Trump has turned a $150M inheritance into $10M and a "brand". He's a loser who won't release his tax records because it will expose his life is one huge lie. His negotiation is "lie until they agree, then break the agreement" and "It's cheaper to lose in court than to lose at the negotiation table" Tactics that are short on ethics, and often short on results.
So they should deliver 1 Mbps service over a 100 Mbps last-mile connection, so nothing is throttled, and there's no congestion, and there's no incremental cost to your bits.
Instead, every user, and the companies providing the service, prefer an over-subscribed service that cuts user cost. The only question is where do they put the line. Too much OS and the performance is bad. Too little OS, and the cost is too high. One of the solutions is more OS to cut costs, and bandwidth caps/costs to deter usage from the "worst" users to benefit all. The high-bandwidth users hate that solution.
Other people may suffer at the hands of your use of the total bandwidth at your area of the Internet but the costs do not change
If the suffering users leave the ISP, then it most certainly does change the Internet costs for the ISP (or at least the # of customers to spread the cost across). There is a real scarcity. There's not unlimited bandwidth everywhere, and it has costs to provide.
Why is it that, in the media, everything Trump does is "bad".
Because that's the reality.
Are Clintons actions editorialized as well? I haven't seen any good examples.
For a Trump supporter, one would have thought you've seen Fox News at least once. I've seen lots of things that have been editorialized about her. Perhaps because you are a Trump supporter, you are more sensitive about that?
I *hope* more vendors get off of the "connect it to the cloud" bandwagon
Never. For one, most people don't have or want a home automation server. And #2 the makers want to keep that function so they can monetize it. And as you say, users want features that require weak security practices.
Seah, but people who bu the C7 paid extra for better WiFi. The open options generally don't do good WiFi. You'd have to buy separate router and AP to make OpenWRT useful.
"The parties responsible to operate the organization for the stakeholders are the members of the board of directors." By the definitions of Capitalism, those who control the capital "own" the capital. So, anyone who sits on the board of directors of a nonprofit is the "owner" from an economic definition, even if not a "legal" definition. The descriptions on the site you gave seem to be simplistic and incorerct, but designed to counter the idea that someone like Trump could start a non-profit, collect charitable donations, then use that donation pool to pay off personal debts. Since things like that actually do happen, those in the charitable circles improperly state reality, to give a better impression than the impression of reality.
Also, note that the billionaire's charities are almost always described as belonging to them. Perhaps that's one reason why so many try to over-simplify the "ownership" question to "none".
All nonprofit basically means is that the company doesn't have shareholders of any sort
Incorrect. A nonprofit does have shareholders. I know. I've been a shareholder in more than one non-profit. A non-profit means that the shareholders can't get dividends (or other payouts of profits), nothing more. A charity can make a profit, but it's not a legal profit" so long as it's held by the company, rather than paid out. A surplus isn't bad thing. It means they are solvent. Nothing more.
All the successful charities are run like a for-profit, where you have lots of accounting and such to make sure you have enough money to operate. Those that don't all fail.
"Shareholder" is another word for "owner", and everything must have an owner. The founder of a charity lists themselves as the owner, and they can split that ownership up into parts, and have others as shareholders. This is common in trading "ownership" around, and such between mutual boards of directors. Yes, the boards of directors of large charities are as insestuous as wall street boards.
United Way is not a charity. They are a donations clearing-house. They don't "do" anything, certainly not anything charitable. They just collect and re-distribute funds. They take a portion of donations, to be wasted in overhead (like private jets), then pass on some of the donations to the charities that do what they want. If the amount donated were to not change, the world would be better off without United Way. If you can say that about a charity, that's pretty damning.
Gulf States Toyota put undercoat on all cars. And way overcharged for it. The dealers were not allowed to buy anywhere else, and Toyota was banned by law from interfering with the dealers. They got in their position of power due to the insane laws, and are now one of the forces against change.
I have worked for larger and smaller ISPs than you. I disagree. You support the line speed. If the modem doesn't connect with a good line rate, your "best effort" service is delivered. If the modem has problems with PPPoA, you refer them back to the supported model, provided with the service.
You can protect yourself without being a Nazi. I've swapped out modems on bad ISPs like yours, just kept the original in a box, and swapped it in if I got an idiot on support.
Diet plans were given to all people in the study. There was no group without a diet plan. The exercise goals were different for the non-fitbit group than the fitbit group.
So specifically, there was no control group without a diet plan. Nor were the control group and fitbit group isolated to a single variable.
Like most blowhards, you have avoided specifics.I started with specifics, and you attacked me personally. You don't listen to specifics, so you have proven yourself a blowhard.
That makes more sense, other than the states are not "roughly equal population" but "roughly equal area" Seward would still be the lowest population density state, Though, aside from carving up low-population Alaska, makes some sense. All of Alaska (not bisected) would probably have a lower population than any other state, so carving it up further seems odd. You'd have to have the islands of Alaska go with Hawaii and the panhandle go with Cascade/Washington. But doing that breaks some of the goals of simplification. I wouldn't see a re-draw of the states work any better than a re-draw of Europe to carve up Germany to better balance the economic inequities.
I have run clinical trials. You are the one that has no clue how they work, and who resorts to name calling to avoid supporting your incorrect opinion wrongly asserted as fact.
One of the exercises done to get the degree was to generate a "scientifically valid" study that proves the opposite of another "scientifically valid" study. So, we formed a survey where a question was asked and 75% (or more) said "no", and another survey where the identical survey question was asked with a 75% (or better) "yes" answer. The exercise in futility was "proof" that "scientifically valid" doesn't mean it's actually valid or useful. Finding ways to deliberately manipulate results was required for those going into fields that ran trials, so you'd avoid those errors, and could recognize them in others.
If they are going to make a 51st state, they should add in Puerto Rico, and split Texas to 5, so they get all the possible state changes done at the same time. Or perhaps sell Florida to Cuba and make DC a state, so we don't have to change the flags.
The US has no official language, so the language issue is an odd one. NZ has three official languages. Australia is more like the US, with primarily English spoken, but no official languages.
Size isn't an issue. If it can't be done for 200M+ people, then have it done per-state. That's the point of a state system. You can break it down, if it doesn't work on a national scale, though nothing indicates it shouldn't work on a national scale. In fact, it should be more efficient on a national scale.
Most people who use an activity tracker don't also have a personal trainer. As such, the study is invalid. They tested an edge-case, and the media (And you) are extrapolating a single data point into a broad absolute.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump has turned a $150M inheritance into $10M and a "brand". He's a loser who won't release his tax records because it will expose his life is one huge lie. His negotiation is "lie until they agree, then break the agreement" and "It's cheaper to lose in court than to lose at the negotiation table" Tactics that are short on ethics, and often short on results.
Couldn't convict the first, what makes you think they'll convict the second Clinton?
Instead, every user, and the companies providing the service, prefer an over-subscribed service that cuts user cost. The only question is where do they put the line. Too much OS and the performance is bad. Too little OS, and the cost is too high. One of the solutions is more OS to cut costs, and bandwidth caps/costs to deter usage from the "worst" users to benefit all. The high-bandwidth users hate that solution.
Other people may suffer at the hands of your use of the total bandwidth at your area of the Internet but the costs do not change
If the suffering users leave the ISP, then it most certainly does change the Internet costs for the ISP (or at least the # of customers to spread the cost across). There is a real scarcity. There's not unlimited bandwidth everywhere, and it has costs to provide.
Why is it that, in the media, everything Trump does is "bad".
Because that's the reality.
Are Clintons actions editorialized as well? I haven't seen any good examples.
For a Trump supporter, one would have thought you've seen Fox News at least once. I've seen lots of things that have been editorialized about her. Perhaps because you are a Trump supporter, you are more sensitive about that?
It's projection. Call others what you are, and they will look foolish calling you it back.
Make Slashdot Great Again.
When you download an Oreo, the ISP licks off the filling, replaces it with toothpaste and sues you for liable if you complain.
I *hope* more vendors get off of the "connect it to the cloud" bandwagon
Never. For one, most people don't have or want a home automation server. And #2 the makers want to keep that function so they can monetize it. And as you say, users want features that require weak security practices.
Seah, but people who bu the C7 paid extra for better WiFi. The open options generally don't do good WiFi. You'd have to buy separate router and AP to make OpenWRT useful.
"The parties responsible to operate the organization for the stakeholders are the members of the board of directors." By the definitions of Capitalism, those who control the capital "own" the capital. So, anyone who sits on the board of directors of a nonprofit is the "owner" from an economic definition, even if not a "legal" definition. The descriptions on the site you gave seem to be simplistic and incorerct, but designed to counter the idea that someone like Trump could start a non-profit, collect charitable donations, then use that donation pool to pay off personal debts. Since things like that actually do happen, those in the charitable circles improperly state reality, to give a better impression than the impression of reality.
Also, note that the billionaire's charities are almost always described as belonging to them. Perhaps that's one reason why so many try to over-simplify the "ownership" question to "none".
All nonprofit basically means is that the company doesn't have shareholders of any sort
Incorrect. A nonprofit does have shareholders. I know. I've been a shareholder in more than one non-profit. A non-profit means that the shareholders can't get dividends (or other payouts of profits), nothing more. A charity can make a profit, but it's not a legal profit" so long as it's held by the company, rather than paid out. A surplus isn't bad thing. It means they are solvent. Nothing more.
All the successful charities are run like a for-profit, where you have lots of accounting and such to make sure you have enough money to operate. Those that don't all fail.
"Shareholder" is another word for "owner", and everything must have an owner. The founder of a charity lists themselves as the owner, and they can split that ownership up into parts, and have others as shareholders. This is common in trading "ownership" around, and such between mutual boards of directors. Yes, the boards of directors of large charities are as insestuous as wall street boards.
United Way is not a charity. They are a donations clearing-house. They don't "do" anything, certainly not anything charitable. They just collect and re-distribute funds. They take a portion of donations, to be wasted in overhead (like private jets), then pass on some of the donations to the charities that do what they want. If the amount donated were to not change, the world would be better off without United Way. If you can say that about a charity, that's pretty damning.
Gulf States Toyota put undercoat on all cars. And way overcharged for it. The dealers were not allowed to buy anywhere else, and Toyota was banned by law from interfering with the dealers. They got in their position of power due to the insane laws, and are now one of the forces against change.
In time metered locations, you can use the battery without the solar. Buy cheaper energy, then use it at peak times, stored for your cost savings.
I have worked for larger and smaller ISPs than you. I disagree. You support the line speed. If the modem doesn't connect with a good line rate, your "best effort" service is delivered. If the modem has problems with PPPoA, you refer them back to the supported model, provided with the service.
You can protect yourself without being a Nazi. I've swapped out modems on bad ISPs like yours, just kept the original in a box, and swapped it in if I got an idiot on support.
If the ISP doesn't have SNMP/SSH/etc to the NIU device, then a truck has to be rolled to diagnose, even for an internal network issue.
It's a shame that the cable industry couldn't work out a Data Over Cable Service standard to help them with this.
I don't have a middle name. What's suspicious about that?
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama does have a middle name. That's why it's suspicious.
Michelle Obama was born in Umbwandanabe, Kenya, Illinois, Hawaii?
Diet plans were given to all people in the study. There was no group without a diet plan. The exercise goals were different for the non-fitbit group than the fitbit group.
So specifically, there was no control group without a diet plan. Nor were the control group and fitbit group isolated to a single variable.
Like most blowhards, you have avoided specifics.I started with specifics, and you attacked me personally. You don't listen to specifics, so you have proven yourself a blowhard.
That makes more sense, other than the states are not "roughly equal population" but "roughly equal area" Seward would still be the lowest population density state, Though, aside from carving up low-population Alaska, makes some sense. All of Alaska (not bisected) would probably have a lower population than any other state, so carving it up further seems odd. You'd have to have the islands of Alaska go with Hawaii and the panhandle go with Cascade/Washington. But doing that breaks some of the goals of simplification. I wouldn't see a re-draw of the states work any better than a re-draw of Europe to carve up Germany to better balance the economic inequities.
I have run clinical trials. You are the one that has no clue how they work, and who resorts to name calling to avoid supporting your incorrect opinion wrongly asserted as fact.
One of the exercises done to get the degree was to generate a "scientifically valid" study that proves the opposite of another "scientifically valid" study. So, we formed a survey where a question was asked and 75% (or more) said "no", and another survey where the identical survey question was asked with a 75% (or better) "yes" answer. The exercise in futility was "proof" that "scientifically valid" doesn't mean it's actually valid or useful. Finding ways to deliberately manipulate results was required for those going into fields that ran trials, so you'd avoid those errors, and could recognize them in others.
If they are going to make a 51st state, they should add in Puerto Rico, and split Texas to 5, so they get all the possible state changes done at the same time. Or perhaps sell Florida to Cuba and make DC a state, so we don't have to change the flags.
The US has no official language, so the language issue is an odd one. NZ has three official languages. Australia is more like the US, with primarily English spoken, but no official languages.
Size isn't an issue. If it can't be done for 200M+ people, then have it done per-state. That's the point of a state system. You can break it down, if it doesn't work on a national scale, though nothing indicates it shouldn't work on a national scale. In fact, it should be more efficient on a national scale.
The Vietnam War was decided by politics. The farm boys for the North won because the South was under unequal rules of engagement.
Most people who use an activity tracker don't also have a personal trainer. As such, the study is invalid. They tested an edge-case, and the media (And you) are extrapolating a single data point into a broad absolute.