And removing net neutrality affects this how? Oh wait, it makes it worse. Because now that single ISP can throttle you to hell for using Netflix, and there is no recourse for you as a consumer. So there is literally no way for the free market to do jack shit.
If net neutrality is so GOOD for BIG BUSINESS, then why do the BIG ISPs want to get rid of it?
No, the government didn't "say it". I'm saying it.
I'm an Electrical Engineer, I understand how the Internet works, and I understand the importance of net neutrality. I don't need the government to explain anything, I can do the math myself.
net neutrality = an open internet free of central control
Nope. Not what net neutrality means. It just means that everyone has to treat all data the same. A rule that says no one can control something is how you ensure no one controls something.
I thought it was called Black Friday because it was the day that the accounts of most retail companies would no longer be "in the red". Referring to accounting practice of marking losses/profits in ledgers in red/black ink.
Districts get gerrymandered to make them 'safe' for a given party. However, this also allows those with more extreme views to win, because they don't have to win as many (or sometimes any) moderates or independents. In turn, this makes the previously moderate candidates become more extreme to avoid being challenged by someone even more extreme.
This perfectly fits the pattern we see now. Honestly I think it's worse on the Reps' side, simply because it will always be worse on the side of the party that is more heavily gerrymandered (i.e. has more safe districts).
Objectively you can say this is the Reps because of how they can retain control of the House in spite of losing the overall congressional vote. Currently, the Dems would be unable to win the House without also trouncing the Reps in the overall vote (~13% is the number thrown around by 538, IIRC, I cannot find a specific source). I also think this is reflected in the inability for the 'party establishment' of the Reps to retain control (although, whether that's a bad thing in general is debatable). Why should the Freedom Caucus (e.g.) care about losing party establishment support when their district is so safe it doesn't matter?
We can also thank Congress as well. And I don't just mean the party in charge of Congress (at the time the Dems), because the bill passed with overwhelming support in both houses (401-21 and 89-11).
I point this out for 2 reasons. One is to remember a time when the parties did actually achieve things working together. The second is to give credit and also hold responsible the correct branches of government for various actions. Our tendency nowadays to lay everything at the feet of the President is why certain problems will 'never' be fixed. For example, the national debt.
We constantly blame Bush 43 and/or Obama for our huge debt, when in reality the fault lies in the Capitol, not the White House. Congress passes budgets and decides how much to tax, period. We could elect Ebeneezer Scrooge himself President and it will make no difference until we start electing Senators and Representatives who will only pass surplus budgets until the debt is paid off.
That the ozone depletion/ozone hole continued to grow after the Montreal agreement was predicted.
It astounds me that people on/., who are supposed to be technically competent, don't understand the difference between non-linear short term effects and long term linear effects.
If you were to place an oscilloscope on a 5V power supply, and capture the signal as I increased the voltage to 10V, you would be able to see a ton of non-linear ringing etc. where the voltage actually decreases over certain time intervals. Yet for many on this site, apparently that would prove to them that I did not actually increase the voltage at all!
It's like they cloned a clone of a clone of a clone of G.W. Bush and got Rick Perry. I swear they even look alike from certain angles.
Maybe I'm the only one but I definitely get an uncanny valley vibe between him and W. The glasses definitely help to offset it; I think he started wearing them just to throw off suspicion.
Fuck, I can't believe I'm going to defend Trump, but...
His complaint is that NATO members are not meeting their obligation of X% of GDP spent on defence. (I don't remember the exact number or care to look it up.) So it doesn't matter what they spend X% on, just that it's for defence.
Right after giving a giant tax cut to the rich and destroying net neutrality... which of course comes after a few dozen rounds of golf, and then being reminded that Puerto Rico is part of the US.
What part of "single founding population that was the result of a single migration" is confusing to you? There was no prior population. See, that's why I didn't just cherry pick one sentence, so that there could be no ambiguity.
Slashdot Mirror
And removing net neutrality affects this how? Oh wait, it makes it worse. Because now that single ISP can throttle you to hell for using Netflix, and there is no recourse for you as a consumer. So there is literally no way for the free market to do jack shit.
If net neutrality is so GOOD for BIG BUSINESS, then why do the BIG ISPs want to get rid of it?
No, the government didn't "say it". I'm saying it.
I'm an Electrical Engineer, I understand how the Internet works, and I understand the importance of net neutrality. I don't need the government to explain anything, I can do the math myself.
net neutrality = an open internet free of central control
Nope. Not what net neutrality means. It just means that everyone has to treat all data the same. A rule that says no one can control something is how you ensure no one controls something.
Exactly, consumer choice. Which requires that there are no monopolies.
Hmm, if only the President was responsible for passing laws... who was in charge of Congress in 1996? I wonder...
I thought it was called Black Friday because it was the day that the accounts of most retail companies would no longer be "in the red". Referring to accounting practice of marking losses/profits in ledgers in red/black ink.
You mean Republicans aren't rats with tiny brains?
Really, I thought it was tax breaks for those earning $450,000 per year, a.k.a. the "middle class".
I think that this is all down to gerrymandering.
Districts get gerrymandered to make them 'safe' for a given party. However, this also allows those with more extreme views to win, because they don't have to win as many (or sometimes any) moderates or independents. In turn, this makes the previously moderate candidates become more extreme to avoid being challenged by someone even more extreme.
This perfectly fits the pattern we see now. Honestly I think it's worse on the Reps' side, simply because it will always be worse on the side of the party that is more heavily gerrymandered (i.e. has more safe districts).
Objectively you can say this is the Reps because of how they can retain control of the House in spite of losing the overall congressional vote. Currently, the Dems would be unable to win the House without also trouncing the Reps in the overall vote (~13% is the number thrown around by 538, IIRC, I cannot find a specific source). I also think this is reflected in the inability for the 'party establishment' of the Reps to retain control (although, whether that's a bad thing in general is debatable). Why should the Freedom Caucus (e.g.) care about losing party establishment support when their district is so safe it doesn't matter?
I think it depends on whether you are looking at fiscal policy or social policy. On the former, I agree. On the latter, not so much.
FYI, Bernie Sanders is once again an Independent. I believe he became one again almost immediately upon losing the nomination.
We can also thank Congress as well. And I don't just mean the party in charge of Congress (at the time the Dems), because the bill passed with overwhelming support in both houses (401-21 and 89-11).
I point this out for 2 reasons. One is to remember a time when the parties did actually achieve things working together. The second is to give credit and also hold responsible the correct branches of government for various actions. Our tendency nowadays to lay everything at the feet of the President is why certain problems will 'never' be fixed. For example, the national debt.
We constantly blame Bush 43 and/or Obama for our huge debt, when in reality the fault lies in the Capitol, not the White House. Congress passes budgets and decides how much to tax, period. We could elect Ebeneezer Scrooge himself President and it will make no difference until we start electing Senators and Representatives who will only pass surplus budgets until the debt is paid off.
That the ozone depletion/ozone hole continued to grow after the Montreal agreement was predicted.
It astounds me that people on /., who are supposed to be technically competent, don't understand the difference between non-linear short term effects and long term linear effects.
If you were to place an oscilloscope on a 5V power supply, and capture the signal as I increased the voltage to 10V, you would be able to see a ton of non-linear ringing etc. where the voltage actually decreases over certain time intervals. Yet for many on this site, apparently that would prove to them that I did not actually increase the voltage at all!
The conflict in Syria was largely caused by a major drought which from 2006-2011 wiped out 75% of farms and 85% of the livestock across the country.
Yeah, environmental concerns are totally overblown.
Strange how they don't dig up even bigger dirt during the globlists' cabals like the Bushes, Clintons and O.
I agree, it's strange how they don't find evidence that doesn't exist.
FYI, if you reply to me with the 'evidence', then WTF is the parent bitching about?
It's like they cloned a clone of a clone of a clone of G.W. Bush and got Rick Perry. I swear they even look alike from certain angles.
Maybe I'm the only one but I definitely get an uncanny valley vibe between him and W. The glasses definitely help to offset it; I think he started wearing them just to throw off suspicion.
Fuck, I can't believe I'm going to defend Trump, but...
His complaint is that NATO members are not meeting their obligation of X% of GDP spent on defence. (I don't remember the exact number or care to look it up.) So it doesn't matter what they spend X% on, just that it's for defence.
So what you're saying just doesn't make sense.
He's also an American, so it's more like double-reverse irony.
I have a personal vendetta against Putin too. Turns out, when you're a ruthless cunt, people don't like you very much.
Right after giving a giant tax cut to the rich and destroying net neutrality... which of course comes after a few dozen rounds of golf, and then being reminded that Puerto Rico is part of the US.
But after all that, we'll get right on it.
You're right, you can't. You have to actually go out and help people. What a concept!
I agree. Whoever he chose as his successor is really fucking things up.
What part of "single founding population that was the result of a single migration" is confusing to you? There was no prior population. See, that's why I didn't just cherry pick one sentence, so that there could be no ambiguity.
Fake news, bitch.
Also, the difference is between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago. So I'm not sure what "shorter time gap" you're talking about.
No, he's not. See my other comment.