If people start using the connections in the ways they were promised, ISPs will feel the heat, and a sudden lack of bandwidth
I made this argument in a net neutrality thread and got ripped to pieces. I dared to suggest that ISPs shouldn't be selling unlimited bandwidth if they don't have the infrastructure to actually provide it. And that it's inherently unfair and deceptive to sell something as unlimited and then start kicking off the power users who violate the fine print. I wouldn't be the biggest fan of metered bandwidth since I use quite a bit -- but it's fair to ask why Grandma down the road who uses her DSL to read e-mail/play Bejeweled is paying the same price as I am when I leave bittorrent running 24/7/365.
If you sell it as unlimited then no fine print and you damn well better be able to back it up. Otherwise meter it and use the income from the power users to improve the network. And net neutrality should apply -- it's none of my ISPs business if I use my bandwidth on porn, bittorrent, a VPN to the office or even a web server on my home DSL account. It is their business how much bandwidth I use.
That the net is inherently able to route around problems is obviously ignored here.
If that problem is a flood of unanticipated traffic then where it is it going to route to? And most routing works on a shortest path first basis. If that path is congested then the packets start to go into queues. They don't magically take another route (in most routing configurations).
Anybody remember 9/11? I can't be the only one that found many services to be borderline useless that day. Our backbone wasn't even maxed out and I still issues using VPNs between our offices (which weren't maxed out either). IM, various websites (the news ones), IRC. They were all sluggish and non-responsive at times.
His homeowner's insurance company is already handling it
And handle it they will, rest assured. They will go after Dell for reimbursement for the money that they have to pay to their policyholder. And Dell probably won't be able to just refuse to return their phone calls....
And perhaps it is time for you to define the "function" of the foreskin, if you're going to keep referring to it that way. What function am I missing? What can I not do, as a circumsized male?
Spell circumcised properly? *duck* Enjoy sex the way that nature intended? This this website has a list of some of the functionality that is typically lost. Even if you dispute that functionality exists I could make another compelling case for not slicing off the foreskin: It remains available for transplants at a later date to other parts of the body. Back when I worked in heavy industry a co-worker suffered chemical burns to a large part of his face when a parts cleaning machine blew up. They actually were able to repair his eyelids by transplanting part of his foreskin. Because it was his own tissue he doesn't have to take anti-rejection drugs and doesn't have a weakened immune system as a result.
Well, again - you're making the claim, I'm not. I addressed it as a claim made by the anti-circumcision block. So I ask you again: What "function" am I missing? I'm agreeably sensitive; I'm fertile; I'm happy; I'm clean; I'm disease-free; I'm at lower risk than you are for a number of disagreeable and in some cases life-threatening conditions; so what is my alleged "problem", according to you?
If you are happy then that's all that matters. My whole point all along has been that there is evidence that suggests the foreskin is not just an extra piece of skin that does nothing. Why should you make that decision for your newborn son? The alleged benefits of circumcision do not justify that in my mind. If he turns 18 and thinks those benefits are worth undergoing the procedure then all the power to him. You can't make the claim that you aren't missing anything because you wouldn't know if you were.
you, for instance, have elected to remain at higher risk, and to expose your partners to higher risk, and this indicates to me that it would have been better to get it done as an infant - you would not now have the option of raising the risk floor for others, regardless of what you might prefer for yourself. In the meantime, educating people that uncircumcised males present higher risk to them as sexual partners is important.
Really? So in your world I made the "wrong" decision? In your world the decision should have been taken out of my hands? You do realize that very few men in Europe are cut and that there isn't a huge difference in infection rates between Europe and the US? Or how about Japan where the majority is not cut and STD rates are less then half of what they are in Europe and the US? Might it have something to do with safe sex practices (condoms are the most popular form of birth control in Japan)? I could also throw out the fact that Israel (>90% cut) has the same HIV infection rate as Norway (
You don't wait until they can have discussion with you about being vaccinated for some horrible disease, you simply get it done. Same thing with circumcision. You don't disadvantage your kid by raising their chances to contract something horrible like penile cancer because it's politically correct to do so; you man up and do the right thing.
I love how you are comparing vaccines to circumcision. Vaccines don't remove part of your body. "Man up and do the right thing"? It sounds to me like the right thing is what you think it is and that you don't have any room to consider that other people may feel differently about it then you do.
Look. Your position here isn't just wrong, it is ridiculous. I have said, multiple times, that I am not against female circumcision. Clitoridectomy is not in the faintest way equivalant to circumcision, and I am against the equivalant of clitoridectomy in males. Until you can discriminate between these two radically different procedures, and address them with arguments appropriate to each, you're just raving. Go look
Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."
Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)
So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.
From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):
It's interesting that you decided to quote the AMA twice to back up your case to failed to quote some other lines from this.
The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract men from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- poor hygiene, phimosis, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking.
In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.
And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.
And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.
As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it.
As an uncircumcised male I can assure you that I have my fair share of enjoyment. I also couldn't help but notice how you said "anecdotal reports" and "if indeed this has...." I would make the claim that I've never had a problem lasting long enough to satisfy my partner. I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function. Were you cut as an adult? Did you have sex prior to being circumcised? If not then I highly doubt you are in a position to make that claim.
Well, in many ways I agree with that statement. However, if there is 100% certainty that a procedure results in lack of functionality, while providing no known benefits for the subject (benefits for others notwithstanding), then I think we have a human rights issue that transcends culture
The very first thing you learn in anthropology is not to judge other cultures by our standards. I don't see how you can reconcile your position on this issue while simultaneously saying that it's ok to slice up the penis of a newborn male for perceived health benefits. Isn't it for him t
At some point (when all non-renewable fuel sources have been used up), it will happen. Of course, "all the world's electricity" may become a much smaller amount at that point...
Last I checked there was enough nuclear fuel to run fission reactors for the next 10,000 to 5,000,000,000 years depending on which method you choose to use. I don't think we'll be using that up.
Also, sooner or later, fusion will become economically viable.
Be a little careful there....many places in fact use real off duty cops as their rent-a-cops.
A real cop is still subject to all of the assumptions about probable cause and the laws regarding unreasonable search. Make no mistake: My problem isn't with them stopping actual shoplifters. My problem is being asked to let people inspect my property just because they didn't personally witness me check out (i.e: I checked out in electronics or jewelry).
circumcised males have fewer health problems, and so that is generally an advantage for the male
That's disputed.
but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males
Also disputed.
Two, it is done without consent of the subject, and that I have a problem with in any culture
And that's the problem that I have with male circumcision. We could debate the alleged health benefits/sexual benefits/drawbacks all day and probably not find common ground. But the basic problem is that young male infiants are routinely circumcised without the ability to give informed consent. You don't have a problem with that?
You're not comparing similar procedures, and that's the problem. Circumcision - of either sex - isn't much of a big deal, unless for personal reasons you find it offensive. Clititoridectomy is not circumcision. Comparing the two isn't valid; until or unless you understand what is different about the procedures, you really can't make an informed judgement.
I wasn't comparing the procedures. I was making the point that it's inherently wrong to perform unnecessary surgery on somebody too young to give informed consent to such a procedure. I don't see society condoning routine appendectomies on newborns, why are routine circumcisions ok? I was also making the point that it's wrong to impose our standards of norm on other cultures.
And I do happen to think that it's a big deal. You are slicing off a sensitive part of the penis and all of the related nerve endings and functions. Why not let your son decide for himself when he turns 18 if that's something he wants to do?
Later that day, I found that there was no ordinance, law, rule, or anything that would prevent me from taking a picture of the Brew House, hospital, or even the security guard.
I don't take that kind of crap from rent-a-cops. They aren't peace officers. They have no more authority to tell me what to do then you would.
Case in point: The guy at the door at Wally-World/Target/K-Mart/whatever that tells you to stop so he can check your bags. I just keep right on walking. The most they can do is ask you to stop. They can't force you to do anything.
Then they can not only prevent you from taking pictures, they can force previously taken pictures to be redacted (satellite pictures of nouveau-sensitive sites).
I call bullshit. All the cases of redacted satellite pictures relate to pictures that were gathered by Government agencies or operations (i.e: USGS). What law exists on the books to force the redaction of pictures obtained through privacy agencies? The White House and Capitol used to be blurred on Google Maps/Earth. They no longer are.
Find a law on the books that says I can be forced to redact a picture that I take of a building clearly visible from a public place.
What's your point besides a cheap shot at Kerry and Kennedy? You do realize that it was the local authorities that screwed up right? Kerry and Kennedy are United States Senators. Now if one of them was the chief of police you might have something....
What about female clititordectomies (AKA "female circumcision", which it actually is not)?
Personally, I've always found it just a little bit hypocritical of the West to criticize this while condoning the routine practice of male circumcision. Either we realize that we can't impose our own standards of norm on others or we realize the hypocrisy in our position and stop condoning male circumcision.
Of course I'll be jumped on by a hundred people for saying that, with arguments like "it's not the same thing!" and what not, because it's impossible to have a rational discussion on this issue (look at the talk pages on Wikipedia for the relevant articles), but I'd ask, where's the difference?
Is it somehow better to mutilate infant males who can't consent to the procedure? If it's ok to perform genital modifications on boys who are too young to give informed consent then why is it somehow evil to do it to young girls who are too young to give informed consent?
It's fairly widely acknowledge that if we had access to high-voltage direct current tranmissions systems a hundred years ago we would have DC power at the wall today.
Sure about that? DC at the wall would be a boon for electronics and lighting but I don't think it would work as well for my fridge, air conditioner, lawn mower, fans or anything else with an electric motor.
The efficiency of modern AC motors (especially three phase ones) is pretty impressive, on the order of 90%. Could that be duplicated on DC?
(DC doesn't travel well, that's why wall power is AC remember)
This is a very common misconception. Low voltages don't travel well because you need more current (i.e: amps) to carry the same amount of power and this requires bigger wires. The main reason your wall power is AC is because it's easier and cheaper to build transformers for AC that convert high voltages (for distribution) into low voltages (for usage).
DC is actually used in electrical distribution. It's known as HVDC and it's actually more efficient then AC because it doesn't have to contend with capacitance issues.
One common thread that I have noticed at all of the companies that I have worked for (in Indiana and Ohio) is that the company policies tend to say, "If you give us at least 2 weeks written notice then we will pay you for all of your unused PTO/vacation when you leave." So while there may be no legal requirement to give notice, there are certainly financial incentives in many cases. For example, I just turned in my notice at my current employer on Tuesday, and I gave them roughly 2.5 weeks notice. When I leave they're going to pay me about a month's salary in unused PTO.
In my state (New York) it's required that they pay you for any accured vacation time regardless of whether or not you give them notice.
This may work in an ideal world, but the fact is that different applications do have different needs, and to make the Internet useful for more things it is necessary to have different levels of service
I do understand that point and I do use QoS on my own connection to prioritize SSH packets (need low latency) over HTTP/Bittorrent traffic. I guess my point though is that the ISPs should have enough capacity to provide low latancy (i.e: there shouldn't even be a queue) delivery to every packet. If they can't do that because 10% of the users are using 90% of the resources on bittorrent then they need to consider why they are selling unlimited service -- not what those 10% of the users are doing.
With the possible exception of a 911 call (or maybe Gov't/military operations) I'm not aware of a scheme in which users who pay more money get better access to the PSTN. If I obtain a timeslot/line/channel/what have you for my call then they don't get to tell me what I can do with it. If a timeslot isn't available then I have to try again later.
All that said we probably do need a balance somewhere between my ideas and those that would just throttle bittorrent until it becomes useless. Still, I hope I've made my point:)
Comcast cable limits you to 90GB (through human intervention, not automatically.) Hughesnet satellite limits you to 350MB/4 hours. Et cetera.
And that I have another problem with. They shouldn't be able to advertise it as unlimited and use some fine print in the contract to restrict how much you can use. Be up front about it!
Oh AND, your cellphone provider WILL terminate your service if you roam too often, which makes you unprofitable. So you're wrong about that anyway.
That's a different animal and I think my example is still valid. Using QoS on bittorrent is akin to my phone company telling me what I can discuss on the phone. In the end it should only matter how much bandwidth you use.
I just downloaded a 350 meg torrent last night. I left it running to bring it up to 1:1 ratio. Used 700 megs of bandwidth. Tell me, was that 700 megs of bandwidth any better or worse for them then if I had done a straight 700 meg download from kernel.org? Stop looking at the protocol and start looking at the raw bandwidth usage. It's none of your business what protocols I use.
went out the window well over 5 years ago when modern packet shapers came to the market which were able to analyze the very contents of packets and classify them based on the type of service they contained rather than the port they used.
Hence why my bittorrent client supports encryption. My two cents says that it's none of my ISPs business what my packets contain. It may be their business how much bandwidth I use -- but it shouldn't matter if that bandwidth is VoIP, bittorrent, HTTP or a VPN. 100GB is 100GB regardless of what protocol generated the traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
If people start using the connections in the ways they were promised, ISPs will feel the heat, and a sudden lack of bandwidth
I made this argument in a net neutrality thread and got ripped to pieces. I dared to suggest that ISPs shouldn't be selling unlimited bandwidth if they don't have the infrastructure to actually provide it. And that it's inherently unfair and deceptive to sell something as unlimited and then start kicking off the power users who violate the fine print. I wouldn't be the biggest fan of metered bandwidth since I use quite a bit -- but it's fair to ask why Grandma down the road who uses her DSL to read e-mail/play Bejeweled is paying the same price as I am when I leave bittorrent running 24/7/365.
If you sell it as unlimited then no fine print and you damn well better be able to back it up. Otherwise meter it and use the income from the power users to improve the network. And net neutrality should apply -- it's none of my ISPs business if I use my bandwidth on porn, bittorrent, a VPN to the office or even a web server on my home DSL account. It is their business how much bandwidth I use.
That the net is inherently able to route around problems is obviously ignored here.
If that problem is a flood of unanticipated traffic then where it is it going to route to? And most routing works on a shortest path first basis. If that path is congested then the packets start to go into queues. They don't magically take another route (in most routing configurations).
Anybody remember 9/11? I can't be the only one that found many services to be borderline useless that day. Our backbone wasn't even maxed out and I still issues using VPNs between our offices (which weren't maxed out either). IM, various websites (the news ones), IRC. They were all sluggish and non-responsive at times.
Yeah, well, that's a problem. If you get a subpoena, you have to preserve the evidence or be found it contempt of court.
They have to file the case before they can get a subpoena and odds are that I'll have some leadtime.
Even without it, dump the HD and replace it with one purchased with cash. Good luck boys....
His homeowner's insurance company is already handling it
And handle it they will, rest assured. They will go after Dell for reimbursement for the money that they have to pay to their policyholder. And Dell probably won't be able to just refuse to return their phone calls....
That's why, after all, the RIAA subpoenas the disk drives.
Shit! Too bad I mine died and went to Seagate for a warranty replacement.
And perhaps it is time for you to define the "function" of the foreskin, if you're going to keep referring to it that way. What function am I missing? What can I not do, as a circumsized male?
Spell circumcised properly? *duck* Enjoy sex the way that nature intended? This this website has a list of some of the functionality that is typically lost. Even if you dispute that functionality exists I could make another compelling case for not slicing off the foreskin: It remains available for transplants at a later date to other parts of the body. Back when I worked in heavy industry a co-worker suffered chemical burns to a large part of his face when a parts cleaning machine blew up. They actually were able to repair his eyelids by transplanting part of his foreskin. Because it was his own tissue he doesn't have to take anti-rejection drugs and doesn't have a weakened immune system as a result.
Well, again - you're making the claim, I'm not. I addressed it as a claim made by the anti-circumcision block. So I ask you again: What "function" am I missing? I'm agreeably sensitive; I'm fertile; I'm happy; I'm clean; I'm disease-free; I'm at lower risk than you are for a number of disagreeable and in some cases life-threatening conditions; so what is my alleged "problem", according to you?
If you are happy then that's all that matters. My whole point all along has been that there is evidence that suggests the foreskin is not just an extra piece of skin that does nothing. Why should you make that decision for your newborn son? The alleged benefits of circumcision do not justify that in my mind. If he turns 18 and thinks those benefits are worth undergoing the procedure then all the power to him. You can't make the claim that you aren't missing anything because you wouldn't know if you were.
you, for instance, have elected to remain at higher risk, and to expose your partners to higher risk, and this indicates to me that it would have been better to get it done as an infant - you would not now have the option of raising the risk floor for others, regardless of what you might prefer for yourself. In the meantime, educating people that uncircumcised males present higher risk to them as sexual partners is important.
Really? So in your world I made the "wrong" decision? In your world the decision should have been taken out of my hands? You do realize that very few men in Europe are cut and that there isn't a huge difference in infection rates between Europe and the US? Or how about Japan where the majority is not cut and STD rates are less then half of what they are in Europe and the US? Might it have something to do with safe sex practices (condoms are the most popular form of birth control in Japan)? I could also throw out the fact that Israel (>90% cut) has the same HIV infection rate as Norway (
You don't wait until they can have discussion with you about being vaccinated for some horrible disease, you simply get it done. Same thing with circumcision. You don't disadvantage your kid by raising their chances to contract something horrible like penile cancer because it's politically correct to do so; you man up and do the right thing.
I love how you are comparing vaccines to circumcision. Vaccines don't remove part of your body. "Man up and do the right thing"? It sounds to me like the right thing is what you think it is and that you don't have any room to consider that other people may feel differently about it then you do.
Look. Your position here isn't just wrong, it is ridiculous. I have said, multiple times, that I am not against female circumcision. Clitoridectomy is not in the faintest way equivalant to circumcision, and I am against the equivalant of clitoridectomy in males. Until you can discriminate between these two radically different procedures, and address them with arguments appropriate to each, you're just raving. Go look
Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."
Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)
So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.
From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):
It's interesting that you decided to quote the AMA twice to back up your case to failed to quote some other lines from this.
I could also point out a quote from the ACS on the subject:
And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.
And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.
As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it.
As an uncircumcised male I can assure you that I have my fair share of enjoyment. I also couldn't help but notice how you said "anecdotal reports" and " if indeed this has...." I would make the claim that I've never had a problem lasting long enough to satisfy my partner. I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function. Were you cut as an adult? Did you have sex prior to being circumcised? If not then I highly doubt you are in a position to make that claim.
Well, in many ways I agree with that statement. However, if there is 100% certainty that a procedure results in lack of functionality, while providing no known benefits for the subject (benefits for others notwithstanding), then I think we have a human rights issue that transcends culture
The very first thing you learn in anthropology is not to judge other cultures by our standards. I don't see how you can reconcile your position on this issue while simultaneously saying that it's ok to slice up the penis of a newborn male for perceived health benefits. Isn't it for him t
the day nuclear waste becomes nonthreatening, great, let's go with this idea. until then, nuclear energy is the worst solution to this problem.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed and used again. Nuclear waste is a hellva lot easier to sequester then millions of tons of C02.
If we found the political will we could virtually our CO2 emissions from power generation in a decade or so with a crash nuclear program.
At some point (when all non-renewable fuel sources have been used up), it will happen. Of course, "all the world's electricity" may become a much smaller amount at that point...
Last I checked there was enough nuclear fuel to run fission reactors for the next 10,000 to 5,000,000,000 years depending on which method you choose to use. I don't think we'll be using that up.
Also, sooner or later, fusion will become economically viable.
Be a little careful there....many places in fact use real off duty cops as their rent-a-cops.
A real cop is still subject to all of the assumptions about probable cause and the laws regarding unreasonable search. Make no mistake: My problem isn't with them stopping actual shoplifters. My problem is being asked to let people inspect my property just because they didn't personally witness me check out (i.e: I checked out in electronics or jewelry).
In that scenario I just keep walking.
circumcised males have fewer health problems, and so that is generally an advantage for the male
That's disputed.
but in terms of functionality, it's not really a change for most males
Also disputed.
Two, it is done without consent of the subject, and that I have a problem with in any culture
And that's the problem that I have with male circumcision. We could debate the alleged health benefits/sexual benefits/drawbacks all day and probably not find common ground. But the basic problem is that young male infiants are routinely circumcised without the ability to give informed consent. You don't have a problem with that?
You're not comparing similar procedures, and that's the problem. Circumcision - of either sex - isn't much of a big deal, unless for personal reasons you find it offensive. Clititoridectomy is not circumcision. Comparing the two isn't valid; until or unless you understand what is different about the procedures, you really can't make an informed judgement.
I wasn't comparing the procedures. I was making the point that it's inherently wrong to perform unnecessary surgery on somebody too young to give informed consent to such a procedure. I don't see society condoning routine appendectomies on newborns, why are routine circumcisions ok? I was also making the point that it's wrong to impose our standards of norm on other cultures.
And I do happen to think that it's a big deal. You are slicing off a sensitive part of the penis and all of the related nerve endings and functions. Why not let your son decide for himself when he turns 18 if that's something he wants to do?
Later that day, I found that there was no ordinance, law, rule, or anything that would prevent me from taking a picture of the Brew House, hospital, or even the security guard.
I don't take that kind of crap from rent-a-cops. They aren't peace officers. They have no more authority to tell me what to do then you would.
Case in point: The guy at the door at Wally-World/Target/K-Mart/whatever that tells you to stop so he can check your bags. I just keep right on walking. The most they can do is ask you to stop. They can't force you to do anything.
Whatever happened to "need-to-know" restrictions?
Transparency in Government?
Then they can not only prevent you from taking pictures, they can force previously taken pictures to be redacted (satellite pictures of nouveau-sensitive sites).
I call bullshit. All the cases of redacted satellite pictures relate to pictures that were gathered by Government agencies or operations (i.e: USGS). What law exists on the books to force the redaction of pictures obtained through privacy agencies? The White House and Capitol used to be blurred on Google Maps/Earth. They no longer are.
Find a law on the books that says I can be forced to redact a picture that I take of a building clearly visible from a public place.
What is your point?
What's your point besides a cheap shot at Kerry and Kennedy? You do realize that it was the local authorities that screwed up right? Kerry and Kennedy are United States Senators. Now if one of them was the chief of police you might have something....
Since the founder L. Ron Hubbard is dead, Scientology is therefore a religion.
He's not dead. Therefore it's a cult.
*duck*
What about female clititordectomies (AKA "female circumcision", which it actually is not)?
Personally, I've always found it just a little bit hypocritical of the West to criticize this while condoning the routine practice of male circumcision. Either we realize that we can't impose our own standards of norm on others or we realize the hypocrisy in our position and stop condoning male circumcision.
Of course I'll be jumped on by a hundred people for saying that, with arguments like "it's not the same thing!" and what not, because it's impossible to have a rational discussion on this issue (look at the talk pages on Wikipedia for the relevant articles), but I'd ask, where's the difference?
Is it somehow better to mutilate infant males who can't consent to the procedure? If it's ok to perform genital modifications on boys who are too young to give informed consent then why is it somehow evil to do it to young girls who are too young to give informed consent?
Or is there some reason you would present to support the idea that the infiltration of one religion is of more concern than of another?
I wasn't aware that Scientology was a religion.
There, I said it. Kinda shocked that nobody else had the guts to do so in the first 100 posts.
Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet.....
It's fairly widely acknowledge that if we had access to high-voltage direct current tranmissions systems a hundred years ago we would have DC power at the wall today.
Sure about that? DC at the wall would be a boon for electronics and lighting but I don't think it would work as well for my fridge, air conditioner, lawn mower, fans or anything else with an electric motor.
The efficiency of modern AC motors (especially three phase ones) is pretty impressive, on the order of 90%. Could that be duplicated on DC?
This is definitely not high voltage.
I never disagreed with that. I was only responding to the parents comments about DC not traveling as well.
(DC doesn't travel well, that's why wall power is AC remember)
This is a very common misconception. Low voltages don't travel well because you need more current (i.e: amps) to carry the same amount of power and this requires bigger wires. The main reason your wall power is AC is because it's easier and cheaper to build transformers for AC that convert high voltages (for distribution) into low voltages (for usage).
DC is actually used in electrical distribution. It's known as HVDC and it's actually more efficient then AC because it doesn't have to contend with capacitance issues.
One common thread that I have noticed at all of the companies that I have worked for (in Indiana and Ohio) is that the company policies tend to say, "If you give us at least 2 weeks written notice then we will pay you for all of your unused PTO/vacation when you leave." So while there may be no legal requirement to give notice, there are certainly financial incentives in many cases. For example, I just turned in my notice at my current employer on Tuesday, and I gave them roughly 2.5 weeks notice. When I leave they're going to pay me about a month's salary in unused PTO.
In my state (New York) it's required that they pay you for any accured vacation time regardless of whether or not you give them notice.
This may work in an ideal world, but the fact is that different applications do have different needs, and to make the Internet useful for more things it is necessary to have different levels of service
I do understand that point and I do use QoS on my own connection to prioritize SSH packets (need low latency) over HTTP/Bittorrent traffic. I guess my point though is that the ISPs should have enough capacity to provide low latancy (i.e: there shouldn't even be a queue) delivery to every packet. If they can't do that because 10% of the users are using 90% of the resources on bittorrent then they need to consider why they are selling unlimited service -- not what those 10% of the users are doing.
With the possible exception of a 911 call (or maybe Gov't/military operations) I'm not aware of a scheme in which users who pay more money get better access to the PSTN. If I obtain a timeslot/line/channel/what have you for my call then they don't get to tell me what I can do with it. If a timeslot isn't available then I have to try again later.
All that said we probably do need a balance somewhere between my ideas and those that would just throttle bittorrent until it becomes useless. Still, I hope I've made my point :)
Comcast cable limits you to 90GB (through human intervention, not automatically.) Hughesnet satellite limits you to 350MB/4 hours. Et cetera.
And that I have another problem with. They shouldn't be able to advertise it as unlimited and use some fine print in the contract to restrict how much you can use. Be up front about it!
Oh AND, your cellphone provider WILL terminate your service if you roam too often, which makes you unprofitable. So you're wrong about that anyway.
That's a different animal and I think my example is still valid. Using QoS on bittorrent is akin to my phone company telling me what I can discuss on the phone. In the end it should only matter how much bandwidth you use.
I just downloaded a 350 meg torrent last night. I left it running to bring it up to 1:1 ratio. Used 700 megs of bandwidth. Tell me, was that 700 megs of bandwidth any better or worse for them then if I had done a straight 700 meg download from kernel.org? Stop looking at the protocol and start looking at the raw bandwidth usage. It's none of your business what protocols I use.
Just my $0.02.
went out the window well over 5 years ago when modern packet shapers came to the market which were able to analyze the very contents of packets and classify them based on the type of service they contained rather than the port they used.
Hence why my bittorrent client supports encryption. My two cents says that it's none of my ISPs business what my packets contain. It may be their business how much bandwidth I use -- but it shouldn't matter if that bandwidth is VoIP, bittorrent, HTTP or a VPN. 100GB is 100GB regardless of what protocol generated the traffic.