Most broadcast antennae are not transmitting vertically. To do so would be a waste of transmitter power. So those antennae are not radiating much power into a place where they would interfere with avionics.
It is more a case of those antennas being in a fixed location at a fixed power and known hours of operation.
I used to fly out of Syracuse NY and would pass over the top of one of the FM broadcast stations on the way south. It was normal for me to pick up that station in the aviation radio for about twenty or thirty seconds, and ATC knew that anyone in that area was likely to be suffering from the same thing.
It happened every time, it happened in a known place, and it was obvious what the source was. It happened long enough after takeoff that it wasn't a danger to departures, and it was not on final so it wasn't a big hazard to arrivals.
Compare that to a situation where the radio goes kaput at a random time for an unknown cause while on final approach and you're waiting for ATC to clear you for landing and you are in the clouds trying to keep the ILS needles centered -- and it may be one of the ILS radios that is now nonfunctional. Yes, you've trained how to deal with it, but people still bend metal when instruments fail despite repeated practice going without.
Sometimes the problem is not that you are unable to go without that instrument altogether, but that you are not easily able to determine that it is lying to you and should be ignored. If you know it will not work at a certain place, you can ignore it. If you don't know it is broken, you don't know to ignore it. I used to fly over Elmira NY and had a LORAN in the airplane. The first time I flew there, it took me a bit of time to work out why the plane I was flying suddenly had a ground speed in excess of 400 knots. After that time, I knew that I should ignore any LORAN when flying in that area -- the site of one of the LORAN transmitters. If the ground speed indication had been 50 knots instead of 400, I might not have realized what the problem was quite so easily.
It could've been an electronics failure or a crazy pilot's error...
That's the problem with looking at NTSB reports and trying to find "EMI caused a crash" results.
The NTSB will test everything it can recover, and listen to the tapes. It looks at the radar tracks and interviews ground witnesses. When it finds that the electronics appear to be working, and there were no clues to any mechanical issues, the result will be "pilot error".
The guy in seat 34B who was using his laptop or cellphone during approach will either be dead and unable to admit that fact, be oblivious to the fact that his actions may have contributed to the cause, may not even remember he left his phone ON in his carryon (and yes, I've gotten to my destination and found that my phone was on the whole time), or may be too scared of legal repercussions to admit what he was doing.
So, sorry, I don't trust the lack of documented death from cellphone use at the wrong time as proof of anything other than a lack of documented death from cellphone use. The inability of the NTSB to make that a final determination means it won't be; it's not the fact that it can't happen.
At a unit weight of 4kg, this is more than 30.000 laptop computers.
Do you truly not understand the complexity of proper testing of EMI that you would imagine that you could put 30,000 running laptop computers into a 747 at one time and get any meaningful results?
Or is the goal to do a botch job and get nothing and then use that as proof that every PED is safe in every airplane?
I'm sorry, but I've been a pilot in airplanes where there has been EMI from PED so this isn't "anecdotal" evidence to me. I also know that every case of EMI doesn't result in an airplane falling from the sky because the pilots are too good at flying to allow that to happen, but it does cause extra workload usually at a time when there is already a lot. And, of course, when the worst does happen the NTSB won't necessarily be able to pin the cause on a defective laptop being used at the wrong time in the wrong place because by the time they get there the plane is a smoldering pile of metal shards and nobody will know that the laptop was being used, only that the radar showed the aircraft below the glideslope far enough that it hit the ground instead of landing on a runway. Unless the pilot is really good and really fast at diagnosing the problem and can say it loud enough that the cockpit voice recorder remembers the cause for posterity, the NTSB will chalk it up to just another case of "pilot error".
It doesn't really matter why the KZ government wants.kz domain owners to be within the geographical limits of KZ, the point is that a requirement like that doesn't fragment the internet or stop people from visting google as the google exec was claiming. His excuse was ridiculous.
The only act that would fragment the net is for KZ to pull the router cables and stop traffic crossing the border. That has nothing to do with who has a.kz domain, it has only to do with who is inside and who is outside the borders when it happens.
Why do we need to test each device? GSM devices only emit in specific frequency ranges. All of them emit in the same set of frequency ranges in the same way. Same with any other class of device.
Not true. Leakage varies from model to model, frequencies depend on receiver and transmitter design.
Sorry, just read the rest of your posting. I shouldn't feed the trolls.
This is why you occasionally get stories like the FAA knocking on a guy's door because his TV is emitting noise on a distress beacon frequency.
Not the FAA. The Civil Air Patrol and the local police/sheriff.
I was there for one of these. A Toshiba TV/DVD player combo. For some reason unknown it was emitting a VERY STRONG unmodulated carrier on 121.5MHz. So strong that the SARSAT system was picking it up and it was blanketing any other potential ELT in the area.
It was an early Sunday morning. Half a dozen cops, half a dozen uniformed CAP cadets, and a couple of SAR volunteers. A hapless college student was watching Sesame Street in his underwear.
We couldn't pin it down until one of us noticed that the signal had stopped when he answered the door. We asked "did you just turn something off?" and the rest is history. His TV was two days out of warranty, but Toshiba swapped it out anyway so they could test the thing to find out why it was emitting. There was no visible sign of any problem with the TV, nothing looked wrong, everything was working. It wasn't until we showed up at his door that he found out there was a problem.
Anyone who says that personal electronic devices cannot interfere with aircraft systems is ignorant at best. Properly designed, properly maintained, properly functioning PED in a properly designed, properly maintained, properly functioning aircraft has minimal chance, but too many things break too often and the costs are very high, so why risk it? So you can text your BFF that "hey, lolz, I'm on an airplane?"
OTOH there isn't any reason at all, that Google should give a rat's ass. If they want to market to KZ citizens, they don't need a.kz domain.
I agree. I think it is well within a country's rights to demand that hosts carrying the country's TLD be within that country. In fact, I think it is a good thing to know where the server is. That does nothing to "fragment the net". You don't need a.kz domain name to be reachable from.kz land --
Until the KZ government decides to pull the connections to the outside world. But then, anyone with a.kz domain who ISN'T inside the borders won't be reachable from inside anyway. It won't matter what domain you are in if you aren't inside the country. That's the only time the net starts to fragment. Simply requiring a physical presence to get a.kz domain name, however, doesn't.
What would be significant and objectionable is if KZ decided you MUST have a.kz name for any server located inside the KZ routers. But I'm not even sure how significant that would be.
He was saying if a Dutch citizen connects to a server in the U.S., the ISP that the server is connected to can throttle your traffic because they are exempt from Dutch laws.
I know what he was saying. And he's wrong.
If a person in NL is using a US ISP, then they've either gotten a satellite service based in the US or leased an undersea cable connection to a US ISP. Or they're making a really expensive dialup connection to the US. Otherwise, they're going to be using a Dutch ISP. Especially when we're talking about cellphone delivered internet service.
If you are in Holland and have a cellphone that can connect to a US carrier, you need to get a patent on that real quick. And you really will need something to protect you from the high levels of RF your phone must be emitting.
In any case, the proposed law says nothing about the services provided by "a server", only the ISP. As I said, iTunes or Google or any other service provider (not ISP) can block your IP address for any reason they want and you have nothing to say about it. It's only the ISP itself that would be prohibited from doing so. And if the law makes any sense, it will still allow QOS packet management based on deep inspection, as long as it deals with types of service and not the provider.
Ahh, I think I see now. You are trying to turn this into a discussion about the ISP that Google etc are connected to. Why would the ISP servicing Google, e.g., want to block Google's traffic? You think they want Google to use a different ISP and lose the money they make off that client? I doubt it. They'd just stop providing any service to Google. And then Google would give lots of money to another provider.
I've seen some people say they wanted to move to NL.
I've been to NL many times. Very nice place.
Good transit system. It is relatively easy to use, but there is one strange part. It seems there is a town called "Buiten Dienst" (spelling?) that many buses go to, but I cannot find it on the map. And those buses don't seem to stop at any of the regular bus stops. Other than that, ok.
Bad prices. Too high.
The only reason I'd maybe move there is that they know what to put on French Fries. But then, I can buy a bottle of mayo here and do it without moving. Maybe for stroopwaffles. A nice warm fresh from from the vendor in a city market... mmm.
Then there is the issue that many ISPs have local monopolies.
I know of none in the US. Care to name a few? Given that there are dialup ISPs still around that cover the entire US, I'd say you won't be able to name any. And given that this new law covers cellphone ISPs, and that there are at least three major providers that cover most of the US (AT&T/T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint), you are less likely to be able to name any.
They need to be regulated, and net neutrality is one way of keeping the content that runs inside their wires free. This has always been the norm, I don't know why it's so controversial now.
Well, many times, trying to regulate (mandate) "the norm" turns "the norm" into something controversial. For example, "the norm", at least in this part of my world, is that front yards have grass and maybe a tree or two. I'd wager that trying to mandate "grass and a tree or two" as a required "front yard" for everyone would result in a lot of controversy, even from those who have exactly that kind of yard.
That reminds me of the story about "Stone Soup". You know, the one where a stranger in town makes a really delicious huge caldron of thick, rich soup from just a tiny stone. Yes, perpetual motion machines really are possible, if you ignore the energy inputs.
so if an ISP is discriminating in the US (where your favorite services houses their servers) you service will still be throttled or potentially cut off.
It's pretty hard for a Dutch person to have their ISP be located in the US. Unless they use a satellite service or have a leased, undersea cable. But yes, for a US user, this DUTCH law would have no effect.
This law deals with the ISP, not the servers you deal with. Where do you get the idea that "your favorite services" are required to provide service to you? If the iTunes store or whoever wants to block your IP, they have that right. What this law, and net neutrality in general, deals with is the ISP blocking your access to certain destinations, not those destinations blocking your access to their services.
For the life of me, I have no idea why a poster upthread thought this had something to do with "copyright owners". Net neutrality has nothing to do with copyright. Zip. Nada.
Then the IRS should stop dealing with every individual in the US, and just collect taxes from businesses. Then we could have a streamlined IRS that doesn't have to play for tens of thousands of employees.
This "solution" assumes several things, none of which would be true.
The "sales tax" would completely replace every other federal tax. It won't. It would add to the list of taxes being paid, and there would still be personal income taxes -- because that is the only way to force those awful rich people to pay their fair share. A sales tax would not tax those awful rich people one penny on any money they put in the bank.
There would be no exemptions or other reductions in the sales tax based on income or number of dependents, or for charitable contributions, or for unreimbursed medical expenses, or for home mortgage interest, or for any of the other things our current income tax code tries to social engineer. Sorry, as soon as you put in any exemptions, the IRS will still have to deal with everyone, so there will be no reduction in staffing. In fact, there will be a lot of new staff hired to deal with the new sales tax.
The "sales tax" is already a cost for businesses. Not all of them. If you are a business in Oregon, you don't worry about sales taxes. This will increase the costs to businesses in every state as more people are hired to deal with the tax records.
A national sales tax would not be a solution to anything, it would just be an addition burden piled on top of the existing tax system.
Explain why the odds of being in the bottom half in the batch-school environment are any different than in the two-student environment.
Because in the home school two-student environment, you will need to be better than someone who is already smarter than you just in order to be above average. In the batch-school, there are a large number of other people who aren't necessarily already smarter than you that are vying for below average. You don't need to beat 100% of the other students to be "above average", you just need to beat 50% of them.
In addition, there is a positive non-zero chance that some of the students above you in public school will transfer out, thus letting you move up the chain. (In my high school, I was number 4 in the class in junior year. Number 1 moved during the summer. Yay! I was number three. Until I found out that a new student had transferred in who was #1. Sigh.)
I.e., at home, you have 0 chance of being above average (if you aren't already). At public school, the chance is positive non-zero. Positive is always greater than 0. QED.
I take it you didn't do so well in statistics and probability yourself.
Can you explain how one person cannot help but be below the average of anything when you have a population of just two? Unless, of course, the two are the same, and then neither will be above average. Sounds just as bad.
The beauty of home schooling is that the curriculum can meet the needs of the student, not the lowest common denominator.
When you are home schooling just two kids, one of them will ALWAYS be the lowest common denominator. One of them will also always be below the class average in grades, and below the class average in IQ.
Much better to be batch-schooled, your odds of being above average are better.
You are aware that there is not only a statistical connection between CO2 concentration and temperature, but also a physical mechanism that you can test in the laboratory?
I'll take it from this question that you disagree with my proven hypothesis that you are the cause?
Yes, I am well aware that in the laboratory you can prove quite a lot of things. What you cannot do in the laboratory is test all of the competing and counteracting systems involved in something as large as the earth. A three foot sealed box in the lab does not map well into an experimental domain as large as the planet.
In your analogy - the tribesman actually took a look at the wiring of the car and found that the radio is not wired into the starter circuit?
He didn't have to. It was trivial to fully test the hypothesis that the radio had to be on for the car to run. Simply turn it off. Being able to do that is a critical part of proving or disproving the hypothesis that "radio must be on for car to run", just as being able to measure any potential temperature rise is a critical part of proving that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Simply saying that "I see no possible connection between the radio and the other operations of the car" isn't proof, and could easily be overlooking any of a number of things, some of which you have no idea exist. E.g., if you have no idea what a CAN bus is and that the radio may be connected to one that communicates with the car's computer, and that there may be a computer bug that includes "radio on" as part of the starting sequence, you'd spend a year looking at the wiring and not see what was wrong. The only way to truly test your hypothesis is to perform the control experiment. Does the car start with the radio off?
I can measure the IR spectrum of CO2, actually, I, personally DID measure it. Physical chemistry lab II, back then, before the war.
I've run IR spectrometers a few times, myself. Very nice rotational and vibrational lines from CO2. But that does not prove a hypothesis that "increased CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere will cause increased temperatures". That's only one tiny part of an immense system.
If you think we know everything there is to know about the earth/air/ocean/sun system, then we're wasting our time doing further research, right? If you want to claim that there is no other possible mechanism for any observed global warming than CO2 trapping IR, then you must know what all possible mechanisms are, and all possible counteracting mechanisms that would balance that effect.
As to the Mindcontrolled causes global warming hypothesis - first, you cannot propose any mechanism.
Of course I can. You gave me the mechanism. You emit CO2. You also emit infrared radiation. There has to be something special about your CO2 emissions, just like there is something special about anthropogenic CO2 that makes it the cause and not any of the other CO2 sources on the planet.
Second, you cannot deliver any correlation - global warming started before I was born.
1. So your parents are also to blame.
2. It has gotten worse since you were born. We're in the upward part of the "tricky" hockey-stick, you know.
3. I predict it will go critical if you live another year. Are you really telling me you'd risk the entire planet just so you can keep reading/.?
Please step into the disintigrator chamber, it is the only way to protect the planet and all of the life (other than yours) thereon. If you don't, the other side will start sending real bombs and all kinds of bad things will happen. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, don'tcha know? Please don't make me come up with even more ST references.
You sound like a creationist: regular science is OK (and works), right up until it concludes something you don't like,
I'll point this out just once and then let you ramble on. I neither like nor dislike the conclusions coming out of "global climate science", I merely accept them as hypotheses that are not truly tested to the degree science demands. I have no problem with a scientist who says "I think" or "we believe". What I dislike are the "scientists" who claim "it is proven, there is no further debate necessary."
Now please proceed with your rants about things I didn't say. Knock yourself out. Keep throwing in a personal insult to two when it makes you feel better about yourself.
The other problem is species. It wasn't that long ago that genetic research forced the reclassification of northern right whales into two distinct species (essentially slashing the population size).
You mean a geneticist single-handedly cut the population of a certain species IN HALF? Wow. I'd say we ought to ban genetic research then. Very dangerous to northern right whales, at a minimum.
On the other hand, let them tackle the human overpopulation problem. They might whittle the herd down by a few orders of magnitude if they could just find some genetic differences...
You don't have a clue. You don't need a different planet to figure out that increasing CO2 concentrations in an air sample increases its absorption of IR wavelengths. Plenty of tests that can verify that.
If all the entire earth/atmosphere/ocean/sun system is to you is "an air sample with some CO2 in it", then you've missed the point entirely and there is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you.
People who oversimplify a complicated system so they can understand a small part of it often get it wrong on the larger scale.
yeah, scientists who don't have a second earth to work with have really not contributed anything to society.
The people who blather such ridiculously twisted interpretations of what someone else has said are the ones who fail to contribute. You'll find nothing like what you said in anything I've ever written.
Well, the fact that we never get identical conditions is covered by the theory of errors. Don't see how similar conditions are not present in climate science. The basic point is, after all, to make a prediction and see if it comes true. That's what is happening.
While the basic point may be "to make a prediction and see if it comes true", part of that prediction has to be the null hypothesis if you are going to do real science. That's the part that is NOT happening.
It's really easy to predict that "if Mindcontrolled is alive on this planet the temperatures will go up" and gosh, look it came true! Using current global climate change science, I've just proven that YOU are the cause of global warming, and all we need to do is get rid of you to solve the problem.
The real scientist has to be able to predict "if Mindcontrolled IS NOT alive on this planet the temperatures will not go up" and see if THAT comes true. Now, if you want to donate yourself to science, that would be great. I've done my part by predicting that you are the cause of global warming, please do your part by disproving that hypothesis. In fact, either way, you die -- either because we all get rid of you as a result of my proof of your involvement, or you get rid of yourself to prove you aren't the cause. It's a no win situation for you, but not so bad for the rest of us. Kind of like the problem we face trying to get rid of CO2. Pretty bad for those who produce CO2, not so bad for the people and countries that don't have large outputs.
If you want an automobile analogy, try this. A remote tribesman is introduced to an automobile. He gets in, turns the key, and the radio starts playing. He puts it in gear and it goes. His hypothesis: the radio has to be on for the car to go. That's trivial to disprove. Simply turn the radio off. Car still goes. (Not an unrealistic hypothesis. I once had a car that ran great only when the headlights were on. It had been miswired so that some engine controls were connected to the lights. ) Now, show me the experiment where we remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere and the temperature doesn't go up. That's a critical part of "testing the hypothesis" that is not possible.
Yes, the small differences in initial conditions for real scientific experiments can often be dealt with by treating them as errors. But to try to pretend that you can go from a sealed three foot box sitting on your lab bench all the way up to an unenclosed 8000 mile diameter sphere and treat it under the "theory of errors" is just ludicrous.
On the contrary. I think someone who was raised on a farm who decides that they must only eat animals they've killed themselves is a bit strange. They already have had to face exactly what goes on.
Yeah, yeah, touchy feely Gaia-ism that survives only because we have the luxury of being able to have others do jobs for us in exchange for us doing things they don't want to do so we don't have to work 20 hour days just to survive, and then we get to spend our "free time" pretending that everything is God. Those cows have souls just as valuable as humans' souls, and ants are just humans who are suffering from bad karma. I get it.
And think people who put themselves in the position of having to must be somehow broken or disturbed.
People who think that killing animals is bad and then decide they're going to kill animals themselves so they feel bad about it, instead of simply not eating animals so nothing has to be killed, are both broken and disturbed. I think the shrinks call it "masochism".
True, except that cats are carnivores, which makes them more likely to have certain parasites. I will stick to herbivores. Delicious herbivores.
So you avoid pork? It is well known (at least to pork producers) that pigs will happily eat any rats or other vermin that show up looking for the corn that the pigs haven't eaten.
And pigs are good sources for trichinosis for just that reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Most broadcast antennae are not transmitting vertically. To do so would be a waste of transmitter power. So those antennae are not radiating much power into a place where they would interfere with avionics.
It is more a case of those antennas being in a fixed location at a fixed power and known hours of operation.
I used to fly out of Syracuse NY and would pass over the top of one of the FM broadcast stations on the way south. It was normal for me to pick up that station in the aviation radio for about twenty or thirty seconds, and ATC knew that anyone in that area was likely to be suffering from the same thing.
It happened every time, it happened in a known place, and it was obvious what the source was. It happened long enough after takeoff that it wasn't a danger to departures, and it was not on final so it wasn't a big hazard to arrivals.
Compare that to a situation where the radio goes kaput at a random time for an unknown cause while on final approach and you're waiting for ATC to clear you for landing and you are in the clouds trying to keep the ILS needles centered -- and it may be one of the ILS radios that is now nonfunctional. Yes, you've trained how to deal with it, but people still bend metal when instruments fail despite repeated practice going without.
Sometimes the problem is not that you are unable to go without that instrument altogether, but that you are not easily able to determine that it is lying to you and should be ignored. If you know it will not work at a certain place, you can ignore it. If you don't know it is broken, you don't know to ignore it. I used to fly over Elmira NY and had a LORAN in the airplane. The first time I flew there, it took me a bit of time to work out why the plane I was flying suddenly had a ground speed in excess of 400 knots. After that time, I knew that I should ignore any LORAN when flying in that area -- the site of one of the LORAN transmitters. If the ground speed indication had been 50 knots instead of 400, I might not have realized what the problem was quite so easily.
It could've been an electronics failure or a crazy pilot's error...
That's the problem with looking at NTSB reports and trying to find "EMI caused a crash" results.
The NTSB will test everything it can recover, and listen to the tapes. It looks at the radar tracks and interviews ground witnesses. When it finds that the electronics appear to be working, and there were no clues to any mechanical issues, the result will be "pilot error".
The guy in seat 34B who was using his laptop or cellphone during approach will either be dead and unable to admit that fact, be oblivious to the fact that his actions may have contributed to the cause, may not even remember he left his phone ON in his carryon (and yes, I've gotten to my destination and found that my phone was on the whole time), or may be too scared of legal repercussions to admit what he was doing.
So, sorry, I don't trust the lack of documented death from cellphone use at the wrong time as proof of anything other than a lack of documented death from cellphone use. The inability of the NTSB to make that a final determination means it won't be; it's not the fact that it can't happen.
At a unit weight of 4kg, this is more than 30.000 laptop computers.
Do you truly not understand the complexity of proper testing of EMI that you would imagine that you could put 30,000 running laptop computers into a 747 at one time and get any meaningful results?
Or is the goal to do a botch job and get nothing and then use that as proof that every PED is safe in every airplane?
I'm sorry, but I've been a pilot in airplanes where there has been EMI from PED so this isn't "anecdotal" evidence to me. I also know that every case of EMI doesn't result in an airplane falling from the sky because the pilots are too good at flying to allow that to happen, but it does cause extra workload usually at a time when there is already a lot. And, of course, when the worst does happen the NTSB won't necessarily be able to pin the cause on a defective laptop being used at the wrong time in the wrong place because by the time they get there the plane is a smoldering pile of metal shards and nobody will know that the laptop was being used, only that the radar showed the aircraft below the glideslope far enough that it hit the ground instead of landing on a runway. Unless the pilot is really good and really fast at diagnosing the problem and can say it loud enough that the cockpit voice recorder remembers the cause for posterity, the NTSB will chalk it up to just another case of "pilot error".
The only act that would fragment the net is for KZ to pull the router cables and stop traffic crossing the border. That has nothing to do with who has a .kz domain, it has only to do with who is inside and who is outside the borders when it happens.
Why do we need to test each device? GSM devices only emit in specific frequency ranges. All of them emit in the same set of frequency ranges in the same way. Same with any other class of device.
Not true. Leakage varies from model to model, frequencies depend on receiver and transmitter design.
Sorry, just read the rest of your posting. I shouldn't feed the trolls.
This is why you occasionally get stories like the FAA knocking on a guy's door because his TV is emitting noise on a distress beacon frequency.
Not the FAA. The Civil Air Patrol and the local police/sheriff.
I was there for one of these. A Toshiba TV/DVD player combo. For some reason unknown it was emitting a VERY STRONG unmodulated carrier on 121.5MHz. So strong that the SARSAT system was picking it up and it was blanketing any other potential ELT in the area.
It was an early Sunday morning. Half a dozen cops, half a dozen uniformed CAP cadets, and a couple of SAR volunteers. A hapless college student was watching Sesame Street in his underwear.
We couldn't pin it down until one of us noticed that the signal had stopped when he answered the door. We asked "did you just turn something off?" and the rest is history. His TV was two days out of warranty, but Toshiba swapped it out anyway so they could test the thing to find out why it was emitting. There was no visible sign of any problem with the TV, nothing looked wrong, everything was working. It wasn't until we showed up at his door that he found out there was a problem.
Anyone who says that personal electronic devices cannot interfere with aircraft systems is ignorant at best. Properly designed, properly maintained, properly functioning PED in a properly designed, properly maintained, properly functioning aircraft has minimal chance, but too many things break too often and the costs are very high, so why risk it? So you can text your BFF that "hey, lolz, I'm on an airplane?"
OTOH there isn't any reason at all, that Google should give a rat's ass. If they want to market to KZ citizens, they don't need a .kz domain.
I agree. I think it is well within a country's rights to demand that hosts carrying the country's TLD be within that country. In fact, I think it is a good thing to know where the server is. That does nothing to "fragment the net". You don't need a .kz domain name to be reachable from .kz land --
Until the KZ government decides to pull the connections to the outside world. But then, anyone with a .kz domain who ISN'T inside the borders won't be reachable from inside anyway. It won't matter what domain you are in if you aren't inside the country. That's the only time the net starts to fragment. Simply requiring a physical presence to get a .kz domain name, however, doesn't.
What would be significant and objectionable is if KZ decided you MUST have a .kz name for any server located inside the KZ routers. But I'm not even sure how significant that would be.
He was saying if a Dutch citizen connects to a server in the U.S., the ISP that the server is connected to can throttle your traffic because they are exempt from Dutch laws.
I know what he was saying. And he's wrong.
If a person in NL is using a US ISP, then they've either gotten a satellite service based in the US or leased an undersea cable connection to a US ISP. Or they're making a really expensive dialup connection to the US. Otherwise, they're going to be using a Dutch ISP. Especially when we're talking about cellphone delivered internet service.
If you are in Holland and have a cellphone that can connect to a US carrier, you need to get a patent on that real quick. And you really will need something to protect you from the high levels of RF your phone must be emitting.
In any case, the proposed law says nothing about the services provided by "a server", only the ISP. As I said, iTunes or Google or any other service provider (not ISP) can block your IP address for any reason they want and you have nothing to say about it. It's only the ISP itself that would be prohibited from doing so. And if the law makes any sense, it will still allow QOS packet management based on deep inspection, as long as it deals with types of service and not the provider.
Ahh, I think I see now. You are trying to turn this into a discussion about the ISP that Google etc are connected to. Why would the ISP servicing Google, e.g., want to block Google's traffic? You think they want Google to use a different ISP and lose the money they make off that client? I doubt it. They'd just stop providing any service to Google. And then Google would give lots of money to another provider.
I've seen some people say they wanted to move to NL.
I've been to NL many times. Very nice place.
Good transit system. It is relatively easy to use, but there is one strange part. It seems there is a town called "Buiten Dienst" (spelling?) that many buses go to, but I cannot find it on the map. And those buses don't seem to stop at any of the regular bus stops. Other than that, ok.
Bad prices. Too high.
The only reason I'd maybe move there is that they know what to put on French Fries. But then, I can buy a bottle of mayo here and do it without moving. Maybe for stroopwaffles. A nice warm fresh from from the vendor in a city market... mmm.
Then there is the issue that many ISPs have local monopolies.
I know of none in the US. Care to name a few? Given that there are dialup ISPs still around that cover the entire US, I'd say you won't be able to name any. And given that this new law covers cellphone ISPs, and that there are at least three major providers that cover most of the US (AT&T/T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint), you are less likely to be able to name any.
They need to be regulated, and net neutrality is one way of keeping the content that runs inside their wires free. This has always been the norm, I don't know why it's so controversial now.
Well, many times, trying to regulate (mandate) "the norm" turns "the norm" into something controversial. For example, "the norm", at least in this part of my world, is that front yards have grass and maybe a tree or two. I'd wager that trying to mandate "grass and a tree or two" as a required "front yard" for everyone would result in a lot of controversy, even from those who have exactly that kind of yard.
And on top of that it's fuel is free.
That reminds me of the story about "Stone Soup". You know, the one where a stranger in town makes a really delicious huge caldron of thick, rich soup from just a tiny stone. Yes, perpetual motion machines really are possible, if you ignore the energy inputs.
so if an ISP is discriminating in the US (where your favorite services houses their servers) you service will still be throttled or potentially cut off.
It's pretty hard for a Dutch person to have their ISP be located in the US. Unless they use a satellite service or have a leased, undersea cable. But yes, for a US user, this DUTCH law would have no effect.
This law deals with the ISP, not the servers you deal with. Where do you get the idea that "your favorite services" are required to provide service to you? If the iTunes store or whoever wants to block your IP, they have that right. What this law, and net neutrality in general, deals with is the ISP blocking your access to certain destinations, not those destinations blocking your access to their services.
For the life of me, I have no idea why a poster upthread thought this had something to do with "copyright owners". Net neutrality has nothing to do with copyright. Zip. Nada.
Then the IRS should stop dealing with every individual in the US, and just collect taxes from businesses. Then we could have a streamlined IRS that doesn't have to play for tens of thousands of employees.
This "solution" assumes several things, none of which would be true.
A national sales tax would not be a solution to anything, it would just be an addition burden piled on top of the existing tax system.
We should put Celine Dion down there with him.
Sharks don't like french food. Too fattening. Or even French Canadian food.
Besides, who would smear me with a tub of vaseline then?
Explain why the odds of being in the bottom half in the batch-school environment are any different than in the two-student environment.
Because in the home school two-student environment, you will need to be better than someone who is already smarter than you just in order to be above average. In the batch-school, there are a large number of other people who aren't necessarily already smarter than you that are vying for below average. You don't need to beat 100% of the other students to be "above average", you just need to beat 50% of them.
In addition, there is a positive non-zero chance that some of the students above you in public school will transfer out, thus letting you move up the chain. (In my high school, I was number 4 in the class in junior year. Number 1 moved during the summer. Yay! I was number three. Until I found out that a new student had transferred in who was #1. Sigh.)
I.e., at home, you have 0 chance of being above average (if you aren't already). At public school, the chance is positive non-zero. Positive is always greater than 0. QED.
I take it you didn't do so well in statistics and probability yourself.
Can you explain how one person cannot help but be below the average of anything when you have a population of just two? Unless, of course, the two are the same, and then neither will be above average. Sounds just as bad.
The beauty of home schooling is that the curriculum can meet the needs of the student, not the lowest common denominator.
When you are home schooling just two kids, one of them will ALWAYS be the lowest common denominator. One of them will also always be below the class average in grades, and below the class average in IQ.
Much better to be batch-schooled, your odds of being above average are better.
Well, they used to start everything with "Mac", but too many people would be saying "there can be only one" if they called it MacCloud.
Dennis Weaver would be proud that you remember him.
You are aware that there is not only a statistical connection between CO2 concentration and temperature, but also a physical mechanism that you can test in the laboratory?
I'll take it from this question that you disagree with my proven hypothesis that you are the cause?
Yes, I am well aware that in the laboratory you can prove quite a lot of things. What you cannot do in the laboratory is test all of the competing and counteracting systems involved in something as large as the earth. A three foot sealed box in the lab does not map well into an experimental domain as large as the planet.
In your analogy - the tribesman actually took a look at the wiring of the car and found that the radio is not wired into the starter circuit?
He didn't have to. It was trivial to fully test the hypothesis that the radio had to be on for the car to run. Simply turn it off. Being able to do that is a critical part of proving or disproving the hypothesis that "radio must be on for car to run", just as being able to measure any potential temperature rise is a critical part of proving that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Simply saying that "I see no possible connection between the radio and the other operations of the car" isn't proof, and could easily be overlooking any of a number of things, some of which you have no idea exist. E.g., if you have no idea what a CAN bus is and that the radio may be connected to one that communicates with the car's computer, and that there may be a computer bug that includes "radio on" as part of the starting sequence, you'd spend a year looking at the wiring and not see what was wrong. The only way to truly test your hypothesis is to perform the control experiment. Does the car start with the radio off?
I can measure the IR spectrum of CO2, actually, I, personally DID measure it. Physical chemistry lab II, back then, before the war.
I've run IR spectrometers a few times, myself. Very nice rotational and vibrational lines from CO2. But that does not prove a hypothesis that "increased CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere will cause increased temperatures". That's only one tiny part of an immense system.
If you think we know everything there is to know about the earth/air/ocean/sun system, then we're wasting our time doing further research, right? If you want to claim that there is no other possible mechanism for any observed global warming than CO2 trapping IR, then you must know what all possible mechanisms are, and all possible counteracting mechanisms that would balance that effect.
As to the Mindcontrolled causes global warming hypothesis - first, you cannot propose any mechanism.
Of course I can. You gave me the mechanism. You emit CO2. You also emit infrared radiation. There has to be something special about your CO2 emissions, just like there is something special about anthropogenic CO2 that makes it the cause and not any of the other CO2 sources on the planet.
Second, you cannot deliver any correlation - global warming started before I was born.
1. So your parents are also to blame.
2. It has gotten worse since you were born. We're in the upward part of the "tricky" hockey-stick, you know.
3. I predict it will go critical if you live another year. Are you really telling me you'd risk the entire planet just so you can keep reading /.?
Please step into the disintigrator chamber, it is the only way to protect the planet and all of the life (other than yours) thereon. If you don't, the other side will start sending real bombs and all kinds of bad things will happen. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, don'tcha know? Please don't make me come up with even more ST references.
You sound like a creationist: regular science is OK (and works), right up until it concludes something you don't like,
I'll point this out just once and then let you ramble on. I neither like nor dislike the conclusions coming out of "global climate science", I merely accept them as hypotheses that are not truly tested to the degree science demands. I have no problem with a scientist who says "I think" or "we believe". What I dislike are the "scientists" who claim "it is proven, there is no further debate necessary."
Now please proceed with your rants about things I didn't say. Knock yourself out. Keep throwing in a personal insult to two when it makes you feel better about yourself.
The other problem is species. It wasn't that long ago that genetic research forced the reclassification of northern right whales into two distinct species (essentially slashing the population size).
You mean a geneticist single-handedly cut the population of a certain species IN HALF? Wow. I'd say we ought to ban genetic research then. Very dangerous to northern right whales, at a minimum.
On the other hand, let them tackle the human overpopulation problem. They might whittle the herd down by a few orders of magnitude if they could just find some genetic differences...
You don't have a clue. You don't need a different planet to figure out that increasing CO2 concentrations in an air sample increases its absorption of IR wavelengths. Plenty of tests that can verify that.
If all the entire earth/atmosphere/ocean/sun system is to you is "an air sample with some CO2 in it", then you've missed the point entirely and there is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you.
People who oversimplify a complicated system so they can understand a small part of it often get it wrong on the larger scale.
yeah, scientists who don't have a second earth to work with have really not contributed anything to society.
The people who blather such ridiculously twisted interpretations of what someone else has said are the ones who fail to contribute. You'll find nothing like what you said in anything I've ever written.
Well, the fact that we never get identical conditions is covered by the theory of errors. Don't see how similar conditions are not present in climate science. The basic point is, after all, to make a prediction and see if it comes true. That's what is happening.
While the basic point may be "to make a prediction and see if it comes true", part of that prediction has to be the null hypothesis if you are going to do real science. That's the part that is NOT happening.
It's really easy to predict that "if Mindcontrolled is alive on this planet the temperatures will go up" and gosh, look it came true! Using current global climate change science, I've just proven that YOU are the cause of global warming, and all we need to do is get rid of you to solve the problem.
The real scientist has to be able to predict "if Mindcontrolled IS NOT alive on this planet the temperatures will not go up" and see if THAT comes true. Now, if you want to donate yourself to science, that would be great. I've done my part by predicting that you are the cause of global warming, please do your part by disproving that hypothesis. In fact, either way, you die -- either because we all get rid of you as a result of my proof of your involvement, or you get rid of yourself to prove you aren't the cause. It's a no win situation for you, but not so bad for the rest of us. Kind of like the problem we face trying to get rid of CO2. Pretty bad for those who produce CO2, not so bad for the people and countries that don't have large outputs.
If you want an automobile analogy, try this. A remote tribesman is introduced to an automobile. He gets in, turns the key, and the radio starts playing. He puts it in gear and it goes. His hypothesis: the radio has to be on for the car to go. That's trivial to disprove. Simply turn the radio off. Car still goes. (Not an unrealistic hypothesis. I once had a car that ran great only when the headlights were on. It had been miswired so that some engine controls were connected to the lights. ) Now, show me the experiment where we remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere and the temperature doesn't go up. That's a critical part of "testing the hypothesis" that is not possible.
Yes, the small differences in initial conditions for real scientific experiments can often be dealt with by treating them as errors. But to try to pretend that you can go from a sealed three foot box sitting on your lab bench all the way up to an unenclosed 8000 mile diameter sphere and treat it under the "theory of errors" is just ludicrous.
On the contrary. I think someone who was raised on a farm who decides that they must only eat animals they've killed themselves is a bit strange. They already have had to face exactly what goes on.
Yeah, yeah, touchy feely Gaia-ism that survives only because we have the luxury of being able to have others do jobs for us in exchange for us doing things they don't want to do so we don't have to work 20 hour days just to survive, and then we get to spend our "free time" pretending that everything is God. Those cows have souls just as valuable as humans' souls, and ants are just humans who are suffering from bad karma. I get it.
And think people who put themselves in the position of having to must be somehow broken or disturbed.
People who think that killing animals is bad and then decide they're going to kill animals themselves so they feel bad about it, instead of simply not eating animals so nothing has to be killed, are both broken and disturbed. I think the shrinks call it "masochism".
True, except that cats are carnivores, which makes them more likely to have certain parasites. I will stick to herbivores. Delicious herbivores.
So you avoid pork? It is well known (at least to pork producers) that pigs will happily eat any rats or other vermin that show up looking for the corn that the pigs haven't eaten.
And pigs are good sources for trichinosis for just that reason.