From what I can tell, it is a threat. There is no reason why I cannot contract with Netflix and deliver their content to subscribers on my network at speeds faster then they subscribe to. The only caveat is that I cannot purposely or intentionally slow down any other traffic to speeds slower than what the subscriber subscribes to.
The current net neutrality proposals seem to disallow that. So if I have a subscriber base where 35% of the customers want to purchase the bare minimum broadband at 1.5 meg but also want to stream netflix, their only reliable option might be to purchase a larger pipe. However, if the current net neutrality doesn't go through, I can still sell them the 1.5 meg line and netflix can pay to have the content delivered at 3 meg for a seamless stream and happy customer.
Suppose you wanted to create an online game that makes money by either micro-payments or in game advertising. Now suppose the people attracted to the game are older people who do not needs screaming fast internet so they have the bare minimum broadband. Do you want the ability to pay time warner to speed up the connections to a level faster than what those subscribers pay for in order to reduce lag and generate more revenue on your side when the players aren't getting frustrated by the lag? Or do you think ignoring them and saying they should purchase a faster connection is the answer?
Now I know that there has been some problems with broadband providers mucking with the speeds of services like netflix. If they do this and deliver the content slower than their subscribers contract for, consumer liability laws should already be in play if anyone cared to push it. The same goes for companies slowing competitors and all. But the answer is not to limit everyone on top of fixing problems- it is to stop the shenanigans and allow internet companies the opportunity if they chose so, to give the consumer more.
What disasters? The occasional earth quake about once a century and wild fires seems to be the extent of it in CA.
But you are correct, they will not ask businesses or people to leave. They may regulate them out of the state but with an eight percent corporate tax, they will likely stick around for a while. California sort of needs them in order to pay for the wild spending they like to do. It's sort of like the government is at a keg party buying pizza for everyone/.
One of the problems is that the last mile is cost prohibitive and often not open. The cable companies and telecoms use their right of ways and infrastructure from their regulated side and with only a few exceptions, there is no incentive to allow others the same access.
Until the last mile is owned or a portion of it is owned by the people it serves, I doubt anything will change. Even if it becomes regulated or whatever.
Interesting. And you said that as AC because you believe it so strongly?
BTW, i didn't say it. Others did. I gave opinion on it and opinions are never lies. You should take your gripe up with the people who wrote the standards. You can use your google finger and find the standards on the PBS website.
The reason you will not refute anything is because you cannot. Its the same reason you posted AC, you know you cannot refute anything so you don't want your post associated with your on line identity.
You are an idiot. The source is NPR and the interview is with one of the people writing the new standards. Any cursory examination would have shown that.
lol.. It sometimes is really that easy to have a lucid dream. But come on, Mylie Cyrus? Sure, maybe several years ago but after seeing her make out with a foam finger, I kind of think of here like a Tijuana donkey show without the donkey. You know, getting all hyped up and excited until you start to actually see it then you can't stand to be in the same room and swear never again, wondering what you were ever thinking while hoping more and more booze will help you forget the night ever happened.
It doesn't work. It gets burned into your memory and you never forget.
Wait until some enterprising idiot uses one of these masks to rob banks and convenient stores. Then all the sudden, everyone using them will be suspect.
Skepticism is discouraged. When little Johny asks how something is possible because it doesn't make sense, and is told to sit down and shut up, that isn't proper science. You cannot claim something is falsifiable therefor scientific and squash all attempts to falsify it due to the fact they are attempting to be skeptical and remain scientific. It is not falsifiable if no one is allowed to question it just the same as there is no way to falsify any supernatural being with it's own free will. God will never be scientific even though one could argue that a God created science and the patterns we observe. Neither will anything claiming to be science when you are unable to falsify it.
I'm not sure what your point is? Those conservative politicians have from the start supported aid for sandy victims- they just wanted it paid for instead of blindly charging it yet again. If you remember- at the time this was being debated, the deficit of the US grew from around 500 billion in 2008 to over 1 trillion dollars in the 4 years previous to the aid package while at one point reaching 1.4 trillion.
I normally would not reply to idiots like you but any small amount of investigation would show you do not have a fucking clue about this. Here is an excerpt from the daily caller reporting on a NPR interview about the standards
"K-12 students at public schools learn about climate change to help fill a knowledge gap concerning the subject, while skepticism will be discouraged.
It goes on to say Weâ(TM)ve heard stories of students who learn about climate change,â said McCaffrey. âoeThen they go home and tell their parents, and everybodyâ(TM)s upset because the parents are driving their kids to the soccer game, and the kids are feeling guilty about being in the car and contributing to this global problem.
Now, if that isn't indoctrination, I do not know what it. So either believe me or die some horrible death like they say in most religions and now science being taught in public education. Whenever your instruction relies on scaring people to follow you, it is indoctrination.
Have you even bothered with the standards? I mean I read them on that right wing news site PBS, but I believe them to be accurate. IT says things like "Changes in climate conditions can affect the health and function of ecosystems and the survival of entire species." Oh noes, we are all going to die if we don't act now.
"The only explanation that is consistent with all available evidence is that human impacts are playing an increasing role in climate change." It cannot be anything else even if we find something because as we found out earlier, skepticism is discouraged so nothing that counters the intended prolog will ever be viable.
And here is my favorite essential principle "Scientists have conducted extensive research on the fundamental characteristics of the climate system and their understanding will continue to improve. Current climate change projections are reliable enough to help humans evaluate potential decisions and actions in response to climate change." Despite the fact that none of the projections have been accurate as of yet. Sure, you find models that point in the right direction but if they were accurate, we would have half the east coast under water right now, California would be a lot smaller, and farmers in the mid west would be out of a job. I guess that saying about a million monkeys on typewriters would eventually pound out a Shakespearean novel may apply to it. All models so far have only been accurate to their training data- not forward projections. Hell, just a few months ago, they found 4 or 5 new green house gasses that non of the models were considering. But it is reliable enough I guess if your calculator said 2+2 was 5 every so often, the calculator would be "reliable enough"?
Wow.. just wow. You recomend cutting a state that pays into the system out of thr system because they refuse to indoctrinate their children through forced public education. They never said the kids couldn't learn about it, just that they weren't going to mandate the state preaches it.
You are right in that we will have to deal with climate change though. But we have to do that whether man is impacting it or not as climate is not static and has changed since the earth has been here. So your gripe seems to be more that the states don't want to evangelize as much as you want them to and to you this is just cause to starve women and children by withholding aid if a disaster should strike the state. Wow..
Why would they need the suez canal? Everyone knows Eaton met Hamet in Egypt and along with his mercenaries marched 500 miles across the lybian dessert to take Derne with the help of the mediteranian fleet.
The marines staged and took supplies in the port of Kuwait which had been a trade port for the Americas long before the US was even a country before setting off for battle. They then marched into battle in various areas ending up in Tripoli while advancing the notion of regime change (replacing Pasha Qaramanli with Hamet Qaramanli as the ruler of Tripoli) until they finally decided peace was preferable.
Knowing what the government is capable of (Gulf of Tonkin incident and others), I'm wondering how unlikely it would be for the FAA to have sent one of their own or someone from another 3 letter agency in the government out with an RC plane and purposely flew it in a manner to create this situation just for the purpose of justifying their stance on drones.
I mean it's an RC plane being called a drone, it's breaking the law that already exists, and the article is talking about regulations the FCC is working on as well as the "need" for new regulations and after an investigation, the pilot of the drone couldn't be found. It's just ripe for a justification to be heavy handed and entwined with them from a regulatory position. Now think of the children and all that.
NO law cannot be change by simply passing another law. No executive order cannot withstand a future executive order. No government is limited in action by previous governments.
The only thing that can be different is if the courts ruled the law or executive order unconstitutional. Anything- even the constitution can be changed by government elected after something has been passed. It's happened already in US history (prohibition).
I think either you are trolling or you and whoever modded you up needs to finish school before delving into crap like this.
Well, when the person driving the economy is who we have in the US, you are bound to see things like this. Margret Thatcher I think said it best, âoeWhat the honorable member is saying is that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich,â She explained âoeSo long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. You do not create wealth and opportunity that way. You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.â
Anyways, is the middle class actually the same in both nations? I mean it appears they pay more for almost everything and on average earn less.
But it is not too late to do anything. It just takes enough people concerned about it. Congress will gladly do anything to limit themselves if it means continuing their election- they just have to understand that is what is necessary for them to be reelected.
You cannot put spying restrictions on everyone unless you conquer them and subjugate them to your authority. Well that unless they voluntarily agree to your terms which is the case with international treaties. However, the nature of spying is secret so secretly ignoring international law will happen.
It's easier said than done and not very realistic in the real world.
Jefferson also created a standing navy and invaded a foreign nation using a military unit called the marines. The success of this invasion depended on foreign intelligence collected by citizens of that foreign nation and delivered to the US. He did this all to protect the citizens of the US.
You can get a "that a boy" if you can tell me what province or state which was part of that country who allowed us to stage in their ports and conduct operations from it. I'll give you a hint, some think it is all about oil but we defended them from invasion at some point in the last 40 or so years.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I can tell, it is a threat. There is no reason why I cannot contract with Netflix and deliver their content to subscribers on my network at speeds faster then they subscribe to. The only caveat is that I cannot purposely or intentionally slow down any other traffic to speeds slower than what the subscriber subscribes to.
The current net neutrality proposals seem to disallow that. So if I have a subscriber base where 35% of the customers want to purchase the bare minimum broadband at 1.5 meg but also want to stream netflix, their only reliable option might be to purchase a larger pipe. However, if the current net neutrality doesn't go through, I can still sell them the 1.5 meg line and netflix can pay to have the content delivered at 3 meg for a seamless stream and happy customer.
Suppose you wanted to create an online game that makes money by either micro-payments or in game advertising. Now suppose the people attracted to the game are older people who do not needs screaming fast internet so they have the bare minimum broadband. Do you want the ability to pay time warner to speed up the connections to a level faster than what those subscribers pay for in order to reduce lag and generate more revenue on your side when the players aren't getting frustrated by the lag? Or do you think ignoring them and saying they should purchase a faster connection is the answer?
Now I know that there has been some problems with broadband providers mucking with the speeds of services like netflix. If they do this and deliver the content slower than their subscribers contract for, consumer liability laws should already be in play if anyone cared to push it. The same goes for companies slowing competitors and all. But the answer is not to limit everyone on top of fixing problems- it is to stop the shenanigans and allow internet companies the opportunity if they chose so, to give the consumer more.
Why would they need to do that? The summery says they have other ways to "manage" the ionosphere now.
What disasters? The occasional earth quake about once a century and wild fires seems to be the extent of it in CA.
But you are correct, they will not ask businesses or people to leave. They may regulate them out of the state but with an eight percent corporate tax, they will likely stick around for a while. California sort of needs them in order to pay for the wild spending they like to do. It's sort of like the government is at a keg party buying pizza for everyone/.
One of the problems is that the last mile is cost prohibitive and often not open. The cable companies and telecoms use their right of ways and infrastructure from their regulated side and with only a few exceptions, there is no incentive to allow others the same access.
Until the last mile is owned or a portion of it is owned by the people it serves, I doubt anything will change. Even if it becomes regulated or whatever.
Schools are largely funded at local levels. The parent is just wrong. What happened was the departmd.t of education was created.
They don't neccesarily need to thin the herd. Training and motivating them so the present a usable product is another option.
If these problem teacher don't get with it, the should be expelled from the union.
Hmm. I thought it was a porno. Guess we know where you mind has been.
Interesting. And you said that as AC because you believe it so strongly?
BTW, i didn't say it. Others did. I gave opinion on it and opinions are never lies. You should take your gripe up with the people who wrote the standards. You can use your google finger and find the standards on the PBS website.
The reason you will not refute anything is because you cannot. Its the same reason you posted AC, you know you cannot refute anything so you don't want your post associated with your on line identity.
I don't think i would kick her out of bed for eating crackers but i also don't think i would give her something to drink after either.
Things were different when there was something left to the imagination i guess. But thanks to a foam finger, i don't have to imagine much anymore.
Several as in two or 18-19.
You are an idiot. The source is NPR and the interview is with one of the people writing the new standards. Any cursory examination would have shown that.
lol.. It sometimes is really that easy to have a lucid dream. But come on, Mylie Cyrus? Sure, maybe several years ago but after seeing her make out with a foam finger, I kind of think of here like a Tijuana donkey show without the donkey. You know, getting all hyped up and excited until you start to actually see it then you can't stand to be in the same room and swear never again, wondering what you were ever thinking while hoping more and more booze will help you forget the night ever happened.
It doesn't work. It gets burned into your memory and you never forget.
Wait until some enterprising idiot uses one of these masks to rob banks and convenient stores. Then all the sudden, everyone using them will be suspect.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03...
Skepticism is discouraged. When little Johny asks how something is possible because it doesn't make sense, and is told to sit down and shut up, that isn't proper science. You cannot claim something is falsifiable therefor scientific and squash all attempts to falsify it due to the fact they are attempting to be skeptical and remain scientific. It is not falsifiable if no one is allowed to question it just the same as there is no way to falsify any supernatural being with it's own free will. God will never be scientific even though one could argue that a God created science and the patterns we observe. Neither will anything claiming to be science when you are unable to falsify it.
I'm not sure what your point is? Those conservative politicians have from the start supported aid for sandy victims- they just wanted it paid for instead of blindly charging it yet again. If you remember- at the time this was being debated, the deficit of the US grew from around 500 billion in 2008 to over 1 trillion dollars in the 4 years previous to the aid package while at one point reaching 1.4 trillion.
http://www.davemanuel.com/hist...
I normally would not reply to idiots like you but any small amount of investigation would show you do not have a fucking clue about this. Here is an excerpt from the daily caller reporting on a NPR interview about the standards
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03...
It goes on to say Weâ(TM)ve heard stories of students who learn about climate change,â said McCaffrey. âoeThen they go home and tell their parents, and everybodyâ(TM)s upset because the parents are driving their kids to the soccer game, and the kids are feeling guilty about being in the car and contributing to this global problem.
Now, if that isn't indoctrination, I do not know what it. So either believe me or die some horrible death like they say in most religions and now science being taught in public education. Whenever your instruction relies on scaring people to follow you, it is indoctrination.
Have you even bothered with the standards? I mean I read them on that right wing news site PBS, but I believe them to be accurate. IT says things like "Changes in climate conditions can affect the health and function of ecosystems and the survival of entire species." Oh noes, we are all going to die if we don't act now.
"The only explanation that is consistent with all available evidence is that human impacts are playing an increasing role in climate change." It cannot be anything else even if we find something because as we found out earlier, skepticism is discouraged so nothing that counters the intended prolog will ever be viable.
And here is my favorite essential principle "Scientists have conducted extensive research on the fundamental characteristics of the climate system and their understanding will continue to improve. Current climate change projections are reliable enough to help humans evaluate potential decisions and actions in response to climate change." Despite the fact that none of the projections have been accurate as of yet. Sure, you find models that point in the right direction but if they were accurate, we would have half the east coast under water right now, California would be a lot smaller, and farmers in the mid west would be out of a job. I guess that saying about a million monkeys on typewriters would eventually pound out a Shakespearean novel may apply to it. All models so far have only been accurate to their training data- not forward projections. Hell, just a few months ago, they found 4 or 5 new green house gasses that non of the models were considering. But it is reliable enough I guess if your calculator said 2+2 was 5 every so often, the calculator would be "reliable enough"?
What is being taught about climate change is not proper science. It is indoctrination.
Wow.. just wow. You recomend cutting a state that pays into the system out of thr system because they refuse to indoctrinate their children through forced public education. They never said the kids couldn't learn about it, just that they weren't going to mandate the state preaches it.
You are right in that we will have to deal with climate change though. But we have to do that whether man is impacting it or not as climate is not static and has changed since the earth has been here. So your gripe seems to be more that the states don't want to evangelize as much as you want them to and to you this is just cause to starve women and children by withholding aid if a disaster should strike the state. Wow..
Why would they need the suez canal? Everyone knows Eaton met Hamet in Egypt and along with his mercenaries marched 500 miles across the lybian dessert to take Derne with the help of the mediteranian fleet.
This isn't top secret knowlege or anything.
The marines staged and took supplies in the port of Kuwait which had been a trade port for the Americas long before the US was even a country before setting off for battle. They then marched into battle in various areas ending up in Tripoli while advancing the notion of regime change (replacing Pasha Qaramanli with Hamet Qaramanli as the ruler of Tripoli) until they finally decided peace was preferable.
Knowing what the government is capable of (Gulf of Tonkin incident and others), I'm wondering how unlikely it would be for the FAA to have sent one of their own or someone from another 3 letter agency in the government out with an RC plane and purposely flew it in a manner to create this situation just for the purpose of justifying their stance on drones.
I mean it's an RC plane being called a drone, it's breaking the law that already exists, and the article is talking about regulations the FCC is working on as well as the "need" for new regulations and after an investigation, the pilot of the drone couldn't be found. It's just ripe for a justification to be heavy handed and entwined with them from a regulatory position. Now think of the children and all that.
What? I need a cite on that.
NO law cannot be change by simply passing another law. No executive order cannot withstand a future executive order. No government is limited in action by previous governments.
The only thing that can be different is if the courts ruled the law or executive order unconstitutional. Anything- even the constitution can be changed by government elected after something has been passed. It's happened already in US history (prohibition).
I think either you are trolling or you and whoever modded you up needs to finish school before delving into crap like this.
Well, when the person driving the economy is who we have in the US, you are bound to see things like this. Margret Thatcher I think said it best, âoeWhat the honorable member is saying is that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich,â She explained âoeSo long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. You do not create wealth and opportunity that way. You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.â
Anyways, is the middle class actually the same in both nations? I mean it appears they pay more for almost everything and on average earn less.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-...
But it is not too late to do anything. It just takes enough people concerned about it. Congress will gladly do anything to limit themselves if it means continuing their election- they just have to understand that is what is necessary for them to be reelected.
You cannot put spying restrictions on everyone unless you conquer them and subjugate them to your authority. Well that unless they voluntarily agree to your terms which is the case with international treaties. However, the nature of spying is secret so secretly ignoring international law will happen.
It's easier said than done and not very realistic in the real world.
Jefferson also created a standing navy and invaded a foreign nation using a military unit called the marines. The success of this invasion depended on foreign intelligence collected by citizens of that foreign nation and delivered to the US. He did this all to protect the citizens of the US.
You can get a "that a boy" if you can tell me what province or state which was part of that country who allowed us to stage in their ports and conduct operations from it. I'll give you a hint, some think it is all about oil but we defended them from invasion at some point in the last 40 or so years.