Job security is a red herring. At best you can choose whether you have someone move to the US to take your job, or whether your job moves out of the country without you. If those are vastly different to you, then feel free to use that as a test for the candidates. If being unemployed is unemployed, regardless of where your job is, then they have the same job results. Note, Trump has all his "Make American Great Again" swag made outside the USA, along with his suits, and almost everything else.
Taking bribes to allow a canadian company to be sold to russians. Hardly a scandal, Canada sold a company! And no evidence. Just some people who gave donations and had a favorable result. If that's the bar, then Bush should be in prison for all the bribes he took from energy and telecommunications companies.
It's clear there is a section of his support base for whom this is true, but if that were all he had, or even most of what he had, he'd have no chance.
That's all he has, and it's still close.
I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.
The BLM-haters say that there's no race issue. But reality seems to indicate otherwise. Millions of people voting for Trump, who promises racism and hate. Maybe 5 of those 40,000,000 don't think he's actually racist and like his economic policies, but I think that'd be a generous estimate.
Ah, "Signal bandwidth" is the current term for that. "Bandwidth" means "useful data rate or theoretical line rate". You need a qualifier now to get the original definition. Like "broadband", whose current definition bears zero resemblance to the original definition.
Well yeah, like an ISP has to pay to get the content to your house. Water and content are "free", but the service of getting them to your house isn't, and both are often limited or metered.
I pay for metered water. When I open the faucet all the way, I don't get infinite water. The water company lies.
That's bits not bandwidth
You'll have to define "bandwidth" for us. Your use seems to not agree with any dictionary I could find.
I haven't seen any other limiations on our downstream capacity in our contract,
Then you haven't found the "best effort" clause. It's in every residential contract, and many business ones, even "dedicated Internet" contracts.
You'll get your 25 Mbps between you and the DSLAM (or other network point), and no guarantees after. That's 25 Mbps of bandwidth (or bits, or however you want to define it). Content is different.
When I played for fun, I funned myself out of the ability to finish the game. Gaming the game was the only way to reach all the content. That you find tailoring your gameplay to discover more of the content a shit experience doesn't mean it's true for the rest of us. Stop being Gaming Hitler and let us play the way we want.
It sounds a lot like Fallout, only with a bigger universe, and less polish. I know several people who think Fallout is boring. It can be slow, and if you don't do research (on levels and what to pick when leveling), you may have to restart. In Fallout 3, I didn't google anything before playing, and ended up leveling to an un-playable state The next time through, I picked a better combination of offensive skills, mixed in, and did much better. For many, that would be frustrating. Frustrating is when I leveled up too well after, and could one-shot some of the hardest creatures in the game. It became almost too easy, when you picked the "right" skills to focus on. For fallout 3, that's melee and crit damage, with sneak when you have nothing that helps those. Eventually, if you sneak up on a deathclaw, you one-shot it with the melee bonuses and crit bonuses from the sneak attack. The "irony" is that you kill the deathclaw with a deathclaw claw.
Interest is zero (when paid off every month). Fees are zero, unless you are getting cash back/out (not counting merchant fees, paid even if you pay cash, in most places). $0 to fight a bad charge, usually reversed when first noted, and in limbo until settled.
Where are you paying money for your cards/accounts?
Outside the US, the practice of handing out your card to a stranger (waiter) isn't common. That seems to be a US-centric issue, Traveling through Europe, and you'd go to the bar to pay for your meal. Swipe/insert the card yourself. Never letting anyone else touch it. If you insist they come to your table to settle the bill, they'll come out with a wireless PIN pad and you can pay at your table.
I don't bother. The number of attacks in the wild is still essentially zero, and I'm indemnified against all loss. It might be inconvenient, but it's not a loss. So it's not worth my time and trouble guarding against.
I might worry about it if I were to go to the Olympics or something else with lots of international tourists, the best ones to skim, but for regular everyday use, the chance of you being skimmed rounds to zero, and if it does happen, you are blameless.
And if they use BI fiber, it'll break before it bends enough to leak. Also, the bend is detectable, but not in a detection war. A bend enough to leak light will cause a loss of about 3 dB. Do that in a human-possible time frame, and the management server will detect the sudden loss as a critical event. So the tappers will make a machine to bend it slowly over a week, and tap in over a time that the management servers won't recognize as a significant critical event.
Wouldn't cause an outage if you tapped it by capturing light from a bend. Doesn't work on BI fiber, and is detectable in that the tap will cause a signal loss, but if they have standard fiber and poor monitoring, it's undetectable.
Bandwidth isn't water, its not going to run out and they can simply add capacity.
Water falls from the sky and is free, yet they meter for that. But you think bandwidth with actual capacity costs is free?
If they need to spend $10k to upgrade a link, should they have the cost spread among the 1GB per month users, or the 1TB per month users? The 1TB users, like you, want it split evenly by connection, when the benefit is almost exclusively for you. That's why the metering and caps exist.
Selfish assholes like you want free bandwidth, at the expense of others.
There is no process for putting an initiative on the ballot at a federal level, but many for doing that at a state level. So the comment about putting initiatives on the ballot must be about doing it at a state-level.
The FCC is supposed to be writing the rules. That's what the law says. Cable Companies are trying to strike down the FCC, because the law gives the FCC the power to write regulations.
The law was passed in 1996. The FCC thinks the law gives them some powers, those who would lose their ability to hold customers hostage disagree. The law is sufficiently vague that it appears the FCC has the powers. The law was sufficiently vague so that the regulations would have force of law, and the FCC would have the flexibility to react to the industry, without having to go back to Congress every year with pules of laws needed to keep up. That was by design. If you are against "activist judges" re-writing law, then the FCC has the power, as that was the intent in 1996.
You just described YouTube. And the most popular channels exist solely because the media companies allow it, as most of the views are of copyrighted material (people playing games, and showing the played games). At least that's based on the last time I saw the stats, I have no idea what's popular today.
I did some more reading after I posted and you are right... the blurriness of backgrounds is the human brain's inability to adapt to the projected 3D.
That's not the effect I was mentioning. Pause it. Look at the foreground. It's blurry because it's deliberately out of focus. Look at the people, 100% in focus. Look at the background. Slightly out of focus. This is how they build movies in 2D to train your eye to look at the object of focus. But in 3D, the blurry object is in front. Your focus is drawn to the object in front. But it's blurry. Secondarily is then the effect you mention where then the object of focus is out o focus for the viewer.
But the physiology of it is that the rapid movement of focus by the viewer to try to follow the movie is tiresome to the eyes, and can lead to fatigue, headaches, and possibly eye damage in under-13s.
The directors of 3D movies are sill directing to have the movie shown in 2D (as more 3D movies are seen in 2D than 3D), so they use 2D visual effects that are incompatible with 3D. This negative feedback loop makes 3D viewing worse, driving more people to watch 3D movies in 2D, so more 2D visualization is required.
Also when I can't bring a background image into focus it breaks my suspension of disbelief in a movie.
That effect has always been there in 2D, where the front and back aren't both in focus. But in 2D, you recognize it as part of the limitations of the media, and, so long as the object of focus takes your attention, you don't notice or care. But 3D uses a different mechanism for objects of focus, and should use different tricks. But they don't, because the same final product is shown 2D and 3D.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, I sincerely hope future historians look back on this time with a sense of amusement and incredulity.
Like we make fun of the Spanish Inquisition? Nobody expects a Trump Presidency.
Job security is a red herring. At best you can choose whether you have someone move to the US to take your job, or whether your job moves out of the country without you. If those are vastly different to you, then feel free to use that as a test for the candidates. If being unemployed is unemployed, regardless of where your job is, then they have the same job results. Note, Trump has all his "Make American Great Again" swag made outside the USA, along with his suits, and almost everything else.
taking bribes to sell a uranium company to Russia
Taking bribes to allow a canadian company to be sold to russians. Hardly a scandal, Canada sold a company! And no evidence. Just some people who gave donations and had a favorable result. If that's the bar, then Bush should be in prison for all the bribes he took from energy and telecommunications companies.
It's clear there is a section of his support base for whom this is true, but if that were all he had, or even most of what he had, he'd have no chance.
That's all he has, and it's still close.
I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.
The BLM-haters say that there's no race issue. But reality seems to indicate otherwise. Millions of people voting for Trump, who promises racism and hate. Maybe 5 of those 40,000,000 don't think he's actually racist and like his economic policies, but I think that'd be a generous estimate.
She refused to sign the same thing, so to call them the same is directly contradicting reality.
Ah, "Signal bandwidth" is the current term for that. "Bandwidth" means "useful data rate or theoretical line rate". You need a qualifier now to get the original definition. Like "broadband", whose current definition bears zero resemblance to the original definition.
Well yeah, like an ISP has to pay to get the content to your house. Water and content are "free", but the service of getting them to your house isn't, and both are often limited or metered.
That's bits not bandwidth
You'll have to define "bandwidth" for us. Your use seems to not agree with any dictionary I could find.
I haven't seen any other limiations on our downstream capacity in our contract,
Then you haven't found the "best effort" clause. It's in every residential contract, and many business ones, even "dedicated Internet" contracts.
You'll get your 25 Mbps between you and the DSLAM (or other network point), and no guarantees after. That's 25 Mbps of bandwidth (or bits, or however you want to define it). Content is different.
When I played for fun, I funned myself out of the ability to finish the game. Gaming the game was the only way to reach all the content. That you find tailoring your gameplay to discover more of the content a shit experience doesn't mean it's true for the rest of us. Stop being Gaming Hitler and let us play the way we want.
It sounds a lot like Fallout, only with a bigger universe, and less polish. I know several people who think Fallout is boring. It can be slow, and if you don't do research (on levels and what to pick when leveling), you may have to restart. In Fallout 3, I didn't google anything before playing, and ended up leveling to an un-playable state The next time through, I picked a better combination of offensive skills, mixed in, and did much better. For many, that would be frustrating. Frustrating is when I leveled up too well after, and could one-shot some of the hardest creatures in the game. It became almost too easy, when you picked the "right" skills to focus on. For fallout 3, that's melee and crit damage, with sneak when you have nothing that helps those. Eventually, if you sneak up on a deathclaw, you one-shot it with the melee bonuses and crit bonuses from the sneak attack. The "irony" is that you kill the deathclaw with a deathclaw claw.
Interest is zero (when paid off every month). Fees are zero, unless you are getting cash back/out (not counting merchant fees, paid even if you pay cash, in most places). $0 to fight a bad charge, usually reversed when first noted, and in limbo until settled.
Where are you paying money for your cards/accounts?
Outside the US, the practice of handing out your card to a stranger (waiter) isn't common. That seems to be a US-centric issue, Traveling through Europe, and you'd go to the bar to pay for your meal. Swipe/insert the card yourself. Never letting anyone else touch it. If you insist they come to your table to settle the bill, they'll come out with a wireless PIN pad and you can pay at your table.
None of my banks do that. Is that your experience? Or just your irrational fear you are trying to pass as fact?
My EMV chip is broken, probably from flex of the area of the card with it. The Pay Wave still works fine.
I don't bother. The number of attacks in the wild is still essentially zero, and I'm indemnified against all loss. It might be inconvenient, but it's not a loss. So it's not worth my time and trouble guarding against.
I might worry about it if I were to go to the Olympics or something else with lots of international tourists, the best ones to skim, but for regular everyday use, the chance of you being skimmed rounds to zero, and if it does happen, you are blameless.
And if they use BI fiber, it'll break before it bends enough to leak. Also, the bend is detectable, but not in a detection war. A bend enough to leak light will cause a loss of about 3 dB. Do that in a human-possible time frame, and the management server will detect the sudden loss as a critical event. So the tappers will make a machine to bend it slowly over a week, and tap in over a time that the management servers won't recognize as a significant critical event.
Wouldn't cause an outage if you tapped it by capturing light from a bend. Doesn't work on BI fiber, and is detectable in that the tap will cause a signal loss, but if they have standard fiber and poor monitoring, it's undetectable.
Bandwidth isn't water, its not going to run out and they can simply add capacity.
Water falls from the sky and is free, yet they meter for that. But you think bandwidth with actual capacity costs is free?
If they need to spend $10k to upgrade a link, should they have the cost spread among the 1GB per month users, or the 1TB per month users? The 1TB users, like you, want it split evenly by connection, when the benefit is almost exclusively for you. That's why the metering and caps exist.
Selfish assholes like you want free bandwidth, at the expense of others.
There is no process for putting an initiative on the ballot at a federal level, but many for doing that at a state level. So the comment about putting initiatives on the ballot must be about doing it at a state-level.
The FCC is supposed to be writing the rules. That's what the law says. Cable Companies are trying to strike down the FCC, because the law gives the FCC the power to write regulations.
The law was passed in 1996. The FCC thinks the law gives them some powers, those who would lose their ability to hold customers hostage disagree. The law is sufficiently vague that it appears the FCC has the powers. The law was sufficiently vague so that the regulations would have force of law, and the FCC would have the flexibility to react to the industry, without having to go back to Congress every year with pules of laws needed to keep up. That was by design. If you are against "activist judges" re-writing law, then the FCC has the power, as that was the intent in 1996.
Nixon was pardoned before convicted. Since the Republicans were in support of that then, I'm sure they'll be against it now.
You just described YouTube. And the most popular channels exist solely because the media companies allow it, as most of the views are of copyrighted material (people playing games, and showing the played games). At least that's based on the last time I saw the stats, I have no idea what's popular today.
Yes, when will we have our 3D printed pizzas?
I did some more reading after I posted and you are right... the blurriness of backgrounds is the human brain's inability to adapt to the projected 3D.
That's not the effect I was mentioning. Pause it. Look at the foreground. It's blurry because it's deliberately out of focus. Look at the people, 100% in focus. Look at the background. Slightly out of focus. This is how they build movies in 2D to train your eye to look at the object of focus. But in 3D, the blurry object is in front. Your focus is drawn to the object in front. But it's blurry. Secondarily is then the effect you mention where then the object of focus is out o focus for the viewer.
But the physiology of it is that the rapid movement of focus by the viewer to try to follow the movie is tiresome to the eyes, and can lead to fatigue, headaches, and possibly eye damage in under-13s.
The directors of 3D movies are sill directing to have the movie shown in 2D (as more 3D movies are seen in 2D than 3D), so they use 2D visual effects that are incompatible with 3D. This negative feedback loop makes 3D viewing worse, driving more people to watch 3D movies in 2D, so more 2D visualization is required.
Also when I can't bring a background image into focus it breaks my suspension of disbelief in a movie.
That effect has always been there in 2D, where the front and back aren't both in focus. But in 2D, you recognize it as part of the limitations of the media, and, so long as the object of focus takes your attention, you don't notice or care. But 3D uses a different mechanism for objects of focus, and should use different tricks. But they don't, because the same final product is shown 2D and 3D.