On the other hand, this is where having all of the episodes of a season can be handy. When Agents of SHIELD first came on the air, I watched the first episode and liked it, but missed the next three episodes for some reason. At the time, I didn't have any (legal) streaming options for this show, so I just didn't watch it. Luckily, the entire season came on Netflix so I could binge it, but not before Season 2 started. Back then, I set my DVR to record the Season 2 episodes so I could catch up. Nowadays, since I cut cable, I'd just watch the previous episodes on Hulu (assuming I caught them before Hulu removed them).
Don't forget that the unemployment rate is 42%. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate peaked at 25%. If it was actually 40% now, they would be rioting in the streets.
Energy and the rules about creation of new energy are contained with the Universe. We have no clue how this would function outside of the Universe. Maybe there's an infinite supply of energy there - more than enough to spawn billions of Universes. Maybe the normal rules of physics don't apply (quite likely, actually) and creating a Universe winds up kicking off a process that spawns two more Universes. I'm not sure how testable any of this is - that's a question for physicists - but you certainly can't discount a multiverse because it would use up all the energy in the Universe.
As an American Jew, I see the efforts to give religion a stronger role in the USA's government and it frightens me. First of all, the religion that's pushed is always Christianity so I'd become a second class citizen unless I decided to worship Christ. Not that I'd support it if Judaism was the "official religion", mind you, because of my second point which is that I've seen where "Religion And State Are Mixed" ends up and it's never good. Historically speaking, we Americans fled from such a system. (The King of England ran the Church of England and you basically needed to be a member of that church to participate in government.) The Founding Fathers wisely saw the problems with this and wanted a Separation of Church and State. They didn't want religion mucking in government or vice versa. Which brings me to the third point. Anyone who wants to mix religion and government is foolish because it goes both ways. Do you really want the GOVERNMENT having a say in how you worship? Or telling you what your clergy must do to be Official Government Church Clergy? Or how your holidays are celebrated? I would think that the same people who want government out of their lives in other aspects would be frightened about having the government dictate their religious practices. Of course, looping back to my first point, when people in favor of this picture "church and state mixed", they picture THEIR form of religion running the show. Replace their religion with someone else's, though, and suddenly they're opposed to this horrible government overreach. As long as they get to impose their will on others, it's fine but they won't stand for anyone else doing the same to them.
You bolded the first part, but the second part is important too:
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
This means that, even if Obama did have Trump wiretapped, it was likely due to connections to a foreign power (likely Russia). So "Obama wiretapped me" is another way of saying "I was communicating with Russia."
Of course, all of these allegations are built literally from Conspiracy ramblings. Trump got his information from Breitbart who got their information from Mark Levin, a conspiracy theorist who thinks Obama's heading a silent coup. (Yes, he's so insidious that he turned over power to Trump while moving his coup forward.) We have a President who - with access to the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc - decides that a right-wing conspiracy theorist is his best source.
And just to add to the head-shakingly-sad nature of this, some Republicans in Congress want to open investigations on Obama based solely off of Trump's tweets (with Trump's staff specifically saying he doesn't need to provide any evidence that this is true). Yet, with all of the Russia connections coming out, they are dragging their feet as to whether a Trump-Russia investigation is needed. Party before Country!
Wait... Are you saying that Alexander Hamilton DIDN'T break into song about the million things he hadn't done and how he wasn't going to throw away his shot?
That's what I use too. There's even an Android version that I use with a copy of my PasswordSafe file stored in the cloud so I can get to my passwords on the go.
Which is one reason why expiring users passwords too often leads to insecure passwords. If your password is going to last for a year, you might use a 20 character string including various special characters and caps/lower case mixing. If your password needs to be changed every month, you'll get the PASSWORD1, PASSWORD2, PASSWORD3, etc. variations.
The USB port is right next to the power port. (This is a 3 year old Toshiba Satellite L-70A.) That USB port had previously lost the little plastic tab that the USB leads usually rest on. My best guess is that my son jammed the round power plug into the rectangular USB hole and one of the USB leads entered the power plug, completing the circuit.
As I told my son after he fried my laptop a couple of days ago (plugged the power cable into a USB slot because he wasn't paying attention), it's not whether you make a mistake or not, it's whether you learn from it. In my son's case, it's "pay attention when plugging in electrical devices." In PwC's case, it might be "don't tweet while handing the envelopes out" or "design the envelopes/cards to more easily convey their information."
From what I've heard, one of the PwC accountants was busy tweeting backstage. He was distracted and handed Warren the wrong envelope. The rest is now Oscar history.
Pretty much. And the courts, for the most part, assume that a patent is valid if the patent office has approved it (unless you can prove otherwise which is an uphill battle). This is what makes the patent system so ripe for abuse.
I'm not someone who believes the government solves all problems, but it does have its place. In many situations, removing the government doesn't make people work harder, but just makes big companies and the wealthy take advantage of people more. Less regulations can lead to more unsafe products, dirtier air/water (as they dump their waste where ever they feel like it), or worse employee benefits/pay/working conditions.
In the case of Network Neutrality, I currently have only one option for wired, high speed Internet: Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable). If Spectrum, tomorrow, announced that I needed to pay $5 extra a month for access to Netflix, I'd have three options: 1) pay up, 2) don't pay up, don't watch Netflix, but keep my Internet service, or 3) cancel Spectrum and not have home Internet. Given that 3 isn't an option and that there is a lot that I, my wife, and my kids watch on Netflix, we'd be pressured to pay the extra money. Since there is no competition, voting with my wallet isn't an option. Taking them to court also isn't likely to work - they have a team of lawyers that could tangle me up in litigation until I went bankrupt.
In this example, the only option for me is for the government to step in. The government is (at least theoretically) answerable to me and other voters while corporations - especially monopolies - aren't beholden to do anything for me beyond take my money every month. If Spectrum were to enact a $5 Netflix Access Fee in my example, the FCC (or another government agency) could step in and say "You're not allowed to do this." Spectrum can't just laugh off the Federal Government and would be forced to change business practices.*
* Theoretically speaking. Practically speaking, what companies seem to do is change just enough to stay within the law and then pour money into lobbying the government to walk back the protections in the name of "helping businesses grow." Dealing with the massive corporate lobbying problem is another topic entirely.
I'm not saying that socialism or communism is the answer. (Then again, socialism isn't the boogeyman that many in the US think it is.) I'm just saying that making the rich richer doesn't result in a better life for the middle class and poor. It results in a poorer middle class, less assistance for the poor, and more money/power concentrated in fewer hands.
Then replace "a Comcast.com video" with "a Hulu video." Comcast has an ownership stake in Hulu so the more people who watch Hulu instead of Netflix, the more profit Comcast sees. If they slowed down Netflix, but kept Hulu running at high speeds, then people might switch services and line Comcast's pockets more. Network Neutrality says that this is wrong and shouldn't be done. Comcast is opposing Net Neutrality because they want to fiddle with the speeds of various services to either get those services to pay money ("that's a nice web service you have, it'd be a shame if it slowed to a crawl") or to boost their own offerings ("is Netflix buffering again? You'd never see Hulu buffering!").
You were talking about having to go through gigantic organizations. While you do need to pay a registrar and a hosting company, there are plenty to choose from. You could go with a large company like GoDaddy or a smaller outfit. You can avoid companies that you don't like or switch companies if the one you're with does something you don't like. If you think you can go through life (much less making a website) without dealing with corporations at all, you're sorely mistaken. Fortunately, web hosting/registrars is one place where there's a healthy competition instead of a giant monopoly/duopoly.
No, you see "huge market failure" is now defined as "companies aren't making as much money as they could." If they kill Net Neutrality and other FCC rules, ISPs can spike their prices, sell our information, make even more profits, and the market will succeed! (He doesn't care about what happens to us so long as we're forking over those monthly ISP payments.)
It's not that no packet should be higher priority than another packet, but that no two packets of the same type are different priority. So a Comcast.com video would get the same QoS as a Netflix video over Comcast's lines even if a GMail packet is slowed down to let both of those video streaming packets go faster.
The only exemption would be for network threats like spam or DDOS - and even then, you need to be careful that Comcast doesn't deem Netflix a "network threat" because people aren't paying more for Comcast Ultra Streaming Service and drop their packets.
Technically, he is right. The ISP's WERE doing fine under the old rules. The "old rules" were that Network Neutrality was assumed. The problem came up when the ISP's themselves started talking about doing away with what were essentially long-standing "Net Neutrality" policies in the hunt for more money. For example, they claimed that Netflix was using their bandwidth for free (Netflix paid for their own bandwidth) and said they would slow down Netflix's streams unless Netflix paid them money. Of course, these costs would be passed to customers so people rose up and demanded Network Neutrality. The rules that the FCC stipulated were essentially just enshrining in "law" (well, FCC policy) what previously had been an assumption about the way business was run.
Buy domain name: $10-15 a year (depending on which registrar you use) Get a Managed VPS server: $40 a month.* Set up WordPress: Free** Use a free WordPress theme: Free Spend some time setting up the theme: Essentially free.
Now, you might want to hire a web developer (such as myself) to fine tune the site and tweak the design to make it look nicer, but at a base you're talking about spending under $500 a year to host a website without any connection to Amazon, Facebook, or another large organization.
* You could get a Shared Hosting setup and might be able to save some cash, but those tend to be horrible for anything other than a "postcard website."
** I know some people hate WordPress. Personally, I like it. Either way, I was using it as an option that people could use to set up their own website inexpensively. There are tons of other options out there that have nothing to do with Amazon/Facebook so feel free to replace WordPress with some other CMS.
That's their official policy only because saying "We believe in giving more money to the rich because we don't care about poor slobs - only people who make over a million a year" wouldn't get them votes. So they say "we're giving this billionaire $1 million, he'll definitely use it to hire people and not spend it on a third yacht like he used the last $2 million. Eventually, that million will go into your pockets. Aren't we generous? Vote Me!" The sad thing is that, no matter how many times "trickle down" is disproved, people keep flocking back to it and thinking it'll work perfectly this time. All they need are even LESS checks on the wealthy so that they'll deign to use some of their immense wealth to people who are struggling to make ends meet.
As others have stated, QoS is fine for ISPs to do. If you wanted to slow down e-mails slightly so that video streams went faster, that would be perfectly fine. Nobody's going to notice their e-mails arriving 3 seconds late, but people would notice their videos buffering for an extra three seconds. The problem is when ISPs make "video from Netflix" a low priority so that their own video streams can go faster. A better version of #3 would state:
3. No customer requested traffic is EVER restricted based on source for ANY reason.
This would keep an ISP from slowing down Netflix to speed up their own videos and the "customer requested" section would also give the ISPs leeway to block spam or DDOS attacks. (I was going to replace "for ANY reason" with "except for network stability", but then ISPs might - wrongly - claim that Netflix is crashing their networks and they "need" to slow it down to stabilize the system.)
There are resources, but teachers like to customize it rather than use the same cookie-cutter approach. It's especially important if you have any special needs kids in your class who might not learn well in a "One Size Fits All" approach but who might excel if a different approach is taken.
If you wait until you're sure you can afford to have kids, you'd never have them. Though I will agree that, if you have one kid are are struggling financially, you need to think twice before having a second. And the same goes exponentially more after 2 kids. On the positive side, there are ways to "afford" to have kids by cutting back on other expenses that might have seemed "totally necessary" before you had children. On the negative side, kids have a way of causing budget-breaking expenses like illnesses and injuries. My second son fell on his head more times than I can count and had multiple febrile seizures where he stopped breathing. All of those ER trips are expensive and are really hard to factor into a budget.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, this is where having all of the episodes of a season can be handy. When Agents of SHIELD first came on the air, I watched the first episode and liked it, but missed the next three episodes for some reason. At the time, I didn't have any (legal) streaming options for this show, so I just didn't watch it. Luckily, the entire season came on Netflix so I could binge it, but not before Season 2 started. Back then, I set my DVR to record the Season 2 episodes so I could catch up. Nowadays, since I cut cable, I'd just watch the previous episodes on Hulu (assuming I caught them before Hulu removed them).
Don't forget that the unemployment rate is 42%. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate peaked at 25%. If it was actually 40% now, they would be rioting in the streets.
Energy and the rules about creation of new energy are contained with the Universe. We have no clue how this would function outside of the Universe. Maybe there's an infinite supply of energy there - more than enough to spawn billions of Universes. Maybe the normal rules of physics don't apply (quite likely, actually) and creating a Universe winds up kicking off a process that spawns two more Universes. I'm not sure how testable any of this is - that's a question for physicists - but you certainly can't discount a multiverse because it would use up all the energy in the Universe.
As an American Jew, I see the efforts to give religion a stronger role in the USA's government and it frightens me. First of all, the religion that's pushed is always Christianity so I'd become a second class citizen unless I decided to worship Christ. Not that I'd support it if Judaism was the "official religion", mind you, because of my second point which is that I've seen where "Religion And State Are Mixed" ends up and it's never good. Historically speaking, we Americans fled from such a system. (The King of England ran the Church of England and you basically needed to be a member of that church to participate in government.) The Founding Fathers wisely saw the problems with this and wanted a Separation of Church and State. They didn't want religion mucking in government or vice versa. Which brings me to the third point. Anyone who wants to mix religion and government is foolish because it goes both ways. Do you really want the GOVERNMENT having a say in how you worship? Or telling you what your clergy must do to be Official Government Church Clergy? Or how your holidays are celebrated? I would think that the same people who want government out of their lives in other aspects would be frightened about having the government dictate their religious practices. Of course, looping back to my first point, when people in favor of this picture "church and state mixed", they picture THEIR form of religion running the show. Replace their religion with someone else's, though, and suddenly they're opposed to this horrible government overreach. As long as they get to impose their will on others, it's fine but they won't stand for anyone else doing the same to them.
You bolded the first part, but the second part is important too:
This means that, even if Obama did have Trump wiretapped, it was likely due to connections to a foreign power (likely Russia). So "Obama wiretapped me" is another way of saying "I was communicating with Russia."
Of course, all of these allegations are built literally from Conspiracy ramblings. Trump got his information from Breitbart who got their information from Mark Levin, a conspiracy theorist who thinks Obama's heading a silent coup. (Yes, he's so insidious that he turned over power to Trump while moving his coup forward.) We have a President who - with access to the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc - decides that a right-wing conspiracy theorist is his best source.
And just to add to the head-shakingly-sad nature of this, some Republicans in Congress want to open investigations on Obama based solely off of Trump's tweets (with Trump's staff specifically saying he doesn't need to provide any evidence that this is true). Yet, with all of the Russia connections coming out, they are dragging their feet as to whether a Trump-Russia investigation is needed. Party before Country!
Wait... Are you saying that Alexander Hamilton DIDN'T break into song about the million things he hadn't done and how he wasn't going to throw away his shot?
That's what I use too. There's even an Android version that I use with a copy of my PasswordSafe file stored in the cloud so I can get to my passwords on the go.
Which is one reason why expiring users passwords too often leads to insecure passwords. If your password is going to last for a year, you might use a 20 character string including various special characters and caps/lower case mixing. If your password needs to be changed every month, you'll get the PASSWORD1, PASSWORD2, PASSWORD3, etc. variations.
It's easy to get confused when dealing with wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff.
The USB port is right next to the power port. (This is a 3 year old Toshiba Satellite L-70A.) That USB port had previously lost the little plastic tab that the USB leads usually rest on. My best guess is that my son jammed the round power plug into the rectangular USB hole and one of the USB leads entered the power plug, completing the circuit.
As I told my son after he fried my laptop a couple of days ago (plugged the power cable into a USB slot because he wasn't paying attention), it's not whether you make a mistake or not, it's whether you learn from it. In my son's case, it's "pay attention when plugging in electrical devices." In PwC's case, it might be "don't tweet while handing the envelopes out" or "design the envelopes/cards to more easily convey their information."
From what I've heard, one of the PwC accountants was busy tweeting backstage. He was distracted and handed Warren the wrong envelope. The rest is now Oscar history.
Pretty much. And the courts, for the most part, assume that a patent is valid if the patent office has approved it (unless you can prove otherwise which is an uphill battle). This is what makes the patent system so ripe for abuse.
I'm not someone who believes the government solves all problems, but it does have its place. In many situations, removing the government doesn't make people work harder, but just makes big companies and the wealthy take advantage of people more. Less regulations can lead to more unsafe products, dirtier air/water (as they dump their waste where ever they feel like it), or worse employee benefits/pay/working conditions.
In the case of Network Neutrality, I currently have only one option for wired, high speed Internet: Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable). If Spectrum, tomorrow, announced that I needed to pay $5 extra a month for access to Netflix, I'd have three options: 1) pay up, 2) don't pay up, don't watch Netflix, but keep my Internet service, or 3) cancel Spectrum and not have home Internet. Given that 3 isn't an option and that there is a lot that I, my wife, and my kids watch on Netflix, we'd be pressured to pay the extra money. Since there is no competition, voting with my wallet isn't an option. Taking them to court also isn't likely to work - they have a team of lawyers that could tangle me up in litigation until I went bankrupt.
In this example, the only option for me is for the government to step in. The government is (at least theoretically) answerable to me and other voters while corporations - especially monopolies - aren't beholden to do anything for me beyond take my money every month. If Spectrum were to enact a $5 Netflix Access Fee in my example, the FCC (or another government agency) could step in and say "You're not allowed to do this." Spectrum can't just laugh off the Federal Government and would be forced to change business practices.*
* Theoretically speaking. Practically speaking, what companies seem to do is change just enough to stay within the law and then pour money into lobbying the government to walk back the protections in the name of "helping businesses grow." Dealing with the massive corporate lobbying problem is another topic entirely.
I'm not saying that socialism or communism is the answer. (Then again, socialism isn't the boogeyman that many in the US think it is.) I'm just saying that making the rich richer doesn't result in a better life for the middle class and poor. It results in a poorer middle class, less assistance for the poor, and more money/power concentrated in fewer hands.
Then replace "a Comcast.com video" with "a Hulu video." Comcast has an ownership stake in Hulu so the more people who watch Hulu instead of Netflix, the more profit Comcast sees. If they slowed down Netflix, but kept Hulu running at high speeds, then people might switch services and line Comcast's pockets more. Network Neutrality says that this is wrong and shouldn't be done. Comcast is opposing Net Neutrality because they want to fiddle with the speeds of various services to either get those services to pay money ("that's a nice web service you have, it'd be a shame if it slowed to a crawl") or to boost their own offerings ("is Netflix buffering again? You'd never see Hulu buffering!").
You were talking about having to go through gigantic organizations. While you do need to pay a registrar and a hosting company, there are plenty to choose from. You could go with a large company like GoDaddy or a smaller outfit. You can avoid companies that you don't like or switch companies if the one you're with does something you don't like. If you think you can go through life (much less making a website) without dealing with corporations at all, you're sorely mistaken. Fortunately, web hosting/registrars is one place where there's a healthy competition instead of a giant monopoly/duopoly.
No, you see "huge market failure" is now defined as "companies aren't making as much money as they could." If they kill Net Neutrality and other FCC rules, ISPs can spike their prices, sell our information, make even more profits, and the market will succeed! (He doesn't care about what happens to us so long as we're forking over those monthly ISP payments.)
It's not that no packet should be higher priority than another packet, but that no two packets of the same type are different priority. So a Comcast.com video would get the same QoS as a Netflix video over Comcast's lines even if a GMail packet is slowed down to let both of those video streaming packets go faster.
The only exemption would be for network threats like spam or DDOS - and even then, you need to be careful that Comcast doesn't deem Netflix a "network threat" because people aren't paying more for Comcast Ultra Streaming Service and drop their packets.
Technically, he is right. The ISP's WERE doing fine under the old rules. The "old rules" were that Network Neutrality was assumed. The problem came up when the ISP's themselves started talking about doing away with what were essentially long-standing "Net Neutrality" policies in the hunt for more money. For example, they claimed that Netflix was using their bandwidth for free (Netflix paid for their own bandwidth) and said they would slow down Netflix's streams unless Netflix paid them money. Of course, these costs would be passed to customers so people rose up and demanded Network Neutrality. The rules that the FCC stipulated were essentially just enshrining in "law" (well, FCC policy) what previously had been an assumption about the way business was run.
Buy domain name: $10-15 a year (depending on which registrar you use)
Get a Managed VPS server: $40 a month.*
Set up WordPress: Free**
Use a free WordPress theme: Free
Spend some time setting up the theme: Essentially free.
Now, you might want to hire a web developer (such as myself) to fine tune the site and tweak the design to make it look nicer, but at a base you're talking about spending under $500 a year to host a website without any connection to Amazon, Facebook, or another large organization.
* You could get a Shared Hosting setup and might be able to save some cash, but those tend to be horrible for anything other than a "postcard website."
** I know some people hate WordPress. Personally, I like it. Either way, I was using it as an option that people could use to set up their own website inexpensively. There are tons of other options out there that have nothing to do with Amazon/Facebook so feel free to replace WordPress with some other CMS.
That's their official policy only because saying "We believe in giving more money to the rich because we don't care about poor slobs - only people who make over a million a year" wouldn't get them votes. So they say "we're giving this billionaire $1 million, he'll definitely use it to hire people and not spend it on a third yacht like he used the last $2 million. Eventually, that million will go into your pockets. Aren't we generous? Vote Me!" The sad thing is that, no matter how many times "trickle down" is disproved, people keep flocking back to it and thinking it'll work perfectly this time. All they need are even LESS checks on the wealthy so that they'll deign to use some of their immense wealth to people who are struggling to make ends meet.
As others have stated, QoS is fine for ISPs to do. If you wanted to slow down e-mails slightly so that video streams went faster, that would be perfectly fine. Nobody's going to notice their e-mails arriving 3 seconds late, but people would notice their videos buffering for an extra three seconds. The problem is when ISPs make "video from Netflix" a low priority so that their own video streams can go faster. A better version of #3 would state:
3. No customer requested traffic is EVER restricted based on source for ANY reason.
This would keep an ISP from slowing down Netflix to speed up their own videos and the "customer requested" section would also give the ISPs leeway to block spam or DDOS attacks. (I was going to replace "for ANY reason" with "except for network stability", but then ISPs might - wrongly - claim that Netflix is crashing their networks and they "need" to slow it down to stabilize the system.)
There are resources, but teachers like to customize it rather than use the same cookie-cutter approach. It's especially important if you have any special needs kids in your class who might not learn well in a "One Size Fits All" approach but who might excel if a different approach is taken.
If you wait until you're sure you can afford to have kids, you'd never have them. Though I will agree that, if you have one kid are are struggling financially, you need to think twice before having a second. And the same goes exponentially more after 2 kids. On the positive side, there are ways to "afford" to have kids by cutting back on other expenses that might have seemed "totally necessary" before you had children. On the negative side, kids have a way of causing budget-breaking expenses like illnesses and injuries. My second son fell on his head more times than I can count and had multiple febrile seizures where he stopped breathing. All of those ER trips are expensive and are really hard to factor into a budget.