If I'm reading this correct, it reads as if the issue is the utility is paying less for wind power, which may or may not mean the cost of generation is lowest, but not necessarily...
Such work can now proceed, said Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, but only if a scientific panel decides that the benefits justify the risks. Some scientists are eager to pursue these studies because they may show, for example, how a bird flu could mutate to more easily infect humans, or could yield clues to making a better vaccine. Such work can now proceed, said Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, but only if a scientific panel decides that the benefits justify the risks. Some scientists are eager to pursue these studies because they may show, for example, how a bird flu could mutate to more easily infect humans, or could yield clues to making a better vaccine.
Yes, the summary repeated two sentences - how did the editors not catch this before publication? Furthermore, remember how all the smart kids - under the previous administration - "restored science in it's rightful place"? It was those kids, three years ago, that chose to ban scientific research, no matter the benefit! Now the current administration actually lifts the ban and restores scientific research that has a demonstrable benefit, and because their candidate didn't with the last election they have taken a 180 and now oppose scientific research.
I wonder if they changes their position on Stem Cell Research as well?
Then government also shouldn't make it artificially hard, or even impossible, for other providers to offer competing services, which is what they are doing now.
Try to differentiate between local government and the federal government - it is your local government that awarded cable companies and telcos monopolies on providing service in an area to encourage them to invest in infrastructure to provide those services.
If Acme ISP is the only providers that is legally allowed to operate in your neighborhood, then government should butt in to ensure they don't abuse their government-provided artificial monopoly.
A regulation that prohibits blocking or throttling of any traffic is fine, few would object to that regulation.
Allowing Netflix to pay my isp to zero rate their traffic does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic, it is purely a billing/accounting issue.
Allowing Netflix to park a caching server at my ISPs head office to provide better service to Netflix customers does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic.
Depending on the implementation, allowing Netflix to pay for 'priority' service could lead to effectively throttling competitors service, but it would also throttle every other service equally as the priority service 'steals' available bandwidth from all other services.
Why would the FCC rollback of FCC regulations be 'slapped down' in court?
The Net Neutrality regulations implemented less than 2 years ago were done outside of the legislative branch, the regulations did not originate in Congress and were not signed into law by the President.
Florida has a similar appraisal system - houses are re-assessed when they sell, this helps residents living on a fixed income stay in their homes, they aren't taxed-out of their home as values go up.
A decision to keep using oil and gas, but just stop producing it would accomplish what, exactly? Do you imagine importing oil and gas somehow lowers greenhouse gasses?
Oh please. It's not fake news even though it isn't correct since all thinking people know Trump wanted to do that.
So it's real news ("not fake news") even though "it isn't correct" since you believe "Trump wanted to do that".
So in your mind, journalism and fiction writing are really the same thing, because enough people believe the fiction to be the truth? I think your thoughts on this topic are skewed by the meaningless inclusion of President Trump's name in the headline.
The Democrats barely... BARELY managed to beat a guy who had gotten twice ejected as a judge due to professional misconduct and was accused of pedophilia. And he still made it close. That's not exactly running away with it.
It amazes my the moral high-ground democrats are claiming by coming out a whole 1.5% ahead of a POS like Roy Moore...
Good luck explaining Net Neutrality to Joe Six-pack why Netflix, Google, Amazon paying money to delver better service to their customers is bad, how increased government regulations will somehow "keep the internet free", or how the internet was so horrible 18 months ago, before the FCC crafted Net Neutrality regulations with no legislative basis...
Candidate Trump won by a landslide - 306 to 232 - in the electoral college, the election that determines the Presidency of the united states. Hillary Clinton won the meaningless "Popular Vote".
But you might notice that Schumer isn't proposing a net neutrality law that would be the right way to do this. He's grandstanding and playing politics. He wants to keep it a political football instead of solving the problem.
When has Schumer ever actually solved a problem?
Favorite Schumer story - I remember watching him stand at a podium waving a box of corn flakes in the air asking "why, WHY! does a box of breakfast cereal cost more than a bushel of wheat!"
That was right up there with Sen. Chris Dodd demanding to have bankers "explain why it is that poor and low income families pay the bulk of bank's "Insufficient Funds" fees?"
Luckily for these lions of the Senate, their supporters don't actually listen to the words that spill out of their mouths...
If you have to put out a list of words which shouldn't be used for whatever reason, it's still a de facto ban.
No one was 'banned' from saying/writing anything, they were told how to make their budget reqyests more palletable, kinda like how a friend might suggest using a lot of 'action words' in your resume...
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm reading this correct, it reads as if the issue is the utility is paying less for wind power, which may or may not mean the cost of generation is lowest, but not necessarily...
I can't be the only one that noticed this "typo":
Such work can now proceed, said Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, but only if a scientific panel decides that the benefits justify the risks. Some scientists are eager to pursue these studies because they may show, for example, how a bird flu could mutate to more easily infect humans, or could yield clues to making a better vaccine. Such work can now proceed, said Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, but only if a scientific panel decides that the benefits justify the risks. Some scientists are eager to pursue these studies because they may show, for example, how a bird flu could mutate to more easily infect humans, or could yield clues to making a better vaccine.
Yes, the summary repeated two sentences - how did the editors not catch this before publication? Furthermore, remember how all the smart kids - under the previous administration - "restored science in it's rightful place"? It was those kids, three years ago, that chose to ban scientific research, no matter the benefit! Now the current administration actually lifts the ban and restores scientific research that has a demonstrable benefit, and because their candidate didn't with the last election they have taken a 180 and now oppose scientific research.
I wonder if they changes their position on Stem Cell Research as well?
Then government also shouldn't make it artificially hard, or even impossible, for other providers to offer competing services, which is what they are doing now.
Try to differentiate between local government and the federal government - it is your local government that awarded cable companies and telcos monopolies on providing service in an area to encourage them to invest in infrastructure to provide those services.
If Acme ISP is the only providers that is legally allowed to operate in your neighborhood, then government should butt in to ensure they don't abuse their government-provided artificial monopoly.
A regulation that prohibits blocking or throttling of any traffic is fine, few would object to that regulation.
Allowing Netflix to pay my isp to zero rate their traffic does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic, it is purely a billing/accounting issue.
Allowing Netflix to park a caching server at my ISPs head office to provide better service to Netflix customers does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic.
Depending on the implementation, allowing Netflix to pay for 'priority' service could lead to effectively throttling competitors service, but it would also throttle every other service equally as the priority service 'steals' available bandwidth from all other services.
Why would the FCC rollback of FCC regulations be 'slapped down' in court?
The Net Neutrality regulations implemented less than 2 years ago were done outside of the legislative branch, the regulations did not originate in Congress and were not signed into law by the President.
Florida has a similar appraisal system - houses are re-assessed when they sell, this helps residents living on a fixed income stay in their homes, they aren't taxed-out of their home as values go up.
What are you talking about, they said they'd stop producing oil and gas, they never said they'd stop using oil and gas.
France today imports 99% of it's gas and oil needs, this law will cause that number to rise to 100% in 23 years. Whoa.
A decision to keep using oil and gas, but just stop producing it would accomplish what, exactly? Do you imagine importing oil and gas somehow lowers greenhouse gasses?
It's not like they are going to stop using gas and oil, they will just stop producing it - big whoop.
However, it is largely symbolic since oil and gas produced in France accounts for just 1 percent of domestic consumption. The rest is imported.
The sum total effect of this is that France will go from importing 99% of it's oil and gas needs to 100%, big deal.
What does this have to do Technology?
Wish I had mod points to mod this up...
Oh please. It's not fake news even though it isn't correct since all thinking people know Trump wanted to do that.
So it's real news ("not fake news") even though "it isn't correct" since you believe "Trump wanted to do that".
So in your mind, journalism and fiction writing are really the same thing, because enough people believe the fiction to be the truth? I think your thoughts on this topic are skewed by the meaningless inclusion of President Trump's name in the headline.
You assume the Democrats are unified.
A unified minority can accomplish what, exactly, in the Senate, Congress.
So both parties, the FCC and congress have changed their mind on who's job it is.
The Constitution says it's Congress's responsibility.
Congress says it's Congress's responsibility - Congress never deferred to the FCC on this.
Where it stood a month ago was that the FCC had decided it was their job and were doing it, presumably because congress had not done it.
The FCC doesn't get to just decide to "step-in and do something" because the responsible party failed to act.
President Obama tried that line of reasoning with DACA, and we can all admire how well that reasoning worked out for the Dreamers...
The Democrats barely... BARELY managed to beat a guy who had gotten twice ejected as a judge due to professional misconduct and was accused of pedophilia. And he still made it close. That's not exactly running away with it.
It amazes my the moral high-ground democrats are claiming by coming out a whole 1.5% ahead of a POS like Roy Moore...
Since Obamaâ(TM)s âoenon-Neutralityâ all we had is a return of Ma Bell now called Spectrum.
Please, turn-off smart punctuation on your iPhone.
Good luck explaining Net Neutrality to Joe Six-pack why Netflix, Google, Amazon paying money to delver better service to their customers is bad, how increased government regulations will somehow "keep the internet free", or how the internet was so horrible 18 months ago, before the FCC crafted Net Neutrality regulations with no legislative basis...
Candidate Trump won by a landslide - 306 to 232 - in the electoral college, the election that determines the Presidency of the united states. Hillary Clinton won the meaningless "Popular Vote".
But you might notice that Schumer isn't proposing a net neutrality law that would be the right way to do this. He's grandstanding and playing politics. He wants to keep it a political football instead of solving the problem.
When has Schumer ever actually solved a problem?
Favorite Schumer story - I remember watching him stand at a podium waving a box of corn flakes in the air asking "why, WHY! does a box of breakfast cereal cost more than a bushel of wheat!"
That was right up there with Sen. Chris Dodd demanding to have bankers "explain why it is that poor and low income families pay the bulk of bank's "Insufficient Funds" fees?"
Luckily for these lions of the Senate, their supporters don't actually listen to the words that spill out of their mouths...
51 Senators can vote on anything they want to, but without legislation in the House as well, it's just grandstanding....
Just a reminder, Schumer only has 48 Senators that caucus with him, he is the Minority Leader.
Let's revisit this after tomorrow's votes on the Tax Cut bills...
Seems pretty unified right now, tomorrow will tell us how unified they are.
There's a difference between 'shouldn't' and 'can not'... being advised to avoid certain terms is not enforcing a ban on those same terms.
If you have to put out a list of words which shouldn't be used for whatever reason, it's still a de facto ban.
No one was 'banned' from saying/writing anything, they were told how to make their budget reqyests more palletable, kinda like how a friend might suggest using a lot of 'action words' in your resume...
So if the senior CDC officials said "avoid mid-spellings and typos" would the headline have read "Trump Administration Bans Typos!"?