I have one ISP choice also. In my case, Time Warner Cable. I've got to not only agree with your points, but expand on one of them. Cable ISPs not only offer Internet access but also offer TV/Video services. They want to push their video services and will often engage in various shady practices to promote their video services above alternatives (Internet Video, satellite, etc). For example, they might institute caps to prevent you from streaming "too much" (as defined by them). Overage fees might make streaming more expensive so you'll either flee back to your cable company for video or pay your cable company more money in overage fees. Package pricing can be manipulated to make Internet Only more expensive than Internet+TV (while TV alone isn't more than Internet+TV). Finally, as mentioned before, the ISP can fiddle with the traffic to slow down or otherwise degrade connections to video services like Netflix knowing that it will be easier for customers to switch to another video provider (*cough* cable TV *cough*) than it is to switch to another ISP - since there usually is no other one to switch to!
Would a government run ISP be perfect? Of course not. I'm open to any and all suggestions. However, something needs to be done because company-alone, minimal government regulation ISPs have clearly resulted in monopolistic ISPs willing to abuse customers to get more money.
An asteroid may kill a lot of people, but it will not cause global extinction. No asteroid strike has ever completely wiped out life on earth.
Just because it has never happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Granted, it would take a very large asteroid and it is highly unlikely, but it is possible.
By the time you get up to a mile-wide asteroid, you are working in the 1 million megaton range. This asteroid has the energy that's 10 million times greater than the bomb that fell on Hiroshima. It's able to flatten everything for 100 to 200 miles out from ground zero. In other words, if a mile-wide asteroid were to directly hit New York City, the force of the impact probably would completely flatten every single thing from Washington D.C. to Boston, and would cause extensive damage perhaps 1,000 miles out -- that's as far away as Chicago. The amount of dust and debris thrown up into the atmosphere would block out the sun and cause most living things on the planet to perish. If an asteroid that big were to land in the ocean, it would cause massive tidal waves hundreds of feet high that would completely scrub the coastlines in the vicinity. In other words, if an asteroid strikes Earth, it will be a really, really bad day no matter how big it is. If the asteroid is a mile in diameter, it's likely to wipe out life on the planet. Let's hope that doesn't happen anytime soon!
It might not wipe out ALL life as some sea creatures might survive and some microbes would likely hang on, but a mile wide asteroid (especially a dense one) impacting at the right speed would wipe out nearly all life on Earth.
As far as detection goes, I agree that we should be looking out for them, but suppose we found one. Suppose tomorrow it was announced that scientists just spotted a one mile wide asteroid that will collide with the Earth in two months. (Let's put the impact zone at New York City just to add to the fun.) Could we do anything about it in that time? Of course, there would be panic as the entire northeast United States (and some of Canada) tried to relocate. Politicians would give long speeches (and perhaps some of the more anti-science politicians would try to block spending any money on the problem until "more data was gathered"). Even if the world rallied around the cause instantly and everyone didn't panic (HUGE ifs), do we have the technology to alter the course of a mile wide asteroid in 2 months?
There is something similar to this with Amazon VOD, Google Play, and iTunes. You pay per episode of each show you want to watch or pay a discounted rate and get the entire season. It's more expensive than 25 cents per episode, though. On Amazon, episodes typically cost about $1.99 for SD versions or $1.89 for the entire season of SD versions. (Obviously, they cost more for the HD versions.)
The content owners seem to treat Netflix as if it were just a baby step up from piracy, but in fact Netflix (and services like it) are the content owners' best weapon against piracy. Imagine if Netflix were given free reign to stream every TV show over a week old and every movie over a month old (from all content owners). Even if they raised their prices, Netflix would be quicker and easier to use than any pirating software out there. Sure, some people would still pirate, but those people would pirate no matter what. For the rest of the users, you would see a massive drop in piracy.
And yet, content owners keep content off of Netflix and plan on how best to kill off the service.
"I'm sorry, but you can't drive on this road. You have a Nissan and Walmart Roadways has an exclusive agreement with Toyota. You need to be driving a Toyota to travel on this road. Don't worry, though, you can pay $5 per mile to go on the Walmart Service Road. Sure, it hasn't been repaved in years and it is only one lane with five lanes' worth of traffic, but there aren't any car brand restrictions!"
I'm still hoping to see the GOP split into two. Group the looney fringe (the anti-science folks, the religious nuts, the Tea Party, etc) in one party and the actual, honest-to-goodness conservatives in another party. Let the "Looney GOP" tailspin into oblivion while the "Sane GOP" thrives as a worthy contender for my vote.
It also doesn't take into account the political parties' platforms changing over time. There was once a time when supporting civil rights meant voting Republican and not Democrat. Since then, the parties flip-flopped. Right now, the Republican party seems to be heading down the "Old, Straight, Christian White Guys Only" path. As the OSCWGs die off, though, the remaining Republicans will start to have more of an influence as to the direction of the party and might change the platform. Things that might have been unthinkable for today's average Republican to support might be par for the course for future Republicans. (Imagine how a Civil Rights Era Republican might be viewed by today's Tea Party Republican.)
Voting for a third party candidate isn't likely to result in said candidate winning. However, if the third party candidate gets enough votes, one or both of the major parties will likely adopt the third party candidate's positions to gather more supporters.
I don't see voting third party as throwing away your vote. I see it as a protest vote. Yes, you could simply not vote in protest, but then your "protest" gets lost among the "I just can't be bothered to vote" crowd. Not voting is the only way you really throw away your vote. If neither major party candidate really strikes you as a good choice, go with a third party candidate as a protest vote over simply not voting.
No. It's the hero's geeky friend who hacks into the system which buys time for the well muscled hero to overpower the generic olive skinned hijackers (who are armed with machine guns that they somehow smuggled on board) with his bare hands and whatever he finds lying around.
I'm fine with the state setting minimum requirements. (Your sewer system shouldn't back up into the public's basements. -- Yes, we've had this happen.)
However, the case of municipal broadband is the state setting a maximum requirement. "You can't provide this level of service - only less than this level." You can argue whether or not municipal broadband is a good idea and the answer will vary on a case by case basis, but a blanket ban on local governments providing this service is just wrong.
Too bad about all these state legislators who seem to feel the need to protect their constituents from super-fast internet speeds at affordable rates that the private companies never seem to feel the need to deliver.
In these cases, these politicians' constituents are the big ISPs who don't want any competition (even in areas they refuse to serve), not the voting public.
In some areas, the major ISPs haven't provided any wired, high-speed access. In this case, the local governments - after trying to get the major ISPs to come in and wire the town and being shot down by the ISPs - want to wire themselves. They are being prevented by doing so by the state who is acting on the request of the ISPs - who don't want any competition even if it's in an area they refuse to service. Assuming the citizens of the local town vote to form a municipal broadband service, why should the ISPs who have refused to service the town have more say in whether or not the municipal broadband network gets deployed than the public?
In my case, my pain in getting up from the floor is usually in my muscles which protest at having been kept in a particular position for too long. A couple of seconds and I'm back to normal.
In any event, I think we can agree that old age doesn't begin at 25.
As I've gotten older, I've gotten used to a lot of things that I previously associated with "being old." My hair now has streaks of grey. The songs I grew up listening to now play on the "Oldies" station. (Despite my yelling at the radio that Billy Joel is NOT oldies.) Sitting on the floor is still easy, but getting up involves a lot of aching bones/muscles. (Not to mention groaning sounds.) I'm turning 40 in a few months, so there's another "I Feel Old" moment approaching.
But now I've been "old" and "dying" since the moment I turned 26?!!! When I was 26, I had been in the workforce (having graduated from college) a mere 4 years. I was just married a couple of months before my 26th birthday. I was definitely not "old" or "dying" (any more than anyone who is living your average life is "dying").
I might be slightly biased to define "old" as being 50-or-older (so that I don't get lumped into the "old" category), but "old" is definitely not anyone over 25.
For some, no evidence will ever be enough. They will adjust to the "new climate" as the norm and insist that any cold spell disproves that any climate change is occurring.
My wife won a Keurig awhile back. She liked being able to produce single cups of coffee (because I don't drink coffee). However, the best Keurig-purchase she ever made was a reusable K-cup. You fill it with whatever coffee you want (anything from grind your own beans to buy pre-ground in bulk), run the Keurig, and then clean out the reusable K-cup for the next cup. She saves money, still gets her single cup of coffee, and has much less waste than buying a ton of one-time use K-cups.
Wanted to agree with you but, as someone who is a semi-religious Jew, it's actually a religious commandment to break any and all religious laws to save lives. If someone needed urgent medical attention on the Sabbath and their only method of getting it would be for an Orthodox Jew to drive them to a hospital on the Sabbath (when you usually aren't allowed to drive), that Orthodox Jew would be committing a HUGE sin if he said "No, I'd rather observe the Sabbath." He might not drive the car back from the hospital (as that's not needed to save a life), but he wouldn't think twice about getting behind the wheel to save a person's life.
I can't speak for other religions, but I would hope that they would have similar rules. It just seems like common sense to me.
I don't know about the autism claims but I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem.
The autism claims were based of a study that was completely fabricated by the author.
And - the part that many anti-vax folks forget - he fabricated the study to help sell his own version of the MMR. So he wasn't anti-vax, he was just pro-"the vaccine I made which will make me more money." (Of course, he quickly turned anti-vax when he saw dollar signs in that direction.)
And for good reason. Do you want your boss to be able to say "If you value your job, you'll vote for Candidate X"? (It's illegal, but depending on your situation and your boss' situation, it might be hard to report him.) Right now, he could say that, but would have no way of verifying it. If votes could be verified, people could be coerced into voting a certain way. Even if verification was optional, the coercion would simply include being able to verify how the person voted.
So you can shout to the world how you voted, but there's no way to actually tell who you voted for.
Who was that person who hacked an "unhackable" company by scattering a few USB thumb drives in the parking lot?
I can see the scam now. Thumb drives are mailed to voters by the "National Election Voting Council (NEVC)" (nice, official sounding name). The note with the drive states that this will help the user vote*. The user boots up to the thumb drive and casts his/her vote...... which the thumb drive then passes on as a vote for the candidate that the sender chose regardless of who the user chose. This user still got off easy because another set of thumb drives sent by another official-sounding organization actually encrypts the person's computer and demands payment to decrypt it.
* Fine print on the reverse side of the letter declares that all votes will be counted for candidates approved by NEVC.
Except this article is talking about online voting which means:
1) Any computer connected to the Internet can vote in the election. This includes grandma's unpatched Windows XP box with the 50 browser toolbars that she opens all those e-mail attachments with.
2) There is no verification of identity. Is "John Smith" who is voting really "John Smith"? Or did some hackers steal his voting credentials? Or maybe John's employer demanded his voting credentials to ensure that John votes "the right way."
3) Speaking of John's employer, John might be really casting the vote (and thus would pass identity verification), but might be doing it from his work computer with his employer looking over his shoulder to ensure the "correct" vote is cast. Anything "incorrect" and John will find himself out of work. (In case John sues, the company lawyers are standing by to drag the case on until John goes bankrupt and drag John's name through the mud so much that he will never find work again.)
I agree with other people that Election Day should be a national holiday. We should have the day off (or, at least, a half day off) so that everyone has time to make it to the polls. Being able to go to a physical polling location would negate any need for online voting.
We already have this. Want your vote to be non-anonymous? Just post on Facebook/Twitter/etc who you voted for. No problem. However, you can't *prove* it with an Official Government Voting Receipt declared that you voted for Candidate A because that would expose the voting process to coercion. e.g. "If you don't vote for Candidate B, then you're fired! And good luck suing us because we're a big company with lots of lawyers. We'll tie you up in court util you are bankrupt."
Slashdot Mirror
I have plenty of choices where I live. I can choose from Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, or even Time Warner Cable!
I have one ISP choice also. In my case, Time Warner Cable. I've got to not only agree with your points, but expand on one of them. Cable ISPs not only offer Internet access but also offer TV/Video services. They want to push their video services and will often engage in various shady practices to promote their video services above alternatives (Internet Video, satellite, etc). For example, they might institute caps to prevent you from streaming "too much" (as defined by them). Overage fees might make streaming more expensive so you'll either flee back to your cable company for video or pay your cable company more money in overage fees. Package pricing can be manipulated to make Internet Only more expensive than Internet+TV (while TV alone isn't more than Internet+TV). Finally, as mentioned before, the ISP can fiddle with the traffic to slow down or otherwise degrade connections to video services like Netflix knowing that it will be easier for customers to switch to another video provider (*cough* cable TV *cough*) than it is to switch to another ISP - since there usually is no other one to switch to!
Would a government run ISP be perfect? Of course not. I'm open to any and all suggestions. However, something needs to be done because company-alone, minimal government regulation ISPs have clearly resulted in monopolistic ISPs willing to abuse customers to get more money.
Just because it has never happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Granted, it would take a very large asteroid and it is highly unlikely, but it is possible.
From http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/asteroid-hits-earth.htm:
It might not wipe out ALL life as some sea creatures might survive and some microbes would likely hang on, but a mile wide asteroid (especially a dense one) impacting at the right speed would wipe out nearly all life on Earth.
As far as detection goes, I agree that we should be looking out for them, but suppose we found one. Suppose tomorrow it was announced that scientists just spotted a one mile wide asteroid that will collide with the Earth in two months. (Let's put the impact zone at New York City just to add to the fun.) Could we do anything about it in that time? Of course, there would be panic as the entire northeast United States (and some of Canada) tried to relocate. Politicians would give long speeches (and perhaps some of the more anti-science politicians would try to block spending any money on the problem until "more data was gathered"). Even if the world rallied around the cause instantly and everyone didn't panic (HUGE ifs), do we have the technology to alter the course of a mile wide asteroid in 2 months?
There is something similar to this with Amazon VOD, Google Play, and iTunes. You pay per episode of each show you want to watch or pay a discounted rate and get the entire season. It's more expensive than 25 cents per episode, though. On Amazon, episodes typically cost about $1.99 for SD versions or $1.89 for the entire season of SD versions. (Obviously, they cost more for the HD versions.)
The content owners seem to treat Netflix as if it were just a baby step up from piracy, but in fact Netflix (and services like it) are the content owners' best weapon against piracy. Imagine if Netflix were given free reign to stream every TV show over a week old and every movie over a month old (from all content owners). Even if they raised their prices, Netflix would be quicker and easier to use than any pirating software out there. Sure, some people would still pirate, but those people would pirate no matter what. For the rest of the users, you would see a massive drop in piracy.
And yet, content owners keep content off of Netflix and plan on how best to kill off the service.
"I'm sorry, but you can't drive on this road. You have a Nissan and Walmart Roadways has an exclusive agreement with Toyota. You need to be driving a Toyota to travel on this road. Don't worry, though, you can pay $5 per mile to go on the Walmart Service Road. Sure, it hasn't been repaved in years and it is only one lane with five lanes' worth of traffic, but there aren't any car brand restrictions!"
I'm still hoping to see the GOP split into two. Group the looney fringe (the anti-science folks, the religious nuts, the Tea Party, etc) in one party and the actual, honest-to-goodness conservatives in another party. Let the "Looney GOP" tailspin into oblivion while the "Sane GOP" thrives as a worthy contender for my vote.
It also doesn't take into account the political parties' platforms changing over time. There was once a time when supporting civil rights meant voting Republican and not Democrat. Since then, the parties flip-flopped. Right now, the Republican party seems to be heading down the "Old, Straight, Christian White Guys Only" path. As the OSCWGs die off, though, the remaining Republicans will start to have more of an influence as to the direction of the party and might change the platform. Things that might have been unthinkable for today's average Republican to support might be par for the course for future Republicans. (Imagine how a Civil Rights Era Republican might be viewed by today's Tea Party Republican.)
Voting for a third party candidate isn't likely to result in said candidate winning. However, if the third party candidate gets enough votes, one or both of the major parties will likely adopt the third party candidate's positions to gather more supporters.
I don't see voting third party as throwing away your vote. I see it as a protest vote. Yes, you could simply not vote in protest, but then your "protest" gets lost among the "I just can't be bothered to vote" crowd. Not voting is the only way you really throw away your vote. If neither major party candidate really strikes you as a good choice, go with a third party candidate as a protest vote over simply not voting.
No. It's the hero's geeky friend who hacks into the system which buys time for the well muscled hero to overpower the generic olive skinned hijackers (who are armed with machine guns that they somehow smuggled on board) with his bare hands and whatever he finds lying around.
I'm fine with the state setting minimum requirements. (Your sewer system shouldn't back up into the public's basements. -- Yes, we've had this happen.)
However, the case of municipal broadband is the state setting a maximum requirement. "You can't provide this level of service - only less than this level." You can argue whether or not municipal broadband is a good idea and the answer will vary on a case by case basis, but a blanket ban on local governments providing this service is just wrong.
In these cases, these politicians' constituents are the big ISPs who don't want any competition (even in areas they refuse to serve), not the voting public.
In some areas, the major ISPs haven't provided any wired, high-speed access. In this case, the local governments - after trying to get the major ISPs to come in and wire the town and being shot down by the ISPs - want to wire themselves. They are being prevented by doing so by the state who is acting on the request of the ISPs - who don't want any competition even if it's in an area they refuse to service. Assuming the citizens of the local town vote to form a municipal broadband service, why should the ISPs who have refused to service the town have more say in whether or not the municipal broadband network gets deployed than the public?
Your comment brought to mind a recent Sheldon Comics take on how you react to basic pain.
In my case, my pain in getting up from the floor is usually in my muscles which protest at having been kept in a particular position for too long. A couple of seconds and I'm back to normal.
In any event, I think we can agree that old age doesn't begin at 25.
As I've gotten older, I've gotten used to a lot of things that I previously associated with "being old." My hair now has streaks of grey. The songs I grew up listening to now play on the "Oldies" station. (Despite my yelling at the radio that Billy Joel is NOT oldies.) Sitting on the floor is still easy, but getting up involves a lot of aching bones/muscles. (Not to mention groaning sounds.) I'm turning 40 in a few months, so there's another "I Feel Old" moment approaching.
But now I've been "old" and "dying" since the moment I turned 26?!!! When I was 26, I had been in the workforce (having graduated from college) a mere 4 years. I was just married a couple of months before my 26th birthday. I was definitely not "old" or "dying" (any more than anyone who is living your average life is "dying").
I might be slightly biased to define "old" as being 50-or-older (so that I don't get lumped into the "old" category), but "old" is definitely not anyone over 25.
For some, no evidence will ever be enough. They will adjust to the "new climate" as the norm and insist that any cold spell disproves that any climate change is occurring.
My wife won a Keurig awhile back. She liked being able to produce single cups of coffee (because I don't drink coffee). However, the best Keurig-purchase she ever made was a reusable K-cup. You fill it with whatever coffee you want (anything from grind your own beans to buy pre-ground in bulk), run the Keurig, and then clean out the reusable K-cup for the next cup. She saves money, still gets her single cup of coffee, and has much less waste than buying a ton of one-time use K-cups.
Oops.... That should have been: Wanted to agree with you and expand a bit. As someone who is.....
Really need to proof-read before I post!
Wanted to agree with you but, as someone who is a semi-religious Jew, it's actually a religious commandment to break any and all religious laws to save lives. If someone needed urgent medical attention on the Sabbath and their only method of getting it would be for an Orthodox Jew to drive them to a hospital on the Sabbath (when you usually aren't allowed to drive), that Orthodox Jew would be committing a HUGE sin if he said "No, I'd rather observe the Sabbath." He might not drive the car back from the hospital (as that's not needed to save a life), but he wouldn't think twice about getting behind the wheel to save a person's life.
I can't speak for other religions, but I would hope that they would have similar rules. It just seems like common sense to me.
And - the part that many anti-vax folks forget - he fabricated the study to help sell his own version of the MMR. So he wasn't anti-vax, he was just pro-"the vaccine I made which will make me more money." (Of course, he quickly turned anti-vax when he saw dollar signs in that direction.)
And for good reason. Do you want your boss to be able to say "If you value your job, you'll vote for Candidate X"? (It's illegal, but depending on your situation and your boss' situation, it might be hard to report him.) Right now, he could say that, but would have no way of verifying it. If votes could be verified, people could be coerced into voting a certain way. Even if verification was optional, the coercion would simply include being able to verify how the person voted.
So you can shout to the world how you voted, but there's no way to actually tell who you voted for.
Who was that person who hacked an "unhackable" company by scattering a few USB thumb drives in the parking lot?
I can see the scam now. Thumb drives are mailed to voters by the "National Election Voting Council (NEVC)" (nice, official sounding name). The note with the drive states that this will help the user vote*. The user boots up to the thumb drive and casts his/her vote... ... which the thumb drive then passes on as a vote for the candidate that the sender chose regardless of who the user chose. This user still got off easy because another set of thumb drives sent by another official-sounding organization actually encrypts the person's computer and demands payment to decrypt it.
* Fine print on the reverse side of the letter declares that all votes will be counted for candidates approved by NEVC.
Except this article is talking about online voting which means:
1) Any computer connected to the Internet can vote in the election. This includes grandma's unpatched Windows XP box with the 50 browser toolbars that she opens all those e-mail attachments with.
2) There is no verification of identity. Is "John Smith" who is voting really "John Smith"? Or did some hackers steal his voting credentials? Or maybe John's employer demanded his voting credentials to ensure that John votes "the right way."
3) Speaking of John's employer, John might be really casting the vote (and thus would pass identity verification), but might be doing it from his work computer with his employer looking over his shoulder to ensure the "correct" vote is cast. Anything "incorrect" and John will find himself out of work. (In case John sues, the company lawyers are standing by to drag the case on until John goes bankrupt and drag John's name through the mud so much that he will never find work again.)
I agree with other people that Election Day should be a national holiday. We should have the day off (or, at least, a half day off) so that everyone has time to make it to the polls. Being able to go to a physical polling location would negate any need for online voting.
Also, there's been a rash of 911 calls resulting in SWAT teams breaking down the doors of people who voted for Candidate B over Candidate A.
We already have this. Want your vote to be non-anonymous? Just post on Facebook/Twitter/etc who you voted for. No problem. However, you can't *prove* it with an Official Government Voting Receipt declared that you voted for Candidate A because that would expose the voting process to coercion. e.g. "If you don't vote for Candidate B, then you're fired! And good luck suing us because we're a big company with lots of lawyers. We'll tie you up in court util you are bankrupt."