It's possible for 300 baud to push more than 300 bps, but in practice, it didn't happen.
In practice, some modems became slower than 300 baud, but used multiple carrier frequencies. The Telebit Trailblazer is a good example; the PEP protocol operated at 6 baud, but 512 channels, giving a maximum 18432 bps transfer rate, and great resistance to line noise, as only some of the channels would be affected, causing a small speed drop instead of outages.
There's also audio frequency key shifting, like the 1200/75 modems used for videotex, minitel and remote terminals, and the Bell 202 modems. While nominally working at 300 baud, they would use two frequencies and work at half duplex, making 1200 bps possible.
Throttle all his neighbors as well. Lets see how popular he is after that.
And throttle traffic to all IP addresses used by the FCC and its contractors too.
For a boycott to be successful, it has to be felt, by more than the target. It's those who suffer from collateral damage that will raise their voice and effectuate change.
Or how about a "Your bandwidth is restricted today, because Ajit Pai wants this to be possible" that hits everyone at random days?
People want theatre. Not real security, with the inconvenience that entails.
Anyhow, I don't think this will happen, or if it does, it won't survive for long. There are plenty of big companies that would sue the living shat out of the Mozilla Foundation if they do this, calling it anti-competitive. If the warning is perceived to make even a single potential customer leave the web site, they'll call in their army of lawyers and pull strings on the politicos they bought.
You're a pretty uninformed observer, then. The GOP is generally opposed to social progress, wants to dismantle government, and works almost entirely for corporations rather than the people. They feel that the poor and the helpless deserve their condition and the rich are the victors in life.
Say what you want about Democrats and their corporate sponsors but they vote much more often for social progress and legislation that benefits the poor or benefits all Americans equally. The GOP is simply not interested in governing anymore and only cares about sabotaging the other party's achievements and leveraging their government power to benefit their wealthy cohorts.
Yes, similar. Neither is willing to go for unalienable universal suffrage, nor complete disenfranchisement. Neither want to reduce the the presidency to a figurehead and add a prime minister, nor institute a theocracy. Neither wants to abolish privileges for religious institutions, nor put one in charge. Neither wants to allow public nudity and public sex, nor burkas and niqabs. Neither wants to reduce copyrights and patents to shorter time spans than they were originally, to reflect that the world moves faster now. Nor implement perpetual non-transferable ownership. Neither wants to switch to universal non-private-run healthcare and education. Nor switch the armed forces from mercenaries to conscription. Neither wants open borders, nor a market driven currency and abolishing the Federal Reserve..
It's a matter of perspective. If you stand right between two people, they will appear to be in very different directions, because they are to you. But if you look at it from an outside view, the proximity becomes more noticeable; the more so, the farther away you are.
I'll say it again -- one party still has some interest in governing and the other wants to dismantle government. They are not two peas in a pod.
One thinks short term profits for themselves and their cronies. The other one thinks slightly longer term profits for themselves and their cronies. I see a theme.
"This goes against case law of TITLE I and II and here are the cases..." THAT will get you listened to.
Is there any evidence to that assumption? I am fairly certain that no matter how well articulated a letter is, or whether it brings up legal issues, it's not read.
Coming from the outside, I see the political parties in the US as two peas in a pod. They're so similar that any differences they have are near cosmetic, and only matter if you're in-between the two very similar points of view. The leaders, on the other hand, are very different. Do you want a smart power hungry crook, or a stupid bigoted crook? The latter is what the Americans elected. Remember, you don't get the leaders you need, but the ones you deserve.
Da, comrade. I stand in bread line at American food bank. Thank you tax payer for lack of jobs to earn my own bread.
You paying for the bread doesn't make it any better. The baker making bread according to his ability makes it good. Corporations making it according to the rules of profit, targeting the price to what you make and how much of that they can get, doesn't.
A podiatrists can not perform neurosurgery, it requires additional certifications that regional medical centers that are a certain grade of medical facility must have on staff at all times.
I think you confuse "may not" with "cannot". If I chopped my toe off out in the wilderness, I'd give it a try myself too.
Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?
In many cases, yes. For small things, I would prefer not to pay thousands of dollars and risk hospital infections. For bigger things, I would prefer to go to a country that practices more modern medicine than here in the US, and where the doctors aren't affiliated with (read: owned by) hospitals and have to put the hospital's profit interests first, an insurance company's interest second, their own greed third, and my interest a distant fourth.
The implication of this gene is that it increases both lifespan and quality of life into old age, so your argument doesn't track.
If it increases both at a similar rate, the net productive range is stretched, but so is the net unproductive rate that follows it. That's not beneficial. In no species on the planet has prolonging life past child rearing been selected for by evolution. It's not a net benefit to the offspring.
To spread you need a situation where every generation statistically produces more than 2 kids per parent.
No, that doesn't follow. Genes spread even in declining populations. They just have to be more successful than other genes. The genes compete, and any small advantage reaps the benefit of the equivalent to compound interest. If one family gets 5% interest on their bank account, and another has to pay 5% interest to keep the money safe, as the years (generations) go by, the proportion shifts.
If genes simply would spread like you first implied, we had no black, yellow, white, what ever races but would all look the same.
You're assuming unlimited mobility, which is not the case. That people in Ireland does not look like people in Japan is precisely because genes spread - making the Irish more uniform, and making the Japanese more uniform. But until now, Ireland has been to far from Japanese for genes to spread much between the two countries.
"malign" has not much to do with it anyway unless you die before you breed.
No, that is also wrong. A gene that lowers interest in procreation would be malign from a genetic point of view. So would one that gives you traits making the opposite sex prefer someone else. Or one that make you produce fewer children, or indirectly makes you unable to feed them.
And it is the statistical properties that are interesting here, not the individual or even the individual gene. If a combination of genes enables some to produce just a tiny percentage more viable offspring, no matter what the reason is, the genes that make up that combination will spread at the expense of other genes.
Makes sense, though peat bogs usually aren't found under forests?
No, they aren't, but they are certainly important for binding CO2, even more so than forests. The problem is that they are so much slower than forests. For individuals that think long term means next election, it is tough enough to get traction for replanting forests, and re-creating bogs where the benefit won't be seen for centuries seems highly unlikely, even if the benefits are greater.
I administer the spam filter / email relay at work and our spam volume is one one-hundredth what it was in 2010. So that's at least antidotal evidence that spam volume is down.
As a mail server admin, my observation is that spam is perhaps slightly down, but scams are rising. Almost all sent through botnets.
What has helped me the most is scoring e-mail based on which countries the e-mails are relayed through, and what timezone they were apparently sent from, and where URLs lead to. The currently worst ratio of spam/scam to legitimate e-mail are: Timezones: +0530, +0800, +0700, +0300, +0200 Relay countries: CN, DE, IN, AR, IR URL countries: DE, GB, RU, AR, CN
So if you get an e-mail sent from India (+0530), relayed through Argentina, and with an URL in Russia, chances are almost parity that it's spam or a scam, and that you can firewall the connecting host for a year with no ill effects.
Who says the gene adds that 10% to the END of your life? Maybe it just makes your middle-age level of health last longer.
That would be even more terrible, if it prolongs the reproductive time span, without also reducing fertility. Not only because it would trigger a population explosion, but because the generation churn is one of our main defences against diseases and parasites, so unless the mutation also provides a benefit to the genes (not to the individual), it would be handing our predators a gift on a silver plate.
But new coal is extremely unlikely, even from mulch which isn't fully converted. The trees that became coal were just about 100% unconverted only the leaves got eaten. Mulch is nowhere near that resilient.
Yes, and no. Peat bogs, with their unique acidic non-aerobic composition can still produce coal, given the right tectonics and enough millions of years.
200 generations is still a pretty long time for humans, from a "ongoing research protocol" standpoint. Hard to suss out 3000 years of breeding.
From an individual's point of view, it's a very long time. From an evolutionary point of view, 200 generations is a very short time.
It used to be far fewer generations, back when the reproductive rate and death rates were much higher. A substantial part of Europe have a lineage going directly back to Charlemagne, and that's far fewer generations. Of course, only the truly fundamental mutations will spread to the entire population. Like onset of male puberty adjusting to female puberty, or ability to fight diseases through fever. While others that are only mildly beneficial, like being able to move all fingers independently, never attain universality.
But that thickness is not increasing contrary to your claims.
That quote is simply wrong, sorry:D
Of course, you know this better than the scientists at the Peatland Ecology Research Group who published the research. I'll take the unsubstantiated words of Random Internet Guy over them any day... erm, no.
That is not how evolution works. There's no incentive to preserve identical genes, only direct lineages. Evolution works at the level of the individual, not the species or even family, other than as a mean to assist in propagating your genes. Not identical genes, but ones that actually came from and passed through the individual. The belief that evolution works at a species level hails back to the early days of Darwin/Wallace, but has since been abandoned.
What we want is booster spice, that keeps you from ageing. Start taking it in your 20s and stay young forever.
That would be a terrible idea unless coupled with population control measures that many would consider draconian. And even then, it might not be a good idea. If we slow down the reproductive rate to compensate for a longer fertile lifespan, we fall back in the red queen race, and diseases and parasites get ahead of us, because their rate won't slow down. Sex and generation changes is a weapon we use to fight diseases and parasites - our offspring are not identical to ourselves, but only has 50% of our genes. The bugs' specialist adaptation to work on us won't necessarily work on our offspring. We clean the slate, and prevent most diseases from being transmitted to our offspring.
A mutation/gene is not a virus. How would it spread? Hm?
Genes spreads through procreation. Benign mutations spread more, and malign mutations spread less when subjected to evolutionary pressure, including competition from peers. You're just a vehicle for your genes to spread. I thought this was common knowledge?
Evolution doesn't select for anything, you ignorant and stupid deadweight.
The full name is "Evolution through natural selection", and is probably the most solid scientific theory, undisputed among pretty much anyone not afflicted by radical religion.
Objectively speaking, what's better than keeping ones parents alive?
Objectively, keeping your children alive is better. Each child has half your genes, and can propagate them, unlike your parents, who have become dead ends.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that a joke isnt helping but how is this harming Net Neutrality exactly?
It gives the opponents another example they can point to when claiming that NN proponents are crackpots and potentially dangerous.
It's possible for 300 baud to push more than 300 bps, but in practice, it didn't happen.
In practice, some modems became slower than 300 baud, but used multiple carrier frequencies. The Telebit Trailblazer is a good example; the PEP protocol operated at 6 baud, but 512 channels, giving a maximum 18432 bps transfer rate, and great resistance to line noise, as only some of the channels would be affected, causing a small speed drop instead of outages.
There's also audio frequency key shifting, like the 1200/75 modems used for videotex, minitel and remote terminals, and the Bell 202 modems. While nominally working at 300 baud, they would use two frequencies and work at half duplex, making 1200 bps possible.
Throttle all his neighbors as well. Lets see how popular he is after that.
And throttle traffic to all IP addresses used by the FCC and its contractors too.
For a boycott to be successful, it has to be felt, by more than the target. It's those who suffer from collateral damage that will raise their voice and effectuate change.
Or how about a "Your bandwidth is restricted today, because Ajit Pai wants this to be possible" that hits everyone at random days?
People want theatre. Not real security, with the inconvenience that entails.
Anyhow, I don't think this will happen, or if it does, it won't survive for long.
There are plenty of big companies that would sue the living shat out of the Mozilla Foundation if they do this, calling it anti-competitive. If the warning is perceived to make even a single potential customer leave the web site, they'll call in their army of lawyers and pull strings on the politicos they bought.
You're a pretty uninformed observer, then. The GOP is generally opposed to social progress, wants to dismantle government, and works almost entirely for corporations rather than the people. They feel that the poor and the helpless deserve their condition and the rich are the victors in life.
Say what you want about Democrats and their corporate sponsors but they vote much more often for social progress and legislation that benefits the poor or benefits all Americans equally. The GOP is simply not interested in governing anymore and only cares about sabotaging the other party's achievements and leveraging their government power to benefit their wealthy cohorts.
Yes, similar. Neither is willing to go for unalienable universal suffrage, nor complete disenfranchisement. Neither want to reduce the the presidency to a figurehead and add a prime minister, nor institute a theocracy. Neither wants to abolish privileges for religious institutions, nor put one in charge. Neither wants to allow public nudity and public sex, nor burkas and niqabs. Neither wants to reduce copyrights and patents to shorter time spans than they were originally, to reflect that the world moves faster now. Nor implement perpetual non-transferable ownership. Neither wants to switch to universal non-private-run healthcare and education. Nor switch the armed forces from mercenaries to conscription. Neither wants open borders, nor a market driven currency and abolishing the Federal Reserve..
It's a matter of perspective. If you stand right between two people, they will appear to be in very different directions, because they are to you. But if you look at it from an outside view, the proximity becomes more noticeable; the more so, the farther away you are.
I'll say it again -- one party still has some interest in governing and the other wants to dismantle government. They are not two peas in a pod.
One thinks short term profits for themselves and their cronies. The other one thinks slightly longer term profits for themselves and their cronies. I see a theme.
"This goes against case law of TITLE I and II and here are the cases ..." THAT will get you listened to.
Is there any evidence to that assumption?
I am fairly certain that no matter how well articulated a letter is, or whether it brings up legal issues, it's not read.
Coming from the outside, I see the political parties in the US as two peas in a pod. They're so similar that any differences they have are near cosmetic, and only matter if you're in-between the two very similar points of view. The leaders, on the other hand, are very different. Do you want a smart power hungry crook, or a stupid bigoted crook?
The latter is what the Americans elected. Remember, you don't get the leaders you need, but the ones you deserve.
I'm kind of surprised that no-one has comprehensively doxxed Pai yet.
Da, comrade. I stand in bread line at American food bank. Thank you tax payer for lack of jobs to earn my own bread.
You paying for the bread doesn't make it any better. The baker making bread according to his ability makes it good. Corporations making it according to the rules of profit, targeting the price to what you make and how much of that they can get, doesn't.
You'd try giving yourself neurosurgery if you chopped off your toe? That doesn't seem terribly productive..
Even a very tiny chance to be able to get some nerves connected by doing what I've only read about would be better than nothing.
A podiatrists can not perform neurosurgery, it requires additional certifications that regional medical centers that are a certain grade of medical facility must have on staff at all times.
I think you confuse "may not" with "cannot".
If I chopped my toe off out in the wilderness, I'd give it a try myself too.
Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?
In many cases, yes. For small things, I would prefer not to pay thousands of dollars and risk hospital infections.
For bigger things, I would prefer to go to a country that practices more modern medicine than here in the US, and where the doctors aren't affiliated with (read: owned by) hospitals and have to put the hospital's profit interests first, an insurance company's interest second, their own greed third, and my interest a distant fourth.
The implication of this gene is that it increases both lifespan and quality of life into old age, so your argument doesn't track.
If it increases both at a similar rate, the net productive range is stretched, but so is the net unproductive rate that follows it. That's not beneficial.
In no species on the planet has prolonging life past child rearing been selected for by evolution. It's not a net benefit to the offspring.
To spread you need a situation where every generation statistically produces more than 2 kids per parent.
No, that doesn't follow. Genes spread even in declining populations. They just have to be more successful than other genes. The genes compete, and any small advantage reaps the benefit of the equivalent to compound interest. If one family gets 5% interest on their bank account, and another has to pay 5% interest to keep the money safe, as the years (generations) go by, the proportion shifts.
If genes simply would spread like you first implied, we had no black, yellow, white, what ever races but would all look the same.
You're assuming unlimited mobility, which is not the case. That people in Ireland does not look like people in Japan is precisely because genes spread - making the Irish more uniform, and making the Japanese more uniform. But until now, Ireland has been to far from Japanese for genes to spread much between the two countries.
"malign" has not much to do with it anyway unless you die before you breed.
No, that is also wrong. A gene that lowers interest in procreation would be malign from a genetic point of view. So would one that gives you traits making the opposite sex prefer someone else. Or one that make you produce fewer children, or indirectly makes you unable to feed them.
And it is the statistical properties that are interesting here, not the individual or even the individual gene. If a combination of genes enables some to produce just a tiny percentage more viable offspring, no matter what the reason is, the genes that make up that combination will spread at the expense of other genes.
Makes sense, though peat bogs usually aren't found under forests?
No, they aren't, but they are certainly important for binding CO2, even more so than forests. The problem is that they are so much slower than forests. For individuals that think long term means next election, it is tough enough to get traction for replanting forests, and re-creating bogs where the benefit won't be seen for centuries seems highly unlikely, even if the benefits are greater.
I administer the spam filter / email relay at work and our spam volume is one one-hundredth what it was in 2010. So that's at least antidotal evidence that spam volume is down.
As a mail server admin, my observation is that spam is perhaps slightly down, but scams are rising. Almost all sent through botnets.
What has helped me the most is scoring e-mail based on which countries the e-mails are relayed through, and what timezone they were apparently sent from, and where URLs lead to.
The currently worst ratio of spam/scam to legitimate e-mail are:
Timezones: +0530, +0800, +0700, +0300, +0200
Relay countries: CN, DE, IN, AR, IR
URL countries: DE, GB, RU, AR, CN
So if you get an e-mail sent from India (+0530), relayed through Argentina, and with an URL in Russia, chances are almost parity that it's spam or a scam, and that you can firewall the connecting host for a year with no ill effects.
Who says the gene adds that 10% to the END of your life? Maybe it just makes your middle-age level of health last longer.
That would be even more terrible, if it prolongs the reproductive time span, without also reducing fertility. Not only because it would trigger a population explosion, but because the generation churn is one of our main defences against diseases and parasites, so unless the mutation also provides a benefit to the genes (not to the individual), it would be handing our predators a gift on a silver plate.
But new coal is extremely unlikely, even from mulch which isn't fully converted. The trees that became coal were just about 100% unconverted only the leaves got eaten. Mulch is nowhere near that resilient.
Yes, and no. Peat bogs, with their unique acidic non-aerobic composition can still produce coal, given the right tectonics and enough millions of years.
200 generations is still a pretty long time for humans, from a "ongoing research protocol" standpoint. Hard to suss out 3000 years of breeding.
From an individual's point of view, it's a very long time. From an evolutionary point of view, 200 generations is a very short time.
It used to be far fewer generations, back when the reproductive rate and death rates were much higher. A substantial part of Europe have a lineage going directly back to Charlemagne, and that's far fewer generations.
Of course, only the truly fundamental mutations will spread to the entire population. Like onset of male puberty adjusting to female puberty, or ability to fight diseases through fever. While others that are only mildly beneficial, like being able to move all fingers independently, never attain universality.
But that thickness is not increasing contrary to your claims.
That quote is simply wrong, sorry :D
Of course, you know this better than the scientists at the Peatland Ecology Research Group who published the research. I'll take the unsubstantiated words of Random Internet Guy over them any day ... erm, no.
That is not how evolution works. There's no incentive to preserve identical genes, only direct lineages. Evolution works at the level of the individual, not the species or even family, other than as a mean to assist in propagating your genes. Not identical genes, but ones that actually came from and passed through the individual.
The belief that evolution works at a species level hails back to the early days of Darwin/Wallace, but has since been abandoned.
What we want is booster spice, that keeps you from ageing. Start taking it in your 20s and stay young forever.
That would be a terrible idea unless coupled with population control measures that many would consider draconian.
And even then, it might not be a good idea. If we slow down the reproductive rate to compensate for a longer fertile lifespan, we fall back in the red queen race, and diseases and parasites get ahead of us, because their rate won't slow down. Sex and generation changes is a weapon we use to fight diseases and parasites - our offspring are not identical to ourselves, but only has 50% of our genes. The bugs' specialist adaptation to work on us won't necessarily work on our offspring. We clean the slate, and prevent most diseases from being transmitted to our offspring.
A mutation/gene is not a virus. How would it spread? Hm?
Genes spreads through procreation. Benign mutations spread more, and malign mutations spread less when subjected to evolutionary pressure, including competition from peers. You're just a vehicle for your genes to spread. I thought this was common knowledge?
Evolution doesn't select for anything, you ignorant and stupid deadweight.
The full name is "Evolution through natural selection", and is probably the most solid scientific theory, undisputed among pretty much anyone not afflicted by radical religion.
Objectively speaking, what's better than keeping ones parents alive?
Objectively, keeping your children alive is better.
Each child has half your genes, and can propagate them, unlike your parents, who have become dead ends.