwatches, and you're okay with that. People buy an Apple watch, and they are fools.
You are arrogant to the max. Go spread your hate elsewhere.
No, people buying a million apple watches day one because they're by apple are fools. A few of them will actually want one for a specific purpose or use, but the majority will want one because it's the latest apple gadget and it's some bling. never mind they will hardly use the fucking thing for much more than telling time or maybe reading the odd message or checking missed call. Most of the people deriding apple watch will deride any smartwatch in general but the various android models don't have a cult about them and sell to people who actually want them for something more than just having them.
You said that a free market "does not truly exist," but the current situation "keeps screwing the customer more and more." So the only way to fix the current awful regulation is better regulators? Good luck with that. Remember, the very first time a net neutrality regulator gives preference over one piece of traffic over another, net neutrality regulation is broken. The regulations are then the exact opposite of what you want. How long do you think that will take to happen?
You seem confused. Enabling net neutrality would stop them from giving preferential treatment of one packet over another, if fast/slow lanes are enacted there's no choice but to inspect packets so they can charge and route accordingly. Maybe I'm confused because they seem to have applied the opposite definition to meanings in order to confuse everyone. Basically you want the one that takes ownership of essential infrastructure away from a private corp and put's in the hands of a public entity, a la the power or water grid. Who can then divvy it out to ISPs for a fair price who can then sell it on to consumers without having to recoup monstrous investment costs, thus enabling actual competition in a freeish market that is of benefit to the consumer who gets decent prices and the companies who get to make a fair profit. After all with a bunch of players the price will be what the market will support not what the sole provider dictates.
It locks in profits for big incumbent players while blocking innovation and competition. And through regulatory capture and revolving-door personnel moves those large incumbent corporations write the rules used to govern them.
Think of the Treasury Department, where our financial system rules are set by a bunch of Wall Street-bred tax cheats.
That's GOOD!?!?!?!
It doesn't though. Look at the way it works in the UK (basically what the FCC are trying to set up) All the backbone infrastructure is owned by BT openreach who sell it onto ISPs. Any one can start an ISP and get lines from openreach for public sale without having to make massive investment in building a network or paying prohibitively high fees to a private owner who can charge what the fuck they want. Therefore there are plenty of ISPs in competition all offering the product to their own niche or with their twist. You can go with BT/Sky/Virgin for full on tv/phone/net packages for up to £100+pcm or you can go with a no frills service like plusnet and get a decent speed line (8mb+) for as little as £2.50pcm or anything inbetween.
What you guys seem perfectly happy with is one provider owning everything and charging monopoly prices because your other choice is not having it and fuck you. I really don't understand how any of the US public can be for that. It's just as baffling as when a bunch of you lost your shit because the government wanted to offer universal health care to poor people. But we forget good health, like utilities apparently is a privilege not a right in the US, self proclaimed bastion of good and righteousness, that's only for the rich though, everyone else can fuck off.
The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in a modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?
MORE PROFIT! (for the corps that set the rules at least)
Thanks for the telephone folks.
Here are the links for computers and internet:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B12++
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?ind=B12++
Your #1 - AT&T, spent $3 million on lobbying.
That's about 1/10 of what net neutrality proponents Google and Facebook spent.
So which megacorp gets to buy the rules they want? Looks like it's being done by the Golden Rule - thems with the gold makes the rules. And Google's got the most gold.
So are you annoyed AT&T won't be able to charge you (and facebook/google/any popular site) a premium to connect to their sites at a decent speed? If you even pay for the search engine and social media packages.