The problem with any vaccine-conspiracy is that it makes no sense. Big Pharma makes far more on drugs for treating illness, with drugs that cost much much more than vaccines (which are produced competitively by several companies and have government price controls).
So why would they do this elaborate conspiracy that *reduces* their income?
If you are being serious, I think the basic problem is that without the knowledge of it having happened and how bad it was, it will be MORE likely that all that unpleasantness will be repeated. The real thing is probably worse than the memory of it.
If the comparison period is changed each year to include the last year (ie 1880-2009 this year, 1880-2010 next year, which is what I think you are proposing) then you will get a mix between the values and the derivative of the values. This is useless as it is impossible to separate the data.
Derivatives are useful, but to get them you would compare this year to a fixed-length period that moves (ie compare to 1880-2008, then 1881-2009 next year, etc).
Both would help a lot by averaging together a fixed set of years around the current one to smooth the data. As these graphs are presented the noise makes it possible for anybody to make all kinds of wild arguments both for and against global warming since there are exceptional hot and cold spots.
I suspect a longer fixed period would not make denialists happy. Moving the start back would then start to include colder years before 1940, thus making the warming today look worse. If you moved the end up to the present day it would reduce the apparent amount of warming, but then maps of older years would show they were much cooler than the present day average.
Some religions believe money is useful in the afterlife. Not the rapture ones, I think, but still there is some commonality between religions so there may be some believers who also believe that.
Can you come up with a single other example than ONE TIME ARTICLE that says "scientists" were predicting an ice age? This was simply scifi prattle from the 1950's being wrapped up in a fake article. There are paragraphs in it that point out that it is challenging conventional wisdom.
AGW was being predicted in 1970. I know as I was told about it by my liberal elementary school teachers. "Nuclear winter" was attacked viciously in 1983 by the same people who are denialists now because "everybody knows pollution will make it warmer" . Larry Niven wrote "Fallen Angel" attacking environmentalists for GW in 1990 which means it was popular lore and being attacked by you people well before then.
You said "I'm glad to see someone admit something--all of the radical liberal movements in the US (environmental extremism, pro-gay, anti-military, pro-union, and most of the rest of the Democrat interest groups) are all just displaced Communists.".
I was just pointing out that the article you are responding to pretty clearly claims that it is the tea party that is from ex-communists. I don't necessarily agree but it does seem you did not read all of the previous post and thought it would be fun to point that out.
Yes if everybody goes full bore on the net, it will be divided equally and the users will get a lot less than 10gb. This has NOTHING to do with net neutrality and would be true if everybody tried to watch Comcast's video service at the same time.
In fact without net neutrality any such "10g" guarantee is even more meaningless. It would mean you would lose out on it much sooner as other preferred services occupy more of the bandwidth.
I don't think you need a T1 connection to make a 911 call. The "guaranteed" minimum is VERY VERY TINY and has nothing to do with providing useful internet service. Thanks for showing how knee-jerk stupid the opponents of it are.
It should be possible to make Wayland "network transparent". This would be the job of the "compositor". The Compositor takes the window images and assembles them into the screen display, and also takes user interface events and sends them to the programs. There is no reason it cannot assemble a window onto a remote display by talking to the Compositor running there, and return input events from that remote display. It can take hints about what areas of the windows were updated and doing comparisons and data compression so the images are sent quickly.
This is how Microsoft does remove windowing and it works reasonably well. Also how VNC works though they don't have access to the low levels similar to the Compositor.
I am however ignoring totally contradictory consequences: you say "this regulation would have forced unlimited data plans" (with your attempt to be sarcastic).
The other poster says "this regulation would have ended unlimited data plans" (actually this I believe is true while your post is just idiotic).
Most of the St Paul thing is limits on what Comcast can do and not on any competitor.
However there is this one regulation that does match what you are saying:
It regulates "Company's use of the public right-of-way"
That is a problem and what I guessed at with the "you need a license to dig up the streets". It sounds like perhaps you need much more than a license, like it is impossible. Still I'm not sure if this is any different than a prohibitively expensive license.
It does expire in 2013, but I would bet 100% that there will be no competition as to who gets the franchise next...
I do think this would be a workable solution. However I still find it hard to believe that you can say "freedom of choice would enforce net enutrality much more efficiently than laws" while at the same time saying "if Comcast (or Verizon, or AT&T) are forced to share their lines". I'm a little confused as to where this "force" comes from, if it is not, perhaps, a "law"?
If you provide wired service, then the WSJ rule applies.
The HuffPost is complaining that the same rule does not apply to wireless.
This is the only actual information that seems to have come out. It does *some* of Net Neutrality (not clear how much) and does less (or none) for wireless.
My best guess is that this legislation does nothing. There is lots of rabid foaming at the mouth that this is somehow giving the government some new ability to control the internet, but I have not seen it yet. It is possible however, and that would be bad.
The carriers would "deal with data intensive applications" by limiting them ALL EQUALLY. Your service will not go down due to the "torrenters", what will happen is (assuming the carrier is doing their job) is you will get ok service, and the torrenter will not get any more bandwidth than you are using.
This is trivial and would be allowed under pure Net Neutrality. But I'm sure you will continue to ignore it because it defeats your fantasy.
Unfortunately, a lot of ex-Communists became conservatives, and used those same techniques to organize right wing movements. The Tea Party techniques, of showing up en mass to disrupt a politician's town meeting, is pure Communist Party. The conservatives are now using the same techniques to push politicians to the right. The dinosaurs have evolved into birds; and the Communists have evolved into Conservatives. You have to use those same methods to fight them.
Yes please, can anybody say clearly what this bill does:
1. It does nothing at all (pretty much what the Huffington Post says)
2. It does something, but not much, toward Net Neutrality
3. It has some insidious other regulation that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality that will gives the goverment more control over the internet (this seems to be the sudden flip-flop of all the anti-NN people here, suddenly they are all saying "Oh I'm all for NN, but not for a regulation because it will be misues". Where the f**k was that argument a week ago, huh? Still you may be right, but only if somebody points out where this bill does something nasty, rather than doing nothing.
Can you point to an actual regulation that says "only this company is allowed".
I'm certain you are taking "you need to apply for a permit and pay a license fee to dig up the streets" as your big-brother fantasy that somehow this bad state is due to the eeevilll guberment...
The carriers are allowed to oversell their connections. They are not allowed to oversell it to the point that if the only traffic is everybody making a 911 call that it does not work.
So if a huge number of people make 911 calls then the Halo and Harry Potter players get reduced to the same bandwidth as one of those 911 calls, and the 911 calls get through.
Slashdot Mirror
So if the population gets big enough, everybody will have autism?
I'd look up the word "rate" and memorize the meaning so you don't look like an idiot.
The problem with any vaccine-conspiracy is that it makes no sense. Big Pharma makes far more on drugs for treating illness, with drugs that cost much much more than vaccines (which are produced competitively by several companies and have government price controls).
So why would they do this elaborate conspiracy that *reduces* their income?
That excuse would only make sense if a good deal of other parts of the text was also updated to modern wording.
If you are being serious, I think the basic problem is that without the knowledge of it having happened and how bad it was, it will be MORE likely that all that unpleasantness will be repeated. The real thing is probably worse than the memory of it.
Is this a troll? It makes no sense. I can't even tell if you are left wing or right wing.
If the comparison period is changed each year to include the last year (ie 1880-2009 this year, 1880-2010 next year, which is what I think you are proposing) then you will get a mix between the values and the derivative of the values. This is useless as it is impossible to separate the data.
Derivatives are useful, but to get them you would compare this year to a fixed-length period that moves (ie compare to 1880-2008, then 1881-2009 next year, etc).
Both would help a lot by averaging together a fixed set of years around the current one to smooth the data. As these graphs are presented the noise makes it possible for anybody to make all kinds of wild arguments both for and against global warming since there are exceptional hot and cold spots.
I suspect a longer fixed period would not make denialists happy. Moving the start back would then start to include colder years before 1940, thus making the warming today look worse. If you moved the end up to the present day it would reduce the apparent amount of warming, but then maps of older years would show they were much cooler than the present day average.
Some religions believe money is useful in the afterlife. Not the rapture ones, I think, but still there is some commonality between religions so there may be some believers who also believe that.
Can you come up with a single other example than ONE TIME ARTICLE that says "scientists" were predicting an ice age? This was simply scifi prattle from the 1950's being wrapped up in a fake article. There are paragraphs in it that point out that it is challenging conventional wisdom.
AGW was being predicted in 1970. I know as I was told about it by my liberal elementary school teachers. "Nuclear winter" was attacked viciously in 1983 by the same people who are denialists now because "everybody knows pollution will make it warmer" . Larry Niven wrote "Fallen Angel" attacking environmentalists for GW in 1990 which means it was popular lore and being attacked by you people well before then.
Every single square inch of earth must increase in temperature, otherwise global warning is "denied", huh?
You said "I'm glad to see someone admit something--all of the radical liberal movements in the US (environmental extremism, pro-gay, anti-military, pro-union, and most of the rest of the Democrat interest groups) are all just displaced Communists.".
I was just pointing out that the article you are responding to pretty clearly claims that it is the tea party that is from ex-communists. I don't necessarily agree but it does seem you did not read all of the previous post and thought it would be fun to point that out.
Yes if everybody goes full bore on the net, it will be divided equally and the users will get a lot less than 10gb. This has NOTHING to do with net neutrality and would be true if everybody tried to watch Comcast's video service at the same time.
In fact without net neutrality any such "10g" guarantee is even more meaningless. It would mean you would lose out on it much sooner as other preferred services occupy more of the bandwidth.
I don't think you need a T1 connection to make a 911 call. The "guaranteed" minimum is VERY VERY TINY and has nothing to do with providing useful internet service. Thanks for showing how knee-jerk stupid the opponents of it are.
It should be possible to make Wayland "network transparent". This would be the job of the "compositor". The Compositor takes the window images and assembles them into the screen display, and also takes user interface events and sends them to the programs. There is no reason it cannot assemble a window onto a remote display by talking to the Compositor running there, and return input events from that remote display. It can take hints about what areas of the windows were updated and doing comparisons and data compression so the images are sent quickly.
This is how Microsoft does remove windowing and it works reasonably well. Also how VNC works though they don't have access to the low levels similar to the Compositor.
Well that sounds remarkably reasonable.
I'm really not seeing the "cave" that the left is claiming, or the "evil guvvinment is taking over the internet" the right is claiming.
Of course that is no fun. Everybody would rather think the USA is going to hell and it is all that other persons fault...
I'm not ignoring secondary consequences.
I am however ignoring totally contradictory consequences: you say "this regulation would have forced unlimited data plans" (with your attempt to be sarcastic).
The other poster says "this regulation would have ended unlimited data plans" (actually this I believe is true while your post is just idiotic).
Most of the St Paul thing is limits on what Comcast can do and not on any competitor.
However there is this one regulation that does match what you are saying:
It regulates "Company's use of the public right-of-way"
That is a problem and what I guessed at with the "you need a license to dig up the streets". It sounds like perhaps you need much more than a license, like it is impossible. Still I'm not sure if this is any different than a prohibitively expensive license.
It does expire in 2013, but I would bet 100% that there will be no competition as to who gets the franchise next...
I do think this would be a workable solution. However I still find it hard to believe that you can say "freedom of choice would enforce net enutrality much more efficiently than laws" while at the same time saying "if Comcast (or Verizon, or AT&T) are forced to share their lines". I'm a little confused as to where this "force" comes from, if it is not, perhaps, a "law"?
Both.
If you provide wired service, then the WSJ rule applies.
The HuffPost is complaining that the same rule does not apply to wireless.
This is the only actual information that seems to have come out. It does *some* of Net Neutrality (not clear how much) and does less (or none) for wireless.
My best guess is that this legislation does nothing. There is lots of rabid foaming at the mouth that this is somehow giving the government some new ability to control the internet, but I have not seen it yet. It is possible however, and that would be bad.
Check two posts above yours, where another anti-NN dittohead is instead saying "it will end unlimited data plans and that will be horrible!!!!"
Wow, you guys will use any reason you can think of, won't you. Does not matter if they absolutely contradict each other.
The carriers would "deal with data intensive applications" by limiting them ALL EQUALLY. Your service will not go down due to the "torrenters", what will happen is (assuming the carrier is doing their job) is you will get ok service, and the torrenter will not get any more bandwidth than you are using.
This is trivial and would be allowed under pure Net Neutrality. But I'm sure you will continue to ignore it because it defeats your fantasy.
Unfortunately, a lot of ex-Communists became conservatives, and used those same techniques to organize right wing movements. The Tea Party techniques, of showing up en mass to disrupt a politician's town meeting, is pure Communist Party. The conservatives are now using the same techniques to push politicians to the right. The dinosaurs have evolved into birds; and the Communists have evolved into Conservatives. You have to use those same methods to fight them.
Yes please, can anybody say clearly what this bill does:
1. It does nothing at all (pretty much what the Huffington Post says)
2. It does something, but not much, toward Net Neutrality
3. It has some insidious other regulation that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality that will gives the goverment more control over the internet (this seems to be the sudden flip-flop of all the anti-NN people here, suddenly they are all saying "Oh I'm all for NN, but not for a regulation because it will be misues". Where the f**k was that argument a week ago, huh? Still you may be right, but only if somebody points out where this bill does something nasty, rather than doing nothing.
"You Lie!"
Well, that was certainly an informed rebuttal! Really convincing. Not.
Can you point to an actual regulation that says "only this company is allowed".
I'm certain you are taking "you need to apply for a permit and pay a license fee to dig up the streets" as your big-brother fantasy that somehow this bad state is due to the eeevilll guberment...
The carriers are allowed to oversell their connections. They are not allowed to oversell it to the point that if the only traffic is everybody making a 911 call that it does not work.
So if a huge number of people make 911 calls then the Halo and Harry Potter players get reduced to the same bandwidth as one of those 911 calls, and the 911 calls get through.