You do realise that the whole world is not about you?
Sure I do, but we're not talking about the whole world - we're talking about an Internet policy that concerns the United States specifically. I live in a city with a metropolitan population well in excess of two million people, incidentally. In the majority of the United States connectivity choices even in big cities are *extremely* limited, and it's been my experience that the incumbent ISPs are well aware of that fact as evidenced by their customer service and pricing policies.
Switched to who? Where I live, I have a choice of exactly two broadband providers, both of which are lacking in the customer service department, and both of who have business reasons for not supporting net neutrality.
i would like to ask this expert, WHY was isp industry OVERSELLING the bandwidth they did NOT have for the last 15 years ?
Or, as one reply in the Google blog on the subject acutely noted, why release a report that effectively tells people the telecoms are overcharging their broadband customers by about 20 times?
considering all the pointers at hand, i have decided that the supposed 'an analyst with ties to the telecom industry' is either a non person that is invented to propagate a shitty corporate agenda, or a corporate shill to attempt justifying controlling internet, YET AGAIN.
"I'd like to go with option B, Bob!"
It's just a case of very well-known industry whore pleasing his corporate masters. Scott Cleland is nothing more than a paid lobbyist, and this report was intended for the consumption of Congress. It's filled with all kinds of "estimations", "assumptions", and out and out lies of omission.
The Democratic Party as a group doesn't consider Second Amendment rights as a civil rights issue and would much prefer the whole idea go away completely, but that attitude doesn't necessarily extend to individual members. I'm not really concerned with the party's position on a given bill - I'm concerned with how my particular representatives will vote on it - are they going to toe the party line, or are they going to think for themselves and vote accordingly?.
As a group, neither party has a particularly good track record regarding individual liberties. Talk is cheap, and one should pay closer attention to a candidate's past actions than their words.
Those convicted felons who try to buy a firearm at a gun store and fail the NICS check on that basis aren't being prosecuted for the federal felony they just committed either. What's the point of having a law if it's not going to be enforced?
If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
You probably should actually look at the candidates that they endorse. NRA support for Democratic candidates is not a rare thing by any stretch of the imagination, provided the candidate's positions are consistent with the NRA's stance. As a matter of fact, they endorsed the Democratic candidate for the state House in my district.
The best part was when he spoke glowingly of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" during a time when he was actively suppressing the rights of the southern states to pursue exactly that government. More than one historian has noted the irony within the Gettysburg Address.
I was thinking about that myself, and wondering why Dell wouldn't go out of its way to mitigate the risk. It takes no time at all to register "dellhatesoursoldiers.com" or other equally inflammatory domain name, get some cheap web space, and start slinging the corporate napalm. Works even better if you get Digg or Fark to pick up the link.
Oh, I'm aware of what the Soviets had in the way of missile boats at the time. They're irrelevant since there were only six Soviet boats in total involved in the crisis, all of them were tasked with dealing directly with the Cuban quarantine, all were intercepted and contained, and anything else of concern was either tied up at a pier or had an SSN attached to its ass. This was all to change in the years after the Cuban crisis as the Soviets learned more about the SOSUS nets and how to make quiet boats (all the ones on your list were *horribly* loud), but during the crisis itself Soviet missile boats weren't a particularly big concern. If the trigger had been pulled, the Soviet boats that would have been a source of worry would have been turned to hot gas at their piers 15 minutes later, or immediately had holes punched in them by the U.S. SSNs that were following them.
Now, the hardware accelerated audio production system is a relic. They are still made, but they are unpopular.
This isn't quite true. Certainly the mixing, EQ, effects processing and a lot of signal generation (softsynths, etc.) is done on board the host PC nowadays, but where the rubber meets the road and there's a need have to have really good sample-accurate synchronized input/output in real time without the possibility of clicks and pops, people are still relying on outboard hardware, usually in the form of a pricey rack-mount FireWire interface that's offloading a *lot* of effort from the host computer in addition to performing A/D/A conversion. It's not usually signal processing per se, but still necessary since none of the OS's used in audio production are hard realtime, and consequently can't maintain accurate timing without the help of that extra hardware.
The Russians had active nuclear weapons in Cuba at that time. I don't think that would have been a "win"
Almost certainly none of the missiles aimed at the US would have made it into the air, and the Soviets knew it was suicide for them to use the tactical nukes in Cuba against an invasion force. Kennedy already knew where the bigger missiles were and was looking at a large scale pre-emptive strike against Cuba, during which all of the missiles capable of reaching the US would have been neutralized. The nuclear exchange everyone was concerned about would have primarily involved battlefield targets in Cuba, a few strategic targets in Europe, and at most a handful of coastal targets in the continental US within range of cruise missiles on the very few Soviet SSGs that would be able to survive long enough to actually launch, but most importantly the entirety of the Soviet Union would have been smashed flat owing to the overwhelming firepower advantage held by the Americans. By the time any Russian missiles got into the air, all of the medium-range launchers in Cuba would have long been left as smoking craters, and *any* Soviet nuclear response anywhere in the world would have resulted in the effective destruction of the Soviet Union and the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens. Kennedy knew he had an overwhelming advantage, so in exchange for removing the Russian missiles he offered to let Khrushchev save face by removing the U.S. missiles in Turkey (which by that time were strategically insignificant anyway). He knew that Khrushchev really had no other choice but to accept the bargain. In the end, both sets of missiles were removed, and everyone went home happy and un-incinerated. Obviously, no one wins in a nuclear conflict, but in this case the US would have survived easily, and the USSR would not.
I still stand by my assertion that Kennedy is the only president to have to deal firsthand with preventing an imminent nuclear exchange, Reagan's experience with hair-raising technical issues notwithstanding. Whether or not Kennedy was a competent president has never been and still is not the issue I'm debating.
I'm well aware of each item you mentioned, thank you. My point wasn't to say that Kennedy was a great president, but rather that he was *much* closer to dealing with a real possibility of WWIII than any president since.
The one that kept things from really getting out of had wasn't JFK it was Khrushchev and it cost him just about everything.
Because he was an idiot for having tried to station missiles in Cuba in the first place, lied to Kennedy about putting them there, and took the only real option left to him when his back was put to the wall? A nuclear war was Kennedy's to choose to fight (and almost certainly win) or not, and he chose not to.
At least in part because he puts that big "Office of the President-Elect" sign on his podium (along with the questionable use of the Great Seal of the United States), even though no such office exists, and as you mention, he isn't even the president-elect yet. The Presidental Transition Acts of 1963 and 2000 allow the incoming president's campaign committee to be treated as a real government agency (this is how they got the "change.gov" domain), but nowhere in there is this bogus office established or defined.
It's also rather difficult to completely eliminate vibrations from a solid rocket without an advancement in the manufacturing process used to create the fuel.
Then don't use a solid rocket. Liquid-fueled designs are more complex, but they're throttleable and thus can compensate for thrust irregularities. As an extension of that, you can actually shut them off if needed. They also spew a lot less crap into the air.
The main reason we're using a solid first stage on the Ares I is because Thiokol has good lobbyists, in my opinion.
Find me someone who has any experience with the Saturn V who isn't retired.
A mechanical engineer friend of mine out at the Cape whose group is designing the Ares I launch tower tells me he has a number of ex-Saturn engineers within easy reach at work and finds them to be a great resource precisely because of their historical knowledge.
He also tells me there are a fair number of people out there that would much prefer to do a reboot on the Saturn program for what the Ares is being used for. It's anecdotal evidence for sure, but lets not kid ourselves - repurposing Shuttle components isn't for the purpose of saving money, it's pork for the purpose of propping up the companies that produce those components.
Limiting deployments is also a great way to save money in general. It costs a *lot* of money to project power overseas, and doing so really shouldn't be treated in the frivolous manner that it usually is.
I suspect the pressure from the "crazy political climate" they were feeling was the fact that they (SBC) were in the process of attempting a VERY large merger with BellSouth, and they knew this merger would be subject to a lot of scrutiny on anti-trust issues. I would not be surprised to find out that those issues just magically went away after SBC agreed to spy for the government.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realise that the whole world is not about you?
Sure I do, but we're not talking about the whole world - we're talking about an Internet policy that concerns the United States specifically. I live in a city with a metropolitan population well in excess of two million people, incidentally. In the majority of the United States connectivity choices even in big cities are *extremely* limited, and it's been my experience that the incumbent ISPs are well aware of that fact as evidenced by their customer service and pricing policies.
They don't if there's effectively no competition in the market.
Switched to who? Where I live, I have a choice of exactly two broadband providers, both of which are lacking in the customer service department, and both of who have business reasons for not supporting net neutrality.
i would like to ask this expert, WHY was isp industry OVERSELLING the bandwidth they did NOT have for the last 15 years ?
Or, as one reply in the Google blog on the subject acutely noted, why release a report that effectively tells people the telecoms are overcharging their broadband customers by about 20 times?
considering all the pointers at hand, i have decided that the supposed 'an analyst with ties to the telecom industry' is either a non person that is invented to propagate a shitty corporate agenda, or a corporate shill to attempt justifying controlling internet, YET AGAIN.
"I'd like to go with option B, Bob!"
It's just a case of very well-known industry whore pleasing his corporate masters. Scott Cleland is nothing more than a paid lobbyist, and this report was intended for the consumption of Congress. It's filled with all kinds of "estimations", "assumptions", and out and out lies of omission.
If they started throwing up a pages like this the offending ISP will have its call center completely hosed with complaints.
The ISPs won't care, just so long as they continue getting their monthly tithe from the complainers.
The Democratic Party as a group doesn't consider Second Amendment rights as a civil rights issue and would much prefer the whole idea go away completely, but that attitude doesn't necessarily extend to individual members. I'm not really concerned with the party's position on a given bill - I'm concerned with how my particular representatives will vote on it - are they going to toe the party line, or are they going to think for themselves and vote accordingly?.
As a group, neither party has a particularly good track record regarding individual liberties. Talk is cheap, and one should pay closer attention to a candidate's past actions than their words.
This is true, but this device is useless for those kinds of activities. Better to get a Single Six or something like that for plinking. :-)
Those convicted felons who try to buy a firearm at a gun store and fail the NICS check on that basis aren't being prosecuted for the federal felony they just committed either. What's the point of having a law if it's not going to be enforced?
If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
You probably should actually look at the candidates that they endorse. NRA support for Democratic candidates is not a rare thing by any stretch of the imagination, provided the candidate's positions are consistent with the NRA's stance. As a matter of fact, they endorsed the Democratic candidate for the state House in my district.
The best part was when he spoke glowingly of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" during a time when he was actively suppressing the rights of the southern states to pursue exactly that government. More than one historian has noted the irony within the Gettysburg Address.
I was thinking about that myself, and wondering why Dell wouldn't go out of its way to mitigate the risk. It takes no time at all to register "dellhatesoursoldiers.com" or other equally inflammatory domain name, get some cheap web space, and start slinging the corporate napalm. Works even better if you get Digg or Fark to pick up the link.
You better read up more before being so sure.
Oh, I'm aware of what the Soviets had in the way of missile boats at the time. They're irrelevant since there were only six Soviet boats in total involved in the crisis, all of them were tasked with dealing directly with the Cuban quarantine, all were intercepted and contained, and anything else of concern was either tied up at a pier or had an SSN attached to its ass. This was all to change in the years after the Cuban crisis as the Soviets learned more about the SOSUS nets and how to make quiet boats (all the ones on your list were *horribly* loud), but during the crisis itself Soviet missile boats weren't a particularly big concern. If the trigger had been pulled, the Soviet boats that would have been a source of worry would have been turned to hot gas at their piers 15 minutes later, or immediately had holes punched in them by the U.S. SSNs that were following them.
Iridium was bought for $25 million after $6 billion of capital costs were sunk into it.
:-)
But they still charge for the phones and service like there was an industrial-strength debt to pay off.
Now, the hardware accelerated audio production system is a relic. They are still made, but they are unpopular.
This isn't quite true. Certainly the mixing, EQ, effects processing and a lot of signal generation (softsynths, etc.) is done on board the host PC nowadays, but where the rubber meets the road and there's a need have to have really good sample-accurate synchronized input/output in real time without the possibility of clicks and pops, people are still relying on outboard hardware, usually in the form of a pricey rack-mount FireWire interface that's offloading a *lot* of effort from the host computer in addition to performing A/D/A conversion. It's not usually signal processing per se, but still necessary since none of the OS's used in audio production are hard realtime, and consequently can't maintain accurate timing without the help of that extra hardware.
The Russians had active nuclear weapons in Cuba at that time. I don't think that would have been a "win"
Almost certainly none of the missiles aimed at the US would have made it into the air, and the Soviets knew it was suicide for them to use the tactical nukes in Cuba against an invasion force. Kennedy already knew where the bigger missiles were and was looking at a large scale pre-emptive strike against Cuba, during which all of the missiles capable of reaching the US would have been neutralized. The nuclear exchange everyone was concerned about would have primarily involved battlefield targets in Cuba, a few strategic targets in Europe, and at most a handful of coastal targets in the continental US within range of cruise missiles on the very few Soviet SSGs that would be able to survive long enough to actually launch, but most importantly the entirety of the Soviet Union would have been smashed flat owing to the overwhelming firepower advantage held by the Americans. By the time any Russian missiles got into the air, all of the medium-range launchers in Cuba would have long been left as smoking craters, and *any* Soviet nuclear response anywhere in the world would have resulted in the effective destruction of the Soviet Union and the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens. Kennedy knew he had an overwhelming advantage, so in exchange for removing the Russian missiles he offered to let Khrushchev save face by removing the U.S. missiles in Turkey (which by that time were strategically insignificant anyway). He knew that Khrushchev really had no other choice but to accept the bargain. In the end, both sets of missiles were removed, and everyone went home happy and un-incinerated. Obviously, no one wins in a nuclear conflict, but in this case the US would have survived easily, and the USSR would not.
I still stand by my assertion that Kennedy is the only president to have to deal firsthand with preventing an imminent nuclear exchange, Reagan's experience with hair-raising technical issues notwithstanding. Whether or not Kennedy was a competent president has never been and still is not the issue I'm debating.
I'm well aware of each item you mentioned, thank you. My point wasn't to say that Kennedy was a great president, but rather that he was *much* closer to dealing with a real possibility of WWIII than any president since.
The one that kept things from really getting out of had wasn't JFK it was Khrushchev and it cost him just about everything.
Because he was an idiot for having tried to station missiles in Cuba in the first place, lied to Kennedy about putting them there, and took the only real option left to him when his back was put to the wall? A nuclear war was Kennedy's to choose to fight (and almost certainly win) or not, and he chose not to.
At least in part because he puts that big "Office of the President-Elect" sign on his podium (along with the questionable use of the Great Seal of the United States), even though no such office exists, and as you mention, he isn't even the president-elect yet. The Presidental Transition Acts of 1963 and 2000 allow the incoming president's campaign committee to be treated as a real government agency (this is how they got the "change.gov" domain), but nowhere in there is this bogus office established or defined.
It's also rather difficult to completely eliminate vibrations from a solid rocket without an advancement in the manufacturing process used to create the fuel.
Then don't use a solid rocket. Liquid-fueled designs are more complex, but they're throttleable and thus can compensate for thrust irregularities. As an extension of that, you can actually shut them off if needed. They also spew a lot less crap into the air.
The main reason we're using a solid first stage on the Ares I is because Thiokol has good lobbyists, in my opinion.
There's the answer - appoint Andy Griffith as the new NASA administrator!
I'd argue that JFK had a much better idea of what "avoiding WWIII" meant than any president since.
Find me someone who has any experience with the Saturn V who isn't retired.
A mechanical engineer friend of mine out at the Cape whose group is designing the Ares I launch tower tells me he has a number of ex-Saturn engineers within easy reach at work and finds them to be a great resource precisely because of their historical knowledge.
He also tells me there are a fair number of people out there that would much prefer to do a reboot on the Saturn program for what the Ares is being used for. It's anecdotal evidence for sure, but lets not kid ourselves - repurposing Shuttle components isn't for the purpose of saving money, it's pork for the purpose of propping up the companies that produce those components.
Limiting deployments is also a great way to save money in general. It costs a *lot* of money to project power overseas, and doing so really shouldn't be treated in the frivolous manner that it usually is.
1) Last I heard, one of them refused and didn't suffer for it.
Joe Nacchio would probably not agree with that statement.
I suspect the pressure from the "crazy political climate" they were feeling was the fact that they (SBC) were in the process of attempting a VERY large merger with BellSouth, and they knew this merger would be subject to a lot of scrutiny on anti-trust issues. I would not be surprised to find out that those issues just magically went away after SBC agreed to spy for the government.