I was referring to regulation of "limiting profits". Maybe you can explain how limiting profits will lead to more competition, but as I see it, it will simply ensure no competition arises.
Some regulation regarding pricing might make sense. That is, a big ISP much charge comparable rates to all customers for comparable services, and not simply cut rates in areas where there is competition.
Regulation for handling content, fast lanes and slow lanes, is a different matter. That should be kept separate, its the most important piece to ensuring ISPs don't gain domination of content.
And regulating profits would help ensure it stays that way. There is competition emerging in some areas. Regulate profits, and that may very well stop.
The monopolistic nature of ISPs in many areas is an issue, and certainly a big factor. If you want competition, then don't allow the ISPs too much control over selective content delivery, as they will strike exclusive deals and kill any chance of real competition. But don't give potential competitors reason to stay by limiting profits.
Regulating profits does nothing to ensure an open internet. Its a separate issue, and should be kept separate. If you limit profits, you may also be limiting the chance of competition forming.
The FCC should focus on ensuring fair standards for access and content delivery, and set rules accordingly. Let local governments deal with monopolistic entities if the wish, as every situation is different.
even the potential threat of Title II had an investment-chilling effect by erasing approximately 10% of some ISPs' market cap
Translation: Our investors know we stand to profit greatly from being able to control the flow of internet traffic in accordance with our company's best interest.
^I see you have put much thought in to what it would take to successfully pull off such a dirty bomb attack, including how much material would be involved. Maybe you could elaborate on what you've considered for the benefit of the readers?
Or, if you blindly trust the author's claims and statements, just say it.
^Yeah, I know some article submitters have an agenda. Too bad they feel the need to choose such BS to try to make their case rather than submitting something with a little credibility. FUD is very important to the cause.
The author can't seem to distinguish between the paths of weapons based programs and commercial nuclear electrical generation. He infers conclusions that he dare not spell out.
Statement of ridiculousness include;
For a terrorist, however, uranium 233 is a tempting theft target; it does not require advanced shaping and implosion technology to be fashioned into a workable nuclear device. The Energy Department recognizes this characteristic and requires any amount of more than two kilograms of uranium 233 to be maintained under its most stringent safeguards, to prevent “onsite assembly of an improvised nuclear device.” As for the claim that radiation levels from uranium 232 make uranium 233 proliferation resistant, Oak Ridge researchers note that “if a diverter was motivated by foreign nationalistic purposes, personnel exposure would be of no concerns since exposure would not result in immediate death.”
But this material is actually extremely difficult to make a warhead out of or use in any weaponized manner other than a dirty bomb.
But with little effort, its easy to find that U-233 has the "unavoidable co-presence of uranium-232[6] which can make uranium-233 very dangerous to work on and quite easy to detect." That was conveniently ignored.
So, while it could be used in a dirty bomb, there are much easier, more tempting targets for that. Particularly when its material stored in a highly protected area. "No concerns"? Give me a break.
As for the Nevada waste thing. What he describes as a simple "landfill" is actually a waste area within the Nevada National Security Site.
Its easy to see right through the BS this author has laid out. Its a shame he doesn't seem to care about his own credibility. Just another asshat that does nothing but talk. Its a shame, because there are legitimate issues here to discuss, and it helps when the facts are laid out in a responsible manner.
$2K to charge your phones? Its a whole lot cheaper to just buy your power from the bulk generators. Batteries are the cost killers. And don't kid yourself about low cost batteries lasting 20 years.
Calculate cost/kWh over a given time period, that's the only way to evaluate the cost.
As far as the US is concerned; Since in 2013 solar only accounted for less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the electrical generation (that includes commercial and residential), and since they are variable supplies to start with that depend on the rest of the grid to be useful, I wouldn't worry too much about them crashing the grid.
The language is too carefully chosen. I expect the same old sheet.
Wheeler seems too anxious to move fast."won't allow companies to segregate Web traffic into fast and slow lanes" is a matter of interpretation. If you insist the slow lane is really not a slow lane, it is a meaningless statement.
Slashdot Mirror
I was referring to regulation of "limiting profits". Maybe you can explain how limiting profits will lead to more competition, but as I see it, it will simply ensure no competition arises.
Some regulation regarding pricing might make sense. That is, a big ISP much charge comparable rates to all customers for comparable services, and not simply cut rates in areas where there is competition.
Regulation for handling content, fast lanes and slow lanes, is a different matter. That should be kept separate, its the most important piece to ensuring ISPs don't gain domination of content.
There is no competition now!
And regulating profits would help ensure it stays that way. There is competition emerging in some areas. Regulate profits, and that may very well stop.
The monopolistic nature of ISPs in many areas is an issue, and certainly a big factor. If you want competition, then don't allow the ISPs too much control over selective content delivery, as they will strike exclusive deals and kill any chance of real competition. But don't give potential competitors reason to stay by limiting profits.
"Might" and "Could" seem to be very common words in battery development headlines.
How about this innovative approach....keep improving products and let the customers decide which risks they are willing to accept or need to remove.
Regulating profits does nothing to ensure an open internet. Its a separate issue, and should be kept separate. If you limit profits, you may also be limiting the chance of competition forming.
The FCC should focus on ensuring fair standards for access and content delivery, and set rules accordingly. Let local governments deal with monopolistic entities if the wish, as every situation is different.
They certainly lack any specific examples of what types of upgrades they are planning that would not happen.
even the potential threat of Title II had an investment-chilling effect by erasing approximately 10% of some ISPs' market cap
Translation: Our investors know we stand to profit greatly from being able to control the flow of internet traffic in accordance with our company's best interest.
Its a slippery step in the right direction, but not enough for me. The devil is always in the details.
FUD missiles are much easier to deliver, and they have mass impact.
So, looks like Netflix will have another fast lane to purchase.
^I see you have put much thought in to what it would take to successfully pull off such a dirty bomb attack, including how much material would be involved. Maybe you could elaborate on what you've considered for the benefit of the readers?
Or, if you blindly trust the author's claims and statements, just say it.
Just about anyone can call themselves a scientist, or an advisor. I find it incredible the number of people still duped by those claims.
^Yeah, I know some article submitters have an agenda. Too bad they feel the need to choose such BS to try to make their case rather than submitting something with a little credibility. FUD is very important to the cause.
Statement of ridiculousness include;
For a terrorist, however, uranium 233 is a tempting theft target; it does not require advanced shaping and implosion technology to be fashioned into a workable nuclear device. The Energy Department recognizes this characteristic and requires any amount of more than two kilograms of uranium 233 to be maintained under its most stringent safeguards, to prevent “onsite assembly of an improvised nuclear device.” As for the claim that radiation levels from uranium 232 make uranium 233 proliferation resistant, Oak Ridge researchers note that “if a diverter was motivated by foreign nationalistic purposes, personnel exposure would be of no concerns since exposure would not result in immediate death.”
But this material is actually extremely difficult to make a warhead out of or use in any weaponized manner other than a dirty bomb. But with little effort, its easy to find that U-233 has the "unavoidable co-presence of uranium-232[6] which can make uranium-233 very dangerous to work on and quite easy to detect." That was conveniently ignored.
So, while it could be used in a dirty bomb, there are much easier, more tempting targets for that. Particularly when its material stored in a highly protected area. "No concerns"? Give me a break.
As for the Nevada waste thing. What he describes as a simple "landfill" is actually a waste area within the Nevada National Security Site.
Its easy to see right through the BS this author has laid out. Its a shame he doesn't seem to care about his own credibility. Just another asshat that does nothing but talk. Its a shame, because there are legitimate issues here to discuss, and it helps when the facts are laid out in a responsible manner.
I agree. I don't see the battle is lost, and the attention and pushback does provide hope. But the red flags are popping up.
566TWh is not an instantaneous or capacity measurement. So "at the time" does not make sense. hence the point.
"566TWh was generated between time A and time B" is correct statement
"We have 566TWh of solar capability at the moment" is incorrect.
$2K to charge your phones? Its a whole lot cheaper to just buy your power from the bulk generators. Batteries are the cost killers. And don't kid yourself about low cost batteries lasting 20 years.
Calculate cost/kWh over a given time period, that's the only way to evaluate the cost.
LOL.
Of course, they'll change the phrase to "Liberty OR Justice, for all" to match.
No. What we should assume is that the summary claims that 229,300 solar plants has pumped out 566TWh of electrical energy in total.
In total since the beginning of time?
So we can just assume a total of 566TWh of electrical energy has been generated since the beginning of time?
One can do a lot of things, if one has the money doesn't care about the cost.
As far as the US is concerned; Since in 2013 solar only accounted for less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the electrical generation (that includes commercial and residential), and since they are variable supplies to start with that depend on the rest of the grid to be useful, I wouldn't worry too much about them crashing the grid.
The language is too carefully chosen. I expect the same old sheet.
Wheeler seems too anxious to move fast."won't allow companies to segregate Web traffic into fast and slow lanes" is a matter of interpretation. If you insist the slow lane is really not a slow lane, it is a meaningless statement.
Why do they call it the "Idaho stop". Is it because nobody really ever cares to stop in a place like Idaho?
and $7 is way too much to pay for bulk USB flash drives.