It's hard to tell with all the general cross subsidization with television service and retention discounts, but then, ISPs have only been regulated under Title II for around two years. Have you seen an actual bill recently that included cable television and Internet service at a decent speed for under $100 per month?
There are only three options here if an ISP wants to remain in business when more and more people are signing up for streaming video services: charge the streaming service for the performance it demands from their network beyond that which was reasonably foreseen, charge the customer directly for the burst traffic like electricity, or charge EVERYONE regardless of whether they use the streaming service or not. Under Net Neutrality, only the third option is actually available; the first now being illegal, and the second one being unacceptable in the marketplace.
I understand the issues perfectly. My financial incentive? Not wanting to see my Internet service bill go up to subsidize those watching Amazon and Netflix, which it MUST if "Net Neutrality" stays.
This is a good thing. It means that Reed Hastings and Jeff Bezos can't shift their costs onto consumers who don't use video services like Netflix. Looks like they'll have to build their own networks, or at least share the cost of provisioning connections capable of delivering uninterrupted streams of multi-megabit-per-second data.
Now, if you want to attack the root cause of the problem with last-mile and monopoly right-of-way access, discriminatory conduct and prohibitions on municipal broadband, be my guest. We already have laws for that.
Imagine what our world would be like without public education!
Wealthier and more educated than if we didn't throw somewhere around one trillion dollars annually down the black hole of the left-wing indoctrination-industrial complex? And that's just K12 in the United States.
Considering that certain Irishmen were instrumental in destroying America demographically through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, I'd say such a demand would be an eminently reasonable one.
I make fun because it's too late in the evening for me to go out and punch some Nazis, which is the appropriate response from anyone who values civil society and freedom.
The problem is, you define "Nazi" as 'anyone to the right of CNN'.
As for letting crazy people buy guns, Trump signed that Republican-back law not too long ago. Amazing, but there you go. It's nuts, and yes, Trump will be impeached.
So you want to deny due process to Social Security recipients, and grant it to foreign terrorists and illegal immigrants?
The vast majority of those who do the actual fighting in the military are white heterosexual Christian males. What makes you think they will support your side in ANY way, shape or form?
I wrote in the rifle emoji thread that gays with children are far, far more likely to be raping said children than normal people with rifles are likely to use them to commit murder. The same holds true for any gun in general.
Second it is very beneficial to me having smart people here creating technology, building businesses, growing our economy. I don't give a crap where they were born. I care what they do while they are here.
Look at immigration between 2000 and now. If you look at the relevant statistics of employment-population ratio, the number of legal immigrants in that period (around 16.4 million), and the number of jobs those legal immigrants have created (about 5.8 million), you will find that on net given the increase in population, either 10 million native-born Americans have lost their jobs to legal immigrant labor, or over two-thirds of legal immigrants are on welfare.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
There is no difference. It's called 'autogynephilia', meaning that these so-called "transsexuals" get off on being treated as women. They make other people reluctant props for their own sexual arousal. Stuff like this used to be considered extreme anti-social behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard to tell with all the general cross subsidization with television service and retention discounts, but then, ISPs have only been regulated under Title II for around two years. Have you seen an actual bill recently that included cable television and Internet service at a decent speed for under $100 per month?
There are only three options here if an ISP wants to remain in business when more and more people are signing up for streaming video services: charge the streaming service for the performance it demands from their network beyond that which was reasonably foreseen, charge the customer directly for the burst traffic like electricity, or charge EVERYONE regardless of whether they use the streaming service or not. Under Net Neutrality, only the third option is actually available; the first now being illegal, and the second one being unacceptable in the marketplace.
I understand the issues perfectly. My financial incentive? Not wanting to see my Internet service bill go up to subsidize those watching Amazon and Netflix, which it MUST if "Net Neutrality" stays.
This is a good thing. It means that Reed Hastings and Jeff Bezos can't shift their costs onto consumers who don't use video services like Netflix. Looks like they'll have to build their own networks, or at least share the cost of provisioning connections capable of delivering uninterrupted streams of multi-megabit-per-second data.
Now, if you want to attack the root cause of the problem with last-mile and monopoly right-of-way access, discriminatory conduct and prohibitions on municipal broadband, be my guest. We already have laws for that.
You can't blame the sugar industry for the extensively peer-reviewed "science" that proclaimed saturated animal fats to be dangerous.
When are the so-called "experts" going to be imprisoned for this fraud which has led to so many deaths due to heart disease and Type II diabetes?
You probably think Pol Pot was a moderate social democrat.
Imagine what our world would be like without public education!
Wealthier and more educated than if we didn't throw somewhere around one trillion dollars annually down the black hole of the left-wing indoctrination-industrial complex? And that's just K12 in the United States.
Considering that certain Irishmen were instrumental in destroying America demographically through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, I'd say such a demand would be an eminently reasonable one.
Of course implementing a similar solution is harder here because of the
...fact that you and your children would be killed if you tried such a thing?
Instead we have a government that passed a bill to allow people with mental illness to purchase firearms.
You and your family deserve to be machinegunned in the street outside your home.
I make fun because it's too late in the evening for me to go out and punch some Nazis, which is the appropriate response from anyone who values civil society and freedom.
The problem is, you define "Nazi" as 'anyone to the right of CNN'.
Your day is coming.
As for letting crazy people buy guns, Trump signed that Republican-back law not too long ago. Amazing, but there you go. It's nuts, and yes, Trump will be impeached.
So you want to deny due process to Social Security recipients, and grant it to foreign terrorists and illegal immigrants?
You need to be lynched.
Only because of the mental gymnastics Roberts had to go through. To ordinary sane and honest people though, it's quite obviously unconstitutional.
But since when has black-letter law ever meant anything?
The Constitution specifically forbids direct unapportioned taxes on anything other than income.
The vast majority of those who do the actual fighting in the military are white heterosexual Christian males. What makes you think they will support your side in ANY way, shape or form?
We're working to ensure the survival of Western civilization. Can't do that without nationalism.
Please get mowed down by a truck.
Nationalists don't destroy nations; advocates of mass-immigration do.
Tell me when they start complaining about the 60 million post-1965 immigrants and the Jews in AIPAC and Hollywood.
Apple includes emoji of two men with a child and two women with a child. Let's see how that's worked out:
http://blog.jim.com/culture/ga...
http://blog.jim.com/culture/th...
https://winteryknight.com/2013...
I wrote in the rifle emoji thread that gays with children are far, far more likely to be raping said children than normal people with rifles are likely to use them to commit murder. The same holds true for any gun in general.
Second it is very beneficial to me having smart people here creating technology, building businesses, growing our economy. I don't give a crap where they were born. I care what they do while they are here.
Look at immigration between 2000 and now. If you look at the relevant statistics of employment-population ratio, the number of legal immigrants in that period (around 16.4 million), and the number of jobs those legal immigrants have created (about 5.8 million), you will find that on net given the increase in population, either 10 million native-born Americans have lost their jobs to legal immigrant labor, or over two-thirds of legal immigrants are on welfare.
So Apple doesn't like men with rifles? How about gay men with children?
http://blog.jim.com/culture/ga...
http://blog.jim.com/culture/th...
https://winteryknight.com/2013...
Gays with children are far, far more likely to be raping said children than normal people with rifles are likely to use them to commit murder.
And yes, Apple includes emoji of two gay men with a child.
Being cuckolded is far more psychologically damaging to a man than even legitimate rape is to a woman.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
There is no difference. It's called 'autogynephilia', meaning that these so-called "transsexuals" get off on being treated as women. They make other people reluctant props for their own sexual arousal. Stuff like this used to be considered extreme anti-social behavior.