So how much will you contribute to her campaign to unseat the two-year Democrat from Maryland?
Once the 'interesting conversation' is over, you'll be left with a democrat senator with a dubious grasp of secrecy and no qualifications for office other than a passion for prison reform and fringe gender issues.
We ignore North Korea and China at our peril. They will soon have capability to reach Hawaii. Then what will we do when they start attacking S. Korea? Nothing that is what.Cannot endanger Hawaii.
Bomb the launch sites? You know we have bombs the size of railroad cars that we can drop on their military installations - they impact a 1 mile radius area, as isis learned a little while ago... what's it called, the "Mother Of All Bombs"?
Trump is trying to create... a problem in Korea where there has never been one before?
You can't be that stupid.
Ever heard of the Korean War? They made a tv show about it called M.A.S.H., it was quite popular.
There was also a movie, called Team America, that explored some of the issues involved with North Korea.
Every president since Eisenhower has had to deal with a "North Korea Problem", even Obama, the difference is Trump isn't trying to bribe North Korea to get them to pretend to suspend their nuclear weapons efforts...
Why do you imagine that the only way the message could be sent to every phone is to have a list of all phone numbers? I suspect the system relies on beacon signals broadcast from cell towers that every cellphone within range picks up, displays the message, then stores a record of the alert for a pre determined period of time (24 hours), after which the alert is ignored.
Do you really imagine the system sends out several million simultaneous text messages? Why just send a message to every device within range?
If you have computer voting with a paper audit trail, how will you handle when the two have different results? Will paper be considered the official tally? The computer results? If the two never diverge, why have both?
What problem with elections can computers address?
- Better candidates?
- Increased voter involvement?
- Voter education?
Right now the effect of computers on elections in America is to attack your opponent, and to a lesser extent communicate your position on policy questions.
I can't figure out how they can possibly use so much; wtf people?
Look for a running toilet that flushes all by itself. Renters are famous for not thinking thru the implications of such "minor problems" in a rental unit.
If you want to talk about America, instead of uselessly lambasting progressives over a strawman, why not bring up examples like Flint, Michigan
Flint was going to run out of water? Of course not. The issue in Flint was a combination of economics and ethics, not a matter of environmental abuse or over-use of a limited resource.
The sequence of events in Flint were, simply (removing politics as much as practical):
Flint once upon a time Flint had it's own water system, as did the neighboring city of Detroit.
Over time, Flint found it expensive to maintain it's own water system, so it opted to source all it's water from Detroit.
Then one day, Flint decided to go back to it's own water plants in a year or two, deciding it was more cost-effective.
Detroit in response announced it was going to increase the price of it's water.
Flint decided to push up the timeline and bring their own water treatment plants on line sooner than planned, to avoid bigger water bills from Detroit.
Flint cut corners to make a very aggressive timeline, putting resident safety at risk.
Flint adds chemicals to water supply to address one problem, but the chemical leeches lead off the old water mains in Flint.
As required by law, water tests are conducted, but the results are altered to lead residents to believe the water is safe.
Over time, health issues start occurring across Flint at an alarming rate.
Independent tests confirm the water is unsafe.
The media, politicians, and community leaders all try to find blame in everyone but the residents of Flint that were trying to save money on their water bill, apparently at any cost.
But the pollution still comes from the gas, not the car.
So you're saying that all the greenhouse gasses come from the drilling, refining and distribution processes, actually burning the refined oil in a car produces no 'pollution'? Fascinating.
It wasn't the oil companies that burned the fuel to pollute the air, it was the vehicle operators
This is like holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths, or ammunition manufacturers to be specific, rather than the person that pulled the trigger.
This is like holding fast-food restaurants responsible for their customer's obesity, rather than blame the customer that repeatedly made a poor diet choice.
Why not just take the billions you want from the oil companies, divide it by the number of legally registered cars and trucks in the state of New York and make a one-time assessment of each driver of their fair share?
Yes, the FCC is planning to change the limit of what's considered "broadband" to 10/1. Yes, it was previously 4/1. But it is currently 25/3, so 10/1 is a significant downgrade.
No it's not - the 25/3 Mb/sec standard stands, the FCC is setting a brand new definition for mobile access at 10/2 MB/sec.
It's literally 100 times slower compared to my 1G/100Mbps fibre.
Your mobile devices are tethered to a 1 Gig fibre connection? Where do you live?Or did you miss the part where the 10 Mb/sec is a new definition for mobile access?
I visited inlaws over the holidays. I had to VPN into work to help with an issue. To accomplish this I had to drive out into the middle of one of their fields, place my cell on top of my car and tether to it.
Not a viable alternative no matter what you goobers say.
How many public libraries, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. did you drive by to get cellphone coverage?
BTW, this isn't about defining a new standard, it's about creating a new, additional standard - fixed remains at 25/3 Mb/sec, the new, additional standard is for mobile at 10/1 Mb/sec.
You don't seem to understand that what the FCC is doing is accepting 10/1 wireless links as a acceptable alternative to fixed line 25/3 broadband.
You don't seem to understand, the 25/3 broadband metric is unchanged - they are attempting to establish a definition for mobile broadband, not fixed...
So yes, Trump's FCC is indeed watering down the definition of "broadband".
No, No it isn't. The 25 Mb/sec definition is for fixed access, the proposed 10 Mb/sec definition is to set a new standard for mobile access - there is no previous definition for mobile access.
If you can't meet the standard, then just lower the standards! Who knew it would be so easy to provide broadband speeds to everyone?
Quick - What is the current definition for mobile broadband at the FCC?
Answer - Trick question, it has no current definition, they are proposing the first definition of mobile broadband ever - your anger at the Trump Administration has forced you to invent reasons to maintain your anger at them. You literally have no idea what you are upset about, you just saw a bunch of villagers yelling and waving protest signs and it looked like fun so you decided to join in.
Click here, read the actual FCC document - if you are in a hurry, just skip to page 7, and read sections 18 and 19:
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services.
14. We seek comment on the appropriate benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications capability. Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? For example, the most recent Internet Access Services Report finds that 59 percent of residential fixed connections equal or exceed such speed.34 Should we consider modifying the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark? Those proposing different speed benchmarks should specify and provide justifications for their proposed alternatives. We also seek comment on whether there are other sources or data points we should consider.
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark.37 Our consideration of whether and how to set a speed benchmark will be informed by assessing the mobile broadband services and speeds that are available to consumers today, as well as evidence regarding what services consumers are choosing today, and what might be available in the near future. We ask commenters to address these factors in their comments. Should the Commission set a mobile speed benchmark, and if so, what it should be? We anticipate that any speed benchmark we set would be lower than the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark adopted for fixed broadband services, given differing capabilities of mobile broadband. We ask commenters to discuss this choice.38 We seek comment on how use cases, engineering studies, and any other relevant empirical data should inform a mobile speed benchmark in terms of both the downlink and the uplink speed.
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10 Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced telecommunications capability? How should we appropriately consider edge speed in setting a mobile speed benchmark? As discussed below, in setting any mobile speed benchmark, how should we take into account the important issues of reliability/consistency of service and latency in the mobile broadband environment? Would it be more practical to use deployment of various air interface technologies (e.g., LTE) as a proxy for speed benchmarks? In this case, could we maintain a technology-neutral evaluation but rely on deployment of technologies we understand to typically be used to provide mobile advanced telecommunications capability?
Once again they are going to improve broadband coverage in USA by redefining the broadband.
It's a meaningless metric, are you seriously arguing that 10 Mb/sec is an intolerable connection speed?
If the FCC declared "Broadband" to be 10 Gb/sec, would it make your home connection any faster? Why does defining it at 10 Mb/sec somehow impact your life in any meaningful way?
I got her a T-Mobile hotspot, and after that she was about to get a good 5-10MB/s, almost all the time. That meant she could actually watch HD Netflix. That meant she could download photos in a reasonable time. It was a terrific replacement for infrastructure that was going to take many years to get better.
Wait, you mean 10 Mb/sec is actually a real-world useful bandwidth rate? The way folks here are reacting you'd think this was slower than dial-up!
Slashdot Mirror
So how much will you contribute to her campaign to unseat the two-year Democrat from Maryland?
Once the 'interesting conversation' is over, you'll be left with a democrat senator with a dubious grasp of secrecy and no qualifications for office other than a passion for prison reform and fringe gender issues.
Crypto currencies are fantastic investments, with their value pegged to the price of Dutch Tulip Bulbs...
The government shouldn't have everyone's number. They should definitely not have such a tool of powerful propaganda and fear in everyone's pockets.
You propose they instead do what, print their alerts about impending danger in the newspaper, but not on the front page - that might scare people?
We ignore North Korea and China at our peril. They will soon have capability to reach Hawaii. Then what will we do when they start attacking S. Korea? Nothing that is what.Cannot endanger Hawaii.
Bomb the launch sites? You know we have bombs the size of railroad cars that we can drop on their military installations - they impact a 1 mile radius area, as isis learned a little while ago... what's it called, the "Mother Of All Bombs"?
Trump is trying to create... a problem in Korea where there has never been one before?
You can't be that stupid.
Ever heard of the Korean War? They made a tv show about it called M.A.S.H., it was quite popular.
There was also a movie, called Team America, that explored some of the issues involved with North Korea.
Every president since Eisenhower has had to deal with a "North Korea Problem", even Obama, the difference is Trump isn't trying to bribe North Korea to get them to pretend to suspend their nuclear weapons efforts...
Why do you imagine that the only way the message could be sent to every phone is to have a list of all phone numbers? I suspect the system relies on beacon signals broadcast from cell towers that every cellphone within range picks up, displays the message, then stores a record of the alert for a pre determined period of time (24 hours), after which the alert is ignored.
Do you really imagine the system sends out several million simultaneous text messages? Why just send a message to every device within range?
Scaring the crap out of everyone is considered "a state exercise?"
Yes.
It was a state warning system activated by state employees that was sent to everyone in the state of Hawaii.
The clear meaning is that there was no federal involvement in the alert.
If you have computer voting with a paper audit trail, how will you handle when the two have different results? Will paper be considered the official tally? The computer results? If the two never diverge, why have both?
What problem with elections can computers address?
- Better candidates?
- Increased voter involvement?
- Voter education?
Right now the effect of computers on elections in America is to attack your opponent, and to a lesser extent communicate your position on policy questions.
How very Marie Antoinette of you - "Let them eat cake!"
Raising the price of water doesn't reduce the need for water to live.
I can't figure out how they can possibly use so much; wtf people?
Look for a running toilet that flushes all by itself. Renters are famous for not thinking thru the implications of such "minor problems" in a rental unit.
If you want to talk about America, instead of uselessly lambasting progressives over a strawman, why not bring up examples like Flint, Michigan
Flint was going to run out of water? Of course not. The issue in Flint was a combination of economics and ethics, not a matter of environmental abuse or over-use of a limited resource.
The sequence of events in Flint were, simply (removing politics as much as practical):
Flint once upon a time Flint had it's own water system, as did the neighboring city of Detroit.
Over time, Flint found it expensive to maintain it's own water system, so it opted to source all it's water from Detroit.
Then one day, Flint decided to go back to it's own water plants in a year or two, deciding it was more cost-effective.
Detroit in response announced it was going to increase the price of it's water.
Flint decided to push up the timeline and bring their own water treatment plants on line sooner than planned, to avoid bigger water bills from Detroit.
Flint cut corners to make a very aggressive timeline, putting resident safety at risk.
Flint adds chemicals to water supply to address one problem, but the chemical leeches lead off the old water mains in Flint.
As required by law, water tests are conducted, but the results are altered to lead residents to believe the water is safe.
Over time, health issues start occurring across Flint at an alarming rate.
Independent tests confirm the water is unsafe.
The media, politicians, and community leaders all try to find blame in everyone but the residents of Flint that were trying to save money on their water bill, apparently at any cost.
But the pollution still comes from the gas, not the car.
So you're saying that all the greenhouse gasses come from the drilling, refining and distribution processes, actually burning the refined oil in a car produces no 'pollution'? Fascinating.
It wasn't the oil companies that burned the fuel to pollute the air, it was the vehicle operators
This is like holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths, or ammunition manufacturers to be specific, rather than the person that pulled the trigger.
This is like holding fast-food restaurants responsible for their customer's obesity, rather than blame the customer that repeatedly made a poor diet choice.
Why not just take the billions you want from the oil companies, divide it by the number of legally registered cars and trucks in the state of New York and make a one-time assessment of each driver of their fair share?
How can you people link these documents and not even bother to read them ? Astounding.
Welcome to Slashdot, you're obviously new here...
Yes, the FCC is planning to change the limit of what's considered "broadband" to 10/1. Yes, it was previously 4/1. But it is currently 25/3, so 10/1 is a significant downgrade.
No it's not - the 25/3 Mb/sec standard stands, the FCC is setting a brand new definition for mobile access at 10/2 MB/sec.
It's literally 100 times slower compared to my 1G/100Mbps fibre.
Your mobile devices are tethered to a 1 Gig fibre connection? Where do you live? Or did you miss the part where the 10 Mb/sec is a new definition for mobile access?
I visited inlaws over the holidays. I had to VPN into work to help with an issue. To accomplish this I had to drive out into the middle of one of their fields, place my cell on top of my car and tether to it.
Not a viable alternative no matter what you goobers say.
How many public libraries, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. did you drive by to get cellphone coverage?
BTW, this isn't about defining a new standard, it's about creating a new, additional standard - fixed remains at 25/3 Mb/sec, the new, additional standard is for mobile at 10/1 Mb/sec.
You don't seem to understand that what the FCC is doing is accepting 10/1 wireless links as a acceptable alternative to fixed line 25/3 broadband.
You don't seem to understand, the 25/3 broadband metric is unchanged - they are attempting to establish a definition for mobile broadband, not fixed...
So yes, Trump's FCC is indeed watering down the definition of "broadband".
No, No it isn't. The 25 Mb/sec definition is for fixed access, the proposed 10 Mb/sec definition is to set a new standard for mobile access - there is no previous definition for mobile access.
If you can't meet the standard, then just lower the standards! Who knew it would be so easy to provide broadband speeds to everyone?
Quick - What is the current definition for mobile broadband at the FCC?
Answer - Trick question, it has no current definition, they are proposing the first definition of mobile broadband ever - your anger at the Trump Administration has forced you to invent reasons to maintain your anger at them. You literally have no idea what you are upset about, you just saw a bunch of villagers yelling and waving protest signs and it looked like fun so you decided to join in.
Click here, read the actual FCC document - if you are in a hurry, just skip to page 7, and read sections 18 and 19:
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services.
How about a few facts?
Fixed Broadband definition (p. 6):
14. We seek comment on the appropriate benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications
capability. Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed
benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? For example, the most recent Internet Access
Services Report finds that 59 percent of residential fixed connections equal or exceed such speed.34
Should we consider modifying the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark? Those proposing different speed
benchmarks should specify and provide justifications for their proposed alternatives. We also seek
comment on whether there are other sources or data points we should consider.
Mobile Broadband Definition (p. 7):
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark.37 Our consideration
of whether and how to set a speed benchmark will be informed by assessing the mobile broadband
services and speeds that are available to consumers today, as well as evidence regarding what services
consumers are choosing today, and what might be available in the near future. We ask commenters to
address these factors in their comments. Should the Commission set a mobile speed benchmark, and if
so, what it should be? We anticipate that any speed benchmark we set would be lower than the 25
Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark adopted for fixed broadband services, given differing capabilities of mobile
broadband. We ask commenters to discuss this choice.38 We seek comment on how use cases,
engineering studies, and any other relevant empirical data should inform a mobile speed benchmark in
terms of both the downlink and the uplink speed.
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10
Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced
telecommunications capability? How should we appropriately consider edge speed in setting a mobile
speed benchmark? As discussed below, in setting any mobile speed benchmark, how should we take into
account the important issues of reliability/consistency of service and latency in the mobile broadband
environment? Would it be more practical to use deployment of various air interface technologies (e.g.,
LTE) as a proxy for speed benchmarks? In this case, could we maintain a technology-neutral evaluation
but rely on deployment of technologies we understand to typically be used to provide mobile advanced
telecommunications capability?
Once again they are going to improve broadband coverage in USA by redefining the broadband.
It's a meaningless metric, are you seriously arguing that 10 Mb/sec is an intolerable connection speed?
If the FCC declared "Broadband" to be 10 Gb/sec, would it make your home connection any faster? Why does defining it at 10 Mb/sec somehow impact your life in any meaningful way?
I got her a T-Mobile hotspot, and after that she was about to get a good 5-10MB/s, almost all the time. That meant she could actually watch HD Netflix. That meant she could download photos in a reasonable time. It was a terrific replacement for infrastructure that was going to take many years to get better.
Wait, you mean 10 Mb/sec is actually a real-world useful bandwidth rate? The way folks here are reacting you'd think this was slower than dial-up!
They didn't care about public sentiment on neutrality, they're certainly not going to care about broadband.
They are redefining what counts as broadband, they aren't putting an upper limit on performance.