He was given a life sentence for convictions on drug trafficking and money laundering.
I understand your objections but the sentence really reflects that he hired a hitman to kill six people. They could give him a normal sentence and then try him for procuring murder but it's a waste of time and money.
If you want to prevent a wholesale shutdown of services by hackers then the best way to do that is to disconnect your most vital systems (water, electricity and transportation) from communications networks (the internet).
* The last reason (price) for not using solar+battery almost everywhere is fading fast and we should encourage the proliferation of isolated power systems. With the exception of exotic locations, only businesses should need to have access to the power grid. * Depending on and funding combative nations to fuel our transportation has been foolish since day one, we need to switch to electric vehicles posthaste. * Finally, we need to start changing our water systems into closed loop systems to conserve the water we can access to minimize external dependency because the climate is changing.
UBI will be put into place but a lot of people are going to be jobless and homeless long before politicians get the message. The funny thing is, it's the people who are currently against UBI that are going to be the ones that are going to start calling for it because they have lost their jobs to automation. The only alternative outcome is a conflict on par with a civil war. Not even "make work" jobs are going to be able to stop UBI from happening because of the sheet amount of people that are going to be put out of a job.
I suppose you do not understand much about traffic shaping because you can absolutely prioritize VoIP over video streams without violating net neutrality. It can be as simple as prioritize a port number. This isn't rocket science, bro.
Used after conception for emergency contraception but works by preventing the sperm and egg meeting, that is contradictory.
It only seems contradictory because you don't know that fertilization of an egg can take up to four day. That is correct, after engaging in sex, females are not immediately impregnated.
* No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. * No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. * No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.
Do note that the "no throttling" rule doesn't exclude the possibility of traffic prioritization.
Reality has regulators who expand their mission once they start.
Sure sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me.
Real networks have oversubscription problems and congestion and real network operators don't think they should have to talk to the Internet police every time someone complains. A wireless operator doesn't think phone calls should lose out to people streaming Netflix at 4K, and wants to prioritize voice packets without asking Washington DC for permission. An operator who never treated any packets different from any others doesn't think he owes regulators even a minute of his time. A company VP is calculating ROI and he doesn't use "they all lived happily ever after" in his projections.
Literally nothing you have mentioned is related to net neutrality. You can still have a congested networks and prioritize based on the type of traffic. In fact, the only thing you cannot do is prioritize based on the origin/destination. It's sounding more and more like you don't actually understand what net neutrality is.
The inside word is that it's going to be named the USS Invincible aka "the unpoppable airship". With a name like that, you know nothing could possibly go wrong!;)
Instead of such frivolous things like "science" it should be handling real problems like spanking people in games of Candyland, The Game of Life and maybe even Monopoly!;)
How would they benefit more than if net neutrality is in effect?
Rules that would encourage and reward competitive, non-monopoly Internet environments specifically benefit people who want more choices of ISPs.
How does this reduce the competitiveness of the market?
And anyone who wants faster Internet benefits when providers decide to invest and expand rather than deciding the ROI is too small to be worth the regulatory risks.
There literally is no regulatory risk involved in net neutrality. The only thing it does is prevent connections from being slowed down between the customer and the ISP based on the origin/destination.
why planes? Wouldn't it be better to have some sort of a blimp with thin film solar cells on its upper surface?
At high altitude an airship will be exposed to a lot of radiation which will quickly degrade all plastics. In an airship this will quickly lead to a hull integrity failure and require replacing the entire hull because it's under high levels of stress 100% of the time. In an airplane, even if the plastic parts have reduced integrity, it will still function even if parts of the wing begin to fleck off.
Even if you DID know the exact pathway and grand sum total of all factors that effect intelligence.... This group could still have intelligence-supporting genes and also still be inbred AND also be idiots AND ALSO have extensive schooling (specifically how to pass IQ tests).
Agreed but if you did know the "grand sum total of all factors" then you could know which genes are responsible. If you do not know, then you are just guessing, which has been my point all along.
I'm calling it. This is just horrendous anti-intellectual and anti-science emotional lashing out because it's tip-toeing in the neighborhood of eugenics.
What have I written to indicate this was an "anti-intellectual and anti-science emotional lashing out"? Furthermore, why would you think it's "anti-science" when I'm simply stating we wouldn't jump to conclusions without proper evidence to support it?
Holy fucking has the original poster's claim never been more evident. "You're not allowed to talk about the possibility of there being a genetic basis for variations in intelligence."
You can talk about anything you want but if you are going to claim a conclusion based on science then you are going to need to support that conclusion scientifically rather than statistically.
How about a rule that only applies providers like Comcast in monopoly or near monopoly situations? And everyone else in non-monopoly situations is free of such rules.
What would be the benefit of limiting the rule in such a manner and who would it benefit?
But the Net Neutrality side is too dogmatic, refusing to acknowledge anyone else's interests.
Whose interests does it refuse to acknowledge? I don't understand how it could be for anything but extorting sites to fork over cash like comcast did to netflix.
Declaring anyone who doesn't agree with you a "troll" because "what about my imaginary google.com scenario" isn't really a way to have a discussion.
That's not what I'm doing at all. If you read the comments above my original, none of them are actually about net neutrality but rather political troll posts.
The problem with that theory is that they aren't actual comments on the subject matter but rather troll posts. If you can make a legitimate argument for why an ISP should be allowed to make google.com slower than bing.com then please present it.
They probably use the same DMLS process that SpaceX uses for it's engines because it results in the strongest parts. Effectively, you add a layer of metal powder then melt the parts you want to use. Rinse and repeat. Thousands of layers later, you take your print out of the metal powder that surrounds it, clean it off and finally heat it up. The purpose of the heat is to cause every spec of metal to unite as a single chunk of metal. Since there isn't any stress on the metal after it's made into a single piece, the print is stronger than if you tried to machine it (much of which is no longer possible with modern designs).
1) Google showed it was incapable of discrimination due to its process. *facepalm* 2) Google took a government contract and doesn't want to comply with the rules of doing so. *facepalm* 3) Google is spending way more effort/money to not hand of the information than if they had. *facepalm*
...I say let it die already! Fuck, it's literally over a decade since anybody genuinely gave a shit about a new Amiga. [...] I don't see the point.
Consider this: the PPC chip it uses waaaay more open than any Intel or AMD chip and most motherboard subsystems are based on FPGAs and MCUs which are reprogrammable. This would make for a fine Linux or FreeBSD workstation.
Honestly, if you have 8000 bugs in your system then you haven't just done a bad job of securing your code, you have done a bad job of architecting your software and hardware. Bottom line, they should fire the people in charge of designing this shit and everyone in management who pushed these devices out before they were ready. Alternatively, start holding individuals inside corporations personally liable for things like criminal negligence and you'll find devices will get properly secured instead of being pushed out the door.
The crux of the entire counterpoint is from your very first statement: "The real problem here...." I'm saying that it's not a problem.
Then you don't know that the "genes associated with measures of Intelligence" are related to Intelligence in any meaningful way. For all you know, they could be a group of inbred idiots and the genes they found actually make them less intelligent but have been extensively schooled so they did well on the test.
Slashdot Mirror
He was given a life sentence for convictions on drug trafficking and money laundering.
I understand your objections but the sentence really reflects that he hired a hitman to kill six people. They could give him a normal sentence and then try him for procuring murder but it's a waste of time and money.
If you want to prevent a wholesale shutdown of services by hackers then the best way to do that is to disconnect your most vital systems (water, electricity and transportation) from communications networks (the internet).
* The last reason (price) for not using solar+battery almost everywhere is fading fast and we should encourage the proliferation of isolated power systems. With the exception of exotic locations, only businesses should need to have access to the power grid.
* Depending on and funding combative nations to fuel our transportation has been foolish since day one, we need to switch to electric vehicles posthaste.
* Finally, we need to start changing our water systems into closed loop systems to conserve the water we can access to minimize external dependency because the climate is changing.
We have two choices: adapt or die.
If the Machines are Learning Machines, who is Learning the Machine-Learning Machine Machines? ;)
Thank you for pointing out what really matters here, the spelling. -_-
UBI will be put into place but a lot of people are going to be jobless and homeless long before politicians get the message. The funny thing is, it's the people who are currently against UBI that are going to be the ones that are going to start calling for it because they have lost their jobs to automation. The only alternative outcome is a conflict on par with a civil war. Not even "make work" jobs are going to be able to stop UBI from happening because of the sheet amount of people that are going to be put out of a job.
I suppose you do not understand much about traffic shaping because you can absolutely prioritize VoIP over video streams without violating net neutrality. It can be as simple as prioritize a port number. This isn't rocket science, bro.
Used after conception for emergency contraception but works by preventing the sperm and egg meeting, that is contradictory.
It only seems contradictory because you don't know that fertilization of an egg can take up to four day. That is correct, after engaging in sex, females are not immediately impregnated.
there's little point in linking the legal text but here's the plain text explaination: https://www.fcc.gov/general/op...
Bright Line Rules:
* No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
* No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
* No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.
Do note that the "no throttling" rule doesn't exclude the possibility of traffic prioritization.
Reality has regulators who expand their mission once they start.
Sure sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me.
Real networks have oversubscription problems and congestion and real network operators don't think they should have to talk to the Internet police every time someone complains. A wireless operator doesn't think phone calls should lose out to people streaming Netflix at 4K, and wants to prioritize voice packets without asking Washington DC for permission. An operator who never treated any packets different from any others doesn't think he owes regulators even a minute of his time. A company VP is calculating ROI and he doesn't use "they all lived happily ever after" in his projections.
Literally nothing you have mentioned is related to net neutrality. You can still have a congested networks and prioritize based on the type of traffic. In fact, the only thing you cannot do is prioritize based on the origin/destination. It's sounding more and more like you don't actually understand what net neutrality is.
The inside word is that it's going to be named the USS Invincible aka "the unpoppable airship". With a name like that, you know nothing could possibly go wrong! ;)
Instead of such frivolous things like "science" it should be handling real problems like spanking people in games of Candyland, The Game of Life and maybe even Monopoly! ;)
Free people benefit.
How would they benefit more than if net neutrality is in effect?
Rules that would encourage and reward competitive, non-monopoly Internet environments specifically benefit people who want more choices of ISPs.
How does this reduce the competitiveness of the market?
And anyone who wants faster Internet benefits when providers decide to invest and expand rather than deciding the ROI is too small to be worth the regulatory risks.
There literally is no regulatory risk involved in net neutrality. The only thing it does is prevent connections from being slowed down between the customer and the ISP based on the origin/destination.
why planes? Wouldn't it be better to have some sort of a blimp with thin film solar cells on its upper surface?
At high altitude an airship will be exposed to a lot of radiation which will quickly degrade all plastics. In an airship this will quickly lead to a hull integrity failure and require replacing the entire hull because it's under high levels of stress 100% of the time. In an airplane, even if the plastic parts have reduced integrity, it will still function even if parts of the wing begin to fleck off.
Even if you DID know the exact pathway and grand sum total of all factors that effect intelligence.... This group could still have intelligence-supporting genes and also still be inbred AND also be idiots AND ALSO have extensive schooling (specifically how to pass IQ tests).
Agreed but if you did know the "grand sum total of all factors" then you could know which genes are responsible. If you do not know, then you are just guessing, which has been my point all along.
I'm calling it. This is just horrendous anti-intellectual and anti-science emotional lashing out because it's tip-toeing in the neighborhood of eugenics.
What have I written to indicate this was an "anti-intellectual and anti-science emotional lashing out"? Furthermore, why would you think it's "anti-science" when I'm simply stating we wouldn't jump to conclusions without proper evidence to support it?
Holy fucking has the original poster's claim never been more evident. "You're not allowed to talk about the possibility of there being a genetic basis for variations in intelligence."
You can talk about anything you want but if you are going to claim a conclusion based on science then you are going to need to support that conclusion scientifically rather than statistically.
How about a rule that only applies providers like Comcast in monopoly or near monopoly situations? And everyone else in non-monopoly situations is free of such rules.
What would be the benefit of limiting the rule in such a manner and who would it benefit?
I'd say we should have as few rules as practical
I agree. This is a very simplistic rule that is quite practical.
we shouldn't enact real rules and police them with real internet police because of some imaginary scenarios involving google.com.
Except it's a very real scenario: After Netflix pays Comcast, speeds improve 65%
But the Net Neutrality side is too dogmatic, refusing to acknowledge anyone else's interests.
Whose interests does it refuse to acknowledge? I don't understand how it could be for anything but extorting sites to fork over cash like comcast did to netflix.
Declaring anyone who doesn't agree with you a "troll" because "what about my imaginary google.com scenario" isn't really a way to have a discussion.
That's not what I'm doing at all. If you read the comments above my original, none of them are actually about net neutrality but rather political troll posts.
The problem with that theory is that they aren't actual comments on the subject matter but rather troll posts. If you can make a legitimate argument for why an ISP should be allowed to make google.com slower than bing.com then please present it.
They probably use the same DMLS process that SpaceX uses for it's engines because it results in the strongest parts. Effectively, you add a layer of metal powder then melt the parts you want to use. Rinse and repeat. Thousands of layers later, you take your print out of the metal powder that surrounds it, clean it off and finally heat it up. The purpose of the heat is to cause every spec of metal to unite as a single chunk of metal. Since there isn't any stress on the metal after it's made into a single piece, the print is stronger than if you tried to machine it (much of which is no longer possible with modern designs).
I don't know what it is about network neutrality but every single time there is anything about it, it brings out the slashdot anon trolls en masse.
1) Google showed it was incapable of discrimination due to its process. *facepalm*
2) Google took a government contract and doesn't want to comply with the rules of doing so. *facepalm*
3) Google is spending way more effort/money to not hand of the information than if they had. *facepalm*
This is all kinds of retarded. *facepalm*
...I say let it die already! Fuck, it's literally over a decade since anybody genuinely gave a shit about a new Amiga. [...] I don't see the point.
Consider this: the PPC chip it uses waaaay more open than any Intel or AMD chip and most motherboard subsystems are based on FPGAs and MCUs which are reprogrammable. This would make for a fine Linux or FreeBSD workstation.
Honestly, if you have 8000 bugs in your system then you haven't just done a bad job of securing your code, you have done a bad job of architecting your software and hardware. Bottom line, they should fire the people in charge of designing this shit and everyone in management who pushed these devices out before they were ready. Alternatively, start holding individuals inside corporations personally liable for things like criminal negligence and you'll find devices will get properly secured instead of being pushed out the door.
I have no idea how my password got out, I'm so careful!
The crux of the entire counterpoint is from your very first statement: "The real problem here...." I'm saying that it's not a problem.
Then you don't know that the "genes associated with measures of Intelligence" are related to Intelligence in any meaningful way. For all you know, they could be a group of inbred idiots and the genes they found actually make them less intelligent but have been extensively schooled so they did well on the test.
If they are following the law to keep their money from the tax man (like any sane person or company would do)....then there's not problem.
Spoken like a true sociopath.