It should protect Microsoft and allow them to license content to distribute and it should protect consumers to not be held hostage to a carrier paying for content as a middleman.
If ESPN can't charge ISPs to get access to ESPN3, I doubt there would be an ESPN3 as there would be no cash flow, so that "amazing, cool" think you are talking about would be destroyed by your government action. Thanks!
Fractional reserve banking increases the money supply through lending, literally creating money from thin air. In order to maintain the money supply and keep inflation from spiraling out of control, the Central Bank must both manipulate the currency through the prime rate, and regulate the banks through reserve requirements.
Actually there have been many periods of "free banking" where banks issued their own notes based on fractional reserve banking without having a Central Bank as a "lender of last resort" and without having government required fiat currency. It certainly is in the interest of "free banks" to ensure that the global money supply remains stable, and private banks could coordinate to achieve this, but it is true that the history of Free Banking shows that to be difficult, although it hasn't been tried much recently with the advantage of computer networking communications.
Given the deflation of the Depression and the Stagflation of the 1970's, it is clear that having a Central Bank and banking regulations does not automatically mean the money supply is actually under control.
But I myself think fiat currency and Central Banks probably maximize stability, but my mind is open to other possibilities should they prove out.
. They are the ones who want to SHUTDOWN the fucking government.
Unfortunately, the recent track record of the Republicans is that they increased government spending while they controlled Congress, just in slightly different ways than the Democrats have.
A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that there is a complete mismatch of knowledge between those for and those against.
A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that THERE IS NO PROBLEM YET.
Abortions happen. People get shot with guns. Poisonous chemicals get dumped into rivers. CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This actually happens, and a rational discussion could be had about regulation.
But no one is actually violating "Net Neutrality" right now. We might as well be regulating the number of angels on the head of a pin.
An ISP or two tried to cut off Torrent-using bandwidth hogs, then backed down to a more reasonable solution under market forces.
Now, for a TV show, that is a bit easier. Simply get an RMS of the show before airing it, as well as the peak volume, do the same for each commercial, and adjust the commercial volume accordingly. It's not a difficult problem at all.
Unfortunately if you talk to psychoacoustic experts, they will tell you that science does not have a full grasp of perceived loudness.
The best we can say is that a frequency-weighted short-term power measurement such as ITU-R BS.1770 LKFS does an OK job in general, but it can not do a good job representing the perceived loudness of temporal discrepancies (a show fades to quiet during the credits, than an equal LKFS ad starts up abruptly but sounds much louder), or why when an expected loud sound (like a bomb clock counting down to 0:00 then blowing up) sounds louder than a bomb that blows up without warning, despite equal LKFS.
Moreover, there are probably differences in individual's frequency weighting of loudness (we know this happens with age), so BS.1770 LKFS is an average but may not represent your particular frequency weighting for your personal perception of loudness.
Simply saying the volume can't be above X dB means that commercials will be at exactly X dB for the entire time. Or they'll start using odd/distorted/alarming sounds (sirens, glass breaking, babies crying, etc)
The CALM Act refers to the use of ATSC A/85 'Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television', which is mainly based on the ITU-R BS.1770 LKFS apparent loudness measurement, which is a frequency-weighted power measurement.
The truth is that an expected loud noise (like seeing someone pull the trigger on a gun that then shoots) is less apparently loud than a surprise loud noise (like a bomb going off without notice), but there is no way to effectively measure that with a mechanical device.
There are other known temporal issues with loudness perception that also are unlikely to be fully comprehended by BS.1770 LKFS, but it is the best thing we have right now.
Some Commercials are put in at the local cable Headend and the tv network do not have control of that volume
And the CALM Act applies to "Any broadcast television operator, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor". Exactly how cable operators are going to move from splicing local ads of a set "loudness" level into 1000 channels each running at different target "loudness" values is a bit of a mystery to me!
You can switch your ISP, but you can't choose what route your packets travel and you have no choice in the backbone providers it may travel through.
You could switch to an ISP that refuses to exchange traffic with "non-neutral" ISPs...
I'll worry about "network neutrality" when someone actually does something. All the ISPs know they'll get whacked by their customers if they are doing something to significantly reduce user experience.
Note the last part of that sentence from the summary. In essence, it seems to imply that their just requiring special building permits approved on a case-by-case basis for any new cell tower built in a potentially concerning place. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
That means that only the politically-connected companies will now be able to put up new towers.
Because I can't believe you think an analogy to Rosa Parks is good argumentation.
Rosa Parks violated a stupid law. So do illegal immigrants.
For that matter, what about all the illegals who are involved in the drug cartels and conducting drug, gun, and even human trafficking?
I can assure you that there are far more US citizens involved in illegal drug and gun sales than illegal immigrants! Of course, without our stupid drug laws, we also would not have violent drug cartels.
Moreover, if we have more open legal immigration, there would not be a need for "human trafficking", people would simply do what they did before 1930. Show up, have someone sponsor them, live three years in the US peaceably, become a citizen. That is the way it worked for my great-grandparents.
Obviously YOU are the product of immigrants. Perhaps we should have kept YOUR family out because they were "dangerous foreigners"? Plenty of people were talking about the "drunken Irish" or "diseased Russians" or "dirty Eastern Europeans" 100 years ago, just like you are trying to conflate illegals with your racist views.
Racism is inherently wrong. There is no justification for it
Then why do we prohibit Mexicans and other people from Central America from the DV series immigrant visas? Let's be honest, our country-of-origin based immigration system is actually racism in disguise.
By the way, while I'm ranting, I'll say that most people who argue "why can't they just follow the laws" regarding immigration generally have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE themselves.
If that's true, then Mexico has serious problems that the Mexican people need to solve.
That would be a great idea. Why exactly you want to continue to sentence poor Mexicans to poverty until that occurs instead of letting them come to the US and contribute to our economy is beyond me.
Seriously, though, the idea is to filter in those who are likely to be a net benefit to those already here, and filter out the rest.
Yet every person who comes to the United States and works is, by definition, providing more benefits to the economy than they are being paid (or else their employer would not employee them)!
Also I know my immigrant great-grandparents were not skilled when they arrived, but they gained some skills, and their kids went on to get advanced degrees and get highly skilled jobs. Thus we should also not ignore the "progeny effect". And I can assure you, no one thought in the first decade of the 20th Century that the grand-kids of those "nasty immigrants from Bohemia" were going to amount to anything, but they did.
Now it might be that we provide too much socialist welfare support to immigrants or poor people in general, and perhaps we should rethink that.
you don't want to displace existing workers, or depress the wage base
If you are a US citizen who knows English and got 12 years of free school, and you are competing in the labor pool with people with a 3rd grade education who only know Spanish, then perhaps you deserve to have your wage base depressed! In truth, if your wage base was not depressed through immigration, it would become depressed through trade, or through robots taking over your job!
The second they break our laws to be here they demonstrate a belief that we owe them something.
Tell that to Rosa Parks...
Of course the truth is it isn't THEIR right to freedom of movement we should be most worried about, it is OUR economy they will improve, directly through their hard work and indirectly through the hard work of their progeny. One of their children could be the world's next Linus. It is unlikely their children could be the next Linus if their kid is born in a small town in Mexico.
Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?
How many people with Ph.D.'s are sneaking across the border when they can simply obtain an EB visa?
The people who are sneaking across the border are the people who have no legal path to citizenship - unskilled workers from Mexico and Central America without direct family in the US.
I would imagine the process of getting a green card was a lot easier for Linus Torvalds than it would be for some random Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree.
You are correct. Linus likely used an EB visa for highly educated workers, then had kids, then applied for citizenship based on being the father of the US citizen kids.
"Jose Gonzales" does not have access to the EB visa program, and if he is from Mexico or Central America, he also doesn't have access to the DV visa program either. If he does not have direct family in the US (father, spouse, children), there is no way for him to ever become a US citizen.
He might get lucky and be chosen by a company to be one of the few in an H2-A or H2-B seasonal agriculture/temporary unskilled worker visa program, but he cannot apply for citizenship on those visas, and has to return to his native country.
Considering that he dealt with it enough to come here legally, remain here legally, and now become a citizen here legally despite his apparent frustration with the process I don't find it hard to blame those who just sneak across. If someone isn't willing to do it the right way perhaps they should reconsider how much they want to be here.
People with college degrees don't have to sneak across. Likely Linus was sponsored by his company to come in on an EB style visa, had kids, and applied for a visa because his children were US citizens.
An unskilled worker in Mexico or Central America without family in the US has no way to become a US citizen.
From what I've seen it's actually a lot easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to most countries
Let's be honest though, if you are an unskilled worker from Mexico or Central America without direct family in the US, there is ZERO way to become a US citizen. ZERO.
If you are super-lucky you might get to work in the US on an H2-A or H2-B visa if a company will sponsor you for temporary work, but people on those visas cannot try to apply for citizenship or get a non-work-based visa.
I married my wife overseas. Barely a month later we started preparing paperwork for her green card. It was a relatively effortless process.
Yes, you have found the one easy way to become a US citizen - marry a US citizen overseas.
Part of the reason for this is because of people who come here illegally.
No, this is 100% because the US is not as open to immigration as it used to be.
When my (unskilled) great-grandparents came to the US, they got off a boat, lived here for three years, and became citizens. Period.
I had, at one point, hoped that I was born while they were not yet citizens, and could claim Czech citizenship for purposes of lottery- or DV-based immigration...I got my green card in 1996 and can apply for U.S. citizenship in 2011
My great-grandparents from Czechoslovakia (then Bohemia) just got off the boat, and were US citizens after 3 years of residence. It is a shame we have all these crazy hoops to jump through now...
More importantly, the US has far longer telco local loop lengths than almost any other country. Average US local loops are over 4 km, compared with 3 km in the UK and France, or under 2 km in Germany and Italy. And unlike most European countries, almost no loops in the US are under 1.5 km (the fastest DSL), and the US is one of the few countries to have significant numbers of very long loops (10% of customers) over 5.5 km (where DSL is barely possible).
I'm not sure exactly why the US has such long loop lengths. Issues may include population density (the US has 60% of housing stock as detached houses - the UK has only 25% - which may have been influenced by zoning laws), zoning issues for locating telco central offices (the US has few industrial/office buildings near residential buildings), and pre-DSL-era technological advances to centralize telco central offices that made telephony cheaper while making loop lengths increase.
Our loop lengths were set by historical accident, now we need to go back and figure out how to move forward. FTTH and FTTN (FiOS and ATT U-verse) are good moves forward. Also moving to higher speed DOCSIS cable and bringing the fiber closer to the neighborhood with hybrid fiber coax cable plants (the cable equivalent of FTTN).
Most of the US has a de facto oligopoly in the provision of broadband services so the suppiers feel no market pressure to improve services and/or lower prices
Most of the US has a de jure monopoly in cable and telecom due to exclusive franchises granted by local public utility commissions, although this is changing slowly (for example in Opelika).
Contact or better yet get on the board of your local cable commission...
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the annual immigrant visa quota is 140,000 for employment-based (EB-x) immigration. EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 each receive 28.6% of the total number, while EB-4 and EB-5 each receives 7.1% separately.
For the current 40,000 quota of EB-2 preference, each country receives 7%, with 3,000 available for China and India, 2,500 for the other countries, and 9,000 remaining for use by those countries in need, such as India and China.
Linus could also have come in through one of the 32,000 diversity (DV) visas available to Europeans.
Once here (legally with a green card). having American citizen children or an American citizen spouse is one of the fastest ways to be come a citizen (3 years as a spouse, 5 years for children).
The best guide to understanding US immigration laws is this handy poster.
What are you smoking, that $350/mo for 1Gbit seems "high?"
Indeed, I am aware of companies that are "on net" (i.e. have fiber, only need to ass OADM to get additional service) with large carriers that can't get that pricing.
Which means, there is no way anyone could provide Internet connectivity of 1 Gbps for $350/month without losing money.
Thus, I suspect you aren't getting 1 Gbps of Internet connectivity. You might be able to ping the first upstream router at 1 Gbps, maybe...
A single 19Mpbs transport stream can't hold two decent-quality 720p MPEG-2 channels
You are so correct! This is the single most intelligent comment I have ever seen on Slashdot!
I'll admit, it is not impossible to imagine that some day we might figure out how to build MPEG-2 encoders to achieve this (quantum computer motion prediction?) but for the foreseeable future, please keep one HD per 19.39 Mbps, maybe with one SD channel muxed in as well.
Beyond that, the creation of a 19 Mbps MPEG-2 TS of appropriate quality for DTV broadcast (PCR accuracy of 500nS, for example) is pretty tough to do without professional equipment, though maybe you could make a really, really crappy signal...
Slashdot Mirror
It should protect Microsoft and allow them to license content to distribute and it should protect consumers to not be held hostage to a carrier paying for content as a middleman.
If ESPN can't charge ISPs to get access to ESPN3, I doubt there would be an ESPN3 as there would be no cash flow, so that "amazing, cool" think you are talking about would be destroyed by your government action. Thanks!
Fractional reserve banking increases the money supply through lending, literally creating money from thin air. In order to maintain the money supply and keep inflation from spiraling out of control, the Central Bank must both manipulate the currency through the prime rate, and regulate the banks through reserve requirements.
Actually there have been many periods of "free banking" where banks issued their own notes based on fractional reserve banking without having a Central Bank as a "lender of last resort" and without having government required fiat currency. It certainly is in the interest of "free banks" to ensure that the global money supply remains stable, and private banks could coordinate to achieve this, but it is true that the history of Free Banking shows that to be difficult, although it hasn't been tried much recently with the advantage of computer networking communications.
Given the deflation of the Depression and the Stagflation of the 1970's, it is clear that having a Central Bank and banking regulations does not automatically mean the money supply is actually under control.
But I myself think fiat currency and Central Banks probably maximize stability, but my mind is open to other possibilities should they prove out.
. They are the ones who want to SHUTDOWN the fucking government.
Unfortunately, the recent track record of the Republicans is that they increased government spending while they controlled Congress, just in slightly different ways than the Democrats have.
The main problem scenario that I see is the big ISPs introducing their own video service and giving it priority over Youtube traffic.
Why don't you stop wasting our time until this actually happens...
A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that there is a complete mismatch of knowledge between those for and those against.
A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that THERE IS NO PROBLEM YET.
Abortions happen. People get shot with guns. Poisonous chemicals get dumped into rivers. CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This actually happens, and a rational discussion could be had about regulation.
But no one is actually violating "Net Neutrality" right now. We might as well be regulating the number of angels on the head of a pin.
An ISP or two tried to cut off Torrent-using bandwidth hogs, then backed down to a more reasonable solution under market forces.
Now, for a TV show, that is a bit easier. Simply get an RMS of the show before airing it, as well as the peak volume, do the same for each commercial, and adjust the commercial volume accordingly. It's not a difficult problem at all.
Unfortunately if you talk to psychoacoustic experts, they will tell you that science does not have a full grasp of perceived loudness.
The best we can say is that a frequency-weighted short-term power measurement such as ITU-R BS.1770 LKFS does an OK job in general, but it can not do a good job representing the perceived loudness of temporal discrepancies (a show fades to quiet during the credits, than an equal LKFS ad starts up abruptly but sounds much louder), or why when an expected loud sound (like a bomb clock counting down to 0:00 then blowing up) sounds louder than a bomb that blows up without warning, despite equal LKFS.
Moreover, there are probably differences in individual's frequency weighting of loudness (we know this happens with age), so BS.1770 LKFS is an average but may not represent your particular frequency weighting for your personal perception of loudness.
Simply saying the volume can't be above X dB means that commercials will be at exactly X dB for the entire time. Or they'll start using odd/distorted/alarming sounds (sirens, glass breaking, babies crying, etc)
The CALM Act refers to the use of ATSC A/85 'Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television', which is mainly based on the ITU-R BS.1770 LKFS apparent loudness measurement, which is a frequency-weighted power measurement.
The truth is that an expected loud noise (like seeing someone pull the trigger on a gun that then shoots) is less apparently loud than a surprise loud noise (like a bomb going off without notice), but there is no way to effectively measure that with a mechanical device.
There are other known temporal issues with loudness perception that also are unlikely to be fully comprehended by BS.1770 LKFS, but it is the best thing we have right now.
Some Commercials are put in at the local cable Headend and the tv network do not have control of that volume
And the CALM Act applies to "Any broadcast television operator, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor". Exactly how cable operators are going to move from splicing local ads of a set "loudness" level into 1000 channels each running at different target "loudness" values is a bit of a mystery to me!
Even if you don't have saturation, your discrimination protocol is running and taking up router CPU time, adding to the latency, etc.
Yet Traffic shaping and QoS happens all the time in IP networks. For example, CloudGuard.
You can switch your ISP, but you can't choose what route your packets travel and you have no choice in the backbone providers it may travel through.
You could switch to an ISP that refuses to exchange traffic with "non-neutral" ISPs...
I'll worry about "network neutrality" when someone actually does something. All the ISPs know they'll get whacked by their customers if they are doing something to significantly reduce user experience.
Note the last part of that sentence from the summary. In essence, it seems to imply that their just requiring special building permits approved on a case-by-case basis for any new cell tower built in a potentially concerning place. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
That means that only the politically-connected companies will now be able to put up new towers.
Because I can't believe you think an analogy to Rosa Parks is good argumentation.
Rosa Parks violated a stupid law. So do illegal immigrants.
For that matter, what about all the illegals who are involved in the drug cartels and conducting drug, gun, and even human trafficking?
I can assure you that there are far more US citizens involved in illegal drug and gun sales than illegal immigrants! Of course, without our stupid drug laws, we also would not have violent drug cartels.
Moreover, if we have more open legal immigration, there would not be a need for "human trafficking", people would simply do what they did before 1930. Show up, have someone sponsor them, live three years in the US peaceably, become a citizen. That is the way it worked for my great-grandparents.
Obviously YOU are the product of immigrants. Perhaps we should have kept YOUR family out because they were "dangerous foreigners"? Plenty of people were talking about the "drunken Irish" or "diseased Russians" or "dirty Eastern Europeans" 100 years ago, just like you are trying to conflate illegals with your racist views.
Racism is inherently wrong. There is no justification for it
Then why do we prohibit Mexicans and other people from Central America from the DV series immigrant visas? Let's be honest, our country-of-origin based immigration system is actually racism in disguise.
By the way, while I'm ranting, I'll say that most people who argue "why can't they just follow the laws" regarding immigration generally have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE themselves.
If that's true, then Mexico has serious problems that the Mexican people need to solve.
That would be a great idea. Why exactly you want to continue to sentence poor Mexicans to poverty until that occurs instead of letting them come to the US and contribute to our economy is beyond me.
Seriously, though, the idea is to filter in those who are likely to be a net benefit to those already here, and filter out the rest.
Yet every person who comes to the United States and works is, by definition, providing more benefits to the economy than they are being paid (or else their employer would not employee them)!
Also I know my immigrant great-grandparents were not skilled when they arrived, but they gained some skills, and their kids went on to get advanced degrees and get highly skilled jobs. Thus we should also not ignore the "progeny effect". And I can assure you, no one thought in the first decade of the 20th Century that the grand-kids of those "nasty immigrants from Bohemia" were going to amount to anything, but they did.
Now it might be that we provide too much socialist welfare support to immigrants or poor people in general, and perhaps we should rethink that.
you don't want to displace existing workers, or depress the wage base
If you are a US citizen who knows English and got 12 years of free school, and you are competing in the labor pool with people with a 3rd grade education who only know Spanish, then perhaps you deserve to have your wage base depressed! In truth, if your wage base was not depressed through immigration, it would become depressed through trade, or through robots taking over your job!
The second they break our laws to be here they demonstrate a belief that we owe them something.
Tell that to Rosa Parks...
Of course the truth is it isn't THEIR right to freedom of movement we should be most worried about, it is OUR economy they will improve, directly through their hard work and indirectly through the hard work of their progeny. One of their children could be the world's next Linus. It is unlikely their children could be the next Linus if their kid is born in a small town in Mexico.
Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?
How many people with Ph.D.'s are sneaking across the border when they can simply obtain an EB visa?
The people who are sneaking across the border are the people who have no legal path to citizenship - unskilled workers from Mexico and Central America without direct family in the US.
I would imagine the process of getting a green card was a lot easier for Linus Torvalds than it would be for some random Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree.
You are correct. Linus likely used an EB visa for highly educated workers, then had kids, then applied for citizenship based on being the father of the US citizen kids.
"Jose Gonzales" does not have access to the EB visa program, and if he is from Mexico or Central America, he also doesn't have access to the DV visa program either. If he does not have direct family in the US (father, spouse, children), there is no way for him to ever become a US citizen.
He might get lucky and be chosen by a company to be one of the few in an H2-A or H2-B seasonal agriculture/temporary unskilled worker visa program, but he cannot apply for citizenship on those visas, and has to return to his native country.
Considering that he dealt with it enough to come here legally, remain here legally, and now become a citizen here legally despite his apparent frustration with the process I don't find it hard to blame those who just sneak across. If someone isn't willing to do it the right way perhaps they should reconsider how much they want to be here.
People with college degrees don't have to sneak across. Likely Linus was sponsored by his company to come in on an EB style visa, had kids, and applied for a visa because his children were US citizens.
An unskilled worker in Mexico or Central America without family in the US has no way to become a US citizen.
From what I've seen it's actually a lot easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to most countries
Let's be honest though, if you are an unskilled worker from Mexico or Central America without direct family in the US, there is ZERO way to become a US citizen. ZERO.
If you are super-lucky you might get to work in the US on an H2-A or H2-B visa if a company will sponsor you for temporary work, but people on those visas cannot try to apply for citizenship or get a non-work-based visa.
I married my wife overseas. Barely a month later we started preparing paperwork for her green card. It was a relatively effortless process.
Yes, you have found the one easy way to become a US citizen - marry a US citizen overseas.
Part of the reason for this is because of people who come here illegally.
No, this is 100% because the US is not as open to immigration as it used to be.
When my (unskilled) great-grandparents came to the US, they got off a boat, lived here for three years, and became citizens. Period.
I had, at one point, hoped that I was born while they were not yet citizens, and could claim Czech citizenship for purposes of lottery- or DV-based immigration...I got my green card in 1996 and can apply for U.S. citizenship in 2011
My great-grandparents from Czechoslovakia (then Bohemia) just got off the boat, and were US citizens after 3 years of residence. It is a shame we have all these crazy hoops to jump through now...
The UK has 660 people per square mile. We don't.
More importantly, the US has far longer telco local loop lengths than almost any other country. Average US local loops are over 4 km, compared with 3 km in the UK and France, or under 2 km in Germany and Italy. And unlike most European countries, almost no loops in the US are under 1.5 km (the fastest DSL), and the US is one of the few countries to have significant numbers of very long loops (10% of customers) over 5.5 km (where DSL is barely possible).
I'm not sure exactly why the US has such long loop lengths. Issues may include population density (the US has 60% of housing stock as detached houses - the UK has only 25% - which may have been influenced by zoning laws), zoning issues for locating telco central offices (the US has few industrial/office buildings near residential buildings), and pre-DSL-era technological advances to centralize telco central offices that made telephony cheaper while making loop lengths increase.
Our loop lengths were set by historical accident, now we need to go back and figure out how to move forward. FTTH and FTTN (FiOS and ATT U-verse) are good moves forward. Also moving to higher speed DOCSIS cable and bringing the fiber closer to the neighborhood with hybrid fiber coax cable plants (the cable equivalent of FTTN).
Most of the US has a de facto oligopoly in the provision of broadband services so the suppiers feel no market pressure to improve services and/or lower prices
Most of the US has a de jure monopoly in cable and telecom due to exclusive franchises granted by local public utility commissions, although this is changing slowly (for example in Opelika).
Contact or better yet get on the board of your local cable commission...
I'd like to know as well.
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the annual immigrant visa quota is 140,000 for employment-based (EB-x) immigration. EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 each receive 28.6% of the total number, while EB-4 and EB-5 each receives 7.1% separately.
For the current 40,000 quota of EB-2 preference, each country receives 7%, with 3,000 available for China and India, 2,500 for the other countries, and 9,000 remaining for use by those countries in need, such as India and China.
Linus could also have come in through one of the 32,000 diversity (DV) visas available to Europeans.
Once here (legally with a green card). having American citizen children or an American citizen spouse is one of the fastest ways to be come a citizen (3 years as a spouse, 5 years for children).
The best guide to understanding US immigration laws is this handy poster.
What are you smoking, that $350/mo for 1Gbit seems "high?"
Indeed, I am aware of companies that are "on net" (i.e. have fiber, only need to ass OADM to get additional service) with large carriers that can't get that pricing.
Which means, there is no way anyone could provide Internet connectivity of 1 Gbps for $350/month without losing money.
Thus, I suspect you aren't getting 1 Gbps of Internet connectivity. You might be able to ping the first upstream router at 1 Gbps, maybe...
I can see this subscribed to by small businesses with data heavy uploads (film production companies, ad agencies etc).
LA Department of Water and Power already sells dark fiber lease and bandwidth transport services, lots of people use it in Hollywood.
A single 19Mpbs transport stream can't hold two decent-quality 720p MPEG-2 channels
You are so correct! This is the single most intelligent comment I have ever seen on Slashdot!
I'll admit, it is not impossible to imagine that some day we might figure out how to build MPEG-2 encoders to achieve this (quantum computer motion prediction?) but for the foreseeable future, please keep one HD per 19.39 Mbps, maybe with one SD channel muxed in as well.
I suspect that folks may be able to hack the current lineup of WRTs to spit out an ATSC signal.
No, there is absolutely no way this could occur. ATSC is 8VSB modulation, which is completely unrelated to the modulation technique used in WiFi.
But if you really want to try, here is all you need to do....
Beyond that, the creation of a 19 Mbps MPEG-2 TS of appropriate quality for DTV broadcast (PCR accuracy of 500nS, for example) is pretty tough to do without professional equipment, though maybe you could make a really, really crappy signal...