Laymen don't understand thermodynamics at any temperature. It's not about temperature, it's about pretending there's a problem and engaging people's antagonistic streak towards government, which they also don't understand at any temperature.
The FCC isn't setting limits on us (at least not for bandwidth and price).
It's setting limits on companies that want to set limits on us, in an industry where those companies get their main resource - right of way on public infrastructure like power poles, digging up streets, easements through people's property, etc. - from us essentially for free.
Breaking net neutrality creates a public internet that will get the short end of every resource stick, and a non-public internet that will get full value from any limited public resources used to deliver the signal.
We're giving up our resources to them and getting essentially nothing in return unless we pay a premium price for it.
You don't. Not until you've identified the Does. This is paperwork, and as long as they paid the court costs, it's legit. They still have to identify the people and gather the evidence, which they'll be able to do immediately now.
Alaska, due to the massive standard deviation in topograpy, frequently abysmal weather, and the necessity of covering its vast area for which there is almost no infrastructure, is the nation's (and possibly the world's) epicenter for aircraft incidents, per capita (California has more total from 2008 to 2010, Texas just barely fewer, but neither comes close per citizen).
Throw in the sort of personality that likes living and flying airplanes there, and you get more excursions into any envelope of safety. Even when reducing risktaking deliberately they reduce it less than most people would.
The numbers aren't quite up to where you can expect to crash in an aircraft at least once in your life if you live all of it in Alaska, but there's probably an actuary somewhere who has it as a trigger for an extra calculation in his database.
So is the government. Should the government therefore be allowed to campaign on behalf of the sitting President? To favor one candidate over another? To pretend to represent a single political platform over all others?
A corporation is not one group of persons. The people with the power to make the decision to fund a candidate from the company treasury are its executives. The rest are its employees and minority shareholders, none of whom can sign a check against company accounts.
Ever notice what side company executives and company employees are on, generally, when it comes time to decide things? Hint: it's rarely the same side.
The employees have no right to use the corporation's money, which was earned from their energy and ingenuity, to support their political goals; it is inexorably alligned against them.
The money controlled by a corporation amplifies the democratic importance the executive suite well beyond the one-man/one-vote guaranteed in the Constitution, and denigrates the lives and voices of the employees, who are by far the greater portion of the electorate and by the principles of democracy should be the dominant political voice.
Then there's the fact that individuals may be in control of several corporations at once. That creates an artifical impression that larger numbers of people support an individual's personal goals.
The purpose of democracy is to prevent kings, not to enable them.
This has a flip-side. If it's not legal for corporations to spend on campaigns, it's not legal for unions to do it either. Which is fine with the Constitution.
The part where you think that's all the words in the 1st amendment, the Constitution, or the law. I've already pointed out that the Supreme Court does not consider those three words to be absolute. And in this case the 1st Amendment doesn't even apply. It's not a question of what someone is saying, it's a question of what someone is doing: providing excessive funding to a political campaign by producing and paying for its political advertising.
It's not even "taking away". Over time, the Internet has to grow just to satisfy the data needs of more complex applications.
That's all applications, not just on-demand television, which is all Google and Verizon really care about, despite their unctuous smarm about real-time medical imaging.
Without the sort of investment that being "The" Internet brings, the second-class Internet will degrade like the dirty, forgotten alleyway that Park Avenue wants it to become.
You can pay the postal service extra to have your packages arrive quicker.
But the USPS isn't a real-time system requiring reliable delivery of packets within tenths of a second to maintain coherence of video data. And the internet can't add capacity temporarily at all levels of operation.
If someone was able to pay an extra 35 cents and it caused my copy of Circuit Cellar Ink to arrive in three pieces on different days you can bet that I'd want the USPS to stop that.
Last I checked, the words "citizen," "people," and "person" are in the Constitution numerous and none of the the words "corporation," "company," or "firm" are, and the only "business" discussed is that of the government.
Money isn't speech, and corporations are not citizens, even if they're owned and run by citizens. This isn't "Google" speaking, it's Eric Schmidt, and he's leveraging his shareholders' money and his employees' goodwill to perpetrate this attack on democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
People with an Audi A8 are likely to be carrying a phone that can act as a hotspot.
Giving the functionality a 20,000% markup as a feature in a car is cute, but if it sells three additional vehicles I'll be surprised.
There's an important story to be covered and we get ... this?
Seriously, mods. Do away with voting on the firehose, or at least override it when a story is clearly off-topic and puerile. Leave this crap for Fark.
Laymen don't understand thermodynamics at any temperature. It's not about temperature, it's about pretending there's a problem and engaging people's antagonistic streak towards government, which they also don't understand at any temperature.
Take out that last line. They learned from that mistake.
The FCC isn't setting limits on us (at least not for bandwidth and price).
It's setting limits on companies that want to set limits on us, in an industry where those companies get their main resource - right of way on public infrastructure like power poles, digging up streets, easements through people's property, etc. - from us essentially for free.
Breaking net neutrality creates a public internet that will get the short end of every resource stick, and a non-public internet that will get full value from any limited public resources used to deliver the signal.
We're giving up our resources to them and getting essentially nothing in return unless we pay a premium price for it.
Or say you're the 201st and they're looking for 200 other people.
You don't. Not until you've identified the Does. This is paperwork, and as long as they paid the court costs, it's legit. They still have to identify the people and gather the evidence, which they'll be able to do immediately now.
if I trademark the human head
You can't, so that's a false premise.
AEG are clearly the owners of what happens at the festival, so they can do this.
Boom-sticks.
From S-Mart.
Keep your entire browser tree and all of its temp locations on a thumbdrive.
In fact, just boot from it.
No thumbdrive = no breadcrumbs.
If you're married, and she isn't l33t, are you sure you belong on /.?
Alaska, due to the massive standard deviation in topograpy, frequently abysmal weather, and the necessity of covering its vast area for which there is almost no infrastructure, is the nation's (and possibly the world's) epicenter for aircraft incidents, per capita (California has more total from 2008 to 2010, Texas just barely fewer, but neither comes close per citizen).
Throw in the sort of personality that likes living and flying airplanes there, and you get more excursions into any envelope of safety. Even when reducing risktaking deliberately they reduce it less than most people would.
The numbers aren't quite up to where you can expect to crash in an aircraft at least once in your life if you live all of it in Alaska, but there's probably an actuary somewhere who has it as a trigger for an extra calculation in his database.
So is the government. Should the government therefore be allowed to campaign on behalf of the sitting President? To favor one candidate over another? To pretend to represent a single political platform over all others?
A corporation is not one group of persons. The people with the power to make the decision to fund a candidate from the company treasury are its executives. The rest are its employees and minority shareholders, none of whom can sign a check against company accounts.
Ever notice what side company executives and company employees are on, generally, when it comes time to decide things? Hint: it's rarely the same side.
The employees have no right to use the corporation's money, which was earned from their energy and ingenuity, to support their political goals; it is inexorably alligned against them.
The money controlled by a corporation amplifies the democratic importance the executive suite well beyond the one-man/one-vote guaranteed in the Constitution, and denigrates the lives and voices of the employees, who are by far the greater portion of the electorate and by the principles of democracy should be the dominant political voice.
Then there's the fact that individuals may be in control of several corporations at once. That creates an artifical impression that larger numbers of people support an individual's personal goals.
The purpose of democracy is to prevent kings, not to enable them.
This has a flip-side. If it's not legal for corporations to spend on campaigns, it's not legal for unions to do it either. Which is fine with the Constitution.
The part where you think that's all the words in the 1st amendment, the Constitution, or the law. I've already pointed out that the Supreme Court does not consider those three words to be absolute. And in this case the 1st Amendment doesn't even apply. It's not a question of what someone is saying, it's a question of what someone is doing: providing excessive funding to a political campaign by producing and paying for its political advertising.
Hurd is a common scofflaw and thief, and has no right to run a $100 Billion corporation.
The fact that he's also a douchebag just made it easier for HP's board to put him in a position to blow his stack and his career.
They give you an Unfollow button to go with the Follow button.
But if you're going to click on Trending Topics there's no help I can give you.
"Stating anything in 140 character tweets give what kind of message? Twitter is nothing but a circle jerk."
Your message is 111 chars long.
Tug harder, you're not that pretty.
Marshall McLuhan said "The Medium is the Message" nearly half a century ago.
It's a means for humans to interact.
If all you're getting is twaddle, maybe that's all they think you can understand.
Pretty simple really.
Re-price everything in China to what it is in America.
I.e., force them to float their currency.
Once it costs the same to produce these things there as it does here, the work will balance out.
Correct.
Castle Age is much better.
I think we are headed down that slope regardless.
You get to vote yes or no and there's no penalty for voting no. Voting yes because you think you're doomed means you chose to be doomed.
It's not even "taking away". Over time, the Internet has to grow just to satisfy the data needs of more complex applications.
That's all applications, not just on-demand television, which is all Google and Verizon really care about, despite their unctuous smarm about real-time medical imaging.
Without the sort of investment that being "The" Internet brings, the second-class Internet will degrade like the dirty, forgotten alleyway that Park Avenue wants it to become.
You can pay the postal service extra to have your packages arrive quicker.
But the USPS isn't a real-time system requiring reliable delivery of packets within tenths of a second to maintain coherence of video data. And the internet can't add capacity temporarily at all levels of operation.
If someone was able to pay an extra 35 cents and it caused my copy of Circuit Cellar Ink to arrive in three pieces on different days you can bet that I'd want the USPS to stop that.
Last I checked, the words "citizen," "people," and "person" are in the Constitution numerous and none of the the words "corporation," "company," or "firm" are, and the only "business" discussed is that of the government.
Money isn't speech, and corporations are not citizens, even if they're owned and run by citizens. This isn't "Google" speaking, it's Eric Schmidt, and he's leveraging his shareholders' money and his employees' goodwill to perpetrate this attack on democracy.