I'm baffled. I don't understand the impetus to deny human-driven climate change other than straight up greed. The one argument I've heard recited is the lack of an accurate model. I can barely get an accurate weather forecast for a week from now and you want accuracy with something on the time scale of decades.
And at the end of the day, even if the models are inaccurate, it's not a question of whether it's happening but simply time frame. What difference does it make if they're off by a decade or two? Does that give us time to squander? Let me answer that. No. I think Vonnegut probably got it right. "We could have saved it [earth], but we were too goddamned cheap."
Actually, the scary thing is the internet companies and the Koch brothers stuffed the 'ballet boxes' AND that is going to be trotted out as the will of the people (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/16/one-group-dominates-the-second-round-of-net-neutrality-comments/).
Perhaps you should educate yourself to Eric Garner's situation. Even comes with video proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This officer was not charged with a crime.
Yes, but I think the threshold of proof here is not just one bad company, but two bad companies coming together and creating a better company. I'm pretty sure the anecdotal evidence for that is scant.
The main issue I'm finding here is what do they define as shift work. And dear lord, doesn't anyone else have a problem with the phrasing "antisocial shifts"?
From my perspective, what they actually measured here (or failed to measure) is the effect of having a shift that changes often. I believe that you can work 2nd or 3rd shift and experience relatively few side effects (there was a study about issues with not sleeping when it's dark out but moving on). The real problem is the constant change of sleep pattern. Changing that pattern puts more stress on the body which potentially explains the increased risk of death with daylight savings.
Volume-based billing absolutely makes sense. It makes no sense to the ISP to charge the same amount to a customer that uses 1000GB/month as one that uses 1GB/month.
Volume-based billing doesn't make sense. The operating costs are incredibly low whether it's 1 GB or 1000 GB (if you look at figure 20, you can clearly see high speed data is $2 -- and this is for google fiber's gigabit service -- http://www.businessinsider.com...). The true cost for bandwidth is in the infrastructure.
John Oliver made a really good point about Netflix (especially if you look at that nice bandwidth chart with Comcast before and after the deal -- http://knowmore.washingtonpost...). Ending net neutrality will give internet providers the freedom to extort anyone and everyone who needs significant bandwidth. And there's absolutely nothing to stop them.
By regulation, AC means that there's a state-sponsored oligopoly in place as well as state legislation/local politics making it difficult for start-ups. Regulation may not quite be the best word for it though.
Also, the big 6 publishing houses have a massively left-leaning bias. They've spent decades now killing the sales numbers of entire genres because the authors were required to toe the line of the latest politically correct movement.
You really had to go there, huh? By the way, Ann Coulter is published by Three Rivers Press, a division of Random House.
And frankly, profit isn't partisan. Companies publish what they think will sell (with exceptions, naturally)
Given how much processing power TV have these days, they could've easily made usb drives with the encryption keys and allows the tvs to do the same job that the boxes do now. But that just wouldn't be profitable. It's nice to see what greed and lack of competition produce.
"The peering market 'has functioned effectively and efficiently for over two decades without government intervention,' Comcast claimed at a congressional hearing."
I agree wholeheartedly that this is how you should approach it. I'd put special emphasis on that lawsuit aspect because this throws up all sorts of red flags. At best, it's legal grey area.
Personally, I'd tell them to give their tenants a 10% coupon and call it a day. Or heck, nothing (save technical know how) stops them from having a daily registration page (or redirect their initial page) to get onto the internet with some advertising on it. It's still a dirtbag move, but it deeply decreases the possibility of lawsuits.
I don't understand this impulse to make the monitor wider and wider. I'd like my monitor taller so I can see more of my webpages, not less. Maybe I'm just an old fogy so get off my digital lawn.
Slashdot Mirror
http://arlohemphill.com/2011/08/10/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/
I'm baffled. I don't understand the impetus to deny human-driven climate change other than straight up greed. The one argument I've heard recited is the lack of an accurate model. I can barely get an accurate weather forecast for a week from now and you want accuracy with something on the time scale of decades.
And at the end of the day, even if the models are inaccurate, it's not a question of whether it's happening but simply time frame. What difference does it make if they're off by a decade or two? Does that give us time to squander? Let me answer that. No. I think Vonnegut probably got it right. "We could have saved it [earth], but we were too goddamned cheap."
You're just jealous of my awesome rocket-car. It has pretty colors and stickers.
Every dollar spent on space exploration has come back to us tenfold.
Whoa, wait, what? Short of attributing this to inventions necessary for space travel, I don't see how this could possibly be true. Proof please.
I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that until you insert two bitcoins.
Actually, the scary thing is the internet companies and the Koch brothers stuffed the 'ballet boxes' AND that is going to be trotted out as the will of the people (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/16/one-group-dominates-the-second-round-of-net-neutrality-comments/).
Perhaps you should educate yourself to Eric Garner's situation. Even comes with video proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This officer was not charged with a crime.
Yes, but I think the threshold of proof here is not just one bad company, but two bad companies coming together and creating a better company. I'm pretty sure the anecdotal evidence for that is scant.
why copy Cisco of all people?! I mean, ridiculous boot times, incomprehensible backend, and more recently, mediocre programming.
This.
Having Comcast do a reverse DNS on the static IPs should be on the to-do list
They already are Comcast-esque money grubbers, there is no transformation required.
I'm pretty sure the last time I called my water company, they did not ask me if I'd like to upgrade my water to 'premium plus'.
The main issue I'm finding here is what do they define as shift work. And dear lord, doesn't anyone else have a problem with the phrasing "antisocial shifts"?
From my perspective, what they actually measured here (or failed to measure) is the effect of having a shift that changes often. I believe that you can work 2nd or 3rd shift and experience relatively few side effects (there was a study about issues with not sleeping when it's dark out but moving on). The real problem is the constant change of sleep pattern. Changing that pattern puts more stress on the body which potentially explains the increased risk of death with daylight savings.
Volume-based billing absolutely makes sense. It makes no sense to the ISP to charge the same amount to a customer that uses 1000GB/month as one that uses 1GB/month.
Volume-based billing doesn't make sense. The operating costs are incredibly low whether it's 1 GB or 1000 GB (if you look at figure 20, you can clearly see high speed data is $2 -- and this is for google fiber's gigabit service -- http://www.businessinsider.com...). The true cost for bandwidth is in the infrastructure.
John Oliver made a really good point about Netflix (especially if you look at that nice bandwidth chart with Comcast before and after the deal -- http://knowmore.washingtonpost...). Ending net neutrality will give internet providers the freedom to extort anyone and everyone who needs significant bandwidth. And there's absolutely nothing to stop them.
'Percent' is one word. '%' would've also been an acceptable answer.
By regulation, AC means that there's a state-sponsored oligopoly in place as well as state legislation/local politics making it difficult for start-ups. Regulation may not quite be the best word for it though.
Also, the big 6 publishing houses have a massively left-leaning bias. They've spent decades now killing the sales numbers of entire genres because the authors were required to toe the line of the latest politically correct movement.
You really had to go there, huh? By the way, Ann Coulter is published by Three Rivers Press, a division of Random House.
And frankly, profit isn't partisan. Companies publish what they think will sell (with exceptions, naturally)
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
And make these boxes unnecessary
Given how much processing power TV have these days, they could've easily made usb drives with the encryption keys and allows the tvs to do the same job that the boxes do now. But that just wouldn't be profitable. It's nice to see what greed and lack of competition produce.
Because corporations would never stoop to greasing palms or hiring their friends!
"The peering market 'has functioned effectively and efficiently for over two decades without government intervention,' Comcast claimed at a congressional hearing."
When they say anything
https://pc2.mypreferences.com/... Or you could press a few keys and ask them to stop.
And contract to sell my soul? Are you insane? If you cancel, that's 75% of the remaining contract that goes right into Comcast's pocket.
Mod parent up
I agree wholeheartedly that this is how you should approach it. I'd put special emphasis on that lawsuit aspect because this throws up all sorts of red flags. At best, it's legal grey area.
Personally, I'd tell them to give their tenants a 10% coupon and call it a day. Or heck, nothing (save technical know how) stops them from having a daily registration page (or redirect their initial page) to get onto the internet with some advertising on it. It's still a dirtbag move, but it deeply decreases the possibility of lawsuits.
to line his own pockets, actively work against his constituency, and claim it's for the good of the people.
I don't understand this impulse to make the monitor wider and wider. I'd like my monitor taller so I can see more of my webpages, not less. Maybe I'm just an old fogy so get off my digital lawn.